Yeah Politics - My Spin Homepage

The Democratic race so far

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:13:00 +0000

Democratic Race

Election Guide 2008 - Presidential Election - Politics

Clinton 65,129 - 39%
Obama 60,766 - 36%
Edwards 28,088 - 17%
Richardson 7,952 - 5%
Kucinich 2,423 - 2%
Biden 366 - 0%
Gravel 232 - 0%
Dodd 116 - 0%

Well Clinton proved she’s not out, Hillary is still my bet to win the nomination, Hillary is a fighter and her warchest is second to none. What she needs to do now is show a capacity to change and show that she’s willing to learn from new experiences and isn’t so closed minded. The race is Clinton’s to lose and she’s far to shady to give up so easy, Hillary is far and away the most qualified and capable Democratic candidate and she needs to show that in a more humane way. The “ice queen” routine isn’t going to win her anymore votes she has to keep up the pressure on Obama to win.

Obama, well what can I say about a man that has no experience and is running entirely upon his charisma and skin color. As for the experience problem, Bill Clinton faced the same problem and he over came it, however Bill had far more experience in leading that Obama, Obama needs to express his plans and show that he has some idea of how to lead. I say this because nothing and I mean nothing in his professional career shows he has the experience or preparation for handling our nuclear launch codes. As for race, I think it’s his best weapon, white people will vote and support him just out of fear of appearing racist, Obama’s biggest threat comes from within the black community. Men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton see this as an opportunity to get back and whites and will want to exploit Barack for their own personal gains. Obama is on the right track and is campaign doesn’t need a lot of tweaking; he just has to prove he’s capable to lead.

Edwards, THANK YOU GOD THIS SCHMUCK IS ON HIS WAY OUT, nothing about him is honest or sincere. He is pimping the poor for his own personal gain, he doesn’t even have any plans all his public speaking events consist of him just talking about the down trodden and the impoverished. Well John what are you going to do, huh, you’ve had months to let me what you are going to do and instead and I hear is you patting yourself on the back and you disgust me you pitiful pathetic loser.

The GOP race so far

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:13:00 +0000

GOP RACE

The Primary Season: 2008 Republican Calendar

Race Status Candidate Votes Vote % Del* Precincts
New Hampshire

County Results

McCain 50,680 37%
Romney 42,814 31%
Huckabee 15,765 11%
Giuliani 11,814 9%
Paul 10,864 8%
Thompson 1,648 1%
Hunter 702 1%

Tonight’s big winner is probably Romney, in my opinion he is the new front runner on the GOP side. He had a good showing in Iowa and another strong showing in New Hampshire. Iowa is a good indicator of who has the capability of running a national campaign and it weds out the third-tier candidates. Romney (pure populist and doesn’t have my vote) has shown that he can run a national campaign and can appeal to a mass audience, Huckabee did well but proved that he doesn’t have the national appeal perhaps to win the nomination. McCain (the best GOP candidate honestly, despite the fact he once rode a triceratops to middle school) he was predicted to win this race ahead of time and it’s far to early to say where he stands. I won’t rule McCain as a front-runner until he wins both Michigan and South Carolina.

The big loser is of course Giuliani, he didn’t campaign in Iowa in order to solidify his front runner strategy. I’ll explain, he was the front runner and if he poured lots of money and time into winning Iowa and won it wouldn’t be much a victory (come on he was the front runner he should win) well by not running there he could blame any lackluster performance on not campaigning there, but if he won or at least had a good showing it would prove he was indeed the front runner for a reason. Well Rudy, looks like plan A failed and your screwed, Giuliani’s chances now are slim at best, I place him and Edwards on the exact same level , they are both populists and it would be a travesty if either man won, and I’m so happy people have seen through his BS and he’s on his way out.

Thompson’s numbers were inflated and I believe the voters see through his “Hey I’m Regan but I’ll buy you a beer!!!”, yeah sorry Fred I’m not buying it. He had a great showing in Iowa despite his lack of a real message and absence of real presidential charisma. He’ll remain a strong third or fourth place finisher and will keep the heat on the front runners but he’s out. Plus Thompson lacks the money to have a strong presence as well.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul….Ron Paul, he’s doing great for a third party guy. The big risk he poses is if he doesn’t get the nomination and runs as an independent. Reason being is he could prove to be a next Ross Perot, while that’s a good thing, Ross Perot cost Bush Senior the nomination by splitting the Republican vote. I like Ron Paul and what he is saying is sooooooo true and I would love for nothing more than to see his ideas implemented but Ron it’s time to bail out. Your ideas are the best for this nation but your presence will only split the GOP vote and that means a Democratic victory, which only means increased socialism and abandonment of personal responsibility. Ron I love you and this nation to much to support your candidacy, sorry buddy.

Zakaria: Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:56:00 +0000

At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

more...

My Spin

You sir are either discounting a great many facts or are oblivious to them

Iran the real story

There is considerable amount of speculation regarding Iran and what it’s motives are for acquiring nuclear technology. All of which are grounded in some truths, the degree of which is determined by your level of fear and gullibility. First Iran is and has been since 1979 a hostile nation dedicated to the notion of spreading global Islamic Revolution. They see it as their place to purge the non-believers and establish their “city on a hill”. Iran has not invaded another nation but instead has found itself on the defensive for much of the last 50 years. Iran has a massive “chip on it’s shoulder” and rightfully so, they have been manipulated and used for decades, all the benefit of Western Nations. Iran now has the power and capability to extracting it’s revenge, and you believe it won’t? Why not, Iran is no better or no worse than any other nation, Iran wants power in the same way all nations want power, Power is security. What makes Iran unique however is Iran wants security for it’s faith most of all.

There are multiple possibilities motivating Ahmadinejad to act in this fashion

1. Iran wants the West to invade it’s soil and seemingly topple their regime, thereby luring the West into a false sense of security and supremacy. In doing so the West (America) will greatly overextend it’s current military capacity and will be forced to institute a draft or some compensatory government service. Moreover it will require each of it’s citizens to sacrifice something to the war effort. Iran is betting on America being to lazy, apathetic, spoiled, and cowardly to ever unite for the common good as they did during WWII. Evidence can be found in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, America lacks the cohesion and backbone for sustained military entanglements. Our inability to cooperate or be submissive to government rule erodes the military options in warfare and it’s ability to conduct orchestrated death to the enemy. Iran believes American’s are to self-interested to ever co-operate with one another, we will never forgo our personal interests in favor of the collective. With our armed forces spread to thin and our people divided Muslim extremists will strike using fear in the hope of exposing our governments inability to protect us. Our fear will topple our system of government in favor of a more military authoritarian style regime, much in line with the former USSR, thereby destroying our democracy. That is if we don’t fall all together, the Western Roman Empire fell because of infighting, a diminished military presence, and a breakdown of strong political leadership in the face of the barbarian hordes. Iran will try to weaken our resolve by seemingly sacrificing itself. Iran will become a martyr for the cause of global Muslim domination. Ahmadinejad wants the become a hero, a martyr, to be honored and remembered forever.

2. Iran would never declare formal war on Europe or the USA, it’s suicide to openly attack NATO, combined no nation or ideology could survive, just look at Saddam Hussein in 1991. What Iran will do however and this can be seen in Iraq, they will declare war on Sunni’s across the world not individual nations/states. Iran will use Hezbollah in just the same fashion they are using against Israel to attack Sunni’s across the world. For instance, Iran could never attack France directly, but it could easily attack the large Muslim population in Paris. In doing so they would cause panic in the streets and a war across the continents forcing the West in get involved in order to anarchy in the streets. Evidence of this fighting can be seen in Iraq right now, where the fighting has less to do with material gains but instead with ending a millennia old blood feud. Iran wants the glory of leading the new Muslim “Church”. By using non-state actors to do it’s fighting for it Iran can remain guilt free and the West could not invade without international condemnation. If NATO was to ever invade Iran with the intention of ending this blood feud Iran would meet them with nuclear weapons thus bringing about mutual assured destruction across most of the world. Iran would win by default.

3. They want nuclear technology to prevent the West from invading and will leverage it was a barging tool in the same fashion that N. Korea is. Iran knows that America is to weak currently to invade and control the Iranian population. Iran intends to blackmail the West into giving it large sums of money in order to prevent nuclear war. This is a two fold solution, 1 Iran gets a new power source, 2 Iran can extort money from the West to support it’s waning religious leaders.

4. Russia is pulling the strings, they hope to instigate WWIII, in doing so they will become the arms dealer to the world. In much the same fashion as the USA was during WWI, the arsenal of democracy as they were known, Russia want’s the Middle East to become a barren waste land so everyone has to turn to Mother Russia and the worlds new energy superpower. Russia under Putin has seen great and radical change and they see their opportunity to return to superpower status. However the means have changed, they no longer wish to attain it militarily but economically through the arms and commodities trade. They plan to follow the US model of international influence. Can’t beat them, buy them.

I have no knowledge of the mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I can only imagine what he is thinking. Don’t forget you can’t run for office in Iran without the blessing to the Supreme Anyone claiming to have some forewarning or secret knowledge is simply lying or is attempting to use it as a means or obtaining political power. Iran is most certainly a threat to the West, a threat that will not go away and will only respond to offers it wants to. The power rests with Iran, the USA is weak and vulnerable, Britain is under siege by Muslim terrorists, France lacks the will for war, Germany is to guilt ridden to ever lead an attack, and Russia seeks to profit off the war. Where will this end, I can assure of this not one person currently running for the office of President of the United States has a clue or is qualified to make such a determination.

We’re screwed….

Satellite failure revives space weapons flap

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:09:00 +0000

Russian space experts are wondering whether the United States used an anti-satellite weapon last month to kill a small Russian research satellite, the Novosti news agency reported Wednesday.

The claim that the Pentagon intentionally crippled the satellite brought an almost immediate denial from U.S. military officials.

"There's no way this is a credible story," U.S. Navy Capt. James Graybeal, spokesman for the U.S. Strategic Command, told MSNBC.com. "We've checked with everybody, we have talked to everyone."

more...

My Spin

My prediction has been for sometime that the next evolution in warfare will be both a dramatic departure of current conventional strategies and mold into fourth generational warfare. First, large and less mobile vehicles or troop numbers will be abandoned in favor of small precise strike forces (along the lines of a counter-terrorist unit, in most cases) to target non governmental actors.

