The Problem with Uninformed Liberals
November 10th, 2006
Here is the deal. Very rarely, do I meet a liberal that can hold an intelligent conversation and argue a particular point rationally. Now, I do have some friends (believe it or not) that can participate in a rational debate without getting too emotional. This post is not about them/you. This is for the liberal that believes everything they hear; never questions the source and never thinks logically about the big picture; which is indeed a huge part the problem. These are real examples from real people liberals that I have encountered throughout my life experience.
- These are the liberals that believe in global warming just because Al Gore says its a problem. The fact is that there are just as many scientists that disagree with global warming as there are who agree with it. Its an ongoing debate. If there was any SOLID scientific evidence to support either side, there wouldnt be a disagreement. Its the media that hypes it up.
- These are the liberals that still believe that President Bush went AWOL in the National Guard just because Dan Rather reported it on 60 minutes. No need to comment on this one.
- These are the liberals who hate Rumsfeld but dont even know his title (former title).
- These are the liberals that think all Christians are right-wing-zealot extremists. Christians dont fight their battles with AK47s or suicide bombs.
- These are the liberals that protest (and they do a damn good job at it) for the sake of protesting without knowing the issues. I am thinking Berkeley and San Francisco right about now.
- These are the liberals who actually think that universal healthcare will actually work here in the US. Look at Canada and take a wild guess where Canadians go when they need major surgery performed because the Canadian healthcare system has waiting lists that are a mile long; and the doctors are way under paid.
- These are the liberals that think that all conservatives are racist towards blacks and Mexican Americans. Take a look at the current administrations cabinet Condi, Alberto Gonzales.
- These are the liberals that think all conservatives are white, upper class males.
Listen up people. The real problem is that these uninformed liberals who actually believe what they hear are distributing their rhetoric through blogs, emails and conversations with others; and essentially spreading their ideologies like the Ebola virus.
I plead for these liberals to stop believing everything you hear. Understand that life is based on incentives and there is always a hidden agenda (on both sides of the political spectrum) when you are reading/watching the news; and even talking to a friend or family member. Before you form an opinion, do your research and reason your way into a reasonable point of view.
By the way, the above examples are real and are all based on my personal experience interacting with the left.
Technorati Tags: liberal, liberalism, conservative, universal healthcare, global warming
Blog Optimization
November 10th, 2006 at 2:07 am
You're lucky it's 2am and I'm bored or I wouldn't be too keen on responding to this drivel, but here we go.
1) I have never met anyone who had no idea about global warming prior to a 2006 movie. More than that, you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them. I shouldn't need to point this out, but the factoid that there are zero peer-reviewed studies saying humans aren't causing global warming has been kicking around since before An Inconvenient Truth was filmed, and it's still as accurate.
2) Really? Have you actually met someone who said that? Or are you for the second time in as many "points" discounting something by suggesting that those who believe it do so based on one source? I could refute that by saying "there are people who think Bush didn't go AWOL just because he said he didn't." The papers are clear.
3) Which do you mean? The first time he was Sec of Defense, or Chief of Staff? Or when he was Reagan's envoy to the Middle East and the famous Saddam handshake video was made? Yeesh.
4) Really? There are? Even the vast numbers of Christian liberals think all Christians are violent extremists? John Kerry's a Catholic who opposes gay marriage, I was unaware he thought Christians were violent extremists. You must think no liberals are Christians. Good work.
5) Did you ask them about "the issues"? What issues are you referring to? How do you know about their knowledge of "the issues"? Or are you just saying they don't know what they're talking about simply because you disagree with them?
6) Yeah, the American system is so much better, what with the 40 million or so people without any insurance at all. All you've told us here is that the Canadian system is imperfect. Check out Japan, they seem to have it fairly down pat. And why do you think America's too stupid to make it work? I have more faith in our country than you do, apparently.
7) Oh wow, there's a black woman and a hispanic guy. That makes all the difference. You just made the political equivalent of "I can't be a racist, my best friend is black." A party that suppressed the vote of blacks in Florida because they were "felons" is not a party friendly to blacks.
8) For the last time, has this ever happened? Have you ever met someone who honestly thought ALL conservatives were upper class white men? I thought we thought you were all Christians, which certainly goes to both genders. And I thought we snooty liberals thought conservatives were dumb rednecks? Those people certainly aren't "upper class".
This is a piss poor list based on a hodgepodge of pseudo-observations that you probably got while listening to Limbaugh or Hannity when you could have been reading actual news, instead of having some empty-headed squawkbox telling you what you want to hear.
I might as well make up a list that says "there are conservatives who hate Bill Clinton but can't name a thing he did during his presidency aside from get a blowjob". I'm sure such people exist, but they're such non-focused entities in the political sphere I hardly consider them conservatives so much as dabblers in politics.
This is my biggest problem with conservatism. So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are. Various FOX pundits spend a fair amount of time on the same. Limbaugh sits on the radio and spews hatred towards liberals during the time he can't think of some snarky comment about something or other.
I listen to Al Franken a fair bit (terrible radio personality, but a brilliant fella), I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann nightly. Do you know what's funny about them, and this can be extended to nearly any of the "angry liberals" that draw so much conservative ire? They don't make sweeping generalizations about conservatives. They don't talk about the problems with the right and how awful they are.
Liberal as some of these guys may be, outside of a few on Air America, they don't waste energy babbling on and on about how awful the other side is. They make their points and just move along. I jibe at the right fairly frequently, but except for when I was incredibly green in the world of blogging I don't do lists like this.
As I said, you're benefiting from my being bored late at night, but hopefully this will help you actually become constructive instead of parroting hollow stereotypes in order to insult people.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:22 am
[...] I make lots of comments about the redcoats on the site, and I dont hide that. Whenever a story crops up or I see a video that shows a particularly ugly side of the right I comment on it. Periodically I do it as a snarky comment about an election or what I anticipate will be a reaction to something. Im very harsh on the right, but its only in the context of another story. However, one thing I have not done since I was green in the political blogging world is waste entire articles on rambling about conservatives (though I did make that conservative handbook a while ago, but that was just for the sake of comedy). Take this guy, and yes I know I responded with an article bigger than his and am now writing yet another. Hes written a list about uninformed liberals, with points like these: - These are the liberals that still believe that President Bush went AWOL in the National Guard just because Tom Brokaw reported it on 60 minutes. No need to comment on this one. [...]
November 10th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Last time I checked FELONS weren't allowed to vote anywhere. You lose that right when you commit a crime and are convicted. Know what you're talking about before you speak you silly little liberal. Why is this even a big deal? I don't think WHITE felons can vote either.
I for one am sick of the toxic environment created by liberals. You think you're SO much smarter than the rest of us and spout *your* drivel constantly. I see a conservative doing it for once and of course you have to come in with your huge ego and parrot just as much as he is. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Go back and listen to your squawkbox like those fools on Air America and continue blindly believing whatever they tell you. I like how you refer to Limbaugh and Hannity as this, but you turn around and listen to crap like Air America. WOW! You're JUST as bad as the person who wrote the intial posting. Personally I don't like ANY of these pathetic radio hosts and would never refer to myself as either liberal or conservative because I don't believe in labels and would rather pick and choose from both sides.
Please Mr/Mrs Liberal..stop acting so high and mighty. I think you would benefit from listening if you'd somehow quell the diarrhea shooting forth from your mouth like a turd waterfall. Have a mint. Really....you people are just as crappy as conservatives...and with even bigger egos! It's amazing...I hope *this* benefits you. I hate to break your heart, but you don't know everything.
Also, I don't know what "Air America" you are listening to but they make plenty of these "sweeping generalizations" you speak of. You must be dreaming...liberals are just as guilty as conservatives...when you guys wake up and realize that hopefully your egos will burst and I won't have to hear you guffaw everytime the name "Bush" is mentioned. I can't wait until his term is over for this very reason. No more liberals running around yelling like madmen when Bush is on t.v.! Whew!!!
You speak of stereotypes. Let me point out TWO in your post. This shows that you're just as guilty of stereotyping as the Conservative fellow. We are all guilty of it at one time or another:
"you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them."
This is clearly a stereotype. Most Conservatives like to discount things without actually considering them or doing the backwork? Very open minded there. All Conservatives must be too stupid to do this. What a shame!
"So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are."
Yes, all conservatives sit around all day getting all their news from Anne Coulter, psycho-racist Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity. Suuuuuree....keep dreaming! Let's talk about all the books written by liberals about how conservatives are destroying our country (and world.) Oh...did you forget about them? Thought so...
November 10th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hanlon...read the title of the post. It's UNINFORMED liberals he is talking about; not democrats like John Kerry. And, yes, I have even met several libs that think very similar to the points listed above.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Hanlon,
I assume that you have never lived in San Francisco, or at least visited there. I was not exaggerating when I wrote my post. They are all based on my personal experiences and interactions of 32 years living in the bay area. From reading your blog early this morning, you are not what I consider an uninformed liberal.
- Michael
November 10th, 2006 at 10:18 am
there are sweeping generalizations coming from both sides here.
i don't know what gets into a person to make them wish to govern using fear tactics other than the desire to control by what ever means necessary - whether by involving the u.s. in a war that had no business being- or a politician that runs a campaign with only negative thoughts regarding the opposition and the evil embodied in this individual. all the american really wants from a politician is to listen to both sides of an issue and make an informed decision based upon this... we want to place our trust in an individual capable to do this...with such inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides, this is nearly impossible. additionally, the perks of office are such that things get pretty cushy in that seat...all too often a politician spends more time trying to maintain their elected office holding than they do actually pondering the issues and seeking answers.
it is all very discouraging when you have one party, for example... that placed itself upon a pedestal- calling themselves the party of morality... only to see representatives of this same party slide behind the curtains and line their own pockets, hand out jobs to unqualified persons- based upon friendships or donations, participate in sexual behavior privately that they condemn in public... the list is seemingly endless. sure, some got caught...those that we know about.
don't mistake me. this happens within both parties...i mention the above examples because they are the most recent.
what are we to do? finger pointing is easy... but not very productive. let's work on being productive. let's use some common sense. how difficult is that? are we not all in the same boat on this planet? what is so difficult about making an attempt to understand the plight of another?
if someone needs a hand...extend yours...not because it's a good photo op...but because it's the right thing to do.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I won't comment on everything, just what I have researched. Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet right? Of course that was a guffaw on his part and after losing (nearly single handed) his all but guaranteed presidential election, he has retreated and come up with a new "invention". Global warming is occurring (reported) and so is global cooling (unreported). There is a difference between the process of forming a scientific hypothesis and working towards a theorem, and what Al Gore has done. One is formulated and examined by many scientists in the appropriate fields of study and the other seeks out anyone who will agree with what you say. One is like Evolution, the other is "Intelligent" design.
Is the earth warming? Sure it is. Will cutting man made CO2 emissions have a measurable effect on the atmosphere? NO! About 95% of all global warming is caused by water vapor, not CO2, and 99.9% of that water vapor is produced naturally. How can politicians gain power and monies off of that? The answer is they cannot.. Politicians need to make you feel that they are only ones who can fix things. As for the culprit of CO2, there is a volcano in Africa named MT. Nyamuragira which equals the entire US's CO2 emissions every day! The point is the entire global warming scare mongering is exactly that. The answer to global warming is to prepare for the effects which are inevitable. Let's see if Al Gore comes out and urges the entire coastal populations of each coastline move in 50 miles. There's a vote getter right? I won't hold my breath.
