As we mourn the "death" of our nation upon the victory of Barack Obama, we need to stop crying and whining and look on the bright.... and believe, there IS a bright side, and it has the potential to be so bright that it will blind us.
For several years now, a Democrat controlled congress has been screwing the economy, passing laws and actions that have put us into the mess we are in now. Why didn't they get blamed? Because all they had to do was point the finger at Bush and say "He took the cookie from the cookie jar."
Well, right now, we are tumbling down a steep slope, one that the Democrats have so blindly, but painstakingly created, with a giant hole at the bottom. Laws forcing banks to give out bad mortgage loans to unworthy applicants created the housing crisis and the credit crunch. Over-regulation and taxation of corporations have pushed them out of the country and overseas, where they can work without being hassled, and that created the massive layoffs, and finally, with all the whining and griping about the "cute widdle animals" has prevented us from drilling in our own country, as we are deathly afraid of somehow damaging the environment... or that's what they tell you. The pipeline in Alaska practically CREATED the environment around it, and the ONLY reason we don't have oil rigs off the coast of Florida is because the retirement communities didn't want to have their ocean view spoiled.
The list of laws continue, from government grants to useless companies, bailouts, to trying to instate universal healthcare..... which has proven so ineffective that even the CANADIANS are trying to get rid of it.
Long story short..... we have stepped into a cow-pie so deep we could sink a skyscraper into it.
So... where's the bright side? Why.... Barack Obama, of course. This dashing young gentleman has come down from Chicago and offered to work with our Democrat Congress to solve all of our problems, save us from our ignorance, relieve our suffering, end all hunger and strife, and create jobs!
That is a pretty tall list. Even someone who actually had a plan or knew how to would be hard pressed to fulfill all of those promises. To make things worse... Obama's "plans" to solve all these problems are almost guaranteed to make them worse.
STILL don't see it? Look closer:
Conservatives have been wrongly accused of causing many problems that we had nothing to do with. The public has blindly accepted this and believes that conservatives are ignorant, evil, and greedy. To make matters worse, Christians have slid into a frightening apathy, of not caring what happens to our nation, and just accepting whatever is being spoon-fed to them.
Obama getting elected, and pressuring Christians and conservatives will hopefully jar them back into awareness. Second, with a Democrat President, Congress, and soon-to-be Court, they will be in total control... meaning that they will have no one to blame when they make things worse and can't fix them. They can only accuse Bush so long before people start shaking their heads in disbelief. They will single-handedly tarnish they cause for a long time... and all we have to do is sit back and work at a local level to build a conservative base to undermine them when the time comes.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Obama plays catch up.
Since the unveiling of McCain's pick for his running mate, the Obama campaign has been ruthlessly attacking her like a pack of rabid wolves.
Why? Because Sarah Palin has the potential to become the most critical and influential VP in over 50 years. She's rammed the Obama boat, and the rocking is making some of its passengers seasick.
Barak has been comparing himself to Palin, trying to prove he is more experienced that she is.
This is MY question: Why is the Democrat "A" team, comparing itself to the Republican "B" team? Why would a star quarter back feel the need to go out of his way to try and prove that he is better than another team's second stringer?
Because, in this case, Obama knows that even the Republican VICE presidential canidate could beat him. Obama claims to have more responsibilities than Palin, and claims to handle more problems on a daily basis. Let's compare, shall we?
Obama's campaign has about 2500 paid employees in it, I believe.
Palin has about 71,000 people she has to supervise as a governor.
Obama's campaign rakes in several million dollars a month. (2.1 mil?)
Palin has to handle a money flow in the BILLIONS.
Obama is a senator. He is elected, goes to Washington, whines, and votes.
Palin is a governor. She has to handle the affairs of her state, and its success and welfare are her daily responsibilities.
Obama lives in the tiny state of Illinois. Yes, I'm going there, because he has frequently belittled the station of Palin, and her home state and town. If it weren't for Chicago, no one would care about Illinois at all.
Palin is the executive leader of the state of Alaska. Alaska is the largest state in the Union. It is more than twice the size of Texas. Granted, fewer people live there, but the amount of land and resources still makes it an incredible responsibilty.
Obama, as a Senator, does have to worry about international matters. Then why does Palin have almost the same number of overseas trips to our troops as Obama, and she is only a Governor. A governor's duties are to the state he/she is in charge of. Palin has risen above and beyond that basic requirement, and easily has as much, if not MORE experience that Obama in international matters. Come on. Her state borders Canada and Russia, and is not Physically connected to the 48 states. She has to work internationally on a regular basis, and lets be honest... being a neighbor of Russia can be a little difficult.
In short, yes, Obama has every right to be freaked. This woman, who in his own words, comes from a tiny backwater town, from an out of the way state, could outdo the "sophisticated" and "streetwise" Obama any day of the week.
And you know what? If they ever got into a fist fight, all my money would be on Palin. Dollars to donuts she could kick his keister within 10 minutes.
Why? Because Sarah Palin has the potential to become the most critical and influential VP in over 50 years. She's rammed the Obama boat, and the rocking is making some of its passengers seasick.
Barak has been comparing himself to Palin, trying to prove he is more experienced that she is.
This is MY question: Why is the Democrat "A" team, comparing itself to the Republican "B" team? Why would a star quarter back feel the need to go out of his way to try and prove that he is better than another team's second stringer?
Because, in this case, Obama knows that even the Republican VICE presidential canidate could beat him. Obama claims to have more responsibilities than Palin, and claims to handle more problems on a daily basis. Let's compare, shall we?
Obama's campaign has about 2500 paid employees in it, I believe.
Palin has about 71,000 people she has to supervise as a governor.
Obama's campaign rakes in several million dollars a month. (2.1 mil?)
Palin has to handle a money flow in the BILLIONS.
Obama is a senator. He is elected, goes to Washington, whines, and votes.
Palin is a governor. She has to handle the affairs of her state, and its success and welfare are her daily responsibilities.
Obama lives in the tiny state of Illinois. Yes, I'm going there, because he has frequently belittled the station of Palin, and her home state and town. If it weren't for Chicago, no one would care about Illinois at all.
Palin is the executive leader of the state of Alaska. Alaska is the largest state in the Union. It is more than twice the size of Texas. Granted, fewer people live there, but the amount of land and resources still makes it an incredible responsibilty.
Obama, as a Senator, does have to worry about international matters. Then why does Palin have almost the same number of overseas trips to our troops as Obama, and she is only a Governor. A governor's duties are to the state he/she is in charge of. Palin has risen above and beyond that basic requirement, and easily has as much, if not MORE experience that Obama in international matters. Come on. Her state borders Canada and Russia, and is not Physically connected to the 48 states. She has to work internationally on a regular basis, and lets be honest... being a neighbor of Russia can be a little difficult.
In short, yes, Obama has every right to be freaked. This woman, who in his own words, comes from a tiny backwater town, from an out of the way state, could outdo the "sophisticated" and "streetwise" Obama any day of the week.
And you know what? If they ever got into a fist fight, all my money would be on Palin. Dollars to donuts she could kick his keister within 10 minutes.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Dying Men Grasp at Straws
Have you heard of the "numerous scandals surrounding McCain's inexperienced, hypocritical choice for vp?"
Of course you have. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL NEWS OUTLET WON'T LET IT DIE!
The "Numerous Scandals?"
Two.
1: She supposedly fired a state trooper out of vengeance, and possibly illegally.
2: Her teenage daughter is pregnant.
2 1/2: Did her daughter give birth to baby Trig as well?
Alright you democratic morons. Lets put something to rest right now. Let's tackle the whole "teen pregnancy" thing, because "scandal #1," is under investigation, and I'm going to wait for Palin to be vindicated of her own accord.
Remember. The people who are jumping all over this are the same people who jumped all over the possibility of Hannah Montana being pregnant. Immature leeches willing to sell their souls to teen pop gossip magazines. In other words, the whole thing was childish to begin with. People accuse Sarah Palin of being a hypocrite. She preaches abstinence, but (gasp) her own daughter's pregnant! Crucify her! Crucify her!
Remember Cindy Sheehan? The wackjob peacenick? Am I mistaken, or was not her son a soldier? "But that's not fair! She became a pacifist AFTER her son was killed! She preaches what she does because she doesn't want to happen to anyone else!"
So why isn't Sarah Palin allowed to do that? Ever consider that, even if this incident did NOT start her abstinence crusade, it still cements it. How? Consider it. Turn on your brain. She knows the pain, problems, dissapointment, and harrasment that comes from having sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock, and is going through it personally. Why on Earth would she wish that kind of trouble on someone else?
Now, as for rumor 2 1/2.... Grow up people. Liberal conspiracy theorists have decided that since, aside from a whopping huge number of TWO scandals they've been able to find, they have nothing, and are gonna have to make something up.
Bristol's pregnant? Her mom has a small child? What's the first thing that pops into your head?
The first thing that popped into mine was: "They can play together when they get older."
Seriously. A couple having a child late in their marriage is not uncommon. My great grandparents had a late arrival, my great aunt is only a few years older than my father. So what? But no.... in the liberal media's eye: "Bristol's pregnant! Her mom has a four month old baby! BRISTOL GAVE BIRTH TO TRIG!"
Whut? How in the world do you reach THAT conclusion? Helloooooo! For those of you who failed biology the average human gestation period is NINE MONTHS! Trig is four months old. Bristol is five months pregnant. It doesn't add up. How in the world would she get pregnant again, a month before Trig was born, if she was Trig's birthmother? It doesn't work.
So now what? The media's plan is ruined... but wait! I know! Those evil Republicans have photoshopped all the pictures of Palin and Bristol to fit their stories, and they are making Bristol wear a beach ball underneath her clothes... oh, they're sneaky, those Republicans.
Give me a break.
No matter what liberals tell you, Republicans are so dumb that they would cover up a pregnancy scandal... with another pregnancy scandal. Why? There is no point, but that's what many liberal bloggers are saying. McCain is faking Bristol's current pregnancy so no one knows about her giving birth to Trig. What? Why? There's no point, no advantage, no nothing. More smoke.
"We have proof," they say. Some bloggers have noticed that Bristol was out of school for 5 months with mononucleosis (mono), a disease that induces extreme lethargia among other things, limiting movement. Some claim it's another cover by Palin, saying mono doesn't last more than 10 days. Not true. A normal infection with mono usually results in severe symptoms for about 2 weeks, a sever lethargia and fatigue for 1-2 months. Bristol's case was a sever one. My own mother had a sever case of mono as a child, and was bedridden for over 6 months.
Long story short, Democrat bloggers, liberal leaning media, and idiots on YouTube are full of bullcrap.
Bristol deserves my apology for speaking about her delicate situation, and I do not mean to belittle her. She will be marrying the father, and if the media will leave her alone, life should continue normally for her.
Of course you have. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL NEWS OUTLET WON'T LET IT DIE!
The "Numerous Scandals?"
Two.
1: She supposedly fired a state trooper out of vengeance, and possibly illegally.
2: Her teenage daughter is pregnant.
2 1/2: Did her daughter give birth to baby Trig as well?
Alright you democratic morons. Lets put something to rest right now. Let's tackle the whole "teen pregnancy" thing, because "scandal #1," is under investigation, and I'm going to wait for Palin to be vindicated of her own accord.
Remember. The people who are jumping all over this are the same people who jumped all over the possibility of Hannah Montana being pregnant. Immature leeches willing to sell their souls to teen pop gossip magazines. In other words, the whole thing was childish to begin with. People accuse Sarah Palin of being a hypocrite. She preaches abstinence, but (gasp) her own daughter's pregnant! Crucify her! Crucify her!
Remember Cindy Sheehan? The wackjob peacenick? Am I mistaken, or was not her son a soldier? "But that's not fair! She became a pacifist AFTER her son was killed! She preaches what she does because she doesn't want to happen to anyone else!"
So why isn't Sarah Palin allowed to do that? Ever consider that, even if this incident did NOT start her abstinence crusade, it still cements it. How? Consider it. Turn on your brain. She knows the pain, problems, dissapointment, and harrasment that comes from having sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock, and is going through it personally. Why on Earth would she wish that kind of trouble on someone else?
Now, as for rumor 2 1/2.... Grow up people. Liberal conspiracy theorists have decided that since, aside from a whopping huge number of TWO scandals they've been able to find, they have nothing, and are gonna have to make something up.
Bristol's pregnant? Her mom has a small child? What's the first thing that pops into your head?
The first thing that popped into mine was: "They can play together when they get older."
Seriously. A couple having a child late in their marriage is not uncommon. My great grandparents had a late arrival, my great aunt is only a few years older than my father. So what? But no.... in the liberal media's eye: "Bristol's pregnant! Her mom has a four month old baby! BRISTOL GAVE BIRTH TO TRIG!"
Whut? How in the world do you reach THAT conclusion? Helloooooo! For those of you who failed biology the average human gestation period is NINE MONTHS! Trig is four months old. Bristol is five months pregnant. It doesn't add up. How in the world would she get pregnant again, a month before Trig was born, if she was Trig's birthmother? It doesn't work.
So now what? The media's plan is ruined... but wait! I know! Those evil Republicans have photoshopped all the pictures of Palin and Bristol to fit their stories, and they are making Bristol wear a beach ball underneath her clothes... oh, they're sneaky, those Republicans.
Give me a break.
No matter what liberals tell you, Republicans are so dumb that they would cover up a pregnancy scandal... with another pregnancy scandal. Why? There is no point, but that's what many liberal bloggers are saying. McCain is faking Bristol's current pregnancy so no one knows about her giving birth to Trig. What? Why? There's no point, no advantage, no nothing. More smoke.
"We have proof," they say. Some bloggers have noticed that Bristol was out of school for 5 months with mononucleosis (mono), a disease that induces extreme lethargia among other things, limiting movement. Some claim it's another cover by Palin, saying mono doesn't last more than 10 days. Not true. A normal infection with mono usually results in severe symptoms for about 2 weeks, a sever lethargia and fatigue for 1-2 months. Bristol's case was a sever one. My own mother had a sever case of mono as a child, and was bedridden for over 6 months.
Long story short, Democrat bloggers, liberal leaning media, and idiots on YouTube are full of bullcrap.
Bristol deserves my apology for speaking about her delicate situation, and I do not mean to belittle her. She will be marrying the father, and if the media will leave her alone, life should continue normally for her.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Democrat's Broken Record.
I'm not sure what annoys me more about this campaign. The lack of good choice, or the sheer, monotonous repetition of material. Seriously people, it's getting boring. If I were voting solely based on who was more interesting, I'd have to go with McCain, because at least his ads are funny.
McCain is old enough to have hunted dinosaurs in his younger years.
Barack is black and has no idea what he's doing.
ALL I EVER HEAR ARE THESE TWO ARGUMENTS!!! I'm sick and tired of it! If you're going to bash each other, at least be creative! I watched the Democratic National Convention, and felt like killing myself. Not because of the crazy ideas, but because I can only handle so many hours, of so many speakers... ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME FREAKIN' THING!
"Obama loves us, but McCain is going to kill our nation. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain hates all life as we know it. Obama loves us, but McCain doesn't care about people who don't have jobs. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain will kill our nation."
They went on and on and on and on like that... FOR HOURS! Every single person said the exact same thing! The ONLY interesting speeches came from Bill Richardson and Al Gore. Bill's because he occasionaly would start babbling in Spanish for no apparent reason, and Gore's because he spent the first 15 minutes whinging about his unfair loss back in 2000. Annoying, but it was a welcome refreshment from the same, boring, idiotic droning that predominated the convention.
Barack Obama has been brainwashing his supporters with the same drivel, given them the same scripts, and they are all militantly marching to his drum. I'm not being paranoid when I compare this to the rise of Hitler. Do some SERIOUS research on how the man came to power. Both Barack and Adolf are incredible speech makers. Both deliver moving speeches... without actually saying anything. Both inspired masses to follow them blindly, expecting to cash in on empty promises of hope, prosperity, and wealth for all. Both were elevated to an almost god-like status.
Anthems were sung about Hitler.
Obama's speeches were put to music, and artists sung his praise.
Obama's threat to our nation isn't just conservative yammering, trying to score a victory for our side. We have no side in this race. McCain is a centrist, one who walks down the middle, but quite frankly, he is the better choice right now.
This isn't paranoia you're hearing. It is fear.
McCain is old enough to have hunted dinosaurs in his younger years.
Barack is black and has no idea what he's doing.
ALL I EVER HEAR ARE THESE TWO ARGUMENTS!!! I'm sick and tired of it! If you're going to bash each other, at least be creative! I watched the Democratic National Convention, and felt like killing myself. Not because of the crazy ideas, but because I can only handle so many hours, of so many speakers... ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME FREAKIN' THING!
"Obama loves us, but McCain is going to kill our nation. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain hates all life as we know it. Obama loves us, but McCain doesn't care about people who don't have jobs. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain will kill our nation."
They went on and on and on and on like that... FOR HOURS! Every single person said the exact same thing! The ONLY interesting speeches came from Bill Richardson and Al Gore. Bill's because he occasionaly would start babbling in Spanish for no apparent reason, and Gore's because he spent the first 15 minutes whinging about his unfair loss back in 2000. Annoying, but it was a welcome refreshment from the same, boring, idiotic droning that predominated the convention.
Barack Obama has been brainwashing his supporters with the same drivel, given them the same scripts, and they are all militantly marching to his drum. I'm not being paranoid when I compare this to the rise of Hitler. Do some SERIOUS research on how the man came to power. Both Barack and Adolf are incredible speech makers. Both deliver moving speeches... without actually saying anything. Both inspired masses to follow them blindly, expecting to cash in on empty promises of hope, prosperity, and wealth for all. Both were elevated to an almost god-like status.
Anthems were sung about Hitler.
Obama's speeches were put to music, and artists sung his praise.
Obama's threat to our nation isn't just conservative yammering, trying to score a victory for our side. We have no side in this race. McCain is a centrist, one who walks down the middle, but quite frankly, he is the better choice right now.
This isn't paranoia you're hearing. It is fear.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Biden? Why Biden?
