Is it possible to be proud of your country even if you are disappointed with how it is being run?
At what point did being a "patriot" require blindly drinking all of the cool aid being sold by the government and mass media? If being a patriot requires undying devotion to the mass media, then somebody must have hijacked the dictionary.
A patriot is able to be severely disappointed by the actions of our elected officials without turning his or her back on the country that they love. America for example, is likely the best country on earth. However, there are many "people" in power that do not represent or care for the things that make this country great. It should never become a bad thing to support the Constitution. However, we find ourselves in an environment where supporting the constitution makes one a racist or sexist or worse.
While I'm personally proud to be an American, I'm at the same time disappointed in our governments inability to safeguard it's own founding documents. That disappointment makes me an enemy to those that oppose or ignore the constitution. However, it doesn't make me anti-American. In fact, the opposite is true.
We need to remember that just because the media or an official says he's the patriot and you are un-American does not make it so. People will often hide behind the flag they wish to corrupt for personal gain. Although not a treasonous offense, we should find it imperative to hold these officials accountable for their attempt to hide their un-American tendencies behind false accusations leveled at the real patriots.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Proud to be an American
What does it mean to be proud of your country? Is it possible to be proud of the freedom our country has attained while being ashamed of it's failings?
Does the fact that one acknowledges the significant failings of our government somehow mean that they are unAmerican? I'm sure most American's are proud of
Does the fact that one acknowledges the significant failings of our government somehow mean that they are unAmerican? I'm sure most American's are proud of
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obama is the F'd-O-Meter
The soaring popularity of this candidate provides insight as to how F'd we are as a voting population. The fact that a huge (H U G E) number of voters are providing financial and voting support to a candidate of this nature should be sending a message to every remaining thinking American.
There are two likely possibilities for this particular surge.
The first possibility is less likely but more hopeful. That is the thought that maybe voters are sending a message that they want change and are supporting him for that reason until the election in November. At that time they will vote on a candidate for President rather than voting to send a message that our government needs to do a better job.
The second, more likely, more scary possibility is that they truly buy into his words, and will follow like lambs to the slaughter in November. Maybe they have been so trained by our multimedia Hollywood spoon fed entertainment that they need speeches rather than substance. Maybe they are so fed up with the system that they are willing to vote a socialist that cares not for the Constitution of the United States of America into office. Maybe they have given up on our country and simply want to throw everything into turmoil and have to start over with some sort of revolution.
Alternately, what if the entire Obama phenomenon is a republican conspiracy (everybody love conspiracy theories) to make an oncoming depression a result of the Democratic inability to handle a high maintenance economy? Yes, that last one is a stretch.
The unfortunate likelihood is that the voting population truly is as ignorant and short sighted as they would seem to be. It's entirely likely that generations of taking our country for granted has led to a society where the future no longer matters. Is it possible that we've finally realized a nationwide pattern of "emotion trumps logic"?
It would seem the fate of our nation is in the hands of those that cannot balance a checkbook, understand how much money they throw away when going upside down for a car they don't need, or realize that the house they are buying will cost more to keep than they make within the next 24 months.
If we use Obama as the F'd-O-Meter, it looks like we're pretty F'd people.
There are two likely possibilities for this particular surge.
The first possibility is less likely but more hopeful. That is the thought that maybe voters are sending a message that they want change and are supporting him for that reason until the election in November. At that time they will vote on a candidate for President rather than voting to send a message that our government needs to do a better job.
The second, more likely, more scary possibility is that they truly buy into his words, and will follow like lambs to the slaughter in November. Maybe they have been so trained by our multimedia Hollywood spoon fed entertainment that they need speeches rather than substance. Maybe they are so fed up with the system that they are willing to vote a socialist that cares not for the Constitution of the United States of America into office. Maybe they have given up on our country and simply want to throw everything into turmoil and have to start over with some sort of revolution.
Alternately, what if the entire Obama phenomenon is a republican conspiracy (everybody love conspiracy theories) to make an oncoming depression a result of the Democratic inability to handle a high maintenance economy? Yes, that last one is a stretch.
The unfortunate likelihood is that the voting population truly is as ignorant and short sighted as they would seem to be. It's entirely likely that generations of taking our country for granted has led to a society where the future no longer matters. Is it possible that we've finally realized a nationwide pattern of "emotion trumps logic"?
It would seem the fate of our nation is in the hands of those that cannot balance a checkbook, understand how much money they throw away when going upside down for a car they don't need, or realize that the house they are buying will cost more to keep than they make within the next 24 months.
