Watch this, even if its only to hear his last line.
"I have to go wash off the filthy hippy" lmao, damn, thats funny.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Taxes, Bailouts, and Boycotts
I am in Quebec right now and it is expensive. Not just a little expensive, but New York City expensive. I am not even in the city of Montreal, I am on the outskirts. I went to Taco Bell and still spent 10 dollars. WTF??? Taco Bell here charges 1.49 Canadian for one taco. Granted, I apparently screwed up, because I got the meal deal and it came with fries. WTF, fries at Taco Bell???
I have also talked with some of the people up here about what they pay in income tax. The consensus is about 45-48%. I have attempted to research Canadian tax codes and news articles, but just like the USA it is hard to nail down just what a person pays in taxes because you have to include income tax for both state and federal, Social Security, FICA, sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, Sin tax, etc.
Most countries have a VAT (value added tax) tax. This is a tax that apparently taxes a product at every stage of its build. Now I am no expert so research it yourself, but I take it to mean that a tax must be paid at each step in the manufacturing process. From what I can understand it is supposed to spread out the cost of taxes so it doesn't all land on the end user (consumer), prevents tax cheating, and it ups total tax collection. Not being the trusting type, my guess is that it is just a way the governments that use it found to bring in more tax revenue. It was first created in France so you can make your own assumptions.
I am not going to go into who pays more taxes nor am I going to talk about how the US tax system is better. I think our system is just as bad as the others.
My first question is, "why does it have to be so damn confusing and complicated."
There has to be a better way to collect the appropriate and FAIR taxes to run the government while not creating tax cheats because someone is either not smart enough or doesn't have time to figure everything out. I believe rich people DO cheat on their taxes and are able to pay less than everyone else, because they can afford to employ people just to figure out the loop holes.
My second question is, "who is better at spending your hard earned money, you or the government?"
I think this question is rather appropriate given the current state of affairs in the USA. Politicians, I include Republicans and Democrats, think they can spend our money better than we can. They are currently using our money to bail out companies we consumers, aka tax payers, have deemed unworthy of our money. If we are not willing to buy their products, isn't it fair to say we do not want our taxes to go to them?
That is the great thing about capitalism, we get to vote by using or not using our money. Don't approve of something a company does, you can choose to shop somewhere else. People do it all the time, its called boycotting.
I myself, plan on boycotting restaurants that put up signs saying no guns allowed. I don't know how long that will last, because if The Outback puts one up, I might have to leave the gun in the car and become a sheep for an hour or two.
Note: I rarely drink anymore and if I do, the gun stays at home.
I have also talked with some of the people up here about what they pay in income tax. The consensus is about 45-48%. I have attempted to research Canadian tax codes and news articles, but just like the USA it is hard to nail down just what a person pays in taxes because you have to include income tax for both state and federal, Social Security, FICA, sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, Sin tax, etc.
Most countries have a VAT (value added tax) tax. This is a tax that apparently taxes a product at every stage of its build. Now I am no expert so research it yourself, but I take it to mean that a tax must be paid at each step in the manufacturing process. From what I can understand it is supposed to spread out the cost of taxes so it doesn't all land on the end user (consumer), prevents tax cheating, and it ups total tax collection. Not being the trusting type, my guess is that it is just a way the governments that use it found to bring in more tax revenue. It was first created in France so you can make your own assumptions.
I am not going to go into who pays more taxes nor am I going to talk about how the US tax system is better. I think our system is just as bad as the others.
My first question is, "why does it have to be so damn confusing and complicated."
There has to be a better way to collect the appropriate and FAIR taxes to run the government while not creating tax cheats because someone is either not smart enough or doesn't have time to figure everything out. I believe rich people DO cheat on their taxes and are able to pay less than everyone else, because they can afford to employ people just to figure out the loop holes.
My second question is, "who is better at spending your hard earned money, you or the government?"