Obama is falling in the polls. Even liberal newspapers are being forced to admit it. Why? Because people are finally getting sick of Obama talking about change, while never actually saying anything. More and more, the facts of what he really plans for this country are coming to light, and people don't like it.
Obama is the ultimate liberal. He believes everything liberals do. He endorses gay marriage. He's in favor of higher taxes. He wants to take away all privately owned guns and ammunition. He is so pro-abortion, that he want to kill babies after they're out of the womb. I'm serious. He believes that if a child is born before the abortion was fully engaged, or if the child somehow survived the abortion, they should be killed anyway.
Obama is also struggling with his image. Thanks to the internet, his "exploits," (ignoring the troops, making huge blunders in his statements, etc) have been brought into the light. Obama has all the appearances of a political genious, but that's all it is. Appearance.
So, with all of this dragging him down.... Why on earth does he pick Joe Biden as a VP!?! It makes no sense. The only advantage is that Biden isn't going to try and kill Barack for the presidency. (Like some speculate Hillary would.)
In spite of what all the news outlets say, Biden is NOTHING spectacular. Heck, he isn't even that interesting. He's just a typical, rank and file, liberal Democrat. What? Is Obama trying to make sure that his victory in Delaware is assured? That state is a deep shade of navy blue. Obama doesn't have to worry.
So... Obama has made an idiotic choice for VP. He choice will neither garner him more votes, or really boost his polls. So why did he do it?
If McCain was smart, he would pick a strong conservative like Romney, or Thompson, or someone he ran against as VP, to solidify his base with the Republicans. My only hope is that McCain doesn't make a huge blunder with HIS VP selection too.
Obama is the ultimate liberal. He believes everything liberals do. He endorses gay marriage. He's in favor of higher taxes. He wants to take away all privately owned guns and ammunition. He is so pro-abortion, that he want to kill babies after they're out of the womb. I'm serious. He believes that if a child is born before the abortion was fully engaged, or if the child somehow survived the abortion, they should be killed anyway.
Obama is also struggling with his image. Thanks to the internet, his "exploits," (ignoring the troops, making huge blunders in his statements, etc) have been brought into the light. Obama has all the appearances of a political genious, but that's all it is. Appearance.
So, with all of this dragging him down.... Why on earth does he pick Joe Biden as a VP!?! It makes no sense. The only advantage is that Biden isn't going to try and kill Barack for the presidency. (Like some speculate Hillary would.)
In spite of what all the news outlets say, Biden is NOTHING spectacular. Heck, he isn't even that interesting. He's just a typical, rank and file, liberal Democrat. What? Is Obama trying to make sure that his victory in Delaware is assured? That state is a deep shade of navy blue. Obama doesn't have to worry.
So... Obama has made an idiotic choice for VP. He choice will neither garner him more votes, or really boost his polls. So why did he do it?
If McCain was smart, he would pick a strong conservative like Romney, or Thompson, or someone he ran against as VP, to solidify his base with the Republicans. My only hope is that McCain doesn't make a huge blunder with HIS VP selection too.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Misjudged Facebook?
I have long spoken out against Facebook and MySpace, but a close friend and my mother have worked hard and persuaded me to create a Facebook account.
Now, in my desperation for readers for my blog, I posted a link on my profile, in the vain hope that anyone who stumbles across me and "friends" me, will take the time to read, and tell others.
Of course, this means I'll have to give up my much beloved anonymity, but sacrifices must be made. If you discover who I am, and do not enjoy receiving opinions from such a person, then... just suck it up and keep reading the blog ANYWAY, Jerk! I'm not forcing you to look at my facebook, but it's there.
I will also soon get some links on sites like "The Keystone Review," and MAYBE Orbitech.org. Maybe.
MySpace account? Don't count on it. Myspace is STILL different than Facebook. Facebook is a picture book to share with friends and family. MySpace is a crappy substitute for a webpage, where a horde of pothead just float around, making aimless comments on aimless pages. If you want to make a website that advertises yourself... for no apparent reason... then just resist the urge.
So, yes. Moral convictions prevent me from ever making a myspace account. Moral convictions? I don't like being among those who have too much time, and MySpace bandwidth on their hands, and use both to create a useless web page.
And by the way, you know all those "movie stars" myspace accounts you managed to get onto their friends list? Yeah, well, it's not the real star. It's some fat, balding producer with a bad comb over who is answering all your comments, trying to drive the actor's ratings up.
MySpace = Wasted Space.
Now, in my desperation for readers for my blog, I posted a link on my profile, in the vain hope that anyone who stumbles across me and "friends" me, will take the time to read, and tell others.
Of course, this means I'll have to give up my much beloved anonymity, but sacrifices must be made. If you discover who I am, and do not enjoy receiving opinions from such a person, then... just suck it up and keep reading the blog ANYWAY, Jerk! I'm not forcing you to look at my facebook, but it's there.
I will also soon get some links on sites like "The Keystone Review," and MAYBE Orbitech.org. Maybe.
MySpace account? Don't count on it. Myspace is STILL different than Facebook. Facebook is a picture book to share with friends and family. MySpace is a crappy substitute for a webpage, where a horde of pothead just float around, making aimless comments on aimless pages. If you want to make a website that advertises yourself... for no apparent reason... then just resist the urge.
So, yes. Moral convictions prevent me from ever making a myspace account. Moral convictions? I don't like being among those who have too much time, and MySpace bandwidth on their hands, and use both to create a useless web page.
And by the way, you know all those "movie stars" myspace accounts you managed to get onto their friends list? Yeah, well, it's not the real star. It's some fat, balding producer with a bad comb over who is answering all your comments, trying to drive the actor's ratings up.
MySpace = Wasted Space.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Told you so
Well, about 4-5 days has passed since I made the prediction about what Russia would do.
Russia has fallen back, whimpering about how they were wronged, and thus, the UN has given them custody of South Ossetia.
But... even with their alleged goal achieved.. they haven't stopped. Why? I don't know. They bombed the capital of Georgia, don't ask me to spell it, this morning, and they've been bombarding the port as well. Russia appears to be shooting for the entire country, with South Ossetia as a fallback in case international pressure, by some slim chance, forces Russia to cease.
The Russians want to ground the little nation into the dust, pure and simple... and we are not doing a thing about it. Why? Because hyper-pacifist hippies have infiltrated our congress, and thanks to our anti-war media, everyone hates Bush and any kind of "war mongering" he engages in.
We need to help Georgia, even it puts us into a economic slump. Why? Because we made a promise, and now matter how unwise that promise may seem, we should keep it.
Russia has fallen back, whimpering about how they were wronged, and thus, the UN has given them custody of South Ossetia.
But... even with their alleged goal achieved.. they haven't stopped. Why? I don't know. They bombed the capital of Georgia, don't ask me to spell it, this morning, and they've been bombarding the port as well. Russia appears to be shooting for the entire country, with South Ossetia as a fallback in case international pressure, by some slim chance, forces Russia to cease.
The Russians want to ground the little nation into the dust, pure and simple... and we are not doing a thing about it. Why? Because hyper-pacifist hippies have infiltrated our congress, and thanks to our anti-war media, everyone hates Bush and any kind of "war mongering" he engages in.
We need to help Georgia, even it puts us into a economic slump. Why? Because we made a promise, and now matter how unwise that promise may seem, we should keep it.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
World War Three?
I'm sure you have all heard about Russia's invasion of Georgia, China's prejudice anthem fiasco, and their staged fireworks.
In my opinion, we should be sending military backup into Georgia under false pretenses. Granted, Bush has done that by sending troops essentially as a military escort for an over-sized meals on wheels. Although this is good idea, it essentially ties our hands in terms of aggresive defense of Georgia.
We SHOULD be sending in troops for the exact same claim Russia made: "To stabilize the region."
But we can't. Why? Because after disrupting Georgia's pipeline system, and trying to spear head their way to what could become their first warm water port, Russia has an economic strangle-hold on Europe, the major players in the U.N. Even if we could economically survive it, I don't know if we have the Military capability. Why? Because our army is spread across the globe. In spite of viewing us with a spitting hatred, the UN, Europe, and other smaller countries demand that we be the police of the world. We still have troops and bases in the Philippines from World War Two! We have bases and stations in Bosnia, Germany, Korea, and we still even have active military bases in VIETNAM! This isn't mentioning that the bulk of our army is in the middle east right now, playing umpire to a group of ungrateful Arabs. We are spread too thin. We are NOT the world's police force. We should get in, do what we have to do quickly, then get out and home.
Liberals insist that all our wars now have to be civilized. Got news for yah, friggin retards! WAR IS NOT CIVILIZED! Instead of dragging our feet, tiptoeing around, trying to be civilized, we should be fast, firm, and final in our military action. If we had invaded Japan in WWII, every Japanese man, woman, and child had been trained to fight us, and their head filled with stories about Americans eating prisoners, propogand to prevent them from surrendering. If we had landed, we would have had to fight our way up the entire island, with astronomical loss of life on BOTH sides. Normandy and Iwa Jima would have looked like a Kiwanis picnic by comparison. One, swift, terrifying act, the Atomic Bomb, forced Japan into surrendering without the incredible loss of life.
However, I fear we may be on the verge of World War Three. For the few of you who know me personally may also know that I have been insisting that we ARE in WWIII, Islam Vs. The World. I was wrong. We are not engaged in a world war.... yet. We are dangling on the very brink, and wiggling out toes. It is not a question of "if," but a question of "when."
Don't believe me? The circumstances speak for themselves. Lets take a look, shall we?
First, America is in the same position as we were in the late 30s. Our economy is falling. Our military then was small and outdated. Today our military is tired, and spread to thin for its own good. Hyper-pacifism was in fashion back then as much as it is today. History books don't teach it, because we tried the whole "Placate and they'll go away" tactic on Hitler. It didn't work, and Liberals don't like people knowing that. Today, the U.S. is going out of its way to placate and please our enemies.
The Olympics are being held in an arguable aggrisive and hostile Communist country. Before World War Two, the Olympics were held in Nazi Germany, and the Germans, like the Chinese, used it as a spectacle to prove their might.
WWII began with Hitler's invading the seemingly small, insignificant country of Poland. Russia just invaded the country of Georgia, who seems insignificant, but actually channels all the Asian out into Europe. Germay claimed Poland has fired on German troops. Russia claims Georgians fired upon people who wanted to secede to Russia. Hitler was lying, who says Putin is telling the truth?
To go back even farther, World War One was started because of massive networks of treaties dragging larger countries into a smaller country's war, and WWI started with the assasination of a leader in a small nation in Eastern Europe. I doubt Russia wants Georgia's president alive and free.
The circumstances are frighteningly the same. Logic gives us more reasons:
Russia has two choices: 1) make a lighting dash and sieze the capitol, 2) Fall back to what they claim as theirs, get UN approval to keep it, and use the fuel line that runs through it to force Georgia, then Europe to concede to Russian demands at a later date. Options 1 and 2 essentially lead to the same end result, they just take different amounts of time.
They DO have a third option. Pull out completely, apologize, admit they were wrong, and make all attempt to help Georgia rebuild.
Russia?
Ok, nevermind. Russia doesn't have a third option.
Ok, a nasty spat between Russia and the U.S. is not World War Three, is that what you're thinking? Wrong. It could quickly evovle into much more than a nasty spat. Do not forget that Russia was once a former superpower, and it obviously want to be one again. China has used the 2008 Olympics to declare that IT is a superpower now, and the United States, struggling with crazy arabs in the middle east, our economy tanking thanks to eco-freaks ungrounded fear of gasoline, and liberals corrupting the very bricks of our society, is reeling. The other nations have begun circling like vultures, seeing a chance at dethroning the most powerful nation in the world.
Remember that having the Olympics in their country does not mean the Chinese are not paying attention to the rest of the world. They are watching the events unfold in Georgia like hawks. Why? Because China has longed to do the same thing to Taiwan for years, and has only been deterred by the fact that Taiwan is an ally of the United States. If Russia pulls through in Georgia, then China is bound to pounce on Taiwan shortly after the Olympics are over. China is overpopulated, and their number of men outnumber their women. In other words, they have more single men than they know what to do with. The perfect ingredients for an army.
If this continues on a large scale, and Obama becomes president, he will do nothing, and Russia and China will carve up Asia between them, and Russia, being able to control Europe's energy after taking control of the pipelines in Georgia, will be able to force them to carry out their every whim. If this happens, and we are lucky, the nations of China and Russia will go to war, and destroy each other. If we are not lucky, they may come after us, and if we are being led by Obama, we might as well start learning either Russian, or Chinese.
Fine.
Call me an alarmist.
But if it happens, don't say I didn't tell you so.
In my opinion, we should be sending military backup into Georgia under false pretenses. Granted, Bush has done that by sending troops essentially as a military escort for an over-sized meals on wheels. Although this is good idea, it essentially ties our hands in terms of aggresive defense of Georgia.
We SHOULD be sending in troops for the exact same claim Russia made: "To stabilize the region."
But we can't. Why? Because after disrupting Georgia's pipeline system, and trying to spear head their way to what could become their first warm water port, Russia has an economic strangle-hold on Europe, the major players in the U.N. Even if we could economically survive it, I don't know if we have the Military capability. Why? Because our army is spread across the globe. In spite of viewing us with a spitting hatred, the UN, Europe, and other smaller countries demand that we be the police of the world. We still have troops and bases in the Philippines from World War Two! We have bases and stations in Bosnia, Germany, Korea, and we still even have active military bases in VIETNAM! This isn't mentioning that the bulk of our army is in the middle east right now, playing umpire to a group of ungrateful Arabs. We are spread too thin. We are NOT the world's police force. We should get in, do what we have to do quickly, then get out and home.
Liberals insist that all our wars now have to be civilized. Got news for yah, friggin retards! WAR IS NOT CIVILIZED! Instead of dragging our feet, tiptoeing around, trying to be civilized, we should be fast, firm, and final in our military action. If we had invaded Japan in WWII, every Japanese man, woman, and child had been trained to fight us, and their head filled with stories about Americans eating prisoners, propogand to prevent them from surrendering. If we had landed, we would have had to fight our way up the entire island, with astronomical loss of life on BOTH sides. Normandy and Iwa Jima would have looked like a Kiwanis picnic by comparison. One, swift, terrifying act, the Atomic Bomb, forced Japan into surrendering without the incredible loss of life.
However, I fear we may be on the verge of World War Three. For the few of you who know me personally may also know that I have been insisting that we ARE in WWIII, Islam Vs. The World. I was wrong. We are not engaged in a world war.... yet. We are dangling on the very brink, and wiggling out toes. It is not a question of "if," but a question of "when."
Don't believe me? The circumstances speak for themselves. Lets take a look, shall we?
First, America is in the same position as we were in the late 30s. Our economy is falling. Our military then was small and outdated. Today our military is tired, and spread to thin for its own good. Hyper-pacifism was in fashion back then as much as it is today. History books don't teach it, because we tried the whole "Placate and they'll go away" tactic on Hitler. It didn't work, and Liberals don't like people knowing that. Today, the U.S. is going out of its way to placate and please our enemies.
The Olympics are being held in an arguable aggrisive and hostile Communist country. Before World War Two, the Olympics were held in Nazi Germany, and the Germans, like the Chinese, used it as a spectacle to prove their might.
WWII began with Hitler's invading the seemingly small, insignificant country of Poland. Russia just invaded the country of Georgia, who seems insignificant, but actually channels all the Asian out into Europe. Germay claimed Poland has fired on German troops. Russia claims Georgians fired upon people who wanted to secede to Russia. Hitler was lying, who says Putin is telling the truth?
To go back even farther, World War One was started because of massive networks of treaties dragging larger countries into a smaller country's war, and WWI started with the assasination of a leader in a small nation in Eastern Europe. I doubt Russia wants Georgia's president alive and free.
The circumstances are frighteningly the same. Logic gives us more reasons:
Russia has two choices: 1) make a lighting dash and sieze the capitol, 2) Fall back to what they claim as theirs, get UN approval to keep it, and use the fuel line that runs through it to force Georgia, then Europe to concede to Russian demands at a later date. Options 1 and 2 essentially lead to the same end result, they just take different amounts of time.
They DO have a third option. Pull out completely, apologize, admit they were wrong, and make all attempt to help Georgia rebuild.
Russia?
Ok, nevermind. Russia doesn't have a third option.
Ok, a nasty spat between Russia and the U.S. is not World War Three, is that what you're thinking? Wrong. It could quickly evovle into much more than a nasty spat. Do not forget that Russia was once a former superpower, and it obviously want to be one again. China has used the 2008 Olympics to declare that IT is a superpower now, and the United States, struggling with crazy arabs in the middle east, our economy tanking thanks to eco-freaks ungrounded fear of gasoline, and liberals corrupting the very bricks of our society, is reeling. The other nations have begun circling like vultures, seeing a chance at dethroning the most powerful nation in the world.
Remember that having the Olympics in their country does not mean the Chinese are not paying attention to the rest of the world. They are watching the events unfold in Georgia like hawks. Why? Because China has longed to do the same thing to Taiwan for years, and has only been deterred by the fact that Taiwan is an ally of the United States. If Russia pulls through in Georgia, then China is bound to pounce on Taiwan shortly after the Olympics are over. China is overpopulated, and their number of men outnumber their women. In other words, they have more single men than they know what to do with. The perfect ingredients for an army.
If this continues on a large scale, and Obama becomes president, he will do nothing, and Russia and China will carve up Asia between them, and Russia, being able to control Europe's energy after taking control of the pipelines in Georgia, will be able to force them to carry out their every whim. If this happens, and we are lucky, the nations of China and Russia will go to war, and destroy each other. If we are not lucky, they may come after us, and if we are being led by Obama, we might as well start learning either Russian, or Chinese.
Fine.
Call me an alarmist.
But if it happens, don't say I didn't tell you so.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Clinton's mixed messages.
Hillary Clinton, in this article, claims to be behind Obama 100%, and encourages her followers to vote for him and not McCain.
Why the sudden friendliness?
Is it because Obama paid a fraction of her enormous campaign debt?
Does she really hate McCain that much?
Is she hoping for a shot at vice-president?
What is it?
