I spend hours each day cruising the political blogs and boards. And if there is one thing that stands out above all else, it is that most "everyday liberals" who slam conservatives do not seem to have a clue what conservatives stand for. And if someone tells them, they don't believe it. I suspect this comes from a certain amount of brainwashing from the liberal media that tries to twist what conservatives stand for. For example, many media outlets tell you that conservatives are opposed to stem cell research, which is completely untrue, and they know it. What conservatives oppose is not the research, but the taxpayer funding of that research, since the research is controversial and may violate religious tenets of some taxpayers, and since private funding is available. Conservatives also have a problem with investing taxpayer money into private concerns without the benefit of owning any stock in the venture, to share in the profits.
Hence, this post. For anyone who cares to uplift themselves a little bit by learning what conservatism stands for, here it is, in plain English. Love it, hate it, agree with it or oppose it, this is what 84% of all conservatives believe in. If you agree with more than 50% of these principles, you may be a conservative and not have known it. Are you a closet conservative?
1) English should be the official language. Government should offer stipends to immigrants for the purpose of learning English
2) The United States should only grant citizenship to those who want to embrace American values and culture.
3) Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union, in order to protect workers from intimidation.
4) Statements regarding religion and morality made by the Founding Fathers are just as important today as they were 200 years ago.
5) Public schools should teach more American history.
6) Conservatives want to increase the number of visas for highly-educated immigrants or those with special skills, the so-called H1B and H2B visas.
7) The American people believe border control is a security issue. Terrorists are trying to enter the United States illegally.
8) Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported after serving a prison term.
9) There should be a worker visa program making it easier for people to work legally in the United States, but not to include all the rights of a citizen.
10) A real time verification system should be established to verify immigration status and it should be outsourced to companies like American Express, Visa, or MasterCard so businesses can immediately identify whether or not someone has forged papers.
11) There should be heavy monetary fines against employers and businesses who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
12) We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. We support giving large financial prizes to companies and individuals who invent an affordable car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, invents new ways to successfully cut pollution and who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products.
13) We can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation.
14) We support giving tax credits to companies that cut carbon emissions as an incentive to cut pollution.
15) We should give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
16) We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions.
17) We are prepared to use public funds to preserve green space and parks to protect natural areas from development but especially with public and private partnerships.
18) We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity.
19) To combat the rising cost of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, we support the United States using more of its own domestic energy resources, including the oil and coal it already has here in the U.S.
20) Our current dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and our economic state by making us vulnerable to dangerous dictatorships.
21) We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible.
22) The federal income tax system is unfair and a fair tax introduced.
23) The death tax should be abolished. Taxes have already been paid on those assets.
24) We favor tax incentives for companies who keep their headquarters in the United States.
25) The option of a single rate fair tax system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper.
26) The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world making it difficult for U.S. corporations to compete internationally which gives incentives for companies to move overseas. To make America a more attractive place for businesses that provide good paying jobs, we favor a single 17% tax rate for corporations, with no loopholes.
27) The current Social Security systems is broken and, if it isn’t reformed, future generations will no longer have it as a safety net for retirement.
28) We favor a Social Security proposal in which, when a worker retires, he or she would use the money in the account to buy an annuity, which is a type of financial benefit that will give monthly payments for the rest of the worker’s life. The annuity will pay at least the same amount as traditional Social Security would. The purpose is to make the funds inheritable to family members.
29) Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important.
30) Separation between Church and State does not mean there can be no references to God in government sanctioned activities or public buildings.
31) The best way to ensure religious freedom is to protect ALL religious references and symbols; including those on public buildings, lands, or documents.
32) We support the right of high schools students saying thanks to God in a graduation speech, under both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
33) We must help defend America and her allies.
34) We have to be prepared to survive an attack by a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon.
35) Terrorism poses a very serious threat for the United States.
36) America should take the threat of terror by fanatical religious groups more seriously.
37) Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States.
38) Terrorist websites at home and abroad should be closed down using computer warfare.
39) We believe it is wrong to use taxpayer money to fund controversial things, as doing so could violate a citizen's right to honor the tenets of his or her religion. This includes paying for abortion, stem cell research etc. If private sources wish to fund such things, that is not a problem.
40) We strongly oppose partial birth abortion.
41) Abortion laws or regulations is a state's rights issue, and each state should determine what is best for themselves. The government should only declare that abortion shall be legal if the life of the mother is seriously at risk. Any additional requirements, regulations or allowances should be up to the individual states, as dictated by the United States Constitution.
42) We believe the people can manage their money more efficiently and with less waste than the government. Government should be smaller, and assist people to achieve goals rather than get in the way, or compete with them.
43) We believe all adult couples, regardless of gender, should have the right to enter into a legal union and be entitled to all state and federal rights of married couples. However, we hold that marriage shall be defined, as it always has been, as a union between one man and one woman.
Now, very few people will agree 100% with these principles. But polls indicate that 62% of all Americans favor the vast majority of these, and 84% favor more than half. Any person who favors more than half of these principles should accept the fact that they may be far more conservative than they have been led to believe by disingenuous media.
Think about it. Now that you know who we are, do you still hate us? If your answer is yes, then you hate more than half the people in America - including members of your own family, and friends.
/
Friday, January 30, 2009
Backward Thinking
It is always amzing to realize that so many people, particularly liberals, do not understand how money works, so they want to tax the rich even more. But before going into the actual "how to" of money, perhaps it is time to explain WHY so many people have the wrong idea.
Liberals exist to create bigger government, and a nanny state. Their objective is to take all the wealth they can via taxes, and use it to create a more socialistic nation, where there are no poor (or rich). In order to accomplish this, they have to get voted into office, so they do two things:
1) They try to keep the poor from being anything but poor. They accomplish this with entitlements like welfare, and get the poor hooked on it. They NEED it. It becomes a drug - I know, as I was once addicted to it. And the Democrat politicians are the drug dealers. If the poor stay poor, they must vote Democrat in order to keep their "fix" of welfare coming. They dare not bite the hand that provides the welfare they depend upon.
2) Liberals must also convince the masses that the economy runs backward, that "trickle-down economics" is wrong. By convincing people of this, they create a class warfare in which the greatest number of people (the NOT rich) will gang up on the smallest number (the RICH). Ever play "King Of The Mountain" as a kid? All the kids at the bottom try to take down the ONE at the top. Not because he is bad, but because THEY want to be at the top. Human nature, and that is good - the strongest is supposed to be the leader. But the liberals play on that to get their agenda through. They make the guy at the top a "bad guy", deserving of being tumbled, because no one should be on top. There should be no rich - all that money should go to the poor. They say no one should be "King of the Mountain". But think about that - if no one is "King of the Mountain", the game is over! Imagine a country with no leader. An army with no general. A family with no parent.
Now, when Democrat politicians say they want to tax the rich and give it to the poor, it is the same as buying votes.
But here is the truth.
Wealth is not created by the poor. Wealth is created by the rich, and the poor benefit from it in the way of jobs, products and services.
Rich Guy invests in innovative ideas, and a business is born. Rich guy took all the risks. The business must hire employees (jobs) to produce products and/or services. Consumers buy those products and services, infusing money back into the businesses so they can grow, and hire more people, and produce more products.
A recession occurs when the money from investors dries up, and fewer products and services can be produced, resulting in the need for fewer employees (layoffs). Only a fool would believe this is done intentionally by the rich, to "punish" the poor. Why would any business go out of business just to punish the poor? It happens because the money the rich would invest is taxed too high, and they do not have enough to invest. And it happens when government gets too big, and interferes in the private sector, or competes with it. This occurs when liberals take congress.
So, here it is in a nutshell:
Businesses and investors (the RICH) are the Golden Goose that lays Golden Eggs (jobs, products, services). If you want more golden eggs, you feed the goose well. If you want fewer eggs, you starve the goose. It is not rocket science.
Higher taxes only serve to starve the goose. If you take away the hard-earned money of the rich, they cannot invest in businesses., Businesses cannot hire, or expand or they are forced to go to other countries. The economy tanks.
Get it? Trickle-Down Economics is the ONLY system that works. After all, when was the last time the poor people created wealth? When was the last time you got a job from a poor person? If there are no rich, who will invest in businesses? Who will pay our salaries? Liberals want the government to do that - socialism. Conservatives want the true leaders to do it - democracy. Liberals want no one but government on top of the mountain, and all the people subservient to it. Conservatives want the strongest, smartest leaders as King of the Mountain, and all the people working together to make sure our leaders ARE the best, by challenging them - not destroying them.
Face ONE indisputable fact: short of doing something illegal there are only TWO ways you can put money in your pocket.
1) You can create a business and have consumers pay you, or
2) You can work for someone who has created such a business
In either case, the money you earn, in one way or another, comes from business. It comes from the wealthy. After all, no one else can afford to pay you. If you wait to get a salary from a poor person, you will starve.
/
Liberals exist to create bigger government, and a nanny state. Their objective is to take all the wealth they can via taxes, and use it to create a more socialistic nation, where there are no poor (or rich). In order to accomplish this, they have to get voted into office, so they do two things:
1) They try to keep the poor from being anything but poor. They accomplish this with entitlements like welfare, and get the poor hooked on it. They NEED it. It becomes a drug - I know, as I was once addicted to it. And the Democrat politicians are the drug dealers. If the poor stay poor, they must vote Democrat in order to keep their "fix" of welfare coming. They dare not bite the hand that provides the welfare they depend upon.
2) Liberals must also convince the masses that the economy runs backward, that "trickle-down economics" is wrong. By convincing people of this, they create a class warfare in which the greatest number of people (the NOT rich) will gang up on the smallest number (the RICH). Ever play "King Of The Mountain" as a kid? All the kids at the bottom try to take down the ONE at the top. Not because he is bad, but because THEY want to be at the top. Human nature, and that is good - the strongest is supposed to be the leader. But the liberals play on that to get their agenda through. They make the guy at the top a "bad guy", deserving of being tumbled, because no one should be on top. There should be no rich - all that money should go to the poor. They say no one should be "King of the Mountain". But think about that - if no one is "King of the Mountain", the game is over! Imagine a country with no leader. An army with no general. A family with no parent.
Now, when Democrat politicians say they want to tax the rich and give it to the poor, it is the same as buying votes.
But here is the truth.
Wealth is not created by the poor. Wealth is created by the rich, and the poor benefit from it in the way of jobs, products and services.
Rich Guy invests in innovative ideas, and a business is born. Rich guy took all the risks. The business must hire employees (jobs) to produce products and/or services. Consumers buy those products and services, infusing money back into the businesses so they can grow, and hire more people, and produce more products.
A recession occurs when the money from investors dries up, and fewer products and services can be produced, resulting in the need for fewer employees (layoffs). Only a fool would believe this is done intentionally by the rich, to "punish" the poor. Why would any business go out of business just to punish the poor? It happens because the money the rich would invest is taxed too high, and they do not have enough to invest. And it happens when government gets too big, and interferes in the private sector, or competes with it. This occurs when liberals take congress.
So, here it is in a nutshell:
Businesses and investors (the RICH) are the Golden Goose that lays Golden Eggs (jobs, products, services). If you want more golden eggs, you feed the goose well. If you want fewer eggs, you starve the goose. It is not rocket science.
Higher taxes only serve to starve the goose. If you take away the hard-earned money of the rich, they cannot invest in businesses., Businesses cannot hire, or expand or they are forced to go to other countries. The economy tanks.
Get it? Trickle-Down Economics is the ONLY system that works. After all, when was the last time the poor people created wealth? When was the last time you got a job from a poor person? If there are no rich, who will invest in businesses? Who will pay our salaries? Liberals want the government to do that - socialism. Conservatives want the true leaders to do it - democracy. Liberals want no one but government on top of the mountain, and all the people subservient to it. Conservatives want the strongest, smartest leaders as King of the Mountain, and all the people working together to make sure our leaders ARE the best, by challenging them - not destroying them.
Face ONE indisputable fact: short of doing something illegal there are only TWO ways you can put money in your pocket.
1) You can create a business and have consumers pay you, or
2) You can work for someone who has created such a business
In either case, the money you earn, in one way or another, comes from business. It comes from the wealthy. After all, no one else can afford to pay you. If you wait to get a salary from a poor person, you will starve.
/
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
An Idea
Much of the problems we face in America today are the direct result of a serious disconnect with the political elite and the everyday folks. Politicians think with their fat wallets. The folks think with the holes in their pockets.
When a politician has an "evening out", it is likely to include a dinner at a $100 a meal restaurant, followed by a Broadway play or a Penthouse party featuring champagne and caviar. When "the folks" have an evening out, it is more likely to consist of dinner at Pizza Hut and either a movie at the local cinema or a house party featuring beer and chips.
So, when a politician writes a bill, or votes for it, he is looking at the issue from a completely different viewpoint than the folks.
Ergo, I have an idea how we might be able to help reconnect the politicians with the folks. Every state or federal politician should be required by law to spend two consecutive weeks each year living with a family of everyday folks with holes in their pockets. Much like the Foreign Exchange Student program. The politician would be required to eat what they eat, go where they go, and do what they do. He must become part of the family for two glorious weeks of reality. I'm not talking families in abject poverty - just normal, everyday lower-middle class families. Preferably with teenagers.
I believe this may provide an important new perspective to our leaders.
/
When a politician has an "evening out", it is likely to include a dinner at a $100 a meal restaurant, followed by a Broadway play or a Penthouse party featuring champagne and caviar. When "the folks" have an evening out, it is more likely to consist of dinner at Pizza Hut and either a movie at the local cinema or a house party featuring beer and chips.
So, when a politician writes a bill, or votes for it, he is looking at the issue from a completely different viewpoint than the folks.
Ergo, I have an idea how we might be able to help reconnect the politicians with the folks. Every state or federal politician should be required by law to spend two consecutive weeks each year living with a family of everyday folks with holes in their pockets. Much like the Foreign Exchange Student program. The politician would be required to eat what they eat, go where they go, and do what they do. He must become part of the family for two glorious weeks of reality. I'm not talking families in abject poverty - just normal, everyday lower-middle class families. Preferably with teenagers.
I believe this may provide an important new perspective to our leaders.
/
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Lost His Mind
Obama gave his first TV interview - on a muslim station. In the interview he stated that President Bush had been wrong, and Obama wanted to have a "do-over" and the "friendly" relationship we had with them 20-30 years ago.
Our president, and the liberals that support this action have lost their minds!
Let's start with the fantasy world Obama THINKS existed 20-30 years ago. Twenty years ago it was the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger on 19 September, the execution of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel William R. Higgins on July 31. And just one year earlier, in 1988, 193 attacks were directed against the United States (see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_89/review.html).
Thirty years ago, when Carter, another pansy president of appeasement sat in the Oval office for a year while terrorists held and mistreated 52 American in Iran until a new president, Reagan, effected their release. Reagan had said as President he would take the hostages back even if he had to destrot Tehran. On the day he was inaugurated, the terrorists suddenly freed the hostages. Get it?