I think this question is rather appropriate given the current state of affairs in the USA. Politicians, I include Republicans and Democrats, think they can spend our money better than we can. They are currently using our money to bail out companies we consumers, aka tax payers, have deemed unworthy of our money. If we are not willing to buy their products, isn't it fair to say we do not want our taxes to go to them?
That is the great thing about capitalism, we get to vote by using or not using our money. Don't approve of something a company does, you can choose to shop somewhere else. People do it all the time, its called boycotting.
I myself, plan on boycotting restaurants that put up signs saying no guns allowed. I don't know how long that will last, because if The Outback puts one up, I might have to leave the gun in the car and become a sheep for an hour or two.
Note: I rarely drink anymore and if I do, the gun stays at home.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
New Dirty Lib Question
Sorry I have been away from the wheel for a week. I have been working hard in Canada, well I have been in Canada.
My coworker is a Dirty Lib from Austria, but a level headed one. He does not like guns and doesn't see the point.
Today, he asked me what I thought about the government forcing everyone to keep their guns in a safe when not at home and being held responsible if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. I believe this was a hypothetical question and not anything being presented as a law, so don't worry.
I ask you guys. What do you think about this?
My coworker is a Dirty Lib from Austria, but a level headed one. He does not like guns and doesn't see the point.
Today, he asked me what I thought about the government forcing everyone to keep their guns in a safe when not at home and being held responsible if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. I believe this was a hypothetical question and not anything being presented as a law, so don't worry.
I ask you guys. What do you think about this?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Cop Tases Mom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1odH0yQ-ViE
I'm getting really sick of people claiming police brutality when they get tazed. As far as I can see there are very few cases about police abusing the use of the tazer. It is a tool, just like a gun or a baton. If you get hit with one you were probably doing something wrong. I really wish there was audio of the incodent with this video becasue Im sure this lady was at least verbally abusive. I know we have discused this before but i'll say it agian. When a police officer tells you to do something then do it. This may have been a soccer mom who was late for practice, but this officer dosent know that. If he assumes something like that then he is putting his life in danger.
I'm getting really sick of people claiming police brutality when they get tazed. As far as I can see there are very few cases about police abusing the use of the tazer. It is a tool, just like a gun or a baton. If you get hit with one you were probably doing something wrong. I really wish there was audio of the incodent with this video becasue Im sure this lady was at least verbally abusive. I know we have discused this before but i'll say it agian. When a police officer tells you to do something then do it. This may have been a soccer mom who was late for practice, but this officer dosent know that. If he assumes something like that then he is putting his life in danger.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Nazis, Health Care, Racists and Other Over Used Terms
I am not sure how this started but I have not figured out how Nazism has any relation to what is going on with Obama and his Health Care Plan. Can someone please explain to me how the two relate?
I would also like to know how not wanting Obama's form of health care reform is Racist. Add the immigration issue to that as well.
I really believe we, as a nation, have focused too much on certain words and they are being missused and diluted in meaning. Here are the words I am sick of hearing in the wrong context: Nazi, racist, terrorist, patriot, hero, right wing, and many more I am not thinking of right now.
Definition of Nazism: The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy. Nazism was bad and I have used it to describe Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. I wrote a blog on myspace three or four years ago about him and gave direct corrilations to him and Hitler, many of which have come true. While the state control of the economy could be related I just think it is used too often.
Definition of Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others and/or Discrimination or prejudice based on raceRacism is not a term that should be thrown around lightly. Just because something done to a person of color does not mean that it is a racist happening. I have even heard black people calling other black people racists simply because they disagree with them. Racism is something that is done simply because of an individual or a groups color. This does not mean that any disagreement between people of different colors is a racist issue. Immigration is also not a racist issue. This is a nation issue where the people who are the worst culprits of illegal immigration are Mexican and second worse would be others from South American countries. We don't hate brown people or people of hispanic decent, we just don't like people from other countries breaking our laws and the integrety of our boarders. We also don't like these dirt bags who take advantage of the people trying to get work by forcing them to carry drugs, pay outragous sums, rape them and hold them hostage for ransom.
