I've completely ruined one of those subjects now. Ah well. At least there'll be more Starbucks goodness. Starbucks is phasing in a new size- the Trenta. For those of you who don't know Italian and need that translated for you (like I did), Trenta is 30. Starbucks is going to be putting a 31-oz size on the market that you can fill with coffee, tea, or lemonade. I'm thinking a 31-oz strawberries and cream frappucino myself, but...yeah.
In other, far less important news, you can hop the border fence between here and Mexico in no less than 18 seconds if you are a roughly 20 year old, fit and trim young woman. Oh, and if you pick the right section of border fence. But don't you know, that fence is sure keeping those immigrants out. Um...yeah.
Iraqi "insurgents" detonated a bomb outside a police station in the midst of police recruits in Tikrit, Iraq. About 50 people died, to the best of my knowledge. Apparently, al Qaeda is trying to destabilize Iraq again. Sounds like a plan. Of course, if these attacks pick up again, we'll have to push back our departure date. Again. Because we can't leave the Iraqis defenseless.
Now to everyone's favorite subject: Sarah Palin. The woman has been constantly in the news lately because she used the term "blood libel" (and obviously doesn't understand the historical connotations of the term), and also perhaps because she used "shut up." Personally, I don't think we should give her the satisfaction. When she made up words, she made us laugh. When she misuses historical terms, that means we should start ignoring her.
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
A Bit Meh
Lately, I've just sort of been...meh about the whole political scene. I think I have too many political friends on Facebook who are either die-hard Republicans, anarchists, or Democrats. They're ruining it for me. v.v
But, I suppose while I'm here, I could say a few words.
We had a shooting this past week, I'm sure you're all aware. As of yet, I can't decide whether I think the shooter was motivated by politics or not, though I'm betting not. Not that I actually bet, you understand, but...never mind.
Other than that, there's the typical Republicans-vs.-Democrats hubbub, with each side slinging vitriol because, of course, they're both out to ruin all that is good and right in the world. Somehow. Yeah. It gives me a headache.
But, I suppose while I'm here, I could say a few words.
We had a shooting this past week, I'm sure you're all aware. As of yet, I can't decide whether I think the shooter was motivated by politics or not, though I'm betting not. Not that I actually bet, you understand, but...never mind.
Other than that, there's the typical Republicans-vs.-Democrats hubbub, with each side slinging vitriol because, of course, they're both out to ruin all that is good and right in the world. Somehow. Yeah. It gives me a headache.
Monday, December 6, 2010
And 2012 is Upon Us
Only, not really. Of course, you couldn't tell it by the eagerness of the New Generation of Republicans. They've already begun lining up for the senate seats that will be up for grabs in two years.
Now, I will say that I've been guilty of wondering who will run for President in 2012 (I'm probably going to be rooting for Gary Johnson, if anybody cares), but I find it rather ridiculous to be worrying about the same races we just got done with. v.v
Now, I will say that I've been guilty of wondering who will run for President in 2012 (I'm probably going to be rooting for Gary Johnson, if anybody cares), but I find it rather ridiculous to be worrying about the same races we just got done with. v.v
Monday, November 15, 2010
Political Celebrities
So I suppose it was to be expected. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the hypocritical irony.
You see, during the election (and after, and now) I remember people blasting President Obama because he was acting like a celebrity. I mean, he like, had TV cameras following him around all the time! He like, was feted like he was Brad Pitt or something! He had his own fan club! That evil man! How dare he think he's a celebrity or something? Politics isn't supposed to be a celebrity sport!
.....
And now, the same people who said all that are lining up to fall down in loving adoration at the feet of the new political celebrity: Sarah Palin and "her Alaska". Maybe she'll take them out on that island so they can see Russia, and prove she's still fit to be President of the United States.
Sorry. That was low.
In any case, I find the hypocrisy there quite interesting. Hilarious, actually. Oh, the joys of American politics.
You see, during the election (and after, and now) I remember people blasting President Obama because he was acting like a celebrity. I mean, he like, had TV cameras following him around all the time! He like, was feted like he was Brad Pitt or something! He had his own fan club! That evil man! How dare he think he's a celebrity or something? Politics isn't supposed to be a celebrity sport!
.....
