All this talk of McCain being Bush III has got me pondering.
Who thought, on 9/11, that we wouldn't be attacked again for at least the next seven years? No one. Another attack was thought to be imminent, or at least relatively soon! Nope, seven years and not another attack. At least give Bush that much respect - he's kept us safe here at home. Whether this be a result of his actions or just chance, we will never know, but I'm inclined to believe that terrorists haven't just been sitting there idly.
Now Bush is not my favorite of presidents, to say the least. However, I'd give Bush, the man who has kept us safe for seven years, has constantly met with our military commanders, and has visited Iraq numerous times since the surge, more credence than someone who has visited Iraq once (in 2006, before the surge), hasn't spoken with Petraeus yet, and hasn't done anything but speak of meaningless "change" (e.g. BHO).
B. Hussein Obama wants to bring Change to America! I hate to needlessly fear monger, but does he want to change the fact we have been safe at home for nearly seven years? Maybe a Bush III wouldn't be too bad...
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Looks Like the Dems Have Their Guy
Well, it looks like Obama has the nomination clinched. I still would like to see Hillary come up with the Clinton-back-room-schmoozing to win the nomination and destroy the party. That would be entertaining, but I would also like to see Bob Barr pull out a win, so. . .
Anyway, Obama-rama seems to be wearing down a bit after the pastor disaster. I know that if McCain could somehow keep his trap shut, he might be able to ride to the top on the back of Obama's own downward plunge. Luckily for McCain, foreign policy with regards to Iran is a major issue right now. If he can keep attention on the fact that Obama's stance on that is, um . . . iffy(?), then he may pull of the win.
By the way, will Obama actually pull the troops out of Iraq? I mean, do you really think he has the political cahones to pull the plug? Vote in our poll.
Anyway, Obama-rama seems to be wearing down a bit after the pastor disaster. I know that if McCain could somehow keep his trap shut, he might be able to ride to the top on the back of Obama's own downward plunge. Luckily for McCain, foreign policy with regards to Iran is a major issue right now. If he can keep attention on the fact that Obama's stance on that is, um . . . iffy(?), then he may pull of the win.
By the way, will Obama actually pull the troops out of Iraq? I mean, do you really think he has the political cahones to pull the plug? Vote in our poll.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obama-Rama Wearing Down
Let's hope Rev. Wright keeps on talking. He has hurt Obama already, especially among whites, and is now fighting back against Obama. Obama threw him under the bus, plain and simple, by saying he didn't know his mentor's ideas for 20 years, and then condemning them. Either he is a horrible judge of character, or a liar. I don't like him either way. By the way, isn't he looking a lot like Bill Clinton now? Downright lying, then slowly retreating towards the truth. Look into it.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
California wants your dog's babies
California is right now debating whether it should force you to spay and neuter your pets. This sounds like it violates a citizen's individual rights. You would think that I could choose whether or not I want my dog to have babies. That's called being responsible, and it would be nice if the nanny-state learned that.
The legislators in Sacramento continue to try and force their little pet projects on the people (excuse the pun). I want a government that does what it's supposed to, like fix roads, provide cops and firefighters, work against illegal immigration, and basically ensure my right to freedom and ability to enjoy it.
Now, why did Sacramento take interest in dogs' parts? Well, apparently, a large number of dogs have been abandoned and the state is forced to euthanize them. Why, you may ask, is this a problem all of a sudden? Apparently, a substantial portion of these dogs picked up are pit-bulls and rottweiler, or dog-fighters. They are dogs which were injured or just plain grew too old for fighting. They come from areas where big, tough dogs are prized for their looks and for their fighting ability. Basically, they come from poorer, rougher neighborhoods. Such as illegal immigrant ones (look it up).
The government is punishing citizens for the evils of a few irresponsible citizens and illegal aliens. WHAT???? This is outrageous that OUR representatives would even consider this bill. Well, I can't even think what more to say, I'm so angry.
The legislators in Sacramento continue to try and force their little pet projects on the people (excuse the pun). I want a government that does what it's supposed to, like fix roads, provide cops and firefighters, work against illegal immigration, and basically ensure my right to freedom and ability to enjoy it.
Now, why did Sacramento take interest in dogs' parts? Well, apparently, a large number of dogs have been abandoned and the state is forced to euthanize them. Why, you may ask, is this a problem all of a sudden? Apparently, a substantial portion of these dogs picked up are pit-bulls and rottweiler, or dog-fighters. They are dogs which were injured or just plain grew too old for fighting. They come from areas where big, tough dogs are prized for their looks and for their fighting ability. Basically, they come from poorer, rougher neighborhoods. Such as illegal immigrant ones (look it up).
