If you listen to FoxNews, you will get a feeling that the Republicans have already chosen McCain as their candidate. Fortunately, FoxNews is not the measure of truth. There is still a chance that the Republicans will not Choose To Lose the election by fielding McCain as the candidate of choice.
If McCain happens to get the nomination, I will at least have one more feather in my hat to prove that this election was handled behind the scenes by power brokers and promised to Hillary years ago. McCain will be the sure sign that the Republicans don't want to win, they just want to field a decent 2nd place finisher.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The race is narrowing . . . Huckabee is our only hope...
The amount of attention being shared by McCain and Romney is scary. From what you see, it would make you think that the Republican Party is going to choose one of those two.
That is a scary thought. We don't need another Bush. His almost-a-democrat politics has left this country without the president we voted for. The leader of our country should be somewhat conservative. Putting a liberal in that position is dangerous business. McCain and Romney are the same brand of Pandering to Democrats as Bush.
Why should we reward the negative aspects of the current president by hiring somebody that is the same old business? Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates with the most promise. They both held the hope of people that we would once again have an Intelligent President that could take care of business.
Thompson is no longer in the picture. This leaves Huckabee. He's the last great hope of the 2008 election process. All others on both sides are useless politicians. They are a continuation of the USAFraud perpetuated on the voting public. With Huckabee, we still have a chance to remove the Fraud, and be left with a USA.
That is a scary thought. We don't need another Bush. His almost-a-democrat politics has left this country without the president we voted for. The leader of our country should be somewhat conservative. Putting a liberal in that position is dangerous business. McCain and Romney are the same brand of Pandering to Democrats as Bush.
Why should we reward the negative aspects of the current president by hiring somebody that is the same old business? Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates with the most promise. They both held the hope of people that we would once again have an Intelligent President that could take care of business.
Thompson is no longer in the picture. This leaves Huckabee. He's the last great hope of the 2008 election process. All others on both sides are useless politicians. They are a continuation of the USAFraud perpetuated on the voting public. With Huckabee, we still have a chance to remove the Fraud, and be left with a USA.
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of the Union (Bush 7th of 7 Speaches)
The State of The Union address was well written, decently delivered, full of hope, but hard to take seriously. This would have been a great speech delivered as the first of his seven. However, that would have required some follow through. In this case, it's pretty words that fade into oblivion because "it's not my fault they didn't do what i said."
If only there were a feeling of sincerity rather than a hope to redeem a doomed legacy. As the song said, "we won't be fooled again". Well, time and time again, Americans have failed to hold true to the promise of that song.
We're happy that our government languishes in mediocrity while holding the same endless arguments that allow us to disparage each other based on party affiliation. We're alright with nothing getting done unless it happens to be done by "our party". Until it directly effects us, we literally don't care.
The politicians know this. The politicians cater to this. We are their enablers. They are the manifestation of our own inability to make decisions and see results. In short, we get what we pay for. We always get what we pay for.
If only there were a feeling of sincerity rather than a hope to redeem a doomed legacy. As the song said, "we won't be fooled again". Well, time and time again, Americans have failed to hold true to the promise of that song.
We're happy that our government languishes in mediocrity while holding the same endless arguments that allow us to disparage each other based on party affiliation. We're alright with nothing getting done unless it happens to be done by "our party". Until it directly effects us, we literally don't care.
The politicians know this. The politicians cater to this. We are their enablers. They are the manifestation of our own inability to make decisions and see results. In short, we get what we pay for. We always get what we pay for.
Obama v. Huckabee, Let the Race Wars Begin
Although the primaries and caucuses don't add up to a specific number of votes which define the party choice, they do give us something fun to play with at this point.
Lets assume from those outcomes so far, that the Democrats pick Obama and the Republicans pick Huckabee (not because of votes, but because his competition are basically Democrats).
Race has been an increasingly noticeable aspect of these campaigns. If these two were to become the final choices of each respective party, Imagine the smackdown we'd be setup for. On one side of the ticket, you have a black man. On the other side of the ticket, you have "the man", the white symbol of the "old boys club", the oppressor. A politician of a southern state, the states that supposedly fought the Civil War with no purpose other than keeping slavery (according to liberals).
Now we have the makings of a good old fashioned race war. You know, the kind that Farrakhan and X and Sharpton have been looking forward to since the dawn of their peoples freedom in this country. If these were the names on the ticket, and Obama were not elected, imagine how "jilted" and hard done by blacks would be. Imagine the outrage among activists. Of course the average person would probably say "i shoulda known better", but the activists would be outraged and screaming for TV time to complain about yet another injustice imparted up on their people, the victims, by a white racist machine.
