The more things change…

September 11, 2007

     Having been on this planet longer than most dirt, I’ve come to realize that in the short run very little changes.  We expand on theme’s, throw our effort into perfecting the imperfectable, and chase dreams that defy all logical purpose.  We have this incredible need to know more, to do more, and be more than the generation that came before, and to be honest im many ways we fail at it.

    Politics, as you’ve probably figured, is one of my favorite areas of this failing, and the answer to why we fail here is so obvious it’s almost derivative.  In so many things, there really isn’t a litmus test, but I have one that I use on myself.  Would I fire me?  Seems trite, but you’d be surprised how often I find that I would.  It’s a test that we should apply to our politicians.  If you performed at the level that your elected officials perform would you expect to be fired?

   If your answer wasn’t a resounding hell yes, go soak your head.  Now here’s the rub.  It is almost never the Presidents fault, and that includes this time.  Seldom is a president charismatic enough to move things through sheer force of will.  The most disingenuous thing in politics right now is the democrats whining “he lied to us.”  I’m sorry, he can’t lie to you if you were to lazy to read the official reports, as Hillary Clinton has admitted.  I’ll grant that there are several thousand pages, but it also seems sort of important, and maybe she should have took a look, so to speak.

    It was brought to my attention today, that of the last 27 years of presidents, only George Bush senior hasn’t obviously violated either the constitution, or the criminal code.  Ronald Reagan and Geroge Bush were both knighted, ostensibly a violation of the no foreign titles clause, and Bill Clinton is a confessed perjurer.  This doesn’t mean they were failures.  George Bush has performed well under difficult circumstances.

authors note:  i consider being a hand puppet and brain dead difficult circumstances.

He has however kept the nation afloat during a war, and fighting an economy that was declining, and altogether shattered by 9/11.  Do I like him?  Nope.  Do I hate him?  Nope.  I occassionally pity him though.

   Bill Clinton managed to sign into law most of the Contract with America, made it very difficult to receive welfare, signed NAFTA into law, and made big business and special interests a full partner in running the country.  In short, he was a heinously deficient liberal that still commands massive popular support with that party.  The Republicans should make him their honorary lord and master, but getting oral sex demonized him with the party that should have loved his policies.

    George senior fought a war, won a war, and left a war on the table.  4 years isn’t a long time to make a huge mark with a divided congress, and he didn’t.

    Ron was charismatic.  He was also really well coached, and he changed America, and the world .  Very few presidents can say that they changed the country they led.  He was probably the most productive president of our time, and whether you like him or hate him it’s hard to dispute.

  In other words, for 28 years we’ve enjoyed presidents doing what they do.  For that same 28 years we have watched congress flounder around like a piglet runt seeking hind tit.  Other than a couple years with Newt Gingrich at the helm, congress has been rudderless for 3 decades.  The current batch may be the worst.  I’m willing to bet the rest of this years pay that the democrats don’t end the war in Iraq this year.  Why?  they don’t believe it is the right thing to do, and they lack the balls to do what they told the people they would do.

  You wish to fix it?  Vote for Ron Paul.  Heh-Heh.  I was kidding.  If you want your country back.  If you want a government run based on compassion for the populace they serve, then refuse to vote for any incumbent.  Refuse to vote for any currently seated official running for higher office.  “pour les encouragemant des outres”  To encourage the others.  The next bunch won’t perform like this bunch if they know you won’t vote for them.

   Elected officials are only responsive to the public if it pays attention, and takes responsibility.  Your responsibility in this matter is to fire non-responsive employees, and to replace them with those who will enforce your will.  Based on the track record of the organization in question, not a single person should retain their seat past their next election.  The ball really is in your court.

Advertisements

The DNC Shows How much liberals care about your freedom

September 2, 2007

   I try to stay toward the center because both sides are so easy to disagree with.  I’ve drifted decidedly left over the last several years as I watched freedoms here erode in the interest of Global Aggression.    This week in Kremlinesque style and goosestep efficiency, a non-government entity, unelected by the people, and answerable to no one,  has etermined that many American’s have no right to take part in the political process.

    Having decided that backwater states Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina; and that glittery bastion of depravity in the desert, Necada will have first say in who will be the nominees for president of the United States, granting to them an incredible amount of clout,  which isn’t in line with their representation of American Society as a whole.

