Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Another Intellectual Tidbit
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
Challenging someone to prove that Man Made Global Warming exists, offers to give someone 500k for it. Heh.
Challenging someone to prove that Man Made Global Warming exists, offers to give someone 500k for it. Heh.
Daily Republican Quote (since you won't get it in the newspaper)
"Now, instead of working hard so our children can have a better life tomorrow, we are asking our children to work hard so that we don’t have to make tough choices today."
-North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr
found on This Website.
-North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr
found on This Website.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Jindal, O sweet Jindal
What's this? A clean, articulate, Conservative? That's just not possible. But wait, it is. The Louisiana Governor, in the GOP's response to Obama's speech, was right on. I know it's too early to celebrate, but Jindal seems to be just what the Republicans need.
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the tone that he took in the official response to Obama. It was small. I felt like he was talking to some kindergarten kids, and that I was listening in. At first. Then I actually started hearing what he was saying, and realized that he was making complete sense. For weeks, as this Obamunism has been taking affect, my head been screaming no. I haven't been able to put a finger on it. Of course, you can point at the trillions of spending, and the debt left over to children children's children. But I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was wrong. Conservatism was swirling around in my brain, and then suddently, it saw Jindal speaking on screen, and it said yes. Yes to the idea that people, not government, is the answer.
Reuters. The first sentence says it all.
Jindal was also interviewed by the Today Show. First off, I was amazed that they would play Obama's speech in the background while the Governer was talking. Talk about disrespect. That aside, his response to the very tough questions posed to him was right on the money. He started off respectful of Obama, and then just showed where they differed. It's about time that someone stood up and said that enough is enough, and that we aren't going to be snowed anymore. The best point that he brought up was that "there's not enough money in Washington to grow our economy." He's completely right.
Jindal, you shyed away from taking Obama to task, and rightfully so. You don't just go after a sitting President for fun. They have that bully pulpit. But here's the thing. You have tremendously good ammo, and while you are using some of it, I don't think you are being strong enough in your articulation of the mistakes being made by the Obama administration. His ideas are nothing new, it's standard Democrat Party lines, wrapped up and preached by an excellent speaker. We need to point out that Obama has spoken time and time again about how bipartisanship prevailed, and how there was no Pork in this Stimulus Bill. We know that's not the case, and the feeling that I get around Orange County here is that people know it too. Hit on that! I know that you are trying to keep the nice guy routine going, but I'm tired of being trodden on and trounced by the liberal media. Give them some nice juicy soundbites that they can't help but play. What's his approval rating? I keep waiting for the hot air balloon ride that is Obama to come down, but there's strong wind keeping it afloat.
Please, Jindal, be as good as you seem. I'm tired of being excited by politicians, only to have them picked apart by the liberal media, sometimes even rightfully so. If you aren't the new voice of Conservatism, I will be dreadfully disappointed. God bless you sir, and God bless America.
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the tone that he took in the official response to Obama. It was small. I felt like he was talking to some kindergarten kids, and that I was listening in. At first. Then I actually started hearing what he was saying, and realized that he was making complete sense. For weeks, as this Obamunism has been taking affect, my head been screaming no. I haven't been able to put a finger on it. Of course, you can point at the trillions of spending, and the debt left over to children children's children. But I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was wrong. Conservatism was swirling around in my brain, and then suddently, it saw Jindal speaking on screen, and it said yes. Yes to the idea that people, not government, is the answer.
Reuters. The first sentence says it all.
Jindal was also interviewed by the Today Show. First off, I was amazed that they would play Obama's speech in the background while the Governer was talking. Talk about disrespect. That aside, his response to the very tough questions posed to him was right on the money. He started off respectful of Obama, and then just showed where they differed. It's about time that someone stood up and said that enough is enough, and that we aren't going to be snowed anymore. The best point that he brought up was that "there's not enough money in Washington to grow our economy." He's completely right.
Jindal, you shyed away from taking Obama to task, and rightfully so. You don't just go after a sitting President for fun. They have that bully pulpit. But here's the thing. You have tremendously good ammo, and while you are using some of it, I don't think you are being strong enough in your articulation of the mistakes being made by the Obama administration. His ideas are nothing new, it's standard Democrat Party lines, wrapped up and preached by an excellent speaker. We need to point out that Obama has spoken time and time again about how bipartisanship prevailed, and how there was no Pork in this Stimulus Bill. We know that's not the case, and the feeling that I get around Orange County here is that people know it too. Hit on that! I know that you are trying to keep the nice guy routine going, but I'm tired of being trodden on and trounced by the liberal media. Give them some nice juicy soundbites that they can't help but play. What's his approval rating? I keep waiting for the hot air balloon ride that is Obama to come down, but there's strong wind keeping it afloat.
Please, Jindal, be as good as you seem. I'm tired of being excited by politicians, only to have them picked apart by the liberal media, sometimes even rightfully so. If you aren't the new voice of Conservatism, I will be dreadfully disappointed. God bless you sir, and God bless America.