Definition of Patriot: One who loves, supports, and defends one's country. I thought the definition would be more specific so I shouldn't really be bothered since I guess it is being used properly, but just because some one is elected to government they are not a patriot. You have to do something for your country to be a patriot and use your position to rape the public. I do not think that people who hurt America are partriots. I just think this is a title to easily handed out.
Definition of Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
This is the definition of hero I want to see used. It can also be defined as someone who is noted for achievement in a specific field but I don't like that. Pat Tillman was a hero, he sacrificed his career, his fortune, and his life for his country. How he died does not matter. He was a HERO.
Right Wing is a broad term and could be used for anyone who believes in conservative views. I am guilty of using Liberal or Dirty Liberal a bit to liberally, yeah I know, so I am just as guilty as the rest of you.
What are some words you are sick of hearing? Do you agree with me on this one?
I would also like to know how not wanting Obama's form of health care reform is Racist. Add the immigration issue to that as well.
I really believe we, as a nation, have focused too much on certain words and they are being missused and diluted in meaning. Here are the words I am sick of hearing in the wrong context: Nazi, racist, terrorist, patriot, hero, right wing, and many more I am not thinking of right now.
Definition of Nazism: The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy. Nazism was bad and I have used it to describe Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. I wrote a blog on myspace three or four years ago about him and gave direct corrilations to him and Hitler, many of which have come true. While the state control of the economy could be related I just think it is used too often.
Definition of Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others and/or Discrimination or prejudice based on raceRacism is not a term that should be thrown around lightly. Just because something done to a person of color does not mean that it is a racist happening. I have even heard black people calling other black people racists simply because they disagree with them. Racism is something that is done simply because of an individual or a groups color. This does not mean that any disagreement between people of different colors is a racist issue. Immigration is also not a racist issue. This is a nation issue where the people who are the worst culprits of illegal immigration are Mexican and second worse would be others from South American countries. We don't hate brown people or people of hispanic decent, we just don't like people from other countries breaking our laws and the integrety of our boarders. We also don't like these dirt bags who take advantage of the people trying to get work by forcing them to carry drugs, pay outragous sums, rape them and hold them hostage for ransom.
Definition of Patriot: One who loves, supports, and defends one's country. I thought the definition would be more specific so I shouldn't really be bothered since I guess it is being used properly, but just because some one is elected to government they are not a patriot. You have to do something for your country to be a patriot and use your position to rape the public. I do not think that people who hurt America are partriots. I just think this is a title to easily handed out.
Definition of Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
This is the definition of hero I want to see used. It can also be defined as someone who is noted for achievement in a specific field but I don't like that. Pat Tillman was a hero, he sacrificed his career, his fortune, and his life for his country. How he died does not matter. He was a HERO.
Right Wing is a broad term and could be used for anyone who believes in conservative views. I am guilty of using Liberal or Dirty Liberal a bit to liberally, yeah I know, so I am just as guilty as the rest of you.
What are some words you are sick of hearing? Do you agree with me on this one?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Another Man at Obama Gathering with Gun(s)
Apparently, armed Americans are having a who has the biggest balls contest based on who can attend a POTUS event with the most weapons.
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PHXBeat/60504
Is anyone else happy that this is a black man standing up for his second amendment rights?
Now MSNBC is screwed because they can not associate this guy with a supposed right wing racist extremist group. NOPE. Just an American exercising his right to bear arms, even if it might be in an inappropriate way.
I do have to say, that the least worrisome fellow at the event was the guy who was openly armed. If he wanted to do something rash I don't think he would have openly carried.
I also want to say, that this is the way to dress when you protest. No one can call this guy a stupid redneck or thug. He is wearing a tie for crying out loud.
If he is looking for his 15 minutes of fame he got it and I am happy he did it without a sign crying for the blood of Tyrants and I hope he doesn't turn out to be some loon.
What do you think?
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PHXBeat/60504
Is anyone else happy that this is a black man standing up for his second amendment rights?