The Second type would include a satellite arms race, why, because the West is losing interest in war as a means to influence policy. The evolution of the media has played perhaps the greatest impact in that swing in public opinion. Evidence is this new media can be found in Israelis failed invasion of Lebanon. The Israelis would certainly moved further and engaged in the urban street fights. They couldn't because everywhere they looked there was a camera recording their every move. They were already labeled the aggressors in the war so the recorded fighting always portrait them has cruel invaders despite Israelis provocation for being there. People watched the war at home and were shocked thus public turned against the Israelis in such a way as to dissuade them from fighting. They lost because their military didn’t perform, the military couldn’t perform because of the cameras in their face. This isn’t going to change the people are willing to watch this and the networks are more than willing to put in on, ratings are a powerful means of pushing social change.

The satellite race will consist manly of armed satellites capable of disarming other satellites. Satellites have been an instrument of war for decades now, almost all communications and much of surveillance is performed in space via satellites. Destroy a satellite and you could knock out your enemies telecommunication systems which makes the public mad and hurts the governments ability to wage war. Plus these attacks hamper information gathering and gives the aggressor the edge in the ensuing conflict.

The argument can be made that the Space Race was perhaps the most beneficial period of scientific exploration of this century, the creation of the modern computer is just 1 example of what we gained during this period. If war moves off planet for the first time what would the scientific gain’s be. The means of space voyaging would be radically different that we see now, surely size of the space craft would be the first change. Which could prove to be the next push our world makes in it’s desire to investigate other worlds. That is so long as those satellites are not armed with nuclear devices, which would only complicate matters fuller.

I’m going to get up on my soap box now…

Man-kind works best in the conflict high-stress environment. Our brains evolved in that pattern, having to make quick judgments resulting in life or death outcomes forced the mind to think clearer, faster, and with some foresight, imagination. President Kennedy created such an environment when he pledged that America would be on the moon in ten years. Scientists were given unlimited budgets and creative freedom to do whatever it took to get the job done. The result was the greatest achievement modern man has ever accomplished. We landed on the moon and it only took ten years, we learned a lot since then and our means of production are far faster that they were then. Not only will our ideas be bigger (and deadlier) they will be faster, stronger, not any safer, but all around better than what Neil Armstrong had. Could this conflict prove to be the step necessary to put a human on another planet? If so how long will it take before we colonize another planet, then another, and another. Or, will be blow ourselves up before any of this can come to happen.

Lebanon: One Year On

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:53:00 +0000

On July 12, 2006 the first Israeli rockets struck Beirut's southern suburbs and its airport.

On 14 August, 34 days later, a UN-brokered ceasefire went into effect and finally, on September 8 hostilities formally ended when the naval blockade of Lebanon was lifted.

One year on from the war in Lebanon Al Jazeera is running a series of special reports on how an intense month of fighting last summer had, and continues to have, a profound effect on the entire region.

The conflict officially involved the Israeli military and Hezbollah, but throughout the region it had profound implications on other nations, governments, political parties and their leaders. And in virtually every case, the war damaged them all.

In Israel, the government of Ehud Olmert has come under significant criticism both from the international community but also from within his own country.

Earlier this year, the Winograd Commission issued its interim report into the actions of the Israeli government last year. The conclusions were extremely critical of Olmert for lacking "judgement, responsibility and prudence" in opting for war in the first place.

Olmert's popularity has sunk and the final draft of the report, now expected in October could yet bring down his government.

Within Lebanon, the country's infrastructure was severely damaged, and around 1,000 people were killed, the majority of them civilians.

more...

My Spin

I don't believe people realize how important this war is. First, small bands of fighters were able to keep the whole of the Israeli army back forcing them to retreat. Second of all the media in what it hopes is some kind of moral victory over the forces of evil hoped to sterilize this war by video taping as much of it as possible. What we say here was the first war prevented or stopped almost entirely because of news coverage.

Allow me to elaborate, Israel and China are probably the two countries who care the absolute least about what you think about them. What we saw here was the media bending the Israeli resolve and eventually breaking it in twain. How did this accomplish this magnificent task, they showed the world the ugliest thing in the world, humans at war. What some reporters hoped would sky rocket their career, win them awards, or secure them a million dollar book deal, instead they showed the world the depth of our hatred for one another. Thus in doing so the media gained more power than they have ever had previously, they have the power to stop wars.

The power of public opinion and fear, that is what the media has a monopoly over. The media tells us what to fear and what is good for us, who gives them this power? Answer you do when you don’t challenge their “fairness” or “objectivity”, the media can put whatever crap they want up there and the ramifications can be enormous. Example, Fox News, and CNN’s oh so fair Broken Government Segments just before the 2006 elections.

What made this conflict historical was the media caused Israel to back down because the public opinion of them waned so much they couldn’t keep the war going without severely damaging their reputation. Therefore, they lost that fight and the terrorists won, it’s just that simple. The media is exploring new territory and frankly, I do not trust them with their new power.

House OK's Irap Pullout Deadline

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:29:00 +0000

House OKs Iraq pullout deadline -MSNBC.com

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, but the president reiterated his vow to veto the bill, saying the House had “abdicated its responsibility.”

Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than "political theater" that delays the delivery of resources to soldiers fighting in Iraq. If the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, Bush said troops and their families “will face significant disruptions.”

“A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job,” the president said.

“These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects,” he said. “This is not going to happen.”

The victory for Democrats is part of an epic war-powers struggle, and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring the veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.

”The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

Pelosi victory
The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party’s more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,” said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

My Spin

“What we’re trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

Well that is just what you’re going to get jackass…

This war however won’t be reminiscent of the Czech Slovak Velvet Divorce it will look much more like the American Civil War, long bloody and seemingly without end. We started this war, right or wrong we’re there right now in the mess we created. You cannot enter another country kill its leader destroy its government and erode its civic ties and then just up and leave, it’s rude. Not to mention it’s provication for genocide, if you support this resolution the blood of every Iraqi that is killed will be on your hands.

There is no of this “Oh, I didn’t support the war so I’m not to blame” speech going on, fact is your democratically elected government acted in accordance to all proper domestic laws and got the ok from your democratically elected Congress and went to war in your name. We all have blood on our hands and the only way to remove it is to fix what we started and leaving less than half way in to achieving our goal accomplishes nothing but vindicating our enemies and empowering them to commit more acts of terrorism.

Look I think the war has imploded under the weight of it’s own thinly veiled façade of lies and gross ignorance of the people and political culture of the people we invaded shown by the Congressional and Presidential leadership. However we started this war and we have to fix it or else it will end just as the Korean War did and again in Vietnam. This war will guide the direction our foreign policy will take for probably the next fifty years, we can be on the receiving end or we can be the leader we have risen the be. Now is the time for us to shine and do the right thing, fix the problems we created not run and hide because we are too selfish and apathetic to the plight of our fellow man.

This coming civil war could be the spark needed to ignite WWIII the Islamic nations are looking for a fight and we threw the first punch how can we possibly expect to talk our way out of this one. Running away accomplishes nothing but making us lose face in front of an enemy that swears his undying hatred for us daily and dreams of crushing our nation. We need to fight back, it is the only way to fix our blunder.

Why Democrats are the enemy
y Nothing the democrats have done since the start of the war is about helping the troops or fighting for any of the noble ideas this country (in theory) stands for. They have created a zero sum game in which the only way they can “win” (this shouldn’t be about winning or losing, people are dieing all over American pettiness) is to humiliate and break George W Bush. In a zero sum game the only way to achieve your goals is the cause your opposition to fail in achieving theirs, how is this good for America? Regardless of how you feel about Bush HE IS OUR PRESIDENT, for good our bad he is our leader and you don’t undermine your leader to this degree and expect any good to come of this. What the Democrats are doing is a low-level coup against him where they hope to bind him and essentially strip him of all power. Why you may ask, they still haven’t accepted they lost the 2000 election.

The only fair way to do a recount is to recount the whole county you can’t select certain counties and claim that they are the only messed up ones. I guarantee you that every county in the country has elements of voter fraud and messed up ballots. You recount everywhere to be fair.

Back to the war, the Democrats hope to destroy Bush so they can take over and gain power.

All their “opposition” serves as is a power grab in the hopes of persuading voters through lies and bullying that Republicans mean them harm.

The revolutionaries of the 60’s (and they were revolutionaries hoping to topple the status quo and current system in hopes of creating a regime in line with their bong enhanced political mindsets) viewed this fight as a struggle for the soul of the nation and escalated the fight to mythic proportions in order to win. They hoped to break the resolved of LBJ and Nixon they succeeded but at great cost. The cost? The very will of the nation to stand united moreover they permanently drove a wedge between the contrasting political ideologies and framed the argument completely upon the idea of right and wrong back and white.

It’s never that easy, nothing except paint is black and white, all political structures and ideas need to exist in a grey area of compromise because it’s impossible for a leader to be all things to all people and it’s wrong to try to impose your ideas on others.

The Liberals have greatly weakened the United States bargaining power in armed conflicts, Bin Laden nailed it when he called the US Military paper tigers, we are weak and afraid to fight. It’s important to note that our enemy is not. We are fickle and selfish, we only want what is easy to obtain, and we refuse to take responsibility for our actions there is always a third party to blame. Thanks to the liberal tendencies I’ve picked up in my 25 years I blame the Democrats for all this, you have weakened America all so you could get re-elected. You care nothing about anyone that doesn’t agree with you and these enlightened open-minded liberals refuse to even acknowledge any of the merits of any other point of view that in away way differs from their own. Tolerance and understanding don’t come with Buts at the end, it’s universal and it’s fair. Which oddly enough brings me to our other public enemy…

Why Republicans are the enemy
There is no such thing as good and evil, they are man made constructs. God does not speak to you, and this war should never ever have been turned into a religious war predicated upon the idea that we are right because we worship the correct way are you are evil because you pray to the same god the wrong way. You think Western Nations would have learned this lesson after the Reformation when hundreds of thousands (if not more) died because we couldn’t agree on how to worship the same god. Freaking idiots.

It’s never that easy nothing except paint is black and white, all political structures and ideas need to exist in a grey area of compromise because it’s impossible for a leader to be all things to all people and it’s wrong to try to impose your ideas on others.

All their “opposition” serves as is a power grab in the hopes of persuading voters through lies and bullying that Democrats mean them harm.

