The Right Wing Loon

Scientists Admit Evolution Not Supported By Facts!

2009-03-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

I found this interesting article and have reprinted it here. The original article was published here.

Scientists Admit:
Evolution Not Supported By Facts!

Issue Date: January/February 1987

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.

Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.

Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

Do Fossils Prove It?

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

But What About Those Bones?

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?

The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?

In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."

Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well.

Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.

A. Lunn summed up the curious faith of the evolutionist as follows: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.) Those supposedly omniscient scientists who still teach evolution as though it were fact are finally seen for what they are...frail men willing to believe a lie because it helps them avoid the truth.

It's Good to be Selfish!!

2009-03-02T19:33:00.000-08:00

I stopped by a very liberal blog today to have a quick read and of course a laugh. One liberal commenter left a remark about conservatives, you know, the OTHER HALF of the world. This person goes by the name of VSLOATHE and he is quite the silly jackass.

"Oh Perks, I thought you might like this quote:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
~ John K. Galbraith

Liberals love this kind of thing. I'm surprised he didn't go ALL THE WAY back to the Crusades and talk about how Christianity is responsible for thousands of deaths etc...

I always find it ironic when atheists (liberals) cite the hypocrisy of Christians who killed, murdered or broke one of God's commandments in the name of religion. Obviously, some "Christians" have been hypocrites. The irony is that atheists need to borrow God's moral capital in order to impugn Christianity. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor and to overcome evil with good. But if there is no God, as the atheists claim, then anything is permissible.

What is wrong or right about being selfish? Who is it that deemed selfishness to be a bad thing? Who is it that defined what is good and what is not? Let's suppose there is no God. Now ask yourself what really matters in life. What matters at all? If we are all just the result of a series of random accidents, and we are made up of nothing more than just matter, then what difference does it make if you are selfish or not?

If we were created by pure randomness and the whole universe is just a random accident, then what does it REALLY matter if you are selfish? For that matter, what is wrong with murder? Why is murder wrong? You live, you die, you turn back into dust and blow around the universe right?

We as people are no different than space debris. We are no different than energy. We are merely matter and matter is neither good or bad. When two rocks collide in space is that bad? When a star dies is that bad? If a tree falls into a river is that bad? It's all just matter isn't it? Humans are simply just more matter and, by extension so is society. When people go to war isn't it just pieces of matter colliding with other matter?

What gives you (random matter) the right to decide for me if something is right or wrong? For instance, if your family is killed by a murderer why is that bad? It's just a continuation of the randomness that is existence correct? What do you MEAN that society has deemed murder a bad thing? What gives a group of people (just random matter) the RIGHT to decide what is right and wrong?

For that matter, what is right and wrong? If we are all just matter then there truly is no right and wrong. Therefore murder is just fine, it's just part of this whole meaningless accident we call life.

Thoughts, conscience, morals...nothing more than random energy projecting what we believe are ideas. Do ideas really exist? Show me your conscience! Show me an idea! Show me God! You can't because none of it exists. How do I know that you, the reader are actually real? Perhaps I am the only living being in all of existence and this whole thing is just an image in my mind. Perhaps I don't exist either.

The very notion of right and wrong does not even exist if you consider that all life and existence is nothing but the mere result of randomness. Even God fearing people will concede that matter is neither good or bad.

Liberals don't believe in God. They believe that everything is the result of random mutation and randomness in general. Yet they like to boast of moral superiority! What kind of paradox is that?

To acknowledge the existence of morals is to acknowledge right and wrong. To acknowledge right and wrong is to acknowledge that there is more to life than just matter mutating with other matter. But then where did this higher life form come from? Where do the ideas of right and wrong really come from?

One thing is for sure, it doesn't come from God! That would be a nightmare! Then we would have to live by Gods law and again I repeat that would be a nightmare! Then we would all have to:

love thy neighbor
love thy self
love thy enemy
love the Lord your God

It doesn't stop there folks. There would be no more homosexuality and let's face it, liberals just can't live like that.

Liberals, Conservatives and Selfishness

2009-02-23T08:42:00.000-08:00

Liberals are always trying to project this image of selflessness and compassion when in reality it's just not true. To make matters worse, liberals are always going out of their way to try and paint conservatives as selfish and non compassionate. Well, this just isn't so, and according to many polls and surveys it is actually the liberals who are the more selfish ones.

There's a book that came out over the summer I believe by Peter Shweizer called Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals. Peters book claims that liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others.

Basically the data was compiled from a boat load of attitude surveys done in the last 8 years or so. Anyhow, some of the results may surprise you especially if you live in that little liberal bubble of elitism and snobbery. Chew on this:

Some 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes. I suppose this victim mentality is one reason that liberals are so fond of the stimulus bill. They feel that those who "lose" are victims. Liberals reject the notion of responsibility and consequence.

One can easily observe the fact that the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited.

Conservatives are selfish, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former labor secretary, has said, and they pander to the worst of us.

Sen. Charles Schumer said on Bill Maher's HBO show Real Time, There are some, you know, there are some anti-Semites in this county, but most of them would vote Republican anyway.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said conservatives and Republicans are evil, corrupt, brain-dead, and not very nice people who have never made an honest living in their lives.

If Schweizer's book is a ground-breaker, it also raises the question of why Schweizer's findings may come as a surprise even to conservatives. Schweizer cites ample evidence that the media have ignored good news about conservatives and have helped perpetuate the myth that liberals are more compassionate and caring.

Katie Couric has said that during the Reagan era, "greed and materialism was the norm. Alan Colmes of Fox News "Hannity & Colmes" has said that Jesus was a liberal because he was much more generous with limited resources than a conservative would be. The nonsense just overfloweth!

Liberals perpetuate these myths because it simply conforms to their world view. But hard polling data refutes this nonsense. Of course you will never see a liberal admit it, but it's true. Read on.