Now MSNBC is screwed because they can not associate this guy with a supposed right wing racist extremist group. NOPE. Just an American exercising his right to bear arms, even if it might be in an inappropriate way.
I do have to say, that the least worrisome fellow at the event was the guy who was openly armed. If he wanted to do something rash I don't think he would have openly carried.
I also want to say, that this is the way to dress when you protest. No one can call this guy a stupid redneck or thug. He is wearing a tie for crying out loud.
If he is looking for his 15 minutes of fame he got it and I am happy he did it without a sign crying for the blood of Tyrants and I hope he doesn't turn out to be some loon.
What do you think?
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Sign That Said To Much
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/08/13/20090813obama-sign13-ON.html#reply18121241
HAGERSTOWN, Md. - The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town-hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
- This is rediculous. First, Obama was elected by my fellow Americans to be the president. If we dont like the current president what can we do about it? We can work towards his removal in the next election.
I'm not sure the answer to this but, is it illegal to say something like this against the president?
What about another citizen?
Second, saying anything about death to someones entire family is totally wrong and immoral. What would anyone do if some guy on the street said "death to your wife and kids". I know what I would do but I'm not going to say.
So in the end did this guy prove his point about his beliefs on the issue. Absolutley not, I think both sides of the argument probably dismised this guy as a crazy.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Protesters vs. Revolutionaries
Protesters vs. Revolutionaries
Protesters:
I have no problem with protesters no matter what side they are. I may have called Code Pink a bunch of idiots but I never had a problem with them protesting. Oh, I just thought of one I do have a problem with. The only time I have a problem with protesting is when those idiots protest Military Funerals. Hell, protesting ANY funeral is just horrible and is not freedom of speech it is just being assholes.
Protesting is an American Right and I encourage it.
Revolutionaries:
The big hubbub right now is about the man who wore a gun on his thigh to a protest and had a sign that said “Its time to water the tree of liberty”. This guy had balls. WOW
The gun alone is not an issue of mine as it is our right to carry one. I don’t think I would have open carried to an event the POTUS was going to be at, but maybe that makes this guy a better man then me.
The sign was out of line. In my opinion it was a threat. I have run it through my head over and over again. I can not see it as anything other than a threat. Matched with the gun, I am not surprised people are upset.
Now this guy supposedly is from Arizona and belongs to a so called “right wing extremist group”. According to the news the website calls for a return to the values of the US Constitution.
THERE ARE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES.
A Question I have been thinking about:
What is the difference between a revolutionary and an insurgent?
• Nothing according to the thesaurus, they are synonyms.
• Is it all dependent on whether the revolution was successful? I think so.
When does one know when it is time to rise up?
At what point did the Founding Fathers know enough was enough?
What is wrong with going back to the basics of the Constitution isn’t that what the so called right wing extremists are asking for?
Is revolution only capable by the right?
• How can the left stand up and revolt when the right has the majority of the guns?
• I guess that the belief that the left are a bunch of wimps went out the window when they started fighting at the town hall meetings.
Protesters:
I have no problem with protesters no matter what side they are. I may have called Code Pink a bunch of idiots but I never had a problem with them protesting. Oh, I just thought of one I do have a problem with. The only time I have a problem with protesting is when those idiots protest Military Funerals. Hell, protesting ANY funeral is just horrible and is not freedom of speech it is just being assholes.
Protesting is an American Right and I encourage it.
Revolutionaries:
The big hubbub right now is about the man who wore a gun on his thigh to a protest and had a sign that said “Its time to water the tree of liberty”. This guy had balls. WOW
The gun alone is not an issue of mine as it is our right to carry one. I don’t think I would have open carried to an event the POTUS was going to be at, but maybe that makes this guy a better man then me.
The sign was out of line. In my opinion it was a threat. I have run it through my head over and over again. I can not see it as anything other than a threat. Matched with the gun, I am not surprised people are upset.
Now this guy supposedly is from Arizona and belongs to a so called “right wing extremist group”. According to the news the website calls for a return to the values of the US Constitution.
THERE ARE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES.