(Catch the similarities in tactics)

The Republican Party as we knew officially died in 1994 when we saw the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement, a populist based Christian movement permeating with hatred for non-Christians and non-Christian points of view. They do however worship at the alter of two gods, one Christian and the other the all mighty dollar.

This is the party that dreams for the glory days of old, where you could beat your wife with little reason, where gays hide in the closet where they belonged and any talk of science in the classroom would lead to you being run out of town as a heretic. It’s important to note that the last time we had a Christian nation we burned women at the stake for maybe being witches and we savagely brutalized the native population in the name of manifest destiny.

These days are over for a reason, people want the freedom to be as weird and odd as they feel, is it a good thing yes and no, do gay guys freak me out, yes, but I’m not going to run over and beat them over the head with my bible to prove my point. I don’t care who you have sex with so long as they are of age and it is consensual. We are all equal on this earth so no one person is better in the eyes of god. As such, any attempt to regulate the country based on religious principles should be discouraged because it’s dangerous.

When you base laws on religious principles they become unquestionable and when a law becomes unquestionable it is totalitarian and against the tenants of a democracy. Moreover lets say we do decide to abandon our democracy in favor of a Christian Theocracy (you know a Theocracy, just like they have in Iran, a nation totally run by the religious establishment doesn’t everyone in Iran look happy and content with the religious totalitarianism and oppression visited upon them daily) to do so would fundamentally alter the notion of freedom and ability to express ourselves.

Now as for taxes and limited government, the Republicans of old got it right. Limited government with personal responsibility is the best means of promoting freedom and ensuring economic prosperity and in my opinion the only real way to fight poverty with out bringing everyone down. Now there are no differences between the parties when it comes to government spending (actually the Republicans might actually be worse than the democrats) both parties believe in huge government spending and eroding the foundation of personal liberty. The Republicans believe that social control based on Christian moral principles are the most effective means of sustaining the status quo rather you like it or not.

The fact is the status quo is supposed to change to reflex the people living in it, to ignore it or forcibly alter it is totalarinism, in other words it stands in direct contrast to our current form of government standards. The best way to promote personal freedom is a strong sense of states rights. The Republicans under Lincoln greatly expanded on the notion of the federal government with his heavy-handed micromanaging approach and the presidents the proceeded him continued him in this tradition. The nation was founded as a series of independent states banding together for the common good but each retained state sovereignty. However, in the last 130 years we have seen this completely erode takes in large part to the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the age of Lincoln. Both parties believe that it is now the role of the federal government to regulate everything (fact remains what works in California does not always work in Kentucky, and broad over regulated policies are bad for the public because they do not reflect cultural and or socioeconomic differences between peoples). This practice has to stop and it should be the Republicans leading the charge since in principle they are the party of limited government.

I covered many things only maybe half of what I wanted to but frankly I’m pissed off and I’m thinking of moving to Australia where they seem to have their act together. I didn't even proof read this post before publishing it, I was that taken in the moment.

Oh and as for the next election our choices are

Hillary – lying heartless bitch obsessed with making it into the history books with ideas only half as good and her husband was able to pitch them

Obama – a populist with no experience, it’s like buying a Ford car you want to buy one but you’ve been burnt by them so many times in the past it leaves you a little “gun shy” (oops did I say that), populist does not work it’s ignorant to believe one person can be everything to everyone, the man it a complete phony with no ideas of his own

McCain- a smart but bitter man that has been running for president as long as Hillary (2000) he missed his chance the former media darling sold his conservative card to long ago. He’s like a double agent the liberals fear him because they don’t know if they can trust him and conservatives fear him because he’s spent to much time on the other side and could have become tainted

Giuliani – just because he did a good job running New York does not mean he can run the nation, what does he stand for as well, he’s to liberal to be a neo-con and to conservative to be a democrat, I can’t place this guy but the best he can hope for is a vp spot

Romney – Mormon, next

Moreover, anyone I let off this list, frankly your chances of making it are to slim to be taken seriously, see you at the convention where you kiss the ass of the guy that just whooped you by 25% points.

Libertarians emerge as a force

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:27:00 +0000

Economist.com > GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.

In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.

Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libertarians emerge as a force An Election Not Won But Lost from Josh's Weblog
The GOP abandoned its libertarian wing and we sat it out, voted for gridlock, or just plain voted “L.” The Libertarian Party website has a long list of candidates that drew more than 1% of the vote, and I'm not... Read More …
Tracked: November 8, 2006 8:19 PM

Good election news from rgcombs.blog-city.comA
s regular reades no doubt could guess, I'm not exactly cheerful about spending the next two years hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Judiciary Chair John Conyers. And I'm disappointed by the departure of ... Read More …
Tracked: November 9, 2006 12:09 AM

One Small Political Observation from Knowledge ProblemLynne Kiesling Notwithstanding the potentially pivotal role that the libertarian candidate in a Montana race played in creating a Democrat-controlled Senate (thanks to Todd Zywicki), I'm still not convinced that what the Economist observed yesterday is... Read More …
Tracked: November 9, 2006 3:35 PM

My Spin

Hugh Hewitt put it best

In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who hada
bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party
whichhad broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from
itsconservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling
casefor Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would
beworse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its
advocatesto work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this
drubbing theold fashioned way – we earned it.

This election was a grand display of how out of touch the Republican leadership really is.

The Libertarian’s have always been the “red headed stepchild” of the Republican Party, a small but committed group dedicated to the principles of individual responsibility, pro capitalism, states rights, and a small federal government. Of that list how many of those things apply to our current administration, zilch. Granted these are Libertarian values but in practice these values were the core platform of the Republican Party and that was what separated them from the Democrats.

It’s a sad day when Libertarians can be said to be carrying the flame of the old Republican order. A Democrat can make a dozen or more reasons they won this election but ultimately it comes down to this, In practice what real difference is there between Republicans and Democrats anymore (except their stance on religious matters, where Republicans have taken a decidedly pro-religious stance) voters are not as dumb as people would like to believe. Voting numbers rarely reach more than 30-40% of the population so I like to think at least a third of that number actually know what is going on and are not fooled into thinking that this is the Republican party of Regan or even George Bush Sr.

Simply put the Democrats won because the Republicans have abandoned their traditional platform of smaller government, less government spending, and strong national security, not to mention that have sold the party to the fringe elements of the Christian Coalition. Where has all this gotten them, it elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House ewwwwwwwww, the public on the whole has lost faith in George W Bush, so what harm was there in voting for a Democrat it’s basically the same person only with a more flashy tie.

Democrats have claim a mandate but look at all the races they one, almost everyone of the ended with a slim margin of victory of less than 5 thousand votes and many of them were hovering around the 2 thousand mark. Hardly an overwhelming show of support basically they won by a thread but that thread was just enough in every important race for them to win. The people still believe and want these old school Republican values they just couldn’t find them anywhere.

I seriously doubt the Republicans will see this as a moment of truth, there are no Newt Gingrich’s in Congress anymore. There is a monumental leadership void across the board in Congress on both sides of the isle. Now is the time for Republicans to go back their roots but they won’t. They much like their Democratic brotherin have found out there are riches to be had in manipulating the government to their own needs, plus it’s easier to be a populist as opposed to making a stance on a issue. Currently practically all politicians in America are populists both parties a littered with them. The public wants someone of substance someone who actually stands for something and isn’t out for themselves.

The Libertarian party is in the great position of being able to capitalize on this, if they start running a strong PR campaign emphasizing their core values and how the Republicans have abandoned them they stand in the unique position of obtaining some political clout. Look at Ross Perot, in the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote. The people will support a third party if they know who they are voting for, Perot used his massive fortune to buy airtime and the people responded.

The key here is for the Libertarian party to win just 5 seats in the House, that is all it’ll take to reshape Washington. Why 5 seats, because I’m realistic enough to realize they stand no chance of winning the Presidency or taking over Congress, they are just to small and unknown. However all politics is local in theory and it is very possible to run a strong local campaign if the funding is there. If a qualified Libertarian candidate fundraised a million dollars and ran a great local race they stand a decent chance of winning in our current political climate, also you have to be very particular about the district can’t be to conservative or liberal has to be just right. Picking the right district is probably the hardest part truthfully.

If the Libertarian party was to win 5 seats in the House it would offer them great political power, all be it no committee power but tremendous influence in roll call votes. To do so would the Republicans and Democrats to compromise on some issues in favor of Libertarian positions if they wanted Libertarian support on a bill, 5 votes can sway many many votes especially those along party lines.The hope would be that they could force some Congressional oversight on spending and reactionary votes that a designed simply to attack the opposing party. Plus it would offer another much needed view point that is by and large being overlooked.

Do I think it will happen, no, would I love to see a third party movement, hell ya!!!

When did the Republicans give up on their principles?

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:25:00 +0000

My Spin

Republicans turned in their backbones for a populist agenda in order to secure more votes, basically they "drank the kool aid", rather than trying to fight corruption or promote a rational agenda they saw a chance to capitalize on government. In addition to that Republicans tied their fate entirely to the religious right which isn't a bad thing they just decided to . The party that was supposed to be about individual liberty, smaller government, a pro capitalism agenda, and individual responsibilty gave up, but why?

Gore Vidal once said, "It makes no difference who you vote for – the two parties are really one party representing 4 percent of the people."

Harry Browne made some good points WorldNetDaily: Where have all the conservatives gone?

There used to be two highly vocal political movements in America – the conservatives and the liberals.

Although there were subtle variations, the basic difference between them was this:
Liberals were impatient with society as it was and wanted to use the force of government to change it.

Conservatives were skeptical of change, and were reluctant to use government to force changes on society.

Today, however, it's almost impossible to tell the two groups apart.

Liberals
1.The modus operandi of liberals has always been:
2.Cite a social problem.
3.Assume that this represents a failure of freedom that only the federal government can repair.
4.Propose a big-government program.
5.When someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the poor folks who are suffering.
6.When the new program fails to solve the problem (and instead makes it much worse), throw
more money at it, pass more laws, make the penalties more oppressive, and then ignore the
situation (until it's time to cite the failure as a reason to expand the program again).

In this way they've turned education into a federal responsibility – leading to unsafe schools and far too many illiterate students.

They've ruined what was once the best health-care system in history – making it terribly expensive, cruelly insensitive, and totally out of the reach of many people.

