| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
I hope everyone enjoyed all the posts. I'll be doing another Q&A Friday in 3-4 weeks. See you on Monday & have a nice week-end!
Question: "Given that a Balanced Budget Amendment was #1 on your priority list for the Republican Congress's domestic agenda, what programs you would support cutting in order to get the budget balanced? We are talking about $350-$400 Billion worth of cuts (and that # excludes off-budget spending for the War On Terror)to make this happen. There would have to be some significant programs go by the wayside.
Most Republicans I've asked can't list enough programs to cover the difference without ending up sounding like Libertarians... just want to see if you can." -- President_Friedman
Answer: While of course there is an enormous number of things in the Federal Budget that needs to be cut, all you have to do to get to a balanced budget and to eventually wipe out the deficit -- and even the debt -- is control spending. Here are a few relevant budget numbers (although I wish I could have found them in constant dollars) that will help explain what I mean...
1972 -- 200 billion Federal Revenues -- 220 billion Expenditures
1976 -- 309 billion Federal Revenues -- 345 billion Expenditures
1980 -- 521 billion Federal Revenues -- 532 billion Expenditures
1984 -- 674 billion Federal Revenues -- 816 billion Expenditures
1988 -- 867 billion Federal Revenues -- 995 billion Expenditures
1992 -- 1,127 billion Federal Revenues -- 1,313 billion Expenditures
1996 -- 1,415 billion Federal Revenues -- 1,511 billion Expenditures
2000 -- 1,823 billion Federal Revenues -- 1,714 billion Expenditures
2003 -- 1,789 billion Federal Revenues -- 2,101 billion Expenditures
Take a look at those numbers and you'll notice that Federal revenues aren't constant; they're always going up. Heck, even though we've had a war going on, a recession, and huge tax cut, revenues from 2000-2004 will show a gain by the time the final numbers for this year are in.
So why do we have a deficit? Because as we bring in more revenue, we keep spending at a faster rate.
Put another way, our country is like a 20 year old guy who's making $16,500 a year and is completely broke. Then fast forward a couple of decades and that same guy is making $50,000 and he's still broke. Well, how can that be? The amount of money he's making has gone away! Yeah, but at 40 he's driving a nicer car, making house payments instead of living in an apartment, watching a big screen TV instead of a 25 inch, and eating out every night instead of living off Ramen Noodles and 3 for a dollar pot pies. Just like our country, he spends every dime he gets his hands on and then some.
If we could ever put the brakes on -- for say, a decade -- and just increase spending at the rate of inflation, we could eliminate the deficit, pay down a significant chunk of the debt, and actually build up a slush fund that we could use in case of an emergency.
Theoretically, that's very doable. Practically, it's nearly impossible to pull off because of Congress' nearly uncontrollable lust for spending our money. That's why I support a line item veto, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and just about any other sort of measure that will help control spending. If we control spending, everything else will fall into place. If we don't, we're headed for a world of hurt one of these days...
Question: "I've been reading and posting here for quite a while and here is something I was wondering John - that many of us probably would like answered - though I trust your views completely because mine are similar but I was wondering -
Who are you? What is your job in real life (what industry, what type of work etc.), and whats your background that has formed your conservative understanding... or - in short, aside from your demonstrated knowledge (which on face value could be mere opinions - though I personally know your views are well founded) - but why should the average person who stumbles across your site listen to your views? What authority do you have to speak on behalf of conservatives?" -- bambam5
Answer: Here's the short and sweet "Hawkins bio". I can assure you that it's not something that's ever going to be made into a movie of the week =D
Education
I grew up in a small, one stop light North Carolina town and went to school down the road in the "big city" of Eden, NC -- population 10,000 -- yee-haw! Even though I did things like Quiz Bowl, High IQ Bowl, and Math Counts, I was never more than an average student. Same goes for college. I have a BA in Psychology and a minor in Communications from UNC-Charlotte, but again, I never had stellar grades.
Current Job
I do internet technical support.
How I Became A Conservative
I've actually written a column about this subject and here's the most relevant passage from it,
"Of course, I still had a head full of mush when I arrived on campus. I had minimal knowledge of American history, economics, and even what was going on politically in the world thanks to the mediocre high school education I had received. But, I did know I was interested in doing "something political". So I started reading political books, listening to what my professors had to say, and talking politics with my friends who in retrospect, knew as little as I did about what was going on.
But even then, there were two lenses I viewed every political proposal through -- pragmatism & did the idea make America better or worse off? At the time, it seemed to me that the first question that should be asked about every program, every idea was quite simply -- will this work? If the idea didn't work, then it was a bad idea, no matter how noble the intentions were of the person who proposed it. Next, I thought you had to consider the implications of the policy; did it make our country stronger or weaker? If it made our country weaker, then it was something I opposed.
Unfortunately for the left, practicality was not their strong point. As an example of what I mean, let me take you back to a class I took my sophomore year called "War, Peace, Justice and Human Survival." The professors were ultra-libs of the sort you rarely find anywhere other than on college campuses, peace rallies, or on the pages of ultra left-wing mags like Counterpunch. Our professors explained to us very earnestly that we should get rid of our military and use non-violent resistance to protect ourselves from other nations. The professors talked about why they were pacifists, how right & moral their position was, & all the wonderful things we could do with the money we put into the military. They talked about the whole concept as if it were the greatest idea since the Wright Brothers decided to build a plane. Meanwhile, I was wondering what happened when Cuba's military starting looting Florida and gang raping the women? What were people supposed to do then? Invite the Cubans in for soup, call them "brother," and try to show them that we're "human beings too?” Suppose they don't care that we're nice people, what's our back-up plan?
Even in my political infancy, that was the core difference that I perceived between conservatives and liberals. As I saw it, conservatism was based on finding practical solutions that were chosen primarily because they worked and made America a better place to live. On the other hand, I believed the left's ideas had more to do with what they thought was “nice” or “mean” than whether their proposals actually worked in the real world & strengthened our country."
Why Should People Pay Attention?
As to why anyone should "listen to (my) views," that's just a decision people have to make for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, ideology and punditry are merit based fields. Whether you've been President or a street sweeper, a billionaire or a pauper, a genius or a dunce...it doesn't really matter. It all comes down to whether or not what you say makes sense, resonates with people, entertains, and largely turns out to be right. Heck, liberals don't even insist their pundits be right about things, so it's even easier for them =D
Question: "Putting any ideology aside, do you honestly believe that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned?" -- Schroman2002
Answer: My opinion on Roe v. Wade mirrors that of Robert Bork who says that,
"Roe v. Wade...was a radical deformation of the Constitution. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the judgment and moral sense of the American people and their elected representatives."
So if Bush gets an opportunity to replace say Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens with a couple of conservative judges who believe in sticking to the Constitution, it's entirely possible that they could team up with Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But do keep in mind that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, all that would do is kick the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs.
Question: "Can you give me one really good reason why Americans should not be allowed to buy prescription drugs from other countries?" -- Schroman2002
Answer: One "really good reason"? Sure! It's all about backdoor price controls. Let me explain....
Let's say an American drug company makes drug x and it costs $45 a bottle to make. They sell it for a $100 a bottle here and $50 in Canada because the government in Canada has price controls on their drugs.