And now, the same people who said all that are lining up to fall down in loving adoration at the feet of the new political celebrity: Sarah Palin and "her Alaska". Maybe she'll take them out on that island so they can see Russia, and prove she's still fit to be President of the United States.
Sorry. That was low.
In any case, I find the hypocrisy there quite interesting. Hilarious, actually. Oh, the joys of American politics.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Yay
So...the Republicans took the House. Big surprise, whoopiee. In Texas, my home state, Rick Perry got elected to a third term. Awesome. I'm so proud of the voting Texans in this state. They averted....uh....Rick Perry's virtual carbon copy, Bill White, from getting into office. Go ya'll. Thank you so much for saddling us all with that man for another four years.
Mac Thornberry, our representative for the House also got reelected. For the ninth time. This'll be his tenth term in the House. Once again, I'm so proud we voted in a small-government candidate from the Republican party! You go Mac, keep voting for legislation like the PATRIOT act, TARP, and all that stuff, and reduce the size of that government!
Yeah. I'm....very excited about the outcome of this election, in case you can't tell.
Mac Thornberry, our representative for the House also got reelected. For the ninth time. This'll be his tenth term in the House. Once again, I'm so proud we voted in a small-government candidate from the Republican party! You go Mac, keep voting for legislation like the PATRIOT act, TARP, and all that stuff, and reduce the size of that government!
Yeah. I'm....very excited about the outcome of this election, in case you can't tell.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Hmm
Sorry it's been awhile since I last blogged...my life has been pretty boring lately, and hence I've been too bored to actually write a blog post. Although, in my defence, I was out of town from Thursday to Sunday night (actually, Monday morning if you want to be technical), and so I couldn't blog.
So...in the news this week, local police officers are now going to have even more license to make eternal nuisances of themselves, as their job descriptions are now going to be expanded to "watching for precursor activity to terrorist activities" or something like that. (And an hilarious image of Barney Fife trying to apprehend a terrorist just popped into my head...)
From this article: "But this initiative represents the administration’s first thoughtful steps in fulfilling President Obama’s commitment to defining a lasting rule of law for this brave new world. We must make it work."
We "must"? Oh yeah, that's right. So we can be safe, yada yad. Right. I forgot that part. Of course, there are other options. Like, you know, we could, like stop bombing and invading sovereign nations without cause and stuff. You know. Be smart and courteous and all that good stuff. Stop hitting other children on the playground.
But oh wait. That would be the smart thing to do. We're Americans. We aren't smart, so we're not needed to be. That's right.
In that same vein, our government is now trying to control the internet- oh wait. Not control it...just make sure...you don't say something stupid, using the vehicle of fear. There goes half of my Facebook activities. Sarcasm? Out the window. Joking references to terrorism and your plot to blow up the 2011 Comic-Con? Don't even think about it.
You see, apparently the government has decided that Americans don't use phones enough anymore. We've all migrated to the internet, so now, naturally, the government is going to have to start imposing rules upon the internet. Well, to be fair, not quite rules. They just want to team up with social networking sites to get information about their widdle citizen's activities. Because we all need to be babysat, of course.
"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."
Mm-hmm. Because it's always good to tie the hands of independent companies that operate on the free world of the internet so that they have to cooperate. At least Google went into willingly.
Once again along that tack, the Obama administration (which is, of course, for terrorists and against anything akin to intel gathering or the wars) wants to have more control over banks, not for the purpose of money, but so that banks have to report money transfers out-of-country.
But always remember- Obama is soft on terror.
In a rather ironic twist, atheists and agnostics score the highest on a poll on American religious knowledge.
Right.
That's sad, Christians.
The midterm elections are approaching, which is rather...well, not exactly exciting, per se, since I am fixing to make a prediction about who's going to take the Congress. Before I do that, I'd just like to say that this prediction kind of stinks.
Because I'd really rather the Democrats lose their majority, but the Republicans not gain one.
I dream of a better world where the true interests of the people are represented by a four, five, six party Congress...
I dream big, in case you couldn't tell.
There's lots more I could talk about. But I don't really want to. I'm already depressed enough.
So...in the news this week, local police officers are now going to have even more license to make eternal nuisances of themselves, as their job descriptions are now going to be expanded to "watching for precursor activity to terrorist activities" or something like that. (And an hilarious image of Barney Fife trying to apprehend a terrorist just popped into my head...)