Cheers and have a good day!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Dear Folks,
As a 71 year old man whose resume includes San Quentin, Korea and Law School I am always amused by the people who call themselves "Conservative" .
While they hate the idea that a "liberal" may have something to say, one only needs to see the effects that conservatives have had on this country.
Take Antonin Scalia- there is the conservative mind at work. He thinks it is O.K. to give a man 50 years in prison for stealing some video tapes. Take G Bush-he thinks it is O.K. to invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people so we can prove that Sadaam was a bad guy who might hurt us one day.
How about another of the great conservative minds at work-I refer to Samuel Alito who wrote that the of killing by a policeman of a unarmed 15 year old eighth grader who had stolen a purse and who was fleeing was O.K.
If you like Conservatives than you will love the decision in Gore v. Bush. The reality is that the Liberals believe that things could get better and they mess up, as humans are wont to do. However, the conservative mind thinks that humans are not to be trusted and should be kept under the tightest control and that includes their minds. (Does the evolution dispute sound familiar?). Or the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court who said that giving Marijuana to people who are dying is a no-no. I think that the greatest conservative was Spiro Agnew who said that the liberals were "Nattering nabobs of negativism"
He later resigned because he was taking bribes while he was the V.P. and also when he was Governor of Maryland.
I could show you many mistakes Liberals have made but they pale in significance to a President (Nixon) suborning perjury. Even Clinton who tried to hide from the Right Wing's attempt to turn a sexual incident into an impeachable act was a better President than any conservative President.
My point is -forget the labels and look at what the different political philosophies have to offer.
You might be surprised.
The Bible says " there are none so blind as those who can see but will not"
November 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
There are a few minor problems with this article, but for the most part the author is right. Global warming might be something that is very real, the problem is that liberals blame mankind for this and that is the part that the liberal media screws up. Massive climate changes have been going on as long as the earth has existed, do the words Ice Age ring a bell. They should. The fact is that about every 20,000 years the earths poles switch causing massive climate changes. We are about 18,000 years removed from the last ice age which means that we are quickly approaching a peak in global temp. After we reach this peak we will then start to feel cooler until we finally end up in another ice age where the cycle will start again. As for the movie Hanlon was talking about do you think that it is our fault that we are going into an ice age because of hairspray and SUVs if so what did the dinosaurs use to bring on the ice age that took them out. Back to the original article the only other flaw that I saw was that is was Dan Rathers that broke the Bush AWOL story not Tom Brokaw. HANLON those papers that you refer to were found to be FAKE and Dan Rathers was forced to resign because of it.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Josh C....you were right. My bad. I made the changes in the original article.
- Michael
November 10th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Just thought i'd leave one quick note about the global warming issue. The Economist recently wrote a special feature about it (I think we can all agree that the Economist is not a liberal - in the american sense anyway - journal) in which they discussed the idea that, while it may not be attributable to human activity, it also is possible that it is. Their opinion of the science went both ways. (I dispute that assertion, but nevermind). However, they noted that we should act as if humans have an effect. After all, you only have to do some simple risk evaluation. If humans have no effect on the environment, then we continue as always, no changes. But, if humans are affecting the environment, then a lack of action will result in catastrophe. The science may go both ways at the moment, but considering the risks isn't it worthwhile to act in self-preservation?
November 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Again, I would point out that CO2 does contribute to global warming, and that it is about the only component which is constantly talked about by the media and politicians. However, all CO2 emissions only account for less than 5% of the problem. Not counting the naturally producing terra and underwater emissions being produced, and mankind cuts "his" emissions by half (hardly even possible) you are looking at less than a 2% difference. Since most scientists actually in the field of climatic change agree that nothing man does will stop the completely natural processes which are taking place, then exactly why has global warming become such a front page issue? It's because there is a great deal of money to be made here. I don't see it as a "liberal" issue either. Frankly IMHO, I think Al Gore was looking for a "vehicle" to launch himself back into national and international politics. I mean the man was VP for 8 years. Why not talk about it then? The standard response might be that all the facts were not in. Well there are hardly ANY facts to claim that man has the ability to hinder global warming. Frankly, maybe we are not supposed to either. Before we start messing up the climatic clock of the only planet that we can survive on, perhaps we should take a step back from the "political" solutions and let the answers come from the scientific community instead. Right now there are scientists saying everything from, nothing is wrong, to it's going to happen over a long period of time, to it's going to happen possibly in a single season! The point man on this issue should not be a politician or a political committee. They are just like actors and actresses, they'll say just about anything, just hand them a script. Anyway that's my 2 cents. Good day mates!
November 11th, 2006 at 9:23 am
are you disputing the existance of global warming? certainly you are not this ignorant...i would hope not.
as for gore's association with this subject prior to his recent documentary ...gore might be, perhaps, the single most informed politician - in or out of office- regarding this topic.
... it is on the environment that Gore can claim to have what every leader needs but few possess: vision. Before the rest of the world had ever heard the term "global warming," Gore was holding the first congressional hearings on the subject--in 1980! While Republicans like George H.W. Bush were denying the existence of global warming, Gore was helping gather evidence. While researching his book, Gore took a trip to the North Pole on a nuclear submarine and realized that the U.S. Navy had 40 years' worth of data on the thickness of the Arctic ice cap. Recognizing the untapped potential in the vast and largely unused information, he brokered a deal to release it to civilian scientists, who discovered that the ice cap had thinned by 40 percent just since 1970, a story that made world headlines.
~toe
November 11th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Please concentrate all of your focus and reread my post "toe". I do not deny the existence of global warming......the facts simply do not exist that man can do ANYTHING to hinder its coming. Again, global warming is a completely natural process. The issue does not belong in the political arena, but in the scientific. Please do not act like Al Gore has discovered global warming...many QUALIFIED scientists were studying it for decades now. Mr. Gore is just politicizing the issue for his own benefit, nothing more. We need facts about global warming....not observations. Yes yes, Mr. Gore has gathered all sorts of scientists to talk about "observing" the effects of global warming, but the FACTS of the WHY and actual CAUSE are being buried. There is very little man can do to thwart global warming. This is a problem for people who need to make themselves out to be saviors. There is so much inaccurate hyperbole about the entire issue and when it gets repeated over and over in the media, people will start to believe the misinformation. Kind of like the statement that peace came to Vietnam in 1974......
Cheers!
November 11th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Recently, I have visited chatrooms which the hosts purport to be rooms for debate. They are "run" by Republicans, hard-line Republicans who are proud of this. There is no debate there. There is only one view - that of the Republican. If this view is not shared by everyone there, they are called names, names I would not repeat here or anywhere else and they are told they are stupid, their birthright is questioned, etc.
What I notice, almost to a person is that they pound away at one question or issue, when there are myriad issues facing us as Americans, regardless of polical affiliation. When I ask a question, I am answered by these Republicans with other questions, and the questions are repeated over and over, with my question still unanswered. Is this what Republicans consider intelligent debate? If I ask a question, wanting to know the Conservative view, it is simply that: Curiosity. I am called anti-American if I ask a question about someone's opinion. If I am wrong about Republicans, prove me wrong. The proof comes with intelligent answers, well thought-out responses, not just name-calling and derision.
I am a proud American who is concerned about all Americans, not just Democrats. This country was founded on debate, questions, considerations and compromise. These have apparently fallen to the trash heap. If you Republicans are such proud Americans, why is there so little eveidence of consideration and compromise?
Now, I am fair-minded enough to know that not all Republicans are this closed-minded, although I have not seen widespread evidence to the contrary.
Can it be that the only defense Republicans have is a good offense? Why don't you want Democrats and Liberals to know how you feel? Is it because you only know what you're fed on talk radio or Fox News (an oxymoron, to be sure)?
I am curious about all sides of any issue, not just Liberal or Democrat opinions. Defending your party should not be to the exlusion of all other opinions, for each of us is entitled to ours. You might not agree, and more often than not, Republicans are more than ready to vehemently chastise those of us who do not agree with them, but we ARE entitled.
There are uneducated and under-educated people of all politcal persuasions. There are poor and undernourished people of all political persuasions, there are both Democrats and Republicans of all races, religions and sexual persuasions. Would the Republicans defend and protect just those who are Republicans? I hope not.
At the end of the day, we are all in this together, but what I have seen is that Republicans would like to round up all us Dems and herd us off to Iraq or wherever else there is a chance Americans will be needlessly slaughtered. If this is the case, who would you all have to pound on? Who would you have to blame? After ahwile, it's all just preaching to the choir. What kind of debate is that?
November 11th, 2006 at 10:28 am
of course the issue of global warming belongs in the political arena... for only in this forum can there be laws written and implemented to slow down this "natural process" which is rapidly being accelerated by our own hand. i am pleased that you do not deny the existence of global warming... it is up to us all on both sides of the fence politically to take measures that will address this issue.
~toe
November 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Well we'll have to disagree on the "political" arena. Since there is no scientific consensus on global warming (at least by the scientists which are actually qualified), I choose to let the scientists sort it out before seeking a political solution. The changes being proposed remind me of shooting at birds with a carbine. Sure it's possible to come up with the right trajectory, but the odds are nonsensical.
That is what we have here.... alot of non-sense and a rush to judgment. Again I would reiterate that there is not any conclusive proof that we can hinder global warming. So why rush into it? That's all...
November 12th, 2006 at 1:19 am
[...] Some of my very good friends and family members are liberal and we get along just fine, assuming we dont talk about politics or religion. In fact, I really admire them for their sincere and unwavering belief system (regardless of how insane those beliefs may be). On the other hand, my conservative friends think they are uninformed, hard-headed and even unreasonable. And, in many cases, depending on the particular individual all three may be true. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
[...] It seems to me like you are just another one of those UNINFORMED liberals. [...]
November 14th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
[...] The fact of the matter is that conservatives come in all shapes, sizes and colors; and not all conservatives were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I worked hard and sacrificed allot for the things that I have today. No help from the government; no extra points when I applied for grad school because I am a minority; no extra consideration for a job for the same reason; and no rich parents that could afford to send me to Stanford. It was hard work, blood – sweat – tears, encouragement from my mother and the grace of God. So, for all those UNINFORMED liberals that think that all conservatives are white and upper class, think again. [...]
November 15th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I find the previous poster to be the "norm" when it comes to conservatism. Basically, conservatives can be born into any sort of "political or economic" family. It is the recognition of certain values and ideals which turn ppl into conservatives. When these same ppl see what is happening in areas such as the judicial system visa vie "activism" without representation, they tend to get a little outspoken about it...as they should. I find that "liberals" are just as capable of showing intolerance to anyone who does not share their "values" as well. It is not surprising to find that most liberals turn into conservatives as they grow older (and wiser). There is a basic ignorance about how economics really works in the USA and abroad. Economics is not taught in our school systems. Frankly, i believe this is done on purpose. If economics were taught to our children from grade 4 on...you would see conservatism grow in this country by leaps and bounds. Liberals have the best of intentions....they are not bad people....they just lack the basic information that would show them that most of their ideas will not produce the desired results...although they will "feel" better about themselves. In a way conservatism is based on "tough"love, but the love is there in spades. The toughness comes from knowing that to help someone up...the person in need must first find it within themselves to improve. No quick fix or free program will instill self worth. It is this self worth and desire which has obviously propelled the previous poster to the heights of higher achievement. No social program can do that...it comes from within. What is needed is to shine this beacon of hope and understanding to our children and to build this path in all of our schools to conservatism and true freedom.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Buy cheap vaniqa...