If we use Obama as the F'd-O-Meter, it looks like we're pretty F'd people.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Will A Native American Ever Become President
[this was a recently asked question. to explain the last line, one person treated the Trail of Tears as if it were a funny part of history.]
It's a statistical improbability. Considering the way the US government has treated them, there would probably be some worry that he or she would want to "take it back" or at least be digging up every old treaty the government ever broke and making sure they were finally executed correctly.
More likely, the only way would be if a party picked one and threw their money behind him. It takes a lot of marketing (look at obama and clintons spending) to make a dent in the american pupulus. Of course everybody thinks they are made of money becuase of the casinos. However, they might not want to throw their money into a system that abused their people in a rather calculated manner.
To anybody that thinks the Trail of Tears is a joking matter, **** off. Stop for a minute and imagine your great grandfather on it next time...
It's a statistical improbability. Considering the way the US government has treated them, there would probably be some worry that he or she would want to "take it back" or at least be digging up every old treaty the government ever broke and making sure they were finally executed correctly.
More likely, the only way would be if a party picked one and threw their money behind him. It takes a lot of marketing (look at obama and clintons spending) to make a dent in the american pupulus. Of course everybody thinks they are made of money becuase of the casinos. However, they might not want to throw their money into a system that abused their people in a rather calculated manner.
To anybody that thinks the Trail of Tears is a joking matter, **** off. Stop for a minute and imagine your great grandfather on it next time...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Contract with Conservatives
Supporting the Contract with Conservatives
The party of Ronald Reagan -- a collection of social and fiscal conservatives -- saw all their work come together with the Republican Revolution of 1994. Republicans came to power through their dedication to core, conservative principles.
Since that time, the conservative base has seen the Republican Party go astray. From runaway spending, to big government programs, to assaults on our First Amendment rights to amnesty for illegal aliens, conservatives have become disheartened, and the time has come for dramatic change.
America can thrive under conservative leadership and government. The Republican Party is best equipped to deliver this kind of leadership, but too often, it has not. The time has come when conservative voters can no longer be taken for granted. Conservatives need something more than simple assurances. For our time, effort, money, and votes, we need a pledge. We need a pledge from our presidential nominee to uphold the core Republican values that built this party, and which have taken a backseat to politics in recent years.
The Contract with Conservatives is that pledge. It is a pledge to uphold the major conservative ideals that have been pushed aside over the past decade.
We, the undersigned, will support our presidential nominee and other candidates for high office, only if they uphold the Contract with Conservatives.
It is time to get back to basics. The conservative base will work for candidates who pledge to uphold conservative values.
Contract with Conservatives
Immigration Reform
- Secure America's borders
- Enforce employment laws
- No amnesty
The American people have spoken, and the clear message is that immigration reform starts with secure borders. In a post-9/11 world, we should expect nothing less. In addition, the American people do not support amnesty. Candidates must repudiate amnesty and show respect for the American people by showing respect for the law. Illegal aliens should not be given special consideration for citizenship and should not be put ahead of those seeking to come to America legally. Conservatives will work for candidates who pledge to put border security first and who pledge to not put illegal aliens ahead of those seeking citizenship through legal means.
Tax Reform
- Make President Bush's tax cuts permanent
- Reduce taxes, both on business and individuals
- Simplify the tax code by moving to a flat tax or the Fair Tax
- No favorites -- All tax cuts should be across the board
The tax code must be simplified, and all taxes should be reduced. The tax code should focus on its core function -- a means of raising revenue. The tax code should not be a vehicle for social engineering, and the reduction of taxes should not pit one socio-economic group against another. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while not engaging in class warfare.
Size and Scope of Federal Government
- Reduce the size of the federal government
- Reform entitlement programs
- Respect states' rights and limit the reach of the federal government as stated in the Constitution
- Cut spending
- Support a balanced budget amendment
- Eliminate earmarks and support stand-alone spending bills
It is not enough for the federal government to only grow by a few percentage points. In the end, it still leads to bigger government. The federal government must SHRINK. The Republican Revolution was built on this core Republican principle, and conservatives will support candidates committed to shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. The pork must go! Earmarks and pork-barrel spending must be eliminated. These practices lead to corruption and are not conservative. The federal government should do only those core jobs enumerated in the Constitution. Other governmental responsibilities should fall to the states. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut spending, shrink government, and eliminate earmarks.