From this article: "But this initiative represents the administration’s first thoughtful steps in fulfilling President Obama’s commitment to defining a lasting rule of law for this brave new world. We must make it work."
We "must"? Oh yeah, that's right. So we can be safe, yada yad. Right. I forgot that part. Of course, there are other options. Like, you know, we could, like stop bombing and invading sovereign nations without cause and stuff. You know. Be smart and courteous and all that good stuff. Stop hitting other children on the playground.
But oh wait. That would be the smart thing to do. We're Americans. We aren't smart, so we're not needed to be. That's right.
In that same vein, our government is now trying to control the internet- oh wait. Not control it...just make sure...you don't say something stupid, using the vehicle of fear. There goes half of my Facebook activities. Sarcasm? Out the window. Joking references to terrorism and your plot to blow up the 2011 Comic-Con? Don't even think about it.
You see, apparently the government has decided that Americans don't use phones enough anymore. We've all migrated to the internet, so now, naturally, the government is going to have to start imposing rules upon the internet. Well, to be fair, not quite rules. They just want to team up with social networking sites to get information about their widdle citizen's activities. Because we all need to be babysat, of course.
"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."
Mm-hmm. Because it's always good to tie the hands of independent companies that operate on the free world of the internet so that they have to cooperate. At least Google went into willingly.
Once again along that tack, the Obama administration (which is, of course, for terrorists and against anything akin to intel gathering or the wars) wants to have more control over banks, not for the purpose of money, but so that banks have to report money transfers out-of-country.
But always remember- Obama is soft on terror.
In a rather ironic twist, atheists and agnostics score the highest on a poll on American religious knowledge.
Right.
That's sad, Christians.
The midterm elections are approaching, which is rather...well, not exactly exciting, per se, since I am fixing to make a prediction about who's going to take the Congress. Before I do that, I'd just like to say that this prediction kind of stinks.
Because I'd really rather the Democrats lose their majority, but the Republicans not gain one.
I dream of a better world where the true interests of the people are represented by a four, five, six party Congress...
I dream big, in case you couldn't tell.
There's lots more I could talk about. But I don't really want to. I'm already depressed enough.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Short-Term Memory Loss
You remember Dory, the little blue fish in the Disney-Pixar film Finding Nemo? According to her, she suffers from short-term memory loss- an unfortunate predicament that leads to some very interesting plot twists along the journey she takes with the clownfish, Marlin.Anyway. Hilarious fish aside, I am of the opinion that Americans suffer from a bad case of short-term memory loss. Why?
Maybe it's because American Conservatives seem dead-set on forgetting that their golden boy, George Bush, began the bailouts back in '08. Maybe because liberals consistently forget that they hated the wars not so long ago. Maybe because conservatives also always forget that not too long ago they were marked as possible terrorists...and then cheer on the deliberate expatriation of terrorists and the stripping of Constitutional rights from them.
Maybe all of that...
There's a video my mom found during the '08 election cycle. It featured parodies of George Bush and Clinton, with a "baby" John McCain and Obama, and Bush and Clinton were giving their two prodigies political advice. At one part in the song, they are singing about how their political plans are failing, people are getting upset...
"But if efforts at deflection aren't succeeding/And you feel that your career is on the brink/you've one trump card to play before conceding/As the details of your scandal become more than they can handle/They will surely seek relief and with memories oh so brief/With but one cycle of the news they'll find trivia to amuse/*gasp* Brittney's back in rehab!"
Yes folks, that is exactly what America is like. And this is what we're doing to ourselves.
Welcome to the world of one-week attention spans.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Blind Followers
I will never cease to be amazed by the stunning lack of introspection among Americans. It would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly sickening. All too often, I see people make comments that show that they really don't know what they're talking about. That, or they just haven't thought about it enough to actually hear what they're saying.
Come on. Who in their right mind would seriously advocate the nuking and killing of millions of innocent civilians? Yet we hear that all the time, both from ordinary Americans, commentators (mostly on Fox News) and even some of our elected officials. They seem to think, through some mysterious logical process, if we kill millions of people, our image among the collective world would improve, everyone would love us, and all our problems would be solved.
Then there's the near-mantra of the left- if we just get the government involved, everything will be fine. (Of course, Republicans also do this, but the left is a far more vocal proponent, mostly because they'll get reelected for it. Republicans won't.) Somehow, if we only had more Federal control over local life, the country would come back from the brink, we'd all be prosperous, and America would once again be all peachy keen.