And even ten years before that, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine blew up a Swiss airliner just after it has taken off from Zurich, Switzerland, killing all forty seven people on board, and on September 6, "Skyjack Sunday" takes places at Dawson Field, in Jordan. TWA, Swissair, BOAC aircraft, along with more than four hundred hostages, were hijacked and ordered to the Jordanian airport by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another terrorist team tried to hijack an El Al Boeing over London but security staff foiled the attempt and captured one of the hijackers, Leila Khalid, alive. The German, Swiss and British Governments all agreed to the PFLP's demands and released a number of terrorists, including Khalid, held in their jails. Just two of roughly 20 terrorist acts that year.
So, just what "relationship of mutual respect and friendship" was Obama referring to?
And every SANE person understands that a sitting president should never, ever denigrate the actions of the previous president and say he was wrong. Even if you do not agree with the previous president, you avoid knocking him in public, as it shows a sign of weakness on the American people. It sends the message, "We don't know what we're doing; we can't make up our minds. Maybe next time we'll elect a person who wants to enslave you. Who knows? With us, you roll the dice and take your chances."
No, you do NOT admit that a previous president was wrong. You simply say, "Here is the direction we will be taking going forward."
The liberals just do not get it. They do not have a clue what is really going on, even though the terrorists actually TOLD them what is going on. But it seems they refuse to believe it.
The terrorists sent us a memo, many times. The memo says, "We have only one goal, one purpose: to force the world to accept Allah as their God. Anyone who will not worship Allah must die. There are no other choices. There is nothing else we want. There is nothing to negotiate. All infidels such as Jews and Christians must convert or die. Period."
Liberals do not recognize that this is not an ordinary war - to the terrorists, it is a religious war. In a religious war, you can neither negotiate nor reason with the enemy, because you have nothing they want except your allegiance to their God.
You can be mean. You can be nice. You can pay them. You can help them when a tsunami hits. But no matter what you do, it will not change their desire to destroy you. It will not change their minds because to them, this is what their God requires. We are the Devil, and the Devil must be destroyed. Period. End of discussion.
When the enemy fights for his own agenda, he can be negotiated with. But when the enemy fights for his God's agenda, he cannot be negotiated with - he must do as his God wishes or suffer the wrath of his God. What would YOU do if this was your belief?
Wake up, liberals. The muslim terror organizations have been attacking us for generations. They have never liked us; never accepted us. We are decadent infidels that should be destroyed. And they will destroy us, unless we destroy them first, because those are the only choices in a war where zealots are the aggressor.
I wish the liberal idea that these people can be reasoned with were true. But it is not. You cannot reason with madmen or religious zealots. If they were capable of being reasoned with, they would not be actively and intentionally killing women, children, and even their own people in countries world-wide.
Look around, liberals. We were really nice to muslim nations in the 50's, 60's and '70's. And still they attacked us and others around the globe, as they always have. Look around - they do not just attack us - they have attacked nearly every country in the world, including Switzerland and even muslim countries. So exactly how do you equate that with Bush's policies? Do you really think they bombed Bali because of America? And if it was just Bush's policies that they are rebelling against, please explain their attacks on us during Clinton's term, Reagan's term, Carter's term, Nixon's term, Kennedy's term.......
Liberals do not learn from history because they are too busy rewriting it to suit their fantasy. On the very day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America and Japan were in peace negotiations in Washington. And from 1938-1941, liberals wasted precious time, treasure and the blood of other nations trying to appease Hitler. And even as recently as a couple of months ago, while Israel was honoring their "truce" with Hamas, Hamas was firing rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill innocent civilians.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH, NOR APPEASE TERRORISTS.
Period!
Wake up, before it's too late - if it isn't already. In Obama's interview of appeasement, he did untold harm to this nation, and he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
No matter which political side you are on, you should seriously review and consider all of the following:
In Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope", he states, "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans … have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging,” he laments. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He says if push comes to shove, he will stand with the muslims. Apparently stand against non-muslim Americans. His own words. Now add the following, his first acts as president:
1) Orders closing of GITMO where terrorists are held
2) Orders that no harsh interrogations of terrorists shall be permitted
3) His first interview is with muslims, and is appeasement and capitulation
4) Orders that racial profiling - even for terrorists - is no longer allowed
5) Sends $460 million dollars of Americans money, at a time when we are hurting, to other countries - primarily muslim - to help in their abortion clinics
My first question might be something like, "Mr. President, when are you going to make an order that protects ME? Do I have to ba a muslim terrorist to get your nod?"
But the denial and ignorance of liberals is impossible to overcome because their minds are closed. Here is one of dozens of similar posts found on AOL just today:
SHEBAMSB 01:09 PMJan 27 2009 BonnieU2 He said in one of his books: "If push comes to shove, I will fall on the side of the Muslims"==========LIAR LIAR LIAR He never said that in his book.Lmort .......Yes he did......."Audacity of hope...................Read it idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..if you voted for him you should have read his book..............Your Messiah========I DID YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT.__________________Liar! :If the winds should shift, I will side with the Muslims.....Exact words out of the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You Nobama fans really believe your own lies, don't you! You can not change what he wrote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO, GO READ THE BOOK FOR REAL...what are you scared you made a mistake!
Here is a person who is an Obama supporter, but knows nothing about him. When confronted with the facts - quotes from Obama's own book - the person refuses to believe it. Won't even go check for herself. She does not WANT to believe it. So, it just does not exist - "Close my eyes and it disappears."
The sad thing is that the only news programs that make these things known are the programs on Fox News. Had she watched that kind of news that shows BOTH sides, she would have known of this, and made up her mind based on actual facts and not just liberal hype. CNN, MSNBC, NBS, ABC, CBS - none of them told people about this quote.
I have but ONE wish - that anyone who chooses to vote should first get FULLY informed, and not simply settle for what one side tells them. There are two sides to everything - if you do not want to bother to learn both sides, then you will get crappy government, because your vote would be based on ignorance rather than reality.
According to recent polls, most liberals do not know Obama said that. And most liberals did not know he said he would destroy the coal industry and drive energy prices skyward. They do not know that he voted against the sanctity of marriage act. They do not know that he is only 12.5% black. They do not know that he never actually produced a certified birth certificate, as required. They do not know that he was taped at an interview saying, "My Muslim faith...". They do not know a LOT of things they should have at least checked before voting. Then if they still vote for him, fine. But if a person is not informed, they should not get anywhere near a voting booth.
I am afraid to ask what is next...
/
Our president, and the liberals that support this action have lost their minds!
Let's start with the fantasy world Obama THINKS existed 20-30 years ago. Twenty years ago it was the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger on 19 September, the execution of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel William R. Higgins on July 31. And just one year earlier, in 1988, 193 attacks were directed against the United States (see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_89/review.html).
Thirty years ago, when Carter, another pansy president of appeasement sat in the Oval office for a year while terrorists held and mistreated 52 American in Iran until a new president, Reagan, effected their release. Reagan had said as President he would take the hostages back even if he had to destrot Tehran. On the day he was inaugurated, the terrorists suddenly freed the hostages. Get it?
And even ten years before that, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine blew up a Swiss airliner just after it has taken off from Zurich, Switzerland, killing all forty seven people on board, and on September 6, "Skyjack Sunday" takes places at Dawson Field, in Jordan. TWA, Swissair, BOAC aircraft, along with more than four hundred hostages, were hijacked and ordered to the Jordanian airport by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another terrorist team tried to hijack an El Al Boeing over London but security staff foiled the attempt and captured one of the hijackers, Leila Khalid, alive. The German, Swiss and British Governments all agreed to the PFLP's demands and released a number of terrorists, including Khalid, held in their jails. Just two of roughly 20 terrorist acts that year.
So, just what "relationship of mutual respect and friendship" was Obama referring to?
And every SANE person understands that a sitting president should never, ever denigrate the actions of the previous president and say he was wrong. Even if you do not agree with the previous president, you avoid knocking him in public, as it shows a sign of weakness on the American people. It sends the message, "We don't know what we're doing; we can't make up our minds. Maybe next time we'll elect a person who wants to enslave you. Who knows? With us, you roll the dice and take your chances."
No, you do NOT admit that a previous president was wrong. You simply say, "Here is the direction we will be taking going forward."
The liberals just do not get it. They do not have a clue what is really going on, even though the terrorists actually TOLD them what is going on. But it seems they refuse to believe it.
The terrorists sent us a memo, many times. The memo says, "We have only one goal, one purpose: to force the world to accept Allah as their God. Anyone who will not worship Allah must die. There are no other choices. There is nothing else we want. There is nothing to negotiate. All infidels such as Jews and Christians must convert or die. Period."
Liberals do not recognize that this is not an ordinary war - to the terrorists, it is a religious war. In a religious war, you can neither negotiate nor reason with the enemy, because you have nothing they want except your allegiance to their God.
You can be mean. You can be nice. You can pay them. You can help them when a tsunami hits. But no matter what you do, it will not change their desire to destroy you. It will not change their minds because to them, this is what their God requires. We are the Devil, and the Devil must be destroyed. Period. End of discussion.
When the enemy fights for his own agenda, he can be negotiated with. But when the enemy fights for his God's agenda, he cannot be negotiated with - he must do as his God wishes or suffer the wrath of his God. What would YOU do if this was your belief?
Wake up, liberals. The muslim terror organizations have been attacking us for generations. They have never liked us; never accepted us. We are decadent infidels that should be destroyed. And they will destroy us, unless we destroy them first, because those are the only choices in a war where zealots are the aggressor.
I wish the liberal idea that these people can be reasoned with were true. But it is not. You cannot reason with madmen or religious zealots. If they were capable of being reasoned with, they would not be actively and intentionally killing women, children, and even their own people in countries world-wide.
Look around, liberals. We were really nice to muslim nations in the 50's, 60's and '70's. And still they attacked us and others around the globe, as they always have. Look around - they do not just attack us - they have attacked nearly every country in the world, including Switzerland and even muslim countries. So exactly how do you equate that with Bush's policies? Do you really think they bombed Bali because of America? And if it was just Bush's policies that they are rebelling against, please explain their attacks on us during Clinton's term, Reagan's term, Carter's term, Nixon's term, Kennedy's term.......
Liberals do not learn from history because they are too busy rewriting it to suit their fantasy. On the very day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America and Japan were in peace negotiations in Washington. And from 1938-1941, liberals wasted precious time, treasure and the blood of other nations trying to appease Hitler. And even as recently as a couple of months ago, while Israel was honoring their "truce" with Hamas, Hamas was firing rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill innocent civilians.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH, NOR APPEASE TERRORISTS.
Period!
Wake up, before it's too late - if it isn't already. In Obama's interview of appeasement, he did untold harm to this nation, and he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
No matter which political side you are on, you should seriously review and consider all of the following:
In Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope", he states, "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans … have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging,” he laments. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He says if push comes to shove, he will stand with the muslims. Apparently stand against non-muslim Americans. His own words. Now add the following, his first acts as president:
1) Orders closing of GITMO where terrorists are held
2) Orders that no harsh interrogations of terrorists shall be permitted
3) His first interview is with muslims, and is appeasement and capitulation
4) Orders that racial profiling - even for terrorists - is no longer allowed
5) Sends $460 million dollars of Americans money, at a time when we are hurting, to other countries - primarily muslim - to help in their abortion clinics
My first question might be something like, "Mr. President, when are you going to make an order that protects ME? Do I have to ba a muslim terrorist to get your nod?"
But the denial and ignorance of liberals is impossible to overcome because their minds are closed. Here is one of dozens of similar posts found on AOL just today:
SHEBAMSB 01:09 PMJan 27 2009 BonnieU2 He said in one of his books: "If push comes to shove, I will fall on the side of the Muslims"==========LIAR LIAR LIAR He never said that in his book.Lmort .......Yes he did......."Audacity of hope...................Read it idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..if you voted for him you should have read his book..............Your Messiah========I DID YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT.__________________Liar! :If the winds should shift, I will side with the Muslims.....Exact words out of the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You Nobama fans really believe your own lies, don't you! You can not change what he wrote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO, GO READ THE BOOK FOR REAL...what are you scared you made a mistake!
Here is a person who is an Obama supporter, but knows nothing about him. When confronted with the facts - quotes from Obama's own book - the person refuses to believe it. Won't even go check for herself. She does not WANT to believe it. So, it just does not exist - "Close my eyes and it disappears."
The sad thing is that the only news programs that make these things known are the programs on Fox News. Had she watched that kind of news that shows BOTH sides, she would have known of this, and made up her mind based on actual facts and not just liberal hype. CNN, MSNBC, NBS, ABC, CBS - none of them told people about this quote.
I have but ONE wish - that anyone who chooses to vote should first get FULLY informed, and not simply settle for what one side tells them. There are two sides to everything - if you do not want to bother to learn both sides, then you will get crappy government, because your vote would be based on ignorance rather than reality.
According to recent polls, most liberals do not know Obama said that. And most liberals did not know he said he would destroy the coal industry and drive energy prices skyward. They do not know that he voted against the sanctity of marriage act. They do not know that he is only 12.5% black. They do not know that he never actually produced a certified birth certificate, as required. They do not know that he was taped at an interview saying, "My Muslim faith...". They do not know a LOT of things they should have at least checked before voting. Then if they still vote for him, fine. But if a person is not informed, they should not get anywhere near a voting booth.
I am afraid to ask what is next...
/
Monday, January 26, 2009
More Hijinx
Barney Frank, in charge of the finance committee, grabbed off $12,000,000 to give to a shaky bank in his district - a bank that is likely to fail. Not to mention that the head of the bank owns million dollar properties on California beaches.
Meanwhile businesses and banks that deserve the funds are not getting any. It looks like the finance committe has turned the bailout bill into the Friends of Barney Frank Project.
Don't be fooled - Barney Frank fought hard against Republican efforts in 2004 to regulate the financial industry. And he received a sweetheart mortgage from the banks, and Fannie Mae contributed very heavily to his campaigns. And he is the chair of the finance committee. Give me a break!
I swear, the Democrats have apparently never heard of the term "conflict of interest". And they pay no mind to corruption.
Chief of the finance committee gives millions to his favorite little bank.
Treasury Secretary cheats on his taxes.
Attorney General nominee who defended terrorists and FREED terrorists that were convicted.
His best pick, Hillary for SOS, is married to a man who takes millions from foreign powers, especially foreign muslim powers and China. Talk about a conflict of interest!
And get this - Obama has signed an order to provide $460 million dollars to foreign countries for abortion clinics. OKAY, don't jump on me about abortion - that is not what I am complaining about. Stop. Think. AMERICA IS BROKE! WHY are we picking up a half billion dollar tab for services other countries should be picking up the tab for? Is it legitimate for you and I to pay for abortions in other countries when we can't even pay our own bills?
What's next - will we be asked to pay for sending kids in Zimbabwe to college? Or maybe we should pick up the tab to remodel the capitol of the Ukraine. The point is this - we cannot afford this. And even if we could, it is not right to take money from Americans and redistribute it even here in America, let alone in other countries - some of which want to destroy us!
If Obama's "plan" to fix the economy includes sending all our money overseas to pay the expenses of other countries, I strongly suspect our economy is not going to get better any time soon.
I think we are in for a rough ride, folks!