  To clue you in on what I’m talking about, look here.   The DNC has determined that they and only they will get to decide when primaries shall be held, and invoked severe sanctions against any state that got out of line.  This affects Michigan in particular, a state where manufacturing has been beaten into the ground by poor legislation and criminally negligent trade policies.  Michigan would be a great representative in early primaries.  They would be a good showcase of what is likely to happen in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  All these states have suffered under the economic malfeasance of both parties of government, and maintaining the status quo allows the DNC to continue to marginalize trade unions import in the nominating process.  Unions are volatile, and are unlikely to come out strongly for those candidates the DNC favors, (Edwards, Obama, Clinton).  The Firemen recently came out for Chris Dodd, and that is not a good thing for the big three.

    It would appear to me that the party that has been raging about privacy and freedom from government intervention, has decided that the party itself should be the controlling organization in how elections are handled.  Nice job.  Way to push people back toward the right you idiotic Stalinists.


Electoral college change could benefit Republican candidates

August 7, 2007

   This is one you liberals better get up in arms about in a hurry.  Imagine if  the popular vote winner in a state didn’t get all the electoral votes.  Instead, suppose that the winner in each congressional district won a portion of them.  Instead of an automatic 55 electoral votes going to the Democrats in the state of California, it were split, more fairly along party lines.

   Well, if a ballot initiative in California goes through that’s exactly what will happen, and the Democrat candidates will find it much harder to win the election.

Before you scream foul though, Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing in North Carolina.  Watching politics is more fun than football.


Why Ron Paul is not a loony old man

August 6, 2007

    Which is what I heard him described as.  Interestingly enough by a political blogger I tend to respect, overlooking the fact that he supports that loony middle aged man, Mitt Romney.  You read a lot here about why I think Ron Paul is the wrong man for the job.  You also read a lot here about what a pack of moronic orangutans the pauliacs are.  You do not however read any particular disrespect for the man himself.

    The reason for that is on so many issues he is dead right.  Not the little ones…abortion, gun control,  drug legalization, and all the other little niche issues that are rolled out every few years so we can delineate between the idiot and the cow dung that we have to choose from.  On a lot of the big ones though the man is not wrong.

What kind of a hose monkey thinks we don’t need stronger borders?

Who in their right mind supports our current foreign policy agenda, and can’t find sense in a policy of non-interventionism?  Of not going to war unless congress declares war?

Who doesn’t think our government wastes way to much money?  Is it really more important to fight a war in Iraq than to rebuild an infrastructure  that is aging as quickly as the population.

Do you really support the major trade agreements currently shaping the  U.S. economic collapse?  Don’t tell me about the stock market here you dolt.  Tell me about Trade imbalance and deficits.

Further, if he didn’t couch it in terms of states rights I would wholeheartedly support this loony old man.  My problem is I don’t think the states have any more right to dictate to my daughter whether she can have an abortion or not.  It is, to all you idiots that are pro life…none of your  business.  It’s hard fr me to understand a party that is so much more concerned about the unborn than it is about the currently living.

   It is an unfortunate reality that I am not represented by the clowns on the right. or the jokers on the left.  Ron Paul is currently the only candidate that should make sense to anyone in the middle, and unfortunately he is about as electable as a drag queen.  More’s the pity. 

This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul.  I think allowing the young to opt out of Social Security is a stupid idea designed to appease his young voters.  I think a whole host of his other ideas are the wrong cure for the current problem.  What makes him better than the rest of the perfectly coiffed, properly crowned nitwits on that stage today was he at least recognizes the problems we face.


The YouRtubes debates, revisited

July 28, 2007

    So the new hue and cry is the Republican candidates are scared to debate on YouTube.  I for one do not blame them.  I think from a strategic standpoint those candidates currently refusing to attend the debate do so with a level of acute awareness often missing in the politicians of today.

   Before the debate has even started Mitt Romney is being accused of saying that he thinks it’s undifnified to be questioned by the general public.  The fact that he said nothing close to this is irrelevant because YouTubes have a huge problem with reading comprehension, and think that cesspool the other night was a fine example of democracy at work.  What he said was he thought (I paraphrase) the office of president should be held to a higher level than to have to be asked questions by a snowman.  I concur.  Ratings are important to CNN, and since it is their editors that chose the questions we have to assume that ratings came into play when choosing the snowman question.  I’m quite sure one of the other 3000 questions could have addressed global warming just as well.  Some level of decorum should be maintained, and lets face it, the global warming snowman was as much about ratings as the psychopath with the assault rifle.

   Additionally, the benchmarks in Iraq debate will be in full roar in September, and this is almost certainly the reason those not electing to attend have chosen that course of action.  Contrary to what this mullet has to say:

Added state Republican spokeswoman Erin VanSickle: “It’s an important debate in an important battleground state that just moved its primary to Jan. 29th. In other words, we have every confidence that they will attend. They can’t afford not to.” (same link as above). 