And Americans are only too willing to continue to fall prey to rhetoric of that sort. What I don't understand is why. Why do we so willingly follow those we shouldn't trust- the politicians- and eat up their rhetoric as if it were the best thing we'd ever heard?
Come on. Who in their right mind would seriously advocate the nuking and killing of millions of innocent civilians? Yet we hear that all the time, both from ordinary Americans, commentators (mostly on Fox News) and even some of our elected officials. They seem to think, through some mysterious logical process, if we kill millions of people, our image among the collective world would improve, everyone would love us, and all our problems would be solved.
Then there's the near-mantra of the left- if we just get the government involved, everything will be fine. (Of course, Republicans also do this, but the left is a far more vocal proponent, mostly because they'll get reelected for it. Republicans won't.) Somehow, if we only had more Federal control over local life, the country would come back from the brink, we'd all be prosperous, and America would once again be all peachy keen.
And Americans are only too willing to continue to fall prey to rhetoric of that sort. What I don't understand is why. Why do we so willingly follow those we shouldn't trust- the politicians- and eat up their rhetoric as if it were the best thing we'd ever heard?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Brown the Republican Liberal
Heh. Big shocker here. Scott Brown, the Republican Liberal, voted Liberal. Well, 'magine that. Despite the overwhelming response from many Republicans of "Thank God we got Scott Brown," or "Thank Goodness a Republican got in! And in Massachusetts, too," Brown was nothing more than Same Ole', Same ole'. And guess what, you vote for Same ole', you get same ole'. Sorry, that's life.
And, of course, he was never anything different from other Republicans and Democrats. He just doesn't understand the political game in Washington quite yet, I don't think. Maybe people in Massachusetts will finally wise up and realize that, hey- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are helping them.
And, of course, he was never anything different from other Republicans and Democrats. He just doesn't understand the political game in Washington quite yet, I don't think. Maybe people in Massachusetts will finally wise up and realize that, hey- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are helping them.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Go Broakley
So I couldn't decide. It seemed a decision between worse and worser. So go Senator Broakley. Let us win.
(And no, I don't live in Massachusets. I just thought saying something on the subject would be fun.)
(And no, I don't live in Massachusets. I just thought saying something on the subject would be fun.)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Congress
We always hear about Turkey Coma. Well I have been in the sway of the Post-Christmas Coma. And trying to come out of it. Rather unsuccessfully. >.<
Let's see... Ah yes. Congress.
They slipped the healthcare bill through. On Christmas Eve. I hate that.
It's so cowardly- they can't bear to actually try to compromise and consider that they might be wrong about it; we have to get it through at all costs, even if said costs include lying about it and pushing it through when we know no one is paying attention, and they can't do anything about it.
Ugh.
Which leads me to another topic. Why is Congress in session so often?
I mean, I don't think they even have the right to say they live in their home districts anymore. They don't live there. They live in D.C. for practically the entire year. I don't see how that is good for our country. When they have enough time to pass an attaboy for an athletic 'hero', we have problems. That shows that they have entirely too much time on the floor, and not enough time actually listening to their Constitutents.
And that, in turn, leads me to yet another pet peeve.
Why in the world is the Senate/House floor always empty when anyone is speaking? I mean, it's like the minute they aren't the center of attention anymore *shoom* out the door they are.
I understand they are busy men. I mean, they have to work hard to schmooze all those lobbyists and come up with 1,000 page bills none of them even read, and of course, there's all the Pork Cram Time they have to get in. All those things are very, very important.
Let's see... Ah yes. Congress.
They slipped the healthcare bill through. On Christmas Eve. I hate that.
It's so cowardly- they can't bear to actually try to compromise and consider that they might be wrong about it; we have to get it through at all costs, even if said costs include lying about it and pushing it through when we know no one is paying attention, and they can't do anything about it.
Ugh.
Which leads me to another topic. Why is Congress in session so often?
I mean, I don't think they even have the right to say they live in their home districts anymore. They don't live there. They live in D.C. for practically the entire year. I don't see how that is good for our country. When they have enough time to pass an attaboy for an athletic 'hero', we have problems. That shows that they have entirely too much time on the floor, and not enough time actually listening to their Constitutents.
