Here is another one.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/10/29/lopez.man.shot.in.yard.kcal
It’s hard to write anything intelligent when something makes you as angry as this makes me.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
700 billion dollar rock and a hard place
Noooooooooooooooo not again!!! Most of the problems in Wall Street are a direct result of government interference in the stock market. The creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Carters Community Redevelopment Act, Clinton passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, and Greenspan and Bernanke lowering interest rates and artificially inflating the housing market.
The second housing market was created to make it easier to get a home. The lender could take risks they would never take if they had to keep the risky mortgages on their books. Now it has fallen apart. The system of big investment banks does not work. The Community redevelopment Act was created to make it easier to get a home. It forced lenders to make capital available in low-and-moderate-income urban neighborhoods despite being a bad investment and a financial liability. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act straightens The Community redevelopment Act and made it even easier for the bad mortgages to be created that are at the heart of this crisis. And lowering the interest rates caused a boom that comes from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand; this causes a bubble that then bursts forcing deflation witch stabilizes the market. The government doesn’t like this and tries to keep prices falsely inflated. So how do we fix it? Well if we leave it alone, it will fix it self. If we remove the oversight and regulation and government manipulation of the interest rates we will prevent a future bubble. Yes, I know that will never happen, but you can’t say capitalism doesn’t work if we never truly tried it. If we do nothing and let the current market sort it self out I don’t know how bad it would be, but it’s clear that no one including Bernanke and Paulson know either. What I do know is that the great depression was caused partly by limiting currency so limiting currency is not what we should be doing, and we obviously are not. Bernanke is a student of the great depression, but I fear he may be going to far the other way because the second thing I know is that printing money and lowering interest rates lowers the value of the dollar and raises the price of oil and in turn food. If people are poor from inflation there can be no turn around. I don’t think we can win this, I think we are going to feel pain no matter how this goes down. The biggest market problems we have had were caused by government over reacting. Saving these investment banks may save our devalued money, but it does not solve the problem. And regulating the hell out of the market and manipulating it with government funds sounds less like American capitalism and more like French socialism. This bail out will not work… we are in for hard times, how long they will last depends on how much the government i interferes. I understand what the government is trying to do to save the system, but we know Newton’s third law to be true and in this case inflation is the opposite reaction. Yes, the government has intervened before to try to save the economy this is not a new concept, but there past intervention, I’m convinced, is the reason we are in this crisis.
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan
The second housing market was created to make it easier to get a home. The lender could take risks they would never take if they had to keep the risky mortgages on their books. Now it has fallen apart. The system of big investment banks does not work. The Community redevelopment Act was created to make it easier to get a home. It forced lenders to make capital available in low-and-moderate-income urban neighborhoods despite being a bad investment and a financial liability. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act straightens The Community redevelopment Act and made it even easier for the bad mortgages to be created that are at the heart of this crisis. And lowering the interest rates caused a boom that comes from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand; this causes a bubble that then bursts forcing deflation witch stabilizes the market. The government doesn’t like this and tries to keep prices falsely inflated. So how do we fix it? Well if we leave it alone, it will fix it self. If we remove the oversight and regulation and government manipulation of the interest rates we will prevent a future bubble. Yes, I know that will never happen, but you can’t say capitalism doesn’t work if we never truly tried it. If we do nothing and let the current market sort it self out I don’t know how bad it would be, but it’s clear that no one including Bernanke and Paulson know either. What I do know is that the great depression was caused partly by limiting currency so limiting currency is not what we should be doing, and we obviously are not. Bernanke is a student of the great depression, but I fear he may be going to far the other way because the second thing I know is that printing money and lowering interest rates lowers the value of the dollar and raises the price of oil and in turn food. If people are poor from inflation there can be no turn around. I don’t think we can win this, I think we are going to feel pain no matter how this goes down. The biggest market problems we have had were caused by government over reacting. Saving these investment banks may save our devalued money, but it does not solve the problem. And regulating the hell out of the market and manipulating it with government funds sounds less like American capitalism and more like French socialism. This bail out will not work… we are in for hard times, how long they will last depends on how much the government i interferes. I understand what the government is trying to do to save the system, but we know Newton’s third law to be true and in this case inflation is the opposite reaction. Yes, the government has intervened before to try to save the economy this is not a new concept, but there past intervention, I’m convinced, is the reason we are in this crisis.
