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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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