Wow ... just ... wow
Ann Coulter: "But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house? "
I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Why blame Bush? O, right. He's Republican.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Blame Bush if you will, but this happened a long time before him.
Blame Bush if you will, but this happened a long time before him.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obamunism
I truly wish I could take credit for this brilliant poster for hope and change. Alas, Soviet Russia (where posters make you!) beat me to it.
You can buy this on a T-shirt at THIS PLACE. The caption for the shirt reads :"Communists and Socialists and Marxists of America unite! We finally have a real president who holds our values dear. We support Obama because he wants to nationalize health care, take money from hard-working Americans to give to the poor, and make one class of people. Hooray for communism! Hooray for Obama! Hooray for Obamunism! (That whole democracy thing just wasn't working out anyway.) So, if you are anti-Obama or anti-Democrat (or just totally in love with Obama's Communism, Socialism, or Marxism...freak,) you want this shirt."
I came across this T-shirt after seeing the poster on Facebook. Just amazing. Of course, I clicked over to BBC news, to see Bernanke decide that IF the government doesn't step in, we are doomed until at least 2010. (See here) Interestingly, the following was said: "Speaking of the concern about bankers benefiting from bail-outs, he added that the country "ought not abstain from saving the financial system just because it rewards people who erred"." There's a reason this is on BBC news, and not CNN.
The solution to this economic downturn is not found in government hands. Not that I'm proclaiming to be an economic genius, but this is common sense. I heard something today as I drove around that really made me think. To summarize, Rush Limbaugh was quoting Ayn Rand as saying something to the affect that the plan of socialists and the ilk are to so bind an industry, hand and foot, so to make survival of it impossible without government intervention. Once this is accomplished, step in and proclaim that the free market and capitalism doesn't work, and that the government needs to be in charge. Does this sound familiar at all? Rush, I don't always agree with you, but ... you can't be far wrong on this one.
You can buy this on a T-shirt at THIS PLACE. The caption for the shirt reads :"Communists and Socialists and Marxists of America unite! We finally have a real president who holds our values dear. We support Obama because he wants to nationalize health care, take money from hard-working Americans to give to the poor, and make one class of people. Hooray for communism! Hooray for Obama! Hooray for Obamunism! (That whole democracy thing just wasn't working out anyway.) So, if you are anti-Obama or anti-Democrat (or just totally in love with Obama's Communism, Socialism, or Marxism...freak,) you want this shirt."
I came across this T-shirt after seeing the poster on Facebook. Just amazing. Of course, I clicked over to BBC news, to see Bernanke decide that IF the government doesn't step in, we are doomed until at least 2010. (See here) Interestingly, the following was said: "Speaking of the concern about bankers benefiting from bail-outs, he added that the country "ought not abstain from saving the financial system just because it rewards people who erred"." There's a reason this is on BBC news, and not CNN.
The solution to this economic downturn is not found in government hands. Not that I'm proclaiming to be an economic genius, but this is common sense. I heard something today as I drove around that really made me think. To summarize, Rush Limbaugh was quoting Ayn Rand as saying something to the affect that the plan of socialists and the ilk are to so bind an industry, hand and foot, so to make survival of it impossible without government intervention. Once this is accomplished, step in and proclaim that the free market and capitalism doesn't work, and that the government needs to be in charge. Does this sound familiar at all? Rush, I don't always agree with you, but ... you can't be far wrong on this one.
Poor Pelosi
I never thought I'd say it. But poor poor Pelosi. Her lips must be blood red from all the lip biting she's been doing to stay silent. Or perhaps the media just isn't listening anymore, in the off chance that someone might read it and think less of the Democrats.
Read THIS LINK to catch up. The link is about the recent cartoon (brilliantly penned), but notice towards the end, where it says "It's about the economic stimulus bill," he added. "If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not."
She must be furious. That's the only news outlet that I have seen give her any credit for the bill. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and for sure she's being scorned. Of course, if she wasn't so blatantly shrill in her derision for the Republicans, she would probably be given more credit. As of now, Obama is making like it's all his smooth moves that brought this bi-partisan (ha!) bill about. And Pelosi heads the bill of Democrats who are the most partisan.
I heard on the news (1070) that 67% of people approve of Obama's performance so far. Come again? Practically everyone that I've talked to about it disagree's morally with what's in the bill (read PORK), yet his performace is supposedly up that far? Something smells, and it's not just the "Stimulus" Package.
Read THIS LINK to catch up. The link is about the recent cartoon (brilliantly penned), but notice towards the end, where it says "It's about the economic stimulus bill," he added. "If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not."
She must be furious. That's the only news outlet that I have seen give her any credit for the bill. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and for sure she's being scorned. Of course, if she wasn't so blatantly shrill in her derision for the Republicans, she would probably be given more credit. As of now, Obama is making like it's all his smooth moves that brought this bi-partisan (ha!) bill about. And Pelosi heads the bill of Democrats who are the most partisan.