The government is punishing citizens for the evils of a few irresponsible citizens and illegal aliens. WHAT???? This is outrageous that OUR representatives would even consider this bill. Well, I can't even think what more to say, I'm so angry.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama's Minister
Barack Obama has a little problem. You know that uncle in the closet that no one likes to talk about? Well, Obama has one. And he has talked about this one for twenty years. He just "forgot" to mention something.
This "uncle," Reverand Jeremiah Smith, is a raging racist. Yes, a raging, black racist. He has made a number of imflammatory comments that cannot be excused by any reasonable person. The argument can be made that racism is still alive in America. That does not mean that the president's spiritual mentor should call for him to "damn America."
The spiritual advisor should lead a peaple out of poverty and hardship by calling for them to take responsibility and move on. He should not blame it on someone else. Please point out the part in the Bible where God tells us that we should curse Him for our troubles. That's like the story of Job, right? Oh, wait... All sorts of hardships befall him, but he never questions God. He merely pushes on.
The pastor should be preaching responsibility, but he has his right to free speech. The real issue is Obama. What is he doing in that church? Why is a candidate for the highest office in this nation donating to a church which calls on him to curse that nation? He went for 20 years, but he said in an earlier statement that he never heard the sermons. Not even when he listened to the tapes in college. Or when he selected the sermon to base his book off of. Not until the beginning of his candidacy did he hear about this sermons, if we are to believe him. Unfortunately, he appointed Reverand Smith to his board of spiritual advisors two months later.
Let's see some responsibility and honesty. We won't, because this is politics, and Obama needs help. Hillary is a' comin'. Also, the Democrats just ripped into McCain over McCain's association with a bigot of a minister (quite reasonably, I might add). They've had their fun, now it's time "for the chickens to come home to roost." They need to set an example by dumping a candidate who is willing to lie through his teeth about being a bigot - both behaviors they say they despise. Nominate Hillary, then ask for the GOP to dump McCain. Please.
I know, it won't work, but it would be cool.
This "uncle," Reverand Jeremiah Smith, is a raging racist. Yes, a raging, black racist. He has made a number of imflammatory comments that cannot be excused by any reasonable person. The argument can be made that racism is still alive in America. That does not mean that the president's spiritual mentor should call for him to "damn America."
The spiritual advisor should lead a peaple out of poverty and hardship by calling for them to take responsibility and move on. He should not blame it on someone else. Please point out the part in the Bible where God tells us that we should curse Him for our troubles. That's like the story of Job, right? Oh, wait... All sorts of hardships befall him, but he never questions God. He merely pushes on.
The pastor should be preaching responsibility, but he has his right to free speech. The real issue is Obama. What is he doing in that church? Why is a candidate for the highest office in this nation donating to a church which calls on him to curse that nation? He went for 20 years, but he said in an earlier statement that he never heard the sermons. Not even when he listened to the tapes in college. Or when he selected the sermon to base his book off of. Not until the beginning of his candidacy did he hear about this sermons, if we are to believe him. Unfortunately, he appointed Reverand Smith to his board of spiritual advisors two months later.
Let's see some responsibility and honesty. We won't, because this is politics, and Obama needs help. Hillary is a' comin'. Also, the Democrats just ripped into McCain over McCain's association with a bigot of a minister (quite reasonably, I might add). They've had their fun, now it's time "for the chickens to come home to roost." They need to set an example by dumping a candidate who is willing to lie through his teeth about being a bigot - both behaviors they say they despise. Nominate Hillary, then ask for the GOP to dump McCain. Please.
I know, it won't work, but it would be cool.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
John McCain = Bob Dole
In the following article, Bruce Wilson compares John McCain's current and past election campaigns in the nomination process and what will be the general election, to Bob Dole's, 12 and 16 years ago.
Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. With that in mind, if John McCain wins the Republican presidential nomination, it might be appropriate to temporarily designate the site of the 2008 Republican convention an insane asylum. [1]
Why?
Here's why.
Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. With that in mind, if John McCain wins the Republican presidential nomination, it might be appropriate to temporarily designate the site of the 2008 Republican convention an insane asylum. [1]
Why?
Here's why.
How Taxes Work
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
*The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
*The fifth would pay $1.