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Police in America
We need police, there has to be some way to enforce the laws in this country, in our individual states. I am a law abiding citizen who does not break the law… well maybe a traffic law or two. I should have no reason to hate the police, but I really hate them. I can’t stand them, because of the mentality they possess and the power trip that possesses them. In my experience women cops are the worst. You don’t have to be mean to maintain authority and if you do maybe you shouldn’t be a cop. How do we fix this police power trip? For one, people need to better educate themselves of their rights and police need to have stricter punishments for infringing on them. Better screening of police recruits needs to be in place; some of these people want to be police just to have power over others. Maybe daddy beat them every Wednesday with the garden hose, maybe Uncle George should not have been the one babysitting them, or maybe Big Billy took there lunch money every day. It’s the most powerful job you can get with limited education required. I am tired of hearing the stories of police not following traffic laws, roughing up people, and abusing their power. Here are some of the latest stories.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/29/dcl.cop.decks.cyclist.cnn
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/24108139.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality&search_type=&aq=f
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/29/dcl.cop.decks.cyclist.cnn
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/24108139.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality&search_type=&aq=f
Monday, July 28, 2008
Fannie and Freddie
Every time one of these bail outs is delivered I cringe. Why can’t we just leave the market alone? Why are we helping the private sector? Not only does a free market have to rise and fall on its own, but every time the government helps they always want more control.
The sad truth of the matter is this market has not been free for a very long time. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fictitious entities created by the communist (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that the scared American people let in the White House to rescue capitalism from itself. But is that true, did capitalism cause the great depression, or was it once again government interference? Did FDR rescue capitalism or did his government programs delay its recovery?
There are a lot of different opinions to what caused the great depression, but it seems obvious that the huge unsustainable boom created by trying to help Britain return to the gold standard probably had something to do with it. The Federal Reserve enacting the policies that where exactly opposite of what they should have been doing most likely made the unstoppable recession into a depression (i.e. limiting cash flow and raising interest rates).
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Ben Bernanke
FDR programs did not turn the economy around WWII did. He took us from the gold standard and money was printed. He created many socialist programs, some so overt they were struck down by The Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In his misguided attempt to turn the economy around in 1938 he created the Federal National Mortgage Association AKA. Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae was created because private investors were skittish (and rightfully so) on investing in home loans. So FDR created a government ran monopoly; borrowing from foreign investors and buying home loans and creating the secondary home loan market. Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market.
Should the government bail private business out? I say absolutely not! But these are not private businesses and they were never meant to be private businesses; they where part of FDR’s new socialist deal. If they were so good at making money then why would Lyndon Johnson want to take them off the books during the Vietnam War to save money?
The secondary mortgage market monopoly was destined to fail because the government created it. And now that is has, they do have a responsibility to fix it. I don’t know how they can make it free again, but no one in government, or soon to be, is going to do it.
The sad truth of the matter is this market has not been free for a very long time. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fictitious entities created by the communist (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that the scared American people let in the White House to rescue capitalism from itself. But is that true, did capitalism cause the great depression, or was it once again government interference? Did FDR rescue capitalism or did his government programs delay its recovery?
There are a lot of different opinions to what caused the great depression, but it seems obvious that the huge unsustainable boom created by trying to help Britain return to the gold standard probably had something to do with it. The Federal Reserve enacting the policies that where exactly opposite of what they should have been doing most likely made the unstoppable recession into a depression (i.e. limiting cash flow and raising interest rates).
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Ben Bernanke
FDR programs did not turn the economy around WWII did. He took us from the gold standard and money was printed. He created many socialist programs, some so overt they were struck down by The Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In his misguided attempt to turn the economy around in 1938 he created the Federal National Mortgage Association AKA. Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae was created because private investors were skittish (and rightfully so) on investing in home loans. So FDR created a government ran monopoly; borrowing from foreign investors and buying home loans and creating the secondary home loan market. Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market.