Then here in the US, our legislators decide they want those same cheap drugs that Soviet Canuckistan is getting, but they know they can't get away with establishing price controls. So what do they do? They reimport the drugs from Canada. Suddenly, drugs that used to cost $100 a pop in the US, cost $60 after they're brought in from Canada.
So everybody's happy, right?
Unh-uh. The drug company is VERY UNHAPPY because they now have a razor thin worldwide profit margin on their product. So will they stop making it? If they're making a profit and the risk of lawsuits isn't insane, probably not. But, if it's not worth it, they'll quit making the product. In fact, this is essentially why we don't have enough flu vaccine this year. It's because back in the nineties, the government started buying up the flu vaccine and they set a price so low that it drove some of the US manufacturers out of the business.
Furthermore, these drug companies spend enormous amounts of loot and resources on research and development and a lot of drugs they work on don't pan out and are never brought to market. So if you make it unprofitable for them to make certain types of drugs, they're simply going to stop working on and producing those types of drugs. Instead, they'll focus on other drugs that allow them to make more money. So in the name of getting cheaper drugs today, we're making it much less likely the miracle drugs of tomorrow will ever be developed.
Is that a good idea? Price controls are almost never a good idea...
Question: "Do you think it is possible that a pro-choice republican candidate could win the presidency in 2008?" -- wisconsinite
Answer: Theoretically, yes. Practically, it would be much harder to pull off because in order to satisfy the majority of the party which is pro-life, the candidate would have to promise not to move backwards on any pro-life issues and to appoint strict constructionists who believe in judicial restraint to the bench.
Then -- and here's the real trick -- the base would have to believe him and would have to want him as the candidate badly enough to pass up candidates who are more socially conservative.
Can any candidate thread that needle? I think that conceivably Rudy Giuliani could, but just because he could, doesn't mean he will =D
Question: "Hola John - What was your motivation to start up this site? What event or events specifically inspired you?" -- CWSCHNEIDER
Answer: This is an easy one because I can quote straight from the FAQ =D,
"I got really angry during the 2000 election at the horrible, biased job the media did in covering Florida. The breaking point for me was when I was watching a show on CNN and an emailed comment from a listener came in suggesting that "Bush should concede." That was the moment I decided to put together a conservative web page although I didn't actually get RWN off the ground until several months later."
Question: "Do you think we could see a flat tax implemented under President Bush and if not do you think we'll ever be able to reform our current tax system." -- nolan1286
Answer: There are a number of roadblocks in the way of turning a flat tax into reality. Here are some of them in brief:
1) Although a lot of flat tax advocates say otherwise & our byzantine tax system makes it a little difficult to come up with exact numbers, it's very likely that some poor and middle class Americans would have to pay more under a flat tax system.
2) The American people are -- and correctly -- very suspicious of radical change in how our country operates. The very fact that we'd be changing our tax code from progressive to flat would lead to a significant slice of Americans opposing it out of hand just because it's a big shift in how we do things.
3) A lot of people believe a progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system and they'll oppose a change for that reason.
4) Class warfare resonates with a lot of Americans and they're going to be opposed to what they view as a significant tax cut for the rich.
None of those problems are impossible to overcome, but to get a flat tax through Congress today would be a very difficult proposition. That's why I think Bush will probably have to try for half a loaf and go for a Reaganesque flattening and simplification of the tax system...
Question: "John, I'm 18 years old, I consider myself a Social and fiscal conservative, but I do have a few questions about the proposition of a flat-tax. What exactly does it do? I mean, it sounds a little bit like price controls to me, and every time I hear the words price control a little red flag goes off in my head that says "union-induced" or something to that effect. So my question is: what does a flat-tax proposal do in the long term?" -- LexLuthor13
Answer: First of all, flat taxes are totally unrelated to price controls or unions, so don't worry about that =)
Secondly, there are books on this subject, but here's the short version of what's so great about a flat tax. Since everyone except the poorest Americans would pay the same tax rate...
1) Tax rates would tend to stay low because politicians would make everyone angry by raising them.
2) There would be more motivation for people to work hard and be entrepreneurs since they wouldn't be penalized for earning more money. That would lead to significantly increased economic growth.
3) It would make it much simpler and easier to prepare taxes under flat tax.
In my opinion, a flat tax would probably be the best thing we could do to help keep the economy growing strong long-term.
Question: "Now that Republicans have firm control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, what, in your estimation, would be the biggest threat to GOP unity in the halls of power in Washington, DC?" -- huckupchuck
Answer: Illegal immigration and spending, illegal immigration and spending, and illegal immigration and spending. The base feels very strongly about both of these issues and quite frankly, George Bush is a big government Republican who believes in coddling illegal immigrants.
Things almost came to a head over these issues early in 2004, but because of the election, the party managed to hold things together. But, now that Bush is out of danger? A lot of Republicans in Washington are going to be willing to fight him on these issues and the base will be cheering THEM, not Bush, for doing it.
That being said, I don't expect any big schism in the party. I just think the next two years are going to be a lot more contentious than the last two for the GOP because Bush and his allies will be facing serious resistance on these two big issues.
Today is Q&A Friday #7 at RWN.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, heck it can even be about movies, music, TV, and film.
Later today around 6 PM EST, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them. My posts will probably be a little shorter than normal and I won't be able to get to every question (so don't even bother asking fluff like "what is your favorite color" or "How often do you clip Patton's nails"), but expect at least twice as many posts as normal.
So ask away!
"Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. " -- Zell Miller
Mere words cannot express the gratitude we Americans feel for our troops. God bless the troops, past and present, living and dead, for all that they've sacrificed for this country and for freedom loving people around the world....
Man, I was so happy with our win, but then I found out that places like Democratic Underground are arguing that Bush stole the election once again. What? But what about all those votes? Well, Wikipedia even has a page up about how the election was stolen with charts and everything. Is something up? Well, I contacted my local wing of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who patched me into the national arm of the VRWC. Then I got to talk to two people I shall refer to as Hacker1 and Hacker2. Here is the conversation:
Frank: So, did we steal the election this time?
Hacker1: Yeah, totally. We like rigged all the machines so there was no way we could lose.
Frank: Why didn't you tell me we had it in the bag? I was like totally worried about this election!
Hacker2: Sorry, dude, but we were like told not to spread it around too much.
Hacker1: Yeah, we needed everyone to act like it was close and worrisome so no one would know we like totally hacked it. That Karl Rove is smart, dude; he knows how to run things.
Hacker2: Yeah, Rove is totally evil and totally cool.
Frank: So did you hack voting everywhere?
Hacker1: Yeah, otherwise it would look weird if we only improved in the battleground states.
Hacker2: Rove was completely in charge of all that. He even came in last minute and said, "Give them New Hampshire," and we were like, "Whatever."
Frank: So was it hard hacking the vote?
Hacker1: Sorta, but Diebold gave us easy to follow instructions.
Hacker2: We totally owned all the votes.
Hacker1: Totally.
Hacker2: It was funny to see the Democrats try and cheat the old-fashioned way. They can bring in all the dead people they want to vote, but we'll just change their votes to Republican in the end.
Hacker1: (laughs) I bet you didn't know this, but Michael Moore voted for Bush.
Hacker2: (laughs) He doesn't know it either.
Frank: But aren't people going to find out about this eventually?
Hacker1: Not if we're careful, dude.