Buy vaniqa Buy cheap vaniqa online. Buy cheap vaniqa online. Generic vaniqa...
November 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Last I checked right wingers weren't looking for white felons to remove from the ballots.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
[...] Last week, I wrote a posting about the problems with uninformed liberals. The examples I gave were all based on personal experiences with various neighbors, friends, random people, etc. I just recently stumbled upon these pictures which clearly illustrate that these same liberals are not only uninformed, but flat out insane! [...]
November 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I'm not going any farther than saying the first statement is a flat lie.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Hey, you know what's funny - my name is michael brito too! I found this site while googling my own name.
As far as your article, I'd like to say it grieves me to see these puppet liberals you're talking about. The scary part of it all is - how should I put this - have any of you ever played the Metal Gear Solid series? As you play through them you come to find out that the real enemy is a group called "the patriots." They are a secret organization that runs America without us even knowing it. In MGS2 you find out that they basically make all the laws and regulations from their seats of power within the organization and only use the "democratic process" to put on a show to keep the populace in ignorant bliss. They even go so far as to create a masive submarine supercomputer to digitally censor information over the internet. It seems a little farfetched but at the same time a little too close to home. If someone wanted to take over the country, that's pretty much how they'd have to do it. you couldn't just stage a coup; the US military is just too powerful. The only way to get in control would be to manipulate the election process. So if one political party could hype enough people up onto their side, they could choose their candidates from their (unelected) seats of power within the party, make sure that person will rule as THEY see fit, and successfully turn America into a silent dictatorship. (BTW if you were going to say something about electing candidates at the primary, they would obviously be doing the same thing there, too)
So, think about that next time a commedian gets a few EXTRA cheers for making a "Bush is stupid" joke.
As far as the election process is concerned, I think tracy had the right idea. I also don't buy into the whole Republican/Democrat thing. When I vote, I go to either candidate's websites and also neutral sites to see what they (say they) believe about the issues. I don't vote for anyone just because they belong to a certain party.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT TRUE DEMOCRACY!!!!!
if you don't let anyone tell you what to think, they cannot control your vote!
Another easy test is if you've seen Fahrenheit 911 and believe anything in it but haven't seen Fahrenhype 911(history channel documentary about moore's fake-umentary), you may be under liberal control, to an extent
And HOBOBOH, it wasn't totally clear whether you were saying evolution was or wasn't the scientific process. So to clarify for everyone, Intelligent Design is the scientific one. You can't call an argument scientific if one of your initial conditions is to set the opposing theory to untrue and then use that condition to say that you've proven the opposing theory wrong. (ie: saying that my blue toyota camry isn't a car because it's blue, given that you set the condition that no cars are blue) The main scientific problem is that people who claim to be quoting science fail to note that there are TWO theories of evolution: MACROevolution and MICROevolution. The third law of thermodynamics has to do with Entropy. Entropy basically says that the world is always naturally moving into chaos. For thermodynamics, this explains why when you put icecubes into a cup of hot coffee you get lukewarm coffee, but when lukewarm coffee is sitting around it never spontanneously turns into hot coffee with ice in it. What entropy has to do with evolution is basically this (mathematically speaking)
Current species + entropy = Microevolution
Current species - entropy = Macroevolution
Macroevolution by definition REQUIRES that some force (maybe God) not only negates the natural law of entropy but also pushes species forward. "natural selection" doesn't fit the bill because all it would do is negate some of the force of entropy; it can't force a random mutation to be beneficial. The only thing macroevolutionists do is guess at statistical numbers to assign to the probability (which is still stacked against them{if there's a one in a gazillion chance of macroevolution just happenning on it's own, then there's a
(gaz-1)/gaz chance of intelligent design}meaning that the scientifically minded would believe in intelligent design anyway.) and ignore anything that doesn't say what they want to hear (ie:missing linkS)and try to force their illogical belief system on others by pushing legislation to keep creationism out of schools despite the fact that it is still a theory that hasn't been disproven(and is statistically more likely) all because their afraid to believe there's a God who might think He knows better than them how they ought to live. And the Really sad part is that they don't realize God doesn't just want to force you to follow a bunch of rules; he gave you free will in the first place he'd be the last to try and take it away. He wants a RELATIONSHIP! He loves you even when you fall down and get boo-boos. He only gives us rules because He loves us and doesn't want to see us hurt ourselves by doing crap that the world tells us to. (like vote liberal{lol just kidding})
I hope that helps clear some things up. Sorry for the rant. feel free to reply if you have any questions. (no loud obnoxious bs please)
November 18th, 2006 at 4:29 am
I am probably as conservative as it comes, however, not everything in this post is factually correct.
I am a Canadian. And our health care system here in Alberta is second to none. I can give you two personal examples. Three years ago I had a serious illness. I was in the hospital, properly diagnosed, and transferred to a specialty hospital all inside of HOURS... not days... not weeks... NO waiting lines. That same illness would have bankrupted me in the US if I had no health care insurance, and if I did, it would have been canceled after I was released.
My grandson needed to be cared for this week for a breathing difficulty. He was transferred to the Children's Hospital in Calgary inside of 4 hours. Again, no waiting, no lineups, and no additional cost to my daughter and son-in-law.
The Canadian health care system has challenges, but far less then the US model. Our percentage of GDP spent on health care is a magnitude of 5-7% less than in the US. Specialists that left Canada for the States 10 years ago are coming back AND specialists that are American citizens are now coming here because of the cost of malpractice insurance in the US.
So, in short, when a person needs health care in Canada, it is there. A serious illness does not result in catastrophic financial loss, and my health care insurance can not be canceled.
I have always said that if we could have the American system of government, the American gun laws, and combine them with the Canadian Health care system, we would pretty much have a perfect country.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Michael - I google myslelf all the time and there a several people with our name. Are you the musician? All the other results on the first page of Google are me. lol.
John - thanks for the clarification. I will research this in more detail.
- Michael
November 18th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Arguing online will do nothing for you. Stop it.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Sure Bill. Just cuz you said so.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
One can not compare medical Care in Canada to another Country as of yet. You have a similar to the one in Germany, having lived in Europe for the better part of 12 years and having friends in the medical system that was once touted as one of the best "Second to None" you will find that as long as uncontrolled immigration and freeloaders that thrive on a social system will eventually cost the country. Those problems are alive and well here where you do have to wait long hours for care or even weeks there is no hurry to get medical care since a nurse makes about 1400 Euro and Doctors average no more than 2900 Euro a month. On weekends you will be lucky to have a single nurse watching a ward with up to 25 patients. Maybe many years back the social system of medicine and school worked but that is no longer the truth here, and the German government is trying hard to change it. Recently voting to raise taxes from 16% to 19% on purchases as well as the average family tax from 48% to 52%. It may seem go now but once additional immigrants are recruited to come to Canada as well as those that follow and leach of a society you can bet you will be in the same boat as the EU is right now. I invite anyone to research and live here for a little bit luckily I have tax relief on my purchases and electric and oil bills that I can survive if not there is no way to make it here living a good life. I have seven German employees and I hear their monetary pains daily. Like all social programs they are great in theory but once you place the realities of citizens that do not contribute that is when you will start to suffer and once you force everyone to start contributing or face some kind of consequences then you have the beginning of another problem I bring your attention to the riots in France.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I wasn't aware of making any comments about evolution as a scientific process, but I suspect "Michael" just wished to use that sentence as a launch pad for his own. So be it. I won't go into a long diatribe on how "intelligent design" ( a complete oxymoron) is not able to stand up to scrutiny, but suffice it to say that evolution is the "theory" which is widely accepted by almost all people who truly THINK. Besides, what is so difficult to accept? You can have your cake and eat it too if you wish. G*D produced a self running program (Nature) which is able to modify itself and adapt to the constantly changing environments.....it's as simple as that, if that's what you want. Unfortunately, I think that the core believers of intelligent design need to maintain the illusion that man is the epitome of G*D's work and special above all that has come before us. This is where a "science" goes off the rails. While man is a wonderment to behold for sure...we are not the pinnacle ...we are the latest Model T to come along...that's all. In the long history of our own planet, we are a new "experiment" and the votes are still out whether this type of species will be able to run the marathon of evolution. It's a long race and we have just started out. Are we a flash in the pan? Time will tell. There is absolutely no evidence of our creator, so getting an answer to our questions through "IT" is impossible. We must muddle our way in G*D's absence as best we can on our own. Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Not knowing my creator frees me to think for myself. Perhaps that is exactly what G*D intended and he gave us a process (evolution) to help us get to the truth we seek. Perhaps not of course, perhaps it is a blind universe we live in and there is no one watching or waiting for us. That's OK too. Besides it's not up to me...or you. That's why I think intelligent design is a farce. G'Day and cheers!
November 20th, 2006 at 9:41 am
As for the health care comments , I believe Ted in Germany is dead on...it's apples to oranges you see. Besides Canada has 25 million people. The USA has 300 million. That's a pretty big variable. The Canadian dollar is also 20% undervalued to the American dollar, wanna guess one of the reasons why? Socializing a private system doe NOT make it better. Governments do NOT run efficient programs. What is needed is to call off the "DOGS OF WAR" in the medical industry who suck the life blood from the field and divert the profits to themselves. I don't know what you call them in your country, but here we refer to them as lawyers....... They are mainly responsible for the runaway costs in the pharmacutical industry and hospitals. Reform the medical field by reforming the tort laws, but guess what...the government which unfortunately private citizens seem to be destined to giving control of the health care system have already been bought off. Yes it's quite a pickle... G'day and cheers!
November 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I don't consider myself a particularly political person, since it's not the main focus of my life. Personally, I consider myself a libertarian...
But what I want to say is, why do we argue about "liberals" and "conservatives" and "greens" and so on. Why can't we care about the issues, and the PEOPLE in the government, rather than their parties? The parties were made for the people, not the other way around.
Please, email me if you want to discuss... [email protected]
November 29th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
"This post is not about them them. This is for the liberal that believes everything they hear; never questions the source and never thinks logically about the big picture; which is indeed part the problem."
You mean like most Christians?
November 29th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Perhaps, but I would also include left wing, anti-christian, eco-system environmentalists as well.
: )
November 29th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Certainly one can be conservative and "anti-christian". I believe conservatives to be thinkers...and christianity if it is examined...as well as most any other religion will be found to be ludicrous. Certainly you don't have to be a christian to be conservative......Ii mean really plz...............