A Question I have been thinking about:
What is the difference between a revolutionary and an insurgent?
• Nothing according to the thesaurus, they are synonyms.
• Is it all dependent on whether the revolution was successful? I think so.
When does one know when it is time to rise up?
At what point did the Founding Fathers know enough was enough?
What is wrong with going back to the basics of the Constitution isn’t that what the so called right wing extremists are asking for?
Is revolution only capable by the right?
• How can the left stand up and revolt when the right has the majority of the guns?
• I guess that the belief that the left are a bunch of wimps went out the window when they started fighting at the town hall meetings.
Health Care Reform vs Universal Health Care
The hot topic these days in Health Care. I have dedicated a post and discussion to the protesting. Now I want to talk about the legislature. Depending on what channel you are watching and who is talking the numbers for support jump all over the place. The President has even misspoken about his own supporters for the bill. So lets look at the two titles being used.
Health Care Reform vs Universal Health Care
Health Care Reform is a broad term that defines any change to the current health care system. Polling this question misleading and you should watch for the wordings when viewing any poll data.
Universal Health Care is the term generally used to describe the current bill being argued. The politicians have adjusted the name as appropriate to make people forget that it is intended to cover all. This plan would be governed by the politicians and regardless of what is said would be the demise of Private Insurance.
I support Health Care Reform. This means that I do not think our current health care system is perfect and would like to see it made better. I always want to see things made better and so should everyone else. The politicians are not only referring to this current bill as Health Reform all the polls I have seen show ~3/4 support for reform and less than 1/2 for the current proposed bill.
I do not support Universal Health Care. I do not support any legislation that would nationalize any private industry. If I wanted that I would move to Venezuela. We can debate the merits of the bill, but I will not support anything that is government run. I may agree with something in the bill, but the bill itself is a travesty to what I think America is.
We work for what we get and get what we work for. At least that is how it should be.
I would like to debate what people currently pay for health care. Do you pay more for health insurance than you do for your care or home? Is your health not more important than those things? I would also like to be presented an example of a government run program that runs well.
I also wonder if my pay would go up since my company would not longer have to pay for me? It would have to so I can pay higher taxes. (Before you start yelling that taxes will not go up, I urge you to research and find out that they have not yet figured out how to pay for this. They plan to get it passed then will figure out how to pay for it.)
I do not hate the people who want to help everyone. I do feel they are misguided idealists who do not see humans for what they are. We are greedy and opportunistic. We can choose to use those traits to better ourselves through hard work or use them to take from others.
For you who don't know me, I was raised by those people for most of my formidable years. Instead of adopting their views I rebelled against them and vowed to fight them. I grew up with people always complaining about how it was everyone Else's fault, no one would give them a chance, can't find a job because of my criminal record and how the rich had more then they needed and should share. They said all this while drinking excessively, doing drugs, getting into fights, skirting the law, and plotting crime. They came home after getting fired and complained about the boss being a piece of $%^& who didn't like him. All he did was punch a guy in the face for not talking to him properly. The "world is against me"!!!
Liberals, these are the people you cry for. You are shown a mother with two to five kids who look disheveled and hungry and you weep. You are not shown that the woman is a drug addict who lives with an abusive boyfriend. They don't show that the mother sits idly by while the kids are beaten by said boyfriend or she beats them herself.
We all should weep , but not for the mother. We should weep for the kids and then we should have the guts to pull them away from the mother and find adults who will love them. For you Christian Right people I say that even Gay adults are better parents than these people I am describing.
We already have plans in place for people with real need. It is them that we are punishing.
Health Care Reform vs Universal Health Care
Health Care Reform is a broad term that defines any change to the current health care system. Polling this question misleading and you should watch for the wordings when viewing any poll data.
Universal Health Care is the term generally used to describe the current bill being argued. The politicians have adjusted the name as appropriate to make people forget that it is intended to cover all. This plan would be governed by the politicians and regardless of what is said would be the demise of Private Insurance.