Should the government bail private business out? I say absolutely not! But these are not private businesses and they were never meant to be private businesses; they where part of FDR’s new socialist deal. If they were so good at making money then why would Lyndon Johnson want to take them off the books during the Vietnam War to save money?
The secondary mortgage market monopoly was destined to fail because the government created it. And now that is has, they do have a responsibility to fix it. I don’t know how they can make it free again, but no one in government, or soon to be, is going to do it.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Constitution of the United States of America
In 1777, after the Revolutionary War with Great Britain, The Articles of Confederation was written. They were dubbed a "loose confederation" or a "firm league of friendship," there was to be no executive branch. It sounds like it was more a League of Nations or the EU then a country. And there were obviously many problems with it, so the best and the brightest, the most trusted men of their time set out to fix it and instead made a new constitution. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton are a few of them. They had many different opinions, but they found common ground for the welfare of the entire country. The United States ratified the Constitution and instituted it as the supreme law of the land in 1789. Today, the United States Constitution is the oldest, written constitution that has continuously remained in effect in the world. It established the first federal form of government, the first system of checks and balances. The Constitution formed the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
The whole thing was in jeopardy of being thrown out due to the lack of a bill of rights and the difference in ideology between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists once again men were able to put the country above all else and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 AKA The Bill of Rights. It continues to play a central role in law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedom for this great country.
Recently there have been two big rulings by the Supreme Court one on the second amendment and one a ruling on the writ of habeas corpus that I will tackle at a later time.
The second amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, I know we are post Clinton era where we like to debate what the definition of is, is. But to me it’s obvious what this is saying. Because the revolutionary war was won by regular people taking there guns from over the fire place and grouping together to protect their state, their home, and their family; they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment not the eighth or the sixth. It’s second only to the freedom of speech, the press, and right to petition, and assemble. They deliberately made sure anyone was going to have a hell of a time taking the guns out of the homes of ordinary people, because this was our most powerful weapon to protect against invasion. Yes, times have changed and the most powerful weapon is now nuclear, the sediment is still the same. Individuals fighting for their country are still very powerful; if this was not true the war with Iraq would be a cake walk. The founding fathers were very smart and knew that a person will defend his home to his last breath.
But for you word splitters out there, here is what the Supreme Court ruling says: “the second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.”
So in other words first it’s a statement justifying the importance of the law, then the law itself.
It is not the supreme courts job to determine whether a law is still relevant in today’s society but to interpret the laws meaning and they did a very intelligent job. In the seventeen hundreds no one imagined the weapons we would have dreamed up by the year 2008. Taking that into account, the Supreme Court left it open to put restrictions on those weapons. So this is not a pass to own a missile but it should mean the right to own an M16 or M14.
Just as a side note: The poor republican has never owned a gun and does not hunt. But like many things in this world I support this ruling on principle. I love this country and share the ideals it was founded on. Without the Constitution it’s just a bunch of preoccupied people in the majority voting on things they half understand.
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington
The whole thing was in jeopardy of being thrown out due to the lack of a bill of rights and the difference in ideology between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists once again men were able to put the country above all else and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 AKA The Bill of Rights. It continues to play a central role in law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedom for this great country.
Recently there have been two big rulings by the Supreme Court one on the second amendment and one a ruling on the writ of habeas corpus that I will tackle at a later time.
The second amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, I know we are post Clinton era where we like to debate what the definition of is, is. But to me it’s obvious what this is saying. Because the revolutionary war was won by regular people taking there guns from over the fire place and grouping together to protect their state, their home, and their family; they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment not the eighth or the sixth. It’s second only to the freedom of speech, the press, and right to petition, and assemble. They deliberately made sure anyone was going to have a hell of a time taking the guns out of the homes of ordinary people, because this was our most powerful weapon to protect against invasion. Yes, times have changed and the most powerful weapon is now nuclear, the sediment is still the same. Individuals fighting for their country are still very powerful; if this was not true the war with Iraq would be a cake walk. The founding fathers were very smart and knew that a person will defend his home to his last breath.
But for you word splitters out there, here is what the Supreme Court ruling says: “the second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.”