You see, I'm confused. Unless I'm mistaken, did not Hillary Clinton call for an open vote in the convention, between herself and the Chosen One (Barack)? Lets face it. No matter how many publicity pieces these jokers do, EVERYONE knows they don't like each other, and as long as Hillary has been active, she has never surrendered willingly.
Between McCain's ignorance and stupidity, Barack's smooth talking drivel, and Hillary's obvious scheming, I'm both worried, and intrigued by how things are going to pan out by September.
Why the sudden friendliness?
Is it because Obama paid a fraction of her enormous campaign debt?
Does she really hate McCain that much?
Is she hoping for a shot at vice-president?
What is it?
You see, I'm confused. Unless I'm mistaken, did not Hillary Clinton call for an open vote in the convention, between herself and the Chosen One (Barack)? Lets face it. No matter how many publicity pieces these jokers do, EVERYONE knows they don't like each other, and as long as Hillary has been active, she has never surrendered willingly.
Between McCain's ignorance and stupidity, Barack's smooth talking drivel, and Hillary's obvious scheming, I'm both worried, and intrigued by how things are going to pan out by September.
Goodbye Bernie
I was looking at the Yahoo news updates, and stumbled across this.
Comedic great, Bernie Mac, died of pneumonia related complications this morning, but to respect the family's privacy, no other details were given.
It been sad the past few years. This event is particularly painful for me, because, #1: I liked Bernie Mac, loved his show, thought he was a funny guy. #2: I found out about the equally sudden and untimely death of Steve Irwin the same way.
Both deaths were sudden, and for me, entirely unexpected.
Either way, I'm praying for Bernie's family, and I hope he's headed to heaven.
Comedic great, Bernie Mac, died of pneumonia related complications this morning, but to respect the family's privacy, no other details were given.
It been sad the past few years. This event is particularly painful for me, because, #1: I liked Bernie Mac, loved his show, thought he was a funny guy. #2: I found out about the equally sudden and untimely death of Steve Irwin the same way.
Both deaths were sudden, and for me, entirely unexpected.
Either way, I'm praying for Bernie's family, and I hope he's headed to heaven.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Conservative Bad! Liberal Good!
If I were to ask you, presuming you were the common layman, or a Democrat, and ask you which was the kinder, more compassionate of the two, the most common typical answer would be:
(average person, not involved in politics)"Why a Democrat or Liberal of course. They may not always be the smartest, but they tend to try and have our best interests at heart. They're just nice people who sometimes make a few mistakes."
(Democrat) "Unlike our counterparts, the Democrat party keeps the best interests of the people at, and we are always trying to to what's right. It can be hard work, fighting uphill against a lot of the hateful bigots who oppose us, but history shows that kindness and compassion always win the day!"
Both wrong.
Ever since the rise of the unions, the Democrat party has established themselves as "The Champions of the Underdog!" The western culture that so many liberals want to obliterate is what compels us to cheer for the underdog.
The Democrat party is a party of salesmen.
"It's not the product that matters, it's how you sell it." (Who said that? Did anyone say that? If not, then consider it a quote by me!)
Their product SUCKS. Everything they support is wrong, twisted, and borders on traitorous to our nation. BUT, they know how to sell it. Trying to pass a law no one likes? Say it's for the good of the children. P-ZAM! Instantly, half the elderly vote is behind you, and if you're lucky, you'll get the backing of the almighty AARP.
If you want to pass a heavy tax burden, just stand on the back of a truck in a minority community, and make a lot of gibberish up about how "the white man has raped their wealth," and if they support the tax measure, those freakishly pale, warmongering, hate-filled racists will suffer, but the minority will get a break.
Minorities and Special interests groups should be FURIOUS about how the Democrat party has lead them around on a leash. They sic them on their enemies as will. Not the enemies of the minority group, but the enemies of the liberal agenda.
Many of their "attack orders" will come from white men from the rich class, which they hate so much, and they blindly follow them. When confronted will this fact, the usual explanation basically says that they follow the orders because the guys giving them have their best interests in mind. What? No they don't!
Democrats were pushing to KEEP slaves, remember? And if you say that the party has since undergone an incredible metamorphosis, and they have SINCE become loving and kind and forgiving, then why can they never forgive mistakes that Republicans make, especially when the party itself has a LONG track record for major successes, even if Liberals refuse to acknowledge them.
Guess who screwed the economy? FDR, who was a democrat. Guess who created social security, the abused, misused fiasco that is a growing blight on our society? FDR, "D" for Democrat, not Deleno. He could arguable be called the founding father for welfare. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, gave away the Panama canal, separating America from one of our greatest economic achievements. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt would probably be doing 360s in his grave right now, especially that China is buying up much of the control down there. I believe it was also Carter who oversaw the oil crisis. Can't pin it on him for certain, but that never stopped Dems from blaming Republican presidents for everything under the sun.
Ok, so the Democrats have a spotty track record, but suppose you look at the motives! Come on Mr. Watchman! They had good intentions at heart. They just wanted the best for the people!
Ok, let's presume for a minute that this is true. Isn't there a saying that says the "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Or another one that says "The end doesn't justify the means?" In the Democrat case, the end doesn't justify ANYTHING. The end just makes a bigger mess, but in accordance with Liberal commandment #2: When something goes wrong, no matter how much evidence there is, it is NEVER your fault. Deny DENY DENY!!!!!!!!!! (#1 is: Bush is Hitler, Cheney is Satan.)
But Democrats rarely have peoples best interests in mind. I.E. They are ALWAYS waving kids around, using them like magic bullets.
"Higher taxes will help send children to school."
"Airbags keep our kids safe."
"We should melt our guns into jungle gyms... for the safety of children."
And yet, this is the SAME party that supports abortion, (the killing of children.) They are campaigning to let child molesters, rapers, and murderers escape the death penalty, and even prison. (These abominations have raped and KILLED young children, and the party that supposedly loves kids want to let these monsters walk free.)
I cannot speak for you, but to me, it sounds like they have some conflicting interests. Lets face it, if you examine their record, Democrats love money, they love power, and they love creating laws everyone must obey except them. If they have to lie and please a few people on their way to the top, that's fine by them.
Their untouchable, because they have no morals, or scruples, or ANY kind of code they have to live up to, therefore, they can't mess up, because according to them, there IS nothing to mess up. Republicans have standards, and it's easy to point and laugh when we stumble, or fall, but we have them, and we try to live up to them.
At this point, I usually get blustery comments about how I'm just bitter, and making things up, and it's a fact that all Republicans and so-called Christians are just so full of hate and bigotry that it is consuming us from within. We spew lies, condone ignorance, and purposely stymie progress because it does not fit our views. We are idiotic, Limbaugh-brainwashed freaks with no purpose but to sow hatred and destroy all life as we know it.
That's a pretty tall order to live up to. However, I, for one, am TIRED of playing Mr. Nice Guy. I am TIRED of incessantly and futilely trying to convince liberal idiots that I am not evil. It is an impossible task, one that they keep baiting us to do, and as a result, more and more conservatives keep rolling over to prove that they are not the devil. Democrats cannot be convinced, and as conservatives, we should not even CARE what they think.
With rare exceptions like Ann Coulter, conservatives tend to be stubborn, but genial. Often they can part ways, agreeing to disagree. I will be the FIRST to admit that we have used such names like "idiot," and adjectives like "traitorous," and "arrogant," both those are real words of description. With rare exceptions, we do NOT resort to name calling.
You want to see hatred?
You want to see such acidic loathing that it could make you cringe?
If you're a liberal, look at a mirror. I am serious. Ann Coulter may be a firebrand, and may not always know what she's talking about, but she is NOTHING compared the sheer loathing and despise that liberals generate.
You want examples?
Go to YouTube, and look up Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin. Click on any number of videos and scroll down to the comments. Race and gender slurs about. Words like (used in example, and not condoned by me) Bitch, cunt, slut, $2 whore, idiotic, neanderthal, fucktard, gook(what does that even mean?) frequent accusations accusing above listed women as actually being men in disguise.
Now look up names like Rush Limbaugh. Entire videos and sound bytes are devoted to flaming him, mocking him, slandering him. Glenn Beck, same thing.
Don't even bother looking up Bush or Cheney.
A prime example of liberal hatred is alleged comedian, Margaret Cho. ONLY look up her videos or routines if you have a strong stomach. Her entire routines, especially "Assassin," are just and endless flow of livid anger directed at Christians, family groups, Republicans, and anything associated with the Bush administration.
On second thought... look up her routines. Witness it. To use liberal terminology, she is "so consumed by hatred that it is eating away at her, and it shows on her face. I have NEVER seen someone, even a liberal Democrat, EVEN HOWARD DEAN, produce this much hatred, and flame so many people." She is the picture of the trenchant liberal. Bitter, angry, unhappy, miserable, and totally furious at the world. I always thought people were joking when they said that when a person stores up hatred, it eats away and shows on their face..... but it shows on Margaret Cho.
And you the REALLY sad part?
.... she isn't even a good comedian. The moral? If your jokes aren't funny, and you hate the world, then cater to people who hate it as much as you do.
Maybe the hypothetical democrat in the beginning was right. Kindness and Compassion, accompanied by INTELLIGENCE, historically win the day. But it is not the Democrats fighting the uphill battle, it's us. The conservative underdog.
Don't cave in. Stand up and fight the good fight!
(average person, not involved in politics)"Why a Democrat or Liberal of course. They may not always be the smartest, but they tend to try and have our best interests at heart. They're just nice people who sometimes make a few mistakes."
(Democrat) "Unlike our counterparts, the Democrat party keeps the best interests of the people at, and we are always trying to to what's right. It can be hard work, fighting uphill against a lot of the hateful bigots who oppose us, but history shows that kindness and compassion always win the day!"
Both wrong.
Ever since the rise of the unions, the Democrat party has established themselves as "The Champions of the Underdog!" The western culture that so many liberals want to obliterate is what compels us to cheer for the underdog.
The Democrat party is a party of salesmen.
"It's not the product that matters, it's how you sell it." (Who said that? Did anyone say that? If not, then consider it a quote by me!)
Their product SUCKS. Everything they support is wrong, twisted, and borders on traitorous to our nation. BUT, they know how to sell it. Trying to pass a law no one likes? Say it's for the good of the children. P-ZAM! Instantly, half the elderly vote is behind you, and if you're lucky, you'll get the backing of the almighty AARP.
If you want to pass a heavy tax burden, just stand on the back of a truck in a minority community, and make a lot of gibberish up about how "the white man has raped their wealth," and if they support the tax measure, those freakishly pale, warmongering, hate-filled racists will suffer, but the minority will get a break.
Minorities and Special interests groups should be FURIOUS about how the Democrat party has lead them around on a leash. They sic them on their enemies as will. Not the enemies of the minority group, but the enemies of the liberal agenda.
Many of their "attack orders" will come from white men from the rich class, which they hate so much, and they blindly follow them. When confronted will this fact, the usual explanation basically says that they follow the orders because the guys giving them have their best interests in mind. What? No they don't!
Democrats were pushing to KEEP slaves, remember? And if you say that the party has since undergone an incredible metamorphosis, and they have SINCE become loving and kind and forgiving, then why can they never forgive mistakes that Republicans make, especially when the party itself has a LONG track record for major successes, even if Liberals refuse to acknowledge them.
Guess who screwed the economy? FDR, who was a democrat. Guess who created social security, the abused, misused fiasco that is a growing blight on our society? FDR, "D" for Democrat, not Deleno. He could arguable be called the founding father for welfare. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, gave away the Panama canal, separating America from one of our greatest economic achievements. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt would probably be doing 360s in his grave right now, especially that China is buying up much of the control down there. I believe it was also Carter who oversaw the oil crisis. Can't pin it on him for certain, but that never stopped Dems from blaming Republican presidents for everything under the sun.
Ok, so the Democrats have a spotty track record, but suppose you look at the motives! Come on Mr. Watchman! They had good intentions at heart. They just wanted the best for the people!
Ok, let's presume for a minute that this is true. Isn't there a saying that says the "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Or another one that says "The end doesn't justify the means?" In the Democrat case, the end doesn't justify ANYTHING. The end just makes a bigger mess, but in accordance with Liberal commandment #2: When something goes wrong, no matter how much evidence there is, it is NEVER your fault. Deny DENY DENY!!!!!!!!!! (#1 is: Bush is Hitler, Cheney is Satan.)
But Democrats rarely have peoples best interests in mind. I.E. They are ALWAYS waving kids around, using them like magic bullets.
"Higher taxes will help send children to school."
"Airbags keep our kids safe."
"We should melt our guns into jungle gyms... for the safety of children."
And yet, this is the SAME party that supports abortion, (the killing of children.) They are campaigning to let child molesters, rapers, and murderers escape the death penalty, and even prison. (These abominations have raped and KILLED young children, and the party that supposedly loves kids want to let these monsters walk free.)
I cannot speak for you, but to me, it sounds like they have some conflicting interests. Lets face it, if you examine their record, Democrats love money, they love power, and they love creating laws everyone must obey except them. If they have to lie and please a few people on their way to the top, that's fine by them.
Their untouchable, because they have no morals, or scruples, or ANY kind of code they have to live up to, therefore, they can't mess up, because according to them, there IS nothing to mess up. Republicans have standards, and it's easy to point and laugh when we stumble, or fall, but we have them, and we try to live up to them.
At this point, I usually get blustery comments about how I'm just bitter, and making things up, and it's a fact that all Republicans and so-called Christians are just so full of hate and bigotry that it is consuming us from within. We spew lies, condone ignorance, and purposely stymie progress because it does not fit our views. We are idiotic, Limbaugh-brainwashed freaks with no purpose but to sow hatred and destroy all life as we know it.
That's a pretty tall order to live up to. However, I, for one, am TIRED of playing Mr. Nice Guy. I am TIRED of incessantly and futilely trying to convince liberal idiots that I am not evil. It is an impossible task, one that they keep baiting us to do, and as a result, more and more conservatives keep rolling over to prove that they are not the devil. Democrats cannot be convinced, and as conservatives, we should not even CARE what they think.
With rare exceptions like Ann Coulter, conservatives tend to be stubborn, but genial. Often they can part ways, agreeing to disagree. I will be the FIRST to admit that we have used such names like "idiot," and adjectives like "traitorous," and "arrogant," both those are real words of description. With rare exceptions, we do NOT resort to name calling.
You want to see hatred?
You want to see such acidic loathing that it could make you cringe?
If you're a liberal, look at a mirror. I am serious. Ann Coulter may be a firebrand, and may not always know what she's talking about, but she is NOTHING compared the sheer loathing and despise that liberals generate.
You want examples?
Go to YouTube, and look up Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin. Click on any number of videos and scroll down to the comments. Race and gender slurs about. Words like (used in example, and not condoned by me) Bitch, cunt, slut, $2 whore, idiotic, neanderthal, fucktard, gook(what does that even mean?) frequent accusations accusing above listed women as actually being men in disguise.
Now look up names like Rush Limbaugh. Entire videos and sound bytes are devoted to flaming him, mocking him, slandering him. Glenn Beck, same thing.
Don't even bother looking up Bush or Cheney.
A prime example of liberal hatred is alleged comedian, Margaret Cho. ONLY look up her videos or routines if you have a strong stomach. Her entire routines, especially "Assassin," are just and endless flow of livid anger directed at Christians, family groups, Republicans, and anything associated with the Bush administration.
On second thought... look up her routines. Witness it. To use liberal terminology, she is "so consumed by hatred that it is eating away at her, and it shows on her face. I have NEVER seen someone, even a liberal Democrat, EVEN HOWARD DEAN, produce this much hatred, and flame so many people." She is the picture of the trenchant liberal. Bitter, angry, unhappy, miserable, and totally furious at the world. I always thought people were joking when they said that when a person stores up hatred, it eats away and shows on their face..... but it shows on Margaret Cho.
And you the REALLY sad part?
.... she isn't even a good comedian. The moral? If your jokes aren't funny, and you hate the world, then cater to people who hate it as much as you do.
Maybe the hypothetical democrat in the beginning was right. Kindness and Compassion, accompanied by INTELLIGENCE, historically win the day. But it is not the Democrats fighting the uphill battle, it's us. The conservative underdog.
Don't cave in. Stand up and fight the good fight!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Wait.... What?
Watch this video, and about two thirds of the way through, cover any younger kids ears, as there is one swear word.
wait for it.....
wait for it.....
Ok, there. My brain just imploded. Why? Lets see. Who was that on screen? Paris Hilton. What is Paris Hilton known for? Stupid stunts and an out of control life style. What did she just say?
Probably the smartest thing ANYONE has said about energy in the past two years. Paris said that? Really?
*pop*
Dang, my brain imploded again.
McCain, Obama, you just got owned.
Explain to me why the blond poster girl has been able to out think you both. Seriously guys, it's sad. you're running for president, SHE is planning a vacation, yet she still seems smarter that both of you put together.
You know what? Personally, I'm in favor of off-shore drilling, continental drilling, and drilling just about everywhere where we have oil. However, I'm not against new energy technology, as long as it performs well, which the current energy tech does not. Correction. SOME of it does, but the few that CAN perform as well as a combustion engine, are CRAZY expensive, so just making everyone drive electric poop shooters is NOT a good plan, and the odds are pretty good we'll be driving gas for a while, so we might as well get used to it.
Now, I'm not sure if I approve of environmental regulations, but even WITH that in there, it is STILL one of the smartest things I've heard.
I do back McCain's drilling plan, but lets face it. The Greenie Weenies will never let it get by.
Also, if her smart moment is as smart as it sounds, then by tax incentives, she means tax cuts for plants making hybrids.
(rule#1 of energy production. If cost of energy is too high, then don't tax it, because that makes it higher. Democrats failed that course.... over and over and over again.)
Final verdict? Considering our options.... letting Paris paint the White House pink, may not be such a bad idea. And hey, she can never top JFK and Bill Clinton in terms of scandal, and after 8 years of Bush, she can make all the grammar errors she wants.
wait for it.....
wait for it.....
Ok, there. My brain just imploded. Why? Lets see. Who was that on screen? Paris Hilton. What is Paris Hilton known for? Stupid stunts and an out of control life style. What did she just say?
Probably the smartest thing ANYONE has said about energy in the past two years. Paris said that? Really?