Schweizer writes, self-described liberals and Democrats, who profess to be tolerant, are much more likely to embrace stereotypes of Jews than conservatives or Republicans. Some 45 percent of self-described "strong" Democrats or liberals agree with the statement that Jews are inordinately rich and money-driven, compared with 36 percent of strong Republicans and conservatives. This is evident on many left wing blogs as well, just visit Perkisets and you'll see that tolerance is preached but not practiced!

Schweizer cites similar research to show that even when they are in the same income brackets, liberals are far more likely to complain about their jobs, families, neighbors, health, and their relative wealth than conservatives.

Liberals are much more likely to say that money is important to them, according to the surveys Schweizer cites. They are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people's good luck. Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to spend time with their families, hug their children, and be close to their parents.

Liberals tend to work less hard and are more likely than conservatives to embrace leisure time as desirable. When asked if competition is good, those who defined themselves as very liberal say yes only 14 percent of the time, compared with 43 percent for conservatives.

Liberals are more likely to say that truth is something that is relative. When asked if they believe in ghosts, 42 percent of liberals say they do, compared with 25 percent of conservatives. Liberals are more likely to say that's it's OK to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on taxes, keep money that doesn't belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.

Overall, conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, their professions, and their health compared with liberals of the same age and income level.

Schweizer balances these findings with a few issues where liberals come out ahead. He says liberals are more likely than conservatives to be open to new experiences in travel, art, and music. But Schweizer exposes hypocrisy at the core of liberal beliefs. While liberals claim to be compassionate and to care about the poor, conservatives are much more likely to donate their time and money to charitable causes.

When Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, his tax returns revealed income of more than $1 million, but he contributed just $2,714 to charity, or less than 0.3 percent.

Ned Lamont, the anti-war Democrat who ran against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, is worth $200 million and made $2.8 million in 2005. He has talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy are not doing enough to help those in need. Yet in 2005, he donated only $5,385 to charity, or less than 0.2 percent of his income.

In contrast, George Bush gave 10 percent of his income to charity in 2005. In 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million, or 2.5 times what Bush made that year, but gave the same amount to charity as Bush did. That same year, Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity.

As Schweizers book proves, Liberals talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Perhaps they are so selfish because they don't believe in God? Could be...

Conservatism vs Liberalism a Definition

2009-02-17T15:00:00.000-08:00

I am following up on my previous post regard my being banished from the "cool kids lunch table" at the radical left wing blog Politics at Perkisets. Upon hearing that I wont be allowed (censorship folks) to post on Perks blog anymore another reader of said blog is somewhat bummed out that he wont be able to bicker with me any longer.

Vsloathe said, "At any rate, I’m bummed that they won’t be posting here anymore as I really wanted Edgar to define “liberal” and “conservative” philosophy for me. I have a hunch that he wouldn’t quite nail either one, as I have a hunch that he hasn’t read a lot of history."

I have argued vehemently with Vsloathe about everything but I should also add that he is more open minded than the loons who otherwise comprise the readership of Perks blog. Hats off to Vsloathe for being able to take the heat in the kitchen so to speak. Not wanting to disappoint my fellow debater Vsloathe (he's very liberal but not radical I don't think) I want to define what liberalism and conservatism is. You see, because I disagree with Vsloathe and liberals as a whole, they think that I must simply be uneducated.

Ok now on the the defining challenge. First of all I am surprised that Vsloathe doubts that I understand the difference between liberals and conservatives since I'm a poster child for conservatism and he is a liberals liberal. But that's neither here nor there.

Before I attempt this it should be stated clearly that thousands of pages and thousands of books have been published to define these two philosophies. Needless to say my condensed version of a definition will not be comprehensive. Therefore an astute mind will be able to point out holes in my definitions.

It must also be known that the term Liberal has meant different things to different peoples across the centuries. For instance the word liberal in europe conjures up a different meaning than it does in America. To add to that, the word liberal had different implications back in the days of Locke than it does now.

Simply put, back in Lockes day Liberal referred to liberty and, more precisely freedom to do as you choose as long as you are not violating anyone else in any way. In other words liberalism referred to individual liberties and for good reason. It was the norm back in the day for gov't to interfere with much of the common mans natural born 'civil liberties'

So liberalism in that sense meant liberty and freedom, such as is mention in our pledge of allegiance "with liberty and justice for all." However, as time wore on, particularly after world war 2, liberals in America started to support gov't interference in the economy and social welfare programs. This is when liberalism started to slowly take on a new meaning. So while it is true that Locke and Jefferson were liberals we must understand that the word had a slightly different connotation.

As time wore on still liberal began to support more progressively social policies such as supporting abortion, supporting a non interventionist US foreign policy and supporting gay rights. Our liberal founding fathers didn't take gay rights seriously at all and were for the most part God fearing Christians. Much different than current American liberals.

But that is not a sufficient definition of liberalism, not by a long shot. We must think broadly and understand the difference between European liberals and American liberals. In Europe a liberal is more moderate than a liberal here in the US. In Europe a liberal is kind of center left or even center right and they generally support the free market economy. See, in Europe the lefties are found in trade unions and socialist parties. These socialists criticize european liberals for trying to lower taxes and deregulate business. Tony Blair seperated himself from former labor party liberals by inventing the term "Third Way" to describe his liberal yet free market policies. Anyway my point is that what we call a liberal in America is more like a Socialist in Europe. Like I said, the socialists criticize the european liberas for being too free market etc...

So tangled is the definition of liberal that it is impossible to define "once and for all" as it's implications change according to time frame and geographical considerations.

Originally, liberalism could simply be defined as a philosophy that has freedom as its core value. This is the definition that modern liberals like to refer to when in actuality liberalism conveys a different meaning now. Now, especially as of the last 20 years and acutely so in the last 10 years, liberalism seems to represent more of a movement in the realm of social change which is in direct conflict with traditional conservative values.