They've created a permanent underclass of welfare clients, made America's farmers dependent on the federal government, and polluted the environment by putting too much land in the care of irresponsible bureaucrats.

No matter how much and how often and how harmfully government fails at what it does, no matter how many problems it causes, liberals still ask government to bring about whatever they want.

Conservatives
Conservatives used to oppose these government programs – fighting them with economic arguments, pointing to unintended consequences, and citing the unconstitutionality of the proposals.

But no longer.

Conservatives have used the federal government to wage a horrendous Drug War. The result has been drug-dealing gangs in the streets, children killed in drive-by shootings, crack babies, increased drug use, and a trashing of the Bill of Rights.

And how do they propose to deal with this enormous failure?

Throw more money at it, make the prison terms more oppressive, take away more of our civil liberties, trash the Constitution even further. In other words, do more of the things that created the problems.

If someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the crack babies and the families hurt by drugs.

If government schools are a mess, cite uneducated children as a reason for a government program to subsidize private schools – which will surely turn those schools into clones of the government schools (as happened with private colleges).

If federal welfare is a tragedy, propose putting religious charities on the federal dole – so that they, too, can become beggars at the government trough, doing the bureaucrats' bidding in order to keep the subsidies coming.

If it's revealed that our military, the FBI, or the CIA hasn't perform its mission properly, throw more money at it, expand whatever program has failed, give more power to the bureaucrats. And if anyone objects, if anyone cites the Constitution, just accuse him of ignoring the victims of 9-11.

No matter how much, and how often, and how harmfully government fails at what it does – no matter how many problems it causes – conservatives still ask government to bring about whatever they want.

No difference
-In other words, conservatives now sound exactly like liberals.
-Cite social problems as justification for expanding the federal government.
-If anyone opposes the proposal, accuse him of being heartless or anti-American.
-Ignore the Constitution if it conflicts with one's pet crusade.
-And no matter how bad a program gets, the answer always is to make it bigger, more
expensive, and more powerful.

What did you get for your vote?
Conservative writers and commentators oppose big-government programs only if they're proposed by Bill Clinton or some other Democratic president. Then they're constitutionalists – sounding the alarm against big government.

At least with Clinton, there was an opposition party. But with a Republican in the White House, there's no opposition. Thus government grew more rapidly under Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush than it did under Clinton.

In 2000, many people said they were voting for George Bush because he was the lesser of two evils.

But it turns out that Bush is doing all the things Gore would have done – only now, there's no opposition.

So it appears that those people who chose Bush actually voted for the greater of two evils – big government and no opposition.

It's terrible when even the liberals agree

Lyn Davis Lear: Where Have the Conservatives Gone? The Huffington Post

Over the years I always thought of our Republican friends as good old fashioned fiscal conservatives. But now I wonder what has happened to them. Where have all the common sense conservatives gone? I don't understand how Republican moderates can tolerate the religious fundamentalists who have taken over their party and vow to force their religious and right wing social agenda on all of us.

I have this fantasy that out there in the country there is this sleeping giant of outraged moderate conservatives who will grab the power back from the party extremists during the next election. Wishful thinking.

One of the few moderate Republicans we can count on some of the time is John McCain. Recently he's said he would vote against the elimination of the filibuster. I love that, but I wish he would say it out loud, and forcefully. Like this:

The religious factions growing throughout our land are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. From where do they presume to dictate their moral beliefs to me? I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of Conservatism.

If you think I wrote the above for Senator McCain, you are mistaken. Those are the verbatim words of Senator Barry Goldwater who held McCain's seat thirty some years ago. I never thought of Goldwater as a moderate conservative. Yet in today's world he sounds like a flaming liberal. I wish we could bring him back and I wish we could find some others like him.

My Spin
I honestly think this loss is probably the best thing that could have happened to the Republican party and American politics in general. Let me explain,
1. Our government has lost all sense of itself and truth be told there is little difference
between Republicans and Democrats, except in terms of religion
2. The last three Republican-controlled congresses have been the biggest spenders in history. Fiscal conservatives are dismayed not just by the amounts Republicans have been spending, but by the manner in which it is being spent. Earmarks have exploded under the GOP.
3. Corrution is rampant, the Jack Abramoff scandal displays that - at least in my household as I was raised Democrats are the party of scandal and special interest and the Republicans were the party of business but at least they were more honest, well no longer
4. This will force them to reawaken and select better Congressional leadership, the heads of the Hydra have been removed the question is what takes their place
5. I'm certain the Democrats will squander these next two years the same way the
Republicans have and hopefully the public will see this and begin to demand more from their government
6. Bush needs a little oversight for two years he's had a free reign and it's time he started to compromise a little, espically since compromise is a bread and butter of politics
7. Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the worst thing that has happend to Congress in years and I'm certain she will reveal herself to be a bitter divider and will promote an ultra liberal objective at the expense of the public, if your a leader you have to create bridges not destroy them (like Bush and his Republican croonies have)
8. Rumsfeld stepped down so that shows Republicans are willing to work and reach across the isle, I doubt Pelosi will do the same
9. Republican ego's are a little to big and they had their time two years ago when they swept everything fair is fair, Democrats which had no platform in this election, they offered a better pitch to voters - 2004 Republicans used fear as their platform which worked great, 2006 Democrats used We're not Republicans to great success
10.Leadership vacuum across the board!!!!!!

The one area liberals and conversatives definatly differ is their view with respect to a particular office. You may hate George W Bush but he is still the president and deserves a certain level of respect as a result but liberals don't care about that. The same goes for public speaking events, Ann Coulter gets assaulted anywhere she goes for what she believes (yes I think she is full of it too) liberals trow pies and or anything they can get ahold of at her, they protest in front of buildings and insult whomever enters the door with screams of Nazi and Hate Monger. To date (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I want real proof) Conversatives don't do that, people on the religious right may but thats more of a religoius debate as opposed to a politcal one. That right there shows a certain level of respect for a persons.

A good site discusses the Regan funeral
The Veiled Chameleon: Are Democrats and Republicans the Same?

Why I cannot continue to vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils - Homeland Stupidity

I’ve come to see that Republicans are two-faced. On paper, Republicans are easily more favorable than Democrats to a libertarian-minded person such as myself. On paper, they support lower taxes, less socialism, limited government, a rigid interpretation of the Constitution, property rights, parental rights and gun rights. In practice, they do little to permanently relieve the tax burden, they support wealth redistribution in a variety of forms, they’ve bloated the government to an unprecedented degree, they’ve made a mockery of Amendments One, Four, Six, Eight and Ten, they’ve been slow and inadequate in their response to the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision. That leaves parental rights and gun rights. So if all you want to do is to teach your kid that God created the world in seven 24-hour periods or shoot empty beer cans for fun, the Republican Party has your back. Otherwise, it’s time to wake up and realize you’ve been duped.

A brief history of the Republican party and how they have changed in the last 20 years

Truth & Progress :: Migration of the Elephants: "GOP icons lament party's drift, head for other side"

How to move faster than the speed of light

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:45:00 +0000

Ok the laws of physics state that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, why is that, just because we havn't seen any object go faster does not mean we can't.

According to popular theory light is the fastest thing in the universe and to go faster than light will in effect bend space time as such you will be bending time itself and you will be altering our known reality. However according to the laws of physics, Einstein primarily, you can’t go faster than light it’s the one constant we can’t break.

I contend than light may well be the fastest thing in the universe but it is quite possible to move faster than light. While not at this time possible it is potentially possible harnessing the greatest force in the universe the one constant even light can avoid or break, that constant is gravity.

In a black hole nothing escapes even light, the gravity is so strong that the every space fabric is bended to the black holes whims. Our speed is dependent upon our ability to fight gravity; it is never possible to break free of all gravity since every entity in this reality is affected on some level by gravity. It is possible to use gravity to speed yourself up if you can match the gravitational pull of the largest strongest gravitational object in the solar system you can act as a counter weight and push yourself away from it at speeds far greater than light.

According to popular theory back holes are that the center or every solar system and they are what holds a solar system in orbit around itself. It you match the strength of the host black hole through some artificial means you can push yourself the same way a monorail uses magnetism to push itself along a track. By using gravity you have an unlimited potentially for speed the more gravity you exert the faster you go all you have to do is find a strong enough counter weight to push against. Perhaps at the center of the universe there is an ultra super massive black hole if you are able to match the gravitational pull of that object you can latterly move any object in the universe on a whim. However the potential ramifications could unmake current solar systems since it is unknown if exerting equal force will freeze objects in their place or will cause them to move towards you thus neutralizing the pull of a black hole on it’s host galaxy. For obvious reasons only one object possessing such “anti-gravity” powers should exist with in one galaxy for fear that two objects exerting such gravity would neutralize each other and could potentially pull a galaxy apart away from it’s black hole center.

When to galaxies collide the larger of the two (the one with more gravity) will eat the other absorbing the mass and collective gatherings of the smaller gravitational force. If you match and or create a stronger force you can in effect create your own solar system.

Gravity can establish speed and should be the measuring stick for determining how fast we can go, light is only the fastest thing we know of yet, and is far from being the strongest.

Don't bring gender into the debate

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:45:00 +0000

The Boston Globe > ST. PETERSBURG TIMES columnist Robyn Blumner has unwittingly stepped into a David-and-Goliath war with radio talk show king Rush Limbaugh over the issues of politics, gender, and values. Can, and should, female values change and improve world politics? It's a debate that has been with us for at least 150 years, and shows no sign of being resolved.

Blumner opened the skirmish with an Aug. 20 column provocatively titled ``US could use more girlie men." (Full disclosure: Blumner is a friend and a board member of the Women's Freedom Network, a group I helped found in 1994.) Drawing on the HBO series ``Deadwood," set in the nearly all-male environment of a gold mining camp in the 1870s, Blumner noted that a ``testosterone-laden" world ruled by the code of the gunslinger is an inhospitable place not only for women but for kinder, gentler, smarter men. Then she wrote, ``I've been feeling lately that the world has suddenly gone all male -- Deadwood-male to be exact. And this is not a good sign for civilization."

As an example of this hypermasculine ethos, Blumner cited radical Islamic fundamentalism and cultures where ``men would rather shoot guns at ancient enemies than build a modern society." But she argued that the Bush administration with its ``cowboy approach to geopolitics," its reliance on warfare over diplomacy, and its cavalier attitude toward niceties like due process was a part of the same problem. Enter Limbaugh, who was quick to brand Blumner ``blissfully naive" and ``a useful idiot," and whose callers (as Blumner recounts in her latest column on Aug. 27) scornfully asserted that without all those macho men to protect her freedoms, Blumner would be dead or encased in a burka.