*The sixth would pay $3.
*The seventh would pay $7.
*The eighth would pay $12.
*The ninth would pay $18.
*The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
*The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
*The sixth would pay $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
*The seventh would pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
*The eighth would pay $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
*The ninth would pay $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
*The tenth man (the richest) would pay $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay for the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
*The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
*The fifth would pay $1.
*The sixth would pay $3.
*The seventh would pay $7.
*The eighth would pay $12.
*The ninth would pay $18.
*The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
*The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
*The sixth would pay $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
*The seventh would pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
*The eighth would pay $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
*The ninth would pay $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
*The tenth man (the richest) would pay $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay for the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund, so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments. The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund, so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments. The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Crisis of Islam
Just another interesting book. It is a short look at what is going wrong in the Middle East and what should be done to fix it. It is a kind of introduction, and I found it thought-provoking. Do not, however, use this as an end-all guide. Here is the link to amazon.
Florida and Obama
It will be very interesting to see what happens to the GOP in Florida. Even though he pulled his ads from local media there, Romney is on the upturn in the polls. In fact, according to RCP, Romney is in the lead. Of course, with Hillary's spectacular defeat in South Carolina (55 to 27) at the hands of Obama, we can't really trust the polls. They predicted only a 10 point spread in favor of Obama. The 28 point gap is rather larger than that (180% larger, in fact).
The pollsters seem to be doing a poor job this year. The major polling groups seem to just be guessing as to the actual margin of victory. This has been especially true of the Democrats. The new dynamic of a woman and a black man is causing a shift of voters' opinions. Sure it's fine to say that you support equal rights, but it is quite another to follow a woman or a black man as the leader of your country. I personally feel that that view is completely ridiculous and that votes should not be based on skin color or gender, but I do believe that people throughout the U.S. are struggling with this "dilemma." They may not give a completely accurate answer to a pollster.
Florida is a southern state (duh) so many of its voters may be influenced by racism that is not as pronounced in other places. Many blacks will probably vote for Obama while many white women will probably vote for Clinton. At the start of the race, many blacks did not support Obama. Many were of the opinion that Obama, a partially black man, could not win and would only be used as a scapegoat for the whites to get out of Iraq. After he won in Iowa and it was shown that he was a serious candidate, more blacks began supporting him. His win in South Carolina was powered almost exclusively by blacks (80% of the blacks voted for him, while only 25% of whites did so. To keep up his momentum, he will need to attract more white voters.
The pollsters seem to be doing a poor job this year. The major polling groups seem to just be guessing as to the actual margin of victory. This has been especially true of the Democrats. The new dynamic of a woman and a black man is causing a shift of voters' opinions. Sure it's fine to say that you support equal rights, but it is quite another to follow a woman or a black man as the leader of your country. I personally feel that that view is completely ridiculous and that votes should not be based on skin color or gender, but I do believe that people throughout the U.S. are struggling with this "dilemma." They may not give a completely accurate answer to a pollster.
Florida is a southern state (duh) so many of its voters may be influenced by racism that is not as pronounced in other places. Many blacks will probably vote for Obama while many white women will probably vote for Clinton. At the start of the race, many blacks did not support Obama. Many were of the opinion that Obama, a partially black man, could not win and would only be used as a scapegoat for the whites to get out of Iraq. After he won in Iowa and it was shown that he was a serious candidate, more blacks began supporting him. His win in South Carolina was powered almost exclusively by blacks (80% of the blacks voted for him, while only 25% of whites did so. To keep up his momentum, he will need to attract more white voters.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Liberalism is 'great grand niece once removed' of Nazism
Liberal Fascism is a recently written book by Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for the LA Times and a contributing editor to the National Review.
I will stray from an introduction to the book and the author. If you're curious visit the following links: [1] [2] [3]
An excerpt from his book:
"Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities - where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern Progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots.
In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. "
From what I've read so far of his book, to say the least, has been interesting.
Jonah Goldberg on YouTube
I will stray from an introduction to the book and the author. If you're curious visit the following links: [1] [2] [3]
An excerpt from his book:
"Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities - where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern Progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots.
In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. "
From what I've read so far of his book, to say the least, has been interesting.
Jonah Goldberg on YouTube
Monday, January 7, 2008
Soviet in Command of Southern CA
The new head of the Southern California Association of Governments, or SCAG, used to be a Soviet planner. As Steven Greenhut of the OC Register's blog, Orange Punch, says, this is just too good to be true. No wonder all of Southern CA's roads are so bad. Check out this Hasan Ikharata character.