November 30th, 2006 at 12:24 am
HOBOHO - well certainly that can be the case, but I am sure it's a very small percentage. I would also add that for one to not acknowledge a higher power in existence would be equally as ludicrous. Furthermore, I would also challenge you to explain in more detail your thorough and complete examination of Christianity (or any other religion) and how it is ludicrous.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:10 am
The amount of percentage...low or otherwise is not the issue. Having a majority is not a guarantee of being correct. AS for recognizing a "higher" power, I do. All I have to do is look around me. The universe is vast beyond the comprehension of this great ape. However, just because I believe that something created this universe(and others I "suppose"), does not automatically validate ANY of the religions flying around the globe today or in the past. Man is a great storyteller and that is exactly what religions represent. They are stories told by a people without the benefit of a foundation of scientific knowledge. Ancient man found "himself" in a world controlled by Nature, a world capable of great violence and unfairness. This is still true today. Nature is a violent process. They lacked the explain their place in this planet and what role they truly played. They didn't have the capability to examine the earth and universe with the discipline of science and reason. They had no idea what even the other planets were. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say without this ability, man simply made up stories to fit his wishes, even his most altruistic. These stories are a reflection of how man of the past saw their world and their place in it. As for the christian bible, you cannot verify a source with itself. It is both unoriginal and wholly suspect as anything but a book of fiction. It was written in spurts long after the "supposed" events took place and by mostly anonymous authors speaking in hindsight and without first person knowledge. Most people today do not accept the bible in its entirety which is quite interesting. So, which parts are right and correct? Which parts really happened? No one knows and there is no way to find out. Is Jesus an historical figure? Certainly not!! Jesus cannot be verified by any other sources. This is quite an amazing conundrum. I mean Jesus supposedly did all of these amazing feats of wizadry and had thousands of followers following him everywhere he went.....and yet none of the historians of the period ever mentioned any of it. When Jesus supposedly died on the cross the sky grew dark for three hours. Certainly a society based upon astral observations would have recorded this fantastic event, but alas no.
Again, I could go on and on pointing out the almost infinite amount of "errors" of the bible. This is why the church is adamant about getting the children to be indoctrinated at an early age. Kids will believe anything. Think about it, if you were raised by your parents in a loving home (probable but not guaranteed) and taught right from wrong without the "benefit" of the church and then on your 18th birthday (an arbitrary date) were told these stories, do you honestly believe you would embrace them as "gospel"? More than likely you would put them in the same category as the Brothers Grimm. This would be the correct thing to do too. Why does man have religion? Man still embraces religion because he still needs it. The percentages of people needing it is shrinking however, and one day man will gently put christianity right next to the other past religions. The only reason other discarded religions of the past failed is because people stopped believing in them. They were valid until they were replaced. What will replace christianity? I do not know. I can only hope it is with reason and the truth. Enough damage has been done already in the name of the present fairy tale. Grow up and out of it, if you can.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:01 am
It seems to me that climate change is too important an issue to remain a political football. May I respectfully draw the attention of those of you whose politics don't dictate their scientific opinion to this recent conversation:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1793597.htm
Ron Oxburgh, whose credentials I think you'll agree should give his opinion considerable weight, addresses all the points raised above by Michael Brito, Hoboboh and Josh C. He quotes actual numbers in regard to CO2 concentrations and warming rates, as opposed to pointless handwaving about how many scientists believe what. The advantage of this kind of numbers is that you can check them yourself against multiple sources, and draw your own conclusions from them.
Hopefully a few of you will take the time to read what he says and think about it, and the problem of uninformed and misinformed citizens (of whatever political persuasion) will get that much smaller as a result.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Flabdablet - thanks for the source; and for stopping by. I'll check out the source.
- Michael Brito
December 4th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I read the above link and it was fairly accurate...and yet...incomplete. Here is the "skinny" on what " Global Warming" is actually comprised of:...
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%
As you can see it is water vapor which is the dominant warming agent...not CO2! The U.S. department of Energy statistics leave out water vapor as does every other environmental group...Wanna know why? Because it shows the folly of the current media melee. Man has practically no ability to affect or hinder global warming. 99% of the water vapor effect is naturally produced!! Of course using these numbers nullifies the ability of politicians and environmentalists to gain power and monies. So guess what, everybody is silent about water vapor...go ahead and look..the best you'll be able to do is find perhaps a passing mention of it with no correlative numbers. Funny huh? Follow the money folks...and you'll find the truth..or lack thereof.
Cheers!!
December 4th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Well the table did not align itself after I moved it so I will retype it manually for you
Percent of Total Percent of Total-adjusted for water vapor
Water Vapor -------------------- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 100.000% 0.360%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc.gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
December 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
well manually didn't work either
you'll have to be patient and focus...sorry
December 4th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
HOBOBOH - i haven't forgotten about you...i'll reply to your post as soon as I have time.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Lol...what's to reply about? I'll just watch "Miracle on 34th street"...it'll amount to the same thing
December 21st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Hey Michael,
I disagree about global warming. It is an issue and it's your pathetic brandwashed mind that think it's not. There are facts from several national and government bodies throughout Europe published that support it's a growing problem.
But Bush would have you think it's not to continue to support the polluting oil industry (which by the way controls the entire planet).
Do you have idea how many "missing children" are in fact sex slaves to the "controllers" of this world? I was one of them that broke away.
Tilly Star
December 29th, 2006 at 4:56 am
LOL...well that certainly was all over the place....Ahhh the old 'evil empire" syndrome...all those in favor of taking down the oil companies...quit using oil...just do it....save the planet...I know you can do it .. if you just try.
By the way, most thinking ppl do not deny "global warming'...it's just how much is man responsible for and how much man can actually "affect" a solution. The short answer is "negligible" to both. Here's the kicker...since 99.99 % of "global warming" is of a completely natural orgigin....perhaps we are not meant to do anyhting at all. I mean, who are we to change the planets climate? if the darn Polar bears time is up...then it's up!! If our time is up...then it's up!! Get over it. Hey, worse case scenario, I'll end up a sex slave for a oil company...:P
Cheers!
December 29th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I am wondering if you have actually seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? if not...you really should before you make yourself sound any more foolish than you already have...if you have seen it...how do you explain your previous responses here to global warming... and man's inability to alter this progressive threat to our planet? Mr. Gore is running for nothing. What possible motive do you see in his making of this film? How can you, with any responsibility at all call it a political motive? Oh...and by the way, your hero, King GW Bush finally admitted to the existance of global warming... 'bout time I would say... now if only he could see the damage that he and his ilk have done in their efforts to lesson the EPA standards since he took office... what a dunce. Without a doubt, King Bush will go down as the absolute worst president ever to have held office in the United States to date.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Toe Jam - yes I did see the Al Gore flick. I also saw Fahrenheit 911; and I assume that you believe all of Michael Moore's allegations to be true, right?
Look, let me clarify my position on global warming. I agree with HOBOBOH (and MOST rocket scientist triple PhD gurus) that 99.9% of global warming is due to natural causes. If Al Gore and his followers truly believe that global warming is caused by man, why in the HELL do all of you still fly in airplanes to promote movies; and drive in SUVs (or any cars for that matter), etc.
And BTW Toe Jam, my hero is NOT George Bush and never in any of my postings do I claim to be a Republican; I'm a conservative, not a republican. Also, George Bush, while I do support many of his initiatives and think he is an honorable man, he is CLEARLY not conservative enough!
December 29th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Oh, TOE JAM, I also forgot to comment on Bush being the worst president in history.....
read about your LORD AND SAVIOR Bill Clinton and then come back to me with a reasonable response.
http://www.michaelbrito.com/2006/12/15/the-true-legacy-of-our-lord-and-savior-bill-clinton/
December 30th, 2006 at 10:38 am
first...clinton was not the only president to have been impeached...Andrew Johnson, president of the United States was impeached and acquitted May 26, 1868. William J. Clinton, president of the United States was impeached ...and acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.
when it comes to clinton...
It seems that you are quite obviously male...and unable to think beyond items concerning that area located between your belt and your knees...(a multitude of presidents were found to have committed extramarital affairs while in office) perhaps..if you could set aside this for a moment...you could actually recognize a few facts:
Under the clinton presidency the unted states enjoyed an era of progress and prosperity.
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
President Nixon's foul deeds related to Watergate would have warranted impeachment if he had not resigned. But other notable things were also going on: While claiming to seek peace, Nixon fueled the war in Southeast Asia. Openly and covertly, American bombers dropped huge quantities of explosives on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Shortly after becoming president, Nixon ordered secret air attacks on Cambodia. Between March 1969 and May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 bombing raids over Cambodia. The Nixon administration falsified Pentagon records to hide the bombing from Congress.
During Nixon's presidency, the death toll included more than 25,000 U.S. soldiers and half a million Vietnamese people — most of them civilians. The Watergate break-in at Democratic Party headquarters, of course, became a gigantic media scandal. Yet Nixon's murderous orders never ranked as scandalous. When he died in April 1994, many obituaries praised him as a genius in "foreign policy."
Midway through President Reagan's second term, when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted, the news media emphasized the arms- for-hostages deal that sent missiles to the Iranians and funneled profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. But we heard little about the end use of the money — supplying a Contra army that routinely massacred civilians.
...no shortage of scandals...sexual or otherwise... clinton lied initially to avoid personal embarrassment regarding his zipper problem...bush lied and nearly 3,000 americans died- not to mention countless iraqi ...with estimates that are as much as in the hundreds of thousands.
and another thing..."bush is not conservative enough"????? OMG... how many personal liberties would you like to give away? how pesky to you must be that little document called the Constitution of the United States... how irritating it must be for you to view documents like the Bill of Rights... you are one scary individual.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Toe - while I do appreciate your mediocre response, I would ask that you write down your own thoughts and not CUT AND PASTE from the following sources:
http://www.icasinc.org/lectures/clinton3/c3_01.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200101\\POL20010112c.html
It's easy to plagiarize and make yourself look informed about current issues; but the only person you are harming is yourself. If you would actually spend some time examining the issues, you might just learn something. You are just another example of an uninformed liberal.
What civil liberties has Bush taken away? Are you referring to the Patriot Act; I'm sure you didn't know that the Patriot Act saved the Brooklyn Bridge from being blown up! Do you even know what the Patriot Act says? The constitution and Bill of Rights? You are the scary one; if it was up to you the liberal courts (and ACLU) would rewrite both of these sacred documents.
Look, Bush is not the best President we have ever had; nor is he the greatest communicator. But one thing is for certain; during all the years of the Clinton Administration when he did absolutely nothing to combat terrorism, Bush did have the balls to confront it face to face.
Let me tell you something; I have been to the Sudan, Mogadishu, and Iraq in 1991; and you know absolutely NOTHING about the evil and terrorism that exists in this world! You complain and bitch about Bush all day long from your comfortable little home without worrying about anything but traffic or conservatives like me speaking the truth.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:43 am
in my haste to click and send i did not include the links to the above information as was my intent...i plead guilty on this and appreciate your mention of these. it was hardly an attempt to make myself "look informed about current issues"...but rather to show you that i did, in fact, do my homework as you suggested concerning the deeds of president clinton...you are among the extreme minority who does not recognize the many accomplishments of his administration because you are so overwhelmingly obsessed with his sexual proclivities.
there are real issues at hand... and yes...the willingness on your part and others of your ilk to give up personal liberties and freedoms. to allow things such as illegal domestic surveillance like phone calls and banking records..to say nothing when legislation passed is so broadly worded that nearly anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" ... (remember the nixon years and his paranoia?..how easily this can be abused!)...the current administration wants to call this activity in iraq a "war" but does not feel at all compelled to abide by the rules set forth in the geneva convention...the elimination of habeas corpus...holding people in secret torture cells... is this your idea of good government? or is this too liberal for you?
the mere mention of the ACLU set people like you all in a tizzy... the ACLU... who spend countless well-spent hours defending those little pieces of paper that you so detest...the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
December 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Toe,
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Ex-president Clinton was impeached for committing adultery?