Hacker2: First off, we're not going to hand out many landslides. It's going to be a bunch of real close ones so we can say to the Democrats, "Oh, that was so close. You really should try again."
Hacker1: (laughs) We're going to drive them nuts.
Hacker2: Anyway, the VRWC will save money in the future as we cut back on commercials and campaign appearances, but Rove will make sure we don't cut back so much that it looks suspicious.
Frank: Except to the Democratic Underground.
Hacker1: Yeah, there's no fooling those guys. They're on top of everything. Luckily, Rove had a plan for them too.
Hacker2: What he did was get all these mental patients - total schizos - and brainwash them about how evil the Republicans are. Then he gave them internet connections.
Hacker1: Now the schizos that Rove planted totally rule the Democratic Underground discussion forum. They’re the most prolific posters. Instead of getting anywhere on all the evil plans we have, they waste time blaming a Democrat event being rained out on Karl Rove.
Hacker2: Which is stupid because our weather machine is only 60% complete.
Frank: What about bloggers talking about voting malfeasance?
Hacker1: Dude, Rove totally owns the blogosphere. Most of the popular bloggers write only what Rove tells them.
Frank: Like who?
Hacker1: Well, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, half the people at the The Volokh Conspiracy, and Scott Ott of Scrappleface.
Frank: I knew it!
Hacker2: The phrase "Axis of Weasels" was all Rove's idea.
Frank: So he controls the bloggers to combat the left-wing blogs like the DailyKos?
(both hackers laugh)
Hacker1: Dude, Rove personally writes DailyKos.
Hacker2: Yeah, he wants to control what the left are whining about.
Frank: Whoa! That Rove is one sinister, evil dude!
Hacker2: Totally.
Frank: Hey, has Rove ever mentioned my site?
Hacker1: Uh... yeah, once. He asked me, "What's this site 'IMAO'?" And I told him, "Remember, it's the one with the moon exploding." And he said, "Oh yeah, it's the stupid site about the angry dog."
Frank: Cool! He knows my site! So, back to the main subject, what's in the future of voting now that we own it?
Hacker1: We'll only keep fixing elections for so long. Eventually we'll dissolve the Democratic party and turn the U.S. into a one-party ruled dictatorship.
Hacker2: That's Rove's long-term plans.
Frank: Neato. Well, thanks for talking to me.
Hacker1: You're not going to publish this, are you?
Frank: Uh... well... er... uh... no.
If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.
In his latest column, David Broder points out, correctly, that not only does the House of Representatives no longer serve the function that the Founding Fathers intended for it, it has largely ceased to be a Democratic Institution...
"Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote-The Center for Voting and Democracy, said in a memo last week that "this House election was the least competitive in history." He based that claim, he told me, on the fact that outside of Texas, where a controversial Republican redistricting in 2003 succeeded in defeating four of five targeted Democrats, only three incumbents lost their seats. That's a 99 percent success rate outside Texas.
The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to rehear the Texas redistricting case, but unless it someday decides to curb partisan gerrymandering, the makeup of the House is almost immune to change. Thanks to rigged boundaries and the incumbents' immense fundraising advantage, nearly 96 percent of the "races" were won by a margin of at least 10 percent. Richie noted that 29 of the 33 open seats (with no incumbents running) stayed with the same party. The turnout of voters was about 50 percent higher than in off-year 2002, but party ratios in the House barely budged.
At the founding of this republic, House members were given the shortest terms -- half the length of the president's, one-third that of senators -- to ensure that they would be sensitive to any shifts in public opinion. Now they have more job security than the queen of England -- and as little need to seek their subjects' assent."
Just for the fun of it, I decided to put together a list of things, in order, that I'd like to see our Republican controlled government work on.
Note that these are things that are dear to my black conservative heart, not things that I necessarily expect will actually be taken up by the House or the White House.
1) Balanced Budget Amendment: The devil would be in the details, but unless we have some sort of legally mandated spending constraints we will never be able to control spending long-term.
2) Flat Tax or National Sales Tax: Flattening out the tax system would lead to stronger economic growth long-term for the country and a rising tide lifts all boats.
3) Term Limits: Politics shouldn't be a lifetime job and keeping our reps moving in and out keeps them honest and trying to do what's right for the country, instead of worrying so much about keeping their cushy jobs.
4) School Vouchers: Nothing would make a bigger positive impact on our school system than introducing real competition.
5) Illegal Immigration Crackdown: Guest worker programs are fine, but border jumping criminals are bad for the country.
6) Tort Reform: Lawsuits are a huge drain on our economy and drive up costs for everybody. Bringing our "lawsuit lottery" legal system under control would help America's businesses considerably, especially those in the health care industry.
7) Health Care Savings Accounts: Nothing would reduce healthcare costs nationwide like health care savings accounts.
8) Social Security Individual Investment Accounts: This will help the program stay in the black longer and it'll give our government less money to spend which is another big plus.
9) Stricter Control Of Legal Immigration: I'd like to see us cut down from 1.1 million plus legal immigrants allowed per year to around 300,000.
10) A Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage: This has been less of a priority because Bush has 4 more years to put in conservative judges and because the SCOTUS will be more hesitant to tinker with something like DOMA after the strong showing marriage protection Amendments made at the state level.
PS: I would be interested in seeing other lists like this and so if you create one, link this list, and let me know about it, I'll try to link to your list later tonight.
*** Update #1***: By the way, I wanted to make it clear that I was focusing on legislative issues for the Federal Government to tackle so a few important issues weren't mentioned.
For example, the war on terrorism is priority #1 for me. A conservative judiciary that believes in sticking to the Constitution? That's up there too. I'd also like to see an end to gerrymandering and some steps that will make the vote more secure, but in many respects those are state issues.
*** Update #2***: Here are some of the other lists from around the blogosphere...
-- The Smartercop
-- Rightpundit
-- Marked Up
-- Bull Moose Strikes Back
-- My Arse From My Elbow
-- Speakout 4 Conservatism
-- "Alberto Gonzales looks to be W's choice to replace John Ashcroft and personally, I think it's a great pick. Gonzales is a Bush loyalist with a reputation for being tough on terror and plenty of legal experience that shows he's up to the job. Some people aren't all that high on him because they think he may be pro-abortion (and that's not as clear cut as some people think it is) but,
#1: Who cares if the AG is pro or anti-abortion? His job is to enforce the law, whatever it may be, not write it.
#2: Gonzales was a man who many people thought Bush might nominate for the Supreme Court. If Gonzales is the type of guy who would let his personal feelings about abortion interfere with his interpretation of the law -- which of course is far from a given -- would you rather have him as an AG or on the Supreme Court? Exactly!
-- I think we've essentially gotten to a point where the situation with Arlen Specter is win/win.
If the enormous pressure that has been applied to the Senate has been enough to prevent Specter from becoming Chairman of the Judicial Committee, we'll have knocked off a guy who was saying he wasn't going stick up for the sort of judges we want.
On the other hand, in an effort to hang on to the Chairmanship of the Judicial Committee, Specter has for all intents and purposes promised to back just about anybody Bush sends up.
Furthermore, the GOP, The Senate, Specter, all of them now know that the base is going to riot if they don't fight tooth and nail for conservative judges.
I'd rather get rid of Specter, but even if he survives at this point, we're in a MUCH BETTER position than we were in a week ago.