My Spin

Ok lets say for instance women were the heads of states for half of the worlds nations. Can you honestly tell me that as a result of this action war would cease among these nations and a general sense of harmony would spill over the world forcing us brutish and mean men out of our metaphorical "caves" if you will and it usher in a new world order based on gender equality, peace, life, and happiness.

You got to be kidding me...

Have you ever seen two women who don't like each other scheme and pick at one another for years because they both wore the same dress to a dinner party, or one of them flirted with the others man. Women are far more petty and hostile than men, just go to any American Highschool and observe the in crowd females, they all jockey for power and prestigue and will do anything to get it. Women are mean, mothers are nice but women are mean. Simply put if women consisted of half the worlds heads of states there really would be no difference I believe. To hold a position as powerful as the president to have to put a certain level of personal feeling aside and just focus of the task at hand. If solving this problem requires a military strike and you don't send one because as a woman you think it's a bad idea ding ding ding your not acting with the countries best interest in mind.

War is a natural construct of our collective societial instinct to protect and extend of umbrella of safety. Social Contract Theory states we formed society to protect one another and gave up certain rights and privilages to the state for our collective good. Perhaps ancient humans selected a man to lead because men at the time were more aggressive and better fighters so they were better equiped to protect the state.

The times we live in now dictate a softer hand I agree and diplomacy should always be the first option but the logic of women is just better makes you no better than a common bigot. It is flat wrong to think that any race, religion, culture, set of values, or gender is better than another and as a result more fit to lead. We are all equal, and if your reading this article don't let hate influence you, we are all people and we are all equal and no man or woman is better because of their gender.

The Blog | Peter Laufer: And Now they Send More | The Huffington Post

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:14:00 +0000

The Blog Peter Laufer: And Now they Send More The Huffington Post

As I travel the country telling the stories of the soldiers I profile in my book Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq, one question recurs regularly from the audiences I speak with and it is a question that is all-but-impossible to answer: How many soldiers oppose the war in Iraq?

Today we’re closer to an educated guess.

We know that of the million soldiers who have cycled through the Afghanistan and Iraq war theaters, only a tiny fraction have made the bold and brave move to publicly reject the Iraq War and refuse to deploy or redeploy to the war. But from those who have come out publicly against the war, we hear stories of their compatriots in uniform who are quietly opposed to the Bush Administration’s failed Iraq policy. These soldiers may be just waiting out their tours of duty, counting the days while trying to stay alive. Others may be considering damaging themselves slightly in order to be sent back to Germany or home for treatment. Still others are deciding to fail drug tests in order to force a discharge order before they face deployment. And of course some are doing the jobs they signed up for, but out of a sense of duty to the armed services and their colleagues-in-arms, not because they subscribe to perpetually changing war rationalizations coming out of the White House.

My Spin

How many soldiers oppose the war in Iraq? Ok that’s a valid question, to the extent that a soldier’s opinion matters. While that sounds harsh when you sign that contract and agree to serve your country and willingly give your life in defense of that country you wave any right to say no. Your new job is to follow orders with out question (so long as that order is not illegal- even then the law recognizes and respects actions done under a direct order). A soldiers place is to follow orders and do the job assigned to them without question. While a soldier may object to the war it is their sworn duty to still fight in said war without question, Casey Sheehan did just that he gave his life thus upholding his sworn duty to follow orders and protect his country - he is a hero. Using him as a tool to fight the war however is wrong, as a soldier you can't pick what wars you want to fight or what president you support.

What the political left is hoping to accomplish while admirable is misguided. This is a war and it needs to be treated as such, the anti-war movement is only making things harder for our troops. There is no retreating we are stuck there till the job is done, period. Ok now common sense dictates that you work within the environment you find yourself in, arguing the merits of the war now is irrelevant, Bush did it and he's not going to backtrack, accept it. If you want to bring the troops home sooner help the US fight the people who wish to kill you only then will Bush bring the troops home sooner. Fighting against Bush only makes the war last longer by strengthening our enemies.

Look at what happened to Israel with their fight against Hezbollah, there is no doubt that Israel is the stronger but they lost politically because all the anti-war forces tired their hands so what happens now. Well Israel is weaker and will fall victim to more terrorist strikes and will be forced to once again go to war and it will result in a much larger conflict, a regional conflict.

We are building up to an all out war the whole world is taking sides and preparing; the situation is eerily similar to WWI. The US and Iran are going to go to war this will drag China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, England, Australia, Japan – look at all the courtiers that have a stake in this conflict and these are only the countries that I thought of off the top of my head. We can’t mess around now it’s all or nothing the decision has been made for you accept it or bury your head in the sand a little longer.

Sheehan resumes war protest near Bush's ranch

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:19:00 +0000

Chron.com > A year after her first war protest in President Bush's adopted hometown attracted thousands and reinvigorated the nation's peace movement, Cindy Sheehan resumed her vigil today.

Under the blazing Texas sun, Sheehan and more than 50 demonstrators again marched a mile and a half toward Bush's ranch, stopping at a roadblock. As the Secret Service agents stood silently, Sheehan held up her California driver's license and said she wanted to meet with the president.

"It doesn't say my new address, but I do live here now,'' said Sheehan, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., and recently bought land in Crawford for war protests. ``My name is Cindy and Bush killed my son.''

The group then chanted, "This is what democracy looks like! This is what democracy sounds like!'' and a few people sang "This Land Is My Land'' while standing near the roadblock before returning to the protest site.

My Spin

I really hate this woman - The line "My name is Cindy and Bush killed my son.'' perfectly sums up this womans mission and how she views this situation. Bush is the President and he made an order to the enlisted troops to go to war which is his right and duty as president. You can debate the merits of the war all day but it won't change a thing. We went to war people have died and no amount of protesting or fame seeking will bring anyone back. Casey Sheehan was a soldier he enlisted to fight for his county which meant he waved any choice he had in participation in any armed conflcit. Many people are waking up to the reality that joining the military means your volunteering your life to your country, you work for "Uncle Sam" and as a result you do what "Uncle Sam" says. Casey was called to war and fought and gave his life in defense of his country this is the single most noble act this coutny recognizes.

Cindy Sheehan could never understand that oath Casey took if she did she would understand that Casey died for his country and while it's tragic it's a war and that happens. Protesting the reasons we went to war won't accomplish anything since we went to war and it's been 3 years. Your not going to stop the war and protesting only proves how ignorant you really are. Find some better reasons for bringing our troops how or even better work with the government and help them find a solution for bringing our troops how (since they don't seem to be able to find one). Furthermore "cutting and running" is not a exit strategy it's an excuse and admitting defeat. If we leave now it means the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. Those people will die just so people like Cindy Sheehan can just vindicated. She doesn't care about whats right only what she wants and that makes her a hyprocrite and no better than the man she is protesting against.

The fact remains that the war is ongoing and it will only end when one side quits, which ever side quits will suffer as a result politically, economically, militarily, and the civil unrest will be great. It can either be the American people or the crazy killers looking to take over the world and place us all under and oppressive religious regime against our wills.

Pick on Cindy

BITCH

Im moving out of my apartment

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:19:00 +0000

I’m moving out of my apartment

So tomorrow is my last day in my apartment, I’ve lived here for 2 years now…it’s crazy it’s the end of one of my life periods. I’m moving on with my life out of school and into my first career. When I realized grad school wasn’t for me and quit (don’t go into student affairs kids – higher education administration- the job market sucks, your judged by your resume and not your traits if you don’t have a doctorate you’re unless and trapped in a middle level job with a ceiling of only 50k a year no thanks, not trying to be a prick but my life will peak at 26 that’s it I’m at my careers end by 26 that sucks

I heard a rumor involving a potential job in the Kentucky State Government, awesome even if I don’t go into government I’ll still have a stent in state government, that would defiantly look awesome on a resume.

So my life is changing I’ve spent the last 2 years in this phase in my life and it’s over, One last day in my apartment…

You have to be a bastard to make it, and that's a fact. And the Beatles are the biggest bastards on earth. John Lennon

The end of cowboy diplomacy - Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:03:00 +0000

CNN.com > All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt.

A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.

And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.

Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.

Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.

The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.

My Spin

I liked this article because it shows in good detail the media bias here, first they go into great detail of all of Bush's failures just to make sure they are fresh in your mind before you read the article. While I agree Bush is trying to mend his image and hoping to project a more team oriented approach to government he needs to realize the rest of the world is fearful of war and will not step up and do what is sometimes necessary in order to protect the interests of the Western World - I say Western World because who stands to gain from the war in Iraq the Western World.

Bush is trying to find his middle ground but he can't escape his lone ranger approach to international relations. The US is the hedgemon and with that we deserve a degree of respect and freedom, when your the alpha male you call the shots correct. It's difficult when your policy which could help millions is being stomped on by a nation of 1 million, in the middle of no where, with no political influence, just because they don't like it. Where the rest of the world turns a blind eye to human rights abuses just because they lack the will to fight. The Bush lead government is trying to do what they view as correct and necessary for the world to continue on and to protect the status quo. While many want the status quo changed the US is the hedgemon and with it comes the right to decide what we do and how we exert our power.

We live in confusing and stressful times where the line between right and wrong or even good and evil are becoming much more subjective and lie entirely upon the values/morals for the person who is looking at said event.

For instance

While the Palestinians are in deed supporting terroism it's their only means to fight off an oppressive regime that has taken lands they had previously held for centuries, theirs is a noble fight since they are fighting for their own survival.

Israel is waged in a fight for their own survival, they have been given a chance for peace
and security within a nation of their own, a refuge where the rest of the world can not oppress or attack them, they have come back to reclaim their birthright and once again come home to Israel superior, but they have constantly attacked by a hate mongering populas hell bent in destroying them and even refusing to acknowledge that Israeli's have a right to exist.
So who is in the right here who has the moral authority to wag war, answer both of them because we live in a world where any cause is noble so long as your a good spindoctor.

Israel accuses Hamas of 'terror escalation' after school attack.

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:42:00 +0000

ABC News Online > Israel says Hamas is inciting a grave "escalation in terror" after a rocket attack struck an Israeli school and vowed more military action to secure the release of a captured soldier.