He was actually impeached for the crime of perjury. It wasn't only an ethical issue, although he violated that too. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he not only should adhere to every code of conduct that is required of his soldiers, but he should set a standard that is above reproach, and frankly his conduct was "unbecoming" to his position.
Another thing is that Clinton had many women making accusations of his improprieties, which illustrated a long history of sexual deviances. Had Clinton been a Republican, liberals would have never considered making so light of his abuse of his positions. Wrong is wrong, no matter who's doing it. In fact, I switched parties when I saw the Democrats staged the "walk out" during the impeachment hearing. They illustrated to me that they were a group that had no core-values, and as a woman I didn't appreciate them condoning that abuse of power. Women still struggle in this country to have high-ranking positions and as they strive for the top, they often have to work for men; these men abusing their positions should never be tolerated or excused.
December 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Oh, no you didn't Toe. I am sitting here trying to enjoy lunch with my family and I get an email with your comments about detesting the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights; I almost choked on a piece of steak.
I absolutely DO NOT detest these documents. It's people like you that want to rewrite them in order to fit your lifestyles; and you leverage the ACLU and the court system to try and change the law.
AND, I am not sure what country you live in, but my thoughts about Clinton are NOT in the minority. AND, I am man enough to say that Clinton was not an ABSOLUTE failure; I mean, he did do a some good for this country (although I can't think of anything specific off the top of my head). I really don't care how many women Clinton sexually abused. My biggest concern is what he DIDN'T do to fight terrorism; and his close relationship with Red China. The fact is that the world trade center bombings (both of them) were his fault! All the planning, preparation took place on his watch. You can't deny these simple facts.
And, regarding the Patriot Act; I guess you area okay with people dying as long as the US Government doesn't listen to your conversations!!! Look, if you are not calling to and from Afghanistan, Iran or Syria, then you have NOTHING to worry about!
Yes, you are right about the ACLU fighting for the rights of our beloved civil liberties; even those of NAMBLA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm) but I guess you are okay with that as long as it doesn't affect you or your children.
December 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm
December 30th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
i merely pointed out flaws in statements made in above paragraphs...i absolutely know why the vote was taken to impeach clinton ...this was not what i was disputing...but the mention (above) that he was the only president to have been impeached. this is incorrect.
the aclu takes on any number of cases...you love to bring up nambla because of what they stand for. the aclu seeks to protect those rights which we all have ... the aclu also went to court for the right of the american nazi party to march through a heavily jewish population in skokie ... i am not a fan of the nazi thinking either. but the aclu was doing what they set out to do...protect the stated rights of american citizens. "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. "~John F. Kennedy
as for your willingness to so quickly hand over my personal liberties...you need to carefully consider what it is you are saying. this notion of giving up liberties that we all cherish ...these are what set us apart from other nations. why don't you look at WHY american foreign policy is so hated ...WHY are we in the crosshairs of their rage? What do you suppose the reason for this is?
December 30th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Toe,
You speak of the ACLU, but you really don't understand what they fight for. The truth is that they would stand up for the Nazi party, but not for the Jewish population. They are Anti-Semetic, Anti-Christian and Anti-American.
My daughter once wanted to sing a song in a school "Diversity" talent show... after practicing for months, exactly one week before the show, they decided not to let her sing it because it stated the name "Jesus." There were several other religious songs being performed because it was all suppose to be in the name of diversity, but unless my daughter changed the lyrics to "god" instead of "Jesus," they wouldn't let her represent her faith. We contacted the ACLU and they wouldn't help us, they stated that they agreed with the schools ruling... basically allowing them to discriminate against the only Christian performer, while Muslims and Hindus got to represent their faiths. It was the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) that ended up defending our rights.
The ACLU may have started out to be of good intentions, they definitely have taken a bias stance over the years. Freedom of Speech is a God given right for all who live in this great country of ours, and desperate attempts o silence some simply because they don't agree with the ACLU viewpoint is simply discrimination. It can't go both ways.
And I believe the reason so our foreign policy is so hated is because of the constant rhetoric against our country that groups like the ACLU, International Red Cross (which isn't the American Red Cross), and the entire left-wing media promote.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Additionally, lets remember the Palestinians dancing in the streets after Sept. 11th, and the Saudi Prince infering that we deserved the bombings... I think everyone in the United States was shocked to see people hate us; and still we help Turkey and Pakistan when they suffer a major earthquake and Indonesia when they have a tsunami (all Muslim countries). The fact is, that people hated us and plotted against us long before G.W. ever took office, but that will never undermine our nations resolve to be a people of principles.
BTW: I think it's cute that the only two people you seem to admire (Clinton and Kennedy) were both adulterers. What are the qualifications of those you salute?
January 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Nero fiddled while Rome burned
Clinton diddled while our embassies burned
Coincidence????
Think about it...
January 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Liberals are so quick to pin every casualty we've had in Iraq on G.W. Bush. However my husband served in the Army during the Clinton administration and the military cut-backs (a major cause for the financial surplus that liberals are so proud of, but I'll get into that in a minute) ultimately hurt our militaries readiness. Before the cut-backs, field-exercises were the norm; the soldiers were training in the field about two-weeks out of every month. When the cut-backs were enforced, the fiscal budget (which started in October) was broke by Christmas, so during January through September their training was severly limited. These cut-backs also included the maintenance of the equipment. Motorpools were full of humvees and other equipment and airfields were full of choppers that they didn't have the budget to fix and maintain. Not only that, but as they downsized they lost a lot of well trained soldiers. Many of these soldiers were let go involuntarily (they raised the points they needed for promotion, forcing them out), but what that did was purge the military of the experienced soldiers that the newer soldiers needed to benefit from. In other words, all of the soldiers got screwed, but they don't complain... that would jeopardize moral and low moral (another thing liberals don't seem to care much about) gets soldiers killed.
Now about the surplus... Constitutionally speaking the government only has one reason that they may collect taxes and that is to pay its bills... so tell me please, how in the hell do liberals think it's a good thing for our country to have a surplus? It basically means that they exploited their powers to rip off the American people, don't you think?
January 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Uninformed persons may invoke great dissapointment in those of you who are omnicient and without bais, however, I still find it difficult to trust the 'informed'. Knowledge augments ego. Those who know 98% of everything will swear they know 99%. Let's consider Orwell's O'Brien character? I consider myself liberal in the strict sense that cruelty must be avoided at all costs. Every other matter I question socratic-like. I honestly find it tough to take such a hard stance on anything... so call me a worthless moderate, but only if we were all worthless moderates... only if we all considered cruelty the worst option.
Check out my blog at http://jataka.wordpress.com/
January 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
LOLOLOL....soooo...if you are not a liberal...you believe in cruelty? Hahahah!! No, wait, i read further and you are a moderate. No stance on anything...how convenient. Oh shoot, I keep reading and I see the word cruelty again as the worst option...gosh who doesn't believe in that? What country do you think you're in? Iran? Iraq? Palestine? Syria?
Get a grip.....
January 17th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I'm with you on that one Hoboboh.
QUOTE: Nima J "I consider myself liberal in the strict sense that cruelty
must be avoided at all costs."
It's funny to me that she associates being a liberal with the avoidance of cruelty... funny how they don't apply this to the unborn. Cruelty to animals, sure; cruelty to prisoners in our prison system, sure; but the earliest stage of development of a human being, never. Doesn't that just make you want to be a liberal? lol
January 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
dude, im a dude, now then. I borrow my definition from Judith Shklar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. Not the definition of liberal in the political sense i.e liberal democrats. Therefore, a conservative republican can be a liberal in this sense. Woh...slighty confused by my post, thats fine, im suprised you capitalize lol as though It'll hurt more. Its not that I dont take stances per se, all I meant was I'm open-minded. I apologize for my Mcdonald playhouse-like dribble...Taking a strong stance in favor of animal torture is not as good as Taking a mild stance in favor of animal torture because the latter person may be convinced his stance is foolish (because having any stance doesnt equal good neccessarly). Thats what I meant by moderate. Again, I apologize. Cruelty is an interesting concept... we don't neccessarly consider ourselves cruel when are intentions are good from our perspective and such. But I guess the bug you stepped on today was an accident...or collateral damage from your need to get from point A.....to point B. Anyway, dont underestimate what I'm implying. If we are not cruel and the Taliban is not cruel, the result would be a really peaceful world. But, wait says the pragmat, they're not playing by the rules so why should we. Well Sir, let the vicious cycle continue.
January 17th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
"Dude" you are so funny. Why do you even consider yourself a "moderate?" You sound much more like a Communist/Budhist or something. I can however see your liberal tendencies in your merry-go-round "dribble."
You have this utopian image of the world that isn't based on reality. You speak as though, if we were nicer to the Taliban... they would be nicer to us. Please! What did the women do to deserve the treatment they received under Taliban rule?
Sometimes it takes a bigger person (or country) to step in and say that something is wrong; like a parent does when two siblings are fighting. Sometimes, those siblings get mad at the parents and even proclaim to hate them; however that never negates the responsiblity of the parent of being parental.
Get a clue... you sound like a libertarian politician that says things that simply sound good to the ear, but aren't consistent with reality.
January 17th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Well first let me start out with saying I in no way intended for you to feel hurt by my "LOLOLOL's". My capitalization merely inferred that my laughter was greater than normal That's all.
Yah, I see what you're saying about the "cruelty" thing ok....ok.. Sort of anyway. Let's take a different tack on this wave. Cruelty.....what is it? Are human beings cruel? All? Maybe just some? Perhaps, maybe just a few? I'll go with the first one Alex (game show music plays).. In general, ALL human beings are cruel......it's really a matter of degrees. Are kids who sit outside frying ants with a magnifying glass cruel? Do they grow up to be republicans (GG)? Since "Man" is responsible for the largest extinction in the history of the planet (as far as we know today anyways), we are a cruel species as a whole. Violent as all get up too!! So we're back to degrees of cruelty and definitions on what constitutes the threshold of personal and societal cruelty. Cruelty is decided by the statistical environment which surrounds the person or society engaged in the act or acts. if everyone says that killing ants with a magnifying glass is cool, then it is. However, if everyone says OMG! NO!!!...then it is cruel...right there and then at that moment. It is fluid and changing all the time...we sort of make it up as we go along. In the 50's it was cool...today...not cool. So what may seem cruel to you.....may not be to that 8 year old boy sitting next to those hapless ants ( the true rulers of the planet)..
Where am I going with all of this? I have no idea, I just get all worked up and away I go. I guess I'm just saying that be careful throwing weight to things which are abstract and constantly under revision.....such as the concept of cruelty....good and evil....that sort of thing. Does a cruel person see themselves as cruel???? Probably not. Does Dick Cheney wake up each morning...look into the mirror and recognize that he is evil incarnate??? Nope, I'll bet not...he eats his granola and runs over the small puppy on the way to work.
No one sees themselves as cruel...it's the guy next to you pointing the finger...he's the one officer!!!