Obama in Iowa
I believe that Obama winning in Iowa represents a great step in America. We have come to a point where a state that is heavily white overwhelmingly nominates a black man. What does that say to the world? Doesn't that set a standard that we can be proud of? Even though I may disagree with him, I am happy to see him win this (unimportant) caucus. It is a good milestone for this country.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Another Huckalie?
After his fibs about his foreign policy advisers, now comes this.
Now contrast that with this.
And to the Huckleberries, this isn't the MSM making Huckabee look bad, these are his own words.
What will be the next fib? [1]He says he supported the surge before Romney did, while under pressure, in order not to look like a fool. Yet, in another interview, he expresses his true position - not supporting the surge. And he gets after Romney for changing positions? At least Romney openly admits he's had a change of heart and doesn't simply lie. Aren't Church ministers supposed to lead by example?
The active duty military was already stretched to the point that the National Guard would be required for the troop surge. That was announced on multiple occasions leading up to the event taking place. Huckabee knew exactly what he was saying and that was that he de facto did not support the surge. Tonight, he lied. He lied about Romney, and he lied about his own position.
"You can never forget the truth, nor can you consistently remember a lie that you told under pressure."
Sidenote: Congratulations to Romney for winning the Wyoming Republican Caucus.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa: What have you done?
How did Huckabee win? That is the question now. He is the re-incarnation of Bush and Clinton. He is the Bush of no morals who will do anything for power. He is petty and just plain wrong on many issues. Have you heard how, as governor of Arkansas (second after Clinton), the Huckster renewed his wedding vows and registered at Target??? As governor? And then when he was asked about it, he blamed his wife, indicating his belief that women are subservient and he isn't an equal partner in marriage. As he said, "Do you want someone who could do that to be your president?"
As governor of Arkansas, he held up a disaster relief bill because it contained the legal term "Act of God." People waited for relief because he couldn't let God be branded with so evil an act. IT'S A LEGAL TERM!!!!!
He seems like the same imbecile we've had for the last 7 years. Does nobody see that Huckabee can't get his foreign policy straight? What kind of stumbling was that about Pakistan? Huckabee has a terrible record on immigration, yet those in Iowa who said immigration was important went to Huckabee. [1]
Ask a Huckabee supporter why, and they tell you (probably) that, "Huck is strong on immigration," and,"He will reform taxes." They haven't looked at the projections for FairTax, Huckleberry's tax reform program, and they have definitely not looked at his record as governor (see my previous post). After explaining this, you ask again, and you get the, "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Jesus. I'm voting for Jesus!!!" (that is a quote I heard from a relative). What?!?!?!? Isn't that the only reason to like Bush? Some say they like him for his "neighborly demeanor." Why did you vote for Bush? Wasn't it the same thing? I just might have to call Iowans stupid. Huckabee is a horrible choice.
This is what is wrong with the Republican Party. Vote for a candidate on merit, not on his faith. Giuliani has coherent supporters. Romney has coherent supporters. McCain has coherent supporters. Huckabee, however, needs coherent supporters instead of the (mostly) Kool-Aid drinkers he has now. They don't care what he stands for, as long as he hates gays, plays guitar, and thanks Jesus. Look at the quotes from his supporters' prayer. Can you still tell me his campaign doesn't rely on bigots? I'm not saying that all his supporters are bigots, but those who aren't are most likely misinformed.
As governor of Arkansas, he held up a disaster relief bill because it contained the legal term "Act of God." People waited for relief because he couldn't let God be branded with so evil an act. IT'S A LEGAL TERM!!!!!
He seems like the same imbecile we've had for the last 7 years. Does nobody see that Huckabee can't get his foreign policy straight? What kind of stumbling was that about Pakistan? Huckabee has a terrible record on immigration, yet those in Iowa who said immigration was important went to Huckabee. [1]
Ask a Huckabee supporter why, and they tell you (probably) that, "Huck is strong on immigration," and,"He will reform taxes." They haven't looked at the projections for FairTax, Huckleberry's tax reform program, and they have definitely not looked at his record as governor (see my previous post). After explaining this, you ask again, and you get the, "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Jesus. I'm voting for Jesus!!!" (that is a quote I heard from a relative). What?!?!?!? Isn't that the only reason to like Bush? Some say they like him for his "neighborly demeanor." Why did you vote for Bush? Wasn't it the same thing? I just might have to call Iowans stupid. Huckabee is a horrible choice.