/
Meanwhile businesses and banks that deserve the funds are not getting any. It looks like the finance committe has turned the bailout bill into the Friends of Barney Frank Project.
Don't be fooled - Barney Frank fought hard against Republican efforts in 2004 to regulate the financial industry. And he received a sweetheart mortgage from the banks, and Fannie Mae contributed very heavily to his campaigns. And he is the chair of the finance committee. Give me a break!
I swear, the Democrats have apparently never heard of the term "conflict of interest". And they pay no mind to corruption.
Chief of the finance committee gives millions to his favorite little bank.
Treasury Secretary cheats on his taxes.
Attorney General nominee who defended terrorists and FREED terrorists that were convicted.
His best pick, Hillary for SOS, is married to a man who takes millions from foreign powers, especially foreign muslim powers and China. Talk about a conflict of interest!
And get this - Obama has signed an order to provide $460 million dollars to foreign countries for abortion clinics. OKAY, don't jump on me about abortion - that is not what I am complaining about. Stop. Think. AMERICA IS BROKE! WHY are we picking up a half billion dollar tab for services other countries should be picking up the tab for? Is it legitimate for you and I to pay for abortions in other countries when we can't even pay our own bills?
What's next - will we be asked to pay for sending kids in Zimbabwe to college? Or maybe we should pick up the tab to remodel the capitol of the Ukraine. The point is this - we cannot afford this. And even if we could, it is not right to take money from Americans and redistribute it even here in America, let alone in other countries - some of which want to destroy us!
If Obama's "plan" to fix the economy includes sending all our money overseas to pay the expenses of other countries, I strongly suspect our economy is not going to get better any time soon.
I think we are in for a rough ride, folks!
/
"Work Spouses"
This really takes the cake. And it is not a joke - this is real.
It seems that certain elitist liberals have come up with a new term for adultery that makes it acceptable in their eyes. Called "work spouses", the concept is simple: a person who spends a lot of time working and away from his or her spouse each day is entitled to build a relationship with another "spouse" at work, so he or she need not be without a love object close by. This makes him or her a more fulfilled and happier person. DUH!
The liberals seem to think that the mere fact that they have renamed adultery makes it all better - it is not really adultery because it is not called adultery. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable because each is a "legitimate" spouse, albeit serving separate functions - to assuage the ego and remove guilt.
Let's be clear here. It is an established fact that liberals seek to remove any stigma, any guilt, from any action. They do not want to be forced to take responsibility for anything unpleasant. It is liberals who created "political correctness", and the new language that does not permit us to call a spade a spade. A fat person is "weight challenged". Bull! Does anyone really think that a fat person does not know you are calling them fat when you say they are weight challenged? Of course they do! So the only purpose of political correctness is to allow liberals to get a guilt-free ride. They don't have to feel bad about calling anyone fat, because they did not use that particular word.
What crap.
Illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers", even though many are not workers at all, but gang members. Cripples became disabled, and when that word got so overused as to mean "cripple", the liberals changed it to "physically challenged." Once that term gets to mean cripple, I wonder what pretty phrase they will choose next.
Now, cheating on your spouse with your secretary, which is a bad thing, is now simply a case of having a "work spouse", which they deem acceptable. Why not just become a Mormon fundamentalist and be done with it?
You cannot call a homosexual a homosexual - they are now "gay", and that makes it more acceptable because it does not straight out say that it is man-on-man, as the word homosexual does.
Your garbage man is a "sanitation engineer". However, I do not know of anything that a garbage man does that involves engineering, other than engineering a way to keep his pants above his butt-crack.
The liberal agenda is public knowledge - abortion on demand, euthanasia, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize all gambling, gay marriage, remove religion from public view or discourse, tear up the Constitution in favor of a "one world" view, making us all subject to what the rest of the world decides.
In short, "if it feels good, do it, and feel no guilt over it. If it is a bad thing, we'll cover it up, or rename it."
But why this particular push for making "work spouses" acceptable? Two things: one is the obvious - they want to cheat, free of guilt. But there is a more ominous purpose. Liberals want an "open, anything goes" society. To that end, they are pushing gay marriage - not because they love gays so much, but because they want to destroy the confines of the term "marriage". If marriage is opened to gays, it is a short step to opening it for multiple spouses, or even under age spouses (which liberals also support actively - they support the Man-Boy Love Association, and liberal judges set child molesters free).
The ideal "anything goes" world that liberals seek cannot become reality if morality stands in the way. Marriage. Fidelity. Honesty. Integrity. Respect. Civility. Shunning temptation. The 10 Commandments. Such things must be destroyed, completely. In fact, anything that provides any sense of guilt whatever must be removed.
"Anything Goes!" I believe that was the motto of Sodom & Gomorrah.
/
It seems that certain elitist liberals have come up with a new term for adultery that makes it acceptable in their eyes. Called "work spouses", the concept is simple: a person who spends a lot of time working and away from his or her spouse each day is entitled to build a relationship with another "spouse" at work, so he or she need not be without a love object close by. This makes him or her a more fulfilled and happier person. DUH!
The liberals seem to think that the mere fact that they have renamed adultery makes it all better - it is not really adultery because it is not called adultery. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable because each is a "legitimate" spouse, albeit serving separate functions - to assuage the ego and remove guilt.
Let's be clear here. It is an established fact that liberals seek to remove any stigma, any guilt, from any action. They do not want to be forced to take responsibility for anything unpleasant. It is liberals who created "political correctness", and the new language that does not permit us to call a spade a spade. A fat person is "weight challenged". Bull! Does anyone really think that a fat person does not know you are calling them fat when you say they are weight challenged? Of course they do! So the only purpose of political correctness is to allow liberals to get a guilt-free ride. They don't have to feel bad about calling anyone fat, because they did not use that particular word.
What crap.
Illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers", even though many are not workers at all, but gang members. Cripples became disabled, and when that word got so overused as to mean "cripple", the liberals changed it to "physically challenged." Once that term gets to mean cripple, I wonder what pretty phrase they will choose next.
Now, cheating on your spouse with your secretary, which is a bad thing, is now simply a case of having a "work spouse", which they deem acceptable. Why not just become a Mormon fundamentalist and be done with it?
You cannot call a homosexual a homosexual - they are now "gay", and that makes it more acceptable because it does not straight out say that it is man-on-man, as the word homosexual does.
Your garbage man is a "sanitation engineer". However, I do not know of anything that a garbage man does that involves engineering, other than engineering a way to keep his pants above his butt-crack.
The liberal agenda is public knowledge - abortion on demand, euthanasia, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize all gambling, gay marriage, remove religion from public view or discourse, tear up the Constitution in favor of a "one world" view, making us all subject to what the rest of the world decides.
In short, "if it feels good, do it, and feel no guilt over it. If it is a bad thing, we'll cover it up, or rename it."
But why this particular push for making "work spouses" acceptable? Two things: one is the obvious - they want to cheat, free of guilt. But there is a more ominous purpose. Liberals want an "open, anything goes" society. To that end, they are pushing gay marriage - not because they love gays so much, but because they want to destroy the confines of the term "marriage". If marriage is opened to gays, it is a short step to opening it for multiple spouses, or even under age spouses (which liberals also support actively - they support the Man-Boy Love Association, and liberal judges set child molesters free).
The ideal "anything goes" world that liberals seek cannot become reality if morality stands in the way. Marriage. Fidelity. Honesty. Integrity. Respect. Civility. Shunning temptation. The 10 Commandments. Such things must be destroyed, completely. In fact, anything that provides any sense of guilt whatever must be removed.
"Anything Goes!" I believe that was the motto of Sodom & Gomorrah.
/
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Polls
Too many people put stock in polls. Big mistake! Polls are worthless.
In college I hosted a poll on alcoholics. I stationed a pollster in front of a church one Sunday. His poll results showed 0% of Americans were alcoholics. I then positioned him in front of Carlene's Bar on a Saturday night. The results showed that 92% of all Americans are alcoholics.
That is one way to manipulate polls. But by far the most prevalent, used by most pollsters, is the phrasing of the questions - how an issue is presented. They take advantage of the fact that most Americans have neither the time nor inclination to delve deeply into issues.
Case in point: 1200 students were asked, "Would you like to see college education to be free?" Of course, 97% said "Yes." Why not? Considering the question.
Then they were asked, "If your parents had to pay much higher taxes in order to give every child a free college education, would you be in favor?"
This time, though it is the same issue, only 56% said "Yes."
Of that 56%, another question, "If a free college education for every child costs your parents higher taxes AND results in 5 times more graduates competing against you for the same good jobs, do you favor free college for all?"
The number of those in favor of free college dropped to just 12%
Many pollsters - particularly those from the more liberal media - intentionally word their poll questions in such manner as to get the results they are looking for.
The next time you hear a poll, look at the questions carefully. Ask yourself if they reflect the ENTIRE issue, or just a generalized part of it. Play the Devil's advocate - if you would answer "no" to a question, for example, how would you have reworded the question to get a different response? You will soon see exactly the point I am trying to make - polls are easily manipulated, even if you poll an honest cross section of folks.
And in manipulating the polls, you manipulate many of the people by forming opinions based on incorrect or incomplete data. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can get poll results to say 75% of the folks are for something, people tend to believe it, and the result is that about 75% of the folks will then decide to be for it, because most people are followers, not leaders.
Polls are fun. But they should never be considered seriously as a viable source of information.
/
In college I hosted a poll on alcoholics. I stationed a pollster in front of a church one Sunday. His poll results showed 0% of Americans were alcoholics. I then positioned him in front of Carlene's Bar on a Saturday night. The results showed that 92% of all Americans are alcoholics.
That is one way to manipulate polls. But by far the most prevalent, used by most pollsters, is the phrasing of the questions - how an issue is presented. They take advantage of the fact that most Americans have neither the time nor inclination to delve deeply into issues.
Case in point: 1200 students were asked, "Would you like to see college education to be free?" Of course, 97% said "Yes." Why not? Considering the question.
Then they were asked, "If your parents had to pay much higher taxes in order to give every child a free college education, would you be in favor?"
This time, though it is the same issue, only 56% said "Yes."
Of that 56%, another question, "If a free college education for every child costs your parents higher taxes AND results in 5 times more graduates competing against you for the same good jobs, do you favor free college for all?"
The number of those in favor of free college dropped to just 12%
Many pollsters - particularly those from the more liberal media - intentionally word their poll questions in such manner as to get the results they are looking for.
The next time you hear a poll, look at the questions carefully. Ask yourself if they reflect the ENTIRE issue, or just a generalized part of it. Play the Devil's advocate - if you would answer "no" to a question, for example, how would you have reworded the question to get a different response? You will soon see exactly the point I am trying to make - polls are easily manipulated, even if you poll an honest cross section of folks.
And in manipulating the polls, you manipulate many of the people by forming opinions based on incorrect or incomplete data. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can get poll results to say 75% of the folks are for something, people tend to believe it, and the result is that about 75% of the folks will then decide to be for it, because most people are followers, not leaders.
Polls are fun. But they should never be considered seriously as a viable source of information.
/
Bringing The White House To You
It would not be reasonable to expect everyone is actually going to go the the White House website and spend hours surfing around to find out what the new administration's plans are. So, I have taken the liberty of gathering up a few points for you. Bear in mind, the following are quoted directly from the White House website. As one popular cable station says, "We report - you decide".
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate."
[MY RESPONSE] His solution - destroy individual religions in favor of a "one-size-fits-all" faith. Shut down public discussion of anything specific to a religion. Stop freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. And not to mention - what happened to separation of church and state? He now wants the government to determine how we can and cannot "discuss faith in public". A clear violation of the 1st Amendment. If your religion has a belief that is not "universal", such as sodomy being a sin, or opposing birth control, or even a belief in Jesus etc., you would not be able to discuss that in public.
Create Secure Borders: Protect the integrity of our borders. Support additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
[MY RESPONSE] I hate to mention this, but Bush tried this. The Democrats fought him every inch of the way. Then defunded it. And the people who voted for Obama wanted open borders. There is a word for people like that - SUCKERS!
Improve Our Immigration System: Fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
[MY RESPONSE] This was McCain's idea. It failed with both the people, the Republicans AND the Democrats. We have a high unemployment rate for Americans. Americans cannot find work to support their families. Obama's plan is to bring in more immigrants, to increase unemployment even further. Great plan!
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally: Remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
[MY RESPONSE] Gee, Bush was doing that and the Democrats & the media screamed bloody murder! Every time the INS raided a business and arrested illegals, the liberals went into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy!
Bring People Out of the Shadows: Support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
[MY RESPONSE] This was McCain's immigration plan. The folks who voted against McCain did not like McCain's plan, and Hispanics voted against McCain. But I guess now that it is Obama's plan, it is suddenly better.
Work with Mexico: Promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
[MY RESPONSE] Great! We have high unemployment here in the US, and a recession. And he wants to build Mexico's economy. Not to mention, no country has the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. He was not elected President of North America.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
[MY RESPONSE] Right or wrong, for many, the gay issue is a religious issue - many religions believe sodomy a sin, and also believe if you do not fight sin, you are just as guilty as the sinner. To require a person to hire a gay person even if it interferes with his religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and the separation of church and state. Not to mention, if you force someone to hire a gay, that gay person will spend his employment in misery, because you cannot legislate people to like the person, or accept them.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman
[MY RESPONSE] Many moderates and religious blacks voted for Obama thinking he was against gay marriage. Again there is a word for those people - SUCKERS!
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.
[MY RESPONSE] Sounds good, but in reality it is not a good thing. Many students in rural areas spend 7 hours/day in school, and three hours on the bus each day. A whopping 10 hour day for rural kids. And those kids generally have 1-3 hours of homework each day. So, we are up to a 12 hour day, on average, for kids. Now, in those same rural areas, most of those kids, by necessity, have farm chores - usually at least 1-2 hours each day. You now have young children putting in a 14 hour day, every day, 5 days a week. And Obama wants to add another hour each week. Oh - and many HS kids hold down a part-time job, to earn money for college. So how, pray tell, does this benefit our kids? Imagine if you had to put in an 80 hour week like rural kids, and Obama decides you now have to put in another hour, without pay?
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
[MY RESPONSE] This is incredibly dangerous. According to some of the details, this "expansion" would make it illegal to be anti anything. To carry a sign saying "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE" would be a hate crime. In short, you could go to prison for exercising your freedom of speech, or even practicing your religion. In a sane world, a "hate crime" would be limited to any CRIME that is committed out of HATE, such as beating someone up for being gay, or vandalizing a church. There must first be a CRIME before it can be classed as a HATE crime. Under Obama's plan, you need not commit a crime in order for it to become one. The hate, itself, is the crime. Talk about thought police! As Americans, we have the right to hate whomever we choose. It is not a crime unless you ACT on that hate in a way that constitutes an existing crime, such as assault or vandalism.
America has always been staunchly against regimes like those in China where people are imprisoned for disagreeing with someone. Under Obama's plan, that is a very real threat right here in America. Some liberal cities already have such laws (Philadelphia, for one). In one instance, an 80 year old lady was charged with a hate crime simply because she carried a sign in protest of something. She broke no other laws - no vandalism, no assault. Just exercised her freedom to express her own opinion. When that becomes a crime, America will have died.