Cheers!!
January 17th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Hold on a sec... let me consult the Tao and/or harness the Chi so that I may hoist this huge posterboard of Marx up. Phew. Excellent, now that there is no confusion and I am so intellectually catogerized, meticulousely well-placed, and thoroughly documented I can continue my dissattached life. Which one was the good one again? Nationalism or Patriotism, I forget? I'm not saying collateral damage of 10,000 civilians for 1 bad guy is wrong, but I'm saying it could be. It could be cruel...you know....the way that it can readily justify the other civilians hatred for us. And no, I didn't resurrect Kant for his tips. I may have thrown the word 'cruelty' around hapazardly, I agree with you HOBOBOH on this. It is a matter of degree and perception, however, this shouldnt mean we don't at least try to reach for this abstract concept (Lets reach for our dreams, no matter how foolish right?!) Right, as far as utopian societies go, I dont much care for them. In fact, Plato spewed a lot of my very silly-puddy dribble. How pompous to think of us as the parents of temper-tantrumed kids, this is the type of arrogance which would totally turn a liberal friend of mine off to all of your other views.... however I am more open-minded....a moderate... whatever I meant. Let me guess, you'd be the one for beating your kids to prove a point right? What exactly makes us the 'bigger' country... size? yeh I guess. How olds the US again, little underaged for making these decisions aren't we? Maybe, maybe not, maybe we are ethically bigger, but that ethics is such an abstract concept. I'll be over there in the corner in time out, punishment for my being funny.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:11 am
My enormous brain is suffering from the strain...oh wait..no it isn't. I love the comment about not caring much for Utopian societies....hey i must have slept through that last Utopian society...which one was that? (GG) Beating my kids to prove a point!!??? What are going on about man!! Sorry,...dude....he's a dude. Keeping with the "spirit" of the thread...conservatives are more likely to be charitable...on all fronts. That is not only in total wealth given...but percentage wise too. It is the liberals who don't give...adding to the worlds misery. Of course this is not surprising...conservatives tend to be better educated, sort of a circular thing. Once you learn to pull your head up out of the sand and really take in the world and how it ACTUALLY works....you become a conservative. It's an easy choice but a hard road to stay with...it takes tough love and compassion.. Something conservatives outstrip lib's by a wide margin.
P.S. The trouble with an open mind is anyone can come along and fill it with rubbish.
Tie yourself to the mast young man and heave to! If you can that is.... Cheers!
January 20th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Very simply, liberals do not use logic or reason. That is why they are liberals.
It's hard to argue with those who use creative freedom in a battle of facts.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 am
Swan - yes, I agree. It's almost impossible to argue with liberals; but it sure is easy to make fun of them all day long.
- M
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
How WTO could accepts rules limiting medicine exports to poor countries? WBR LeoP
February 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I think it is funny how Gore decides to do his campaign on Global Warming and every state he visited has been COLD! ha ha!
February 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Kahea - yes, I was thinking about that the other day. The problem with global warming is that it simply can't be proven and not all scentists agree with Gore's hypothesis. If it was indeed a scentific truth, there would be no disagreement in the scientific community.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
See Our Link Exchanging Pgm at PR 4 Site www.freeadsforbloggers.blogspot.com
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Socrates would shred Al Gore and leave his GWBS impaled on a pike.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Hey I saw you on my recent readers from my http://500daystofame.com site. There is some real controversy going on here and it is great to see people getting involved in your blogs. This is going to be a great for my podcast. BTW if you wouldn't mind doing an interview about your blog please let me know.
Anyways, I just wanted you to know that I will be adding your site to the list of sites I am using to create my daily podcast. Everyday I will be podcasting about 7 hot blogs and each weekend I will do a hot 25 blogs. So hopefully in the next few days I can get you in on my top charts.
So have a look if you have time http://dailyblogspots.com and make sure you check out the pages about preferred blogs and sponsored blogs.
This is all apart of my quest to find a job on TV for http://500daystofame.com but also a chance for me to start a site that might actually take off.
Best wishes,
Rick Uyesugi
March 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Interesting.
Visit: OsiSpeaks.com or OsiSpeaks.org
March 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
i have a certain dislike of liberals, too--not because I'm an ignorant shit like many on this board, but because liberals don't go far enuf. What the US deserves is a few more 911's.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Huffy - in an odd way, I agree with you. People here in the US have no perception of reality. and what goes on outside these borders. And, liberals will never appreciate what we have here in the US, until we have to live our lives fearing suicide bombers as does Israel.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
What a silly remark. Many people in the US understand only too well what is going on--but it really is not about that group of people--it's about a small group of psychopaths in power right now who threaten the human race.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Are you sure about that? I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and the people I talk to are wack jobs (for the most part). It's sure a majority in this part of the country.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Ahhh, ignorance is bliss. I am becoming very jealous of "Huffy". He must be one of the most blissful people out there. Enjoy that vacuum packed skull of yours. What a comfort to have.
Cheers!
March 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I would guess that most of the yahoos in San Francisco are just passing through and probably don't come back--out in the country is a different story and you might be more comfortable there.
As for bliss--not really. If I were in desperate need of a cranial enema like most of the folks on this board, yes it would be blissful since I'd be a flag-waving patriot proud to be a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the planet.
Problem is, the facts do not support that conclusion.
There is some hope, though, since the human race may become extinct as it nears its life expectancy as a species. You humans are way over-rated and for all of your cleverness, not very smart since you don't get along with each other very well.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Huffy...move along please. You are boring.
Next!!
March 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Boy, I guess you told me. Please close your mouth, open you ears and try to imagine the sound of a raspberry.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hoboboh,
Remember, YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT AND HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING! They make sense out of nonsense.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Sugama - where you been? Haven't seen you in a while.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Yeah... been busy. You know school, work, raising my kids... all those things that conservatives tend to do! Lol
March 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
When you closely examine 21st century Republicanism and Islamic extremism against the light of truth and the facts, there really is no difference. They are both evil twins. One twin thinks that it is OK to hijack airliners and murder thousands of people by flying the aircraft into the twin towers of New York. The other evil twin (21st century republicanism) is OK with that event and actually lets it happen so they can use this tragedy to their self serving advantage. Both twins use God and religion to justify their lack of integrity, moral deficits and personal crimes against humanity. Both twins also use God and Religion as a shield to ward off criticism anytime someone exposes their shortcomings, lies and criminal activities. Both twins only represent a small minority of people and have sociopathic views not shared by the mainstream or majority of any religion or population of people. In short…they are evil twins and they will go to any extreme to get control over the lives and livelihood of others.
In retrospect, Bush’s keepers and handlers must have known to some degree that he was a total screw-up before he first became president. Bush and his daddy Cheney were both very clueless about being true political statesmen or leaders of this nation. As such, they did the only thing they knew how to do… fleece the middle and lower classes of the nation to make the rich even richer. It is no secret that Bush was the worst governor Texas ever knew and the tax payers of Texas continually got stiffed by Bush and his policies. Actually, there is nothing that Bush has ever touched that did not turn to crap whether as Governor of Texas or President of the USA.
And Cheney…he is the evil twin’s evil daddy. He is nothing more then a corporate CEO who likes to see rich corporations prosper from the sweat, blood and life of others. Thanks to Cheney, Halliburton Corporation has been allowed carte blanch to freely rake in billions in American taxpayer’s money, blood, & lives. Also, Cheney is the kind of guy who likes to approve and sign anti-gay legislation while at the same time…telling the world that it is out of line to make mention of his lesbian daughter, her lesbian lover or out of wedlock pregnancy. Pretty typical of most Republicans who like to have it both ways. They claim to be paragons of virtue and morality and this is somehow made manifest with anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay legislation while they hide the fact that they have gay family members and gay members within their ranks.
Regardless of all the lies that Bush & Cheney made to the people of the USA during the 2000 campaign, the truth is that fact that they were simply liberal neoconservative puppets of the Project for a New American Century and those were the only interests they represented. In retrospect, it is amazing that the Republican Party was stupid enough to back these 2 idiots considering the damage they’ve done to the Republican Party. Money is what got these 2 unqualified maggots into the Whitehouse and that, just like absolute power, only attracts the absolutely corrupt. In retrospect, Bush & Cheney are both true cowards who never ever served their country which is partially why they run it like true hypocrites.
In any case, here is the timeline of events regarding the evil twin in the USA (21st century republicanism) from the moment it illegally stole the Whitehouse in 2000.
First line of business upon seizing political power in the USA was to ignore any and all credible information from the previous presidential administration regarding the real threat that terrorism posed to this nation. If that did not work then the other tactic was to lie about having all the facts and put the blame on various agencies. If that did not work, simply blame the previous president even though that president went to great lengths to educate and warn the new president of the dangers radical Islam posed to the USA. The Bush presidency has been the best friend that radical Islam and Islamic terrorists could ever have. These two evil twins just keep ratcheting up the problems with very little to no resistance.
Second line of business was to get a rubberstamp congress. Translated: Remove the legal divide that is supposed to exist between Congress and the Whitehouse so that Rove, Bush & Cheney will have no obstacles to promoting their self serving anti-constitutional goals. Bush took a very long vacation when he first became president and all he did was waste American tax payer dollars going around the country doing anything and everything possible to bolster Republican control of Congress. It eventually happened. From that point forward, democracy in this nation had become severely compromised as Congress had ceased to be the voice of the people and had become the Republican auction house for legislation to the highest bidder. Legislation to make tax cuts for the filthy rich minority of the nation were many of the outcomes here as that is exactly who pushed for the legislation. This met with little to no resistance when it went through each congressional hurdle.
Third line of business was to allow something horribly tragic to happen to Americans on American soil by foreigners. We all know this as 9/11. This was the so called “another pearl harbor†that Bush’s neoconservative handlers and keepers at the Project for a New American Century wanted. This was the flash point they had waited for in order to promote their murderous power and wealth consolidating plans and it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a known fact that Bush knew this attack against America was under way long enough to save the second twin tower and it is also a known fact that Cheney conveniently happened to be at NORAD while this attack was going on and that he grounded all military jets. Cheney personally grounded all available fighter jets so that they could not intercede with the events that were in progress.
After the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11, Rove, Bush, Cheney, the PNAC & their rich wealthy corporate elite knew they could get anything they wanted all at tax payer’s expense and taxpayer’s lives. From this point…they simply keep this up as long as they can maintain power and control over others. For the Evil Twin in the USA (21st Century Republicanism), this created the perfect smoke screen for them to get away with anything they wanted all under the disguise of God, Country, Patriotism, fear of terrorism and Protecting the USA. Raiding the national treasury and diverting upwards towards the rich and elite who did not need the money had never been easier.
For Republicans at the top of the food chain who got a chance to participate in this pathetic little circus, here was the pay off:
POLITICAL CONTROL & BIG MONEY!!!
1) Fleecing the middle and lower classes of the USA. Bush has quietly shifted this nation backwards to the dark ages of a “trickle down economy on steroids†and this one is far more destructive to our nation and to democracy then any past trickle down economy. This one cuts taxes on the rich, shifts that burden and more to the middle class and spends like there is no tomorrow all while claiming to be conservative. It’s amazing that the religious right wing buys into this non-conservative form of government. However, the one dimensional voting habits of the religious right wing are why they are liked by the Republican Party. The religious right wing never votes the big picture and always casts their vote for any pathetic waste of skin who claims to be moral or against abortion.