So in other words first it’s a statement justifying the importance of the law, then the law itself.
It is not the supreme courts job to determine whether a law is still relevant in today’s society but to interpret the laws meaning and they did a very intelligent job. In the seventeen hundreds no one imagined the weapons we would have dreamed up by the year 2008. Taking that into account, the Supreme Court left it open to put restrictions on those weapons. So this is not a pass to own a missile but it should mean the right to own an M16 or M14.
Just as a side note: The poor republican has never owned a gun and does not hunt. But like many things in this world I support this ruling on principle. I love this country and share the ideals it was founded on. Without the Constitution it’s just a bunch of preoccupied people in the majority voting on things they half understand.
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington
Friday, June 6, 2008
Bill of Rights vs. Public School
Three seniors at Bloomington's Kennedy High School have been suspended for waving Confederate flags in the school parking lot Tuesday morning. The prank, as the students called it, kept them from participating in their graduation ceremony Wednesday night.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Who has more morals... democrats or republicans?
Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
McCain vs. Obama
This is a good match up. I spent the better part of my life arguing politics with my father (a diehard democrat). It’s not easy to argue with an experienced, older, and wiser person even when you’re right (a luxury Obama doesn't have). I would have to do my home work when arguing with my old man, because living the politics of yesterday is much different then reading about them. Recalling facts of events and failed policies is much easier when you were there. Obama is obviously going to get the younger vote; young people are lacking wisdom and are full of misguided ideals, so it’s a perfect fit. I don’t think the public is nearly as racist as the press wants us to believe and even people with hesitation about Obama’s race are going to see past it as they get to know him. If their misguided ideals are in line with his they will vote for him. It’s the same with McCain; about his being a senior citizen and all. I think this race is going to be another party line vote. The educated people will vote with the party they always vote with, because they have issues they care about and those issues haven’t changed parties. The undecided retards will vote for… well who knows even they don’t. I don’t really know who is voting for whom and why. I can only truly understand like minded people, but I don’t think the press has a handle on it either. They’re so gun hoe on exploiting a racial divide that they’re crediting a huge portion of Obama’s support to white intellectuals. I must be one of the stupid white people because I have no idea who these people are. Are they the cappuccino drinking, BMW driving yuppies, which look down on everyone and everything? Are they the old hippies with their long silver hair screaming and yelling at these rallies? Because I’ve seen them on TV and intellectual doesn’t come to mind. Is it the college professors who are turning out these bleeding heart crybaby kids into the world, where after a few years of paying taxes they see the true story and many turn to the ignorant side of the fence? Is it the European loving, art appreciating, tree huggers? Is it the celebrities who feel guilty about being rich? Where’s this huge population? What is intellectual about the Democratic Party as it stands today? If you had intellect, you would see socialism doesn’t work. Global warming is not in our control. The European way of doing things does not work; if it did they would be in our position, instead of the other way around. Some people vote on social issues or the war in Iraq, but most modern democrats are socialists, not intellectuals. They are either bleeding hearts or they need a hand out.
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1 This control may be either directly exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been identified with communism mainly because the distribution of wealth is controlled as a whole and not individually. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1 This control may be either directly exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been identified with communism mainly because the distribution of wealth is controlled as a whole and not individually. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go Hillary!!
I am fully on board with Clinton; let’s take down the entire Democratic Party! Our motivations may be different; mine are for entertainment and enjoyment where Clinton’s are purely to win. Clinton wants to win no matter what the cost because it’s not an idea she cares about, it’s not a principle, and it’s not helping the middleclass or the poor; it’s purely her obsession with being President.
Obama has 1,962 delegates and Clinton has 1,777 according to a CNN. You need 2,026 to be nominated. She claims to have the lead in the popular vote, but its fuzzy math to say the least. Haven’t these democrats learned that the popular vote doesn’t win elections? Well, what ever, keep up the good fight Clinton I’m root'in for you.
Obama has 1,962 delegates and Clinton has 1,777 according to a CNN. You need 2,026 to be nominated. She claims to have the lead in the popular vote, but its fuzzy math to say the least. Haven’t these democrats learned that the popular vote doesn’t win elections? Well, what ever, keep up the good fight Clinton I’m root'in for you.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The media showed everyone who the real leader of the Democratic Party is and crowned a winner.