I heard on the news (1070) that 67% of people approve of Obama's performance so far. Come again? Practically everyone that I've talked to about it disagree's morally with what's in the bill (read PORK), yet his performace is supposedly up that far? Something smells, and it's not just the "Stimulus" Package.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Ugh
So it seems that Hollywood is at it again. Apparently, because they can act, they can now think too? Ahh, yes, those deep thinkers. The bleating of the offended establishment continued all night at the Oscar's. Sean Penn called upon us to be more ashamed for our votes on Prop 8. Of course, i forget the name of the gay individual who came from a Mormon background, but he comes out (play on words intended) with their real agenda. He said to the anti-8 crowd that in consolation, soon all of America would recognize same sex marriage as a right. California is the next stepping stone, and the inexhaustible political shame train is chugg chugg chugging onward.
Conservatives need to speak up, and point out the facts. The fight is not over! It's not shameful to believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. I strongly believe in the right for political discourse, and have family members who have fought for that right, but this goes too far. When you shamefully plug at every opportunity for your own political agenda, against the will of the people, you go too far. The conveniently overlooked fact is that same sex civil unions have ALL THE RIGHTS that a married couple currently embrace. So what is so wrong about Californians wanting to clearly define marriage? No rights are lost. The commercials are obvious and blatant propaganda for the liberal left to push all of America more and more to the left. We don't agree with you, and just because you might get a judge or two to side with you does not make it right. You say shame on me? I say shame on you for your political shenanigans in such a highly watched and advertised media outlet. We didn't come to see you display your ignorance or complete disregard for the facts. We came to celebrate excellence in acting, not to hear your arrogant blather. Shut it, and just say thank you. We would like you all that much better.
Conservatives need to speak up, and point out the facts. The fight is not over! It's not shameful to believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. I strongly believe in the right for political discourse, and have family members who have fought for that right, but this goes too far. When you shamefully plug at every opportunity for your own political agenda, against the will of the people, you go too far. The conveniently overlooked fact is that same sex civil unions have ALL THE RIGHTS that a married couple currently embrace. So what is so wrong about Californians wanting to clearly define marriage? No rights are lost. The commercials are obvious and blatant propaganda for the liberal left to push all of America more and more to the left. We don't agree with you, and just because you might get a judge or two to side with you does not make it right. You say shame on me? I say shame on you for your political shenanigans in such a highly watched and advertised media outlet. We didn't come to see you display your ignorance or complete disregard for the facts. We came to celebrate excellence in acting, not to hear your arrogant blather. Shut it, and just say thank you. We would like you all that much better.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Come again?
So I got an email today saying that John McCain is going to run again in 2012. What? Why? What we need is a good fiscal Republican, conservative to the core. Something completely opposite from our current president. Not someone who's almost more Democrat then Republican. I hope that the GOP realizes that as well.
I hope that the movement to have Palin nominated has legs. She has the power to revitalize the GOP in a way no candidate has done since Reagan.
People know deep down that spending more money is not the way to get our of Recession. You need to cut extra programs, and cut taxes, and who's the party who is better at that? Republicans ... or at least they used to be. Brings me to my pet peeve ... Republicans who are Republican in name only. What happened to the things that we stood for? Conservatism is practically dead, killed from the inside. I don't know when we became unpopular. The right to life, pro-death penalty, strong on Defense, cutting taxes ... all of these things have recently become less then popular. Why? The attitude that the government owes ME something has definitely helped this recession grow.
I hope that the movement to have Palin nominated has legs. She has the power to revitalize the GOP in a way no candidate has done since Reagan.
People know deep down that spending more money is not the way to get our of Recession. You need to cut extra programs, and cut taxes, and who's the party who is better at that? Republicans ... or at least they used to be. Brings me to my pet peeve ... Republicans who are Republican in name only. What happened to the things that we stood for? Conservatism is practically dead, killed from the inside. I don't know when we became unpopular. The right to life, pro-death penalty, strong on Defense, cutting taxes ... all of these things have recently become less then popular. Why? The attitude that the government owes ME something has definitely helped this recession grow.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
That Sweet Sirenic Call
I'm calling upon all sane and able bodied men and women to take notice. Has we not had enough? The canonization of Obama by the media is driving me nuts. Since when did we decide to let CNN and NBC make our decisions? And while i'm on it, why is it a good idea to spend near a trillion dollars to "restart" the economy? Why is that the governments job? Also, did you see the breakdown of Obama's new plan to save Gotham? Millions go into the most random things. I'm tempted to agree with Rush Limbaugh on this one. It's clearly an attempt by the Socialist Democrats to buy more power. I kid, but I can't for the life of me see how an intelligent, reasoned individual can buy this tripe.
Al Roker cracks me up. He was like a kid in a candy store when Obama greeted him. Not that I blame him, but he acted like a giddy schoolgirl.
peace out until something irks me again.
Al Roker cracks me up. He was like a kid in a candy store when Obama greeted him. Not that I blame him, but he acted like a giddy schoolgirl.
peace out until something irks me again.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Scooters, because i love that word.
Poor Pete. ( If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the post before this one first).