-- Not only is Prime Minister Allawi an ally of the United States, he's the leader in the fight against the terrorists and insurgents who have been murdering Iraqis, beheading foreigners, killing our troops, and trying to stop the Iraqis from becoming free. Now, members of Allawi's family have been kidnapped by terrorists. And some of the reactions at the Democratic Underground are just unbelievable...
sniffa: "i'd say i care but that wouLd be a Lie."
ProfessorPlum: "Allawi is a pig at the trough of this enormous banquet of human suffering. I feel bad for his family members, if they are indeed innocent, but not for Allawi himself. You reap what you sow, and he is in bed with Bushco."
devilgrrl: "It's called for...because I so don't give a rat's ass either. I tried to stop this - no one listened - it's not my problem."
Cobalt Violet: "Bush has a family too!"
Artemis Bunyon: "Compassion? She died in a violent head-on collision with Hope. Karma is a b*tch. F*ck Allawi. F*ck Bush."
Gee, why do so many people wonder if libs are rooting for the enemy against America? Where could that sort of impression ever come from?
-- The road to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians will probably be long and winding, but one way or the other, it has to run over Arafat's dead body which is why it's good news that he's about to pass...
Hat tip to DANEgerus Weblog for the cartoon.
Michele Catalano over at A Small Victory is one those "security moms" we've heard so much about. While Michele isn't comfortable with everything in the conservative agenda, particularly the social issues, she is concerned about national security and she's repulsed by the bile spewing Michael Moore element of the Democratic Party. I think that's a pretty good summary of why she ended up in the Bush camp this year.
Well, Michele is a little worried. After losing the election, she's a little worried about where the country is headed and the whole what the "moral values" thing means for people like her.
Here's part of her post yesterday on the subject,
"I’ve been writing about the “vocal minority” the past few days; they would be the group of Americans who have suddenly crowned themselves the morality police. This is not a slam on Christians because this group is made of up of much more than Christians and they have less to say about religion than they do about how you and I should live our lives.
Perhaps the reelection of a conservative president has emboldened them. They see the perceived red state/blue state divide as a chance to rush in and push their mandate on everyone.
...One person in the comments on my Simpsons post wrote:
"I wonder if the producers of the Simpsons and a lot of other so-called entertainment vehicles are sorry they have these installment in the can already. There's a new clean wind sweeping the land and vulgarity and violence are out."
....What exactly is your agenda? Would you like television to consist of nothing but Little House on the Prairie reruns interspersed with Davey and Goliath clips? Do you want to ban everything you don’t like or that doesn’t fit your moral ideals? What about radio? Let’s just get all the disc jockeys off the air and let muzak fill the airwaves! Movies? I’m not sure what you want there. You don’t like Disney movies because the Disney company likes them gay folk too much. And if we discount anything rated PG13 and up, that doesn’t leave us with a whole lot of options, does it? Perhaps that’s what you want, for our only entertainment options to be the ones you would choose.
....Your “new wind of morality” will always be just that; a wind. You will never gain the full force hurricane blasts you want to sweep us up with because you keep forgetting one thing: America is about freedom. We have the freedom of choice, the freedom to listen to crappy satanic music, the freedom to watch movies where people get stomped on by alien monsters, freedom to watch tv shows that ooze sexuality, freedom to underline all the smutty parts in a good novel. You may think you have the right to take that all away from us, but you don’t and you never will.
....I’ll make my own utopia, thank you. If I want to lock myself in my house and watch every vulgar, violent movie imaginable while I reminisce happily about my divorce and commiserate with my childless friends, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me. You can look down on me through your holier-than-thou glasses, but the only time I’m ever going to give you any notice after this is when I’m throwing rocks at your glass house."
Here was my response to that in the comments section of Michele's post...
"I want to lock myself in my house and watch every vulgar, violent movie imaginable while I reminisce happily about my divorce and commiserate with my childless friends, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me."
That's why we're going to have to put you in a morality camp for your own good, dear. Once you're in there, we'll have you watching Davey and Goliath and listening to the uplifting music of John Denver and the Osmonds until you get so filled to the brim with happiness that you'll never want to watch any more filthy cartoons featuring pantless ducks (thank you Mr. Walt Disney for that perversion) or whatever it is you crazy kids like to watch on the smutivision these days.
Also, dear, remember when we take you away, we'll be doing it out of love. If only your heathen idols like Brittany Aguilera loved people so much they'd stop getting naked on MTV and would sing songs about how girls who wear make-up will end up being prostitutes. Now that -- and putting people in camps for their own good -- is what love is really all about...
;D"
I even toyed with the idea of offering Michele a detention camp waiver if she'd "straighten up and fly right" =D...
Yeah, yeah, I know I was being a bit flip, primarily because I wasn't totally sure how serious she was. But today, she touched on this topic again and I learned she was really worried about this...
"Where do people like myself go in this overblown gang fight? People like Michael Totten or Roger Simon, who do not define themselves as red or blue, tree hugger or God-fearer, north or south, heartland or LaLa land. Everyone seems to be moving to their side of the line, but I don't know where to go.
It's not that I really want to pick a side. But it's strange feeling disinvited to both parties. If the right really wants to embrace the notion of Jesusland, even to a lesser extent, I'll be pushed out of the fold. I've already been pushed out of the left and although that was mostly of my own accord, the door still hit my @ss on the way out.
It's not easy being in the middle. You hear the slings and arrows buzz past you from both sides. While you're ducking the stones being thrown from the left, you get hit in the head with a bullet from the right.
If I had to absolutely make a choice, if America was physically splitting down the middle and one side was blue and the other red, I think you know where I would go. The left has become too ugly, dark and dangerous to ever think of siding with them again. I've seen reasonable people slide so fast into the depths of vitriolic insanity that I they became unrecognizable within mere weeks.
...(N)ow I'm suddenly a target not just for the left, but for the right. I'm being told I must fight the good fight, rethink my stance on gay issues, abortion, the definition of family and religion. I'm seeing the first hints of alienation. They got my war on terror vote. I was part of them for this whole election cycle, working side by side to get Bush elected. And now that the election is over, I've been given a put up or shut up demand. Bad enough to get the bullets from the opposing party, I'm now being eased out the door of my own.
....As much as my Republican compatriots are trying to drag me into their lair, at least they're not coming to a street fight with nuclear bombs. But, hey, whatever gets your point across, right? Means to an end and all that. Personally, I'd rather hang out with the folks in Jesusland than with people who think the idea of starving all red staters to death is funny. But that's just me."
First of all, in all seriousness, I know that some people are worried -- at least just a little bit -- that the left is correct about conservatives. That we're really glassy eyed, Taliban wannabes, who want to turn the country into a theocracy with big mouthed Pat Robertson running the show. But the "fundie wacko" is just another one of cartoon characters the left has created because they can't compete in the arena of ideas with conservatives.
Sure, there may be a few goofs who believe Harry Potter is some sort of subversive way to teach witchcraft to children and that Barney is really a tool of Satan, but they're very much on the fringes of the Republican Party.
And are there people who truly think the Simpsons are eeeevvvviiillll? Probably there are somewhere, but I watch the Simpsons and South Park, enjoy listening to rap records Bill O'Reilly gets angry about, truly love a nice, gory, slasher flick and I've never felt uncomfortable, even around the hardcore social conservatives in the Party. Maybe that's because P.J. O'Rourke was right when he said,
"I'm a registered Republican and consider socialism a violation of the American principle that you shouldn't stick your nose in other people's business except to make a buck."