Anyone sick of these two yet? Apparently the media is because they seem to have crowned a winner. Obama is most likely to be the nominee. I really hope it’s not an Obama-Clinton ticket. I’d really like to see her just go away. I’m normally concerned about the issues not the individual. I never understood how people could hate Bush so much; I mean they loath Bush, obviously people have different views and politics, but why hate him. Well, now I see how it can happen because that woman makes my skin crawl. If it is true and Obama is the nominee, I can’t say I’m not happy to see Clinton go. I know there has been a republican push for her to win because they feel the party will unite against her, but what if it back fired. What if we had to listen to that women talk and laugh for at least 4 more years? I don’t think I could mentally handle it. I might need some professional help. Besides Obama vs. McCain might play out better then they think. Obama has no experience running anything bigger then a lemonade stand. When McCain gets into the spot light after this circus is over, voters are going to see he is different then Bush. If they can let go of there hate for Bush long enough, they might see this war logically and start to understand the consequences of pulling out. Giving up and going home might not be such a popular idea. Also, things are constantly changing in Iraq, if things start turning around closer to the election everyone would expect Hillary to flip flop, but if Obama does it will be a real question to his character. If he didn’t and wanted to still pull out despite the realization of an obtainable victory, it might cause concern that his planned pull out is strictly for political reasons and not for the good of the country.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Reverend Wright
The only thing I think would be good about Obama winning the presidency is that he is black. If a black man won the presidency, I think it would be great for the country and do a great deal at putting to rest the racial divide in America. Imagine black children growing up with a black president. What a different perception of this country they would have. I am not black, so I am not claiming to speak on behalf of black people. Race relations are a complicated thing that I don’t think can be understood by just one race. You would have to have lived as both to truly be able to speak with authority on race in America. If the tables were turned and white people had the American history that the black people have endured and a white person had a chance to be president, I don’t care what his politics were I would vote for him. I think Obama is huge for black people and for healing the wounds of an entire country. Reverend Wright brands himself as an angry man who has been wronged by a repressive government. He speaks to like minded people who seem to feel the government has and is actively working against them. Maybe he has done it for so long he can’t see he is hurting the very real chance he has to solve this very problem. Maybe he is so full of himself he can’t pass up a chance at 15 minutes of fame; to try to solve the perceived racist government by giving it a black boss. I am not an Obama supporter. I am not going to vote for him. The cost is too great for the capitalist ideals I hold very dear, but if I was Reverend Wright I would.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Earth Day
Global warming is the most confusing issue being debated. It is clear the earth is going through changes. The real question is; how much affect is our water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide having on this change. The answer is not as much as the environmentalists are leading us to believe.
Here are the facts. There were over 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1880. The level of CO2 in the air has increased by 100 parts per million since 1880. It is now at 382 parts per million. The average worldwide temperature is up about one degree in the last 100 years and according to The U.N Climate Panel an increase to 550 parts per Million would mean an increase in temperature of about 2.3 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. No one knows for sure if the rise in CO2 by 100 parts per million was caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas. They are sure burning small amounts of coal, oil, and gas throws CO2 and water vapor into the air. It’s not proven that the warming trend is directly related to the increase CO2 in the air. They attribute 46% of the increase in the worldwide temperature to the increase in CO2, even though water vapor is a much bigger factor in keeping the earth's heat from radiating into space. There is no way to measure the level of water vapor in the entire world’s atmosphere. There is no proof that 46% of the one degree increase in temperature is directly attributable to the 100 parts per million increases in CO2.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing to cut emissions or stop littering. I would like our rivers and lakes to be clean. But why are the environmentalists exaggerating global warming and more importantly our contribution to it. What is their agenda and why does is seem like it always results in more laws and more taxes.
Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htmhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_cycle.png
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrow—not likely—we've already spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for at least another century.