I absolutely respect everyone's right to an opinion. That's what makes us great ... a variety of opinions and views. Feel free to disagree. Democracy is furthered by a healthy conversation about differences in beliefs. Please do not just state that you disagree, and then say nothing more. Does the liberal left realize how arrogant that makes them seem? I don't agree, they say. Change what you believe, because I say so, they silently seem to proclaim. A lack of explanation seems to imply a command, instead of a disagreement. Pete, I want more. I want you to explain your views. Not cloaked in liberal platitudes, but statement of your beliefs, and why. I feel that I have done the same to my views, and if you want to have a discussion about why you feel I am wrong, please, feel free.
Somethings been bugging me recently. All in the news is the proposed bailout of the auto industry. Why does the government feel the need for injecting more money into the economy in this way? Throwing money at companies help in the short term, and hurts long term. Kill the goose, just to get at the egg. A French philosopher once said, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." What does that sound like? Bailout this, and economic stimulus package that. Failure is good. Let me explain. Failure doesn't mean that you stop doing everything. It means that you diversify, do something different. Failure drives us forward, ever onward. A man who is afraid to fail is afraid to try, and trying is what brings the most success. The tangled web that is the auto industry and their labor unions have strangled each other, and are now expecting the government ( and thus the people) to pay for it. Let them fail. If we stop trying to fix all the little problems, and let the correction finish off, history will show that America will return to it's former strength. We are a strong, vibrant nation, if the politicians will let us be.
I absolutely respect everyone's right to an opinion. That's what makes us great ... a variety of opinions and views. Feel free to disagree. Democracy is furthered by a healthy conversation about differences in beliefs. Please do not just state that you disagree, and then say nothing more. Does the liberal left realize how arrogant that makes them seem? I don't agree, they say. Change what you believe, because I say so, they silently seem to proclaim. A lack of explanation seems to imply a command, instead of a disagreement. Pete, I want more. I want you to explain your views. Not cloaked in liberal platitudes, but statement of your beliefs, and why. I feel that I have done the same to my views, and if you want to have a discussion about why you feel I am wrong, please, feel free.
Somethings been bugging me recently. All in the news is the proposed bailout of the auto industry. Why does the government feel the need for injecting more money into the economy in this way? Throwing money at companies help in the short term, and hurts long term. Kill the goose, just to get at the egg. A French philosopher once said, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." What does that sound like? Bailout this, and economic stimulus package that. Failure is good. Let me explain. Failure doesn't mean that you stop doing everything. It means that you diversify, do something different. Failure drives us forward, ever onward. A man who is afraid to fail is afraid to try, and trying is what brings the most success. The tangled web that is the auto industry and their labor unions have strangled each other, and are now expecting the government ( and thus the people) to pay for it. Let them fail. If we stop trying to fix all the little problems, and let the correction finish off, history will show that America will return to it's former strength. We are a strong, vibrant nation, if the politicians will let us be.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama
I know, it's been awhile. I swore to myself I would at least try to updat once every other day, and I've been remiss. Truth be told, I'm only really posting again in this because I had a couple of conversations with some people at work, and it kind of floored me. And, given that i'm much better at posting then arguing, here it goes.
I was told, flat out, the other day, that it was inconceivable to someone that one could be Christian and be Republican. I'm assuming the argument was that because Christ cared for the little people, and Democrats, God bless 'em, care for the people. I disagree, but I see the point. In my opinion though, that tends to be a rather shallow point. Yes, it is, on the surface, GOOD for everyone to have health care. Yes, it is GOOD for everyone to have a home. And at first, you get a nice happy feeling at the GOOD you are doing. But in the long term, it's not for the greater good.
I was asked why I was a Republican, and to be honest, at first growing up I assumed that Christian = Republican. But I've stayed Republican throughout my teens and into my 20s because I feel that Republicans are more far-sighted. Of course, you can point at bad apples and proclaim the terribleness of the Republicans. You can take the MTV inspired view of most of my generation, and point to the "evils" of the gas company, and claim Republicans are at fault. But it's just not true, and you can't paint an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.
I'm a Republican. I stand for spending less money, taxing less, and a less involved central government. I feel that the Constitution's job is to LIMIT government. That's why it was written. Fresh off a victory against the strong government of Britain, the writers realized that the best place for government is to be supporting people be strong in themselves, not to lift people up. It is not the place of the government to be extremely active in people's life. I also think that the best tax is a flat tax, but realize that that will never happen.
There is a good reason that I'm voting for McCain. I don't like Obama's foreign policy. I don't believe that McCain is the best candidate out there, just the better of the two currently available, especially on this topic. Obama, as stated in the presidential debates, stated that he would sit down at the table, unconditionally, with any world leader. This shows a basic misunderstanding of how world politics work. His apparent view of appeasement diplomacy has me very uneasy. Iran has said that a world without America is not only possible, but desirable. This scares me, and it should you. Appeasement policies will not work with Iran ... they desire our destruction. You cannot negotiate with a view that requires you to repudiate both your ally's and your belief's.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Both from C. S. Lewis
These quote, which I ran across the other day, represents how I feel about socialism. The government's job is not to take care of you. You take care of you. A government health care takes away the right of you to chose. It gives government contorl over health issues, something it has no business controlling. "Spreading the wealth" just means that instead of being rewarded for hard work and success, you will be punished. It is not more patriotic to pay more taxes; in my opinion, it is less. It is the right of every American to be taxed ... but taxed fairly. Fairly seems to have been redefined recently to mean fair to all. How is that possible? Is it fair for someone to pay more % just because they make more?