While I’m sure Florida will be important, it always is, I don’t think being swamped with questions about their Iraq positions will be good for any of the candidates.  McCain has chosen to attend, as has Ron Paul.  McCain needs a metaphoric homerun to win, and Ron Paul is on the right side of the war issue.  Hard to blame either of them.  The rest are not desperate enough to go to Florida and be sandbagged by CNN.

   It’s not about you tube, although the wretchedly insipid crowd hanging out in the political arena there are absolutely sure there voice is the only one that matters.  What matters is that several little CNN gnomes will be picking and choosing the questions, and quite likely stuffing the clip box as they do so.  It’s not hard to imagine some little editor having a buddy send in a sleeper clip that they can smear a Republican candidate with.  How about in the interest of fairness we have a FOXNEWS/YouTube.com debate? 

    I’m not raising a conspiracy theory here.  CNN has long been known for its softballing interviews with democratic leaders while hammering away at conservatives.  It’s easy to se it happen when you think both liberals and conservatives are worng, but I may be the only person left that believes that. The debate for the democrats barely touched on Iraq because quite simply thats not news at a democratic debate.  They all profess desire to be out of the war, and everyone knows they aren’t doing anything about it.  The republicans on the other hand primarily support some form of presence in Iraq, and I would surmise that based on the timing of the debate, CNN has every intention of using the benckmarks as a club to wield at the candidates.

    Smart move Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, et al.  No point putting your head in a noose today in hopes of being reincarnated in time for the elections.


Not News….Proof

July 26, 2007

  This one proves that the FBI is not on a witch hunt for terrorists.  Anyone will do.  It doesn’t seem to matter when in history, the FBI has proven to be as unscrupulous as any federal agency ever.

this one proves that no good deed goes unpunished.  The president who helped pull south africa out of apartheid is now being victimized by rumor mongers and former apartheid officials trying to keep the noose from around their own neck.  Apparently a nobel peace prize isn’t worth much anymore.

 Remember the movie where if you watch it the phone rings and you then die within 7 days?  Well, this cat gives you roughly 4 hours.  I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought cats were satans minions, except max, of course, and this fat little furbearing feline proves it.  I want his feet tested.  Maybe he isn’t prescient…maybe he has poison paws.

This proves that science fictions and comic books are no longer the private domain of the geeky and nerdified.  heh…sure it does.

this proves that sex, funny, and liberal are popular in the blog bowl.  (like toilet bowl….beats blogosphere wouldn’t you say?)  It also proves that If Rosie O’donnell’s haiku’s get an A rating the rest of you haiku clowns should maybe throw in the towel.  It lists a bunch of celebs and what their blogs are about, and then grades them.

this proves that diet and companionship are more relevant to longevity than stress.

   This one proves that not raising taxes and having a universal health care package are the centerpiece of the liberal candidates agenda.  Pay particular attention to how detailed Chris Dodd is in his explanation about how it will be paid for.

this proves that politicians are dumb…they worry about this, when we have problems right now need fixing

this one proves that not only do governments waste oodles of dollars, idiots that write don’t always get their facts straight.  William Proxmire was a senator from Wisconsin, dummy.

While I certainly don’t get it, this proves that holy week is more important than drinking green beer.  Catholics make no sense at all.


Queen Witch and the Jester

July 14, 2007

  A blog pal just brought me this link, and I thought you folks would enjoy it

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

   Now I know that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards were only trying to make sure the people got to hear what was important.  Them.  It’s not often you can see two people in that arena with inflated ego’s, especially liberals who are known for their inclusiveness and civility.  Especially at an NAACP event, an organization that opens its arms to all races colors and creeds.

   What rankles a little is that they said it while they thought nobody could hear.  What they should have done is approached the lectern together, and without any introduction plainly stated that they thought having the rest of the candidates speak was a waste of time, and that they would feel better about if the other voices were stifled so that their agenda could be expounded on in greater detail.

  That would have at least showed integrity.  Insteasd they look like a couple of conspiratorial, backstabbing whineasses, which incidentally they have both proven themselves to be.

   If there was ever a more elitist conversation overheard between two more elitist thinking conservative candidates I would love to hear about it.  I hope the voters understand exactly how important the insight this gives them on these two candidares is.  The patriot act is no where near as invasive a violation of our rights as citizens, as their desire to silence their oopponents would be if it were carried out.

 Besides, these two just plain suck.  this is like lesson learned #687 on both of them.