/
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate."
[MY RESPONSE] His solution - destroy individual religions in favor of a "one-size-fits-all" faith. Shut down public discussion of anything specific to a religion. Stop freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. And not to mention - what happened to separation of church and state? He now wants the government to determine how we can and cannot "discuss faith in public". A clear violation of the 1st Amendment. If your religion has a belief that is not "universal", such as sodomy being a sin, or opposing birth control, or even a belief in Jesus etc., you would not be able to discuss that in public.
Create Secure Borders: Protect the integrity of our borders. Support additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
[MY RESPONSE] I hate to mention this, but Bush tried this. The Democrats fought him every inch of the way. Then defunded it. And the people who voted for Obama wanted open borders. There is a word for people like that - SUCKERS!
Improve Our Immigration System: Fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
[MY RESPONSE] This was McCain's idea. It failed with both the people, the Republicans AND the Democrats. We have a high unemployment rate for Americans. Americans cannot find work to support their families. Obama's plan is to bring in more immigrants, to increase unemployment even further. Great plan!
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally: Remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
[MY RESPONSE] Gee, Bush was doing that and the Democrats & the media screamed bloody murder! Every time the INS raided a business and arrested illegals, the liberals went into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy!
Bring People Out of the Shadows: Support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
[MY RESPONSE] This was McCain's immigration plan. The folks who voted against McCain did not like McCain's plan, and Hispanics voted against McCain. But I guess now that it is Obama's plan, it is suddenly better.
Work with Mexico: Promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
[MY RESPONSE] Great! We have high unemployment here in the US, and a recession. And he wants to build Mexico's economy. Not to mention, no country has the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. He was not elected President of North America.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
[MY RESPONSE] Right or wrong, for many, the gay issue is a religious issue - many religions believe sodomy a sin, and also believe if you do not fight sin, you are just as guilty as the sinner. To require a person to hire a gay person even if it interferes with his religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and the separation of church and state. Not to mention, if you force someone to hire a gay, that gay person will spend his employment in misery, because you cannot legislate people to like the person, or accept them.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman
[MY RESPONSE] Many moderates and religious blacks voted for Obama thinking he was against gay marriage. Again there is a word for those people - SUCKERS!
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.
[MY RESPONSE] Sounds good, but in reality it is not a good thing. Many students in rural areas spend 7 hours/day in school, and three hours on the bus each day. A whopping 10 hour day for rural kids. And those kids generally have 1-3 hours of homework each day. So, we are up to a 12 hour day, on average, for kids. Now, in those same rural areas, most of those kids, by necessity, have farm chores - usually at least 1-2 hours each day. You now have young children putting in a 14 hour day, every day, 5 days a week. And Obama wants to add another hour each week. Oh - and many HS kids hold down a part-time job, to earn money for college. So how, pray tell, does this benefit our kids? Imagine if you had to put in an 80 hour week like rural kids, and Obama decides you now have to put in another hour, without pay?
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
[MY RESPONSE] This is incredibly dangerous. According to some of the details, this "expansion" would make it illegal to be anti anything. To carry a sign saying "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE" would be a hate crime. In short, you could go to prison for exercising your freedom of speech, or even practicing your religion. In a sane world, a "hate crime" would be limited to any CRIME that is committed out of HATE, such as beating someone up for being gay, or vandalizing a church. There must first be a CRIME before it can be classed as a HATE crime. Under Obama's plan, you need not commit a crime in order for it to become one. The hate, itself, is the crime. Talk about thought police! As Americans, we have the right to hate whomever we choose. It is not a crime unless you ACT on that hate in a way that constitutes an existing crime, such as assault or vandalism.
America has always been staunchly against regimes like those in China where people are imprisoned for disagreeing with someone. Under Obama's plan, that is a very real threat right here in America. Some liberal cities already have such laws (Philadelphia, for one). In one instance, an 80 year old lady was charged with a hate crime simply because she carried a sign in protest of something. She broke no other laws - no vandalism, no assault. Just exercised her freedom to express her own opinion. When that becomes a crime, America will have died.
/
Jumping The Gun
I did not believe this at first. But once I realized that fools are blind to facts, it makes a certain sense.
Antigua has a mountain on it. And Antigua is renaming it "Mount Obama".
Not being too quick to be a blinded fool, it appears to me that under most sane, reasonable and normal circumstances you would not honor a person in such fashion until that person has actually accomplished something worthy of such honor. It took 50 years for Lincoln to get his profile on the penny. To bestow such an honor in the HOPE that he will earn it is just plain stupid.
What will they do if it should turn out that instead of greatness, Obama turns out to be a big disappointment, like Jimmy Carter? Or worse! I'm not saying that will be the case, but the point is that, right now, we just do not know. The man has not accomplished anything of note other than putting on a campaign slick enough to get elected. But just because you can SELL a product does not mean the product is any good. The "wonder drug" Thalidimide, which was responsible for thousands of grotesque deformities in babies is one example. And the "financial wizard" Madoff is another. Should we not at least wait to see how he pans out before we annoint him?
This is getting scary - so many people, based on nothing more than hope and hype, are placing Obama on a very high pedestal. I hear they are planning to build a taller desk for Chris Matthews because every time he thinks of Obama he gets another "tingle up his leg" (his own words), and they fear he may get physically aroused. Yes, that is a joke. But it is not far from the facts, and every person capable of keeping their head knows it.
I fear what will occur if and when Obama fails to meet the very high expectations that many have. Looking back into history, it may not be a pretty sight.
In the meantime, fools and blind partisans will probably give him a Nobel Prize just for being part black, or name cities after him, even before he accomplishes the least little thing of note. Imagine a baby named Obama, and it turns out Obama does us real harm. The poor kid is stuck with the name.
Here's an idea - let's give Obama a chance to do what he is going to do. And if it turns out to be great, then go ahead - name stuff after him. But until then, let us be sensible and withhold judgement. It is just plain ignorant to "buy a pig in a poke."
Of course, with the Obama-mania going on, like a bunch of crazed groupies at a Beatles concert, a lot of his supporters have no intention of submitting to reason or sanity. For their sakes, I hope he can live up to the hype. But that is a mighty high hurdle. If he makes such a hurdle, even I will vote for him in 2012.
/
Antigua has a mountain on it. And Antigua is renaming it "Mount Obama".
Not being too quick to be a blinded fool, it appears to me that under most sane, reasonable and normal circumstances you would not honor a person in such fashion until that person has actually accomplished something worthy of such honor. It took 50 years for Lincoln to get his profile on the penny. To bestow such an honor in the HOPE that he will earn it is just plain stupid.
What will they do if it should turn out that instead of greatness, Obama turns out to be a big disappointment, like Jimmy Carter? Or worse! I'm not saying that will be the case, but the point is that, right now, we just do not know. The man has not accomplished anything of note other than putting on a campaign slick enough to get elected. But just because you can SELL a product does not mean the product is any good. The "wonder drug" Thalidimide, which was responsible for thousands of grotesque deformities in babies is one example. And the "financial wizard" Madoff is another. Should we not at least wait to see how he pans out before we annoint him?
This is getting scary - so many people, based on nothing more than hope and hype, are placing Obama on a very high pedestal. I hear they are planning to build a taller desk for Chris Matthews because every time he thinks of Obama he gets another "tingle up his leg" (his own words), and they fear he may get physically aroused. Yes, that is a joke. But it is not far from the facts, and every person capable of keeping their head knows it.
I fear what will occur if and when Obama fails to meet the very high expectations that many have. Looking back into history, it may not be a pretty sight.
In the meantime, fools and blind partisans will probably give him a Nobel Prize just for being part black, or name cities after him, even before he accomplishes the least little thing of note. Imagine a baby named Obama, and it turns out Obama does us real harm. The poor kid is stuck with the name.
Here's an idea - let's give Obama a chance to do what he is going to do. And if it turns out to be great, then go ahead - name stuff after him. But until then, let us be sensible and withhold judgement. It is just plain ignorant to "buy a pig in a poke."
Of course, with the Obama-mania going on, like a bunch of crazed groupies at a Beatles concert, a lot of his supporters have no intention of submitting to reason or sanity. For their sakes, I hope he can live up to the hype. But that is a mighty high hurdle. If he makes such a hurdle, even I will vote for him in 2012.
/
Saturday, January 24, 2009
A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words
This should be 'The Picture of the Year,' or perhaps, 'Picture of the Decade.' It won't be. In fact,unless you obtained a copy of the lone US paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.
The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if moved from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta . She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville , he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.
During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr.Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, this happened.... /
The Lake
I remember a story my Dad told me over 50 years ago.
A man walked to the north side of the lake and filled a bucket with water. He would then walk around the lake to the south side of the lake and dump the bucket of water back into the lake. Throughout the day an observer watched as the man repeated the trip many, many times.
At evening, the observer finally asked the man what he was doing.
"We are in a drought, sir. I am simply raising the level of the water."
As I read through the concepts behind the "stimulus" plan proposed by Obama and Congress during this economic drought, I could not help but be reminded of Dad's story, which had been originally written during the New Deal of the Great Depression era.
When you take money out of your right pocket, and place it into your left pocket, do not be fooled into thinking you have suddenly become richer.
/
A man walked to the north side of the lake and filled a bucket with water. He would then walk around the lake to the south side of the lake and dump the bucket of water back into the lake. Throughout the day an observer watched as the man repeated the trip many, many times.
At evening, the observer finally asked the man what he was doing.
"We are in a drought, sir. I am simply raising the level of the water."
As I read through the concepts behind the "stimulus" plan proposed by Obama and Congress during this economic drought, I could not help but be reminded of Dad's story, which had been originally written during the New Deal of the Great Depression era.
When you take money out of your right pocket, and place it into your left pocket, do not be fooled into thinking you have suddenly become richer.
/
The Obama Dolls
I guess it had to happen - when you make a cult or pop star out of someone, their family will end up as marketing items. And Ty has just put out the Sasha and Malia dolls.
I don't have a problem with that, as far as it goes. But Mrs. Obama has made it publicly known, and it is now the "news of the day" that she is miffed about Ty exploiting her kids. And while I do not have a problem with her being miffed about the exploitation, here is where the problem begins....
Michelle Obama is the First Lady. That is the big league. As such, she needs to get a better perspective on what should come from her in the way of "news". With so many difficult issues at hand, I think it was rather inappropriate and quite amateurish and to make such a minor personal issue into a public news item.
Go ahead, get miffed. And contact Ty about possible legal actions. But don't drag personal matters into the public eye, then cry foul when your kids are put into that public eye.
Frankly, I do not see the problem with the dolls - they are cute and lovable, done tastefully. What a difference from the hatchet job that the Palin kids experienced. But then, I do not recall Mrs Obama complaining about that.
/
I don't have a problem with that, as far as it goes. But Mrs. Obama has made it publicly known, and it is now the "news of the day" that she is miffed about Ty exploiting her kids. And while I do not have a problem with her being miffed about the exploitation, here is where the problem begins....
Michelle Obama is the First Lady. That is the big league. As such, she needs to get a better perspective on what should come from her in the way of "news". With so many difficult issues at hand, I think it was rather inappropriate and quite amateurish and to make such a minor personal issue into a public news item.
Go ahead, get miffed. And contact Ty about possible legal actions. But don't drag personal matters into the public eye, then cry foul when your kids are put into that public eye.
Frankly, I do not see the problem with the dolls - they are cute and lovable, done tastefully. What a difference from the hatchet job that the Palin kids experienced. But then, I do not recall Mrs Obama complaining about that.
/
Friday, January 23, 2009
Disappointed
As most of you know, I often come down hard on the liberal tactic of name-calling, smears, personal attacks, foul language and picking on kids, as we saw with attacks on Governor Palin and her children.
But recently I heard a conservative make a similar rotten comment concerning Obama's kids. While it is very rare for any conservative to stoop to that level, some do, and I find it incredibly offensive - not only because kids should be off limits, but because conservatives are supposed to be above that sort of disgusting behavior.
When I told the person how I felt, she (yes, she) said that if liberals could do it to Palin's children, then Obama's children are fair game. I pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right - if it was wrong for liberals to attack kids, then it is just as wrong for a conservative to do the same. By lowering herself to their level, she became that which she hates,
I also made one more point: every time someone does or says something really offensive in the name of their ideology, they chase people AWAY from that ideology. Instead of strengthening her position, she weakens it.
For all who bother to read this, please take note: if you have a point to make, you are well advised to do so with civility, and to leave the young'uns out of the discourse. Otherwise, you risk turning people against the very cause you are trying to put forth.
And you risk something far greater: your self-respect, integrity and self-worth. And if you believe in a greater power...
Meanwhile, I have decided on a new career - I will be supplying these guns to terrorists.
/
But recently I heard a conservative make a similar rotten comment concerning Obama's kids. While it is very rare for any conservative to stoop to that level, some do, and I find it incredibly offensive - not only because kids should be off limits, but because conservatives are supposed to be above that sort of disgusting behavior.
When I told the person how I felt, she (yes, she) said that if liberals could do it to Palin's children, then Obama's children are fair game. I pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right - if it was wrong for liberals to attack kids, then it is just as wrong for a conservative to do the same. By lowering herself to their level, she became that which she hates,
I also made one more point: every time someone does or says something really offensive in the name of their ideology, they chase people AWAY from that ideology. Instead of strengthening her position, she weakens it.
For all who bother to read this, please take note: if you have a point to make, you are well advised to do so with civility, and to leave the young'uns out of the discourse. Otherwise, you risk turning people against the very cause you are trying to put forth.
And you risk something far greater: your self-respect, integrity and self-worth. And if you believe in a greater power...
Meanwhile, I have decided on a new career - I will be supplying these guns to terrorists.
/
Thursday, January 22, 2009
New Book?
As an author (some of my books are free - see below), I am always looking for my next book. After giving it a lot of thought, I am considering writing a book entitled "The Liberal's Handbook - How To Be An Effective Liberal By Distorting Facts and Reality To Achieve Our Agenda".