Hours after an ultimatum set by the conscript's Palestinian captors expired, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert again ruled out any negotiations with militants and promised to strike anyone linked to them, in a thinly veiled reference to Syria.

Israel proclaimed its soldier was alive, after the captors of 19-year-old Gilad Shalit, seized nine days ago and wounded in a Palestinian raid, expired at 6:00am local time, with demands that Israel release prisoners or "face the consequences".

A Hamas-claimed rocket attack late on Tuesday, that caused no casualties but marked the first time a rocket had landed inside the town of Ashkelon, sparked fresh words of warning from Mr Olmert.

"This strike on the heart of Ashkelon is a very serious incident which constitutes an escalation of unprecedented gravity in the campaign of terror waged by Hamas, which leads the Palestinian Authority," Mr Olmert said.

My Spin

I support Israel and I believe they are in the right here, they have extended the olive branch and were trying to work towards peace they made the first step and Hamas spit in their face (figure of speech)

however this was to be expected of course Hamas would esculate the terror attacks it's all they have as a means to defend themselves from the overwhelming Israeli war machine. I hate that this had to happen because its the average Palestinian that suffers in this conflict and not the terrorist leaders and started this fight. They are sacfricing these innocent people for their "holy war" against Israel. It's a shame that the Palestinian people can't see they are pawns being manipulated and made to suffer for someone elses war. Now is the time for the Palestinian people to say no more and put an end to the terror campaign, terrorism has not worked against Israel and this shows that Israel has had enough and they will kill all the Palestinians in order to protect themselves.

Palestinian's have two choices in this conflict 1) work with Israel for peace 2) be killed
it's up to them now Israel can not be intimiated or defeated by terrorism all it does is make them mad which translates into death and destruction for Palestine

Can Daily Kos Control Dems? - Or should they even try

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:24:00 +0000

Can Daily Kos Control Dems? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com > Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is sitting on his back porch in Berkeley, Calif., listening to the hummingbirds and explaining his plans to seize control of the Democratic Party. It is one week after YearlyKos, the Las Vegas conference of progressives that Moulitsas sponsored and promoted heavily on his popular liberal blog, DailyKos.com. Every major media outlet in the country had attended the conference, detailing the spectacle of Democratic bigwigs (including the party's Senate minority leader and four of its leading 2008 presidential aspirants) embracing Moulitsas as the guru of an activist movement they were eager to exploit. With the conference, Moulitsas says, his movement had finally proved its relevance to the party. "We're not sitting around waiting for the so-called professionals to give us power in the party," he tells NEWSWEEK. "We're taking it for ourselves."

The talk of the blogosphere last week was "Kosola"—allegations that Moulitsas wrote favorably about candidates with whom he or his close friend and coauthor Jerome Armstrong had financial relationships. Moulitsas swore the charges were baseless (Armstrong, too, has denied impropriety), but they clearly got under his skin. When The New Republic's Web site published an e-mail from Moulitsas to a group of friendly activists urging them not to talk about Kosola and thus "starve it of oxygen," Moulitsas went berserk in a blog posting, accusing the venerable liberal journal of treason. By the weekend, Moulitsas's allies were sending each other e-mails infected with the paranoia of revolutionaries who've gained power too fast: How should they deal with traitors? How much openness could they handle? Which fellow travelers could they really trust?

My Spin

it would appear that the new medium (an untamed horse if you will) has become broken and tamed to the political establishment. Anytime a blog gets bought off to serve as the lap dog or anyone or thing drives a nail into the coffin of the original blogsphere. Welcome to the new internet or should I call it the Mainstream Media the Sequel. The rebel media is now going to control the Democratic party, I have no doubt that they will one day control and manipuate public opinion in just the way CNN or FOX news does, but the real question is why would a blog want to. Well there is the money, book deals, publicity, and fame which anyone would want. To be a shaper of public opinion is the greatest power a person can possess, Teddy Rosevelt knew it and worked it well.

Kos has a huge base of supporters just like MoveOn.org but the real question is can an activist think tank bring in real votes. Howard Dean bet his presidency on it and where did it get him, well now he's the new head of the Democratic Party so pretty far it would seem. However extremism will never get you to the White House, the public would much rather vote for a Conversative Extremist than and Leftist one, why because the Conversatives have a monopoly on patriotism. You can't really call yourself a patriot when your bashing the government and burning the president in efficacy. Only history have the authority to determine who a partroit is - George Washington was hated by many on both sides of the ocean for his terrorist attacks and rebel uprising.

my thoughts on the web

by their very make up blogs are supposed to be outside the mainstream media, but will they remain that way

the blogsphere was created, as an alternative to the large corporate owned mainstream media where by the average joe would have the means to present his/her opinion in any format or venue they so choose. The hope is that the net would forever remain a vestige of freedom of thought, expression, and help in the distribution of ideas.

how well has it held up to that goal is entirely up to the reader to decide but in my opinion (since isn’t that all a blog really is) is that if you choose to report on the news you have a responsibility to present the news and your web blog is not to be a corporate or politically purchased commercial. Your news becomes a commercial to be exploited for the personal gain of the administrator. Maybe the talking heads over at Daily Kos really supported the candidates they were blogging about that’s great if they did but if you take money to write favorably about a particular person or issue your no better than Fox News or CNN. People turned to blogs as an avenue to get away from commercialized dribble and find out real facts and opinion. The beauty of the blogssphere is that a 14 year old high school kid with no real knowledge of politics can write his feels about George Bush good or bad and your reading it knowing it knowing this piece in front of me is real, it’s this kids real opinion – it doesn’t matter that every other word is spelt wrong or contains a cuss word, it’s pure unadulterated opinion. All reporting is nothing more than a persons perception of the world around them and to present your opinion as fact makes you a liar and as fraudulent as 3 dollar bill.

I’m not any better than anyone else and I’m certainly as informed as I would like to be I write about what I like in an effort to try and reach one person and show them that the news can be interesting and impress upon them the need to be informed about the world around us. The reason corruption happens is because no one stops it, how can we as a nation stop corruption if no one is paying attention. This scandal will only turn people away from the news. I know the crowd that reads the Daily Kos – I link to stories off there as well – and this scandal won’t detract them, it’s just lousy to think that even here on the net where an amenity and freedom are the motto that people are still willing to sell their souls for a buck.

Illegal Status Hinders Mexican Voting Bloc

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:12:00 +0000

Illegal Status Hinders Mexican Voting Bloc > In a Mexican presidential election so close the winner won't be named for days, many expatriates did not vote for fear their illegal status in the U.S. would be exposed.

Thousands of Mexican expatriates streamed into border towns Sunday to vote in their homeland's elections and others were allowed to cast absentee ballots for the first time. But some were disenfranchised by their fear of crossing the border as undocumented residents.

"Why couldn't they have made it easier for us to vote here?" said Adriana Lopez, 27, a housewife and illegal immigrant in Orange County who wanted to but couldn't vote out of fear to cross the border. "The governments at home are always so corrupt."

When Mexico's Congress passed a law last year extending suffrage to expatriates, Mexicans here hailed it as overdue recognition of the billions of dollars they send home every year.

Celebrations turned to frustration when it was learned that people who wanted to vote needed a current electoral card, and that the cutoff date to apply for an absentee ballot was nearly six months before the election. Mexican electoral laws also do not allow campaigning in the United States, making it hard for expatriates to connect with candidates.

Fear over the last year kept many from traveling to Mexico to vote in person or apply for a voter card, necessary to request an absentee ballot or vote in Mexico on Election Day.

My Spin

this is ridiculous, now illegal immigrants are mad at the US because we wouldn't let them go back across the border to vote then sneak back across the border illegally - you can't have it both ways your either Mexican or American (if your American there is no reason you can' t be an American of Mexican Desent, just become a citizen thats all we ask), I can understand wanting to have a say in the political process in Mexico but you live here (legally, or illegally) and it's not right for you to jump the border vote and leave again that defeats the purpose of voter registration and completely tampers with voting results, because who knows if your really a Mexican citizen or a Columbian for instance.

I really can not understand the mindset of the illegal immigrants in this country, all we want is for you to come here legally, become a citizen and then your free to do whatever you like, send money back home we don't care, plus as a citizen you pay taxes which helps everyone else in addition your children can go to school, you have access to health care, you can vote here (much more important than Mexico). You help everyone if you become an American citizen.

Jail Psychiatrist: Yates Was Psychotic

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:10:00 +0000

Guardian Unlimited Jail Psychiatrist: Yates Was Psychotic > The day after drowning her five children in the bathtub, Andrea Yates sat in a psychiatric unit at the county jail and asked for a razor to shave her head, a case worker testified.

Yates quoted Bible verses, then said that ``666'' - which is said to be the ``Number of the Beast'' in the Book of Revelation - was on her scalp as she was being evaluated at Harris County Jail, former case worker Corey Washington testified Thursday.

Washington said he stood to look at the back of Yates' head and noticed three marks that he was told were scabs where she had picked at her scalp.

``I kind of buckled a little bit,'' said Washington, testifying in Yates' second capital murder trial. Testimony was to resume Friday.

Yates, who turns 42 on Sunday, is being retried because her 2002 conviction was overturned last year by an appeals court citing erroneous testimony. She has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity and faces life in prison if convicted.

Earlier Thursday, Dr. Melissa R. Ferguson was the first defense witness. Ferguson evaluated Yates the day after she drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. Yates is being tried for three of the deaths.
Ferguson, then the jail's medical director of psychiatric services, said Yates at first showed no emotion but then started crying and yelling.

``She screamed, 'Couldn't I have killed just one to fulfill the prophecy? Couldn't I have offered Mary? Are they in heaven?''' Ferguson said.

Ferguson said that when she asked Yates whether she was suicidal, she said, ``I cannot destroy Satan; only the state can.''

``She said at her death the prophecy would be fulfilled,'' Ferguson told jurors.