This is what is wrong with the Republican Party. Vote for a candidate on merit, not on his faith. Giuliani has coherent supporters. Romney has coherent supporters. McCain has coherent supporters. Huckabee, however, needs coherent supporters instead of the (mostly) Kool-Aid drinkers he has now. They don't care what he stands for, as long as he hates gays, plays guitar, and thanks Jesus. Look at the quotes from his supporters' prayer. Can you still tell me his campaign doesn't rely on bigots? I'm not saying that all his supporters are bigots, but those who aren't are most likely misinformed.
Iowa Caucus
Today is the Iowa Caucus - the day the citizens of Iowa decide their party's nominee. For the Democrats, the results will be very close. There is a three-way virtual tie between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Obama is ahead of Clinton by a few points, who is ahead of Edwards by a few points as well, but nothing large enough to determine a winner. The media say that if Obama wins, this could legitimize his possible presidency and put him in competition with Clinton. If this were to happen, many Edwards supporters would become either Clinton or Obama supporters, but most likely Obama supporters. If Edwards loses, his candidacy is over; what little chance Edwards has in winning will be determined today. If Edwards were to drop out, Obama may be in striking distance of Clinton. However, if Clinton wins, her nomination is nearly guaranteed.
For the Republicans, the only two real possibilities are Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Huckabee is a couple percentage points ahead of Romney in the polls, but again, nothing large enough to determine a definitive winner. If Huckabee wins, he may go on to win several other states as well, but I could not see him being the Republican nominee (however, this may be simply my bias against him). If Romney were to win, I believe he would have a great chance at the nomination (although, again, my personal bias for him).
Although it is very hard to make a valid prediction because things are so close, my predictions are as follows:
For the Republicans, Mitt Romney will win. I base this not on the fact that he is my personal favorite, but that the people who support him are more likely to vote. Every poll/survey/study will show that the poor (the rural) are less likely to vote than the rich (the urban). Mitt Romney's base is more wealthy and more urban than Huckabee's, whose base is made up of the rural social conservatives. Although Romney is a couple percentage points behind Huckabee, it may be just enough to put him over the edge, or at least I hope.
For the Democrats, my predictions are similar. I do not believe that Obama has a solid, supportive base. Obama's percentage points (slightly ahead of Clinton and Edwards), are made up largely of the youth - whom we all know have a dismal voter turnout. I think either Clinton or Edwards will win. However, most people know that a vote for Edwards is a vote wasted, and people consider "electability" when it comes down to it. This, I believe, will propel Clinton into winning the caucus.
Considering the above, I predict Romney for the Republicans and definitely not Edwards for the Democrats. Either Obama or Clinton will win, but if I must choose one, I would guess Clinton. Keep in mind, I'm no political analyst and these are just my guesses, with little validity to them. Let's see if I hit the target, or if I was dead wrong.
However, looking at the polls alone, Huckabee and Obama will win.
For the Republicans, the only two real possibilities are Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Huckabee is a couple percentage points ahead of Romney in the polls, but again, nothing large enough to determine a definitive winner. If Huckabee wins, he may go on to win several other states as well, but I could not see him being the Republican nominee (however, this may be simply my bias against him). If Romney were to win, I believe he would have a great chance at the nomination (although, again, my personal bias for him).
Although it is very hard to make a valid prediction because things are so close, my predictions are as follows:
For the Republicans, Mitt Romney will win. I base this not on the fact that he is my personal favorite, but that the people who support him are more likely to vote. Every poll/survey/study will show that the poor (the rural) are less likely to vote than the rich (the urban). Mitt Romney's base is more wealthy and more urban than Huckabee's, whose base is made up of the rural social conservatives. Although Romney is a couple percentage points behind Huckabee, it may be just enough to put him over the edge, or at least I hope.
For the Democrats, my predictions are similar. I do not believe that Obama has a solid, supportive base. Obama's percentage points (slightly ahead of Clinton and Edwards), are made up largely of the youth - whom we all know have a dismal voter turnout. I think either Clinton or Edwards will win. However, most people know that a vote for Edwards is a vote wasted, and people consider "electability" when it comes down to it. This, I believe, will propel Clinton into winning the caucus.