*pop*
Dang, my brain imploded again.
McCain, Obama, you just got owned.
Explain to me why the blond poster girl has been able to out think you both. Seriously guys, it's sad. you're running for president, SHE is planning a vacation, yet she still seems smarter that both of you put together.
You know what? Personally, I'm in favor of off-shore drilling, continental drilling, and drilling just about everywhere where we have oil. However, I'm not against new energy technology, as long as it performs well, which the current energy tech does not. Correction. SOME of it does, but the few that CAN perform as well as a combustion engine, are CRAZY expensive, so just making everyone drive electric poop shooters is NOT a good plan, and the odds are pretty good we'll be driving gas for a while, so we might as well get used to it.
Now, I'm not sure if I approve of environmental regulations, but even WITH that in there, it is STILL one of the smartest things I've heard.
I do back McCain's drilling plan, but lets face it. The Greenie Weenies will never let it get by.
Also, if her smart moment is as smart as it sounds, then by tax incentives, she means tax cuts for plants making hybrids.
(rule#1 of energy production. If cost of energy is too high, then don't tax it, because that makes it higher. Democrats failed that course.... over and over and over again.)
Final verdict? Considering our options.... letting Paris paint the White House pink, may not be such a bad idea. And hey, she can never top JFK and Bill Clinton in terms of scandal, and after 8 years of Bush, she can make all the grammar errors she wants.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Muslim Disinformation Campaign.
Ladies and Gentlemen, put your hands together for...
THE GLOBAL MUSLIM COMMUNITY!
Why? Because they have discovered the internet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, now you may proceed to cry and weep with terror.
Why?
Because the already out of control Muslim disinformation campaign has found a new, open field ripe for the taking.
I should probably stop acting like this is so recent. It isn't. Muslim crazies have been lurking on the net, and couple of years ago, they exploded all over the cyber-landscape.
BAM, BAM, BAM!
We had Islamic activists popping up like rabbits.
Now, they have as much right to the internet as anyone... but they also have an elaborate disinformation campaign. Muslims, when history does not suit them, will rewrite it. This is all too common among most people, changing the facts of a displeasing past, but it is especially prevalent among Muslims.
The global distrust and dislike of Islam was compounded and augmented by the 9/11 attacks, and Muslims have found themselves portrayed in an uncomfortably accurate light, and have felt the need to improve their image.
So what do they do?
They lie.
Suddenly, over a thousand years of killing, pillaging, raiding, stealing, and destroying is magically transformed into a "long history of peaceful, artistic development and harmless coexistence with their neighbors."
Before you assume anything, SOME of that is true. Wealthy Muslims were very involved in medicines, poetry, art, and trade. However, a serial killer can be a miracle brain surgeon by day, but by night he can be forcibly extracting brains from living victims and preserving them in his basement.
If Muslims were so peaceful, then why did they blaze across North Africa, eradicating Christian towns and villages? The typical Muslim conversion method involved telling a person to convert or die. If they converted, they had to pick up their sword and ride with the Muslims to attack the next village.
We have Islamic advocates infesting YouTube claiming that this is all lies, and that Islam means submission to God through peace.
They claim the qu'ran demands sincere commitment, and therefore, forcing someone to convert under pain of death would be silly.
In that case, there are a lot of silly Muslims out there, and a lot of insincere ones as well. Whether the Qu'ran commands it or not, Muslims will FORCE people to become Islamic.
Why hasn't it happened here? Because Muslims aren't a majority. Once they are, I think that liberals, their biggest supporters, will be in for a rude surprise.
Second and most glaring of the Muslim disinformation campaign is their blatant denial of the slaughter of anyone they don't like.
They didn't like Armenians, (Christians in Turkey,) so they slaughtered them all. The Armenian Holocaust is STILL being denied by the Turkish government, in spite of overwhelming evidence that it happened. The only place you'll find deniers of this are State employed Turkish professors.
They ALSO deny that the JEWISH holocaust, one of the largest, most horrific exterminations of a people group to date, didn't happen.
Muslim denial of concrete evidence should tell you something about their reliability.
However, we, as Christians, have been slow to pick up on the YouTube craze, which is being flooded with brain-washed teenage and college liberals, Atheists, and Islamic nutjobs. We have always been kings of the pen, but when it comes to multi-media and websites like YouTube, we are being forced to play catch up.
Although the Muslims and Liberals actually believe vastly different things, they have a few things in common.
#1:They both hate Christians and Jews.
#2: If they didn't like it, then they deny it ever happened.
THE GLOBAL MUSLIM COMMUNITY!
Why? Because they have discovered the internet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, now you may proceed to cry and weep with terror.
Why?
Because the already out of control Muslim disinformation campaign has found a new, open field ripe for the taking.
I should probably stop acting like this is so recent. It isn't. Muslim crazies have been lurking on the net, and couple of years ago, they exploded all over the cyber-landscape.
BAM, BAM, BAM!
We had Islamic activists popping up like rabbits.
Now, they have as much right to the internet as anyone... but they also have an elaborate disinformation campaign. Muslims, when history does not suit them, will rewrite it. This is all too common among most people, changing the facts of a displeasing past, but it is especially prevalent among Muslims.
The global distrust and dislike of Islam was compounded and augmented by the 9/11 attacks, and Muslims have found themselves portrayed in an uncomfortably accurate light, and have felt the need to improve their image.
So what do they do?
They lie.
Suddenly, over a thousand years of killing, pillaging, raiding, stealing, and destroying is magically transformed into a "long history of peaceful, artistic development and harmless coexistence with their neighbors."
Before you assume anything, SOME of that is true. Wealthy Muslims were very involved in medicines, poetry, art, and trade. However, a serial killer can be a miracle brain surgeon by day, but by night he can be forcibly extracting brains from living victims and preserving them in his basement.
If Muslims were so peaceful, then why did they blaze across North Africa, eradicating Christian towns and villages? The typical Muslim conversion method involved telling a person to convert or die. If they converted, they had to pick up their sword and ride with the Muslims to attack the next village.
We have Islamic advocates infesting YouTube claiming that this is all lies, and that Islam means submission to God through peace.
They claim the qu'ran demands sincere commitment, and therefore, forcing someone to convert under pain of death would be silly.
In that case, there are a lot of silly Muslims out there, and a lot of insincere ones as well. Whether the Qu'ran commands it or not, Muslims will FORCE people to become Islamic.
Why hasn't it happened here? Because Muslims aren't a majority. Once they are, I think that liberals, their biggest supporters, will be in for a rude surprise.
Second and most glaring of the Muslim disinformation campaign is their blatant denial of the slaughter of anyone they don't like.
They didn't like Armenians, (Christians in Turkey,) so they slaughtered them all. The Armenian Holocaust is STILL being denied by the Turkish government, in spite of overwhelming evidence that it happened. The only place you'll find deniers of this are State employed Turkish professors.
They ALSO deny that the JEWISH holocaust, one of the largest, most horrific exterminations of a people group to date, didn't happen.
Muslim denial of concrete evidence should tell you something about their reliability.
However, we, as Christians, have been slow to pick up on the YouTube craze, which is being flooded with brain-washed teenage and college liberals, Atheists, and Islamic nutjobs. We have always been kings of the pen, but when it comes to multi-media and websites like YouTube, we are being forced to play catch up.
Although the Muslims and Liberals actually believe vastly different things, they have a few things in common.
#1:They both hate Christians and Jews.
#2: If they didn't like it, then they deny it ever happened.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Swearing Idiots
Do people ever actually think about what their saying when they use profanity? Seriously.
For example:
Why have I heard atheists saying "God D@%# it!"
I thought they didn't believe in God.
Also, why do people always say "Bad @$$" to describe how tough they are?
What does the condition of your butt have to do with your fighting prowess?
Think about it.
For example:
Why have I heard atheists saying "God D@%# it!"
I thought they didn't believe in God.
Also, why do people always say "Bad @$$" to describe how tough they are?
What does the condition of your butt have to do with your fighting prowess?
Think about it.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy Birthday, America!
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now the 4th of July..... I don't see you partying....
Stop reading this, get up, start a barbecue with your friends, set off some fireworks, and congratulate each other on living in the greatest country in the world.
What? You say I'm being arrogant and ignorant? Well you liberal weenies can kiss my big butt... as it goes outside with the matches toward the grill.
Stop reading this, get up, start a barbecue with your friends, set off some fireworks, and congratulate each other on living in the greatest country in the world.
What? You say I'm being arrogant and ignorant? Well you liberal weenies can kiss my big butt... as it goes outside with the matches toward the grill.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Are YOUR kids from the Devil?
Your children are evil.
They will make you miserable.
Until they're gone, your life will be a living hell.
Kill them now, before it's too late.
Beware the Children!!!!!
No, I am not insane. I am just paraphrasing a recent Newsweek article that has been featured on MSN, and therefore popped up on my email homepage. The article accusing children of destroying all happiness in everyone's life is right here.
Yes, I am dead serious. The latest liberal fad is that children are evil AND useless. A so-called study says that parents with children are 7% less LIKELY to report being happy than someone without the "little monsters."
University people like Robin Simon, Daniel Gilbert, and Arthur C. Brooks are all claiming that "certain studies" (whose results are not given) indicate that parents with kids are PROBABLY less happy that those without.
Gilbert "concludes" that marital satisfaction has its highs when kids aren't around.
I don't know about you, but when you read the article, a lot of "maybe" words seem to jump out at me. Maybe words are those words that people use when the data is not confirmed, or they are not totally sure of themselves. And these three college bigwigs are using a lot of maybe, likely, highly possible, probably, etc.
Why are they so unsure of themselves?
Well, here's why:
In the SAME article, a poll by Newsweek brought back to thunderous results saying that 50% of Americans say more kids means more happy, while only 16% say that kids make them miserable.
Don't know what you think, but those are pretty defined results. 50 to 16? I would conclude, based on the simple FACTS, that having more children brings happiness. Seriously, how can you argue against such overwhelming evidence in a poll, that was conducted by a magazine, which was ALREADY biased toward the "more children=more misery" viewpoint?
So what do the writers do? In a VERY unsportsmanlike fashion, they accuse the people they polled, of lying! What!?! Your poll doesn't produce the results you wanted, therefore the POLL is mistaken? How does that work?
If these sociologists were taking science or chemistry, they would flunk out so fast they would think they fell into a time warp.
The Scientific Method says that you form a hypothesis, then conduct your experiment with ONE variable. If the experiment is conducted, and can be repeated, and does not support your hypothesis, then YOU are wrong, NOT the experiment.
What IS it with liberal academia? If they had controlled ALL scientific development, society would still believe that lead could be turned into gold. (Medieval Alchemy.)
If the DATA says that parenting brings more joy that sadness, then I don't care HOW many bitter college professors say otherwise. The result ALWAYS trumps the hypothesis.
Now, let us presume for a minute, that parenting DOES make us unhappy. In this case, I am inclined to give a thumbs up to the writer. Although her views on the happiness/kid quotient is skewed, she does get someone else DEAD ON.
Maybe, just MAYBE, we, as a people, are TOO concerned with being happy. There is a difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is brought on by sheer, pure, short-lived pleasure. Happiness is shallow, and like it or not, meaningless. Joy on the other hand, runs much deeper, and is much more difficult to describe. Joy is more permanent.
Besides, who said that happiness is the meaning of life. If you will take note, EVERYONE who focuses their life on making themselves "happy" usually winds up dead at an early age. Too much booz, drugs, women, and cars. Incessantly trying to give yourself pleasure without meaning will probably kill you. To be honest, humans don't crave happiness, they crave love, respect, and fulfillment. Children have been described by parents, young and old, as their greatest accomplishment in life.
Why are people attacking kids and their existence? Who knows. This article is... difficult to understand. One minute, it is treating children like the spawn of Satan, but in the last paragraph, resembling a last ditch attempt to redeem themselves, is a painfully out of place lecture on the unimportance of happiness and how the author loves her kids.
...So you "love" your boy, but you're saying you're unhappy because he exists? No? Then what ARE you saying?
The author should have put MUCH more planning into this article, and should have sat down, and REALLY considered her standing on the subject, and her motives for writing it.
As always, the problem is brought on by giving WAY too much attention to bitter, useless, dusty college professors who have claimed to hate everything about our world.
They will make you miserable.
Until they're gone, your life will be a living hell.
Kill them now, before it's too late.
Beware the Children!!!!!
No, I am not insane. I am just paraphrasing a recent Newsweek article that has been featured on MSN, and therefore popped up on my email homepage. The article accusing children of destroying all happiness in everyone's life is right here.
Yes, I am dead serious. The latest liberal fad is that children are evil AND useless. A so-called study says that parents with children are 7% less LIKELY to report being happy than someone without the "little monsters."
University people like Robin Simon, Daniel Gilbert, and Arthur C. Brooks are all claiming that "certain studies" (whose results are not given) indicate that parents with kids are PROBABLY less happy that those without.
Gilbert "concludes" that marital satisfaction has its highs when kids aren't around.
I don't know about you, but when you read the article, a lot of "maybe" words seem to jump out at me. Maybe words are those words that people use when the data is not confirmed, or they are not totally sure of themselves. And these three college bigwigs are using a lot of maybe, likely, highly possible, probably, etc.
Why are they so unsure of themselves?
Well, here's why:
In the SAME article, a poll by Newsweek brought back to thunderous results saying that 50% of Americans say more kids means more happy, while only 16% say that kids make them miserable.
Don't know what you think, but those are pretty defined results. 50 to 16? I would conclude, based on the simple FACTS, that having more children brings happiness. Seriously, how can you argue against such overwhelming evidence in a poll, that was conducted by a magazine, which was ALREADY biased toward the "more children=more misery" viewpoint?
So what do the writers do? In a VERY unsportsmanlike fashion, they accuse the people they polled, of lying! What!?! Your poll doesn't produce the results you wanted, therefore the POLL is mistaken? How does that work?
If these sociologists were taking science or chemistry, they would flunk out so fast they would think they fell into a time warp.
The Scientific Method says that you form a hypothesis, then conduct your experiment with ONE variable. If the experiment is conducted, and can be repeated, and does not support your hypothesis, then YOU are wrong, NOT the experiment.
What IS it with liberal academia? If they had controlled ALL scientific development, society would still believe that lead could be turned into gold. (Medieval Alchemy.)
If the DATA says that parenting brings more joy that sadness, then I don't care HOW many bitter college professors say otherwise. The result ALWAYS trumps the hypothesis.
Now, let us presume for a minute, that parenting DOES make us unhappy. In this case, I am inclined to give a thumbs up to the writer. Although her views on the happiness/kid quotient is skewed, she does get someone else DEAD ON.
Maybe, just MAYBE, we, as a people, are TOO concerned with being happy. There is a difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is brought on by sheer, pure, short-lived pleasure. Happiness is shallow, and like it or not, meaningless. Joy on the other hand, runs much deeper, and is much more difficult to describe. Joy is more permanent.
Besides, who said that happiness is the meaning of life. If you will take note, EVERYONE who focuses their life on making themselves "happy" usually winds up dead at an early age. Too much booz, drugs, women, and cars. Incessantly trying to give yourself pleasure without meaning will probably kill you. To be honest, humans don't crave happiness, they crave love, respect, and fulfillment. Children have been described by parents, young and old, as their greatest accomplishment in life.
Why are people attacking kids and their existence? Who knows. This article is... difficult to understand. One minute, it is treating children like the spawn of Satan, but in the last paragraph, resembling a last ditch attempt to redeem themselves, is a painfully out of place lecture on the unimportance of happiness and how the author loves her kids.
...So you "love" your boy, but you're saying you're unhappy because he exists? No? Then what ARE you saying?
The author should have put MUCH more planning into this article, and should have sat down, and REALLY considered her standing on the subject, and her motives for writing it.
As always, the problem is brought on by giving WAY too much attention to bitter, useless, dusty college professors who have claimed to hate everything about our world.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Beware the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
Obama, in his usualy strategem, noticing that McCain is weak with Christian conservatives, has begun spilling out promises to evangelicals.
What has he promised to do? Well the article is here, but I'll sum it up for you.
Obama is promising to divert government funds to Christian charities, and allow evangelical groups to hire or fire based on what their faith says.
A person's first reaction is: "Wow! Really? That'd be great!"
However, their second reaction (if they have a brain, that is) is: "Wait a second... Obama? Anti-religon, pro-homosexual marriage Obama? What does he REALLY want?"
The article then describes Obama's given reasons. He wants to give money to Christian charities so they can pitch in with the anti-poverty campaigns and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Yep, that's right.
You know, 100 years ago, churches DID handle poverty in their neighborhoods. Then the government came along and federalized everything, essentially booting the church out of the picture with a pleasent little "You're not good enough, move over."
Now, Obama is wanting to dump things back onto Christian shoulders... why? Obama does NOT have a beneficial reason for this.
(Now, this is all presuming that Obama is not just blowing smoke, trying to mess up McCain, which is ALSO very possible.)
Reasons? They are difficult to notice at first.
Although one might at first assume it's because that government is overstretched, and running out of money. But that doesn't work. Obama is planning on funding the charities, in ADDITION to presently established government groups. That would just make the problem worse.
Here is my opinion... Control. Obama wants control. If you sink a large amount of money into something, you have the right to control your investment. If Christian charities start taking money from Obama's government, then the government will be allowed to establish their own treasurers, administrators, auditors, etc. Obama would cripple and conquer the Christian charities in one fell motion, and hardly anyone would see it coming, either.
He would even be able to redirect their very purpose and being. Instead of being independant groups with set beliefs and guidlines, they become government stooges, whose "missions" and "goals" are now dictated by a decidedly UN-Christian government.
Things would get messed up beyond all belief. We'd be allowed to hire/fire based on belief? Essentially, Obama is IMPLYING that christian groups would not be forced to hire gay/transsexual people under the obligation of the no discrimination laws. Once again, be careful. Obama, as usual, walk STRAIGHT down the middle of the road, never really saying anything, so, as usual, his statement is vague and pliable. What does hire/fire based on faith mean? Nothing, because no specifics were given.
(And if the charities are controlled by the government, then it won't matter, because they could be forced to support causes they don't believe in.)