The contents would include chapters such as:
1) Under no circumatances should you answer any question directly. If possible, use liberal talking points to change the subject
2) If cornered and you must answer a question, answer it with another question. Commit to nothing
3) If involved in a scandal, first deny everything until the furor quells. Then minimalize it as being unimportant, a non-issue, and innocent mistake. Then ignore it and move on like it never happened. Whatever you do, do not accept responsibility or admit that what you did was wrong. Take the affair of Presidentail hopeful John Edwards as an example, or Geithner, the tax cheat who became Treasury Secretary
4) If forced to apologize, apologize without accepting responsibility. The best way to do this is to apologize FOR them, instead of TO them. They will not notice the difference. For example, when John Kerry insulted the troops and was forced to apologize, instead of saying he was sorry for his words, he said he apologized for OTHERS having such thin skins. He said, "I am sorry that my words offended." He did NOT say he was sorry for his words - only that others were too thin skinned. So, it is "the others" who were at fault. As liberals we must always pass the fault to others
5) Rewrite history to make it appear that the liberal agenda is correct and right. If possible, remove studies of the founding fathers, Constitution and Declaration from the schools. Raise people to believe America is a Democracy instead of the Republic that it really was founded as
6) When the facts do not coincide with liberal needs, distort the facts, or remove portions of them in order to change the conclusion to fit the liberal agenda. And if you cannot succeed in distorting the truth, change the focus with personal attacks, smears, and name-calling strategies
7) Go to church and proclaim religion, but do not take it seriously. Instead, support non-Christian things like abortion, legalizing drugs, prostitution and other moral issues. Morality takes the fun out of life, so we must destroy it by removing religion from the public square
8) It is of utmost importance to keep minorities poor and without opportunity, then provide them with entitlements so they will praise liberals, and elect them. Think of welfare as the drug of choice for those in poverty, and we provide their "fix". We are their drug dealer. As such, they will have to keep voting for us
9) Never accept the blame for anything that goes wrong, but always take credit for anything that goes right - even if you have to lie outright. As an example, consider Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, who, in 2004 and 2005 subverted Republican efforts to regulate Fannie Mae by saying Fannie was in great shape. Then, when Fannie crashed in 2008, Frank and Schumer said it was because Republicans failed to regulate it
10) To accomplish 1-9 it is imperative that liberals control the media and educational institutions. We currently control 84% of the media, 70% of public schools and 91% of colleges and universities. Not good enough - let's get that to 100%
Thoughts?
I have written many books (none about politics), and I make some of the smaller ones available free - you can check 'em out and download them immediately at www.intellibiz.com/freebooks.html . One of them has already been downloaded over 4,000,000 times. Download & enjoy!
As a side note, I ran across this quote:
"It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man
stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly,
who errors and comes up short again and again because there is no effort
without error and shortcomings, who knows the great devotion, who spends himself
in a worthy cause, who at best knows in the end the high achievement
of triumph, and who at worst, if he fails while daring greatly, knows his place
shall never be with those timid and cold souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
President Theodore Roosevelt
Almost sounds like he knew George W Bush.
/
The contents would include chapters such as:
1) Under no circumatances should you answer any question directly. If possible, use liberal talking points to change the subject
2) If cornered and you must answer a question, answer it with another question. Commit to nothing
3) If involved in a scandal, first deny everything until the furor quells. Then minimalize it as being unimportant, a non-issue, and innocent mistake. Then ignore it and move on like it never happened. Whatever you do, do not accept responsibility or admit that what you did was wrong. Take the affair of Presidentail hopeful John Edwards as an example, or Geithner, the tax cheat who became Treasury Secretary
4) If forced to apologize, apologize without accepting responsibility. The best way to do this is to apologize FOR them, instead of TO them. They will not notice the difference. For example, when John Kerry insulted the troops and was forced to apologize, instead of saying he was sorry for his words, he said he apologized for OTHERS having such thin skins. He said, "I am sorry that my words offended." He did NOT say he was sorry for his words - only that others were too thin skinned. So, it is "the others" who were at fault. As liberals we must always pass the fault to others
5) Rewrite history to make it appear that the liberal agenda is correct and right. If possible, remove studies of the founding fathers, Constitution and Declaration from the schools. Raise people to believe America is a Democracy instead of the Republic that it really was founded as
6) When the facts do not coincide with liberal needs, distort the facts, or remove portions of them in order to change the conclusion to fit the liberal agenda. And if you cannot succeed in distorting the truth, change the focus with personal attacks, smears, and name-calling strategies
7) Go to church and proclaim religion, but do not take it seriously. Instead, support non-Christian things like abortion, legalizing drugs, prostitution and other moral issues. Morality takes the fun out of life, so we must destroy it by removing religion from the public square
8) It is of utmost importance to keep minorities poor and without opportunity, then provide them with entitlements so they will praise liberals, and elect them. Think of welfare as the drug of choice for those in poverty, and we provide their "fix". We are their drug dealer. As such, they will have to keep voting for us
9) Never accept the blame for anything that goes wrong, but always take credit for anything that goes right - even if you have to lie outright. As an example, consider Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, who, in 2004 and 2005 subverted Republican efforts to regulate Fannie Mae by saying Fannie was in great shape. Then, when Fannie crashed in 2008, Frank and Schumer said it was because Republicans failed to regulate it
10) To accomplish 1-9 it is imperative that liberals control the media and educational institutions. We currently control 84% of the media, 70% of public schools and 91% of colleges and universities. Not good enough - let's get that to 100%
Thoughts?
I have written many books (none about politics), and I make some of the smaller ones available free - you can check 'em out and download them immediately at www.intellibiz.com/freebooks.html . One of them has already been downloaded over 4,000,000 times. Download & enjoy!
As a side note, I ran across this quote:
"It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man
stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly,
who errors and comes up short again and again because there is no effort
without error and shortcomings, who knows the great devotion, who spends himself
in a worthy cause, who at best knows in the end the high achievement
of triumph, and who at worst, if he fails while daring greatly, knows his place
shall never be with those timid and cold souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
President Theodore Roosevelt
Almost sounds like he knew George W Bush.
/
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
What's In, What's Out
Just back from looking over the (questionable) "news" items on AOL. One of them has to do with what's in, and what's out now that Obama is President.
According to AOL, FLASH is in, and CLASS is out. Don't know about y'all, but I will take class over flash any time, any place.
Also according to the mental midgets at AOL, for CABLE HOST, they say Rachael Maddow is in (whoever heard of HER?) and Bill O'Reilly is out (EVERYONE has heard of him).
Frankly, I'll take O'Reilly over any liberal cable host. In fact, I would take him over any conservative host. I have been watching O'Reilly almost every night for nearly the entire 12 years he's been on. Though he is opinionated (that's his job), I find him to be incredibly fair and honest. In fact, he is even pushing the Obama train a bit. And he often bashes Bush when he screws up. He truly is independent, and I do not always agree with his opinions. But his facts are always impeccably straight and square. I have not found that in any other host, either on the right or the left.
Case in point: a poll was held, and 50% of the folks said O'Reilly was on the right. The other 50% said he was on the left. That tells us that he is, in fact, in the middle. Of course, folks on the far left will not believe it, but neither do the folks on the far right - Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity and Ingraham disagree with him as often as they agree.
In any case, I have learned something from this AOL "news" item: AOL does not have a clue, and like all in the liberal media, they thrive on wishful thinking and misinformation. After all, anyone who says "Barbeque" is "out" is just plain unAmerican.
/
According to AOL, FLASH is in, and CLASS is out. Don't know about y'all, but I will take class over flash any time, any place.
Also according to the mental midgets at AOL, for CABLE HOST, they say Rachael Maddow is in (whoever heard of HER?) and Bill O'Reilly is out (EVERYONE has heard of him).
Frankly, I'll take O'Reilly over any liberal cable host. In fact, I would take him over any conservative host. I have been watching O'Reilly almost every night for nearly the entire 12 years he's been on. Though he is opinionated (that's his job), I find him to be incredibly fair and honest. In fact, he is even pushing the Obama train a bit. And he often bashes Bush when he screws up. He truly is independent, and I do not always agree with his opinions. But his facts are always impeccably straight and square. I have not found that in any other host, either on the right or the left.
Case in point: a poll was held, and 50% of the folks said O'Reilly was on the right. The other 50% said he was on the left. That tells us that he is, in fact, in the middle. Of course, folks on the far left will not believe it, but neither do the folks on the far right - Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity and Ingraham disagree with him as often as they agree.
In any case, I have learned something from this AOL "news" item: AOL does not have a clue, and like all in the liberal media, they thrive on wishful thinking and misinformation. After all, anyone who says "Barbeque" is "out" is just plain unAmerican.
/
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
No Class
Inauguration is over. Finally. And despite the excessive cost of it, and in spite of the Democrat mantra that "we must come together now", and their claims of tolerance, these same people showed a complete lack of any class at all. None.
When the do-nothing turncoat Carter came out, they cheered. When Clinton came out, they cheered. When Pelosi came out, more cheering. And when Obama came out, they cheered. But when the Senior President Bush came out, they booed. When the younger President Bush appeared, they booed. Even when the warm and wonderful Laura Bush came out, they booed. That shows a complete and total lack of class, respect, civility and integrity. And they will be the ones running America for the next 4 years. Heaven help us. For the sake of America, I really do hope Obama succeeds in making things better, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. We should all withhold judgement and give the man a chance. But I simply do not believe he will do what is needed.
The next time any Democrat tries to tell you they are the party of tolerance, or the party that wants to bring America together, you can just laugh. Or you could if it were actually funny, but it is not. It is sad. Very sad.
As a final note, I am really, really sick of all the racism disguised as "brotherly love". The most racist people are those who think others are racist just because they did not vote for Obama. They refuse to accept the simple fact that most who voted for McCain simply thought McCain was the better candidate. Why they have to automatically assume it is about race is exactly what makes THEM the racists. So I would like to make a point here.
When you talk about your BLACK church instead of church, you are racist. When you have a BLACK college instead of a college, you are racist. When you have a BLACK caucus instead of a caucus, you are racist. When you look at Obama and see a BLACK man, you are racist.
I am not racist. When I look at Obama, I simply see a man. I do not see a black man. If I raise a glass to him as president, I do not raise my glass to a BLACK president, but to my president.
If a person refers to him as "a black president" or some such identifier that includes his color, as most liberals do, then those people are racists - the fact that he is black makes a difference to them - and that is the definition of racism.
Because one thing is certain - if a person sees the color of a person's skin, and it makes any difference at all, that person is a racist. And if it does not make any difference, it does not belong in the conversation.
But I listen to all the infatuated Obama supporters and all I hear is the word "black". "Isn't it great we have a BLACK president?" Or "The first BLACK president..."
If and when the day comes when we can look at each other and not see color; if and when the time comes when we can label a person without bringing in color, then and only then can we say we have overcome racism.
And the absolute worst racists are those who scream the loudest about the racism of others - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and their ilk. Such people make their livings playing the race card and the hate card, and keeping racism alive and well. They need racism in order to be relevant. Everything they see, and everything they say is through a racist "black filter". All of them have a hard time trying to make a sentence without inserting the word "white" or "black". Stirring the pot, so they can continue being "great black leaders." If racism dies, they will become nobodies, fast.
That said, I do not have a black president. I have a president. And I am not a white American. I am an American. The only color of a man that concerns me is the color of his heart, not his skin. I only wish liberals would begin to see it the same way. But they depend on the race card, so I do not expect to see that in my lifetime.
And that, too, is very sad.
/
When the do-nothing turncoat Carter came out, they cheered. When Clinton came out, they cheered. When Pelosi came out, more cheering. And when Obama came out, they cheered. But when the Senior President Bush came out, they booed. When the younger President Bush appeared, they booed. Even when the warm and wonderful Laura Bush came out, they booed. That shows a complete and total lack of class, respect, civility and integrity. And they will be the ones running America for the next 4 years. Heaven help us. For the sake of America, I really do hope Obama succeeds in making things better, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. We should all withhold judgement and give the man a chance. But I simply do not believe he will do what is needed.
The next time any Democrat tries to tell you they are the party of tolerance, or the party that wants to bring America together, you can just laugh. Or you could if it were actually funny, but it is not. It is sad. Very sad.
As a final note, I am really, really sick of all the racism disguised as "brotherly love". The most racist people are those who think others are racist just because they did not vote for Obama. They refuse to accept the simple fact that most who voted for McCain simply thought McCain was the better candidate. Why they have to automatically assume it is about race is exactly what makes THEM the racists. So I would like to make a point here.
When you talk about your BLACK church instead of church, you are racist. When you have a BLACK college instead of a college, you are racist. When you have a BLACK caucus instead of a caucus, you are racist. When you look at Obama and see a BLACK man, you are racist.
I am not racist. When I look at Obama, I simply see a man. I do not see a black man. If I raise a glass to him as president, I do not raise my glass to a BLACK president, but to my president.
If a person refers to him as "a black president" or some such identifier that includes his color, as most liberals do, then those people are racists - the fact that he is black makes a difference to them - and that is the definition of racism.
Because one thing is certain - if a person sees the color of a person's skin, and it makes any difference at all, that person is a racist. And if it does not make any difference, it does not belong in the conversation.
But I listen to all the infatuated Obama supporters and all I hear is the word "black". "Isn't it great we have a BLACK president?" Or "The first BLACK president..."
If and when the day comes when we can look at each other and not see color; if and when the time comes when we can label a person without bringing in color, then and only then can we say we have overcome racism.
And the absolute worst racists are those who scream the loudest about the racism of others - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and their ilk. Such people make their livings playing the race card and the hate card, and keeping racism alive and well. They need racism in order to be relevant. Everything they see, and everything they say is through a racist "black filter". All of them have a hard time trying to make a sentence without inserting the word "white" or "black". Stirring the pot, so they can continue being "great black leaders." If racism dies, they will become nobodies, fast.
That said, I do not have a black president. I have a president. And I am not a white American. I am an American. The only color of a man that concerns me is the color of his heart, not his skin. I only wish liberals would begin to see it the same way. But they depend on the race card, so I do not expect to see that in my lifetime.
And that, too, is very sad.
/
The Foul Party of Hate and Ignorance
It has been said that if you hold a discussion between conservatives and liberals, the conservatives tend to remain civil while the liberals resort to foul language, insults and personal attacks. I set out to find out the truth.
The following posts were taken directly from AOL reader's comments. I only copied the foul ones. In EVERY case of hateful vehemence, the poster was a liberal. What is even worse, these are not the worst posts - out of a sense of common decency (common to conservatives, anyway) I left out the truly disgusting posts - and again, without exception, they were posted by liberals.
Notice that the loons on the left also tend to scream, by using all capitals. And in many cases, their own screen names say it all.
EL21141 GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA....and God Damn Former President Bush and all of his right wing nuts!
[ME] Yep - if you don't agree with liberals, you should be damned by God. Yep! That's tolerance for ya. That's intellect. That's civility.
RePigins NeoConism is a documented mental illness reconized by the AMA. There is treatmet for such but involves muh and time intensive Psycho Therapy with some Anti Psycotic use in conjunction with talk on certain patients whom have tragicly been stick from long term exposure to the Cults and Radicalization of the dangerious over exposure to Rusn, Hannit, Coulter, O'Reiley, Paggs, Savage and the Brain Washing FAUX Disinfotainment Indoctrination Network. Current some brilliant Scientist has had some positive results with a Vacine for those who have not yet been total immersed in the Dangerious NeoConism Culture of Hate and Itolerance with Deluded Ideology; yet this will not address the ones whom have been so tragicly immersed in a longterm lifestyle of this plague up on society. Yet concerning it is a realtively knew disorder we are cautiously optomistic that with in 4 to 8 years it can be virtually wiped out except for some small enclaves that has such a engrained sub culture in this devastt...
[ME] Sorry - I had to cut this person short because he obviously has nothing worthwhile to say. But the least he could do is learn how to spell at least the people's names. Forgive me for saying so, but this guy, and those like him, need professional help for THEIR disorder.
Usapatriot401
BUSH.......HE'S SUCH A DOUCHBAG!