Judges
- Vigorously nominate and support the confirmation of judges who follow the law, not those who legislate from the bench
- Wage a real fight against left-wing attempts to block judicial nominees
Nominating a conservative judge simply to let him or her languish without an up-or-down vote is not acceptable. Judicial nominees, who follow the law rather than make new laws from the bench, deserve full and enthusiastic support. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to nominate strict constructionists and who will not wilt in that support even under left-wing attacks.
Life
- Respect the rights of the unborn and promote laws which will protect innocent human life
- Support the overturning of Roe v. Wade
- Block any efforts to fund or promote embryonic stem cell research
Conservatives believe in a culture of life. This culture must be embraced and advocated by our Republican leaders. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to promote a culture of life and who work for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. No candidate can say they are "100% pro-life" and also support embryonic stem cell research. This research results in the destruction of innocent human life. Research proves that adult stem cells are as good or better for curing diseases, and thus the use of embryonic stem cells is moot. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to support life at every stage.
Free Speech
- Repeal the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
- Embrace First Amendment rights
The Campaign Finance Reform Act is an assault on free speech and must be repealed. The law resulted in a rise in soft money advocacy through the actions of 527 organizations while other groups were not allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights to support a candidate of their choice. This is wrong. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to repeal this law and support the free speech rights of all Americans.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
America The Victimized
American politics is a sham. Between the Democrats and the Republicans, the people are not being represented. Instead, special interests and big business are the catered to demographics.
We the people have been forgotten. It's assumed by the "two party" system that we've assumed our position as sheep or lemmings, readily gobbling up the rhetoric spewed by both parties. We're supposed to think that nothing gets done because "the other side" blocks all good work.
If that is truly the case, then we need to rid ourselves of "both sides" and start over. By and large, the political leanings of both Democrats and Republicans are out of step with either party. The democrats align with the party because they see it as the only fight against big business interests of the Republicans. The republicans align themselves with the party because they see it as the only fight against throwing away the freedoms earned through blood sacrifice of our ancestors.
The reality however, is that both parties are deviating away from the interests of our nation, away from the foundation of our Constitution, and into paths that each pose their own dangers.
We can't accept this as a nation. However, there is no answer. Each party holds inconsistency, including the alternate parties such as Independent and Centralist. To further the problem, any alternate parties have no power in politics. The presidential race boils down to who the D and R put on the ticket. We've been so ingrained that only those votes count that we only choose those letters in order to prevent throwing our votes away.
Whatever the answer is, it doesn't lie in the party Democrat or the party Republican. Only a future of continued disenfranchisement awaits us. Does anybody have an answer?
We the people have been forgotten. It's assumed by the "two party" system that we've assumed our position as sheep or lemmings, readily gobbling up the rhetoric spewed by both parties. We're supposed to think that nothing gets done because "the other side" blocks all good work.
If that is truly the case, then we need to rid ourselves of "both sides" and start over. By and large, the political leanings of both Democrats and Republicans are out of step with either party. The democrats align with the party because they see it as the only fight against big business interests of the Republicans. The republicans align themselves with the party because they see it as the only fight against throwing away the freedoms earned through blood sacrifice of our ancestors.
The reality however, is that both parties are deviating away from the interests of our nation, away from the foundation of our Constitution, and into paths that each pose their own dangers.
We can't accept this as a nation. However, there is no answer. Each party holds inconsistency, including the alternate parties such as Independent and Centralist. To further the problem, any alternate parties have no power in politics. The presidential race boils down to who the D and R put on the ticket. We've been so ingrained that only those votes count that we only choose those letters in order to prevent throwing our votes away.
Whatever the answer is, it doesn't lie in the party Democrat or the party Republican. Only a future of continued disenfranchisement awaits us. Does anybody have an answer?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Obama Wants To Give Peace A Chance
No, i'm not a hippie. However, I think it's time we actually gave peace a chance. do we really want to live in a world that is consumed with war? Do we find personal satisfaction in knowing that people are dying every day across the globe? Do we want to rest safe in the knowledge that war is the only constant on Earth?
Why don't we all just give peace a chance? Why don't the people of all countries put down their weapons for once and NOT pick them back up and start fighting? Why don't the leaders of all governments get together, let the past go, and celebrate the diversity that is Earth?
Wow, there are a lot of whys there. Rather than smoking some pot and sitting in a peace circle, I guess I could think out loud and try to answer a couple of those "why's". Hmmm, where to start.
* Why don't we all just give peace a chance?