Now, Christians have always given help without conditions. New Orleans, the center for homosexuals, liberals, and atheists was hit by a hurricane, and Salvation Army was right there, probably doing more good that ANY government organization. Along side of the Salvation Army was NUMEROUS groups from churches all over the nation, coming down to help rebuild.
However, helping someone get back on their feet, and supporting what they support, are two VERY different things.
However, with looming government control, they could soon become the same.
Many Christian charities will never see this coming. The funds strapped ministries will only see the prospect of getting more money to do the Lord's work.
But, in the Bible, in Matthew 10:16 it says: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
Too many Christians forget that we must be SHREWD. That was something that we have discarding, and we are going to suffer for it. If someone offers you money, always find out why. Nothing is free. Nothing.
If Obama gets elected, and makes good on his promises, then Christian charities are going to blindly accept the cash, without looking for the cost.
Be shrewd, because while you're one hand is accepting the money, the other is selling you soul.
What has he promised to do? Well the article is here, but I'll sum it up for you.
Obama is promising to divert government funds to Christian charities, and allow evangelical groups to hire or fire based on what their faith says.
A person's first reaction is: "Wow! Really? That'd be great!"
However, their second reaction (if they have a brain, that is) is: "Wait a second... Obama? Anti-religon, pro-homosexual marriage Obama? What does he REALLY want?"
The article then describes Obama's given reasons. He wants to give money to Christian charities so they can pitch in with the anti-poverty campaigns and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Yep, that's right.
You know, 100 years ago, churches DID handle poverty in their neighborhoods. Then the government came along and federalized everything, essentially booting the church out of the picture with a pleasent little "You're not good enough, move over."
Now, Obama is wanting to dump things back onto Christian shoulders... why? Obama does NOT have a beneficial reason for this.
(Now, this is all presuming that Obama is not just blowing smoke, trying to mess up McCain, which is ALSO very possible.)
Reasons? They are difficult to notice at first.
Although one might at first assume it's because that government is overstretched, and running out of money. But that doesn't work. Obama is planning on funding the charities, in ADDITION to presently established government groups. That would just make the problem worse.
Here is my opinion... Control. Obama wants control. If you sink a large amount of money into something, you have the right to control your investment. If Christian charities start taking money from Obama's government, then the government will be allowed to establish their own treasurers, administrators, auditors, etc. Obama would cripple and conquer the Christian charities in one fell motion, and hardly anyone would see it coming, either.
He would even be able to redirect their very purpose and being. Instead of being independant groups with set beliefs and guidlines, they become government stooges, whose "missions" and "goals" are now dictated by a decidedly UN-Christian government.
Things would get messed up beyond all belief. We'd be allowed to hire/fire based on belief? Essentially, Obama is IMPLYING that christian groups would not be forced to hire gay/transsexual people under the obligation of the no discrimination laws. Once again, be careful. Obama, as usual, walk STRAIGHT down the middle of the road, never really saying anything, so, as usual, his statement is vague and pliable. What does hire/fire based on faith mean? Nothing, because no specifics were given.
(And if the charities are controlled by the government, then it won't matter, because they could be forced to support causes they don't believe in.)
Now, Christians have always given help without conditions. New Orleans, the center for homosexuals, liberals, and atheists was hit by a hurricane, and Salvation Army was right there, probably doing more good that ANY government organization. Along side of the Salvation Army was NUMEROUS groups from churches all over the nation, coming down to help rebuild.
However, helping someone get back on their feet, and supporting what they support, are two VERY different things.
However, with looming government control, they could soon become the same.
Many Christian charities will never see this coming. The funds strapped ministries will only see the prospect of getting more money to do the Lord's work.
But, in the Bible, in Matthew 10:16 it says: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
Too many Christians forget that we must be SHREWD. That was something that we have discarding, and we are going to suffer for it. If someone offers you money, always find out why. Nothing is free. Nothing.
If Obama gets elected, and makes good on his promises, then Christian charities are going to blindly accept the cash, without looking for the cost.
Be shrewd, because while you're one hand is accepting the money, the other is selling you soul.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Seperation of Church and State
This little phrase has caused quite a bit of trouble in years past, but recently, probably due to the confused and muddled presidential elections, it has not cropped up anywhere prominently.
The ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union, is a left-wing, communist, liberal activist group, which does nothing to defend Civil Liberties. In their defense, their name says NOTHING about defending them. Instead, this organizations only goal seems to be to whittle away at our basic rights and freedoms. Now the ACLU uses a clause entitled "Seperation of Church and State," quite frequently in their court cases.
Hard core liberals insist that it has been laser-etched into the constitution, and equally hard-core conservatives maintain that nothing remotely like it has ever existed.
Both are wrong.
In the first amendment, the following statement is written: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In short, the government is not allowed to make laws that mess around with religon.
Liberal lawyers have taken to calling this amendment "The Seperation of Church and State."
Liberals, being idiots, blindly except their skewed interpretation of the first amendment as fact, saying that the Constitution forbids ANY interaction between government and "church," or religon. This, like most liberal beliefs, is incorrect.
The amendment does not want a social seperation of church and state, but a legal one. Why? Because at the time of the revolution, the English government and the Anglican church were closely intertwined. The Anglican Church was the official church and religon of England. Americans have always wanted to worship freely, remember the pilgrims?
No other church besides the church officially designated by the government was allowed in Britain. The national church was even roping in tax money to run themselves, because they were the "official church."
The amendment in the constitution was to prevent government from infecting the church, or having either one controlling the other. Although some might think things would run smoother, we do not live in a theocracy, therefore, no single church should be allowed to make laws and enforce them.
Now before some idiots misinterpret what I'm saying, let me finish. This amendment says government has no right to restrict or abolish religon. Therefore, the ACLU atheist nutjobs who have been trying to use this to their advantage, should look again. If the government is not allowed to inhibit and restrain religous practice, then there is no Constitutional law saying that nothing judeo-christian should be allowed on government property. If the founding fathers wanted our nation to be atheist, then why do we open our congress sessions with prayer? Why do we swear on a bible in court?
Because our nation was founded on the princibles from religon. Without those princibles, our government would degrade into meaningless chaos, so maybe we should not be so quick to abolish them.
The ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union, is a left-wing, communist, liberal activist group, which does nothing to defend Civil Liberties. In their defense, their name says NOTHING about defending them. Instead, this organizations only goal seems to be to whittle away at our basic rights and freedoms. Now the ACLU uses a clause entitled "Seperation of Church and State," quite frequently in their court cases.
Hard core liberals insist that it has been laser-etched into the constitution, and equally hard-core conservatives maintain that nothing remotely like it has ever existed.
Both are wrong.
In the first amendment, the following statement is written: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In short, the government is not allowed to make laws that mess around with religon.
Liberal lawyers have taken to calling this amendment "The Seperation of Church and State."
Liberals, being idiots, blindly except their skewed interpretation of the first amendment as fact, saying that the Constitution forbids ANY interaction between government and "church," or religon. This, like most liberal beliefs, is incorrect.
The amendment does not want a social seperation of church and state, but a legal one. Why? Because at the time of the revolution, the English government and the Anglican church were closely intertwined. The Anglican Church was the official church and religon of England. Americans have always wanted to worship freely, remember the pilgrims?
No other church besides the church officially designated by the government was allowed in Britain. The national church was even roping in tax money to run themselves, because they were the "official church."
The amendment in the constitution was to prevent government from infecting the church, or having either one controlling the other. Although some might think things would run smoother, we do not live in a theocracy, therefore, no single church should be allowed to make laws and enforce them.
Now before some idiots misinterpret what I'm saying, let me finish. This amendment says government has no right to restrict or abolish religon. Therefore, the ACLU atheist nutjobs who have been trying to use this to their advantage, should look again. If the government is not allowed to inhibit and restrain religous practice, then there is no Constitutional law saying that nothing judeo-christian should be allowed on government property. If the founding fathers wanted our nation to be atheist, then why do we open our congress sessions with prayer? Why do we swear on a bible in court?
Because our nation was founded on the princibles from religon. Without those princibles, our government would degrade into meaningless chaos, so maybe we should not be so quick to abolish them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Washinton Go Nuts over Oil
Well, looks like some yammerhead actually decided to use that mushy stuff inside their skulls. Still not sure if it's brains or not, but their using something.
What happened is this. Basically, paying 4-5 bucks a gallon has finally gotten those idiots in Washington to ignore the greenie-weenies and actually drill for oil in our own nation.
That's right ladies and not-so-gentlemen. Oil DOES come from other parts of the world besides the middle east. Actually, the United States is INCREDIBLY oil rich, with wells criss-crossing the continent. From Pennsylvania, to Arkensas, to Oklahoma, to Texas, to Montan, to Alaska.
Some of you are probably leaning forward going "Holy-freakin-cow! If we have all that oil, what do they want our firstborn in exchange for gas?"
Reason: Enviromentalists. The Scum of the Earth.
These tree huggers claim that Oil is bad for the enviroment, and destroys animal life. They accuse the oil pipes of blocking migration patterns, and then contaminating everything if they blow a leak.
#1: Oil pipes in cold areas actually create heat, promote plants to grow, and animals to congregate around them for warmth. Yessir, giving animals a warm place to be when it is freezing is going to destroy all life on earth.
(Most of the other ones are in the desert, and there's not much to damage there in the first place.)
#2: Oil pipes are 3-6 feet off the ground. How is that blocking ANYTHING'S migration pattern? My friends, deer can get under, over, and through just about everything we put up, and their larger cousins should have no trouble at all with a pipe that's been raised off the ground.
#3: Most of those oil pipe leaks/explosions happened when some envirmental terrorist decided to SHOOT IT WITH A RIFLE. Gee... maybe that could cause those things.
As a final kicker, the ocean shelf off the coast of Florida is one of the richest in oil that we have. Are we allowed to drill for it? Nope. Why? Partly because the greenie weenies are afraid of hurting fish, but the REAL reason is even more idiotic. Because the old people in the retirement communities don't want Oil Rigs spoiling their ocean view. Tell me that isn't dumb.
What happened is this. Basically, paying 4-5 bucks a gallon has finally gotten those idiots in Washington to ignore the greenie-weenies and actually drill for oil in our own nation.
That's right ladies and not-so-gentlemen. Oil DOES come from other parts of the world besides the middle east. Actually, the United States is INCREDIBLY oil rich, with wells criss-crossing the continent. From Pennsylvania, to Arkensas, to Oklahoma, to Texas, to Montan, to Alaska.
Some of you are probably leaning forward going "Holy-freakin-cow! If we have all that oil, what do they want our firstborn in exchange for gas?"
Reason: Enviromentalists. The Scum of the Earth.
These tree huggers claim that Oil is bad for the enviroment, and destroys animal life. They accuse the oil pipes of blocking migration patterns, and then contaminating everything if they blow a leak.
#1: Oil pipes in cold areas actually create heat, promote plants to grow, and animals to congregate around them for warmth. Yessir, giving animals a warm place to be when it is freezing is going to destroy all life on earth.
(Most of the other ones are in the desert, and there's not much to damage there in the first place.)
#2: Oil pipes are 3-6 feet off the ground. How is that blocking ANYTHING'S migration pattern? My friends, deer can get under, over, and through just about everything we put up, and their larger cousins should have no trouble at all with a pipe that's been raised off the ground.
#3: Most of those oil pipe leaks/explosions happened when some envirmental terrorist decided to SHOOT IT WITH A RIFLE. Gee... maybe that could cause those things.
As a final kicker, the ocean shelf off the coast of Florida is one of the richest in oil that we have. Are we allowed to drill for it? Nope. Why? Partly because the greenie weenies are afraid of hurting fish, but the REAL reason is even more idiotic. Because the old people in the retirement communities don't want Oil Rigs spoiling their ocean view. Tell me that isn't dumb.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Gay Pride Parade Marches On (sadly)
California has decided to become the second state in our formerly wonderful Union to condone the marriage of same-sex couples.
The Associated Press released an article going over it in gruesome detail, viewable here.
Dozens of people "rushed to the altar" to seal an agreement that "they were already married in their minds and hearts," but have never "been able to have experience of community and common humanity."
What?
"Common Humanity?" What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? If they were married in their minds and hearts already, then why do they want to change their status in the eyes of the law? Seriously. In spite of the example of two old lesbo biddies, who've purportedly been together for over 50 years, homosexual relationships rarely last.
Sorry people. It's a fact. Gay people change their partners frequently, and many of them became fruitcakes for the express purpose of proving that they were no chained down and free to do as they please. Soooo.... how does marriage fit into that "Nothing Holds Me Back" attitude?
Divorce rates are already sky high, and half the kids you meet come from either a broken home, or one without their original mother or father. Whether liberal pop culture wants to admit it, or even whether the child wants to admit it, broken homes have significant effect on a child's mental being. I'm no saying they go "mental" or "nuts," but that it affects how they develop and think, and the effects are rarely positive.
What does this have to do with gay people getting married? Well, believe it or not, these fruits want to have CHILDREN! Whoops! Surprise, they can't, so they want to adopt them. First off, imagine how the kid must feel.
"Swell, I'm being adopted by a couple of flakes."
Oh, wait, I forgot, liberal brain-washing education techniques will have those "nasty, hateful, ignorant, politically correct" thoughts expelled from their minds before much time passes.
(Think I'm kidding? Kaliforniastan already teaches first graders to celebrate gay pride days.)
Second, in the ideal environment, a child should have both strong male and female figures in their life. A mother teaches her son how to be compassionate, caring, and gentle. A father teaches his son how to be a man, how to compete, work, struggle, and win. Too much of one, and none of the other is going to produce weird people.
So with that in mind, if your have TWO father figures, or perhaps one or both don't act like men, the child is going to be seriously confused and warped.
Same thing with two mothers.
Long story short, gay people should not be allowed to adopt children for the simple fact that by doing so, the child's development will be seriously screwed up.
Now, our culture is doing everything in it's power to deny this, but the most basic unit of society is the family. Society, government, culture, and more don't exist until the family level. Two people in love, living together, are not a family. There is no society or culture, just two people fulfilling their desires. There is no semblance of government. Only two people engaging in a battle of wills to see who's will will be instated. One person is nothing. No culture. No government. A family is where things begin. There is the ruler and justice keeper: the father. There is the administrator, adviser, and caregiver: the mother. And finally there are the undetermined number of often troublesome subjects who, given proper guidance, can work with the family, and eventually start their own: Children. (or maybe a dog/cat.)
Now, the roles have sometimes been reversed, the mother taking charge, or in some case, the child decides what is done, but no matter how many liberals or femme-nazis hate it, THAT is the basic structure of a family, which, in turn, in the basic unit of society.
The gay movement is destroying the most basic unit of society, and when you destroy the basic unit of something, it will crumble. Condoned homosexuality will open the doors for a flood of other, even more immoral requests.
I'm blowing hot air?
Well, if two man are allowed to have sex, and then maybe get married, then why not make incest legal? Or maybe pedophilia? That's different you say? Sorry friend, it's not. It is considered morally wrong to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Same applies for those other two things I mentioned. Gay people have been trying to get rid of those silly morals for the longest time, but once they do, everything falls apart. They want to smash the wall, because it is big, mean, ugly, and holds them back. However, they forget that the wall was put there for a reason.
Once morals have been abolished, everything is game. Sure, you can arbitraraly decide when it's gone too far, but even the best stop-gap in temporary. Soon you'll have other groups of people asking: "Hey! If they get THEIR way, why can't I!?!"
Incest, Pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, sado-masochism. It can all become VERY real, and very legal. And the odds are pretty good that it will start in California.
I don't care how mean it seems to keep them in there. The flies of chaos were locked inside Pandora's Box for a good reason. Try to let one out, and they all escape.
The Associated Press released an article going over it in gruesome detail, viewable here.
Dozens of people "rushed to the altar" to seal an agreement that "they were already married in their minds and hearts," but have never "been able to have experience of community and common humanity."
What?
"Common Humanity?" What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? If they were married in their minds and hearts already, then why do they want to change their status in the eyes of the law? Seriously. In spite of the example of two old lesbo biddies, who've purportedly been together for over 50 years, homosexual relationships rarely last.
Sorry people. It's a fact. Gay people change their partners frequently, and many of them became fruitcakes for the express purpose of proving that they were no chained down and free to do as they please. Soooo.... how does marriage fit into that "Nothing Holds Me Back" attitude?
Divorce rates are already sky high, and half the kids you meet come from either a broken home, or one without their original mother or father. Whether liberal pop culture wants to admit it, or even whether the child wants to admit it, broken homes have significant effect on a child's mental being. I'm no saying they go "mental" or "nuts," but that it affects how they develop and think, and the effects are rarely positive.
What does this have to do with gay people getting married? Well, believe it or not, these fruits want to have CHILDREN! Whoops! Surprise, they can't, so they want to adopt them. First off, imagine how the kid must feel.
"Swell, I'm being adopted by a couple of flakes."
Oh, wait, I forgot, liberal brain-washing education techniques will have those "nasty, hateful, ignorant, politically correct" thoughts expelled from their minds before much time passes.
(Think I'm kidding? Kaliforniastan already teaches first graders to celebrate gay pride days.)
Second, in the ideal environment, a child should have both strong male and female figures in their life. A mother teaches her son how to be compassionate, caring, and gentle. A father teaches his son how to be a man, how to compete, work, struggle, and win. Too much of one, and none of the other is going to produce weird people.
So with that in mind, if your have TWO father figures, or perhaps one or both don't act like men, the child is going to be seriously confused and warped.
Same thing with two mothers.
Long story short, gay people should not be allowed to adopt children for the simple fact that by doing so, the child's development will be seriously screwed up.
Now, our culture is doing everything in it's power to deny this, but the most basic unit of society is the family. Society, government, culture, and more don't exist until the family level. Two people in love, living together, are not a family. There is no society or culture, just two people fulfilling their desires. There is no semblance of government. Only two people engaging in a battle of wills to see who's will will be instated. One person is nothing. No culture. No government. A family is where things begin. There is the ruler and justice keeper: the father. There is the administrator, adviser, and caregiver: the mother. And finally there are the undetermined number of often troublesome subjects who, given proper guidance, can work with the family, and eventually start their own: Children. (or maybe a dog/cat.)