If a politically unexperienced person such as Obama were to receive the nomination and subsequent presidency, imagine the turmoil that would follow. Eventualy the office of presiden would come to a stop, similar to placing a 2nd grader in junior high and forcing the rest of the class to follow his learning curve. Either way, America looses with that particular ticket.
Lets assume from those outcomes so far, that the Democrats pick Obama and the Republicans pick Huckabee (not because of votes, but because his competition are basically Democrats).
Race has been an increasingly noticeable aspect of these campaigns. If these two were to become the final choices of each respective party, Imagine the smackdown we'd be setup for. On one side of the ticket, you have a black man. On the other side of the ticket, you have "the man", the white symbol of the "old boys club", the oppressor. A politician of a southern state, the states that supposedly fought the Civil War with no purpose other than keeping slavery (according to liberals).
Now we have the makings of a good old fashioned race war. You know, the kind that Farrakhan and X and Sharpton have been looking forward to since the dawn of their peoples freedom in this country. If these were the names on the ticket, and Obama were not elected, imagine how "jilted" and hard done by blacks would be. Imagine the outrage among activists. Of course the average person would probably say "i shoulda known better", but the activists would be outraged and screaming for TV time to complain about yet another injustice imparted up on their people, the victims, by a white racist machine.
If a politically unexperienced person such as Obama were to receive the nomination and subsequent presidency, imagine the turmoil that would follow. Eventualy the office of presiden would come to a stop, similar to placing a 2nd grader in junior high and forcing the rest of the class to follow his learning curve. Either way, America looses with that particular ticket.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Fearing The Woman President
So, I've heard a number of arguments against having a woman president. The most common one is related to sanity. Well, not directly sanity, but mood swings. "what if the russians make a bad move on the wrong day and she decides to nuke the world???".
Personally, I'd think that's some kind of exaggeration. I doubt a woman would let a bit of impatience allow her to forgo all reason and responsibility and initiate Armageddon.
Of course, I often expect the best from people, and find that a bad day goes much further than one would reasonably imagine. Then there are the people that bring up the woman that went crazy and killed her children or the woman that (supposedly) got mad and ran her husband over in the driveway with a steam roller.
I guess nuking the world would be possible if a person had gone crazy enough to kill their kids or flatten their husband. However, there are people constantly surrounding the president. If she started getting sketchy, I'm sure somebody would notice long before she started picking up the big red phone and telling people to bomb something.
I'm not myth busters, but it would seem that we're reasonably safe from a mood swing induced nuclear war. However, if Hillary in particular were to be President, I wouldn't be surprised if cheating husbands were given some pretty harsh treatment. Federal prisons for cheaters?
Personally, I'd think that's some kind of exaggeration. I doubt a woman would let a bit of impatience allow her to forgo all reason and responsibility and initiate Armageddon.
Of course, I often expect the best from people, and find that a bad day goes much further than one would reasonably imagine. Then there are the people that bring up the woman that went crazy and killed her children or the woman that (supposedly) got mad and ran her husband over in the driveway with a steam roller.
I guess nuking the world would be possible if a person had gone crazy enough to kill their kids or flatten their husband. However, there are people constantly surrounding the president. If she started getting sketchy, I'm sure somebody would notice long before she started picking up the big red phone and telling people to bomb something.
I'm not myth busters, but it would seem that we're reasonably safe from a mood swing induced nuclear war. However, if Hillary in particular were to be President, I wouldn't be surprised if cheating husbands were given some pretty harsh treatment. Federal prisons for cheaters?
Abortion 2008 and the Price of Tea in China
One of my personal pet-peeves in any.. well EVERY election is the topic of abortion.
The most significant fact of the matter is that it's used by both sides of the argument when neither side is honestly approaching the subject matter. In the end, this simply means that nothing but discourse will follow. The voters find a wedge driven between themselves and every other issue in play.
The politicians have to be doing this on purpose. Why else would they continue the historical argument when both sides know they are not talking about the same thing? It would seem it's a valuable tool in obfuscating the real issues. Is immigration, war, oil prices, or the housing market getting to uncomfortable? Well, let's get Americans fired up about an emotional argument that has no end and we won't have to talk about anything uncomfortable!
Wait, did I just insinuate that abortion is a comfortable topic for politicians? Compared to the other topics, it is comfortable in that it requires no answer. It just requires rhetoric. The other issues require "something" of substance that will later be held as a test of pass or fail.
The pro-life side of the argument is arguing when life begins. The pro-Choice side is arguing that women have a right to choose. Can anybody see why this argument goes nowhere?
The pro-life crowd for some reason thinks they will convince the pro-choice crowd that live begins at a specific point in time. They don't understand that the pro-choice side isn't listening, will not listen, and probably wouldn't care if they did. Yet the pro-life crowd still engages in an argument knowing this.