Because we're human. War exists when need or greed or ego are combined with power/might. The peaceful hippie that wants to give peace a chance has very simple needs. ("everybody just be nice to each other and share") However, the simple utterance of the phrase doesn't change the world. In fact, the masses uttering that phrase can be a detriment as they further the ignorance that peace will rule when we "give it a chance". Rather than dealing with the issues of war, people get sidetracked by a false hope .
* why don't all of the countries put down their weapons?
Because they arn't stupid. The first county to put down it's weapons becomes the first target for those that did not. The best defense is a good offense because it feeds on the humanity of your enemy. Who is your enemy? Anybody who wants what you have and has (or thinks they have) the power to take it from you (or your country).
* Why not let the past go and celebrate the diversity of Earth?
Humanity prevents people from letting go of the past on a base level. Whatever you want to call it, it's a part of human nature. Being an enlightened soul is nice when you have no responsibility, but governments must learn from the past and be ever vigilant of what could occur in the future. Regarding diversity, racial differences are also a catalyst in some conflict. In cases where it is not the catalyst, it certainly plays a factor in response. No matter how much conditioning we inflict upon our children (be a colorblind society), race is an integral facet of humanity, it's an obvious visual indicator of "different" and humanity is designed to fear or study that which is different.
The people that beg to "give peace a chance" need to wake up and stop causing the problem. by demanding diversity and assimilation, they are creating the environment where peace has no chance. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If you take two things that do not naturally mix, then force them to mix under the weight of guilt (if they dont accept), eventualy there will be a breakdown. Globalization is great for corporations. However, it gives a false hope that one world can get along w/o war. Peace is diminished by diversity, except in small pot smoking circles. Hippies, make a choice, do you want diversity, or do you want peace?
In the worlds of The Offspring, "you gotta keep em separated".
Why don't we all just give peace a chance? Why don't the people of all countries put down their weapons for once and NOT pick them back up and start fighting? Why don't the leaders of all governments get together, let the past go, and celebrate the diversity that is Earth?
Wow, there are a lot of whys there. Rather than smoking some pot and sitting in a peace circle, I guess I could think out loud and try to answer a couple of those "why's". Hmmm, where to start.
* Why don't we all just give peace a chance?
Because we're human. War exists when need or greed or ego are combined with power/might. The peaceful hippie that wants to give peace a chance has very simple needs. ("everybody just be nice to each other and share") However, the simple utterance of the phrase doesn't change the world. In fact, the masses uttering that phrase can be a detriment as they further the ignorance that peace will rule when we "give it a chance". Rather than dealing with the issues of war, people get sidetracked by a false hope .
* why don't all of the countries put down their weapons?
Because they arn't stupid. The first county to put down it's weapons becomes the first target for those that did not. The best defense is a good offense because it feeds on the humanity of your enemy. Who is your enemy? Anybody who wants what you have and has (or thinks they have) the power to take it from you (or your country).
* Why not let the past go and celebrate the diversity of Earth?
Humanity prevents people from letting go of the past on a base level. Whatever you want to call it, it's a part of human nature. Being an enlightened soul is nice when you have no responsibility, but governments must learn from the past and be ever vigilant of what could occur in the future. Regarding diversity, racial differences are also a catalyst in some conflict. In cases where it is not the catalyst, it certainly plays a factor in response. No matter how much conditioning we inflict upon our children (be a colorblind society), race is an integral facet of humanity, it's an obvious visual indicator of "different" and humanity is designed to fear or study that which is different.
The people that beg to "give peace a chance" need to wake up and stop causing the problem. by demanding diversity and assimilation, they are creating the environment where peace has no chance. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If you take two things that do not naturally mix, then force them to mix under the weight of guilt (if they dont accept), eventualy there will be a breakdown. Globalization is great for corporations. However, it gives a false hope that one world can get along w/o war. Peace is diminished by diversity, except in small pot smoking circles. Hippies, make a choice, do you want diversity, or do you want peace?
In the worlds of The Offspring, "you gotta keep em separated".
Friday, February 8, 2008
Bush Shames Republican Party Into Hiding In 2008
That's probably the most honest assessment of this Nomination season. Republicans have a tremendous black eye in public opinion. The past 7 years have setup the greatest chance for Democrats to gain control of the White House, Supreme Court "Justices", and the direction of our nation during a dark time in our history.
Even the Republicans that voted for Bush are dissatisfied with his performance. From overt attempts to get us to beleive things that are highly unlikely (the public reasons for entering Iraq and what they are lying about regarding 9/11) and outright failure to perform in the realm of Illegal Immigration have left a very bad feeling among Republicans.