Now, the roles have sometimes been reversed, the mother taking charge, or in some case, the child decides what is done, but no matter how many liberals or femme-nazis hate it, THAT is the basic structure of a family, which, in turn, in the basic unit of society.
The gay movement is destroying the most basic unit of society, and when you destroy the basic unit of something, it will crumble. Condoned homosexuality will open the doors for a flood of other, even more immoral requests.
I'm blowing hot air?
Well, if two man are allowed to have sex, and then maybe get married, then why not make incest legal? Or maybe pedophilia? That's different you say? Sorry friend, it's not. It is considered morally wrong to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Same applies for those other two things I mentioned. Gay people have been trying to get rid of those silly morals for the longest time, but once they do, everything falls apart. They want to smash the wall, because it is big, mean, ugly, and holds them back. However, they forget that the wall was put there for a reason.
Once morals have been abolished, everything is game. Sure, you can arbitraraly decide when it's gone too far, but even the best stop-gap in temporary. Soon you'll have other groups of people asking: "Hey! If they get THEIR way, why can't I!?!"
Incest, Pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, sado-masochism. It can all become VERY real, and very legal. And the odds are pretty good that it will start in California.
I don't care how mean it seems to keep them in there. The flies of chaos were locked inside Pandora's Box for a good reason. Try to let one out, and they all escape.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Just You Watch
If you haven't heard about the flash flood crisis in Wisconsin, you can read about it here.
In short, a section of southwestern Wisconsin has been inundated with water, and experienced severe flooding. Why should we be concerned?
Well, if you're not concerned about the potential loss of life, already, then you have no soul, but this is my prediction: Some Left-Wing idiot is going to come out and accuse "Global Warming" of causing it.
It's summer time.
It's Hot.
Tis the season for Global Warming fruits to come out of the wood work.
With the heat on everyone's mind, I am predicting that we will hear a lot more about our "Carbon footprint."
*sigh*
In short, a section of southwestern Wisconsin has been inundated with water, and experienced severe flooding. Why should we be concerned?
Well, if you're not concerned about the potential loss of life, already, then you have no soul, but this is my prediction: Some Left-Wing idiot is going to come out and accuse "Global Warming" of causing it.
It's summer time.
It's Hot.
Tis the season for Global Warming fruits to come out of the wood work.
With the heat on everyone's mind, I am predicting that we will hear a lot more about our "Carbon footprint."
*sigh*
Monday, June 9, 2008
Obama gets the Nod
Ol' Obama wins, Hillary loses. What does this mean for the rest of us?
In short.... we're screwed.
Of the two Democrats fiercely duking it out for the nomination, Hillary was the more conservative of the two. (Yes, I KNOW that sounds weird, but it's true.)
Why did Obama get a free ride from the press? Because any kind of negative comments could be billed as racism. Obama claims to be running to try and break those barriers, but instead, Obama just proves how alive racism is. If there was no racism in our country, we would not be afraid to criticize Obama, because his skin color wouldn't matter. However, when negative comments are given the title of "prejudice," then it just proves my point. Obama has used his minority status to try and get the American people to vote for him out of guilt.
Why?
Well, we thought our country was entering a "new age" of enlightenment and acceptance, and if we don't elect Obama, then obviously our nation is not truely open-mined or educated.
(I'm being sarcastic.)
Obama is getting a free ticket in and I don't know why.
For the record, I am not racist, but the sheer fact that I have to explain that I am not shows how deep the liberal brain-washing tendrils have gone. If Condi ran, I would vote for her. If Alan Keyes ran again, I would vote for him, but Obama is too much of a wacko liberal racist for me to even tolerate.
McCain? The guy is a closet Dem and everyone knows it. He is less liberal than Obama, but... it isn't much of a lead. He'll do whatever pleases whoever's around him. He has no backbone, and supports the tracking chip. (The one that is implanted in your arm,) Who know what other crazed ideas he has, BESIDES amnesty for illegals. His stance on important issues changes constantly, and overall, he would be a poor leader.
The final analysis?
We have ONE canidate trying to coast to victory on the fact that he is a minority, and to show our lack of prejudice, we should vote for him.
We have ANOTHER candidate tryong to coast to victory on his record in the military. (Which, considered he was SHOT DOWN and CAPTURED, isn't all that great.)
The press gave them both free passes, and for us conservatives, it appears we're screwed.
(Personally, I think I'll be pulling for Bob Barr now.)
In short.... we're screwed.
Of the two Democrats fiercely duking it out for the nomination, Hillary was the more conservative of the two. (Yes, I KNOW that sounds weird, but it's true.)
Why did Obama get a free ride from the press? Because any kind of negative comments could be billed as racism. Obama claims to be running to try and break those barriers, but instead, Obama just proves how alive racism is. If there was no racism in our country, we would not be afraid to criticize Obama, because his skin color wouldn't matter. However, when negative comments are given the title of "prejudice," then it just proves my point. Obama has used his minority status to try and get the American people to vote for him out of guilt.
Why?
Well, we thought our country was entering a "new age" of enlightenment and acceptance, and if we don't elect Obama, then obviously our nation is not truely open-mined or educated.
(I'm being sarcastic.)
Obama is getting a free ticket in and I don't know why.
For the record, I am not racist, but the sheer fact that I have to explain that I am not shows how deep the liberal brain-washing tendrils have gone. If Condi ran, I would vote for her. If Alan Keyes ran again, I would vote for him, but Obama is too much of a wacko liberal racist for me to even tolerate.
McCain? The guy is a closet Dem and everyone knows it. He is less liberal than Obama, but... it isn't much of a lead. He'll do whatever pleases whoever's around him. He has no backbone, and supports the tracking chip. (The one that is implanted in your arm,) Who know what other crazed ideas he has, BESIDES amnesty for illegals. His stance on important issues changes constantly, and overall, he would be a poor leader.
The final analysis?
We have ONE canidate trying to coast to victory on the fact that he is a minority, and to show our lack of prejudice, we should vote for him.
We have ANOTHER candidate tryong to coast to victory on his record in the military. (Which, considered he was SHOT DOWN and CAPTURED, isn't all that great.)
The press gave them both free passes, and for us conservatives, it appears we're screwed.
(Personally, I think I'll be pulling for Bob Barr now.)
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Why Miley?
What is with our national obsession with celebrities, especially younger ones? Who cares? ALL I hear lately is whining about Miley Cyrus, AKA: Hannah Montana. I'm serious, this seems to be all the scandal people talk about any more.
Why?
I think it's mainly because we've gotten used to our over-used celebs in hollywood right now. They've done every scandalous thing in the book, slept with half the people in California, and entered rehab more times than anyone can count. Of course, they always appear on TV with a zoned out expression on their face, as they apologize "deeply" and swear to never do it again because they've seen the error of their ways. They usually show up on TV a few weeks later, apologizing the SAME way, for doing the SAME thing, AGAIN. And they interrupt the global news for this?
Miley, on the other hand, seems to have an "innocence" about her that scandal artists are obsessed with.
"No one can be so innocent and normal," they think, and they're probably right. It probably won't be long before we see Miley on TV apologizing for something stupid she did.
My opinion? WHO CARES?
Why did everyone freak out about her faked "pregnancy?" Why are they freaking over the "Vanity Fair" pictures? We've seen it all before, it's just a new person. So chill out, forget about it, and stop interrupting my news from Iraq or Wall Street to tell me about this stuff.
(Her show sucks, so why do people watch it?)
Why?
I think it's mainly because we've gotten used to our over-used celebs in hollywood right now. They've done every scandalous thing in the book, slept with half the people in California, and entered rehab more times than anyone can count. Of course, they always appear on TV with a zoned out expression on their face, as they apologize "deeply" and swear to never do it again because they've seen the error of their ways. They usually show up on TV a few weeks later, apologizing the SAME way, for doing the SAME thing, AGAIN. And they interrupt the global news for this?
Miley, on the other hand, seems to have an "innocence" about her that scandal artists are obsessed with.
"No one can be so innocent and normal," they think, and they're probably right. It probably won't be long before we see Miley on TV apologizing for something stupid she did.
My opinion? WHO CARES?
Why did everyone freak out about her faked "pregnancy?" Why are they freaking over the "Vanity Fair" pictures? We've seen it all before, it's just a new person. So chill out, forget about it, and stop interrupting my news from Iraq or Wall Street to tell me about this stuff.
(Her show sucks, so why do people watch it?)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Apple's Premature Celebration
As Microsoft is slowing sinking under its own weight, all of the closet Mac users are coming out of the woodwork and dancing in the streets. (Figuratively)
The two companies have been rivals since their creation, and ever since IBM gave the contract to Microsoft, Apple has been furious and spiteful at the software juggernaut. As a result of being the "underdog," Macintosh had an air of rebellion about it. As a result, it attracted... duh, the self-styled "rebels" of society.
Me?
I refer to them as "Mac-Hippies."
Why?
Well, first, somehow, Mac manages to convey that sense of rebellion while still being preachy about its sophistication and high standards.
Mac often accuses people of doing what they themselves do, and finally...
Because at least 80% of the people I have met who use Macintosh systems are hippies, hold-hippiesh type world views, or are just snobby.
Anyhoo, when Microsoft began to first began to show signs of sinking, the Mac-hippies began circling like vultures. Now, they are openly celebrating.
Microsoft has been growing for decades, but a company can only get so big before it starts to implode from its sheer size. Add to that their notorious inefficient tech-support, and recent accusations about monopolizing the corporate computer world, Microsoft is struggling.
The Mac-hippies are already building the funeral pyre for the software giant, and picking out which dance their going to do around the flames, but it's a little premature. The Mac-Hippies see it like this: When Microsoft goes down, Apple will pick up the mantle of the biggest software company. They will infest every business and forward their own agenda
However, I think Macintosh is overestimating itself.
First of all, since Apple insists on making its own computers, and not allowing other computer makers to make computers with the Mac system in them, Macintosh will ALWAYS be crazy expensive. The price difference between Macs and PCs is astounding. Microsoft has maintained its lead, just by keeping prices low. Mac has tried to compensate by offering more free programs included in their systems, but not everyone feels like paying several hundred more dollars for "terrific" media playing and editing programs. Macs are just too expensive.
Second, Mac is not nearly as creative as they want people to believe. The Mac-hippies NEVER cease whining about how windows ripped off their desktop design from them. However, all evidence says that was one of the last TRULY innovative things they did with their computers. A friend of mine has been doing a little digging on hackintosh.com and after tracing several leads and interviewing people at work, has discovered that the self-righteous Apple has done quite a bit of ripping off too. Ever heard of opensource.com? Linux? It's a free operating system, and like the site name says, it's opensource. A popular variant is red hat, but their true marvel is "Unix" the only efficient network system out there. People started noticing similarities between Linux and Mac systems, and since Linux has never expressed any interest in trying to usurp any of the big companies, it had no motive to copy Mac. Then the poop hit the fan. It was discovered that Macintosh was literally copying entire strings of code into their new operating systems without even bothering to change ANYTHING. I don't care if it IS opensource, that's just cheap. My friend talked to one guy who typed in UNIX command codes into his iPhone, and it obeyed them.
Speaking of the iPhone, there's another mac scandal for ya. Recording everyone's calls? Arbitrarilly raising and lowering prices drastically, and lets not forget the fact that the aussies are claiming Apple is charging them through the nose over there.
And the final reason is this: codemonkeys. Not the show. There are thousands of nerds out there who create, edit and produce massive amounts of freeware, software, and shareware. They make up the core of the computer using populace, and a large buying block. Mac is decidedly unfriendly towards them. Overly secretive, difficult to use, and difficult to run make the codemonkeys prefer other systems, most notably, Windows and Linux.
Apple has way to many issues to be worrying about taking over for Microsoft, and from all things presented, it doesn't look like they're any better. So all you Mac lovers out there, stop dancing, because Microsoft hasn't died yet, and when it does, you won't automatically become the top dog.
The two companies have been rivals since their creation, and ever since IBM gave the contract to Microsoft, Apple has been furious and spiteful at the software juggernaut. As a result of being the "underdog," Macintosh had an air of rebellion about it. As a result, it attracted... duh, the self-styled "rebels" of society.
Me?
I refer to them as "Mac-Hippies."
Why?
Well, first, somehow, Mac manages to convey that sense of rebellion while still being preachy about its sophistication and high standards.
Mac often accuses people of doing what they themselves do, and finally...
Because at least 80% of the people I have met who use Macintosh systems are hippies, hold-hippiesh type world views, or are just snobby.
Anyhoo, when Microsoft began to first began to show signs of sinking, the Mac-hippies began circling like vultures. Now, they are openly celebrating.
Microsoft has been growing for decades, but a company can only get so big before it starts to implode from its sheer size. Add to that their notorious inefficient tech-support, and recent accusations about monopolizing the corporate computer world, Microsoft is struggling.
The Mac-hippies are already building the funeral pyre for the software giant, and picking out which dance their going to do around the flames, but it's a little premature. The Mac-Hippies see it like this: When Microsoft goes down, Apple will pick up the mantle of the biggest software company. They will infest every business and forward their own agenda
However, I think Macintosh is overestimating itself.
First of all, since Apple insists on making its own computers, and not allowing other computer makers to make computers with the Mac system in them, Macintosh will ALWAYS be crazy expensive. The price difference between Macs and PCs is astounding. Microsoft has maintained its lead, just by keeping prices low. Mac has tried to compensate by offering more free programs included in their systems, but not everyone feels like paying several hundred more dollars for "terrific" media playing and editing programs. Macs are just too expensive.
Second, Mac is not nearly as creative as they want people to believe. The Mac-hippies NEVER cease whining about how windows ripped off their desktop design from them. However, all evidence says that was one of the last TRULY innovative things they did with their computers. A friend of mine has been doing a little digging on hackintosh.com and after tracing several leads and interviewing people at work, has discovered that the self-righteous Apple has done quite a bit of ripping off too. Ever heard of opensource.com? Linux? It's a free operating system, and like the site name says, it's opensource. A popular variant is red hat, but their true marvel is "Unix" the only efficient network system out there. People started noticing similarities between Linux and Mac systems, and since Linux has never expressed any interest in trying to usurp any of the big companies, it had no motive to copy Mac. Then the poop hit the fan. It was discovered that Macintosh was literally copying entire strings of code into their new operating systems without even bothering to change ANYTHING. I don't care if it IS opensource, that's just cheap. My friend talked to one guy who typed in UNIX command codes into his iPhone, and it obeyed them.
Speaking of the iPhone, there's another mac scandal for ya. Recording everyone's calls? Arbitrarilly raising and lowering prices drastically, and lets not forget the fact that the aussies are claiming Apple is charging them through the nose over there.
And the final reason is this: codemonkeys. Not the show. There are thousands of nerds out there who create, edit and produce massive amounts of freeware, software, and shareware. They make up the core of the computer using populace, and a large buying block. Mac is decidedly unfriendly towards them. Overly secretive, difficult to use, and difficult to run make the codemonkeys prefer other systems, most notably, Windows and Linux.
Apple has way to many issues to be worrying about taking over for Microsoft, and from all things presented, it doesn't look like they're any better. So all you Mac lovers out there, stop dancing, because Microsoft hasn't died yet, and when it does, you won't automatically become the top dog.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
More Democrat Whining.
Alright, dems, your incessant belly-aching about Rush Limbaugh screwing your chances of winning is REALLY getting old. I mean, come on, you guys have been doing since, what, when he first aired?
What happened? Well, Here is an article describing the details, but long story short, Obama's aides are accusing Rush of keeping Obama's numbers higher than they could have been. So what? He still won.
Point is, our options are crappy. That's the only word that comes to mind. Rush isn't the only one on Obama's case. Glenn Beck has had some probing things to say as well. Just face it, Barack, you have too much baggage. So far, most people view you as being very anti-american, not matter how many "wrap yourself in the flag" speeches you give. Come one man. EVERYTHING about your past SCREAMS "Anti-American."
No matter how much you try and distance yourself from your pastor, your family, and your history, it's still there, and it is still dragging you down.
But, you can relax, ol' Barack. It's not like the Democrats have anywhere else to go. Seriously, you dems are screwed when it comes to choices this year.
So, who are you gonna vote for? The May-be Muslim who wants to "change" America, or the devil in a pantsuit?
What happened? Well, Here is an article describing the details, but long story short, Obama's aides are accusing Rush of keeping Obama's numbers higher than they could have been. So what? He still won.
Point is, our options are crappy. That's the only word that comes to mind. Rush isn't the only one on Obama's case. Glenn Beck has had some probing things to say as well. Just face it, Barack, you have too much baggage. So far, most people view you as being very anti-american, not matter how many "wrap yourself in the flag" speeches you give. Come one man. EVERYTHING about your past SCREAMS "Anti-American."
No matter how much you try and distance yourself from your pastor, your family, and your history, it's still there, and it is still dragging you down.
But, you can relax, ol' Barack. It's not like the Democrats have anywhere else to go. Seriously, you dems are screwed when it comes to choices this year.
So, who are you gonna vote for? The May-be Muslim who wants to "change" America, or the devil in a pantsuit?
Will the Pope Text You?
Well guys, the Pope is going digital. Pretty funky, huh?
Now, I'm not catholic, but I have to admit that it would be pretty sweet to get a text message from the Pope. All you Catholic young peoples out there, read this article and stand by with cell phones handy.
The Pope Goes Digital
Now, I'm not catholic, but I have to admit that it would be pretty sweet to get a text message from the Pope. All you Catholic young peoples out there, read this article and stand by with cell phones handy.
The Pope Goes Digital
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Iron Man: The Movie Review
WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!
On the surface, this movie gets top scoring for getting Tony Stark's personality and lifestyle correct.
More points for taking the back story from an accident with shrapnel in vietnam, to an accident with shrapnel in the middle east. It was a smooth transition, it worked well, and it made more sense. They were able to transition everything over to the terrorist setting quite well. (Right down to the power hungry warlord.)
Special Effect= FREAKING AWESOME! Well done flying, fighting, and jumping. The suits were spectacular.