Even if PJ wasn't right about the principle in every respect as it applies to Republicans, everyone is probably familiar with the places where conservatives break with it like abortion, gay marriage, and a few other assorted odds and ends.
So are people who disagree with social conservatives welcome in the GOP? Absolutely....although I won't make any promises about supporting you if you run for President or Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee =D Everything else is pretty much up for grabs though =D
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of conservatives aren't buying into this whole "If you didn't vote for our guy in 2000, we want to secede to get away from you because you're an idiot" meme that the left has been touting since the election. I mean I don't look at Wisconsin and go, "Those cheeseheads voted for Kerry so we must bomb 'Lambert field' & destroy any building occupied by a Democrat and sow the earth with salt so nothing will ever grow there again!"
My view is that if we lost in a state, it's because conservatives didn't do a good enough job explaining our positions. We'll try again and hopefully we can turn states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and dare I say it -- California, red next time. Even if we don't, that doesn't make them bad people just because most of the folks there didn't go our way.
So Michele and all the other moderates out there who went Republican this time around, it's great to have you on board, and watch all the "vulgar, violent movies" you want.....but if you ever make fun of Davey and Goliath again, it's into the "sinner camps" with you =D.
"Time to spend that political capital, people," Bush told his staff, "That's why I called all of you who ain't resigned yet together. First off, I'd like to thank Rover for this great victory."
Karl Rove emerged from the shadows. "My evil power grows. Muh ha ha ha!"
"That's super," Bush remarked, and looked back to his staff. "Now, let's think of some ideas of what to do next. Remember, I hate people who disagree with me and find it funny when I do stuff that makes them whine. So, who has an idea?" Bush looked around. "Rummy, you have your hand up. What are your thoughts?"
"War!" Rumsfeld yelled.
"Against who?"
"Rarr!" Rumsfeld shouted as he motioned to a map of the world.
"There will be plenty of time for more war in the next four years, but we have to be more focused than just decimating the entire world," Bush said, "Who do you think the worst threat is?"
Rumsfeld thought for a moment. "I don't like North Korea. Their poofy-haired leader's neck begs daily for my hands to wrap around it and squeeze it until he's dead."
"That might be a good idea," Bush stated, "The troops are getting tired of just killing Islamic extremists, so Commie kill'n might be a nice change of pace."
"Plus, they have WMD's," Condoleezza added.
"I'm not falling for that trick again," Bush responded, "If we're going to war with North Korea, let's make it clear that it's just to steal their oil."
"Actually, I have my own idea," Condi said, "Why don't we punish Old Europe for being unfaithful to us. I have a plan for overthrowing Paris. Based on their defenses, it should take just five armed Marines and a Humvee. Then, we can raid the treasures of the Louvre. I certainly wouldn't mind the Mona Lisa on my wall."
"Nah, I don't like art," Bush answered, "Except for a fish - a fish that sings." Bush chuckled. "What dark times you've gotten me through, Big Mouth Billy Bass."
"I have an idea," Scott McClellan said, "I have to deal with the press everyday, and it would be great if they were a little more fair and not so mean. So maybe..."
"That's a great idea!" Bush shouted, "Let's round up and execute the press!"
"That wasn't quite what I..."
"We'll hold a big press conference to lead them into a trap!" Condi declared, a devilish glint in her eyes.
"I just meant that we should..."
"The streets will flow with their blood!" Rumsfeld yelled.
"That's a little extreme. I just wanted..."
"Then it's settled," Bush stated, "We'll execute the press under the 'McClellan Murder the Press' Act."
"But, uh..."
Laura Bush entered the room. "Since you are all so hard at work, I made you Rice Krispie treats."
"Hooray!" Bush squealed with glee.
Laura started handing the treats out. "So what did you all decide on?"
"We're going to kill the press!" Bush exclaimed.
"That's a horrible idea!" Laura shouted, "Who thought of something so evil."
Everyone pointed to Scott.
"Then no treat for you!" Laura declared as she took away the Rice Krispie treat from Scott's grasp.
"Aww," Scott moaned, "I hate this administration."
If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.
Joe Scarborough's "Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day" is a fantastic book for political junkies.
Joe Scarborough, who most people know through his show on MSNBC, "Scarborough Country," originally made a name for himself as a freshmen congressman back in 1994. Because of a huge backlash against Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, the GOP was able to take the House from the Democrats back then and they still hold it to this day.
In the book, Scarborough gives you the inside scoop about what happened during the "Republican Revolution" and he tells you what Washington is really like behind the scenes. Scarborough, who is a "fiscal conservative's fiscal conservative", pulls no punches in the book as he nails the GOP, Democrats, and the Washington bureaucracy for wasting our money.
Without hesitation, I'd strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know how Washington really works because it's a great and informative read. In any case, whether you read the book or not, you can certainly read the best quotes from the book which I've compiled here.
Enjoy!
Cassandra from I Love Jet Noise punched up a superb response to a Michael Kinsley's whinging about the values issue (Free LA Times Subscription Required To Read).
Although the main thrust of the piece was supposed to be about values, Cassandra did a masterful job of explaining how libs & conservatives differ on personal responsibility, choice, & consequences. That's why I wanted to post a big excerpt of her piece on RWN.
Take it away Cassandra....
"Liberals love to frame the values debate in terms of choice. It's not a potential human life: it's a choice. If you disagree, I can dismiss your opinion because you're obviously a religious whack job.
Choice is such an attractive word: who could possibly oppose having more choices?
In the political arena, liberals do a better job of framing the debate: of packaging the pill for easy swallowing. In all fairness, they have an easier task. Liberal ideology is intrinsically positive in nature: Everyone should be allowed to choose,
"It's not fair that some people have more than others - let's help the downtrodden. No one should go hungry/uneducated/jobless/unfulfilled."
...(C)onservatives aren't against choice. We simply believe that choices have consequences.
We have no desire to bear the consequences of other people's personal choices. We're perfectly willing to bear the consequences of our own choices. Which leads me to the clever wording of the excerpt quoted above (by Michael Kinsley):
"But at least my values — as deplorable as I'm sure they are — don't involve any direct imposition on you."
I beg to differ. If a young girl chooses to have six illegitimate children before the age of thirty, I don't have to raise them, nor do I have to enter the delivery room. But money is taken from my paycheck to subsidize her welfare check, her state-sponsored health care, her two failed attempts to get a GED, the police who patrol her crime-ridden street where gangs of fatherless boys gather to terrorize the local residents, the juvenile hall her oldest boy ends up in 14 years later.
I didn't make those choices, but I get stuck with the tab. And I live in a world in which some people work hard and pay their own way, while other people do as they please and have their expenses paid by others. For a party that claims fairness as its mantra, this hardly seems appropriate.
The prevailing view of the Left is that people ought to be allowed to make choices without facing the natural consequences of those choices. That, in and of itself, might not be objectionable to the Right, if they did not also maintain that it was the duty of all right-thinking people to protect the chooser from facing those consequences.