Reaction to Court Ruling Over Guantanamo

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:36:00 +0000

Reaction to Court Ruling Over Guantanamo

"The Supreme Court's decision concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay is a major rebuke to an administration that has too often disregarded the rule of law." _ Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
___
"We can't allow terrorists to simply return home and restart their war plans. Guantanamo will remain open so long as it is in the national security interests of the United States." _ Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
___
"It sends a message loud and clear that what President Bush has been doing in the war on terror is illegal. If we are going to win this fight, it is important that we fight it with the rule of law and by the ideals on which the U.S. stands." _ Zachary Katznelson, senior counsel for Reprieve, which provides free legal representation to 36 Guantanamo Bay detainees.
___
"It's now time for the Bush administration to close the Guantanamo prison, and either return the prisoners to their home countries or bring them to justice in the United States." _ Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
___
_ "Guantanamo serves as an important detention and intelligence facility. ... It enables us to thwart future attacks. It serves as an important detention center but also an intelligence gathering facility." _ Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
___

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President George W. Bush lacks authority to try Guantanamo Bay inmates before military tribunals, a blow to the administration's anti-terrorism strategy that scales back executive wartime powers.

The justices, voting 5-3, said Congress hadn't expressly authorized the military commissions. The justices also said the tribunals violate the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which guarantees such protections as the right to be present at trial.

The ruling is a major political and legal setback for Bush, scuttling plans to try three dozen Guantanamo inmates before tribunals. The ruling also boosts suits challenging the incarceration of hundreds of other detainees. It's a victory for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden accused of conspiracy.

``In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

Bush said he will comply with the decision and ask Congress to give an explicit authorization for tribunals, a possibility left open by today's ruling. The ruling ``won't cause killers to be put out on the street,'' the president said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, said he will introduce legislation authorizing tribunals with ``appropriate due process procedures for trials of terrorist combatants.''

My Spin

well first off I guess this means John Roberts isn't Bush's lap dog, if he was a diehard Republican/Conversative why would he have ever heard this case...the fact remains the court did the right thing.

Why was it a good thing, because the act of holding someone in jail with no evidence and having never charged them with a crime is illegal and immoral

The act of holding someone against their will and having never charged them with anything is the same thing Saddam did against the Iraqi's. I'm in favor of the Guantanamo Camps because we need to do something with dangerous people like Salim Ahmed Hamdan (yeah he was only Bin Ladens driver but he knew he was consorting with a man wanted by the US governemnt and did nothing, he was an accessory simple as that), however legally speaking we need to do everything possible to seperate ourselves from the people we are trying to fight and using the same tactics our enemy uses is self-defeating.

This is a good thing for the US I just wish that the government had done this on their own with out the courts stepping in. This is another example however of how the courts are once againt being used as a legislative body, the courts and the government are supposed to be partners and not adversaries or enemies. I am afraid of the new precedent the courts have set forth, I have hope in John Roberts that he will try and help fight "bench legislation" and try to turn the Superme Court back into a court room and not a political pulpit.

Flagwavers - a fable

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:54:00 +0000

Flagwavers - a fable - Pravda.Ru > The United States of America was entering its twentieth year under the dictatorship of George W. Bush. After successfully stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections, with little outcry from the people or the corporate-controlled media, the Bush dictatorship had eliminated elections altogether, realizing that rigged voting machines, corrupt election officials and an equally corrupt United States Supreme Court no longer needed to conceal the dictatorship beneath a facade of democracy.

My Spin

this is what really bugs me about liberals, they have lost complete grasp of reality...yes W is a lot of terrible things but he is not a dictator, he can be impeached at any time all the liberals have to do is present a good argument other than half-brained conspiracy theory plots (and I know this is just a made up story - but it's the message I'm attacking)

Liberals seem to think that Bush is like the anti-christ coming to take over America

I really hate these doomsday stories where by the left is trying to portray Bush as a demigod, all it does is turn off voters to what is really going on and it makes you look foolish since no one but another cracked out liberal will ever take that gloom and doom prediction as remotely serious.

Bush is an incompetent man but a great politician, Clinton corrupt man but brilliant politician – both of these men are great at making you look the other way while they do what they want. Smoke and mirrors, Bush is a fantastic sales man and has managed to tape a market that hasn’t been reached since 1994 the Christian Coalition is a powerful force not likely to go away anytime soon, that is so long as they have some they want to vote for – liberals forget they don’t vote unless they like who’s running, rednecks are not reliable.

He's not using the Jedi mind trick he's out selling you, Harry Reid.

If you want Bush gone and no one like him to take his place present a good solid argument as to why you shouldn't vote for Neo-Cons like Bush, something other than he's a fascist or he's evil

Harry Reid & The End of Liberal Thought

Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents' ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual -- their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors -- liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

The American people want to feel good about themselves and Liberal arguments are designed as putdowns that insult the intelligence of most voters which is why Bush got re-elected. Do you think I wanted to vote for him, hell no, it was him or John Kerry –thanks but no thanks – the public wants to vote for someone who provides for them, be it an ego boost, economic stability, or military might the public wants and liberals don’t provide. It is easy to sway voters pick a decisive issue and picture yourself as a parent in the Twenty-first century your going to vote for issues that are “pro-family” or your going to vote your moral compass.

Yes often time liberals are right in what they support I’m for Stem Cell Research, Separation of Church and State, and Gun Control but are any of those issues important enough for me to vote liberal no…why because those things don’t effect me on a regular basis. People vote Conservative because they seem things every day they don’t like and Bush says he’ll put a stop to them.

Pick Better Issues to Fight – Abortion won’t get you elected, Gay Rights won’t get you elected, Anti-War won’t get you elected, and simply I Hate Conservatives won’t get you elected (why do you think Howard crashed and burned, bad message)

It's a shame because I really hate the Republican party right now, why won't you get your act together Democrats - I was a die hard Republican for so long, now I'm leaning more libertarian just because you suck to much for me to vote for you as well.

PA declares state of emergency - IAF aircraft blow up two bridges in central Gaza

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:09:00 +0000

My Spin

it's on, Israel has begun moving forces into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit ...Prine Minister Ehud Olmert said "Our efforts are not intended to punish the Palestinian people, but to bring Shalit home. We don't want to harm innocent people, but we won't let the Palestinians harm us." Shalit is being held in the Khan Younis refugee camp and Israel is trying to prevent his captors from moving him elsewhere, possibly to the Jabalya refugee camp.

IDF: Airstrike hits bridge in Gaza >Israel has slapped a land and sea blockade on Gaza, cutting off people's movements and shipments of fuel and food, nine months after returning control of the territory to the Palestinians. (Watch tanks mass as tensions run high -- 2:27)

IAF aircraft blow up two bridges in central Gaza

IAF aircraft blow up two bridges in central Gaza Jerusalem Post > IAF aircraft blew up two key strategic bridges - one in the central Gaza Strip and the second near Deir el-Balah - shortly before midnight on Tuesday. The army said that the operation was intended to keep Hamas from taking kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit out of the Gaza Strip.

In addition, two IDF tank and infantry divisions were amassed around Gaza, and were awaiting orders to begin a ground incursion into the strip. However, an IDF spokesperson told The Jerusalem Post that, contrary to reports, the armored forces had not actually begun advancing into the strip.

In the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza City, not far from the border fence, armed Palestinian operatives took up positions across from the IDF vehicles. The operatives instructed Palestinian residents to leave the area.

Earlier, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said that "the clock is running out, and Israel is poised and ready for a military operation in the Gaza Strip."

Earlier Today

PA declares state of emergency Jerusalem Post > The Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health on Tuesday declared a state of emergency in all hospitals in the Gaza Strip for fear that Israel would launch a military operation to rescue kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

The announcement came as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip began preparing for a massive Israeli military operation by planting roadside bombs and car bombs along major routes. Gunmen belonging to various groups took positions on rooftops while others were seen barricading themselves behind sandbags and concrete slabs.

Spokesmen for Hamas and Fatah militiamen said they had deployed thousands of their men in the streets to repel any Israeli attack, vowing to turn the Gaza Strip into a "graveyard for the Israeli army."

Egyptian diplomats and security officials who have been trying to secure the release of Shalit on Tuesday expressed disappointment with Hamas and other armed groups for refusing to cooperate.

No recognition of Israel - Hamas

No recognition of Israel - Hamas > Rival Palestinian political factions Fatah and Hamas have reached agreement on a common political strategy to try to end a damaging power struggle.

However, Hamas negotiators have denied earlier reports that the deal meant the militants would implicitly recognise Israel - a major policy shift.The full text of the accord has not yet been released. A Hamas minister said it did not have "one word" on the issue.

The deal comes amid heightened tension over the capture of an Israeli soldier.

Israeli tanks and troops have massed on the border and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned that a large scale military operation is rapidly approaching.

'No two-state solution' Palestinian minister Abdel Rahman Zeidan told the BBC the Hamas-Fatah document did not in any way recognise the state of Israel.

"There is no agreement between the Palestinians on specifically this phrase. You will not find one word in the document clearly stating the recognition of Israel as a state. Nobody has agreed to this. This was not on the table. This was not in the dialogue," he said.

The BBC's James Reynolds in Gaza says that the central point of the joint manifesto is the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Traditionally that is one half of a two-state solution, but the existing drafts of the deal make no mention of the second half of this solution - the state of Israel.

Israel says time is running out before it moves to free ShalitThis omission is deliberate, our correspondent says.

My Spin

this is a crazy situation on our hands here, if Israel moves into the West Bank Gaza and perhaps further there could be a real fight going on there that could destablize the region even more than it already is...with the US invasion of Iraq and Iran looking for a fight this is just the sort of spark needed to start a 5 alarm fire.

Earlier the BBC stated ( Hamas 'implicitly accepts Israel' )Hamas has agreed to a document backing a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel, officials say. The initiative, devised by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, implicitly recognises the Jewish state.

Moreover this document ( Palestinian factions agree to recognize Israel ) calls on militants to limit attacks to areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and calls on the parties to work toward forming a Palestinian unity government. Acceptance of the plan marks a significant concession by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings. Still, it falls short of demands by Israel, the United States and Europe that Hamas renounce violence and give full recognition to Israel.

Blood has already been spilled today

Aljazeera.Net - One dead in Gaza explosionA Palestinian fighter loyal to Hamas, the ruling Islamic resistance group, has been killed and five civilians have been wounded after a vehicle exploded in Gaza City, according to medical and local security sources.

The cause of the explosion on Tuesday, which completed destroyed the vehicle, has not been established as yet, Aljazeera says.

In a telephone call to AFP in Gaza City, the armed wing of Hamas said one of its members, Hamza Marhb, was killed in the blast.