Modern American Liberalism embraces, generally speaking these things:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
* Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for gun control
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[1]
* Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
* The denial of inherent gender differences
* Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
* Legalized same-sex marriage
* Implementation of affirmative action
* Political correctness
* Support of labor unions
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.
* A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended

* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* Abolition of the death penalty
* Environmentalism[3]
* Disarmament treaties
* Globalism
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy [4]
* Opposition to full private property rights[5]
* Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act

My Personal Insight Regarding Modern Liberalism

Nowadays I consider the core premise upon which current liberalism is built to be that of Relative Morality. This is in direct opposition to Biblical principles of Absolute Right and Wrong. I believe it is this very issue which defines the struggle between the modern conservative and the modern liberal in America today.

All liberals today believe in Relative Morality. Conservatives believe in God (generally) and thus believe in an absolute right and wrong. Conservatives generally believe that Gay sex is wrong because the Bible, the word of God says so. That's not the only reason as we can debate the impact on the health of society that acceptance of Gay sex would bring as well, it's not JUST what the bible says. Anyhow, us conservative hold these to be self evident truths.

A liberal on the other hand accepts no truth as is. They demand that all "Truths" be brought before the bar of reason which concept began to take shape during the enlightenment period. Funny thing is Kant, a liberal of sorts, upset the applecart with his landmark treatise "A Critique of Pure Reason" but I digress...

The notion of liberalism in America today is offensive to conservatives because it is seen now as not a defense of liberty for all, which is right and just to be sure, but rather as a direct and systematic assault on OUR core principles which stem from the Bible to put it over simply and rather bluntly. Conservatives see liberalism as trying to untie the knot that has kept this nation together. A knot which this country was founded on. Old fashioned family values and traditional acceptance of simply rights and wrongs.

So not withstanding the myriad of ways one can interpret the word liberal, it's my understanding and conviction that modern liberalism is based on Relative Morality and Conservatism is based on Absolute Right and Wrong.

That is the simplest way I can sum it all up. Liberalism has gone off course in my view from defending basic individual rights to an assault on Christianity and the principle that stem from it ie conservatism. Hence the hostility that conservatives demonstrate toward liberals in this country.

Liberalism used to equal individual rights. Now it equals an assault on traditional christian conservative values. Not just an opposing view but an all out systematic assault.

Relative Morality vs Absolute Right and Wrong.

This post is just too long to now offer my 'definition' of Conservatism. I will offer that soon in another post.

This post is for Vsloathe.

Argument Outline

2008-12-03T11:45:00.001-08:00

-----------------------------------------Main Arguments For Gay Marriage

1. Rights denied to committed gay couples:

a. unhealthy lifesyle
b. why does state give benefits to married couples - kids, procreation etc..
c. gay couples not a legit idea in the minds of voters
d. is not a civil rights issue
homosexuals are the only group that are defined by their behavior. Not allowing gays to marry is not analogous to bans on interracial marriage because being black isn't a behavior. But being gay is defined by gay behavior. Bad analogy for libs to make. The state not acknowledging gay marriage is not discriminating against people but rather behavior.
2. The Legal Precedent and the Constitutional Case: The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s (Interracial Marriages in America)

a. race has no bearing on procreation -bad analogy, race has no bearing on health
b. laws are made to protect us from bad and dangerouns behavior ie homosexual behavior (unhealthy)

3. Procreation is not critical otherwise sterile partners would not be allowed to marry.

a. too costly to check
b. vast majority will be non sterile
c. no need to check if homo's are sterile or not
d. unhealthy

4. Appeals to the tradition of marriage are illogical.

a. society evolved that way for a reason

5. Genetic

a. twins and dna
b. references from pro gays that state otherwise
c. homo's going straight in large number
d. locke

Prove that homosexual behavior is unhealthy with stats and show that it is bad for society. Explain that states must protect the society and not condone homo behavior for the common good. Prove that allowing gay marriage is bad for my liberty by showing that homo's infect the general pop and is dangerous to me.

Three Cheers For President Bush!!!

2008-11-22T23:36:00.000-08:00

Three cheers for Uncle George!!! He has got to be one of the best Presidents ever. I know that might not seem like a popular opinion now but I'm smarter than you. I firmly believe that in retrospect President Bush will be fully and enthusiastically recognized for his greatness.

First of all any president who has presided over a victorious war is always looked upon favorably in the future. Who was president during the civil war? Who was president during WW1 and WW2? We love our leaders who didn't fail us and lead us to victory and that is George W Bush. 50 million people lived in absolute tyranny until Uncle George freed them. Spreading freedom is good and therefore George W Bush is a good president.

I don't care about WMD in Iraq at all by the way. Couldn't care less to tell you the truth because for years I wanted to see change come to the middle east. These backward ass people need to get out of the whole 13th century mode and get with the program. They are causing problems because mentally, culturally and spiritually these people are from the 13th century but they are slowly getting their hands on the world most destructive weapons. We needed to bring change to the middle east and lift the yoke off the common folk. We needed to bring freedom to oppressed people and offer them hope. Hope and change is what they got!!

But I was much more greedy in my thinking than that. I simply figured, years ago, that if you could bring democracy to the region one country at a time, then slowly we can lift these people out of the 13th century mindset and carry them to a much more civil and modern time.

George Bush kept our country safe! That's a good president.

Obama Wins Election 2008

2008-11-05T08:36:00.001-08:00

Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States of America last night. He's not the perfect choice for America in my opinion but the American people made it clear that they are indeed looking for a leader who will take this country in a different direction.

It wasn't really a close race as I think Obama won by more than 3 million votes so make no mistake about it. People want a new direction and they have voted for the man that they believe will take them there.

I think it's important for conservatives to not be bitter about this and instead to rally behind the new president elect Barack Obama. The election is over and the fight is finished so now it's time to put partisanship behind us all and be, as I like to say Pro American. Let's be Americans first and conservatives second. Let's not stoop to the levels of the liberals of the past decade and try to undo everything the new president does. Let's not blindly commit ourselves to opposition. Let's hope that Obama makes wise choices in office and if he does let's not ruin it.