This movie was amazing partly due to the fact that they were able to take quite a bit of creative license, as was done with spider man, and STILL adhere to all the tiny little things that only diehard, freakfans would notice. (like me.)
ie: Rhodes, Stark's military consultant and erstwhile bodyguard, checks out an unpainted (grey) Iron Man suit. Can anyone say "War Machine?"
ie: Pepper Pot's freckles.
ie: His revealing of his identity. This only happened in the comic books like three years ago, so don't feel bad.
Now, to dig into it.
Even as you watch the movie, you can FEEL the pull the directors are having. They are trying to remain true to the comics, but their pacifist, anti-corporate, anti-army beliefs have been LASER-etched into their brains, so they can barely fight it. As a result, all throughout the movie, Tony struggles with making weapons (after seeing what they do) and he his having trouble coming to terms with his company. At first, it appears to dampen the affect of the film.
However, the directors managed to find an outlet for their anti-corporate rage in Obadiah, the vice-chair of Stark Enterprises. He is everything hollywood thinks a business man should be. He is a two-timing, double-dealing, back-stabbing, greedy, power-hungry, twisted old man. They were even trying to show the evil through subtle animation hints. ie: When the air chase begins, Tony's suit emits almost nothing, while Obadiah's gives off a huge, thick cloud of black smoke.
Now, before you assume that the evil Hollywood has made Tony a pacifist, you have to pay close attention. He stops making weapons, until he can find out who is selling him out. He doesn't want weapons to fall into the wrong hands and make matters worse. He realizes that his life prior to the accident was pointless, and his dying cellmate gives a reason to live again: To protect those who cannot protect themselves. In fact, he kills several terrorists in the process of freeing hostages. (If getting slammed into a brick wall wont kill ya, getting shot by retracting, shoulder-mounted miniture guns will.)
All in all, a spectacular movie. I liked it, but then again, i AM slightly biased.
GO IRONMAN!!!
On the surface, this movie gets top scoring for getting Tony Stark's personality and lifestyle correct.
More points for taking the back story from an accident with shrapnel in vietnam, to an accident with shrapnel in the middle east. It was a smooth transition, it worked well, and it made more sense. They were able to transition everything over to the terrorist setting quite well. (Right down to the power hungry warlord.)
Special Effect= FREAKING AWESOME! Well done flying, fighting, and jumping. The suits were spectacular.
This movie was amazing partly due to the fact that they were able to take quite a bit of creative license, as was done with spider man, and STILL adhere to all the tiny little things that only diehard, freakfans would notice. (like me.)
ie: Rhodes, Stark's military consultant and erstwhile bodyguard, checks out an unpainted (grey) Iron Man suit. Can anyone say "War Machine?"
ie: Pepper Pot's freckles.
ie: His revealing of his identity. This only happened in the comic books like three years ago, so don't feel bad.
Now, to dig into it.
Even as you watch the movie, you can FEEL the pull the directors are having. They are trying to remain true to the comics, but their pacifist, anti-corporate, anti-army beliefs have been LASER-etched into their brains, so they can barely fight it. As a result, all throughout the movie, Tony struggles with making weapons (after seeing what they do) and he his having trouble coming to terms with his company. At first, it appears to dampen the affect of the film.
However, the directors managed to find an outlet for their anti-corporate rage in Obadiah, the vice-chair of Stark Enterprises. He is everything hollywood thinks a business man should be. He is a two-timing, double-dealing, back-stabbing, greedy, power-hungry, twisted old man. They were even trying to show the evil through subtle animation hints. ie: When the air chase begins, Tony's suit emits almost nothing, while Obadiah's gives off a huge, thick cloud of black smoke.
Now, before you assume that the evil Hollywood has made Tony a pacifist, you have to pay close attention. He stops making weapons, until he can find out who is selling him out. He doesn't want weapons to fall into the wrong hands and make matters worse. He realizes that his life prior to the accident was pointless, and his dying cellmate gives a reason to live again: To protect those who cannot protect themselves. In fact, he kills several terrorists in the process of freeing hostages. (If getting slammed into a brick wall wont kill ya, getting shot by retracting, shoulder-mounted miniture guns will.)
All in all, a spectacular movie. I liked it, but then again, i AM slightly biased.
GO IRONMAN!!!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
A interesting explanation of cats.
I saw this, and thought is twas funny. Watch and laugh.
Interesting, no?
Interesting, no?
Rumble in Lebenon?
Lebanon County, my stomping grounds (Stomps ground) is in an uproar. Apparently some power has shifted from the liberal establishment over to a veritable host of new people.
This is mostly being done through the county commitee, although Tom A. Hawk (his real name) was elected to state commitee.
After the amazing landslide win by Mike Folmer for the position of state senate two years ago, a chink was found in the establishment's armor.
Rumors are flying everywhere that the resident king-maker, ground-shaker, but certainly not quaker, Michael Long is behind the "Old Guard," as Tom A. Hawk refers to them as. However, suspicions abound that because of their disintigrating base, Long is even losing some hardline former backers.
Is he losing control? Don't know for sure, but it certainly looks that way to me. If so, then it is a time to rejoice.
*puts on party hat*
This is mostly being done through the county commitee, although Tom A. Hawk (his real name) was elected to state commitee.
After the amazing landslide win by Mike Folmer for the position of state senate two years ago, a chink was found in the establishment's armor.
Rumors are flying everywhere that the resident king-maker, ground-shaker, but certainly not quaker, Michael Long is behind the "Old Guard," as Tom A. Hawk refers to them as. However, suspicions abound that because of their disintigrating base, Long is even losing some hardline former backers.
Is he losing control? Don't know for sure, but it certainly looks that way to me. If so, then it is a time to rejoice.
*puts on party hat*
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Superdelegate Fiasco
Oy. Hillary uses her kid to get a super from Puerto Rico, Obama sends a relative of one superdelegate to convince her to support ol' Barack, and the nation itself just gets more confused.
THIS is what happens when you have two, self-styled, minority candidates running AGAINST each other. It's sickening enough with one, who pulls every tear jerker out of the book against their non-minority opponent.
Now, it seems we have two candidates trying to see who can out.... "minoritize" the other one. It is sickening. Whatever happened to a country where everyone had equal rights, no matter who you were? Who decided that minorities deserve special treatment? If someone was abused or restricted in the past, the most we can do is apologize deeply, (happened) help them get back on their feet, (happened) and give them equal footing with everyone else. (also happened) It is not right to have one group obtain equality, just to turn around and start subjugating the other group with a "Now it's YOUR turn," attitude.
This race seems to be totally bypassing the majority of the public.
Obama and Hillary are running around, as fast as they can, pandering to all kinds of special interests groups. Contrary to popular opinion, big companies do not make up the majority of special interests groups, and these two are making sure they kiss up to every one of them.
Hillary changes her message every time the audience is different, and Obama never stops whining about racial issues, whether or not the issues were brought up by himself or not. (take the Pastor Wright fiasco for example)
It appears that all the high-minded, enlightened ideals, promises, and "righteous" goals that these two started their campaigns promising, have totally faded away. They have been replaced by petty bickering and fighting, each one trying to outdo the other with the minorities, and their arguments have become childish.
So, with crazy ol' McCain as the likely winner for the Republicans, it looks like we're screwed in Novemeber. *sigh*
Remember when we had those things called "options?" I miss those days
THIS is what happens when you have two, self-styled, minority candidates running AGAINST each other. It's sickening enough with one, who pulls every tear jerker out of the book against their non-minority opponent.
Now, it seems we have two candidates trying to see who can out.... "minoritize" the other one. It is sickening. Whatever happened to a country where everyone had equal rights, no matter who you were? Who decided that minorities deserve special treatment? If someone was abused or restricted in the past, the most we can do is apologize deeply, (happened) help them get back on their feet, (happened) and give them equal footing with everyone else. (also happened) It is not right to have one group obtain equality, just to turn around and start subjugating the other group with a "Now it's YOUR turn," attitude.
This race seems to be totally bypassing the majority of the public.
Obama and Hillary are running around, as fast as they can, pandering to all kinds of special interests groups. Contrary to popular opinion, big companies do not make up the majority of special interests groups, and these two are making sure they kiss up to every one of them.
Hillary changes her message every time the audience is different, and Obama never stops whining about racial issues, whether or not the issues were brought up by himself or not. (take the Pastor Wright fiasco for example)
It appears that all the high-minded, enlightened ideals, promises, and "righteous" goals that these two started their campaigns promising, have totally faded away. They have been replaced by petty bickering and fighting, each one trying to outdo the other with the minorities, and their arguments have become childish.
So, with crazy ol' McCain as the likely winner for the Republicans, it looks like we're screwed in Novemeber. *sigh*
Remember when we had those things called "options?" I miss those days
The Questions Al Gore Can't answer
These were originally posted by Roadhouse, who managed to find/compose a complete list. I have seen several of them seperately, but together, they can be a might force indeed.
Questions to ask your favorite environmentalists:
1. What caused the first and second ice ages to start?
2. What caused the ice ages to end?
3. Was man driving SUV's during those periods?
4. Why does the average temperature of other planets change at the same rate as Earth's?
5. Are there SUV's on Mars?
6. If Co2 is a pollutant, why does plant life require it to live?
7. Why does plant life thrive along the busiest highways where emissions are the most dense?
8. Why are animals incapable of walking around drilling rigs?
9. How can we predict the climate twenty years from now, but not next week?
10. Why are the following not factored into climate calculations? The sun, solar flares, sun spots, the Jet Stream, the Gulf Stream, the Earth's molten core, volcanoes, desert sand storms, and common sense.
11. How could we possibly know the global temperature, or rainfall averages prior to modern technology, when we can't accurately measure them today?
12. Who decided what the Earth's temperature is supposed to be?
13. How did they arrive at that particular number?
Use these the next time a nutjob tries to tell you how big your car can be and how much gas it can use.
Questions to ask your favorite environmentalists:
1. What caused the first and second ice ages to start?
2. What caused the ice ages to end?
3. Was man driving SUV's during those periods?
4. Why does the average temperature of other planets change at the same rate as Earth's?
5. Are there SUV's on Mars?
6. If Co2 is a pollutant, why does plant life require it to live?
7. Why does plant life thrive along the busiest highways where emissions are the most dense?
8. Why are animals incapable of walking around drilling rigs?
9. How can we predict the climate twenty years from now, but not next week?
10. Why are the following not factored into climate calculations? The sun, solar flares, sun spots, the Jet Stream, the Gulf Stream, the Earth's molten core, volcanoes, desert sand storms, and common sense.
11. How could we possibly know the global temperature, or rainfall averages prior to modern technology, when we can't accurately measure them today?
12. Who decided what the Earth's temperature is supposed to be?
13. How did they arrive at that particular number?
Use these the next time a nutjob tries to tell you how big your car can be and how much gas it can use.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Shoutouts
#1: This is to Roadhouse.
Hey man, it is nice to see that at least SOMEONE has seen my blog, and enjoys it.
#2: This is to Andy Singer.
Andy! I know you're having trouble with troubleshooting, but come on man, Hazard Shield needs its download friends back.
#3: This is to Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.
Go jump in a hole.
and stay there.
Hey man, it is nice to see that at least SOMEONE has seen my blog, and enjoys it.
#2: This is to Andy Singer.
Andy! I know you're having trouble with troubleshooting, but come on man, Hazard Shield needs its download friends back.
#3: This is to Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.
Go jump in a hole.
and stay there.
Obama ditches pastor
For the full story, read it here: Obama Story!
In short, Obama is saying he doesn't "share the views" of the man who "Officiated his wedding, baptized his two daughters, and has been his pastor for 20 years"
Excuse me? So is that his game? When a CRUCIAL piece of his life becomes inconvenient for him, he just distances himself from him and acts like he doesn't even know them? Is he planning on treating our nation that way? I AM not an Obama supporter, I am not a Clinton supporter, and i think McCain is nuts, but this raises some SERIOUS questions about Obama.
He's already shot his mouth off with at least one doozy, and it wound up losing him Pennsylvania, where I live. If people THINK about the ramifications of this, it is quite disturbing. If something, or someone, as the case is, does something to embarrass Obama, or harm his publicity, all of the sudden, he acts like he doesn't know them? So what, if Congress passes some law that other countries don't like or approve of, what is Obama going to do?
"I am afraid I do not share the same views as this body of men. I am trying to mend gaps, and they are tearing them down. I have known them for a long time, but the decisions they made were clearly not themselves."
You can't do that. If Obama treats our country the way he is treating his church, well, dang, we're screwed.
He claims that he knew his pastor for 20 years, and the man he "saw yesterday was not the same person [he] met 20 years ago." One problem. The footage was SEVERAL YEARS OLD! This is not new! Rev. Wright has been bashing "crackers" for YEARS now. He's even accused AIDS of being an engineered disease to "destroy people of color."
Excuse me? I am I the only one who is A) noticing inconsistencies in Obama's claims, and B) thinking the honorable Reverend is a little loony? AIDS kills ANYONE who gets it, black, white, red yellow, beige, purple, heliotrope, etc. AIDS is rather unbiased.
However, I AM willing to give Obama credit where credit is due. Unlike most liberals, he didn't sit there trying to justify himself and his pastor's actions, and he did accuse his pastor fairly accurately. To be honest, for Obama, it is a lose/lose situation. No matter what he would have done, he would have wound up with egg on his face. On the other hand, when considering a political career, you MUST remember that anything you have ever done, CAN and WILL be used against you.
Obama did not look ahead, and is now forced to try and dig himself out of a VERY deep and VERY muddy pit that he walked STRAIGHT into. Obama, old boy, you had best get started.
Hillary? Sheesh. Don't get me started. We could be here for days. That is for ANOTHER blog, ANOTHER time.
In short, Obama is saying he doesn't "share the views" of the man who "Officiated his wedding, baptized his two daughters, and has been his pastor for 20 years"
Excuse me? So is that his game? When a CRUCIAL piece of his life becomes inconvenient for him, he just distances himself from him and acts like he doesn't even know them? Is he planning on treating our nation that way? I AM not an Obama supporter, I am not a Clinton supporter, and i think McCain is nuts, but this raises some SERIOUS questions about Obama.
He's already shot his mouth off with at least one doozy, and it wound up losing him Pennsylvania, where I live. If people THINK about the ramifications of this, it is quite disturbing. If something, or someone, as the case is, does something to embarrass Obama, or harm his publicity, all of the sudden, he acts like he doesn't know them? So what, if Congress passes some law that other countries don't like or approve of, what is Obama going to do?
"I am afraid I do not share the same views as this body of men. I am trying to mend gaps, and they are tearing them down. I have known them for a long time, but the decisions they made were clearly not themselves."
You can't do that. If Obama treats our country the way he is treating his church, well, dang, we're screwed.
He claims that he knew his pastor for 20 years, and the man he "saw yesterday was not the same person [he] met 20 years ago." One problem. The footage was SEVERAL YEARS OLD! This is not new! Rev. Wright has been bashing "crackers" for YEARS now. He's even accused AIDS of being an engineered disease to "destroy people of color."
Excuse me? I am I the only one who is A) noticing inconsistencies in Obama's claims, and B) thinking the honorable Reverend is a little loony? AIDS kills ANYONE who gets it, black, white, red yellow, beige, purple, heliotrope, etc. AIDS is rather unbiased.
However, I AM willing to give Obama credit where credit is due. Unlike most liberals, he didn't sit there trying to justify himself and his pastor's actions, and he did accuse his pastor fairly accurately. To be honest, for Obama, it is a lose/lose situation. No matter what he would have done, he would have wound up with egg on his face. On the other hand, when considering a political career, you MUST remember that anything you have ever done, CAN and WILL be used against you.
Obama did not look ahead, and is now forced to try and dig himself out of a VERY deep and VERY muddy pit that he walked STRAIGHT into. Obama, old boy, you had best get started.
Hillary? Sheesh. Don't get me started. We could be here for days. That is for ANOTHER blog, ANOTHER time.
Holy Cow!
Dude, a random Google search brough to this: The biggest gun on God's green Earth! The following is a clipping from: http://www.5ad.org/gun.htm
World's Largest Gun The largest gun ever built was the "Gustav Gun" built in Essen, Germany in 1941 by the firm of Friedrich Krupp A.G. Upholding a tradition of naming heavy cannon after family members, the Gustav Gun was named after the invalid head of the Krupp family - Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach. The strategic weapon of its day, the Gustav Gun was built at the direct order of Adolf Hitler for the express purpose of crushing Maginot Line forts protecting the French frontier. To accomplish this, Krupp designed a giant railway gun weighing 1344 tons with a bore diameter of 800 mm (31.5") and served by a 500 man crew commanded by a major-general.Two types of projectiles were fired using a 3000lb. charge of smokeless powder: a 10,584 lb. high explosive (HE) shell and a 16,540 lb. concrete-piercing projectile. Craters from the HE shells measured 30-ft. wide and 30-ft. deep while the concrete piercing projectile proved capable of penetrating 264-ft. of reinforced concrete before exploding! Maximum range was 23 miles with HE shells and 29 miles with concrete piercing projectiles. Muzzle velocity was approximately 2700 f.p.s.Three guns were ordered in 1939. Alfried Krupp personally hosted Hitler and Albert Speer (Minister of Armaments) at the Hugenwald Proving Ground during formal acceptance trials of the Gustav Gun in the spring of 1941. In keeping with company tradition, Krupp refrained from charging for the first gun - 7 million Deutsch Marks were charged for the second (named Dora after the chief engineer's wife).France fell in 1940 without the assistance of the Gustav Gun, so new targets were sought. Plans to use Gustav against the British fortress of Gibraltar were scrapped after General Franco refused permission to fire the gun from Spanish soil. Thus, April 1942 found the Gustav Gun emplaced outside the heavily fortified port city of Sebastopol in the Soviet Union. Under fire from Gustav and other heavy artillery, Forts Stalin, Lenin and Maxim Gorki crumbled and fell. One round from Gustav destroyed a Russion ammunition dump 100 feet below Severnaya Bay; a near miss capsized a large ship in the harbor. Gustav fired 300 rounds during the siege wearing out the original barrel in the process. Dora was set up west of Stalingrad in mid-August but hurriedly withdrawn in September to avoid capture. Gustav next appeared outside Warsaw, Poland, where it fired 30 rounds into Warsaw Ghetto during the 1944 uprising.Dora was blown up by German engineers in April 1945 near Oberlichtnau, Germany, to avoid capture by the Russian Army. The incomplete third gun was scrapped at the factory by the British Army when they captured Essen. Gustav was captured intact by the U.S. Army near Metzendorf, Germany, in June 1945. Shortly after, it was cut up for scrap thus ending the story of the Gustav Gun.Credits: Printed in the American Rifleman, February 1998. Page 26.