And that, in turn, leads me to yet another pet peeve.
Why in the world is the Senate/House floor always empty when anyone is speaking? I mean, it's like the minute they aren't the center of attention anymore *shoom* out the door they are.
I understand they are busy men. I mean, they have to work hard to schmooze all those lobbyists and come up with 1,000 page bills none of them even read, and of course, there's all the Pork Cram Time they have to get in. All those things are very, very important.
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
Mark Twain
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Bi-Partisan Interview
Recently, I sat down for an interview between two of the (alleged) brightest minds in the political debate- Barack Obama and Sean Hannity. Both agreed to see me on a set date, and we were going to discuss a few things.
We sat down, and I started the conversation.
Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.
Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.
Sean Hannity: What, giving up?
Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?
Obama: Wholly.
Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?
Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.
Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.
Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.
Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.
Hannity: You didn't answer the question.
Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?
Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.
Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?
Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.
Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?
Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.
Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.
Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?
Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.
Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.
Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.
Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.
Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?
Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.
Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..
Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?
Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.
Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?
Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.
Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?
Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.
Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?
Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.
Liberty: So what are you saying?
Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.
Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.
Hannity: Yes, I have said that.
Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.
Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.
Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?
Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.
Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?
Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.
Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.
Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.
Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.
Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.
Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.
Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.
Obama: I think that would be safe to say.
Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?
Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.
Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?
Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.
Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.
Obama: Uh...
Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.
Hannity: Heh. She's got you.
Liberty: Mr. President?
Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.
Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.
Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.
Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?
Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.
Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.
Obama: I never said that.
Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?
Obama: I do not recall that incident.
Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.
Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.
Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?
Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.
Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?
Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.
Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?
Hannity: No, I don't think so.
Obama: Time is ticking.
Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?
Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.
Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.
Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.
Obama: You know, I really have to get going.
Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?
Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.
Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?
Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.
Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.
Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!
Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.
Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.
We sat down, and I started the conversation.
Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.
Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.
Sean Hannity: What, giving up?
Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?
Obama: Wholly.
Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?
Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.
Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.
Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.
Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.
Hannity: You didn't answer the question.
Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?
Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.
Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?
Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.
Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?
Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.
Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.
Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?
Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.
Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.
Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.
Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.
Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?
Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.
Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..
Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?
Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.
Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?
Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.
Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?
Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.
Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?
Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.
Liberty: So what are you saying?
Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.
Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.
Hannity: Yes, I have said that.
Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.
Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.
Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?
Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.
Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?
Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.
Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.
Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.
Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.
Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.
Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.
Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.
Obama: I think that would be safe to say.
Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?
Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.
Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?
Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.
Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.
Obama: Uh...
Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.
Hannity: Heh. She's got you.
Liberty: Mr. President?
Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.
Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.
Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.
Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?
Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.
Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.
Obama: I never said that.
Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?
Obama: I do not recall that incident.
Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.
Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.
Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?
Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.
Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?
Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.
Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?
Hannity: No, I don't think so.
Obama: Time is ticking.
Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?
Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.
Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.
Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.
Obama: You know, I really have to get going.
Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?
Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.
Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?
Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.
Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.
Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!
Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.
Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Adventures in Partisanship...
Today I went to the library. At my grandmother's house. My grandmother lives in rural Arkansas. There are roughly ten itty-bitty towns all around her, about half of them with libraries. We went to one of them. The reading material being a bit scarce (at least in the variety I wished), and there being nothing by Ron Paul, etc., I chose a book by Sean Hannity, Deliver Us From Evil.
Now, usually I don't read Hannity. Or listen to Hannity. Frankly, I find the man a boring alarmist who has nothing better to do than spout Republican talking points. (That's the same reason I don't watch say, Keith Olberman either.) But I'd already read Slander (Ann Coulter) and The Obama Nation (Dr. Jerome Corsi), so I got Hannity's book.
Ugh.
I am on the second chapter. Frankly, I can't decide whether President Obama's Audacity of Hope was better or worse. If we're measuring a book by level of partisanship, they rival each other quite nicely. Of course, they do have opposing viewpoints- Obama blames everything on the Republicans; in Hannity's book, everything is the Democrat's fault.
Frankly, both views are nauseating.
I mean, seriously. Is that the whole substance of our political argument? If I don't like it, it's their fault? Sheesh people, can't we defend ourselves with something beyond that? Can't we have an original thought once in our lives?
Apparently not.
So far, Deliver Us From Evil has been nothing but pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-Constitutionality raping on the part of Hannity. I am sure he did not intend it as such- I mean, anyone could have missed that fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation. And I'll grant you that maybe, just maybe someone could have overlooked the fact that when the ability to set foreign policy is granted to Congress, it doesn't mean we're supposed to go in and invade other countries.