I support Health Care Reform. This means that I do not think our current health care system is perfect and would like to see it made better. I always want to see things made better and so should everyone else. The politicians are not only referring to this current bill as Health Reform all the polls I have seen show ~3/4 support for reform and less than 1/2 for the current proposed bill.
I do not support Universal Health Care. I do not support any legislation that would nationalize any private industry. If I wanted that I would move to Venezuela. We can debate the merits of the bill, but I will not support anything that is government run. I may agree with something in the bill, but the bill itself is a travesty to what I think America is.
We work for what we get and get what we work for. At least that is how it should be.
I would like to debate what people currently pay for health care. Do you pay more for health insurance than you do for your care or home? Is your health not more important than those things? I would also like to be presented an example of a government run program that runs well.
I also wonder if my pay would go up since my company would not longer have to pay for me? It would have to so I can pay higher taxes. (Before you start yelling that taxes will not go up, I urge you to research and find out that they have not yet figured out how to pay for this. They plan to get it passed then will figure out how to pay for it.)
I do not hate the people who want to help everyone. I do feel they are misguided idealists who do not see humans for what they are. We are greedy and opportunistic. We can choose to use those traits to better ourselves through hard work or use them to take from others.
For you who don't know me, I was raised by those people for most of my formidable years. Instead of adopting their views I rebelled against them and vowed to fight them. I grew up with people always complaining about how it was everyone Else's fault, no one would give them a chance, can't find a job because of my criminal record and how the rich had more then they needed and should share. They said all this while drinking excessively, doing drugs, getting into fights, skirting the law, and plotting crime. They came home after getting fired and complained about the boss being a piece of $%^& who didn't like him. All he did was punch a guy in the face for not talking to him properly. The "world is against me"!!!
Liberals, these are the people you cry for. You are shown a mother with two to five kids who look disheveled and hungry and you weep. You are not shown that the woman is a drug addict who lives with an abusive boyfriend. They don't show that the mother sits idly by while the kids are beaten by said boyfriend or she beats them herself.
We all should weep , but not for the mother. We should weep for the kids and then we should have the guts to pull them away from the mother and find adults who will love them. For you Christian Right people I say that even Gay adults are better parents than these people I am describing.
We already have plans in place for people with real need. It is them that we are punishing.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Labels
I have been thinking a lot about labels. I myself call anyone with liberal tendencies Dirty Libs. But the people I refer to as dirty libs are really not that liberal or have varying degrees of liberal tendencies.
On the flip side, I call myself a conservative and I have no clue what people call me when I am not around. But my conservative views are not the same as a Christian conservative. I would not consider myself a right wing conservative but others might.
I could call myself a Libertarian, but now Libertarians have pretty well defined views or at least people have started to define them. I went to a Libertarian meeting back when I was 18ish. I disagreed with a lot of what the speaker was saying so it turned me off. I will probably go into that meeting on another post.
So, were do I fit in? Do I need to fit in?
I read a blog that said that people who carry guns and want a return to the constitution to be right wing extremists. HOW DOES THAT COMPUTE?
Both the right and left have their extremists. The left has ELF, PETA, and Green Peace. The right has abortion bombers and abortion doctor shooters. Some people might include the group Timothy McVey was apart of as right wing.
I believe adding the right and left moniker to the above extremists, somehow lumps everyone together.
Any group that is racist has no part in society. They should have their own label and it should be called “Trash”. This would include any group regardless of color that hates people based on their color.
We can keep the current labels for those who follow blindly and adhere to the party line.
Now for the new labels:
What do we call a person who believes in social programs but also believes in the right to carry a firearm? These are two things that I would not associate to the liberal label. (I could make up a few names, but I doubt those people would like them)
Now what do you call me? I believe in Personal Responsibility and Common Sense.
• I think that a person has a right to do what ever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
• I believe no one has the right to tell someone who they can or can not sleep with, except for age restrictions.
• I believe that a person has the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property with out fear of prosecution. They have the right to do this with what ever means is available including the use of firearms.