[ME] doesn't sound much like a patriot OR an American
VALLEYPIANO
good riddens! see ya georgiE don't let the white house door smack ya in your ass9aka your head) on the way out!!!!!!!! thanx for alll the lies and the 1000;s of innocent american kids lives you've taken because of them. hoipe you and "daddy Bush" enjoy your oil!
[ME] As is typical of the majority of liberal posts, this person appears too uneducated to even spell simple words or construct sentences. And to think - these people VOTE!
Rwkwilliam
GW(going wrong and getting worse) Bush the brain dead idiot with the IQ of a dead tree stump
[ME] Great personal attacks and insults. Real intelligent. Bush graduated college - this poster obviously did not graduate the 8th grade. Other posts by him were unintelligible.
DrDeath5000
LOOK LIKE THE DIXIE CHICKS WERE RIGHT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH HE IS A PIECE OF S H * T
[ME] If his Mom knew he talked like that, Dr Death would be dead. More intelligent, thoughtful remarks by a tolerant liberal who thinks Republicans are the party of hate and dissent.
Usapatriot401
WHAT SOME WHINEY AZZ REPUBLICLOWN IS COMPLAINING BECAUSE SCOTUS REFUSED TO HEAR THE BULLSH*T CASE OF BERG v OBAMA?.....BWAHHH....... IS THAT WHY BUSH NEEDED SCOTUS TO GET ELECTED.....HAHAHAHA
[REPLY] The village idiot is back. Notice how he goes out of his way to try and be insulting, even to the point of making up his own nonsensical words. He is also uniformed, and appears to get his "facts" from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Kos, rather than actual news sources. Can it get any more pathetic? Unfortunately, yes.
WILMD
thats funny Edgarnew . GWB can barly string 3 words together for a sentence. I guess maybe that's why right wing nitwits like him so much. sure cant be because of anything he did. Worst President Ever.
[ME] Wrongly accuses Bush of not being able to "string three words together", this guy is even more uneducated than he claims Bush to be. He cannot use punctuation, capitalization or good sentence structure. Again, Bush graduated college, while this guy never made it out of grade school, apparently.
Usapatriot401
REPUBLICANS SERVING IN THE MILITARY......BWAHHHHHHHHH THAT'S THE BEST JOKE I'VE HEARD TODAY.........BWAHHHHHHHHH...
[ME] Talk about childish drivel - and the Hell of it is, HE thinks he's SMART! More important, the data points out that more than 80% of all military personnel actually are Republicans. Democrats tend to be "peaceniks" and anti-military.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids GO BACK TO MOLESTING CHILDERN STUPID
[ME] He cannot spell "children", but calls others stupid. Also denegrates them with smear tactics - another liberal trick to throw people off of the fact that they cannot actually discuss anything on its merits, or via the use of facts. Instead of saying, "I think you are wrong, and here are my reasons and facts to support them", this guy just spews this garbage and thinks it is a smart retort.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK??? YOU ARE A TROOL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.PUT YOU HAND DOWN NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR OPINION IS
[ME] If a person cannot spell simple words like "troll", they should at least be smart enough to use spellcheck. And another liberal who feels that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to freedom of speech.
BushIsACancerNY
Who cares. You make a crappy citizen anyway. Gun, Head, Pull Trigger. Get it?
[ME] Check out the childish screenname of this clown. That says it all. Another typical liberal who believes that anyone who disagrees with them should be dead. I guess that is the "tolerance" they keep claiming. It must have been a liberal who came up with the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Amykool
I BELIEVE SO MUCH IN KARMA, THAT THE PIECES OF SHIT TALKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT, WE ALREADY HAVE IGNORANT F$%*S THAT PROBABLY VOTED IN BUSH.
[ME] Amy may be a lot of things, but "kool" is not one of them. Another "tolerant, educated" liberal.
Tr444514
DeRozaleni: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[ME] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
Walkabjdog
Haleejr73 Well it appears that the repulsicans and their sympathizers have work themselves up to a pre election stuper. You idiots just can't face defeat. You idiots just can't accept change. Well you all just stay in that mental state and witness this steam roller moving right over you and never looking back.
[ME] Anyone who disagrees with liberals is automatically an "idiot". But by reading this person's post, it is easy to see who the real idiot is.
HONEST IS POLICY
Badw900 100% OUTHOUSE FECAL MATTER, HOW STUPID COULD YOUR MOTHER HAVE BEEN!
[ME] More tolerance and pleasant discussion from liberals.
sixfootdoll
Having read your posts, it's sad your parents indoctrinated such prejudice and hatred at the very beginning of maturation. Children are born innocent, without bias or intolerance, they are the products of their environment, live what the learn. Your parents have passed onto you a denigrating legacy from generations gone by without any positive change. Genetics is the facilitator, not often you find products of incestuous relations gathered for an idiot convention. Child Protective Services should have removed you from the custody of the negative, abusive influences your moronic, mentally diseased parents subjected you during childhood.
[ME] How arrogant, to assume she knows why a person believes what they do. She must have a crystal ball! As for me, I know enough to realize that many folks grow up to do the opposite of what their parents taught them. But I guess this liberal believes she is somehow mentally superior, and that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her is some sort of throwback. She accuses others of hate - but her own post drips with hatred and anger. Again, it truly scares me that such people can actually vote...
Beadcat49
DON'T FORGET FELLOW AMERICANS THAT THE MOTTO OF THE RIGHT-WING IS HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR.... WE HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BUT FEAR ITSELF. RUN AND HIDE. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.
[ME] Almost too funny - he is claiming conservatives are the ones spewing hatred and fear, yet it is his own post that shows hate and fear. This fellow is pathetic, and apparently needs professional help.
Beadcat49
It's almost comical reading the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from the loser repub-lie-cons who just don't even know what to do with themselves except drool on their keyboards as they screech hysterically about the end of the world as we know it now that a democrat is the president.
[ME] Where do such mindless little people come from? Why do they find it necessary to be so hateful and pathetic? More important, why go public with this crap and prove to the world that they are ignorant?
Beadcat49
Well... good night all you right-wing loonies. It's been fun reading your pathetic rants. You're just sore losers. Get over it. Your guy lost. Move on. Quit whining. Grow a set and grow up... if that's even possible for the ignorati that makes up the neo-conned base.
[ME] Obviously uneducated, uninformed, nasty, foul and hateful. Why? Why can't a liberal discuss an issue civilly, and recognize the right to disagree?
Sixfootdoll74 And to all the hurting and disappointed pricks out there, I say either conform and welcome your new President or drop dead tomorrow. Preferably the latter. The world simply does NOT need you!!
[ME] This gal has a short circuit in her brain. "If you have the audacity to disagree with the great, all-knowing sixfootdoll, you should die." That's what I call intelligent, thoughful discussion, proving how tolerant the "tolerant left" really is.
Elenaowl13
can u say loser, hater ignorant that what u are go and watch somemore fox.lol lol lol. u will have to wait another 8 yearsjust like we had to endure the detruction of this country in the last 8 horrible years. have a hateful night pukies.dont forget the antacids before bed
[ME] Obviously this lady never made it to grade school. She spews hatred and intolerance, but calls conservatives the party of hate and intolerance. Are these people so blind that they cannot see their own hatred? Are they so ignorant they cannot discuss an issue?
MChill36
HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ME] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
Look, folks, I really do not mind having a good debate between the right and the left, but how can there be such a meaningful discussion if those on the left resort to name-calling, foul language, insults, smears and personal attacks? Are there no liberals out there who know the meaning and importance of respect? Tolerance? Civility? Honesty? Integrity? Are there none with any intellect? Even an ability to spell would at least show education.
If you think that this is not a true representation, all you need to do is spend an evening on AOL reading the reader's comments to the news stories. You will see exactly what I have seen, as I have been following these for months. The above are not made up, nor are they the exceptions to the rule. If you read them, keep an unbiased open mind, and judge the posts not by their "position" on issues but on the post, itself, you will draw the same conclusion - liberals tend to be uneducated, uninformed, angry, hateful, foul-mouthed and full of vitriol. They resort to personal smears and attacks, insults, and they tend to think only their opinions are worth anything. They believe that those who disagree should either shut up, or die, or both. They tend to make up their own facts to fit their beliefs, and often get their "news" from non-credible sources such as SNL or the Daily Kos.
Frankly, that is not the type of person I want to see in the White House, in the House or in the Senate.
/
The following posts were taken directly from AOL reader's comments. I only copied the foul ones. In EVERY case of hateful vehemence, the poster was a liberal. What is even worse, these are not the worst posts - out of a sense of common decency (common to conservatives, anyway) I left out the truly disgusting posts - and again, without exception, they were posted by liberals.
Notice that the loons on the left also tend to scream, by using all capitals. And in many cases, their own screen names say it all.
EL21141 GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA....and God Damn Former President Bush and all of his right wing nuts!
[ME] Yep - if you don't agree with liberals, you should be damned by God. Yep! That's tolerance for ya. That's intellect. That's civility.
RePigins NeoConism is a documented mental illness reconized by the AMA. There is treatmet for such but involves muh and time intensive Psycho Therapy with some Anti Psycotic use in conjunction with talk on certain patients whom have tragicly been stick from long term exposure to the Cults and Radicalization of the dangerious over exposure to Rusn, Hannit, Coulter, O'Reiley, Paggs, Savage and the Brain Washing FAUX Disinfotainment Indoctrination Network. Current some brilliant Scientist has had some positive results with a Vacine for those who have not yet been total immersed in the Dangerious NeoConism Culture of Hate and Itolerance with Deluded Ideology; yet this will not address the ones whom have been so tragicly immersed in a longterm lifestyle of this plague up on society. Yet concerning it is a realtively knew disorder we are cautiously optomistic that with in 4 to 8 years it can be virtually wiped out except for some small enclaves that has such a engrained sub culture in this devastt...
[ME] Sorry - I had to cut this person short because he obviously has nothing worthwhile to say. But the least he could do is learn how to spell at least the people's names. Forgive me for saying so, but this guy, and those like him, need professional help for THEIR disorder.
Usapatriot401
BUSH.......HE'S SUCH A DOUCHBAG!
[ME] doesn't sound much like a patriot OR an American
VALLEYPIANO
good riddens! see ya georgiE don't let the white house door smack ya in your ass9aka your head) on the way out!!!!!!!! thanx for alll the lies and the 1000;s of innocent american kids lives you've taken because of them. hoipe you and "daddy Bush" enjoy your oil!
[ME] As is typical of the majority of liberal posts, this person appears too uneducated to even spell simple words or construct sentences. And to think - these people VOTE!
Rwkwilliam
GW(going wrong and getting worse) Bush the brain dead idiot with the IQ of a dead tree stump
[ME] Great personal attacks and insults. Real intelligent. Bush graduated college - this poster obviously did not graduate the 8th grade. Other posts by him were unintelligible.
DrDeath5000
LOOK LIKE THE DIXIE CHICKS WERE RIGHT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH HE IS A PIECE OF S H * T
[ME] If his Mom knew he talked like that, Dr Death would be dead. More intelligent, thoughtful remarks by a tolerant liberal who thinks Republicans are the party of hate and dissent.
Usapatriot401
WHAT SOME WHINEY AZZ REPUBLICLOWN IS COMPLAINING BECAUSE SCOTUS REFUSED TO HEAR THE BULLSH*T CASE OF BERG v OBAMA?.....BWAHHH....... IS THAT WHY BUSH NEEDED SCOTUS TO GET ELECTED.....HAHAHAHA
[REPLY] The village idiot is back. Notice how he goes out of his way to try and be insulting, even to the point of making up his own nonsensical words. He is also uniformed, and appears to get his "facts" from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Kos, rather than actual news sources. Can it get any more pathetic? Unfortunately, yes.
WILMD
thats funny Edgarnew . GWB can barly string 3 words together for a sentence. I guess maybe that's why right wing nitwits like him so much. sure cant be because of anything he did. Worst President Ever.
[ME] Wrongly accuses Bush of not being able to "string three words together", this guy is even more uneducated than he claims Bush to be. He cannot use punctuation, capitalization or good sentence structure. Again, Bush graduated college, while this guy never made it out of grade school, apparently.
Usapatriot401
REPUBLICANS SERVING IN THE MILITARY......BWAHHHHHHHHH THAT'S THE BEST JOKE I'VE HEARD TODAY.........BWAHHHHHHHHH...
[ME] Talk about childish drivel - and the Hell of it is, HE thinks he's SMART! More important, the data points out that more than 80% of all military personnel actually are Republicans. Democrats tend to be "peaceniks" and anti-military.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids GO BACK TO MOLESTING CHILDERN STUPID
[ME] He cannot spell "children", but calls others stupid. Also denegrates them with smear tactics - another liberal trick to throw people off of the fact that they cannot actually discuss anything on its merits, or via the use of facts. Instead of saying, "I think you are wrong, and here are my reasons and facts to support them", this guy just spews this garbage and thinks it is a smart retort.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK??? YOU ARE A TROOL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.PUT YOU HAND DOWN NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR OPINION IS
[ME] If a person cannot spell simple words like "troll", they should at least be smart enough to use spellcheck. And another liberal who feels that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to freedom of speech.
BushIsACancerNY
Who cares. You make a crappy citizen anyway. Gun, Head, Pull Trigger. Get it?
[ME] Check out the childish screenname of this clown. That says it all. Another typical liberal who believes that anyone who disagrees with them should be dead. I guess that is the "tolerance" they keep claiming. It must have been a liberal who came up with the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Amykool
I BELIEVE SO MUCH IN KARMA, THAT THE PIECES OF SHIT TALKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT, WE ALREADY HAVE IGNORANT F$%*S THAT PROBABLY VOTED IN BUSH.
[ME] Amy may be a lot of things, but "kool" is not one of them. Another "tolerant, educated" liberal.
Tr444514
DeRozaleni: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[ME] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
Walkabjdog
Haleejr73 Well it appears that the repulsicans and their sympathizers have work themselves up to a pre election stuper. You idiots just can't face defeat. You idiots just can't accept change. Well you all just stay in that mental state and witness this steam roller moving right over you and never looking back.
[ME] Anyone who disagrees with liberals is automatically an "idiot". But by reading this person's post, it is easy to see who the real idiot is.
HONEST IS POLICY
Badw900 100% OUTHOUSE FECAL MATTER, HOW STUPID COULD YOUR MOTHER HAVE BEEN!
[ME] More tolerance and pleasant discussion from liberals.
sixfootdoll
Having read your posts, it's sad your parents indoctrinated such prejudice and hatred at the very beginning of maturation. Children are born innocent, without bias or intolerance, they are the products of their environment, live what the learn. Your parents have passed onto you a denigrating legacy from generations gone by without any positive change. Genetics is the facilitator, not often you find products of incestuous relations gathered for an idiot convention. Child Protective Services should have removed you from the custody of the negative, abusive influences your moronic, mentally diseased parents subjected you during childhood.
[ME] How arrogant, to assume she knows why a person believes what they do. She must have a crystal ball! As for me, I know enough to realize that many folks grow up to do the opposite of what their parents taught them. But I guess this liberal believes she is somehow mentally superior, and that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her is some sort of throwback. She accuses others of hate - but her own post drips with hatred and anger. Again, it truly scares me that such people can actually vote...