Maybe. But perhaps it's just my personality, but I'm not at all willing to let it slide so easily. The idea that someone of Hannity's stature could miss this is rather astounding to me. But then, given his outspoken support in favor of the PATRIOT act, it isn't surprising that he's so pro-war. Oh, and he's a Republican.
No surprise at all.
I don't understand partisanship. Everything is the opposite side's fault, no matter what it is. Eve eating from the tree was the opposite party's fault, apparently! Cain killing Abel, Noah's flood, the origin of wickedness, the capture of the Israelites...all of it was the opposite side's fault.
Perhaps this can be attributed to human nature. Perhaps it is a natural impulse: to blame someone else for all your troubles.
But when you're a nationally-recognized figure, it just doesn't look good.
Is there any responsibility in the house?
Now, usually I don't read Hannity. Or listen to Hannity. Frankly, I find the man a boring alarmist who has nothing better to do than spout Republican talking points. (That's the same reason I don't watch say, Keith Olberman either.) But I'd already read Slander (Ann Coulter) and The Obama Nation (Dr. Jerome Corsi), so I got Hannity's book.
Ugh.
I am on the second chapter. Frankly, I can't decide whether President Obama's Audacity of Hope was better or worse. If we're measuring a book by level of partisanship, they rival each other quite nicely. Of course, they do have opposing viewpoints- Obama blames everything on the Republicans; in Hannity's book, everything is the Democrat's fault.
Frankly, both views are nauseating.
I mean, seriously. Is that the whole substance of our political argument? If I don't like it, it's their fault? Sheesh people, can't we defend ourselves with something beyond that? Can't we have an original thought once in our lives?
Apparently not.
So far, Deliver Us From Evil has been nothing but pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-Constitutionality raping on the part of Hannity. I am sure he did not intend it as such- I mean, anyone could have missed that fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation. And I'll grant you that maybe, just maybe someone could have overlooked the fact that when the ability to set foreign policy is granted to Congress, it doesn't mean we're supposed to go in and invade other countries.
Maybe. But perhaps it's just my personality, but I'm not at all willing to let it slide so easily. The idea that someone of Hannity's stature could miss this is rather astounding to me. But then, given his outspoken support in favor of the PATRIOT act, it isn't surprising that he's so pro-war. Oh, and he's a Republican.
No surprise at all.
I don't understand partisanship. Everything is the opposite side's fault, no matter what it is. Eve eating from the tree was the opposite party's fault, apparently! Cain killing Abel, Noah's flood, the origin of wickedness, the capture of the Israelites...all of it was the opposite side's fault.
Perhaps this can be attributed to human nature. Perhaps it is a natural impulse: to blame someone else for all your troubles.
But when you're a nationally-recognized figure, it just doesn't look good.
Is there any responsibility in the house?
Monday, September 14, 2009
The 10th and Baloney
Two things for this wonderful, discerning gentleman:
Number one- The argument of 'general welfare' is viable, but doesn't hold up. It says 'general welfare', not 'individual welfare'. Things like social security, medicare, and universal healthcare are not for general welfare, they are for individual welfare.
Number two- He ignores the rest of article one. It does not give the power to give universal healthcare to the nation to Congress anywhere. Sorry.
One more thing- in the words of my mother- "Baloney?! You're a bunch of baloney, you dweeb!"
(You gotta love my mom... :P Or at least, I do. )
Friday, August 21, 2009
Liking and Disliking Politicians
What, in your opinion, is a good reason for either liking or disliking a certain politician?
Tonight, I was discussing politics with a couple of the ladies who go to a discipleship program our church hosts. We talked about politics in general, then I asked one of the ladies if she paid much attention to politics. She said no, she didn't. I asked why not, and this was her answer: "Because Obama is an idiot."
Okay.
I then proceeded to ask her what she thought of Bush. She said she had approved of him. I asked why. "Mainly, because he's a Christian, and prayed for our country."
Alrighty.
Those two things are just fine and dandy. Now why do you approve and/or disapprove of them?