If Obama wants to reign in Fanny and Freddie just like Bush tried to, let's not make that impossible just to keep Obama from looking good and doing good. Let's not.

Let's get behind our man and not forget that he is the president of the United States! I've watched the left show utter contempt for the presidency over the last 8 years and I want to urge all right wing loons like myself to not follow in their example. Obama may not be the man you wanted in Office but he represents the will of the American people and that we can't forget.

Although I'm a bit disappointed about McCain losing I wont let it stop me from congratulating Obama and those that supported him throughout this historic election.

It's Socialism! What's So Hard To Understand?

2008-10-31T22:59:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden looks like such a fool when he denies that Obama's economic plan is a socialist plan. It's SOCIALISM!! I have no idea why liberals deny things left and right, it just boggles my mind. Biden denies that Obama's ideas are socialist. He makes like he's 'SHOCKED' that the Obama tax plan could even be considered a socialist plan at all. Bullshit!!

I love how McCain has latched on to the whole Joe The Plumber thing and exposed Obama for the socialist he is. It took a lot of courage on McCains part to level those accusations at Obama even if Joe The Plumber took the brunt of it. The Plumber was kind of like a proxy for McCains aggressive side.

When Obama let the cat out of the bag by uttering those now infamous words, "Spread the wealth" he really shot himself in the foot! Ouch!! McCain has a much better chance at winning this race thanks to the 'Spread the wealth' comment. Like that commercial that goes, "What's in YOUR wallet?"

Now understand this. The liberals know that Obama screwed this one up big time so what do they do? Take a guess. Go ahead guess, I'll wait.... They try to minimize the issue! Then they try to deny that Obama is a socialist. Nonsense!!

Let me make this simple. Government should only raise taxes to provide those things that all of us need. That can be defense, infrastructure and school just to name a few. The government should provide according to the will of the people. Both socialism and capitalism do just that. So what's the difference? The main difference is that aside from the normal responsibilities of the government, socialists believe we should also take money from the successful and give it away to the less successful, for no other reason but to spread the wealth.

I see many ignorant liberals talking about what they do not know. They try to make similiar a progressive tax system with socialism. Progressive taxation by itself is not a socialist fundamental. So if you are one of those morons who believe that we are already a socialist country then you've just learned something. Socialism pays for schools, police, defense, health care, retirement, infrastructure, college and so does capitalism (excepting health care maybe), but after all of that is paid for and all of the normal responsibilities are taken care of, the socialists redistribute the 'extra' wealth by taking from the successful and giving to the less succuessful.

That's Obama and that's socialism. Simple. Take extra money from the 'rich' and GIVE it to the rest. Take and give.

Loser Bitch Michelle Obama

2008-10-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

Michelle Obama is a real anti american loser! This could be the first lady of the USA and she is blatantly anti american! She has called America a downright mean nation and said that until her husband ran for office she had never been proud of this country.

She is so brainwashed by the likes of Rev Wright and his cronies that she could sit there in the white house and STILL claim that she and her people have been treated unfairly because she is black.

Only a true anti american liberal could ride to the top of the white house and still bitch and cry about how mean, awful and racist America is. People are voting to put a black guy in office and Michelle Obama is still talking about how tough it is to be black. Give me a break. What a loser!

Where is The Outrage?

2008-10-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

Hollywood has shamed itself again by condoning a nasty act of hatred. A Palin doll is hanging from a noose right out in the open for all to see in hollywood. The liberal stronghold of America finds such actions acceptable? That's not hate speech?

If it was Obama hanging from a noose all the liberals would be outraged and talking about hate speech but that is not the case. No, the liberals are fine with nooses and hangings as long as it's republicans and conservatives who are the ones being hung.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about the HATE the left directs toward Palin. They turn a blind eye to nooses when convenient. Where's the outrage now?

Funny, none of the liberal blogs I visit had ANYTHING AT ALL to say about it.

Racism in Election 2008

2008-10-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

I find it more than coincidental that %95 of all blacks in America are voting for Obama. How is it possible that almost ALL black Americans share the same exact beliefs and value systems? White people are split along partisan lines in this election and so are other demographic groups such as older votes woman. But black voters for some reason are suddenly all aligned to the same exact beliefs. What other reason could there be for a %95 majority in black America?

Well, is it possible that blacks are simply voting for 'The Black Guy?' I think this is definitely the case. No matter what Obama stood for he would get almost all of the black vote just because his skin is the same color. This is racism and it's the factor that could win obama the election. There's no doubt about this as the only thing %95 of blacks in America have in common is that they are black.

Does this mean that EVERY black person in America is racist and voting for Obama JUST because he is black? No, there are some blacks who believe just as some whites do, that Obama is the man for the job. But %95 is just too much and it's obvious that race is the most important factor in this election. Not for white people mind you as they are voting both ways evenly. But blacks have come together to vote for the black guy no matter what. Obama could dress up as Yasser Arafat and wear a little hitler mustache quote from the Communist Manifesto at rallies and black americans would STILL vote for him.

Maybe Obama should have chosen Jesse Jackson as VP or perhaps Al Sharpton.

Is Obama Qualified to be President?

2008-10-27T11:16:00.001-07:00

The neoliberals are always bashing Sarah Palin, as if she is the one running for president. They say she is not qualified even though she has more executive experience than obama who has NONE. Zip! Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Obama has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER.

1. Palin has executive experience as the governor of Alaska.

2. Palin has an %85 approval rating!

3. Palin has been a Mayor.

That's what Palin has done. It adds up to executive experience.
What has Obama done?

1. Member of Senate (brief)

2. Congress approval rating around %13

3. ??????