Israel's military has flatly denied any involvement in the incident, which Aljazeera reports took place about 200 metres from the residence of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Marhb, a local leader in the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades for the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis, was alone in the vehicle, the faction said.

Ezzedine al-Qassam insisted that Marhb was assassinated in an Israeli air strike and denied there were any explosives in the car, which blew up as it was travelling in the Tal Hawa area of southern Gaza City.

My Spin

Israel is fighting for it's right to simply exist which is justified
Palestinians are fighting for their right to have life liberty and the persuit of happiness which is justified

Both sides are brewing for a fight and there is simply no way for the Palestinians to win this one, Isral has showed that terrorism will not cause it to back down all it does is bring them to the bargining table but then the Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot by attacking Israel when they are looking to fix things. For a long time I felt sympathy for the Palestinians but after I saw how stupid they act, why why pick a fight with the neighborhood superpower, Israel was willing to work out a solution...there won'e be any peace not till one of the two of them is gone and I'm not a betting man but my money is on Israel making it through the night.

PM: No prisoner swap talks, Gaza sealed off - Haaretz - Israel News > Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday ruled out any negotiations with Hamas over the release of an Israel Defense Forces soldier kidnapped a day earlier, and declared the Gaza Strip sealed off by land and sea.

Palestinian militant groups that claimed responsibility for Sunday's attack on an IDF post near Gaza said earlier Monday that they would provide information on the soldier kidnapped in the raid in return for certain demands."This is not a matter of negotiations, this is not a matter of bargaining," Olmert said in a speech to a Jewish Agency gathering in Jerusalem.

The prime minister said Israel would fight Islamic extremists and warned that it could hit militants wherever they are.He said Israel had withdrawn "completely" from Gaza last year, and "anyone who fires from the other side of the border, anyone who caries out any attack against Israeli citizens, does so from a fanatical desire to destroy the Jewish state.""By my order and that of the defense minister, the Gaza Strip is closed by sea and by land," he said.

Sunday's attack was claimed by the Hamas military wing, the Popular Resistance Committees and a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Army of Islam.Corporal Gilad Shalit was abducted in the pre-dawn attack on his tank, in which two of the members of his four-strong crew were killed and the third seriously wounded.A pamphlet sent to local Gaza media outlets Monday and signed by the three groups said that they would only release information on the fate of Shalit if Israel freed Palestinian women and under-18s held in its jails.

According to recent figures, Israel currently has 95 Palestinian women and 313 under-18s in its prisons.

My Spin

If Israeli forces move back into Gaza, the West bank, and maybe into the refugee camps they will not be moving out and will use this battle as an excuse to say for a long time...indicating that so long as the Palestinians exist they pose a threat to Israeli security...the actions for Hamas and link minded groups have given a green light to their own destruction...but isn't that what suicide bombs do, Is Hamas preparing to sacfrice all the Palestinians in one futile but massive suicide bombing campaign, because when Israel moves in any attempt to stop them will be suicide...perhaps the Hamas leaders are intentionally doing this in the hopes that their sacfrice will be enough to mobilize the Muslim people across the world into attacking the west.

Hamas could claim that the lastest Iraqi war was merely the opening shots in a new war that they mean to finish...or you can go further because really this all started right after WWI when the west failed to uphold their part of the bargin (Out of Nowhere?). This fight has been brewing for a long time and Hamas knows it, Bin Laden knows it, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows it, and I bet George W Bush knows it as well.

Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:25:00 +0000

Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records - New York Times > President Bush today condemned as "disgraceful" the disclosure last week of a secret program that seeks to investigate and block terrorists by tracing financial records through a banking consortium in Brussels.

The existence of the program was reported beginning on Thursday evening by The New York Times and other newspapers.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," Mr. Bush told reporters today. "For people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America." He added that it "makes it harder to win the war on terrorism."

Mr. Bush did not single out a particular newspaper. But on Sunday, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said he was outraged that such a sensitive program had been exposed, and called for a criminal investigation of The Times.
Mr. King said on "Fox News Sunday" that the disclosure was "absolutely disgraceful."
In a telephone interview Sunday night, Mr. King said he singled out The Times because he considered the paper "more of a recidivist," since it published an article last year reporting the existence of a secret wiretapping program by the National Security Agency.

Mr. King added, however, that he thought the actions of other news organizations, including The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, should also be examined.

My Spin

this is a tough case because both sides in their own crazy way have a point - freedom of the press should never be limited, and there is a clear and present danger posed to the citizens of the US if the government can not conduct any secret activites it makes the search for those wishing to hurt us just that much harder. While I agree with the New York Times in that if the government is engaged in illegal or questionable activites it's their duty to report on it as responsible journalists. But is the New Yourk Times staffed with responsible journalists or just glory hounds looking to attack a president they hate, hard to tell sometimes.

What it boils down to is if the government doesn't want these stories ending up on the newspapers do a better do of stopping leaks. Also the New York Times needs to show restraint in sensitive matters and only report real scandals as opposed to hunting for fame (I agree this is a real story that needed to be told so this is a bad example). The MSM is full of head hunters looking for book deals and will do anything to break a story that will generate a little fame, enough for them to become famous and ink a million dollar book deal. As for Bush what else can you say it's an idiot and is really pushing to boundaries between sensible and 1984.

Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:12:00 +0000

Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy? > This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.

To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research.
"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.

My Spin

if anything the Daily Show is doing the opposite, it has created a market that has never existed before, people are actually finding politics interesting, granted John Stewart isn't fair but he admits his bias...this show is tapping an otherwise apathethic market of 18-30 year olds who vote at the lowest level. If you ask me that is what their research is showing not that the Daily Show is hurting voting if anything the Daily Show is making people vote.

The biggest problem is there are so few funny/emjoyable news outlets on TV today - if the coversative voice created their own Daily Show then things would be great, instead people are tuning into John Stewart because he's A) funny B) informative C) they can get all their news in a half hour D) he's against the mainstream media

If you want people to tune into the news and watch it, the program has to be enjoyable or else no one but journalists, bloggers, and political science nerds are going to watch, the Daily Show is the best thing to happen to the news in decades.

Celebs to Join Cindy Sheehan in Hunger Strike

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:30:00 +0000

Crosswalk.com - Celebs to Join Cindy Sheehan in Hunger Strike > Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced Wednesday that she plans to begin an "open-ended hunger strike" on July 4 to urge the Bush administration to bring troops home from Iraq.

"We hope the fast will galvanize public attention, invigorate the peace movement, build pressure on elected officials, and get our troops back home," Sheehan said in a statement posted on the anti-war blogosphere.

The fast, organized by Code Pink and Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace, will begin on Independence Day in Washington, D.C. In her statement Sheehan said she would move the fast to Crawford, Texas, where the president owns a ranch and often vacations.

Sheehan gained national attention in August 2005 when she staged a protest outside the Crawford ranch to protest the war. She named the protest "Camp Casey" in memory of her son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

In her latest statement, Sheehan wrote that celebrities like singer Willie Nelson, actor Danny Glover and comedian Dick Gregory will show their support for her by joining in a one-day fast. She urged her supporters to do the same.

Sheehan is currently in Vienna, Austria, protesting President Bush's appearances there. He is in Europe to meet with leaders of the European Summit, seeking support for the United States' efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East.

My Spin

I've said it before and I'll say it again I hate this woman...why?....well maybe it has something to do with how she is exploiting her sons death for her own personal gain, or maybe it has to do with the fact that she is foolish enough to think that all these people are "supporting her", in fact they are simply using her because she is to caught up in this mess to realize that they don't care about her, they only care about themselves and what they want.

Sheehan is a fool for allowing herself to become what she is today, not a greaving mother (if she was why did it take so long to get a tombstone for her sons grave
Casey Sheehan Now Has a Headstone on His Grave) she has been caught up in all the attention and pats on the back that she has forgotten what she is there to do...that is raise awareness for the troops I has 3 cousins and 2 close friends in Iraq so I understand the struggle families go through but her actions speak louder than words.

She has become a pawn of ultra left wing politics, for use however they wish, all I want to know is Cindy while your out protesting who is tending to other mothers who have lost children. If you really cared about Americas familes you wouldn't be in Europe you would be in Wyoming or Kentucky right now comforting some other mother who lost a child. That would make you a hero not telling George W Bush you hate him.

There are enough people telling Bush they hate him what we really need is someone telling mothers we're here for them. And we respect their families loss and we respect their son or daughter for making this sacfrice.

Cindy Sheehan is out for personal fame and a pitful attempt to make herself into a hero...

It's Time to Leave--RIGHT NOW > I don't think so but thats just me

noreply@blogger.com (citizen jerk) — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:17:00 +0000

Daily Kos: It's Time to Leave--RIGHT NOW > It's time to leave. Time to leave Iraq. In fact, it was time to leave quite a while ago. We have entered the monastery, pissed all over the grounds, stolen all the candles, and corrupted the other students; and not only have we taken the pebble from his hand, we've stolen the robes off his back, taken his pride, and humiliated him in his nakedness. And now Master Po wants to kill us. That generally means it's time to leave.

But it's ESPECIALLY time to leave NOW: now that the very last reason that the neocon thugs could possibly give for our continued presence is officially OVER.

My Spin

Sorry but no

here is my take on all this...Iraq is our mess correct we started the war we ousted Saddam wouldn't it be rude to come into someones home mess it up and just leave it a mess...frankly the idea of just leaving the Iraqi's to their own demise strikes me as awfully cold for a supposed liberal, I was under the impression that liberals were all about love for your fellow man love mean sticking with them and helping them even when things look bleak, the US is by no means being crippled by the war we are the richest nation on the planet and we are no where near going broke...to up and leave the Iraqi people (innocent people) to be slaughtered by men like Bin Laden for their own sick personal reasons. To leave now would be a death sentance for thousands for Iraqi's who will die in a bloody senseless civil war that could be advioded it the US would just fix the mess it started.

How do we fix the mess, we build the Iraqi infrastructure (ecomony, military, police, healthcare, etc.) and leave them better than when we found them, Iraq is getting better, how can I say that there is hope and hope is the first thing needed to make things better. The US occupied Japan and Germany and look at them now, we have a pretty good track record in regards to fixing things. But when we cut and run (Vietnam, Korea, South America, Iraq and Iran) things end up pretty crappy. For this to work and for the Iraqi people not to pay for Bush's blunder we must all stick it out and pledge to fix our mess.