I'll end this intellectual throwup (again) I swear. I'll leave you with one(ok a few) last thought(s). I'm a Republican because I'm also a minor historian. History can teach us many things, but it has taught me that we need to have a leader who is capable of taking quick and decisive action. Barack Obama is not that man. We don't know what he will do simply because he hasn't the experience necessary to make smart, immediate decisions. Our country's safety should be our top concern. Why would we trust an unproven man in the most important job in the world? I take America more seriously then that, and so should you. It's merely common sense. If you have one person, experienced and with a proven track record in fighting terror, and the other person has no executive experience ... who do you chose? Friends, this is not a tough decision.
Please, please, please ... vote McCain. I fear for the consequences for both ourself and Israel should Obama get elected.
I'm 25 and a proud Republican ... and I often feel like the one-eyed man in a valley of blind men.
I was told, flat out, the other day, that it was inconceivable to someone that one could be Christian and be Republican. I'm assuming the argument was that because Christ cared for the little people, and Democrats, God bless 'em, care for the people. I disagree, but I see the point. In my opinion though, that tends to be a rather shallow point. Yes, it is, on the surface, GOOD for everyone to have health care. Yes, it is GOOD for everyone to have a home. And at first, you get a nice happy feeling at the GOOD you are doing. But in the long term, it's not for the greater good.
I was asked why I was a Republican, and to be honest, at first growing up I assumed that Christian = Republican. But I've stayed Republican throughout my teens and into my 20s because I feel that Republicans are more far-sighted. Of course, you can point at bad apples and proclaim the terribleness of the Republicans. You can take the MTV inspired view of most of my generation, and point to the "evils" of the gas company, and claim Republicans are at fault. But it's just not true, and you can't paint an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.
I'm a Republican. I stand for spending less money, taxing less, and a less involved central government. I feel that the Constitution's job is to LIMIT government. That's why it was written. Fresh off a victory against the strong government of Britain, the writers realized that the best place for government is to be supporting people be strong in themselves, not to lift people up. It is not the place of the government to be extremely active in people's life. I also think that the best tax is a flat tax, but realize that that will never happen.
There is a good reason that I'm voting for McCain. I don't like Obama's foreign policy. I don't believe that McCain is the best candidate out there, just the better of the two currently available, especially on this topic. Obama, as stated in the presidential debates, stated that he would sit down at the table, unconditionally, with any world leader. This shows a basic misunderstanding of how world politics work. His apparent view of appeasement diplomacy has me very uneasy. Iran has said that a world without America is not only possible, but desirable. This scares me, and it should you. Appeasement policies will not work with Iran ... they desire our destruction. You cannot negotiate with a view that requires you to repudiate both your ally's and your belief's.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
Both from C. S. Lewis
These quote, which I ran across the other day, represents how I feel about socialism. The government's job is not to take care of you. You take care of you. A government health care takes away the right of you to chose. It gives government contorl over health issues, something it has no business controlling. "Spreading the wealth" just means that instead of being rewarded for hard work and success, you will be punished. It is not more patriotic to pay more taxes; in my opinion, it is less. It is the right of every American to be taxed ... but taxed fairly. Fairly seems to have been redefined recently to mean fair to all. How is that possible? Is it fair for someone to pay more % just because they make more?
I'll end this intellectual throwup (again) I swear. I'll leave you with one(ok a few) last thought(s). I'm a Republican because I'm also a minor historian. History can teach us many things, but it has taught me that we need to have a leader who is capable of taking quick and decisive action. Barack Obama is not that man. We don't know what he will do simply because he hasn't the experience necessary to make smart, immediate decisions. Our country's safety should be our top concern. Why would we trust an unproven man in the most important job in the world? I take America more seriously then that, and so should you. It's merely common sense. If you have one person, experienced and with a proven track record in fighting terror, and the other person has no executive experience ... who do you chose? Friends, this is not a tough decision.
Please, please, please ... vote McCain. I fear for the consequences for both ourself and Israel should Obama get elected.
I'm 25 and a proud Republican ... and I often feel like the one-eyed man in a valley of blind men.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Prop 8 in CA
So I had an interesting conversation with someone today. We were discussing about how my values, strong conservatism, came from my parents, and how I needed to divest myself of some of my more "close-minded" feelings. Prop 8 came up as an example of how I am not being cognizant of a person's choice, and that by voting for Prop 8, I'm taking away a gay or lesbians right to marry. I was accused, in as nicely a way as you can phrase it, of being discriminatory. "They are born that way, and are now having their rights stripped away" because of close minded people (the implication being that I am one of those close minded people). It really made me think, because it came from someone whose opinion I respect.