The Michael Kinsleys of this world portray the Right as harshly judgemental and anti-choice. I don't hate that unwed mother. I don't condemn her. But I'm not sure it helped to subsidize her refusal to face reality. I wouldn't support that behavior in my own daughter because I understand it's not good for her or her children.
...The truth is, values are not a cost-free proposition. The 'values-neutral' approach of the left has real social and economic costs: higher divorce rates, STDs, illegitimacy, single parent families, juvenile delinquency, declining academic achievement. Look at the destruction of the black nuclear family over the past 40 years for a salutory lesson in social engineering run amok."
This last election was a sweet, sweet, victory for the Party. We get four more years of Bush, we have 55 Senators now, a lock on the House at least until 2010, and a majority of governorships. And let's face it, things are trending our way and have been at least since Ronald Reagan came into office. We have our hands on all the levers of power in Washington, the South has almost finished turning red, and the conservative media has finally gotten strong enough to start semi-regularly countering the dominance of the liberal MSM. Ah...good times!
But fellas, I have a warning for you and it's one Republicans in Washington had better heed.
Conservatives are not as happy with the Party as those great numbers on November 2nd would lead you to believe. There is a lot of agitation out in "Red State America" over how George Bush's first term went that was set aside because the idea of having an indecisive and dovish liberal as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war was too horrible to contemplate.
Yes, most conservatives appreciate the President's strong and principled stand on national security, pushing for a missile defense system, his tax cuts, his fight for tort reform, working to strengthen Social Security, his willingness to stand up for marriage with a Constitutional Amendment, his fight against abortion, and his promise to appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices.
But if you Republicans in Washington want to keep the base happy through 2006, three things are going to have to change.
1) You're going to have to get spending under control.
2) You need to stop increasing the size of government.
3) You better get a handle on illegal immigration.
Maybe George Bush is a "big government Republican," but the base is still full of Reagan conservatives who want to see budgets slashed, government weakened, and an end to the never ending stream of our tax dollars flowing out of Washington in the form of pork.
Nobody expects you to wipe the deficit out in a year or two, but let me tell you, the base has had enough of these highway bills, farm bills, Medicare prescription drug programs and other bloated, worthless, government spendfests that sound like they should be coming from the desk of Lyndon Johnson, not from a Republican administration with a Republican Congress.
I will also tell you that much of the base is boiling mad about illegal immigrants. We want the border locked down. We want to see business owners who hire large numbers of illegals doing the perp walk on TV as they're taken to jail. We don't want to see illegal aliens getting free college tuition, we want them slapped in handcuffs and sent back to where they came from.
We are a nation of laws and a lot of us are sick and tired of seeing criminals being rewarded for breaking our laws by sneaking across the borders. My guess is that the immigrants who followed the rules and became citizens here aren't particularly happy about it either, so is it really worth making a misguided attempt to pander to them at the price of infuriating your base? The party got by with it in 2004, but I don't think it's going to work again in 2006.
Consider yourself warned you Washington GOPers: the margins are wide enough now that talk radio, the blogosphere, and the rest of the new media can comfortably start going after Republicans we don't like in the primaries for 2006. Maybe you don't think a Democrat can take your seat, but there's nothing many of us in the new media would like better than to see some sitting Republican Congressmen, Senators, and Governors knocked off by conservatives more to our liking during the primaries.
Keep ignoring your base on these issues if you dare, fellas, but I suspect there will be a price to pay for it in primary challenges in 2006 if you keep it up.
(Note: For the purposes of the post, I am setting ideology aside and giving my best, most honest, advice to the Democrats about what they need to do to revive their political fortunes. If any of the conservatives reading RWN are worried about that -- don't -- they'll never listen to a conservative).
This is going to be hard for a lot of Democrats to accept, particularly liberals, but quite simply put, today's Democratic Party is very out of step with the majority of Americans.
Are you a Democrat who doesn't buy that?
Well then, why is it George Bush was openly calling himself a "compassionate conservative" while John Kerry had to hide his liberalism? Why is it that George Bush was able to run successful attack ads that did little more than in effect say, "John Kerry is a liberal"? Did you notice that at the end of the campaign, John Kerry was giving speeches about his "faith," hunting, waving semi-automatic shotguns around, and desperately trying to convince the country that there was nothing that he loved doing more than killing terrorists? Come on, let's be honest here -- If Democrats really thought that's what John Kerry was like, he could have never won the nomination.
Furthermore, have you Dems taken five minutes to consider how some of the things you say and do look and sound to people who aren't other hard core Democrats? What does it say when you have a guy like Michael Moore who compared Iraqi insurgents to the Minutemen and has said over and over that Americans are stupid sitting beside President Carter at the Democratic National Convention? You think Rush Limbaugh is venomous? Have you ever listened to or read Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Ted Rall, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Molly Ivins, Robert Scheer, Mark Morford, Eric Alterman, and dozens and dozens of other liberals and asked yourself how vicious they sound in comparison? Hey, people don't trust a party that has so many prominent members who seem to spend most of their time sputtering in rage and showing complete contempt for people who disagree with them.
That's enough examples, let's get to the crux of the problem.
The Democratic Party is probably roughly split 40/60 between libs and moderates. However, all the energy, excitement, and enthusiasm is on the left side of the party. The problem is that those same people are POLITICAL POISON.
In fact, they're so extreme and out of touch that they're driving a lot of moderates out of your party. That's part of the reason why more Republicans than Democrats voted in an election for the first time on Nov. 2nd. It's also why the South, which used to be full of yellow dog Democrats who'd never dream of voting for a Republican, has now for the most part gone red. They didn't really leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left them.
And you know what the real danger is? That the Democratic party goes into a "death spiral" which features moderates leaving the party for the GOP because they can't deal with the extremism of the liberals, which allows liberals to get stronger in the party, which causes more moderates to leave the party, which allows liberals to get stronger, and so on, and so on, and so on until the Democratic party is completely marginalized.
You Dems want to get back into it? Stop running liberals like John Kerry who have to run from their record. Get serious about national defense and start getting behind "John Kennedys" and "Scoop Jacksons" instead of "Jimmy Carters" and "Walter Mondales". Stop drooling over ultra-libs like Michael Moore and a bunch of Hollywood actors who turn off middle-America. Find some issues that your liberal base can live with, that you think will resonate with the American people, and that you feel comfortable defending intellectually with something other than a variation of "you're mean" or "you're stupid" & you'll start to make some progress. But continuing to run as "not Republicans" isn't going to cut it.
Republicans are far from invulnerable, but a bunch of bile spewing liberals who pretend to be quasi-conservatives for a few months around election time aren't going to beat the GOP long-term. So if the Democratic Party wants to win and keep winning, it's going to have to change...
The idea of having Arlen Specter as chairman of the judiciary committee just chafes me and you want to know why?
Because here we have a RINO who was pushed hard by a real conservative, Pat Toomey, in the primaries this year. But there was nothing for Senator Jeffords...oh sorry, sorry, Senator Specter to worry about because one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Rick Santorum, along with President Bush, rode to his rescue and helped him defeat the real conservative in the race.
Then, after his nomination was secured, Specter turned right around and gave a big "screw you" to the party. As Robert Novak points out,
"No sooner had Specter been narrowly nominated than he turned leftward, declaring his independence from Bush and refusing to help two GOP congressional challengers in Pennsylvania who had a chance to win but went down to defeat.