What has Obama done? Tell me what he has done. List his executive experience here so I can see what he has done. Don't tell me how smart he is since you don't know him personally. Tell me what he has done. Actions speak louder than words correct? What has he done?

Example:

Obama's Executive Experience

1. Good Grades in School
2. Opened soup kitchens across Chicago
3. Worked with ACORN to help destablize the market
4. Member of Worst Senate Ever according to approval ratings.

Again I ask what has he done that even remotely qualifies him to be president? I don't want to hear about Abe Lincoln or George Bush, I want to hear about Obama. What the fuck has he done?

The Difference Between Old School Liberals and NeoLibs

2008-10-24T21:53:00.000-07:00

Normal everyday people can't stand the way liberals think. It's just out of the norm, like being gay. Have you noticed how politically charged the atmosphere is here in the USA? It's not just because it's an election year either. People who are not normally politically minded are fast becoming politically minded. It's almost like a new trend.

One of the driving forces behind this awakening could be the extreme views of the left manifesting themselves in our society. By this I mean it's 'Politically Incorrect' to say Merry Christmas to someone now. You have to say Happy Holidays which is really so empty. Another extreme left THING that has been making a lot of noise near water coolers across the country is this whole gay rights thing. Normal people aren't gay, and they aren't gay for a reason. The liberal activist judges have redefined the word marriage.

This is just some of the lunacy coming from the left but I think the most damning thing coming from the left is the extreme hate for America and what it stands for. This turns people off whether they are political, religious or not. This just rubs REAL Americans the wrong way. It's basically like blaming your family for everything that's wrong with the neighborhood. Blame your mother blame your father not because they deserve the blame, but just because the other families in the neighborhood blame them.

The reason liberalism could coexist more easily in times of old is simple, and perhaps the neoliberals of today would do well to learn the reason why.

Old school liberals like FDR, Jefferson and Truman thought America was the ANSWER to the worlds problems. The neoliberals think that America is the cause of the worlds problems. This anti american view has marginalized the legitimacy of liberal thought in america. Thank God the trend is dying and people are starting to WAKE UP!

The Liberal Mindset

2008-10-24T17:51:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered how liberals all come to the same conclusions. What is the common denominator in the thought process or value systems of liberals that enables them to see things in the twisted way they see them.

I've often heard that liberals first come to a conclusion, reached by popular consensus at the time, and then invent the logic as needed. While this certainly seems true at times I'm not willing to go that far and say it myself.

Liberals often mock conservatives who base their core values on the teachings and philosophy of Jesus Christ. But my question to the liberals is what philosophers do you admire? Who has the most convincing argument for liberalism in the philosophical realm? And finally, which famous philosopher gets the most credit for helping form your viewpoints?

I doubt most liberals even know the names of ten philosophers but who knows? I really love philosophy and find subjects such as metaphysics, ethics, reason and understanding to be truly fascinating. I think when we argue politics we are really arguing philosophies right? Though not all politics falls under philosophy and not all philosophy is political.

What are your thoughts if you have any?

McCain Volunteer Attacked and Mutilated in Pittsburgh!!

2008-10-23T14:16:00.000-07:00

Look at what an Obama supporter (or is she NUTS?) did to this young girl!

Udate! Now the girl can't remember how the 'b' got there! She suddenly forgot and is now trying to backpedal furiously. Perhaps she fears for her life. Perhaps she is afraid. Perhaps she was paid to keep quiet. Perhaps it just didn't happen and she truly is a nut case!

I would love to point out however that yesterday when the story broke, liberals stayed far away from it. Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Of course now that she is 'confused' (paid off, scared, whatever) every liberal blog on the net has her picture up with a story!

Unlike a liberal I will be honest here and update this post as shown here by these words. The comments that follow spin off into their usual tangents and provide some good fodder for debate so I have left the post up.

It should be noted however that it is entirely possible that she is a nut and that nothing happened. Having said that, I have never before seen or heard anything quite like this. Enjoy the post.

Can you believe it? I can. The left is at it again. First they fake this phony outrage about how the McCain camp is fostering hatred (not free speech but hate speech as is convenient) and inciting hatred by presenting obama in a negative way. Connecting Obama to Bill Ayers is hate speech I guess.

Anyways, the Liberals have been absolutely electrified about this issue. Talking about how STUPID the people are who attend the mccain rallies and how EASILY these STUPID conservatives (they are all uneducated btw) can be swayed into taking some sort of violent action against obama or his supporters.

The Liberals have been screaming this from the roof tops. After all, it's only ignorant poor white people, uneducated and conservative who attend mccain rallies. The libs think that these Dumbass working class hero types (nose goes up in the air) are just ready to march out in the street and cause destruction and mayhem at the drop of the hat. These ignorant and pathetic conservative hill-billies are SO STUPID that they might think Obama really has ties to terrorists and try to do something violent.

Well they are almost right. Something sad and violent has happened today. Except it wasn't the consvatives who were violent and ignorant. It wasn't the conservative who displayed their hate for the world to see today. It wasn't the conservatives who embarrassed their party on the worlds stage today. It was the liberals.

In case you haven't heard about it a mccain volunteer was attacked by an obama supporter. The viscious liberal in his tolerant and open minded way, overpowered the helpless lady and carved a "B" into her face!!!

Where is the hate coming from? THE LEFT!

Where is the violence coming from? THE LEFT!

Who is inciting this violence? The Obama campaign!

Who are the victims? Conservatives.

Very ugly! Very shameful! The liberals are busy accusing mccain of carelessly tossing around words that could lead to violence and the exact opposite has happened. It is from the LEFT WING camp that the violence has manifest itself.

He carved a "B" into her face because she supports mccain...

I ask you is this tolerance? I ask you is this civil debate? Obama needs to take responsibility for this and apologize for inciting such hateful actions.

This is a particularly cruel thing to do...to scratch a letter into the face of a lady just because she supports mccain. Of course it's hardly been covered by main stream media because liberalism is blind. True brainwashing.