2) Consolidation of wealth towards the rich, wealthy & elite of the nation. This is a universal constant during war times and is always the outcome of war profiteering. History always bears this out and those who understand this always smell a profit to be made in the middle of the shed blood of our citizens.
3) Politicians who are not of, for or by the people but who are in the pockets of a wealthy minority of the country. Bush, Rove & Cheney are responsible for some of the most corrupt legislation and policies that money can buy. Bush pimped the presidency and made his republican controlled congress an auction house to the highest bidder. It worked! In retrospect, this actually exposed Republicans for what they really are as opposed to the ideology that they claim to stand for. It’s like claiming to believe that you are conservative while living a life that is a total lie and is the complete opposite of one’s stated conservative or family values based beliefs and ideology.
4) Legislation that cuts taxes only for the rich, wealthy & elite under the general lie of tax cuts for all. The only real beneficiaries of Bush’s tax cuts have been a very small minority of rich wealthy people who do not even need the cuts. This is typical of neoconservatives and to some degree…Republican political tactics regarding taxation. They claim to be for fewer taxes so the way they approach this is simply to redesign the tax tables so that the middle class pays more in taxes then those who are filthy rich. That way Republicans can say that they did not increase taxes on the nation.
The end result is still the same which ends up being increased taxation on the middle class to make up for the unnecessary tax cuts Republicans always make for the rich. In this case, it’s even worse because Bush’s administration has demonstrated Enron style accounting tactics with our nation and his administration has been a terrible steward with our nation’s resources, treasury and lives. This is truly Satan wearing the costume of conservatism and the face of the religious right wing and Republicans. Sadly…there is absolutely nothing conservative about this current generation of people who belong to 21st century republicanism.
5) Assurances that the rich and wealthy of the nation will not be paying for the financial indiscretions of the Bush / Cheney / Rove Republican circus that has created debt far exceeding all past Democrat presidencies combined. The way this presidency has being paying for their war mongering has been on wasting our nation’s resources, and largely doing so on credit. Bush even admits that he does not know who all his administration has borrowed money from in order to finance his daddy’s personal private war of greed and aggression. However, his administration goes to great lengths to hide this particular truth. Bush & Cheney have been mortgaging the future of the middle and lower classes of this nation and effectively hiding it.
Our nation currently owes hundreds of millions of dollars to other nations thanks to all the money that the Bush administration has borrowed to waste on war and other illegal, unconstitutional efforts. Throwing away our tax dollars while borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars from other nations and decreasing taxation on the rich and wealthy has created debt that our grandchildren’s children will most likely be stuck with. While economic indicators on Wall Street are constantly touted as evidence that our Nation’s economy is doing great, those numbers can easily dip into the negative in a New York minute if Bush is allowed to drive this nation into further debt.
Finito
There ya have it. One evil twin (radical Islam) loves to murder innocent people in the name of Allah and their radical beliefs that are completely outside of mainstream Islam. The other evil twin (The 21st Century Republicanism of Rove, Bush, his evil daddy Cheney, Neo-conservatism and the PNAC) actually allows the mass murder of their own citizens in the name of God in order to get what they want. They both got exactly what they wanted starting on 9/11/2001.
However, the evil twin in the USA probably got more then they wanted. One constant in this universe is the fact that those who have delusions of personal power and think that they are great usually do not require help from anyone in screwing things up for everyone. Bush, Cheney, Rove and their kind probably got exactly what their self serving, greedy hearts desired but they are probably clueless regarding the price that they personally will have to pay in the end. It’s not over and history will ultimately remember them for the spineless, gutless reptiles that they are along with their many right wing sycophants who share their un-American, un-Christian, un-Godly, un-constitutional views and ideologies.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Hey Greg - Very, very impressive. Thank you for your thought provoking response to the problem with uninformed liberals. Did you take the time to write this yourself? Or, perhaps you blatantly copied it from here, here, or here. Or better yet, maybe you were the original author of each one. You see, that is the problem with you liberals. You CANNOT think for yourself. You rely on others to make a point/statement/point of view on your behalf. You are lazy, lack knowledge and more importantly, you are a classic example of what I call an Uninformed Liberal.
Thanks for stopping by though. At least you tried to make yourself look smart. You get an "A" for effort.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Bravo Michael... well said.
And might I note that this is a classical example of why liberal rhetoric is so dangerous; because people like Greg here are truly dumb enough to believe everything they push (stole the election; lied about WMD's; blah, blah, blah).
March 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Wow, Greg had a lot to get off his chest. That was a four or five cup of coffee posting. Ahh, but copy/paste got that down to two sips and a Ring Ding. Very slick indeed. C'mon, write it off the cuff pal. We want to hear from YOU. If I wanted a Parrot, I'd have gotten one already.
I do just want to say that I think people who own long lived pets (parrots and tortoises etc.) are different in a fundamental way from say....strictly dog owners. Sort of creepy...bird people frighten me.
Cheers!
March 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Michael,
I need to send you an official invitation to sit on a panel on "Blog Marketing" at CLC07 (www.clc07.com). Can you contact me with an e-mail addy?
eric AT clc07 DOT com
Thanks and great blog!
-Eric
March 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Greg - you disgust me.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am
seriously, LOL @ you. i'm sure nobody who's willing to actually have one of these fabled intelligent conversations actually identifies with anything you're talking about.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
k – Your comment is precisely what I am talking about. You have nothing of value to say because you my friend are uninformed.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
you're under the impression that that orgasm-soaked piece of drivel you spewed qualifies as the beginnings of or even a prompt for intelligent conversation?
believe me, i'm not fishing for one here. i just happen to be vain enough to come back to what i've written over the past few days to see who's responded to it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
orgasm-soaked piece of drivel? I like it. It reminds me of what I hear constantly coming out of the democratic party. But instead of launching personal insults my way, why don't you tell me and the readers of this blog what YOU think! Don't copy and paste someone else's response from another blog like Greg did a few days ago.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You're making me blush. I'm afraid this is my last dip in the dance, man. Peace.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
yeah K, step up to the plate. Let's have a conversation and tell us what yuo think! is it Kelly, Kristy, Kyle, what?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
K says: I just happen to be vain enough to come back to what i've written over the past few days to see who's responded to it.
So I go looking for a post by K and there isn't any. You actually have to come up with something germane ans salient to get responses. Empty air is all I see.
Cheers!
March 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Dude - I saw a couple of your posts at www.michellemalkinisanidiot.com -- Do you really spank it to those hideous photos?
March 28th, 2007 at 10:51 am
yeah - sometimes.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Wow. You have quite the readership! I'm comment #106! I'll keep checking back with you. Thankfully, I'm not an uninformed liberal. I tend to swing to the right on most issues, so I think I'll continue to find your blog a source of good reading material.
Btw, thanks for checking out my blog. And have a great day!
March 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hello comment #106. Thank you Tish - I enjoyed your blog as well...although i can't imagine any claws on you!
Michael
March 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Michael, I'm as vicious as they come. Don't let the innocent smile fool ya!
I think I'll browse through your archives. I'd love to read your thoughts on abortion and the death penalty. Oh, and how about euthanasia? I'm sure you've covered at least a couple of these topics in the past, eh?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
whoa...yes, that's what they say about me too! Read some of comments directed to me!! lol.
I haven't talked much about abortion or the death penalty yet. But I plan to!
April 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Basically its sad how uniformed people can be on both sides of the political divide. I wish people would pay more attention to the world around them, but most are selfishly focused on the concerns of their friends and families. I'm a conservative, as in protect the environment, seems like a good idea as we live here, have good public schools, like when I was a kid, not rushing into wrecklessly planned wars, regulating business. I'm a social libral, what you do that doesn't affect me or others that don't want to join you doesn't matter to me, ie. what you do in your private life is your business, as long as all are concenting adults.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:10 am
What an accurate description of the general Liberal. In my limited personal Experience (I am black, and my wife is an accomplished Artist, so we get to spend a lot of time with the Arts and croissants crowd), you seem to describe them accurately. Needless to say, ALL Liberals are subtle racists, so they simply assume that I am a Liberal. When they start the 'guerrilla pontification', I love to challenge the ideas by finding flaws in the logic, and by introducing information to the discussion that has often been left out by conventional media. I do this all under the guise of being 'on the plantation' of Liberal thought. Sadly, they rarely ever catch on to the fact that I am simply not what they expect or need me to be without me actually saying 'I am not a Liberal'. I guess that shoots that whole 'Open Mindedness' myth all to hell. Keep Laying them down, you are on my RSS feed. BTW. I am putting my EML in, so HollaAtABrutha one day. Peas.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Raalnan5 - thanks for stopping by. I encounter the same thing all the time. When I first moved in my neighborhood, all assumed I was a liberal because I am Mexican-American (and, of course, I live in the Bay Area). And, the liberal Latino folk that I meet here and there consider me an outsider or 'white washed' because I don't hold the same political beliefs that they do. So much for tolerance and equality; something most liberals scream for at the drop of a dime.
No doubt I will be laying it down; that's what I am good at.
Thanks for stopping by my humble abode (lol); and I'll definitely hit up in the future.
- M
April 7th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I dedicate the following rework of “The Lord’s Prayer” to Al Gore and the rest of his liberal carbon crusaders.
The Gore’s Prayer
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
April 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Bucktowndusty - lovely. Did you write that yourself?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Of course the entire premise of this blog may not be the fault of the "uninformed" liberal. I mean, it may not be entirely their fault for not knowing. I find the mainstream(?) media to be duplicitous and up to their jockey shorts in it. We are all familiar, conservative and liberal alike of the Attorney General firings last month, right? How many were fired? Eight? Now let's turn the magic mushroom upside down and go back to 1993. Janet Reno has been the A.G. three whole days, and what does she do? Why she fires 93 !!! When ahe fired them she promised that any ongoing "investigations" would be allowed to be concluded (think Whitewater). OOOOOPS!!! Well Ol George Stephenopolus (at the time the press secretary for the White House) gets on the TV and deftly alters Reno's statement to "all ongoing "trials" will be allowed to continue. And that is why Whitewater faded to black. Considering the incredible amount of coverage of the present firings, you would think that the press corps. in 1993 would have had a complete meltdown, right? I mean 93 firings to squash investigations into the White House. It reeks to high heaven!! But alas, back to my starting point. I dare you to go back and find more than a quiet blurb in the papers; to my knowledge only two national papers even mentioned it and only in passing. You will not be able to find ANY stories from the Telly.
One of the problems (that has been partially rectified by the internet), is that all of our information is already filtered before we get a chance to disseminate it. Liberals ARE woefully uninformed, but it may not be their own fault. I would suggest that if you watch a couple of news programs a week and read a paper or two along with it, you are also an uninformed person. It takes a lot more effort than that to dig up what is really going on. So I sit back and watch George Stephenopolous keep a straight face when he is reporting the story on his comedy show Sunday mornings. He can report with confidence knowing that the majority of Americans don't have any idea what a farce and non news story the firings actually are.
So as Ben franklin walked out of the constitutional assembly and a Lady asked him "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" His reply was prophetic. "Why madam, you have a republic, if you can keep it."