Considering the above, I predict Romney for the Republicans and definitely not Edwards for the Democrats. Either Obama or Clinton will win, but if I must choose one, I would guess Clinton. Keep in mind, I'm no political analyst and these are just my guesses, with little validity to them. Let's see if I hit the target, or if I was dead wrong.
However, looking at the polls alone, Huckabee and Obama will win.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Huckabee as Governor
It's interesting that Huckabee, with his lead in Iowa, does not have a stronger showing on the national scale. His stated positions, at a glance, should make sense to conservatives and libertarians. He wants to get rid of the income tax and stop illegal immigration (Libertarian). He is the "Christian candidate," and supports good ol' family values (Conservative).
Nevermind his record as governor of Arkansas. He raised taxes by A LOT -- try half a billion dollars net gain, as told by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The average tax burden in Arkansas was raised by 47%!!!!! I personally have a hard time seeing those numbers and then listening, straight-faced, as Huckabee calls himself the fiscal conservative. Check out this selection from his site:
"Huckabee, a fiscal conservative, pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history — a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families. He led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and created a welfare reform program that reduced the welfare rolls in the state by almost 50 percent. He also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married. He proposed The Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights which established a uniform notice and due process procedure to guarantee that all Arkansans will be treated fairly in property tax assessment.
In total, Huckabee cut taxes and fees over 90 times during his ten and a half years as governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million. When he left office, Arkansas had over $800 million in state surplus, which he believes should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut." (emphasis added)[1]
Why didn't he give out the rebates himself? They don't talk about him giving the rebates, only wanting to give them out. We in California can tell of the spineless jellyfish we have for a governor. He said he would cut taxes, particularly the Car Tax (which he did), but now, with pressure from the legislature, he is bringing it back. Awnuld the Guvenator said he wanted to help, but, like Huckabee, it's what he does that really matters.
As for the conservative and family values, his leanings seem to be those of intolerance. Just take a look at some of his writings where he says that violence in schools comes from pornography and homosexuality. He says that women should stay home and dutifully serve the husband (from what I read, that is a Baptist teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong). In 1992, he proposed a quarantine of people with AIDS. What?!?!?! He has shown himself as a religious bigot, but now seeks to be a moderate. He appears to be an economic liberal and a hard-core social conservative. [2]
As for illegal immigration, wasn't it Huckabee that supported a bill which would allow illegals the same privileges as citizens and legal immigrants living in Arkansas when it came to education? That is NOT very good, and Huckabee needs to be brought to task on it. If you disagree, just read here.
And just to finish up, did you see his slip on Pakistan? Fox News
Nevermind his record as governor of Arkansas. He raised taxes by A LOT -- try half a billion dollars net gain, as told by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The average tax burden in Arkansas was raised by 47%!!!!! I personally have a hard time seeing those numbers and then listening, straight-faced, as Huckabee calls himself the fiscal conservative. Check out this selection from his site:
"Huckabee, a fiscal conservative, pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history — a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families. He led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and created a welfare reform program that reduced the welfare rolls in the state by almost 50 percent. He also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married. He proposed The Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights which established a uniform notice and due process procedure to guarantee that all Arkansans will be treated fairly in property tax assessment.
In total, Huckabee cut taxes and fees over 90 times during his ten and a half years as governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million. When he left office, Arkansas had over $800 million in state surplus, which he believes should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut." (emphasis added)[1]
Why didn't he give out the rebates himself? They don't talk about him giving the rebates, only wanting to give them out. We in California can tell of the spineless jellyfish we have for a governor. He said he would cut taxes, particularly the Car Tax (which he did), but now, with pressure from the legislature, he is bringing it back. Awnuld the Guvenator said he wanted to help, but, like Huckabee, it's what he does that really matters.
As for the conservative and family values, his leanings seem to be those of intolerance. Just take a look at some of his writings where he says that violence in schools comes from pornography and homosexuality. He says that women should stay home and dutifully serve the husband (from what I read, that is a Baptist teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong). In 1992, he proposed a quarantine of people with AIDS. What?!?!?! He has shown himself as a religious bigot, but now seeks to be a moderate. He appears to be an economic liberal and a hard-core social conservative. [2]
As for illegal immigration, wasn't it Huckabee that supported a bill which would allow illegals the same privileges as citizens and legal immigrants living in Arkansas when it came to education? That is NOT very good, and Huckabee needs to be brought to task on it. If you disagree, just read here.
And just to finish up, did you see his slip on Pakistan? Fox News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