Perhaps these are the kind of people that Obama wants to 'Spread the Wealth' to.

US Turns Over Control of 12th Iraqi Province

2008-10-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

US turns over control of 12th Iraqi province

The U.S. transferred control of a southern Iraqi province (a very NON imperialistic thing to do BTW) to Iraqi security forces. This province, Babil, used to be in what was called "the triangle of death" and illustrates the fact that security is improving across the country. This makes 12 out of 18 provinces now under Iraqi control. This is great news! The number of attacks over the last year have fallen by %80 which again is great news. There are some however that would like to see Iraq fail if only to give president Bush a 'black eye'

So two thirds of the county is now back under Iraqi control. Not that the main stream media is reporting that with any gusto! The fact are the facts though. The USA has been steadily working to defeat al queda in Iraq for several years now and the whole operation is finally starting to bear fruit.

Attention all brainwashed leftwing nutcase liberals:

The liberals (even THEY dislike that word) have this notion that America is an imperialist nation. They just love to point out our war with Iraq as PROOF that America is an evil, imperialistic nation governed by greedy war mongers. The problem with that argument is that imperialist nations go to war to acquire new terrirories and colonies. Imperialist nations do not systematically give back provinces they control.

For instance after ww2 when Russia controlled East Germany, they did not work toward rebuilding the state and handing control back over to Germany. No. They were IMPERIALISTS and they KEPT THE LAND for 50 years or so.

Now, it would take an extremely bitter liberal (aren't they all?) to somehow imagine that the turning over of yet another province (two thirds now) to Iraqi security forces is motivated by Americas boundless imperialism. LMAO!!!!!

The truth is the liberals couldn't possibly imagine how the USA could ever take control of the situation in Iraq. Just last year nearly ALL of the liberals in the media and in government were loudly protesting that the war is UNWINNABLE!

Well, as history is unfolding that assertion has proven to be completely wrong. The situation has improved about %80 and denial of that fact is just embarrassing and absurd.

So why could George Bush 'see around the corner' when the Liberals couldn't? Why did George Bush have a more accurate vision of what could unfold in Iraq than the Liberal Elite? Could it be that Liberals are just stupid? For a lot of people that reaseon would suffice but not for me.

I realize that Liberals are not stupid people. They just let their emotions get in the way of sound reason. That's why they are liberals in the first place! See, the liberals HATE george bush. They as a group have called him "Bush Hitler" - "Nazi" - "Terrorist" and so forth. The most important goal for liberals in the last 8 years has been to make George Bush look bad. That's it.

Once you understand the Liberal mindset then and only then can one begin to understand their pessimistic attitude and visionary shortcommings regarding the war in Iraq.

Believe it or not folks (I'm NOT making this up) most liberals still wont admit that the surge worked!. Yeah, ok. They probably think the south won the war and that Germany still hasn't been defeated too. LMAO!!!

Hatred blinds people from reason. Hatred breeds foolishness. That's the reason the Left got it wrong in Iraq. That's the reason the Left said the war was totally unwinnable. That's why the Left was rooting for the enemy! They wanted to see the USA LOSE the war in Iraq just so they could gloat over George The Terrible!

What selfishness! What self-centeredness! What a display of intolerance toward people with different world views!
Mark my words, in ten or even twenty years from now when Iraq is fully integrated into the wold economy, trading, exporting and importing goods, at peace with the nations surrounding them, the liberals will STILL say that the surge didn't work! LMAO!!!

It's like a 500 pound man denying that he eats too much.

Question From a 7 Year Old Liberal

2008-10-22T01:25:00.000-07:00

" Edgar, Bush has killed many innocent people in the war on terror. Doesn't that make him a terrorist too?" (A question from a 7 year old liberal)

No it doesn't. The terrorists hide among the people because they care not about anyone else but themselves. So unfortunately, in order to kill the terrorists some civilians get killed to. It's a shame but war is ugly.

"But Edgar, Saddam Hussein didn't bomb us on 911!! Now is Bush a terrorist?? Please tell me he is!"

No, Hussein was a scumbag dictator that had rape rooms and fed political enemies into human size pencil sharpeners! Hussein was spared his sorry ass in the first gulf war and instead of wising up he pushed the envelope. Boo fucking hoo, he's dead. Sometimes countries go to war even when terrorism isn't involved.

"But Edgar, I heard on Air America that Bush went to war so he could steal all the oil from the Iraqi's. He's storing it up in the back yard of the white house and he's going to take it with him back to texas and sell it to the American people and get rich!!!"

No, I don't think the Iraqi's would just quietly hand over their bread and butter!

"But Edgar (whining now) Bush hung around with Don Rumsfeld! Surely now you admit that BUSH is the TERRORIST!"

No no no. Rumsfeld was the secretary of defense when the towers got hit and he orchestrated the counter attack. That's his job as secretary of defense.

"But Edgar (shrill), Saddam wasn't that bad and he certainly was no threat to us yet we invaded. Bush was at the wheel and people died!! That makes him a terrorist doesn't it? Invading a country that was no threat to us? NOW what do you have to say? Admit it Bush is a terrorist!"

Well what about kosovo and serbia? Were they a threat to the US when Clinton bombed them? No they weren't. So now Clinton is a terrorist! How ridiculous! The truth is there were atrocities being committed in kosovo and serbia, just as there were atrocities being committed in Iraq. We had good moral ground for both actions.

"But Edgar, I'm a PHD!! (shrill again) I am a professor!! Are you a professor? Huh? Are you?"

No, I'm not a professor and don't EVER tell anyone I am!!

Bush Kills Terrorists While Obama Has Tea With Terrorists!

2008-10-22T00:45:00.000-07:00

The shrill cries of the liberals can be heard around the world. Like a child lost in the mall SCREAMING for his mommy, you can hear the liberal complain bitterly about the terrifyingly negative attacks issued by the McCain campaign.