Let me tell ya people, this is where the term "BFG" came from. Doom players will get this fastest. BIG FREAKIN' GUN!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Funky Time
I swear, I have GOT to find the thing that sets the time on this site. I never post anywhere NEAR the times it lists at the bottom. Something is screwy is going on hear.
*suspicious glances this way and that*
*suspicious glances this way and that*
Just Walk It Off
Some conservatives get REALLY ticked when liberals label us with nicknames and insult us, and seem to do it with apparent impunity. Other conservatives diligently document each case, and save it for ammo to use at a later date. (These are the smart ones) The last kind are little more like me. Someone goes around calling us a hard-hearted nutjob who can't spell our own name, and my first reaction is : "Hey! At least I now how to enjoy life!"
It's true. Liberal wieners have to be the most miserable people on planet earth. They don't believe in a God or an afterlife, so it's not like they have anything to look forward to, they spend all their time and effort trying to get reelected that they have little time in their lives for much else, most spend their free time driving around in big cars and jets, campaigning to save a planet THAT DOESN'T NEED SAVING, and they are totally consumed with hate for their conservative adversaries to the point of obsession.
Now it would be a lie to say that many conservatives don't hold similarly negative feelings about them, but with certain exceptions, we tend to be MUCH nicer about it. Seriously? Who started the whole "The Democrat Liberals are Kind and Loving" rumor? Come on man, that left with the 30s. Compare the behavior of liberals to conservatives in almost any situation and you will find that the conservative is almost ALWAYS more civil.
But you say: "Hey now! I've heard TONS of reports of you right-wing nut-jobs insulting people on TV! It's all over the news!"
Well, true. As with ANYTHING, it is not all perfect. But once again, the democrat/liberal track record is MUCH worse. The difference? The media is their friend, so they could make threats and remarks and slurs about anything that pops into their heads and the news doesn't cover it. If they do, it's glossed over. You will get some relatively non-partisan news outlets like Fox. It is often accused of being conservative, mainly because it gives equal time to both sides, and doesn't ignore liberal stupidity like many of the bigger networks do.
An interesting book to read is "Unhinged! Exposing Liberals gone WILD!" by Michelle Malkin.
She goes through and carefully examines, exposes, and cites a massive number of incidents in which liberals have screwed up, broken down, flipped out, and become, as the title insinuates, unhinged.
As for being called names, sometimes I find it easier to embrace it. Conservatives are viewed as war-mongering, over christianized, homophobic zealots. You know what? Sometimes we are. You know what else? It is us war-mongering conservatives who abolished slavery, toppled fascism, held off communism for 40 years.
On the other hand, we have trouble accepting caricatures of ourselves. Hey, I for one think they're funny. Some of the best I have seen is the stuff JibJab does. Go to YouTube and seach "This Land." Some questionable language, but in my opinion, it is a funny representation of how we view each other.
On short, conservatives need to learn to laugh at themselves. I'm not going to liberals need to, because they take themselves way too seriously to have a good time. Ah, I feel sorry for them actually. I really do.
It's true. Liberal wieners have to be the most miserable people on planet earth. They don't believe in a God or an afterlife, so it's not like they have anything to look forward to, they spend all their time and effort trying to get reelected that they have little time in their lives for much else, most spend their free time driving around in big cars and jets, campaigning to save a planet THAT DOESN'T NEED SAVING, and they are totally consumed with hate for their conservative adversaries to the point of obsession.
Now it would be a lie to say that many conservatives don't hold similarly negative feelings about them, but with certain exceptions, we tend to be MUCH nicer about it. Seriously? Who started the whole "The Democrat Liberals are Kind and Loving" rumor? Come on man, that left with the 30s. Compare the behavior of liberals to conservatives in almost any situation and you will find that the conservative is almost ALWAYS more civil.
But you say: "Hey now! I've heard TONS of reports of you right-wing nut-jobs insulting people on TV! It's all over the news!"
Well, true. As with ANYTHING, it is not all perfect. But once again, the democrat/liberal track record is MUCH worse. The difference? The media is their friend, so they could make threats and remarks and slurs about anything that pops into their heads and the news doesn't cover it. If they do, it's glossed over. You will get some relatively non-partisan news outlets like Fox. It is often accused of being conservative, mainly because it gives equal time to both sides, and doesn't ignore liberal stupidity like many of the bigger networks do.
An interesting book to read is "Unhinged! Exposing Liberals gone WILD!" by Michelle Malkin.
She goes through and carefully examines, exposes, and cites a massive number of incidents in which liberals have screwed up, broken down, flipped out, and become, as the title insinuates, unhinged.
As for being called names, sometimes I find it easier to embrace it. Conservatives are viewed as war-mongering, over christianized, homophobic zealots. You know what? Sometimes we are. You know what else? It is us war-mongering conservatives who abolished slavery, toppled fascism, held off communism for 40 years.
On the other hand, we have trouble accepting caricatures of ourselves. Hey, I for one think they're funny. Some of the best I have seen is the stuff JibJab does. Go to YouTube and seach "This Land." Some questionable language, but in my opinion, it is a funny representation of how we view each other.
On short, conservatives need to learn to laugh at themselves. I'm not going to liberals need to, because they take themselves way too seriously to have a good time. Ah, I feel sorry for them actually. I really do.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
My quote.... for the time being
Listen up, all ye who crave and clamor to guru-type wisdom. This shall be my saying... for now.
"When life throws you lemons, you make lemonade, BUT! If life starts chucking rocks at you, it's wiser just to duck and cover until life moves on to the next guy."
There. That is my quote... for the time being. At least until I can come up with another one.
*takes off guru hat*
"When life throws you lemons, you make lemonade, BUT! If life starts chucking rocks at you, it's wiser just to duck and cover until life moves on to the next guy."
There. That is my quote... for the time being. At least until I can come up with another one.
*takes off guru hat*
Gun Rights Forever!
In case you didn't know, Liberals, both Republican and Democrat are trying to take away our guns. They believe that they are the only ones smart enough and mature enough to decide who uses them.
Now, whether you like it or not, the American people love their weapons very much. Barack Obama's comments accusing Pennsylvania of being backwards for clinging to God and Guns, may have very well lost the race for him here.
Liberals, seeing the negative reaction, decided it would be better to do it slowly, quietly, and softly.
First, they give phony reasons why guns are dangerous:
1: GUNS KILL! (no duh. Thank you captain obvious.)
2: GUNS KILL KIDS! *Deep gasp!*
3: CRIMINALS USE GUNS!!!! (Captain Obvious, please go away.)
4: Homicidal PSYCHOS can get guns! O.o
5: LEADS POISONS EVERYTHING! YOUR CHILDREN COULD GET LEAD POISONING!
6: GUNS CAUSE SCHOOL SHOOTING! THEY KILL KIDS!
(notice how they always bring up children? They are trying to pull at your heartstrings.)
Then, they question why we even NEED them.
1: Guns don't protect you from big brother, your vote does!
2:What? Hunt? Haven't you rednecks ever heard of grocery stores?
3:Hey! Why do you need a gun to protect yourself? Don't you trust the police?
4:Hey, maybe YOU'RE a criminal. Why else would you need those guns?
5: You are so behind the times. In our modern age of enlightenment, who needs guns?
Then, to show that they "care about our wellbeing," they begin to restrict guns. A little regulation here, a large tax over there, some extra paper work, anything that would discourage people from arming themselves.
A massive disinformation campaign was started, shouting the evil of firearms from every TV and newspaper.
But, curses! The foolish public STILL will not surrender their weapons. Wait! An revelation! Guns can't shoot if there are no bullets, can they? Stupid conservatives and rednecks will NEVER see this one coming. Enter the new string of laws they are trying to pass, practically banning every kind of ammo, all in the interests of the public safety, right?
Wrong.
We need to keep our guns. We need to keep our ammo. We need to have CONTROL over our lives again!
Now I am going to refute all the lies listed above.
1: GUNS KILL! Well, of course they do, DUH! That is what they are designed to do. However, they can be used to protect and defend, and are vital components in doing so.
2: GUNS KILL KIDS! This is part of the liberal disinformation campaign. Child-related gun accidents stem from parent irresponsibility. Parents, blindly complying with liberal pleas to shield their child from gun knowledge, hide it away, and don't talk about it. Kids, being curious, decide to go find it. If the parents have not locked it up, there is another problem. One thing leads to another, and the child gets hurt. BUT! If you teach your kid about guns at an early age, and monitor him carefully when he first handles one, you can teach them a healthy respect for its power and also how to use it safely. In order to build an immunity to something, you have to be exposed to it.
3:CRIMINALS USE GUNS! Ok. Thank for that news flash, liberal weenies. Got another flash for ya. Most of the time, criminals and gang members are already using illegal weaponry. The Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett said that the problems stem from ILLEGAL weaponry, not legal. Taxing and regulating the law-abiding citizen will not do ANYTHING to the criminal guns.
4: Homicidal PSYCHOS can get guns! Of course. We all can. However, do you want said psycho to have free reign over terrified, unarmed victims? The best way to discourage serial killers and murderous maniacs is to pop a cap in em. The rest of the buggers would think twice after seeing others of their homicidal profession getting blasted. So... more guns mean it would be safer?
5: LEAD POISONS EVERYTHING! THINK OF YOUR CHILDREN! It all goes back to what I said about training. ALWAYS WASH YOUR HANDS after you do anything with weapons. As for lead poisoning, got news. Lead is everywhere, from chinese-made child products to paint in old houses. Bullets should be the least of our worries.
6: GUNS CAUSE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS! No duh. It is difficult to go on a "shooting" with a baseball bat. However, these emo kids who are shooting up our schools all want attention. They have figured out that if they send a emo, suicidal, homicidal video to the news, then go to their school and kill some people and themselves, they'll get famous. First, we should NEVER show their videos on the news. It only encourages them. Second, you know why they go to schools? Because guns are banned from schools. Why? Because some maniac might try to shoot people. Well, that law worked out just fine. You never see depressed, homicidal fruitcakes trying to shoot up a police station, do you? Why? Because it messes up the psycho's plan to get killed or captured before he planned it. Hmm, maybe we should use these lessons in school.
Next, the questioning.
1:Guns don't protect you from big brother, your vote does! Well, once we have been disarmed, there is nothing to stop them from getting rid of the vote, is there? Then Big Brother moves in.
2:Hunting? Ever heard of grocery stores? Look, once we lose the ability to survive on our, Murphy's law dictate that that moment will be when we need it. Hunting allows us to fuel our independence, and plus, the meat doesn't taste too bad either.
3:Don't you trust the police? The police, despite good intentions, can't always get there in time. Besides, criminals are more hesitant to attack armed victims.
4: Hey! Maybe YOU'RE a criminal. Yeah. sure. I keep forgetting it's a sin to want to defend myself and loved ones.
5:Our modern age of enlightenment means no one needs guns. Enlightened eh? Hmm. Well, I guess those psychos the liberals are always using as excuses of danger must have just missed enlightenment school. I'm sorry, but this "new age" is bull crap. The same problems still exist, and taking away guns just make it worse.
One popular liberal tactic is to make you feel backwards, isolated, and mean. Anyone who wants to keep their gun is billed a "Redneck." Anyone who still believes in God is "Old Fashioned." Anyone who doesn't agree with them is obviously an enemy of the people, the world, the greater good, and even the environment.
Then, they decided "Well, if we can't get their guns away from them, we can take the bullets."
We almost didn't see it coming, but organizations including the NRA alerted the gun-bearing public about proposed bills restricting many kinds of ammo. Further investigation revealed it wouldn't stop there.
California is already attempting to outlaw lead bullets, and liberal plans include banning almost every kind of ammo on the market, leaving us with useless target rounds. Luckily, the outcry has been great, and hopefully none of the liberal anti-bullet agenda will come to pass, but still, my advise to you:
You might want to start hiding guns and hoarding bullets.
Now, whether you like it or not, the American people love their weapons very much. Barack Obama's comments accusing Pennsylvania of being backwards for clinging to God and Guns, may have very well lost the race for him here.
Liberals, seeing the negative reaction, decided it would be better to do it slowly, quietly, and softly.
First, they give phony reasons why guns are dangerous:
1: GUNS KILL! (no duh. Thank you captain obvious.)
2: GUNS KILL KIDS! *Deep gasp!*
3: CRIMINALS USE GUNS!!!! (Captain Obvious, please go away.)
4: Homicidal PSYCHOS can get guns! O.o
5: LEADS POISONS EVERYTHING! YOUR CHILDREN COULD GET LEAD POISONING!
6: GUNS CAUSE SCHOOL SHOOTING! THEY KILL KIDS!
(notice how they always bring up children? They are trying to pull at your heartstrings.)
Then, they question why we even NEED them.
1: Guns don't protect you from big brother, your vote does!
2:What? Hunt? Haven't you rednecks ever heard of grocery stores?
3:Hey! Why do you need a gun to protect yourself? Don't you trust the police?
4:Hey, maybe YOU'RE a criminal. Why else would you need those guns?
5: You are so behind the times. In our modern age of enlightenment, who needs guns?
Then, to show that they "care about our wellbeing," they begin to restrict guns. A little regulation here, a large tax over there, some extra paper work, anything that would discourage people from arming themselves.
A massive disinformation campaign was started, shouting the evil of firearms from every TV and newspaper.
But, curses! The foolish public STILL will not surrender their weapons. Wait! An revelation! Guns can't shoot if there are no bullets, can they? Stupid conservatives and rednecks will NEVER see this one coming. Enter the new string of laws they are trying to pass, practically banning every kind of ammo, all in the interests of the public safety, right?
Wrong.
We need to keep our guns. We need to keep our ammo. We need to have CONTROL over our lives again!
Now I am going to refute all the lies listed above.
1: GUNS KILL! Well, of course they do, DUH! That is what they are designed to do. However, they can be used to protect and defend, and are vital components in doing so.
2: GUNS KILL KIDS! This is part of the liberal disinformation campaign. Child-related gun accidents stem from parent irresponsibility. Parents, blindly complying with liberal pleas to shield their child from gun knowledge, hide it away, and don't talk about it. Kids, being curious, decide to go find it. If the parents have not locked it up, there is another problem. One thing leads to another, and the child gets hurt. BUT! If you teach your kid about guns at an early age, and monitor him carefully when he first handles one, you can teach them a healthy respect for its power and also how to use it safely. In order to build an immunity to something, you have to be exposed to it.
3:CRIMINALS USE GUNS! Ok. Thank for that news flash, liberal weenies. Got another flash for ya. Most of the time, criminals and gang members are already using illegal weaponry. The Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett said that the problems stem from ILLEGAL weaponry, not legal. Taxing and regulating the law-abiding citizen will not do ANYTHING to the criminal guns.
4: Homicidal PSYCHOS can get guns! Of course. We all can. However, do you want said psycho to have free reign over terrified, unarmed victims? The best way to discourage serial killers and murderous maniacs is to pop a cap in em. The rest of the buggers would think twice after seeing others of their homicidal profession getting blasted. So... more guns mean it would be safer?
5: LEAD POISONS EVERYTHING! THINK OF YOUR CHILDREN! It all goes back to what I said about training. ALWAYS WASH YOUR HANDS after you do anything with weapons. As for lead poisoning, got news. Lead is everywhere, from chinese-made child products to paint in old houses. Bullets should be the least of our worries.
6: GUNS CAUSE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS! No duh. It is difficult to go on a "shooting" with a baseball bat. However, these emo kids who are shooting up our schools all want attention. They have figured out that if they send a emo, suicidal, homicidal video to the news, then go to their school and kill some people and themselves, they'll get famous. First, we should NEVER show their videos on the news. It only encourages them. Second, you know why they go to schools? Because guns are banned from schools. Why? Because some maniac might try to shoot people. Well, that law worked out just fine. You never see depressed, homicidal fruitcakes trying to shoot up a police station, do you? Why? Because it messes up the psycho's plan to get killed or captured before he planned it. Hmm, maybe we should use these lessons in school.
Next, the questioning.
1:Guns don't protect you from big brother, your vote does! Well, once we have been disarmed, there is nothing to stop them from getting rid of the vote, is there? Then Big Brother moves in.
2:Hunting? Ever heard of grocery stores? Look, once we lose the ability to survive on our, Murphy's law dictate that that moment will be when we need it. Hunting allows us to fuel our independence, and plus, the meat doesn't taste too bad either.
3:Don't you trust the police? The police, despite good intentions, can't always get there in time. Besides, criminals are more hesitant to attack armed victims.
4: Hey! Maybe YOU'RE a criminal. Yeah. sure. I keep forgetting it's a sin to want to defend myself and loved ones.
5:Our modern age of enlightenment means no one needs guns. Enlightened eh? Hmm. Well, I guess those psychos the liberals are always using as excuses of danger must have just missed enlightenment school. I'm sorry, but this "new age" is bull crap. The same problems still exist, and taking away guns just make it worse.
One popular liberal tactic is to make you feel backwards, isolated, and mean. Anyone who wants to keep their gun is billed a "Redneck." Anyone who still believes in God is "Old Fashioned." Anyone who doesn't agree with them is obviously an enemy of the people, the world, the greater good, and even the environment.
Then, they decided "Well, if we can't get their guns away from them, we can take the bullets."
We almost didn't see it coming, but organizations including the NRA alerted the gun-bearing public about proposed bills restricting many kinds of ammo. Further investigation revealed it wouldn't stop there.
California is already attempting to outlaw lead bullets, and liberal plans include banning almost every kind of ammo on the market, leaving us with useless target rounds. Luckily, the outcry has been great, and hopefully none of the liberal anti-bullet agenda will come to pass, but still, my advise to you:
You might want to start hiding guns and hoarding bullets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