A history lesson is somewhat in order here. Some time ago (2006), a proposition was passed by the people of CA by 61% defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a narrow 4-3 decision, the CA Supreme Court said that it was against the CA Constitution to define marriage in such a way. Prop 8 is the response to the action.
So I let the ideas kinda rattle around in my brain tonight, and eventually ended up here. I pulled up the two websites (www.noonprop8.com & www.protectmarriage.com). (Reading both of them has given me yet again a lesson in how propoganda is worded. I accept that people have the right and the obligation to word their arguments in such a fashion so as to be the most impactful. However, I think that sometimes people can go too far in their vehement defense of their ideals, and there is a good possibility that this might have happened in this circumstance. ) The Protect Marriage people would have you believe that this would open the way to teaching about homosexuality and gay marriage in schools, while in defense the No on Prop 8 people claim that regardless of what happens with this Prop parents will have the right to not allow their children to be taught about values and family issues. Being the child of a teacher, and dating another, I have yet to hear a single instance where a parent has done that ... and believe me I would hear about it. The PM people say that this is more about activist judges legislating from the bench, and the NoP8 people claim that this is not about judges, but basic human rights. Now let's stop right there. Anytime someone tries to shift the argument away from my point by claiming that you are violating someone's "basic human rights", I start right away looking for the Liberal bumper sticker. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about rights as they are defined in the US Constitution. But the defense of people's "basic human rights" has gotten us into this financial crisis, so you will forgive me if I find this to be a less then believeable defense. I also happen to agree that judges legislating has gotten way out of hand. (See Roe V Wade discussion below)
Those are merely a few of the arguments made by both parties. With all of those thoughts jumbled around in my head, I sat to both blog this out, and sort it out in my head. On one hand, you have people just like you or I, albeight with different tastes, and on the other, you have 61% of Californians whose vote has been completely disregarded. (Oops, I did it too. It's a little bit of word twisting, but the point is still the same. Who stands up for those CA's whose vote just became invalidated?)
Bleh. How did you like that little intellectual throw up?
A history lesson is somewhat in order here. Some time ago (2006), a proposition was passed by the people of CA by 61% defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a narrow 4-3 decision, the CA Supreme Court said that it was against the CA Constitution to define marriage in such a way. Prop 8 is the response to the action.
So I let the ideas kinda rattle around in my brain tonight, and eventually ended up here. I pulled up the two websites (www.noonprop8.com & www.protectmarriage.com). (Reading both of them has given me yet again a lesson in how propoganda is worded. I accept that people have the right and the obligation to word their arguments in such a fashion so as to be the most impactful. However, I think that sometimes people can go too far in their vehement defense of their ideals, and there is a good possibility that this might have happened in this circumstance. ) The Protect Marriage people would have you believe that this would open the way to teaching about homosexuality and gay marriage in schools, while in defense the No on Prop 8 people claim that regardless of what happens with this Prop parents will have the right to not allow their children to be taught about values and family issues. Being the child of a teacher, and dating another, I have yet to hear a single instance where a parent has done that ... and believe me I would hear about it. The PM people say that this is more about activist judges legislating from the bench, and the NoP8 people claim that this is not about judges, but basic human rights. Now let's stop right there. Anytime someone tries to shift the argument away from my point by claiming that you are violating someone's "basic human rights", I start right away looking for the Liberal bumper sticker. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about rights as they are defined in the US Constitution. But the defense of people's "basic human rights" has gotten us into this financial crisis, so you will forgive me if I find this to be a less then believeable defense. I also happen to agree that judges legislating has gotten way out of hand. (See Roe V Wade discussion below)
Those are merely a few of the arguments made by both parties. With all of those thoughts jumbled around in my head, I sat to both blog this out, and sort it out in my head. On one hand, you have people just like you or I, albeight with different tastes, and on the other, you have 61% of Californians whose vote has been completely disregarded. (Oops, I did it too. It's a little bit of word twisting, but the point is still the same. Who stands up for those CA's whose vote just became invalidated?)
Bleh. How did you like that little intellectual throw up?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Barack's authenticity
So this clip brings up suspicions that Obama might not be a natural born citizen. Why is this important you ask? Know your Constitution, I respond. The POTUS (President of the United States) MUST be a natural born citizen. If a candidate is not natural born, then he is not eligible to be POTUS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Time will tell if this will be able to be verified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Time will tell if this will be able to be verified.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Debates
So those debates are going on tonight. It's extremely important that McCain comes out strong in these. A liberal President, backed by a liberal Congress, has the capability of breaking of economy. We can only point to England for support of why that is so. After WWII, their economy became mostly socialized. And for a decade or two, it was a very weak economy. As soon as a majority of the state-owned companies became privatized, England's economy took off, and it is one of the largest today.
Also important is the presidents stand on support of Israel. What with Iran making nuclear weapons (no one can dispute this), supporting Israel right now is paramount to world peace. We cannot allow such a destabilizing force such as a nuclear Iran, and we must fully support what Israel decides to do about it. Now that we are finally making great strides in Iraq, it is time to start withdrawing (which we are now doing), and finish off these conflicts. It is important to note that because of the surge (thank you Republicans!) this is finally possible WITH HONOR. Afghanistan, you are next.