The McCain campaign, in the liberal world (you know how those libs are --WAY out!) has been inciting violence by referring to Obama as a terrorist. Even though McCain or Palin never called him a terrorist and even rebuked his supporters for suggesting so.

The McCain campaign simply stated the facts when they echoed the NYTimes article which enquired about the relationship between unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

Point 1. The NYTimes brought this to public attention which palin responded to. Not McCain.

So why all the whining from the left about the 'viscious' attatcks on Obama? Phony outrage!

The liberals believe that Bush is the terrorist (they really think that!) because he has guided death and destruction and killed more terrorists than anyone else in the world. Hmm. It's Ok to call Bush a terrorist because he launched the war on terror but it's not ok to call into question Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers.

Point 2. Bush kills terrorists, Obama has tea with terrorists.

Those are facts. Big ugly facts.

Join POOP!!

2008-10-21T11:12:00.000-07:00

I can't stand the whole 'pc' movement. It started in the sixties and has progressed through to the present day. It's not Politically Correct to say this or that. You can't say anything anymore with out being ticketed by the PC police.

I wonder how this started. I have to admit that I don't know and didn't research it before writing this post. So as far as name and place and pivotal point go I'm lost. But my hunch is that it started with the civil rights movement and or the woman lib movement. Now it's an out of control beast. You can't say anything anymore with out someone being offended.

Everybody is offended. Of course most of the time it is dramatized phony outrage. The PC thing comes up a lot during Christmas. You can't even say Merry Christmas anymore with out 'offending' someone! What a joke! Christmas is now Politically Incorrect!!!! The liberals don't want you to say, "Merry Christmas!" to ANYONE! Christmas is tied to God of course and liberals hate God and mock everything that God stands for.

I'm not exaggerating here either. I remember last year my kids came home from school one day (we live in ultra liberal Massachusetts) and informed me that they couldn't say Merry Christmas in school or else they could get a detention!!!! The beacon of 'Tolerance' that is liberalism is only tolerant if you are not a christian.

I'm NOT making this up! It might 'offend' those who hate christmas or don't believe in God. Yup. There it is again folks, thought control from the left. Indoctrination in the schools of America is a real and scary thing. Imagine that! Can't say Merry Christmas or else you suffer a punishment. If that isn't religious persecution than what is?

There are just way too many offended people in this politically correct country of ours. Therefore I am going to form an organization called POOP. People Offended by Offended People.

Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson Endorse Obama

2008-10-21T02:07:00.000-07:00

Well the news is out. Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson endorse Obama for president. No big surprise there! Jesse in particular was very vocal about his support. Yup. Jesse loves the idea that those pesky jews are finally gonna get the cold shoulder from the next administration! Oh, he's so happy about it that he just couldn't keep his big mouth shut! Just for the record it's ok to pick on jews as they are the source of all the worlds troubles. Just read some Bill Ayers quotes or some Ahmedinijad or Jesse Jackson quotes. Don't forget Hitler.

The liberals hate the fact that the USA gives preferential treatment to the state of Isreal. The liberals have SO MUCH sympathy for those poor palistinian 'freedom fighters' but zero sympathy for the Jews. Why?

Why is it politically correct to hate the Jews and Christians (if you are a leftist) but it's not OK to hate anything else? What is it about Jews and Isreal that liberals hate?

Well anyways, I'm not surprised that Colin Powell endoresed Obama. It's because he's black. Period. Yup I have the guts to say it how it is. Powell is behind Obama because blood is thicker than water. Huh? What? Hold on a minute, just hold on a minute! What do you mean that I'm an ignorant conservative cracker? Racist? Let's be objective here.

Show me a one single inexperienced white liberal that Powell has previously endorsed in anyway. Tell me it's not about race. %95 of blacks are behind obama and that's not about race? Is it a coincidence that %95 of blacks in america suddenly agree on something? Perhaps they all weighed the issues objectively and independently and just came to the same conclusion. LMAO!!!!

No demographic agrees %95 on anything! Married couples who truly love each other never agree %95 of the time or even close. Our friends rarely agree with us %95 percent of the time. It's all about race. If you don't vote for Obama it's because you are a racist (as all conservatives are).

So Powell played the race card. The man that sold the world on the iraqi war. No big surprise.

I Love Alan Colmes!!

2008-10-21T01:58:00.000-07:00

Alan Colmes is such a great guy!! Did I spell his name right? I love Alan because he is just a hilarious example of the perfect liberal. He does a great job of putting up a fight against Sean Hannity and employs all of the classic liberal arguments. He is truly a testament to his ideology and personifies the true spirit of the left.

Too bad Sean makes him look like an absolute idiot all the time! I've watched that show with people who know or care absolutely nothing about politics. They have no idea what a liberal really is or a conservative for that matter, but they always think Sean wins the arguments. When I ask why they just say, "well Sean is talking common sense and Alan sounds like a lawyer trying to defend a hopelessly lost case"

I guess when we pundits get too close to the issues we can lose perspective.

So I love alan colmes. He gives me a real life example of a true liberal to point to. When non political people say, "Man, what is wrong with that guy? He's an idiot!!" I can say, "That my friend is a Liberal!"

Zero Plus Zero Equals Zero

2008-10-21T01:42:00.000-07:00

In order to have a meaningful debate two opposing parties must have at least some common ground that they can in fact agree is common ground. Only in this way can an argument merit any pursuit by either side.

Circular arguments are fine when the preacher disagrees with the choir. But circular arguments are a dead end when there is no common ground. For instance, if a conservative says that it is wrong to be gay because the Bible says so, that is only an effective argument if the opponent is also a bible believer. But such an argument will hold no water with a liberal. Liberals hate God and the whole idea of God. Therefore the do not respect the bible at all. Period. So how useless is it to tell a liberal that it is wrong to be gay because the bible says so? Useless.