We'll see, we'll see.
Cheers!
April 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Boys, Boys, if you can't quiet down back there I will turn this car around. Shake hands and agree to disagree. Extremism is dangerous, regardless of weather you are an extremist Christian, an extremist Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, whatever. Look, you are not going to change each others minds, everyone is firmly rooted to thier beliefs, and all you are dong is blowing hot air and getting your panties up in a bunch. Relax man.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Dan - I appreciate your humor. lol.
April 11th, 2007 at 5:37 am
Unfortunately, it looks like you yourself have bought into the very thing that you bash liberals for: believing everything you hear. There is not a 50/50 split among scientists concerning global warming. It is more like 90+ (for) vs. 10- (against). You have bought into the media's usual interpretation of "controversial science" - if the man-on-the-street thinks is controversial then it must be controversial in the scientific community. The fact is, when it comes to global warming, there is very little controversy: it's happening, buy into it, get used to it, and as investors let's start making money on it!
As a professional scientist myself, I can tell you that the media (whether Fox News, CNN, or Al Gore) is the worst place to go to in order to understand scientific issues. They will always have an agenda and "controversy" sells more copy then anything else. To add one more media outlet to your list, you should take a look at The Economist and their thoughts on Global Warming. They did a large piece a few months ago that you may want to read.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Incidentally, I forgot to add since this is a political site: I am a registered Republican with a strong Libertarian bent (ie: I am a hard-core fiscal conservative/social liberal - the very definition of a Libertarian). Where I diverge a bit is in environmental issues because of my very intimate understanding and appreciation of business. Business is inherently anti-environment - just as it should be. As an active investor, I believe that the companies in which I invest should be as efficient as possible within the confines of the law. Strong environmental regulation must exist (just as red lights must exist) to define those confines.
To put it another way, the companies I invest in should not be concerned with the environment per se unless their customers are concerned with the environment. If their customers will choose to buy from them based upon this premise then they damn well better be concerned, but this corporate concern shouldn't be just because of some "social responsibility" BS.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Lance - where is your source for the 90% - 10% split? If anything, I hear more and more about scentists who disagree with global warming; and those that do agree with it are claiming that it's cyclical and not essentiall caused by humans.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I see examples of this crap every day at work! Liberals are too busy whining and don't spend enough time finding the FACTS! Oh well, gotta love em!
April 20th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Hey Conservatives!
More Liberal confusion on my recent Obama post, which is on an affiliate.
Visit and comment to fight the left-wing ilk. Help clarify their confusion.
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5915
Thanks all, including Urban Conservative.
email me for reciprocal conservative links.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
The "L" word
I find myself more and more irritated these days when I hear politicians, pundants, and conservatives sour their face hold their nose to mouth "the L word" .
This disdain is often accompanied with vulgar verbiage pertaining the personage embodying this "L word";and, more often than not, their critique incorporates their assessment of the individual's extreme (or lack of) sex life.
The "L word".... woooooooooo ! Scary ! Dangerous! Hide the children!
What on earth could be getting these folk's undies in such a bunch? Why, the "L" word, of course...Liberals. Watch out! She's a LIBERAL as if was some form of disease...something horrific..."whatever you do...don't let your children grow up to be liberals!"
For the life of me, I cannot understand this thinking. I listen to conservative talk radio frequently because, frankly, I really do try to understand just what on earth happened
to these people to cause them to be so filled with anger and hatred; just what on earth causes one to be this way...I hear them toss about phrases such as the "liberal media"
(let's just count the number of conservative radio programs and personalities vs the "liberal" programs.)....the " liberal press" , (are they even aware of the corporate ownership ...who they are?) , "liberal judges",(are they suggesting that biased judges should take their place?) and i wonder what exactly it is that they are opposing? Do they even know what a liberal is?
LIBERAL: liberal adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Synonyms: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded
These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly
Now, as i read this...this would mean that those who would oppose liberals, and liberal thought...would be:
~selfish
~dogmatic
~closed-minded
~in-tolerant of new ideas or reform
~bigoted with regards to race, religion, food, clothing, and certainly gender, sexual preference, to name a few.
Now, can someone please explain to me why anyone would not aspire to be a liberal?
proud to be a liberal,
toe
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
If I am reading this right, he is referring to "uninformed liberals" which is the majority of which that read this blog.
Your definition of liberal is not complete. Liberals want higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare; all attributes of what is also considered socialism. Socialism is also synonymous with national-socialism which is essentially Nazism. Yes, I said it....and yes, Hitler was indeed a liberal (or at least held many traits of liberals today) who murdered millions of jews.
Let's see the…the "L" word, yes it is used quite frequently in this blog and many other conservative blogs. It's not half as bad as being called a neo-con, right wing nut job and even better…a religious extremist. Perhaps if I strapped bombs to my children's back and detonated them in crowded street corner, I'd understand. Hello?
Liberal isn't a bad word…it's just that most liberals DON"T KNOW WHAT THE [email protected]# is going on out there in the REAL world outside their cozy little cottages in San Francisco. They think you can sit down over coffee and negotiate with people like Bin Laden and Ahmadinjad (yeah sure). When I say real world, I am talking about the death, destruction, genocide, hunger, murder, rape, torture of women, children, and everyone else that goes on outside of these borders. They (you) bitch and complain about equal rights, protest up and down the streets, and call the President a terrorist…my [email protected]#$ING God….I wish a liberal would just for the weekend maybe…go to a third world country, or not even that….how about Iran and try bitching there!!! Yeah, good luck getting back home.
Oh, and I grew up a liberal, never aspired to be one but I was spoon-fed it as a child. I am a traditionalist...no, I don't like change much, I am very tolerant. .I many not agree with certain liberal tendencies but I don't hate anyone and I sure don't protest it...I am proud to live in this country....I don't want God taken off our currency and out the pledge....I want secure borders....so, yes I am a conservative black man and I am damn proud of it.
Can you tolerate that?
May 4th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Gee, sorry I missed all the fun. I teach university and have many liberal friends (I hope that's not the equivalent of saying I can't be a racist). With these friends, whenever they want to get into something political (like the incredible generosity of America and Americans in the world, or like the instrumentalization of science by socialists, or the actual roots of terrorism in state controlled economies and 3rd world corruption, etc.) the conversation ALWAYS ends with their yelling and sputtering something that amounts to: "Well, the facts don't matter!!! Bush is still a __________ (fill in the blank)"
Q.E.D.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
D. Ox - welcome to the conversation. You are only about 6 months too late!! jk. Thanks for stopping by.
May 11th, 2007 at 5:10 am
Carl, an "uninformed liberal" would not BE reading OR contributing to this batch of opinions put forth here. Oh, another thing, those holding a more liberal point of view than yours actually reside outside the confines of the Bay Area. You really need to get out more.
Furthermore, Hitler was not a socialist. He was a fascist. Please, if you are to represent yourself as an informed conservative, be informed.
fas·cism(fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism , and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, and Christian morality.
I have followed this series of ramblings for some time now in hopes of finding some iota of understanding from those holding views that differ from mine. There is a chat room called:
America, Love it or Hate it- Come and debate it." It may as well be called "Love it or Leave it" for they are as interested in "debate" as one would be interested in digesting rocks for breakfast. Their minds are made up and will not be bothered with actual facts that will distort their world created by Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, the Savage Nation, and Ann Coulter. I see much the same here.
What I really want to know is what is the point of having this gripe blog? What is your ultimate goal, to preach to the choir? Why are you more interested in labels rather than solutions?
Why do you push DIVISION instead of resolution? Are so insecure in your "beliefs" that you must put down and stand upon others that you might look taller? Are you not aware of the dangers of a religious state? Do you at all understand the principle behind keeping religion out of government? The need to NOT base laws based upon your religion? We all do not hold your religious views so you wish to force it on us all by writing it into law. NO. America is not about this. If you are heterosexual, you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of this pairing but you will not allow those differing from your lifestyle those same benefits and pass off gays and lesbians as wanting "special rights"... oh? I am wondering how many of these "special rights" you feel you deserve but gays and lesbians do not? Perhaps we need to remove your "special rights" then. That seems fair. But no, you see- your prejudices are based upon your religion and you feel it necessary to write laws based upon your religion to uphold your prejudices. NO. this is not what America is about.
Anyone can complain. Who here actually has ideas? Solutions? Compromise? I would look forward to hearing these instead of the name calling and label markers seen here.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Zealot (n.):
A person who cannot change their his/her mind --- or the subject.
Thpft.
Historically, rather than pedanticly, Hitler was often considered to be a Fascist (dictatorial, anti-worker) during the rise of Bolshevism in Europe. But if I remember correctly, not remembering history was why the Liberal side got a Jackass instead of an Elephant...
May 15th, 2007 at 4:25 am
"The elephant has a thick skin, a head full of ivory, and as everyone who has seen a circus parade knows, proceeds best by grasping the tail of its predecessor."
Adlai Stevenson
Political cartoonist, Thomas Nast chose the elephant because it was believed that elephants were clever, steadfast, and easily controlled, but unmanageable when frightened.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Are you aware that Thomas Nast was a staunch Republican?
May 16th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Mark - what an attitude, dude! LOL
May 20th, 2007 at 10:11 am
But aren't uninformed conservitives as bad, and do you assert there are fewer of them out there??? Or do they just bother you less?
May 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Inifera - they bother me even more but this post isn't about them.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:10 am
Great post! I've bloglined you and will be back when I have coffee and more time to read...adn the kids are outside playing! lol!
May 21st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Hi Jenny - thank you for coming over and visiting. I appreciate the comment. I had a chance to visit your blog as well. The post about your son Gus really touched me. It's situations like this that can really test one's faith!
I do believe that he is such a better place!
- uc
June 8th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Can all the pseudo political children get off this rhetorical see-saw and go play with razorblades? I apologize for being a bit rude here, but why are we all just babbling our asses off in the blogosphere? It's good to talk about politics and all, but seriously how many of us take an active and meaningful stand on all this nonsensical bullshit? can someone please give me a heads up when all the opinions stop and an applicable political thesis developes in all of this? It feels like this is just a circular serpent eating it's own ass and no one really see's the fact that no one is different than the other.
So please when someone switches on the light and a moment of clarity surfaces, drop me a line. please don't make it theoretical.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
DUDE! Where'd ya go, I have only just found you! Come back.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Well, well, well. I've been investigating global warming for over 14 years now. Not much real science involved. A lot of political scientist, but no real hard facts. Actually, there are now more facts that point to Global Cooling, not Global Warming. Of course now all the environmental people are trying to change the name to Global Climate Change. They want to broaden the term so if the heat goes south, they'll take the credit. But if Al Gore was REALLY serious about this belief, he would cut his home utility bill, (uses 20X the average family) quit driving around in SUV's and cut out the global private jet travel. It's called, "Practice What You Preach".
So if we're going in to a Global Cooling era, we need to burn more Carbon. For those who have an open mind, you may want to check out. iceagenow.com
Thanks
July 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
You know, there are those of us who are concerned about climate change who have never seen An Inconvenient Truth, and could not care less if Al Gore is a hypocritical rich white American. It's easy to shoot down a point of view when you turn it into a cartoon and ignore the reasoned arguments lurking in the background.