Also important is the presidents stand on support of Israel. What with Iran making nuclear weapons (no one can dispute this), supporting Israel right now is paramount to world peace. We cannot allow such a destabilizing force such as a nuclear Iran, and we must fully support what Israel decides to do about it. Now that we are finally making great strides in Iraq, it is time to start withdrawing (which we are now doing), and finish off these conflicts. It is important to note that because of the surge (thank you Republicans!) this is finally possible WITH HONOR. Afghanistan, you are next.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Conservatism
Conservatism: A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. (According to Dictionary.com)
Conservatism: Group of people comprised mostly of old boy networks, who typically smoke cigars and complain about liberals and their media. Usually an older male, chauvinist, who is generally on the pay roll of some big oil company. (According to the liberal media).
And now for something completely different (Thank you Monty Python).
About 25 years ago, a woman decided, on the advice of her doctor, to not abort her unborn, unwanted child. As the woman had had 4 abortions before, the doctor deemed it would be too hard for her body to take the strain. The woman, being in no place to keep the baby, decided to give up said child. And here i sit today. Ever since I learned that fact, I have been Pro-Life. And I don't think anyone can blame me.
Aside from my obviously biased view, let's think about this logically. According to the law, a person who kills a pregnant woman is charged with killing two people. Also according to the law, a doctor is legally allowed to kill a child, as long as it is within a certain time frame of still being within the mother. Common sense would tell us that this is a double standard. So then change one of them? Well, it would clearly lessen the importance of a child's life to take away the double death charge on someone killing a mother. Therefore, we are left with one decision. Take away the mother and her doctors right to kill the child.
Another interesting fact. Abortion was left up to each individual state until Roe v. Wade. RVW for short. RVW changed that. It took away the rights of the states, and gave those powers to the federal government. Now, if this were for a good reason, I wouldn't complain. But the Judges who were for the decision said, in essence, that the right of privacy, found in the Fourteenth Amendmant, over-ruled the states ability to self govern. That somehow, the right of personal liberty was greater then the right of the states. And I don't disagree with that assertion, EXCEPT when it comes to the right to life. The judges also claimed that the right to life, liberty, and happiness does not apply to an unborn child. Again, I disagree. There can be nothing more sacred then the right to life, especially when it pertains to those who yet born.
Another question that is brought up every time that I talk about my view on abortion is my view of contraceptives and the day after pill. Usually it's brought up by some fired up liberal who is determined to show how I live by a double standard, and how obviously I'm a hypocrit. Contraceptives, yes! Everytime that you don't want a child, use contraceptives. Better yet, don't have sex with everything that walks around. I know, I know, I'm crimping your style. The day after pill is another story. I don't recognize the day after pill as being abortion, and I know that many on my side would disagree. It's a super slippery slope, and I would like to agree, just for the purity of the ideal, that it is abortion, and it is killing a child. The aforementioned slope is this; where does the life become viable? At what point is that mass of tissue a child? As early as 6 weeks, the child is obviously, when viewed, a human being. So it's pretty safe to say that it is one. However, at one day in, it's not quite so cut and dried. Also, when you are taking the day after pill, you don't know if you are pregnant. The intent is not to kill a child, it's to prevent a pregnancy. Shit happens, whether it be a broken condom, or something else happenstance.
(I'm aware that I might, in some people's eyes, distanced myself from the Pro-Life crowd. I care not. It's not about belonging to some crowd ... it's about what I believe to be true and moral.)
Conservatism: Group of people comprised mostly of old boy networks, who typically smoke cigars and complain about liberals and their media. Usually an older male, chauvinist, who is generally on the pay roll of some big oil company. (According to the liberal media).
And now for something completely different (Thank you Monty Python).
About 25 years ago, a woman decided, on the advice of her doctor, to not abort her unborn, unwanted child. As the woman had had 4 abortions before, the doctor deemed it would be too hard for her body to take the strain. The woman, being in no place to keep the baby, decided to give up said child. And here i sit today. Ever since I learned that fact, I have been Pro-Life. And I don't think anyone can blame me.
Aside from my obviously biased view, let's think about this logically. According to the law, a person who kills a pregnant woman is charged with killing two people. Also according to the law, a doctor is legally allowed to kill a child, as long as it is within a certain time frame of still being within the mother. Common sense would tell us that this is a double standard. So then change one of them? Well, it would clearly lessen the importance of a child's life to take away the double death charge on someone killing a mother. Therefore, we are left with one decision. Take away the mother and her doctors right to kill the child.
Another interesting fact. Abortion was left up to each individual state until Roe v. Wade. RVW for short. RVW changed that. It took away the rights of the states, and gave those powers to the federal government. Now, if this were for a good reason, I wouldn't complain. But the Judges who were for the decision said, in essence, that the right of privacy, found in the Fourteenth Amendmant, over-ruled the states ability to self govern. That somehow, the right of personal liberty was greater then the right of the states. And I don't disagree with that assertion, EXCEPT when it comes to the right to life. The judges also claimed that the right to life, liberty, and happiness does not apply to an unborn child. Again, I disagree. There can be nothing more sacred then the right to life, especially when it pertains to those who yet born.