The pro-choice crowd for some reason thinks the pro-life crowd will cease to think that the life of a baby is important just because they have started talking about rights rather than talk about the baby that the pro-life people are referring to. Yet, they still engage in the argument.
The crux of the abortion argument should be out of Election politics until a couple bits of information can be determined.
1. When does life begin. - without this defined, nobody is going to be talking about the same subject.
2. What rights do people have and when is the appropriate time to exercise those rights. - When does the "womans right to choose" (as per bumper stickers littering berkeley, ca) interfere with the life of another? pro-life would say her right to choose happens when she chooses to engage in pregnancy causing activities w/o taking responsibility for the results of that particular biological process. pro-choice would say it happens at any point convenient. I'm not sure if this includes up to 18yrs or possibly after.
In short, the issue is a diversionary tactic used by both partys to polarize voters over an issue that has no political solution. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, the American people (even if it were a minority) would not allow Abortion to become illegal and revert to back alley practices.
I'm not suggesting that Abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting that it's a diversionary tactic used by politicians to get us antsy about something other than what we're hiring them for.
The most significant fact of the matter is that it's used by both sides of the argument when neither side is honestly approaching the subject matter. In the end, this simply means that nothing but discourse will follow. The voters find a wedge driven between themselves and every other issue in play.
The politicians have to be doing this on purpose. Why else would they continue the historical argument when both sides know they are not talking about the same thing? It would seem it's a valuable tool in obfuscating the real issues. Is immigration, war, oil prices, or the housing market getting to uncomfortable? Well, let's get Americans fired up about an emotional argument that has no end and we won't have to talk about anything uncomfortable!
Wait, did I just insinuate that abortion is a comfortable topic for politicians? Compared to the other topics, it is comfortable in that it requires no answer. It just requires rhetoric. The other issues require "something" of substance that will later be held as a test of pass or fail.
The pro-life side of the argument is arguing when life begins. The pro-Choice side is arguing that women have a right to choose. Can anybody see why this argument goes nowhere?
The pro-life crowd for some reason thinks they will convince the pro-choice crowd that live begins at a specific point in time. They don't understand that the pro-choice side isn't listening, will not listen, and probably wouldn't care if they did. Yet the pro-life crowd still engages in an argument knowing this.
The pro-choice crowd for some reason thinks the pro-life crowd will cease to think that the life of a baby is important just because they have started talking about rights rather than talk about the baby that the pro-life people are referring to. Yet, they still engage in the argument.
The crux of the abortion argument should be out of Election politics until a couple bits of information can be determined.
1. When does life begin. - without this defined, nobody is going to be talking about the same subject.
2. What rights do people have and when is the appropriate time to exercise those rights. - When does the "womans right to choose" (as per bumper stickers littering berkeley, ca) interfere with the life of another? pro-life would say her right to choose happens when she chooses to engage in pregnancy causing activities w/o taking responsibility for the results of that particular biological process. pro-choice would say it happens at any point convenient. I'm not sure if this includes up to 18yrs or possibly after.
In short, the issue is a diversionary tactic used by both partys to polarize voters over an issue that has no political solution. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, the American people (even if it were a minority) would not allow Abortion to become illegal and revert to back alley practices.
I'm not suggesting that Abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting that it's a diversionary tactic used by politicians to get us antsy about something other than what we're hiring them for.
You're a Racist if you don't support Obama
Why is it that many people treat you as if you are a racist if you don't support Obama for President?
The fact that I don't have a vested interest in the skin color of the president shouldn't make me a racist. Do I hate Arkansas if I'm not supporting Huckabee? Do I have something against actors if i didn't support Thompson? Do I hate women if I don't support Hillary?
I understand that many people of color have a vested interest in a black president being elected. I also understand that's skin color is going to be significantly more important to them. However, I take issue with being treated as a racist because my vote requires something a little deeper than skin.
Do I think Obama is the right man for the job? No, not just no, but **** no. His skin color has nothing to do with his socialist anti-American opinions. Regardless of his skin color, I don't want a man with his opinions as president.
White guilt won't buy my vote and it's racist for people to assume that skin color makes him a worthwhile candidate.
The fact that I don't have a vested interest in the skin color of the president shouldn't make me a racist. Do I hate Arkansas if I'm not supporting Huckabee? Do I have something against actors if i didn't support Thompson? Do I hate women if I don't support Hillary?
I understand that many people of color have a vested interest in a black president being elected. I also understand that's skin color is going to be significantly more important to them. However, I take issue with being treated as a racist because my vote requires something a little deeper than skin.
Do I think Obama is the right man for the job? No, not just no, but **** no. His skin color has nothing to do with his socialist anti-American opinions. Regardless of his skin color, I don't want a man with his opinions as president.
White guilt won't buy my vote and it's racist for people to assume that skin color makes him a worthwhile candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