That is an example of a circular argument and it's a very old and tired example. So before intelligent people can argue there must be some common ground. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

So today I seek common ground with my highly educated and lofty debate partners. We are so far apart on almost every issue that I'm going to go all the way back to square one and see if you guys can agree with me that 0+0=0.

Can we agree on this?

Bear in mind that this could take courage, character and a moment of true open mindedness to agree with me that zero plus zero equals zero. After all, I am a conservative and Lord knows (no offense) that it's hard for a liberal to agree with ANYTHING a conservative says.

Ok, who's willing to meet me in the middle here?

Obama's Socialist Ideology

2008-10-20T20:36:00.000-07:00

So Obama is a left wing nut, no doubt about it at all. He's a socialist and he's not even ashamed to admit it. Incredible. He wants to raise taxes on those making $250,000 per year or more. Spread the wealth. MuHahahaha!!

It sounds nice at first. The idea of helping our needy is a noble one for sure but it's not so simple. I'd like to point out that as America is the richest country the world has ever seen, there should not be any homeless or hungry people on our streets. It's just incredible that folks who have the money let things stay as they are. Greed I suppose.

However I don't think income redistribution is a good idea. There's an old analogy that goes something like this: Let's take a classroom full of students. A few get A+ and A's, a few more get B+'s and B's and then there are those that get C's, D's and F's. So let's borrow from the students with the A grades and give some of the F students a little love. Let's take that student who earned an A and knock it down to a B and redistribute his points elsewhere.

People have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But do people have the right to have money? Is that a right we are born with? Or should you earn your money?

A lot of people just plain old don't want to work. They are lazy. They would rather get stoned (no offense donkey:) They would rather sit on their front steps and drink 40z beers at noon and make babies to keep the welfare ROLLING IN. Hey, I don't want to have to work all the time either! But I do and I contribute positively to society.

Anyways, to sum it all up income redistribution is both unfair and unhelpful. Our system as it has been for the last 200 years or so has made us the richest nation in the world. The other systems haven't worked so well.

I do have a novel solution though and my liberal friends will be glad to see that I'm willing to compromise. Here's what we do: All the people that voted for income redistribution via obama can contribute more money in taxes if they feel it's the "Right Thing To Do"

This way, all the liberals can chip into a big pool if you will. I think that's wonderfully fair! Yes, if you don't feel you've paid enough in taxes (under GWB) then sign up to pay more.

Whining Liberals...

2008-10-20T14:09:00.000-07:00

I get so tired of hearing the liberals whine about how negative John McCain's campaign has been. Boo friggen hoo!! That is some pompous shit right there! LMAO!! Like John McCain called Barack Obama a 'sand nigger' or something! What has he said that's SOOOO bad? What, implying that his loyalty to the country is questionable since he's *a big Bill Ayers fan* is hitting below the belt?

Look, the nutcases on the left have been calling George Bush a terrorist for eight years now! Liberals weren't whining about THAT being below the belt. Total hypocrisy. That's point number one.

This is the main talking point for the left when criticizing the McCain campaign and even Colin Powell acknowledged it was a valid criticism. I wonder why the main talking point for the left is not an actual issue regarding policy? Sure Obama mentions the differences they have in their approach to taxes, foreign policy, environmental issue but the main issue for the Obama campaign is just how NEGATIVE mmcains campaign has been.

So McCain is being negative and Obama is responding with negative ads against McCains negative ads. I guess Obama's supporters really have no major qualms with the mccain policy as it has so far been laid out, since they rarely attack his policies but rather just whine about how negative mccains ads have been.

Barack Obama Loses Momentum

2008-03-05T01:29:00.001-08:00

Barack Obama Loses Momentum

The Senator from Illinois Barack Obama lost some of his momentum tonight as Clinton won Texas and Ohio. She's back in the race and I'm sure Obama is feeling the heat right about now. The two Democrats may even fight it out for several more months. My hunch, and I definitely could be wrong, is that Obama gets it. I'm just taking a stab at it here but I figure it this way; Obama has the support of the younger voters and they love to make noise. The young college age voters have a way of drawing attention to themselves and the media loves to report on it as often as they can. I think it's going to go neck and neck all the way down the line with Obama getting the nod due to having a very vocal young voter segment.

I don't know, just speculating off the cuff here...but what isn't speculation is that John McCain is now the official republican candidate. How could John McCain win this nomination? First of all he's getting on in years. Who's going to be the VP? That's going to be important when you have a guy who's about 72 years old running for office.

John McCain is so irritatingly liberal on certain issues. This totally bugs me. I'm not even going to get into it right now, but at least McCain is smart guy and he isn't wrong on every issue. He has a very hawkish attitude and I can't help but wonder what he's going to do about Iran. McCain has been taking a pro war stance since the very beginning when it was VERY unpopular. Will he allow us to slog on in Iraq or will he put pressure on Pakistan to find Bin laden? I think McCain wants to find Osama (not Obama) and serve justice. This would be a popular move. First of all media and more than half of America would love to see the troops come home. So right away McCain would have soaring ratings. Then, not to leave his Republican base dissatisfied, he would search with renewed vigor for OBL.

But wait a minute. If we leave Iraq the place is possibly going to spiral out of control. What to do. We are the strongest nation in the world so let's not mince words here. We could just stay in Iraq for as long as needed. The middle east is a long term investment with no quick returns. We need to clean up the whole place and bring democracy to the region. One problem though: if we stay in Iraq it costs a lot of money and we are somewhat stretched and committed. We need the flexibility to be able to defend ourselves from multiple attacks at all times. What to do?

Maybe a gradual reduction and redeployment is best, but all these points are moot if Senator Barack Obama wins the presidential race. He'll take us right out of the middle east and that's that! He doesn't care that this would embolden the fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I can't think about it anymore tonight, leave a comment.

The Loon has spoken.

Barack Obama Loses Momentum