Democrats already hated bush for "stealing" the elections from Gore and Kerry so there was simply no chance of getting support from them. Essentially, the Democrats wouldn't like republicans if everybody were suddenly given 40 acres, a mule, a government expense account, and rainbow streets flowing with chocolate rivers.
But, the Republicans could have at least accomplished something positive regarding the economy and Illegal Immigration. Instead, Bush fell back on the "i don't have to do anything about it" stance of promoting "reform" instead of "enforcement". Obviously enforcement would not be popular among liberal. However, he already had a war nobody wanted so what impact would enforcing immigration laws really had on public opinion?
Bush missed a chance to get some real work done. However, he chose to polarize the nation, give Democrats every bit of momentum they needed going into 2008, and still leave the people thinking they have been lied to and ignored. In short, there is no room in public opinion for Bush. Unless the Republican party publicly kicks him out of the club, no presidential nominee will have chance. Since that's not happening, it looks like the republicans are choosing a safe loss candidate (McCain/McLame) and letting the conservative voters stay home.
Picking a strong candidate and losing would have been better for the party than watering down everything we beleive in and still losing the election. It's one thing to fail, but arn't we supposed to go down swinging?
Even the Republicans that voted for Bush are dissatisfied with his performance. From overt attempts to get us to beleive things that are highly unlikely (the public reasons for entering Iraq and what they are lying about regarding 9/11) and outright failure to perform in the realm of Illegal Immigration have left a very bad feeling among Republicans.
Democrats already hated bush for "stealing" the elections from Gore and Kerry so there was simply no chance of getting support from them. Essentially, the Democrats wouldn't like republicans if everybody were suddenly given 40 acres, a mule, a government expense account, and rainbow streets flowing with chocolate rivers.
But, the Republicans could have at least accomplished something positive regarding the economy and Illegal Immigration. Instead, Bush fell back on the "i don't have to do anything about it" stance of promoting "reform" instead of "enforcement". Obviously enforcement would not be popular among liberal. However, he already had a war nobody wanted so what impact would enforcing immigration laws really had on public opinion?
Bush missed a chance to get some real work done. However, he chose to polarize the nation, give Democrats every bit of momentum they needed going into 2008, and still leave the people thinking they have been lied to and ignored. In short, there is no room in public opinion for Bush. Unless the Republican party publicly kicks him out of the club, no presidential nominee will have chance. Since that's not happening, it looks like the republicans are choosing a safe loss candidate (McCain/McLame) and letting the conservative voters stay home.
Picking a strong candidate and losing would have been better for the party than watering down everything we beleive in and still losing the election. It's one thing to fail, but arn't we supposed to go down swinging?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Goodbye Romney, Hello McLame
Romney drops out of the race, McCain visits CPAC.
Voters are used to being lied to. Little white lies, vague embellishments, and bold face lies. We've seen it all so what is different now? McCain stepped into CPAC and essentially told us what we wanted to hear, glossing over the facts and ignoring his liberal tendencies.
He played the "lets get along" card while selling softened stories about how the differences don't matter. Honestly, if the differences don't matter, then why do we care if Hillary gets the White House? The simple truth is that differences to matter when they effect the direction of our government.
Our ability to ignore his deviation from responsible conservative thinking doesn't make his job easier, it makes us quitters. If this country were founded by quitters, we'd still be getting overtaxed for tea and singing praises to England.
McCain walked in like a used car salesman and jerked everyone around at CPAC today. The only bit of honesty in that entire deal would be the boos when he attempted to broach the subject of Illegal Immigration.
Voters are used to being lied to. Little white lies, vague embellishments, and bold face lies. We've seen it all so what is different now? McCain stepped into CPAC and essentially told us what we wanted to hear, glossing over the facts and ignoring his liberal tendencies.
He played the "lets get along" card while selling softened stories about how the differences don't matter. Honestly, if the differences don't matter, then why do we care if Hillary gets the White House? The simple truth is that differences to matter when they effect the direction of our government.
Our ability to ignore his deviation from responsible conservative thinking doesn't make his job easier, it makes us quitters. If this country were founded by quitters, we'd still be getting overtaxed for tea and singing praises to England.
McCain walked in like a used car salesman and jerked everyone around at CPAC today. The only bit of honesty in that entire deal would be the boos when he attempted to broach the subject of Illegal Immigration.
Oreilly Calls Willie Nelson A Pinhead
With a quick sound byte of Willie Nelson saying he doesn't buy the official explanation of the 9/11 building collapses, Bill Oreilly proceeds to call him a "pinhead" before looking down as if ashamed.