John RoachNational Geographic News
Here are the facts. There were over 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1880. The level of CO2 in the air has increased by 100 parts per million since 1880. It is now at 382 parts per million. The average worldwide temperature is up about one degree in the last 100 years and according to The U.N Climate Panel an increase to 550 parts per Million would mean an increase in temperature of about 2.3 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. No one knows for sure if the rise in CO2 by 100 parts per million was caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas. They are sure burning small amounts of coal, oil, and gas throws CO2 and water vapor into the air. It’s not proven that the warming trend is directly related to the increase CO2 in the air. They attribute 46% of the increase in the worldwide temperature to the increase in CO2, even though water vapor is a much bigger factor in keeping the earth's heat from radiating into space. There is no way to measure the level of water vapor in the entire world’s atmosphere. There is no proof that 46% of the one degree increase in temperature is directly attributable to the 100 parts per million increases in CO2.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing to cut emissions or stop littering. I would like our rivers and lakes to be clean. But why are the environmentalists exaggerating global warming and more importantly our contribution to it. What is their agenda and why does is seem like it always results in more laws and more taxes.
Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htmhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_cycle.png
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrow—not likely—we've already spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for at least another century.
John RoachNational Geographic News
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Stalemate Debate
I spent the day extremely excited about this debate. I grilled some steak, cracked open a beer, and settled in, for what I thought was going to be entertainment on a Super Bowl scale. Needless to say I was disappointed. Being nice and respectful in each others presence and pointed and harsh behind each others back is not noble for the good of the party, it’s spineless. It doesn’t erase what they’re saying behind each others back. They won’t even look at each other when they are being slightly critical in each others presence.
It‘s clear taxes are going to be raised. They spent time arguing about how far down the ladder each of their tax hikes are going to be. But it’s clear for people who are creating jobs, those whom economic hardships have hit, and in turn have had to cut jobs and opportunity for workers, are getting a tax increase under a Clinton or Obama presidency. I just don’t see how seemingly intelligent people can ignore the fact that jobs are lost when the rich have less money. The rich are business; the rich are employers not employees. So helping the poor at the expense of the rich is like throwing bandages on a wound while twisting the knife that’s still stuck in it. It never seems to stop there, some how the middle class get their taxes raised too. Obama told us, in almost the same sentence, that he will not raise the taxes of those who make under $200, 000 a year, but will raise the capital gains tax. Even he admits this will affect people making well under $200, 000. To make things worse he ignores the fact that doing so has never raised more revenue.
The other thing that caught my attention was Hilary’s response to her Bosnia lie; she admitted just that; she lied. Either way… if she lied to pad her record or if she is simply a tired old lady who has trouble remembering the facts of events that have happened to her, it’s not good.
There are so many promises by these two that it’s ridiculous. The fact that they are going to pull us out of the war with our tail between our legs and then turn around and talk tough to Iran is laughable. If I was a friendly country like Israel, I wouldn’t feel very safe under a Clinton or Obama military umbrella.
I don’t think either came out victorious. The debate simply highlighted and strengthened what we already knew about these candidates; Hilary will say and do anything to be elected and Obama has a full out socialist agenda; facts be damned.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4669713
Al Jazeera aired a new tape of Osama bin Laden. It was the usual stuff, he called Bush evil, the Great Satan, called him a war monger. Basically, the same thing you heard at last night's Democratic debate. Jay Leno
It‘s clear taxes are going to be raised. They spent time arguing about how far down the ladder each of their tax hikes are going to be. But it’s clear for people who are creating jobs, those whom economic hardships have hit, and in turn have had to cut jobs and opportunity for workers, are getting a tax increase under a Clinton or Obama presidency. I just don’t see how seemingly intelligent people can ignore the fact that jobs are lost when the rich have less money. The rich are business; the rich are employers not employees. So helping the poor at the expense of the rich is like throwing bandages on a wound while twisting the knife that’s still stuck in it. It never seems to stop there, some how the middle class get their taxes raised too. Obama told us, in almost the same sentence, that he will not raise the taxes of those who make under $200, 000 a year, but will raise the capital gains tax. Even he admits this will affect people making well under $200, 000. To make things worse he ignores the fact that doing so has never raised more revenue.
The other thing that caught my attention was Hilary’s response to her Bosnia lie; she admitted just that; she lied. Either way… if she lied to pad her record or if she is simply a tired old lady who has trouble remembering the facts of events that have happened to her, it’s not good.