• I believe States were meant to have more power then the federal government.
• I believe in strict laws and harsh punishments. I hate criminals and despise excuses.
• I believe the victim’s rights should take priority over the criminal’s.
• I believe it is not racist to want to lock down the border. This is Protecting Americans and putting Americans first. This is not a job issue either, this is a crime issue. Mexicans both in and outside of the US are the victims of these crimes.
• I am not a racist; I haven’t had a black friend since the Air Force. But I have a lot of friends of Hispanic heritage. I figure this is normal for Arizona.
• I honor hard work and loath slackers.
• I want limited government. I think the individual should be responsible for themselves.
• I think everyone should serve in the military or at least serve their country in some capacity.
• I believe charity comes from the community not the government.
• I believe only those who try and help themselves should receive help from others.
• I believe that all Americans have the right to be armed and that firearms training should be mandatory in high school regardless of whether a person plans to own a firearm or not.
• I think Weed should be legal. I would much rather see most of my friends high rather than drunk. They are much nicer. (I do not use it myself)
• I do not believe America is perfect but I like it better than any other country I have ever lived in.
• I do not think we should go to war unless we go to win.
• I think we should hold the UN to their mandate or refuse payment.
• I don’t think you can talk to terrorists, extremists, or criminals; all you can do is kill them. (I do not find distinction between the three listed)
• I do not believe in torture Vietnamese style, but do believe in psychological interrogation. I also give lea way to those in the field and the heat of battle. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
• I am willing to accept the minute loss of life from Tasers, most of which are drug users, in exchange for officer and public safety. (I am a stock owner in Taser because I believe in the product and its life saving and injury reducing attributes.)
(I am sure I could go on and on. I will leave it at this. If you want to know my view on something specific just ask.)
So what should my label be? Am I a right wing nut? Am I just a normal conservative?
I want to create a new party called the Common Sense Party. Would you join?
On the flip side, I call myself a conservative and I have no clue what people call me when I am not around. But my conservative views are not the same as a Christian conservative. I would not consider myself a right wing conservative but others might.
I could call myself a Libertarian, but now Libertarians have pretty well defined views or at least people have started to define them. I went to a Libertarian meeting back when I was 18ish. I disagreed with a lot of what the speaker was saying so it turned me off. I will probably go into that meeting on another post.
So, were do I fit in? Do I need to fit in?
I read a blog that said that people who carry guns and want a return to the constitution to be right wing extremists. HOW DOES THAT COMPUTE?
Both the right and left have their extremists. The left has ELF, PETA, and Green Peace. The right has abortion bombers and abortion doctor shooters. Some people might include the group Timothy McVey was apart of as right wing.
I believe adding the right and left moniker to the above extremists, somehow lumps everyone together.
Any group that is racist has no part in society. They should have their own label and it should be called “Trash”. This would include any group regardless of color that hates people based on their color.
We can keep the current labels for those who follow blindly and adhere to the party line.
Now for the new labels:
What do we call a person who believes in social programs but also believes in the right to carry a firearm? These are two things that I would not associate to the liberal label. (I could make up a few names, but I doubt those people would like them)
Now what do you call me? I believe in Personal Responsibility and Common Sense.
• I think that a person has a right to do what ever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
• I believe no one has the right to tell someone who they can or can not sleep with, except for age restrictions.
• I believe that a person has the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property with out fear of prosecution. They have the right to do this with what ever means is available including the use of firearms.
• I believe States were meant to have more power then the federal government.
• I believe in strict laws and harsh punishments. I hate criminals and despise excuses.
• I believe the victim’s rights should take priority over the criminal’s.
• I believe it is not racist to want to lock down the border. This is Protecting Americans and putting Americans first. This is not a job issue either, this is a crime issue. Mexicans both in and outside of the US are the victims of these crimes.
• I am not a racist; I haven’t had a black friend since the Air Force. But I have a lot of friends of Hispanic heritage. I figure this is normal for Arizona.
• I honor hard work and loath slackers.
• I want limited government. I think the individual should be responsible for themselves.