What Bill doesn't acknowledge is that it's healthy to understand that our government lies to us. It keeps secrets for various reasons including National Security. If there was more to the clip that explained some strange conspiracy theory, that would have been interesting to include. But considering Willie Nelson a "conspiracy nut" because he question the accuracy of the 9/11 report makes Oreilly some kind of nut himself.
More than likely the government will never tell us everything it knew or knows about 9.11.01. We still don't know the real story behind the Kennedy assassination and that was long before most of us were born. Why would we know the real story about WTC towers and building 7 if we don't know the truth about a famously dead president?
Willie is a nut for various reasons and a tax attorney could accurately call him a pinhead. In this case, Bill is the pinhead.
What Bill doesn't acknowledge is that it's healthy to understand that our government lies to us. It keeps secrets for various reasons including National Security. If there was more to the clip that explained some strange conspiracy theory, that would have been interesting to include. But considering Willie Nelson a "conspiracy nut" because he question the accuracy of the 9/11 report makes Oreilly some kind of nut himself.
More than likely the government will never tell us everything it knew or knows about 9.11.01. We still don't know the real story behind the Kennedy assassination and that was long before most of us were born. Why would we know the real story about WTC towers and building 7 if we don't know the truth about a famously dead president?
Willie is a nut for various reasons and a tax attorney could accurately call him a pinhead. In this case, Bill is the pinhead.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain to Republicans: STFU
McCain: "I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on," McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar.
McCain has basically told Republicans to ignore everything they don't like and try to look for the things they agree on.
This is an incredibly opportunistic way to make it look as if he's being the rational party. It's interesting how one would turn this around on the voting population. Rather than acknowledging that he is liberal enough to be a Democrat and has policy goals which are anti-American, particularly in the area of Illegal Immigration, he puts his failure upon the voters.
Please stop talking about my weaknesses and focus on my good points. If that's not a cry from a position of fault, I'm not sure what is.
The following statement is like somebody breaking into your house to kill you. You don't want to die. They don't want you to life. McCain easily sums that kind of situation with the following:
McCain: "We may have a disagreement on an issue or two," he said. "That's healthy. Wouldn't we pretty boring if we agreed on everything? So the point is that we can succeed."
It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this. Will they "shut the f*** up" as McCain needs them to? Will they make it known that we don't agree on enough issues to consider McCain any more viable than Obama or Clinton? An open letter to McCain would probably include the reiteration that nobody wants Immigration reform, they want ENFORCEMENT.
Surely we are watching the Republican party field this candidate simply in an effort to make a good show of losing a general election.
McCain has basically told Republicans to ignore everything they don't like and try to look for the things they agree on.
This is an incredibly opportunistic way to make it look as if he's being the rational party. It's interesting how one would turn this around on the voting population. Rather than acknowledging that he is liberal enough to be a Democrat and has policy goals which are anti-American, particularly in the area of Illegal Immigration, he puts his failure upon the voters.
Please stop talking about my weaknesses and focus on my good points. If that's not a cry from a position of fault, I'm not sure what is.
The following statement is like somebody breaking into your house to kill you. You don't want to die. They don't want you to life. McCain easily sums that kind of situation with the following:
McCain: "We may have a disagreement on an issue or two," he said. "That's healthy. Wouldn't we pretty boring if we agreed on everything? So the point is that we can succeed."
It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this. Will they "shut the f*** up" as McCain needs them to? Will they make it known that we don't agree on enough issues to consider McCain any more viable than Obama or Clinton? An open letter to McCain would probably include the reiteration that nobody wants Immigration reform, they want ENFORCEMENT.
Surely we are watching the Republican party field this candidate simply in an effort to make a good show of losing a general election.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Responsiblity of Rights
We're inundated with messages about what we're owed. We're indoctrinated with the legacy of injustice. We're told we can make revolutionary change. We're told to change the world. We're told of how we've wronged various groups. We've been told that the world owes us something and it's our birthright to go get it.
We're surrounded by socialist and communist influences, such as the ACLU, ordained to facilitate the deconstruction of our constitution. We're surrounded by liberals that let emotion trump logic and give away the strength paid for by our forefathers blood in exchange for the instant gratification of short lived convenience. Our children are surrounded by bleeding hearts with no sight for a scalable society or long term future of our country.