Beadcat49
DON'T FORGET FELLOW AMERICANS THAT THE MOTTO OF THE RIGHT-WING IS HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR.... WE HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BUT FEAR ITSELF. RUN AND HIDE. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.
[ME] Almost too funny - he is claiming conservatives are the ones spewing hatred and fear, yet it is his own post that shows hate and fear. This fellow is pathetic, and apparently needs professional help.
Beadcat49
It's almost comical reading the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from the loser repub-lie-cons who just don't even know what to do with themselves except drool on their keyboards as they screech hysterically about the end of the world as we know it now that a democrat is the president.
[ME] Where do such mindless little people come from? Why do they find it necessary to be so hateful and pathetic? More important, why go public with this crap and prove to the world that they are ignorant?
Beadcat49
Well... good night all you right-wing loonies. It's been fun reading your pathetic rants. You're just sore losers. Get over it. Your guy lost. Move on. Quit whining. Grow a set and grow up... if that's even possible for the ignorati that makes up the neo-conned base.
[ME] Obviously uneducated, uninformed, nasty, foul and hateful. Why? Why can't a liberal discuss an issue civilly, and recognize the right to disagree?
Sixfootdoll74 And to all the hurting and disappointed pricks out there, I say either conform and welcome your new President or drop dead tomorrow. Preferably the latter. The world simply does NOT need you!!
[ME] This gal has a short circuit in her brain. "If you have the audacity to disagree with the great, all-knowing sixfootdoll, you should die." That's what I call intelligent, thoughful discussion, proving how tolerant the "tolerant left" really is.
Elenaowl13
can u say loser, hater ignorant that what u are go and watch somemore fox.lol lol lol. u will have to wait another 8 yearsjust like we had to endure the detruction of this country in the last 8 horrible years. have a hateful night pukies.dont forget the antacids before bed
[ME] Obviously this lady never made it to grade school. She spews hatred and intolerance, but calls conservatives the party of hate and intolerance. Are these people so blind that they cannot see their own hatred? Are they so ignorant they cannot discuss an issue?
MChill36
HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ME] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
Look, folks, I really do not mind having a good debate between the right and the left, but how can there be such a meaningful discussion if those on the left resort to name-calling, foul language, insults, smears and personal attacks? Are there no liberals out there who know the meaning and importance of respect? Tolerance? Civility? Honesty? Integrity? Are there none with any intellect? Even an ability to spell would at least show education.
If you think that this is not a true representation, all you need to do is spend an evening on AOL reading the reader's comments to the news stories. You will see exactly what I have seen, as I have been following these for months. The above are not made up, nor are they the exceptions to the rule. If you read them, keep an unbiased open mind, and judge the posts not by their "position" on issues but on the post, itself, you will draw the same conclusion - liberals tend to be uneducated, uninformed, angry, hateful, foul-mouthed and full of vitriol. They resort to personal smears and attacks, insults, and they tend to think only their opinions are worth anything. They believe that those who disagree should either shut up, or die, or both. They tend to make up their own facts to fit their beliefs, and often get their "news" from non-credible sources such as SNL or the Daily Kos.
Frankly, that is not the type of person I want to see in the White House, in the House or in the Senate.
/
Monday, January 19, 2009
Innocents Killed?
OK, I've just about had it with the anti-semitic liberals who think Israel is the bad guy and Hamas is an innocent victim of their brutality.
Yes, Israel strikes have killed some civilians - that's what has been called "war" for thousands of years. But that is not the point here.
The liberals are trying to convince the world that the Israeli's are killing innocent civilians. Are they kidding?
First - and this is important to understand - the Palestinians held an election and they chose Hamas as their leaders, knowing full well that Hamas' intentions were to keep killing Israeli's. They had a choice - they could have chosen the more moderate party, but they chose the party that was filled with hatred and wanted war. So, the Palestinian civilians are not "innocent" bystanders. They asked for this, and they knew what they would get from it.
Second, Hamas could not use the civilians as "human shields" without their consent. The civilians choose to stand between Israel and Hamas, and in so doing, they know the risk. They are not "innocent" victims.
Throughout the last truce, Hamas continued sending rockets into Israel. Every country has a right - an obligation - to defend itself. Israel showed great restraint throughout the truce, while Hamas kept up the agression.
So spare me the tears for terrorists. If the Palestinians do not want to be targets, they need to stop those who are making them targets - Hamas! They can throw them out of office. They can refuse to be human shields. For, as Thomas Jefferson so aptly stated, "Every person gets the government they deserve." The Palestinian government in Gaza are murderers. And those who put them in office are murderers by proxy - they are not innocent.
Note: the remaining Palestinians, under Abbas' more moderate rule, are not being bombed. Liberals should get a clue - and get educated.
/
Yes, Israel strikes have killed some civilians - that's what has been called "war" for thousands of years. But that is not the point here.
The liberals are trying to convince the world that the Israeli's are killing innocent civilians. Are they kidding?
First - and this is important to understand - the Palestinians held an election and they chose Hamas as their leaders, knowing full well that Hamas' intentions were to keep killing Israeli's. They had a choice - they could have chosen the more moderate party, but they chose the party that was filled with hatred and wanted war. So, the Palestinian civilians are not "innocent" bystanders. They asked for this, and they knew what they would get from it.
Second, Hamas could not use the civilians as "human shields" without their consent. The civilians choose to stand between Israel and Hamas, and in so doing, they know the risk. They are not "innocent" victims.
Throughout the last truce, Hamas continued sending rockets into Israel. Every country has a right - an obligation - to defend itself. Israel showed great restraint throughout the truce, while Hamas kept up the agression.
So spare me the tears for terrorists. If the Palestinians do not want to be targets, they need to stop those who are making them targets - Hamas! They can throw them out of office. They can refuse to be human shields. For, as Thomas Jefferson so aptly stated, "Every person gets the government they deserve." The Palestinian government in Gaza are murderers. And those who put them in office are murderers by proxy - they are not innocent.
Note: the remaining Palestinians, under Abbas' more moderate rule, are not being bombed. Liberals should get a clue - and get educated.
/
Did You Notice?
If you are a conservative, you probably noticed. If you are a liberal, I strongly doubt it.
Last fall, as Joe The Plumber campaigned for the Republicans, the Democrats attacked him viciously and vilified him for being behind on his property taxes. They said he should be in jail (even though delinquent property taxes is not a jailable offense). But you get the point - they wanted to all but hang the guy.
But now, Obama has nominated a guy for Secretary of the Treasury, who oversees the IRS, and the guy did not pay taxes for 4 years! But the same liberals who crucified Joe are giving this guy a pass. It seems if a conservative is behind on his taxes, he is a criminal, but if it is a Democrat, well, suddenly it's "no big deal".
Gee, I guess that means every taxpayer can stop paying their taxes for the next 4 years, because Obama says it's just an "innocent mistake" and Harry Reid says it's only a "hiccup". I wonder where Obama would then get the money for his expansive spending plans?
Look, Geithner is a tax cheat. They can claim "innocent mistake" (Obama's words), but that is completely bogus - the guy ran the International Money Fund, and is SUPPOSED to be smart enough in money matters to run the Treasury - yet, he "mistakenly" does not pay taxes for 4 years? Either he is a crook, or he is too stupid to be Treasury Secretary.
Period.
/
Last fall, as Joe The Plumber campaigned for the Republicans, the Democrats attacked him viciously and vilified him for being behind on his property taxes. They said he should be in jail (even though delinquent property taxes is not a jailable offense). But you get the point - they wanted to all but hang the guy.
But now, Obama has nominated a guy for Secretary of the Treasury, who oversees the IRS, and the guy did not pay taxes for 4 years! But the same liberals who crucified Joe are giving this guy a pass. It seems if a conservative is behind on his taxes, he is a criminal, but if it is a Democrat, well, suddenly it's "no big deal".
Gee, I guess that means every taxpayer can stop paying their taxes for the next 4 years, because Obama says it's just an "innocent mistake" and Harry Reid says it's only a "hiccup". I wonder where Obama would then get the money for his expansive spending plans?
Look, Geithner is a tax cheat. They can claim "innocent mistake" (Obama's words), but that is completely bogus - the guy ran the International Money Fund, and is SUPPOSED to be smart enough in money matters to run the Treasury - yet, he "mistakenly" does not pay taxes for 4 years? Either he is a crook, or he is too stupid to be Treasury Secretary.
Period.
/
About that "Change"...
Throughout the campaign, all we heard from the Obama camp and his supporters was the mantra about "change". That's fine - sometimes change is good. And sometimes it is not.
Part of that change he promised was to bring the nation back together., Yet, the liberals are screaming for just the opposite. They want to prosecute everyone in the Bush administration - how's that for "bringing the two sides together"? The liberal's concept of bringing America together is to get rid of all who oppose them.
Part of the change promised was fiscal responsibility - but even before taking office, Obama has requested a stimulus package of dubious value that will cost taxpayers a whopping $900 million dollars - even more than the bailout bill. And that does not even include the debt that will be incurred from initiating any of his other promises - health care, for example.
Part of his "change" was to change the "Washington Insider" corruption. As yet, his picks for advisors and cabinet do not show any such change. Most are old-time Washington insiders, themselves.
Previous inaugurations cost no more than $45 million taxpayer dollars. Obama's is costing us more than three times that - about $150 million dollars. For what purpose? Glitz! At a time when recession is wreaking havoc on the rest of us.
Polls indicate that 70% of Americans are counting on Obama to "fix everything". Of course, that is an absurd notion. He can do little on his own - it is Congress that makes most changes, and they have a lower approval rating than Bush. What little they have done in the last several years has not been good. So, what does this mean?
It means Democrats will use Obama's failings, when they occur, to place more blame on Republicans. When Obama falls short of a goal, they will simply say that Bush made things SO bad that even the Mighty Obama could not fix them. They will claim that the media hyped Obama so much that folks had unrealistic expectations. What they will NOT tell you is that Obama, himself, set those expectations throughout the campaign. Through the media that has a love affair with Obama, they will make you forget that part, and point out that Obama has actually succeeded remarkably just because things did not get too much worse.
In short, those high expectations, set by Obama, the Democrats and the media, will not be met. And when they are not met, they will blame the Republicans. "If only the Bush administration had not ruined things SO badly, Obama could have fixed it." Sure. Forget that when he was soliciting votes, he assured us that he COULD, and WOULD fix it.
Last evening I listened to a "Democratic Strategist" state that we all know how it works - a candidate says whatever he has to in order to win, because if he does not win, he cannot do anything. Excuse me for saying so, but you would never hear a Republican strategist say such a dumb thing. Most Republicans still believe that we should be choosing leaders who are honest, and have integrity. If they will lie to get elected, then they will lie about anything, and do not have the integrity to be a leader.
That is why the Republicans lost lately. Their base - true Republicans - are disenfranchised with the Republican leadership. Republicans have integrity, and will not vote for those they believe unworthy. And Republican leaders have shown themselves to be unworthy. They have strayed far from the core values of real Republicans.
If Republicans can find a few good, honest people to run, those candidates will get the support they need to win. But we must first rout out the wayward Republicans. The ones who believe in amnesty. The ones who believe in gay marriage. The ones who are not strongly opposed to abortion. Those who think we should socialize America just because we hit a rough spot.
That is why Governor Palin hit such a strong chord with the Republicans on the ground - she's rooted in the core values. And that is also why both the Republican leadership and the Democrats fear her so much that even now they continue to attack her. The Republican leadership does not want to lose control of the party to core Republican values. The Democrats fear the popularity of Palin.
The same can be said of any strong conservative, such as Newt Gingrich.
Frankly, if the Republican party were to put Palin and Gingrich on the same ticket, I could almost guarantee a landslide in 2012. Guts and brains. It is what we need.
What we do not need is more empty rhetoric about "change".
/
Part of that change he promised was to bring the nation back together., Yet, the liberals are screaming for just the opposite. They want to prosecute everyone in the Bush administration - how's that for "bringing the two sides together"? The liberal's concept of bringing America together is to get rid of all who oppose them.
Part of the change promised was fiscal responsibility - but even before taking office, Obama has requested a stimulus package of dubious value that will cost taxpayers a whopping $900 million dollars - even more than the bailout bill. And that does not even include the debt that will be incurred from initiating any of his other promises - health care, for example.
Part of his "change" was to change the "Washington Insider" corruption. As yet, his picks for advisors and cabinet do not show any such change. Most are old-time Washington insiders, themselves.
Previous inaugurations cost no more than $45 million taxpayer dollars. Obama's is costing us more than three times that - about $150 million dollars. For what purpose? Glitz! At a time when recession is wreaking havoc on the rest of us.
Polls indicate that 70% of Americans are counting on Obama to "fix everything". Of course, that is an absurd notion. He can do little on his own - it is Congress that makes most changes, and they have a lower approval rating than Bush. What little they have done in the last several years has not been good. So, what does this mean?
It means Democrats will use Obama's failings, when they occur, to place more blame on Republicans. When Obama falls short of a goal, they will simply say that Bush made things SO bad that even the Mighty Obama could not fix them. They will claim that the media hyped Obama so much that folks had unrealistic expectations. What they will NOT tell you is that Obama, himself, set those expectations throughout the campaign. Through the media that has a love affair with Obama, they will make you forget that part, and point out that Obama has actually succeeded remarkably just because things did not get too much worse.
In short, those high expectations, set by Obama, the Democrats and the media, will not be met. And when they are not met, they will blame the Republicans. "If only the Bush administration had not ruined things SO badly, Obama could have fixed it." Sure. Forget that when he was soliciting votes, he assured us that he COULD, and WOULD fix it.
Last evening I listened to a "Democratic Strategist" state that we all know how it works - a candidate says whatever he has to in order to win, because if he does not win, he cannot do anything. Excuse me for saying so, but you would never hear a Republican strategist say such a dumb thing. Most Republicans still believe that we should be choosing leaders who are honest, and have integrity. If they will lie to get elected, then they will lie about anything, and do not have the integrity to be a leader.
That is why the Republicans lost lately. Their base - true Republicans - are disenfranchised with the Republican leadership. Republicans have integrity, and will not vote for those they believe unworthy. And Republican leaders have shown themselves to be unworthy. They have strayed far from the core values of real Republicans.
If Republicans can find a few good, honest people to run, those candidates will get the support they need to win. But we must first rout out the wayward Republicans. The ones who believe in amnesty. The ones who believe in gay marriage. The ones who are not strongly opposed to abortion. Those who think we should socialize America just because we hit a rough spot.
That is why Governor Palin hit such a strong chord with the Republicans on the ground - she's rooted in the core values. And that is also why both the Republican leadership and the Democrats fear her so much that even now they continue to attack her. The Republican leadership does not want to lose control of the party to core Republican values. The Democrats fear the popularity of Palin.
The same can be said of any strong conservative, such as Newt Gingrich.
Frankly, if the Republican party were to put Palin and Gingrich on the same ticket, I could almost guarantee a landslide in 2012. Guts and brains. It is what we need.
What we do not need is more empty rhetoric about "change".