There are so many promises by these two that it’s ridiculous. The fact that they are going to pull us out of the war with our tail between our legs and then turn around and talk tough to Iran is laughable. If I was a friendly country like Israel, I wouldn’t feel very safe under a Clinton or Obama military umbrella.
I don’t think either came out victorious. The debate simply highlighted and strengthened what we already knew about these candidates; Hilary will say and do anything to be elected and Obama has a full out socialist agenda; facts be damned.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4669713
Al Jazeera aired a new tape of Osama bin Laden. It was the usual stuff, he called Bush evil, the Great Satan, called him a war monger. Basically, the same thing you heard at last night's Democratic debate. Jay Leno
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The pot calling the kettle an elitist…
Remember the old sane it takes one to know one. I don’t know Hillary’s true beliefs on the issues, no one does. She takes positions that she thinks are the most popular. What is clear is she is pompous and demeaning every time she opens her mouth. The first thing on my mind when Obama made his bitter comment was not what an Elitist, but maybe what a Democrat. Then it occurred to me why Hilary used the term “Elitist”. I don’t hang out with elitists; I don’t run around with the one hundred million dollar a year crowd. She knows how an elitist thinks about the common folk because they are her friends, she is one of them. She will mold herself into whatever she thinks people want at the time for her own political gain. She is not running for president because she believes what she is saying, she is running to be president because she wants to be The President. Let’s face it they’re both “Elitist”. I do think Obama has a little Paul Wellstone in him and believes in his socialist agenda. He thinks he is going to save the poor and unhappy with his magical government programs. That makes him very dangerous to the free market and the low taxes us republicans want. If we have to have a Democrat win this year maybe we should be hoping for Clinton? I think I just puked a little in my mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zotg92j0U6I&feature=related
Important principles may, and must, be inflexible. Abraham Lincoln
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zotg92j0U6I&feature=related
Important principles may, and must, be inflexible. Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama wants us to focus on the real issues.
"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."
From:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bitter_voters
The emails cited this Huffington Post article, which quotes Obama telling backers: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/880232.aspx
Really!?! … That’s one of the strangest ways to look at the world I have ever heard. Obama talks about the cynicism that the people have for government. I guess there are people in government who are quite cynical about the way the American people vote. Can there be only one issue we vote on? Is it really that we just want a hand out and when we don’t get one we move to these other unimportant issues like constitutional law, social issues, border security, and global trade. We must be a bunch of retards. What a waste of time voting on these small issues when we should be just concerned about how much we can get out of the next President. Who’s really going to deliver all those hand-outs they’re all promising.
If we take the route of the permanent handout, the American character will itself be impoverished. Richard M. Nixon
From:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bitter_voters
The emails cited this Huffington Post article, which quotes Obama telling backers: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/880232.aspx
Really!?! … That’s one of the strangest ways to look at the world I have ever heard. Obama talks about the cynicism that the people have for government. I guess there are people in government who are quite cynical about the way the American people vote. Can there be only one issue we vote on? Is it really that we just want a hand out and when we don’t get one we move to these other unimportant issues like constitutional law, social issues, border security, and global trade. We must be a bunch of retards. What a waste of time voting on these small issues when we should be just concerned about how much we can get out of the next President. Who’s really going to deliver all those hand-outs they’re all promising.
If we take the route of the permanent handout, the American character will itself be impoverished. Richard M. Nixon
Friday, April 11, 2008
Democratic Promises
Universal healthcare, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, and turning around the economy is what’s promised. But what are the consequences of all this?