Our children and our forefathers are the greatest victims. The men that gave their lives for the hope of the future probably did not anticipate pseudo-intellectuals throwing their pearls to the swine. The random handouts in the name of entitlement to every niche that feels victimized has amounted to little more than spoiled grandchildren wasting their inheritance on cars and drugs.
Why do the liberals make it seem like a bad thing to exercise responsibility and conservation when handling issues of great importance? It's as if you're the bad guy unless you act in an irresponsible and impulsive manner.
We're surrounded by socialist and communist influences, such as the ACLU, ordained to facilitate the deconstruction of our constitution. We're surrounded by liberals that let emotion trump logic and give away the strength paid for by our forefathers blood in exchange for the instant gratification of short lived convenience. Our children are surrounded by bleeding hearts with no sight for a scalable society or long term future of our country.
Our children and our forefathers are the greatest victims. The men that gave their lives for the hope of the future probably did not anticipate pseudo-intellectuals throwing their pearls to the swine. The random handouts in the name of entitlement to every niche that feels victimized has amounted to little more than spoiled grandchildren wasting their inheritance on cars and drugs.
Why do the liberals make it seem like a bad thing to exercise responsibility and conservation when handling issues of great importance? It's as if you're the bad guy unless you act in an irresponsible and impulsive manner.
Hillary's Day of Hope
Today is the day that Hillary hopes to defeat Obama. This is her day of "yes we can". Last night she was on letterman and watching her was like watching the lady that already knew she was going to win. Of course, watching Tom Brady before the superbowl left you with a similar feeling.
We saw how the Giants literally smashed his hopes into the field during that game. Today, we watch and see if that happens to Hillary. Considering that the Republicans don't really have a candidate in the ring that can beat Hillary or Obama with any certainty, this is probably going to be the most "interesting" political race of the season.
Yes, i still think that the elections are handled behind the scenes. Yes, i still think that Hillary has already been promised the 2008 Presidential Election. Yes, i've been wrong before. I'm not a ranking member of some secret society and I don't make those decisions. However, it looks pretty likely that Hillary is going to take this Nomination and then it's subsequent election.
I would much rather be wrong about that as i'm not a Clinton supporter nor have I ever been one. So don't start thinking that this is a post of celebration. Welcome to Super Tuesday everyone.
We saw how the Giants literally smashed his hopes into the field during that game. Today, we watch and see if that happens to Hillary. Considering that the Republicans don't really have a candidate in the ring that can beat Hillary or Obama with any certainty, this is probably going to be the most "interesting" political race of the season.
Yes, i still think that the elections are handled behind the scenes. Yes, i still think that Hillary has already been promised the 2008 Presidential Election. Yes, i've been wrong before. I'm not a ranking member of some secret society and I don't make those decisions. However, it looks pretty likely that Hillary is going to take this Nomination and then it's subsequent election.
I would much rather be wrong about that as i'm not a Clinton supporter nor have I ever been one. So don't start thinking that this is a post of celebration. Welcome to Super Tuesday everyone.
Hillary's Day of Hope
Today is the day that Hillary hopes to defeat Obama. This is her day of "yes we can",
Monday, February 4, 2008
Tomorrow it's official. Huckabee or McCain or Romney
Obviously we're looking at a McCain/Romney shootout. We're still going to vote for Huckabee, we're just going to know that doing so keeps us out of the big shootout. Even Chuck Norris can't kick this thing into gear. A round house to the white house?
We've got Huckabee splitting the McCain/Romney vote and who knows what the skew will be. Are we hurting ourselves by taking votes away from the real candidates? Should we complain when we're only hoping that we do that to the Democrat nominee when it's time for the general election? How can we complain about it now if we know we're counting on it against the Democrats?
We can complain because our government has traded in it's responsibility to the people and exchanged it for politically correct vote grabbing garbage. Even Huckabee is guilty of being soft on illegal immigration for some reason. At least we'll be able to take the extra players out after tomorrow. We can guarantee that the opposition already has a series of attack prepared for whoever happens to win the nomination. We can only hope that "our side" (and i use that term loosely) is prepared for such attacks.
Bring on your Hillarys and your Obamas. Bring on your McCains and your Romneys. We're still going to be here, bent over the voting table, waiting for what's coming to us. Hopefully it won't hurt as bad as it did last time. :-)
We've got Huckabee splitting the McCain/Romney vote and who knows what the skew will be. Are we hurting ourselves by taking votes away from the real candidates? Should we complain when we're only hoping that we do that to the Democrat nominee when it's time for the general election? How can we complain about it now if we know we're counting on it against the Democrats?