Another question that is brought up every time that I talk about my view on abortion is my view of contraceptives and the day after pill. Usually it's brought up by some fired up liberal who is determined to show how I live by a double standard, and how obviously I'm a hypocrit. Contraceptives, yes! Everytime that you don't want a child, use contraceptives. Better yet, don't have sex with everything that walks around. I know, I know, I'm crimping your style. The day after pill is another story. I don't recognize the day after pill as being abortion, and I know that many on my side would disagree. It's a super slippery slope, and I would like to agree, just for the purity of the ideal, that it is abortion, and it is killing a child. The aforementioned slope is this; where does the life become viable? At what point is that mass of tissue a child? As early as 6 weeks, the child is obviously, when viewed, a human being. So it's pretty safe to say that it is one. However, at one day in, it's not quite so cut and dried. Also, when you are taking the day after pill, you don't know if you are pregnant. The intent is not to kill a child, it's to prevent a pregnancy. Shit happens, whether it be a broken condom, or something else happenstance.
(I'm aware that I might, in some people's eyes, distanced myself from the Pro-Life crowd. I care not. It's not about belonging to some crowd ... it's about what I believe to be true and moral.)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bringing Down the House
It was lost, but now is found. :-)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
Watch it, rate it. It's an extremely interesting view
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
Watch it, rate it. It's an extremely interesting view
Monday, September 29, 2008
Quotes from Biden
Taken from America Second by Anne Bayefsky: Quotes from Biden
An inability to recognize the enemy when it stares them in the face. “When the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a “terrorist” organization... the main result is to increase tensions with Iran.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Prioritizing optics over substance. “The way we position ourselves, we’re made to look like the bad guys.” (Joe Biden, July 9, 2008) News flash: America is made to look like the bad guy for doing anything at all — that’s the burden of having power and using it.
An inability to recognize the enemy when it stares them in the face. “When the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a “terrorist” organization... the main result is to increase tensions with Iran.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
The lack of straight talk about American values and the assault which has been launched upon them. “I don’t believe in a clash of civilizations.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005) Perhaps he should attend the UN Human Rights Council and watch the battle raging over defamation of religion versus freedom of expression and women’s rights versus cultural particularities?
Prioritizing optics over substance. “The way we position ourselves, we’re made to look like the bad guys.” (Joe Biden, July 9, 2008) News flash: America is made to look like the bad guy for doing anything at all — that’s the burden of having power and using it.
Treading lightly on Russia. “We need…Russia’s help on Iran… Pushing too hard, too fast on democracy risks alienating governments whose help we need.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005) First Georgia. Next?
Naiveté about Russian and Chinese intentions. “Direct U.S. engagement with Iran is something that the European Union, Russia, and China have told me they would welcome. In exchange, we should insist on firm commitments from those governments to impose serious sanctions.” (July 9, 2008) The Russians and the Chinese have made it clear for years that they will not allow serious sanctions against Iran to be adopted by the Security Council.
Showcasing America as weak and unwilling to use force. “The Folly of War: War with Iran is not just a bad option. It would be a disaster …Even talk of war is counter-productive to our interests.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Putting the feelings of mobs and despots above the interests of the United States and its democratic allies. “Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but … imagine the consequences beyond Iran …enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us ...” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Grossly underestimating the enemy. “My concern is not that a nuclear Iran some day would be moved by messianic fervor to use a nuclear weapon…My worry is that the fear of a nuclear Iran could spark an arms race in the Middle East…” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Turning diplomacy into an instrument of self-destruction, where cheap talk gives the enemy legitimacy and time. “In 2005, while the Bush Administration was shunning Iran's reformist President [Khatami], I held the highest-level meeting in 25 years between any U.S. and Iranian official when I met with Iran's foreign minister.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007) Here is what his friend Khatami — the man in charge of nurturing Iran’s nuclear weapons program for eight years until 2005 — had to say in November 2000: “As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I wish to underline … we take pride in the heroic resistance of the children of the Muslim and Arab Ummah against suppression and bullying of the terrorist racist Zionist regime.”
No pre-conditions for talks with Iran and hand the enemy the tools he needs to run out the clock. “First, let’s end this false argument about “pre-conditions.” Senator Obama is right that the United States should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without insisting that Iran first freeze the program.” (Joe Biden, May 20, 2008)
A long-time love affair with the United Nations. “The United States and other countries should commit military forces to the exclusive use by the United Nations’ Security Council.” (Joe Biden as reported October 29, 1992)
President Obama, and his authority figure on foreign policy, will sit down to chat with genocidal antisemites, shelve the use of force, pander to the rabble-rousers, embrace the United Nations, avoid confrontation with the enemies of Israel and genuine religious pluralism — and permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
That’s America second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