/
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Extravagance
As the recession continues to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy and inauguration celebrations ramp up, a lot of people are asking: "How much will this shindig cost?"
The short answer? Likely more than $150 million — and yep, that's the most expensive ever. By comparison, George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million. Bill Clinton managed with $33 million in 1993.
I could be wrong, but it strikes me that the money Obama spends on himself and all the extravagance - both throughout the campaign, and even now - could have been better used and gone a long way toward helping the folks cope with the bad economy.
If he has so little regard for how money is spent, how can we expect him to deal effectively with the economy?
/
The short answer? Likely more than $150 million — and yep, that's the most expensive ever. By comparison, George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million. Bill Clinton managed with $33 million in 1993.
I could be wrong, but it strikes me that the money Obama spends on himself and all the extravagance - both throughout the campaign, and even now - could have been better used and gone a long way toward helping the folks cope with the bad economy.
If he has so little regard for how money is spent, how can we expect him to deal effectively with the economy?
/
Demented Pt II
If anyone doubts that the far left loons like Stephanopoulos, Daily Kos, Media Matters, The New York Times, NBC, CNN, Franken and the Hollywood Clowns are truly demented, all you have to do is listen to their public outcry to "try Bush and his administration for treason."
Think about it - this country is already far too polarized. Too much damage has already been done by the whackos on both sides. And THOSE clowns want to make it much, much worse. They must know (unless they are stupid morons as well as demented - the jury is still out on that) that charging any of the Bush administration would result in even greater polarization, and could even result in a civil war. The fact that the Justice Department and every credible attorney says Bush did nothing illegal does not seem to matter to those loons.
The mere fact that so many people voted for Obama BECAUSE he vowed to bring us all back together goes to show what the folks know we need. Yet these far-left bomb-throwing mindless little jerks don't care - all they want is to push their far-left liberal agenda, and that would be easier if the country becomes even more polarized. They know they cannot survive if the majority of the folks come together. They would become irrelevant.
And there is nothing a liberal fears more than becoming irrelevant.
/
Think about it - this country is already far too polarized. Too much damage has already been done by the whackos on both sides. And THOSE clowns want to make it much, much worse. They must know (unless they are stupid morons as well as demented - the jury is still out on that) that charging any of the Bush administration would result in even greater polarization, and could even result in a civil war. The fact that the Justice Department and every credible attorney says Bush did nothing illegal does not seem to matter to those loons.
The mere fact that so many people voted for Obama BECAUSE he vowed to bring us all back together goes to show what the folks know we need. Yet these far-left bomb-throwing mindless little jerks don't care - all they want is to push their far-left liberal agenda, and that would be easier if the country becomes even more polarized. They know they cannot survive if the majority of the folks come together. They would become irrelevant.
And there is nothing a liberal fears more than becoming irrelevant.
/
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Demented
To give an indication of the demented mentality of liberals, consider the following:
1) Last month they moved to make the position of First Lady Michelle a salaried position, with powers ascribed to it. Of course, that is totally absurd, and would not even be constitutionally legal
2) Now, a New York Democrat Congressman is putting forth a bill in congress that would abolish the 22nd amendment and allow Obama to serve a third term - bear in mind, he has not yet served even ONE DAY, and to date has had zero accomplishments by which to judge his ability.
Bear in mind also that this Congressman apparently knows nothing about the Constitution (and therefore should not be a Congressman). He SHOULD know that you cannot simply "abolish" any part of the Constitution, particularly not by congressional degree. Any change to the Constitution must be approved by at least 2/3 of all the states - and since Obama only won half the states (and even fewer states by popular vote), that is not possible.
The liberals should also note that allowing any person that much power - 12 years leading the most powerful country on Earth - is simply asking for greater corruption. The corruption in Congress can be directly attributed to congressmen who have been in power for many years, and have built powerful political machines. They no longer have to represent the people who elected them.
And liberals should also ask themselves how they would feel if, instead of electing Obama for a third term, the people should choose to give three terms to a Republican.
That is the biggest problem with these demented liberals - they just cannot see past their noses. Cannot plan past today. They act without thinking things through. Like "ethanol", which we now know to be a bigger contributor to CO2 emmissions, and causes food shortages. Or electric cars, that require fossil fuels to be burned to make the electricity. Or these stupid new lightbulbs that are made with mercury, are toxic, and must be diosposed of as hazardous waste - and they require much more energy to produce, wiping out any possible savings.
I realize we need differing viewpoints. But liberals need to at least make an attempt at sanity.
/
1) Last month they moved to make the position of First Lady Michelle a salaried position, with powers ascribed to it. Of course, that is totally absurd, and would not even be constitutionally legal
2) Now, a New York Democrat Congressman is putting forth a bill in congress that would abolish the 22nd amendment and allow Obama to serve a third term - bear in mind, he has not yet served even ONE DAY, and to date has had zero accomplishments by which to judge his ability.
Bear in mind also that this Congressman apparently knows nothing about the Constitution (and therefore should not be a Congressman). He SHOULD know that you cannot simply "abolish" any part of the Constitution, particularly not by congressional degree. Any change to the Constitution must be approved by at least 2/3 of all the states - and since Obama only won half the states (and even fewer states by popular vote), that is not possible.
The liberals should also note that allowing any person that much power - 12 years leading the most powerful country on Earth - is simply asking for greater corruption. The corruption in Congress can be directly attributed to congressmen who have been in power for many years, and have built powerful political machines. They no longer have to represent the people who elected them.
And liberals should also ask themselves how they would feel if, instead of electing Obama for a third term, the people should choose to give three terms to a Republican.
That is the biggest problem with these demented liberals - they just cannot see past their noses. Cannot plan past today. They act without thinking things through. Like "ethanol", which we now know to be a bigger contributor to CO2 emmissions, and causes food shortages. Or electric cars, that require fossil fuels to be burned to make the electricity. Or these stupid new lightbulbs that are made with mercury, are toxic, and must be diosposed of as hazardous waste - and they require much more energy to produce, wiping out any possible savings.
I realize we need differing viewpoints. But liberals need to at least make an attempt at sanity.
/
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
True Colors
Throughout the presidential campaign, much was bandied around concerning Obama's ties to a variety of socialists. And many conservatives wondered if he would bring socialism into the White House. Today we know the answer.
Today, Obama appointed Carol Browner as his "climate czar", a top advisory position. For those of you unfamiliar with Browner, she is LITERALLY a card-carrying socialist. She was one of the top leaders of Socialists International, one of the largest socialist organizations in the world, and a radical environmentalist. During her years as EPA director under Clinton, she strongly pushed the Kyoto Accords (which failed). The Kyoto Accords would have forced the U.S. to shrink its economy and reduce its overall wealth, and reduce production of goods so companies would move to countries not included in Kyoto (China, India, South America). And this is the person Obama has chosen as one of his top advisors.
And his pick for AG (Holder) was involved in pardoning Marc Rich, and in the forced abduction at gunpoint of the Cuban child in the '90's.
His pick for Treasury Secretary is found to have cheated on his taxes for several years, owing the Treasury $42,000.
His pick for Secretary of State has a husband who is heavily vested in the interests of foreign governments - mostly Arab/Muslim, and China.
His pick for Secretary of Commerce had to step down because he is being investigated for corruption.
His choice for Education Secretary is the person in charge of the worst-performing schools in the nation.
So it comes as no surprise he chooses a card-carrying socialist to be one of his top advisors.
I do believe this tells us a lot about his judgement, and his intent. You see, Obama, despite his claim, is Muslim - an Islamist. They are intent on ruling the entire planet under Sharia Law.. But they cannot take over a free Republic like America, so they must first convert it to socialism and in so doing, destroy Christianity, the rule of law and individual rights.
/
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Divine Intelligence?
In looking for a sound means of expressing why an educated, intelligent person would believe in a greater intelligence often referred to as "God", I have come up with many. But none are so powerfully convincing as this one.
To begin, it is important to understand that evolution, or accidental existence, by its definition and nature, cannot include concepts such as planning, thought, or even the ability to determine a need for something. All of those things require intelligence.
Therefore, without accepting the existence of a God, it is impossible to explain why - and how - the act of sex creates a physical sensation of ecstacy.
Certainly, any "designer" would understand that in order to survive, creatures must procreate. And to insure they do so, it would be necessary to instill such a sense of pleasure derived from the act of sex. But my point is this - it takes rational thought, planning, and determining a need for the sense of pleasure. Without intelligence, "nature" and accidental existence would not beget such pleasure. Not being able to think, plan or determine, nature could not possibly, and by sheer accident, instill in us the sense of sexual pleasure.
Some might say that the ecstacy evolved because of the need for it. But that raises two questions:
1) how does nature, unable to think or plan, determine such a need, and "evolve" it, and
2) if it evolved over time, how did life survive long enough to develop that sense of ecstacy? Without it from the start, it is unlikely that creatures would procreate.
Certainly, evolution can explain many things. But what each of us should think about are those things that evolution cannot explain.
Take, for example, the intricacies of coexistence. Needs between two or more living things cannot be explained through evolution, as one species has no way of "knowing" what another needs. Here is an example:
Birds eat raspberries. But they cannot digest the seeds. Instead, those are excreted while the birds sit on tree branches. This allows the raspberry seeds to produce new plants because a) the seeds were not digested, b) the seeds were deposited beneath branches where they receive the required shade for the young roots, and c) the seeds are deposited with a glob of bird manure, to fertilize the seeds. An intricate series of instances that produces an end result. And because of it, the birds are helping to produce their own food supply.
This raises questions, for those who do not believe in a Divine Intelligence. One such question: why is it that the seeds are not digested? Surely evolution, without intelligence, would insure that the digestive system of birds would digest everything they eat. Considering all of the separate things that must occur, in concert, in order to continue the cycle, and each must occur without the knowledge of any of the "players", it is difficult for any thinking person to reject out-of-hand the concept of a Divine Intelligence.
Of course, as a believer I always like to ask non-believers the following two questions:
1) Since only living things can evolve, how do you explain the existence of all the non-living things, like rocks? Since they could not evolve, the only other explanation is that they were somehow created. By what? Why? How?
2) Assuming evolution explains how humans got here, how do you explain the very first living thing? Being the first, it could not have evolved from anything, because it was the first. So, where did that first living thing come from? How did it become alive?
In any case, I always come back to the wonder that is the ecstacy we feel when we complete the sex act. Such a thing is something that has a defined purpose, but not a true need except in the context of propagation of the species. And nature, or accidental existence, being unable to think and therefore unable to care, would not provide such a solution. The fact that 96% of all species that ever lived have already become extinct proves that nature does not care if we survive or not. Providing a solution for a purpose is something that requires intelligence, thought and planning.
To begin, it is important to understand that evolution, or accidental existence, by its definition and nature, cannot include concepts such as planning, thought, or even the ability to determine a need for something. All of those things require intelligence.
Therefore, without accepting the existence of a God, it is impossible to explain why - and how - the act of sex creates a physical sensation of ecstacy.
Certainly, any "designer" would understand that in order to survive, creatures must procreate. And to insure they do so, it would be necessary to instill such a sense of pleasure derived from the act of sex. But my point is this - it takes rational thought, planning, and determining a need for the sense of pleasure. Without intelligence, "nature" and accidental existence would not beget such pleasure. Not being able to think, plan or determine, nature could not possibly, and by sheer accident, instill in us the sense of sexual pleasure.
Some might say that the ecstacy evolved because of the need for it. But that raises two questions:
1) how does nature, unable to think or plan, determine such a need, and "evolve" it, and
2) if it evolved over time, how did life survive long enough to develop that sense of ecstacy? Without it from the start, it is unlikely that creatures would procreate.
Certainly, evolution can explain many things. But what each of us should think about are those things that evolution cannot explain.
Take, for example, the intricacies of coexistence. Needs between two or more living things cannot be explained through evolution, as one species has no way of "knowing" what another needs. Here is an example:
Birds eat raspberries. But they cannot digest the seeds. Instead, those are excreted while the birds sit on tree branches. This allows the raspberry seeds to produce new plants because a) the seeds were not digested, b) the seeds were deposited beneath branches where they receive the required shade for the young roots, and c) the seeds are deposited with a glob of bird manure, to fertilize the seeds. An intricate series of instances that produces an end result. And because of it, the birds are helping to produce their own food supply.
This raises questions, for those who do not believe in a Divine Intelligence. One such question: why is it that the seeds are not digested? Surely evolution, without intelligence, would insure that the digestive system of birds would digest everything they eat. Considering all of the separate things that must occur, in concert, in order to continue the cycle, and each must occur without the knowledge of any of the "players", it is difficult for any thinking person to reject out-of-hand the concept of a Divine Intelligence.
Of course, as a believer I always like to ask non-believers the following two questions:
1) Since only living things can evolve, how do you explain the existence of all the non-living things, like rocks? Since they could not evolve, the only other explanation is that they were somehow created. By what? Why? How?
2) Assuming evolution explains how humans got here, how do you explain the very first living thing? Being the first, it could not have evolved from anything, because it was the first. So, where did that first living thing come from? How did it become alive?
In any case, I always come back to the wonder that is the ecstacy we feel when we complete the sex act. Such a thing is something that has a defined purpose, but not a true need except in the context of propagation of the species. And nature, or accidental existence, being unable to think and therefore unable to care, would not provide such a solution. The fact that 96% of all species that ever lived have already become extinct proves that nature does not care if we survive or not. Providing a solution for a purpose is something that requires intelligence, thought and planning.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Some Are Still At It
Not a day goes by but what some "chicken little" alarmist doesn't trot out the "global warming" mantra. This, in spite of the latest studies and findings. And in spite of the "Global Warming Conference" results of the Manhattan Coneference last year. And in spite of the revelations that:
1) the old theory that the temperatures 600 years ago were cooler than today. The latest studies BY THE IPCC (the U.N. folks that "global warming" alarmists revere) show that temps back then were even warmer than now - even though medieval folks did not have many SUV's
2) Since 1995 EVERY winter has been COOLER than normal, according to the national weather bureau and NASA
3) Four of the coldest years on record have occured since 1997
Now I realize that those who still believe in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" will find the following even more inconvenient, but so be it. At the Manhattan conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, over 200 noted climatologists and researchers from around the world came up with, and signed, the following:
"We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
"Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
"Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
"Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;
"Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
"Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
"Hereby declare:
"That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
"That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
"That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
"That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
"That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
"Now, therefore, we recommend --
"That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."
"That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
"Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008"
1) the old theory that the temperatures 600 years ago were cooler than today. The latest studies BY THE IPCC (the U.N. folks that "global warming" alarmists revere) show that temps back then were even warmer than now - even though medieval folks did not have many SUV's
2) Since 1995 EVERY winter has been COOLER than normal, according to the national weather bureau and NASA
3) Four of the coldest years on record have occured since 1997
Now I realize that those who still believe in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" will find the following even more inconvenient, but so be it. At the Manhattan conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, over 200 noted climatologists and researchers from around the world came up with, and signed, the following:
"We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
"Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
"Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
"Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;
"Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
"Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
"Hereby declare:
"That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
"That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
"That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
"That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
"That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
"Now, therefore, we recommend --
"That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."
"That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
"Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)