We can complain because our government has traded in it's responsibility to the people and exchanged it for politically correct vote grabbing garbage. Even Huckabee is guilty of being soft on illegal immigration for some reason. At least we'll be able to take the extra players out after tomorrow. We can guarantee that the opposition already has a series of attack prepared for whoever happens to win the nomination. We can only hope that "our side" (and i use that term loosely) is prepared for such attacks.
Bring on your Hillarys and your Obamas. Bring on your McCains and your Romneys. We're still going to be here, bent over the voting table, waiting for what's coming to us. Hopefully it won't hurt as bad as it did last time. :-)
Romney sets himself apart on Immigration
Romney seems to be the only candidate not riding the "path to citizenship" train. All of the other candidates seem to think the best way to handle illegal immigration is to remove the word "illegal" from the problem.
At that point, there is at least no reason for people to talk to them about the issue. The root of the problem isn't solved, but at least governmental culpability is mitigated. Romney seems to be the only candidate that doesn't support fixing illegal immigration by granting citizenship to all of the trespassers.
It's too bad that his inability to get a message to conservative voters will likely cause Huckabee and Paul supporters to inadvertently allow McCain, a Republican in name only, to get the support required to become the party pick.
Sadly, there is no "best candidate". There are simply issues that sometimes they are on the right side of and sometimes not. We're in for a bumpy ride.
At that point, there is at least no reason for people to talk to them about the issue. The root of the problem isn't solved, but at least governmental culpability is mitigated. Romney seems to be the only candidate that doesn't support fixing illegal immigration by granting citizenship to all of the trespassers.
It's too bad that his inability to get a message to conservative voters will likely cause Huckabee and Paul supporters to inadvertently allow McCain, a Republican in name only, to get the support required to become the party pick.
Sadly, there is no "best candidate". There are simply issues that sometimes they are on the right side of and sometimes not. We're in for a bumpy ride.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Choose to survive: McCain
So, it seems the Republicans are not purposely trying to isolate their base by choosing McCain. The statistical data presented since the "rallying" around that particular candidate seems to show they are instead just trying to survive.
As one would expect, Huckabee, although the best choice for President, can expect no more than 5% of the Democrat vote. Since Republicans assume they have the lions share of the Republican vote, they must now look to the Democrats for the rest of their votes. Unfortunately, many Conservatives have a hard time stomaching McCain as their candidate, so write-in votes for Huckabee, Thompson, and Ron Paul are rumored everywhere.
In any case, McCain seems to have some draw among the McCain Democrats. This draw can supposedly get into the 30% of the Democrat voters if they are as unhappy with their partys candidate as we are with McCain. This is a strategic move to get most of the Republican votes while also pulling in a large chunk of the Independent and Democrat votes.
The second part of this puzzle supposedly depends upon who wins the Democratic nomination. If it is Obama, rumors are that Romney will be the Republican choice, as he will somehow run better against that opponent. However, if Hillary is chosen, then McCain will be the guy.
The only saving grace is that Huckabee is best choice for VP if McCain happens to take the Nomination. He's pretty old. Although I would rather have Huckabee head the ticket, it does make sense that he would have a much tougher time of beating the entire Democrat ticket. America doesn't like hard choices, so America avoids conservatives.
Welcome to the roller coaster, let the ride begin.
As one would expect, Huckabee, although the best choice for President, can expect no more than 5% of the Democrat vote. Since Republicans assume they have the lions share of the Republican vote, they must now look to the Democrats for the rest of their votes. Unfortunately, many Conservatives have a hard time stomaching McCain as their candidate, so write-in votes for Huckabee, Thompson, and Ron Paul are rumored everywhere.
In any case, McCain seems to have some draw among the McCain Democrats. This draw can supposedly get into the 30% of the Democrat voters if they are as unhappy with their partys candidate as we are with McCain. This is a strategic move to get most of the Republican votes while also pulling in a large chunk of the Independent and Democrat votes.
The second part of this puzzle supposedly depends upon who wins the Democratic nomination. If it is Obama, rumors are that Romney will be the Republican choice, as he will somehow run better against that opponent. However, if Hillary is chosen, then McCain will be the guy.
The only saving grace is that Huckabee is best choice for VP if McCain happens to take the Nomination. He's pretty old. Although I would rather have Huckabee head the ticket, it does make sense that he would have a much tougher time of beating the entire Democrat ticket. America doesn't like hard choices, so America avoids conservatives.
Welcome to the roller coaster, let the ride begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