Sorry, but the argument "He's an idiot" just doesn't hold much water for me. Anybody can be an 'idiot'- sometimes, I'm an idiot. But why am I an idiot? Why is President Obama an idiot? Do you have a specific reason for why you think that? Is that your only argument?
I generally get asked, at this point, why I disapprove of President Obama. I disapprove of him because, for starters, he does not believe in the Constitution. (Reading assignment- 'Constitution' in The Audacity of Hope.) He thinks it is outdated, and should go the way of the dinosaur. Next, much of his economic policy and thinking on various other issues is Communist or Socialist in substance or implication. Communism and Socialism are essentially totalitarian regimes- something that is not American, and never will be.
I disagree with President Obama because I think that, while he may or may not have the best interests of the American people at heart, he is for bigger government and several other issues that I won't bore you with in this post.
I disapproved of President Bush because of several pieces of legislation and actions he took during his terms. For starters, the PATRIOT act. For those of my readers who may not be informed as to what the PATRIOT act is, let me enlighten you. The PATRIOT act allows the federal government (more like the President, really) to imprison any person, American citizen or no, on the simple belief or suspicion of seditious/terrorist/traitorous acts against the federal government or any government official.
Yeah, that's real nice. Then, we have the Iraq war and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. I am not precisely sure why we went into either. The explanation for Iraq was changed several times (from terrorist activities to WMD's to promoting democracy), and I haven't done much research into our occupation of Afghanistan. But preemptive war is not right. Preemptive is where you take measures to prevent something before it happens. But what are we preventing in Iraq? A dictatorship becoming more of a dictatorship? I'm pretty sure those Iraqis will go right back to a dictatorship when (if) we get out of Iraq. It'll happen. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive little feelings.
This is just a tiny sample of the reasons for my disliking Bush. There are more, believe me. ;)
This is more of a rant than anything- I'm a bit steamed right now. ^.^ Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to attempt another, clarified post on gay marriage, mostly for a friend. :)
Tonight, I was discussing politics with a couple of the ladies who go to a discipleship program our church hosts. We talked about politics in general, then I asked one of the ladies if she paid much attention to politics. She said no, she didn't. I asked why not, and this was her answer: "Because Obama is an idiot."
Okay.
I then proceeded to ask her what she thought of Bush. She said she had approved of him. I asked why. "Mainly, because he's a Christian, and prayed for our country."
Alrighty.
Those two things are just fine and dandy. Now why do you approve and/or disapprove of them?
Sorry, but the argument "He's an idiot" just doesn't hold much water for me. Anybody can be an 'idiot'- sometimes, I'm an idiot. But why am I an idiot? Why is President Obama an idiot? Do you have a specific reason for why you think that? Is that your only argument?
I generally get asked, at this point, why I disapprove of President Obama. I disapprove of him because, for starters, he does not believe in the Constitution. (Reading assignment- 'Constitution' in The Audacity of Hope.) He thinks it is outdated, and should go the way of the dinosaur. Next, much of his economic policy and thinking on various other issues is Communist or Socialist in substance or implication. Communism and Socialism are essentially totalitarian regimes- something that is not American, and never will be.
I disagree with President Obama because I think that, while he may or may not have the best interests of the American people at heart, he is for bigger government and several other issues that I won't bore you with in this post.
I disapproved of President Bush because of several pieces of legislation and actions he took during his terms. For starters, the PATRIOT act. For those of my readers who may not be informed as to what the PATRIOT act is, let me enlighten you. The PATRIOT act allows the federal government (more like the President, really) to imprison any person, American citizen or no, on the simple belief or suspicion of seditious/terrorist/traitorous acts against the federal government or any government official.
Yeah, that's real nice. Then, we have the Iraq war and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. I am not precisely sure why we went into either. The explanation for Iraq was changed several times (from terrorist activities to WMD's to promoting democracy), and I haven't done much research into our occupation of Afghanistan. But preemptive war is not right. Preemptive is where you take measures to prevent something before it happens. But what are we preventing in Iraq? A dictatorship becoming more of a dictatorship? I'm pretty sure those Iraqis will go right back to a dictatorship when (if) we get out of Iraq. It'll happen. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive little feelings.
This is just a tiny sample of the reasons for my disliking Bush. There are more, believe me. ;)
This is more of a rant than anything- I'm a bit steamed right now. ^.^ Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to attempt another, clarified post on gay marriage, mostly for a friend. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