That was bad enough, but after Specter won the election, he really showed his true colors,
"In his post-election press conference, as reported by the Associated Press, he declared: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, that is unlikely." He warned the president of facing filibusters, apparently without help from Chairman Specter.
...The Republican base would have been even more infuriated to read the full press conference transcript confirming Specter's litmus test: "I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the [Philadelphia] Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe v. Wade was inviolate." He suggested that "nobody can be confirmed" who does not accept abortion rights. Thus, Specter's and John Kerry's positions are indistinguishable."
Conservatives turned out to vote for George Bush in part because they felt it was vitally important to make sure that if there were vacancies on the Supreme Court over the next four years (and some people have speculated there may be three), they'd be filled with conservative justices like Scalia, Thomas, & Rehnquist who believe in judicial restraint. That's something that George Bush promised in his 2000 and 2004 campaigns and what do you know, our guy won!
So then what happens? We have a guy like Arlen Specter, who voted against Judge Bork, who in essence promised to try to torpedo exactly the sort of judges the overwhelming majority of the party wants, about to become the chairman of the judiciary committee based on what....seniority? Is this a political party or a teacher's union?
How does the GOP win the election and then put a guy who promised to thwart the will of the majority of the party in charge of the committee that'll be selecting Supreme Court Judges? If the situation were reversed, what do you think the chances are that the Democrats would put a pro-life Senator in charge of the judiciary committee after he promised to fight against judges who supported Roe v. Wade? That's right, nada, zilch, zero!
Ya know, I'm all for having a big tent party, having diversity of views, and trying to keep the inter-party squabbling to a minimum, but I draw the line at having someone who essentially sides with John Kerry on judges running the judiciary committee. What good is having a Republican majority when "our guys" aren't even willing to really fight to have conservative judges on the Supreme Court? If they're willing to give in on that, what in the world are they willing to stand up for? I know, I know....pork for their states.
Well, that's just not going to cut it and if you agree, I would encourage you to contact your Senator, drop a line to the White House, & let the members of the Judiciary Committee know how you feel.
Speak now or forever hold your peace when Senator Specter starts working to block the President's judges...
-- Hey, it sounds like that old monster Arafat is going to get about the most appropriate resting place for his corpse outside of a pig pen....
"Unkempt, ankle deep in rubbish and the air thick with flies from the stinking market next door, the Arafat family plot could not be a more inauspicious burial place for the icon of Palestinian nationhood.
As Yasser Arafat fights for life in a Paris hospital, Israel has made clear that it will not accede to the veteran Palestinian leader’s wishes to be buried in Jerusalem and instead wants his final resting place to be in Gaza where his father and sister are already entombed.
...Hidden behind a cement wall and accessible through a solitary white, metal door encrusted with mud, nothing could be less imposing or more humiliating for a man who is now unlikely to achieve his dream of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem."
That sounds oddly appropriate for an Arafat family plot doesn't it? "(A)nkle deep in rubbish and the air thick with flies from the stinking market next door...." Few people on earth deserve to be buried somewhere like that more than a terrorist like Arafat...
-- To all of the soldiers, Iraqi and America, fighting to clean out Fallujah in operation Phantom Fury: We're rooting for you to put the bad guys in bodybags and make it out OK. Good luck and godspeed guys...
-- My advertising started to peter out right before the election and it's even slower now. So far this month, I've sold exactly 1 ad. According to The Wall Street Journal I am not alone.
On the other hand, a lot of blogs are apparently seeing huge drops in traffic while -- at least so far -- I'm holding a fairly large chunk of the people who started reading the blog over the last few months. Roughly three months ago, I think I was doing around 6500 people a day M-F. So far, I seem to be holding at 9,000-10,000 sets of eyeballs post-election 2004. And my philosophy is if you get the eyeballs, the money will eventually follow. And this quote by Henry Copeland from Blogads in the WSJ article also is keeping me optimistic about starting to make some serious money by the end of 2005....
"Mr. Copeland said that political advertising will recover, and blogs about other topics will expand much in the way the presidential campaign spurred visits to the partisan sites. "I think we'll have explosions in other areas," he said. He notes that even in the last couple of months, advertising in other categories has grown more quickly than the political area, and said overall business will be up 100-fold this year."
-- On a side note, roughly a decade ago, when I was co-editing a print zine called "Fubar" in the Charlotte area, it cost us -- if I remember correctly -- about $800 for a 10,000 copy run. Those 10,000 copies? That was two months worth of "free" zines (we -- I should say my partner Adam -- sold ads to pay for it).
But, today? I can have 9,000-10,000 people reading my blog, M-F, and say another 6,000 or so a day over the week-end and you know what it costs me? $20 a month for hosting. Ain't technology grand?
-- Here's an interesting little factoid to keep on hand for all the leftists who claim only uneducated people vote Republican...
"People with postgraduate degrees went for Kerry 47% to 53%. However, those with undergraduate degrees went for Bush 58% for 42%, and those with some college went for the president 56% to 44%. when we get to those with a high-school education or less, they went for Kerry 54% to 46%.
-- "A suspected bomb blew the front door off a Muslim elementary school in a southern Dutch town on Monday, days after a suspected Muslim radical allegedly killed a Dutch filmmaker, police said. No injuries were reported."
There is no excuse, absolutely none, for trying to bomb an elementary school. The people responsible for that should be hung from the highest trees in Amsterdam...
It's funny because it's true!
Hat tip to Knowledge Is Power for the graphic.
As expected in the wake of their loss at the polls, the looniey lefties over at the Democratic Underground Forums are even more out of their minds than usual. The general theme seems to be that the election was rigged using electronic voting machines. Here are just some of the threads -- less than half easily -- about how the election was stolen from John Kerry....
-- FL, OH and EVERYONE: Help Sort the Vote Fraud Smoking Guns
-- Vote Count "Glitches" Haunt Bush's Supposed Mandate
-- This is proof of how they rigged this election PAY ATTENTION
-- EVOTING FRAUD RESOURCE CENTER NOW ONLINE
-- "The Guy James Show" Florida vote scam investigation
-- Whose guarding the NH Ballot Boxes?
-- Air America...You should be live until all votes are counted
-- Join the WE DO NOT CONCEDE Coalition!
-- Should We Boycott The Media's Advertisers Until They Cover The Fraud?
-- I agree there probably was fraud committed on Tues, but
-- As long as we don't PROSECUTE election fraud it just keeps getting worse!
-- Wake UP!!! If there was voting fraud and we don't do something
-- 'Rat a l'Orange' -- Documents indicate voting machine certification fraud
-- The Exit Polls vs. the Actuals: Who do you believe-CNN or your lying eyes?
-- Forget about 2008, Focus now on 2006 and e-voting fraud!!
-- Stop talking @ '08 work on FRAUD now!!!
-- This is proof of how they rigged this election PAY ATTENTION
-- PLEASE HELP: I have written a detailed report on the voting/fraud issues
-- UERGENT: VOTE FRAUD? Tell everyone you know -- details
-- NO MORE SELF-FLAGELLATION OF WHY WE LOST. ITS THE FRAUD, STUPID!
-- Still don't believe they stole it? Look here
-- OMG They Murdered the Inventor of TruVote
One of the other "sports" on the DU at the moment is bashing the troops. While of course there were plenty of people who disagreed, here are some of the DUer's who are apparently tired of all that fake "we support the troops" sentiment that they had to mouth at least until the election was over....