Pulling out of Iraq would be absolutely insane. I don’t know why we went into Iraq. Only the way this war ends will determine whether it was the right thing to do. I think September 11th really had an affect on Bush and he wanted to do something that would have a lasting affect on ending terrorism. What better way then make the entire region into democratic countries. If they’re friendly and stable other countries will trade with them and people will make money and be happy. I agree it’s hard to be a suicide bomber when you’re financially content and happy, but why start with Iraq? I don’t know, maybe Bush is a psychopath bent on revenge and a love for death and oil or maybe it’s because Iran is destined to be a problem and is located right next door or maybe because we know the lay of land better in Iraq then we do in other hostile countries or maybe because Iraq was hugely influential and wealthy and Bush thought it would send a message to the other smaller countries that they’re not untouchable. No one knows for sure what was in the President’s mind and heart, but I for one don’t care at this point. All I know for sure is if we pull out of Iraq and don’t leave a working democracy it will hurt far more then just Bush’s legacy. It will be a horrible problem that we will be dealing with whether we like it or not. The war will not end because we left. Innocent Iraqi’s will still be dying and the war will pull in Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait, maybe even Russia and China, and whoever else has a stake on the outcome of who controls Iraq. Who knows where it will go from there.
The greatest security for Israel is to create new Egypts. Ronald Reagan
I could talk about the war all day, but let’s move on to universal healthcare. It sounds nice, especially for me the poor republican who can barely afford my insurance premiums, but I think it threatens freedom itself. The more the government gives you the more it can take away. If you don’t believe that take a good look around… smoking bands, seatbelt laws. If we have universal healthcare they will attack everything from fast food to bungee jumping. In Europe right now their main concern is preventive care to try to reign in costs. Socialism just doesn’t work, it stifles creative innovation. The government is not going to throw money behind thoughts and ideas like private drug companies do because they can’t make the money on it like the drug companies can. The cost/risk ratio doesn’t make since for the government and they won’t be able to afford to back the research just because it will help people.
Now let’s move to the economy. I am a firm believer in leaving things alone. The economy always goes up and down. This $600 incentive thing is a joke. People are not going to spend more unless they know every month they’re getting more money… lower taxes. Maybe the fed did the right thing, maybe not, but intervention has real consequences. I think I’m going to exchange all my money ($123.89) into pesos!!
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan
Pulling out of Iraq would be absolutely insane. I don’t know why we went into Iraq. Only the way this war ends will determine whether it was the right thing to do. I think September 11th really had an affect on Bush and he wanted to do something that would have a lasting affect on ending terrorism. What better way then make the entire region into democratic countries. If they’re friendly and stable other countries will trade with them and people will make money and be happy. I agree it’s hard to be a suicide bomber when you’re financially content and happy, but why start with Iraq? I don’t know, maybe Bush is a psychopath bent on revenge and a love for death and oil or maybe it’s because Iran is destined to be a problem and is located right next door or maybe because we know the lay of land better in Iraq then we do in other hostile countries or maybe because Iraq was hugely influential and wealthy and Bush thought it would send a message to the other smaller countries that they’re not untouchable. No one knows for sure what was in the President’s mind and heart, but I for one don’t care at this point. All I know for sure is if we pull out of Iraq and don’t leave a working democracy it will hurt far more then just Bush’s legacy. It will be a horrible problem that we will be dealing with whether we like it or not. The war will not end because we left. Innocent Iraqi’s will still be dying and the war will pull in Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait, maybe even Russia and China, and whoever else has a stake on the outcome of who controls Iraq. Who knows where it will go from there.
The greatest security for Israel is to create new Egypts. Ronald Reagan
I could talk about the war all day, but let’s move on to universal healthcare. It sounds nice, especially for me the poor republican who can barely afford my insurance premiums, but I think it threatens freedom itself. The more the government gives you the more it can take away. If you don’t believe that take a good look around… smoking bands, seatbelt laws. If we have universal healthcare they will attack everything from fast food to bungee jumping. In Europe right now their main concern is preventive care to try to reign in costs. Socialism just doesn’t work, it stifles creative innovation. The government is not going to throw money behind thoughts and ideas like private drug companies do because they can’t make the money on it like the drug companies can. The cost/risk ratio doesn’t make since for the government and they won’t be able to afford to back the research just because it will help people.
Now let’s move to the economy. I am a firm believer in leaving things alone. The economy always goes up and down. This $600 incentive thing is a joke. People are not going to spend more unless they know every month they’re getting more money… lower taxes. Maybe the fed did the right thing, maybe not, but intervention has real consequences. I think I’m going to exchange all my money ($123.89) into pesos!!
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)