From a thread called "STOP turning on our soldiers!"
Gyre: "I don't support them (the troops). We've exported our illiterate little kids with their tiny brains filled with images of Rambo. We've armed them and told them the enemy is a demon who doesn't deserve to live. Most of them are more than willing to believe that. They are stupid and dangerous and have no intellectual capacity to grasp basic concepts of democracy. They're a symptom of a disease that infects my country."
Coventina: "I agree the war is dead wrong. And yes, I've made bad choices. If it turns out that the military vote went Kerry, I'll start caring for them again. But as long as the evidence points that they think Bush should be their leader, well, I don't need to worry about them, because they're doing exactly what they want to be doing. And I feel justified in despising them for it."
buff2 "Support the troops........who overwhelmingly voted for Bu$h. Phuck that. I don't feel sorry for any of those people who supported that moron who put them in harms way for NO GOOD REASON,AND LIED TO THEM. I'm sorry,anyone who voted for that lying no good cheating bastard gets NO sympathy,respect or support from ME. No phucking way!"
Marx_redux: "What in gods name says that the troops are sacred? You are telling me that we should worship them because they can see the carnage they are helping to create and remain silent? Hell maybe we should just give em the keys to the city and say thank you very much, we love the way you got used in the holy war. I respect the soldiers, airman and marines that come home and speak out against this American jihad. The other ones that mindlessly kill "rag heads" and cheer about it should go straight to hell."
livinbella: "I do not support the majority of our troops in Iraq. In no way shape or form. What in hell has happened to personal integrity? No man has the right to say "I am not to blame for the things I have done." I do not support the majority of our troops."
From a thread called "Attack on U.S. Marine Convoy Wounds 14 in Iraq"...
aneerkoinos: "Come on. Marines with their stupid tribal codes of "honour" and barbarous bloodlust is about the dumbest sh*t I can imagine, but they are humans too, even if remotely. Most of all, wishing ill for others is not good for your own mental health - been there, done that."
highpitch: screw em. they voted for chimp let them die.
From a thread called "American Marines attack Fallujah"
everythingsxen: "I have some bad news...It is on all of our hands. Unfortunately, we are all just as guilty as our fuhrer-in-chief. I know; a lot of people here feel they have "done all they could do", and have washed their hands of it.
I however think that part of being a liberal and social-progressive means caring about those who cannot defend themselves.
If everyone just gives up and says "Well it's not my problem...", then I tell you what, you explain that to that nice news-crew 30 years from now. Tell them how Bush had this "strange charisma" and how you "were just swept up in the tide" and "felt helpless" because "their was nothing you could do to stop it".
F*ck that! I don't accept that crap from old Germans and noone will accept it from us!"
puddycat: "Everyone re-read this quote. Colonel Gary Brandl of the United States Marine Corps commented: "The enemy has a face. It is Satan's. He is in Fallujah, and we are going to destroy him." The military is fully backing this genocidal action in Iraq. We have morphed into Hitler's Germany."
TheKingfish: "Satan has IED's too and maybe this nut will hit one n/t"
From a thread called "Some 10,000 GIs Ring Fallujah's Outskirts"...
atreides1: "They Have, They're Just as Arrogant as the Germans were
NO our military is as arrogant as the the Germans were, we have the technology, and the better weapons, and no one can defeat us. At least that's what they believe. I believe that the US military lacks that spark that it had back during WWII, the confidence that they were fighting for the freedom of the entire world, not just the US.
Some of the troops don't even consider the Iraqis as humans, and this belief is pushed by some in the chian of command. They went in based on lies and misinformation, and to question it now, they would have to admit that they are nothing more then sacrifices for Bush and his big corporate buddies. So instead of admitting that they were wrong, instead of being able to admit that they have murdered innocent civilians for no good reason, they plod on. Happy with the knowledge that they are good soldiers who are loved a supported back home, and that no matter what they do, no matter what crimes they commit, they will still be loved and supported. For those that seem to have fallen in love with the killing, I can only wish that for the rest of their lives, they keep seeing the faces of those that they killed. Heaven knows I still do, and I didn't enjoy it one little bit.
But let's face facts the US military has not faced anything of much consequence since Vietnam. Grenada and Panama, Desert Storm was over
in no time once the ground war started. Mainly because the Iraqis retreated. Now the US is once again facing an enemy who is not afraid to die, and just like Vietnam, no one in command wants to change the tactics. They are fighting guerillas with conventional tactics, and as long as the generals are far enough away, they have little to no concern over the dead and dying. As long as they can make their Fuhrer
happy.
As for the chain of command, these are now Bush's Generals, and they like Hitler's Generals will say nothing that will upset Bush.
As for our military having morals or shame, remember Abu Ghraib?
That should be enough of an answer."
beniciodeltoro: "US soldiers: May Satan take you all."
Since George W. Bush was reelected there has been a lot of very angry talk from the left about "Red State Americans". Since then, those of us in the red states have been called "greedy," "sister marryin'," "slow learners" & "fascists" who live in "Jesusland".
Well, I'm a "Redstate Republican" from the South and I think it's a good idea to take a few minutes to let the left, American and European, know how things appear from the other side of the looking glass. Sure, maybe this won't faze any of the "Michael Moore is genius and conservatives are Nazis crowd," but we can always hope, can't we?
First of all, this may come as a shock to our condescending liberal European cousins who believe they live in the crown jewel of civilization and tend to think Americans are backwards barbarians, but many of us across the pond don't see much worth emulating in Europe.
Mark Dubbin, the author of "Shadow Patriot" bought another main page ad on RWN to get the word out about his book. Here's the description of it from Barnes & Noble...
"The events of 9/11 affected many things in New York and the Mafia was no exception. Business suffered for Don Remondini after the attack, but he wasn't about to let it go. The cowards who cost him would receive a message from the Family if he had anything to say about it. They would think twice about their actions in the future. That much was certain.
Jim Pearce is Don Remondini's chief of security. As an Ex-Special Forces sniper, discharged from duty with diabetes, he is assigned to send al-Qaeda a powerful message from the Family. Operating outside the law, and using his CIA contacts, Shadow Patriot is a web of action and intrigue where the guilty will be made to pay, and payback can be a b*tch!"
I've done ads for this book before and one of RWN's readers had actually read the book. Jay said the following,
"I bought it after seeing the link to it on Amazon posted on here last time. The book itself is very short, only about 110 pages I believe. It was a little far fetched, but all in all a very good read."
Here's what a couple of intelligent people on Amazon had to say about the book,
Reviewer: A reader from Las Cruces, NM United States
A wonderful story taking a different approach to the effects of 9/11, and how it was dealt with. Rather than sit back and complain about what happened on that eventful day, a plan was set to take out a terrorist cell. Neat idea and easy flowing writing. Makes for a good, sunny afternoon read.
Reviewer: nicothefabulous from Littleton, CO United States
In a world where justice can be hard to come by, sometimes you have to make your own. Reminds me a bit of The Rocketeer, with the FBI agents and Mafia guys fighting the Nazis side-by-side. Maybe more people with the financial means to do so should take note of this story! I want to see the movie. A classic tale of good old-fashioned American payback.
You can purchase the Shadow Patriot by clicking here.
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