• I think everyone should serve in the military or at least serve their country in some capacity.
• I believe charity comes from the community not the government.
• I believe only those who try and help themselves should receive help from others.
• I believe that all Americans have the right to be armed and that firearms training should be mandatory in high school regardless of whether a person plans to own a firearm or not.
• I think Weed should be legal. I would much rather see most of my friends high rather than drunk. They are much nicer. (I do not use it myself)
• I do not believe America is perfect but I like it better than any other country I have ever lived in.
• I do not think we should go to war unless we go to win.
• I think we should hold the UN to their mandate or refuse payment.
• I don’t think you can talk to terrorists, extremists, or criminals; all you can do is kill them. (I do not find distinction between the three listed)
• I do not believe in torture Vietnamese style, but do believe in psychological interrogation. I also give lea way to those in the field and the heat of battle. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
• I am willing to accept the minute loss of life from Tasers, most of which are drug users, in exchange for officer and public safety. (I am a stock owner in Taser because I believe in the product and its life saving and injury reducing attributes.)
(I am sure I could go on and on. I will leave it at this. If you want to know my view on something specific just ask.)
So what should my label be? Am I a right wing nut? Am I just a normal conservative?
I want to create a new party called the Common Sense Party. Would you join?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Cable News
I find it extremely odd that the country voted in a far left Democrat, yet the number 1 cable news channel is Fox News. The prime time commentators are so far ahead in the ratings that some days you can combine the other three networks and they still do not beat the Fox News program.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
I am under no illusion that Fox News is fair and balanced. They lean to the far right (Hannity) and slightly lean to center from there. I am not sure where Glen Beck fits in since he is the only proclaimed Libertarian (I would say middle right) and I have no clue what party Greta claims.
What does this mean?
Talk radio is Dominated, yes with a capital D, by conservatives. Other than NPR and Air America (went bankrupt), I am not aware of any other liberal talk radio programs. After doing some research, Air America was sold and is still on the air but sees little success.
So why is conservative talk radio so successful?
Warning, this is my speculation:
What I get from this is that there are a lot of closet conservatives. One thing I have learned is that libs usually are not afraid to voice their oppinion, but conservatives keep quiet. I think this is because conservative views can often seem selfish and harsh. I consider myself conservative but not religious conservative. There is a big difference!
I believe in people working for what they get and getting to keep what they work for. I understand the need for government but I have a very limited expectation of what they should be doing. I believe charity is a personal preference and not something that should be forced. I feel for kids and the old, but have no simpathy for worthless able bodied adults. I have no simpathy what so ever for criminals and believe it is no ones fault but their own.
So I ask, what happened in 2008. How is it that the number one cable news channel and talk radio programs are conservative, yet a liberal (arguably the most liberal) candidate was elected? Get off the couch, no one is asking you to voice your opinion openly, but get out and vote. Want a conservative but dont like the Republicans, well lets find a third party candidate. Lets vote them hard so our voices are heard. The bad thing about that is it will take a couple of elections to make a difference and we will have to deal with a lib for president for a lot longer. But we could start with our representatives and senators. Start voting in more third party candidates and they will have to get worried about presidential candidates.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
I am under no illusion that Fox News is fair and balanced. They lean to the far right (Hannity) and slightly lean to center from there. I am not sure where Glen Beck fits in since he is the only proclaimed Libertarian (I would say middle right) and I have no clue what party Greta claims.
What does this mean?
Talk radio is Dominated, yes with a capital D, by conservatives. Other than NPR and Air America (went bankrupt), I am not aware of any other liberal talk radio programs. After doing some research, Air America was sold and is still on the air but sees little success.
So why is conservative talk radio so successful?
Warning, this is my speculation:
What I get from this is that there are a lot of closet conservatives. One thing I have learned is that libs usually are not afraid to voice their oppinion, but conservatives keep quiet. I think this is because conservative views can often seem selfish and harsh. I consider myself conservative but not religious conservative. There is a big difference!
I believe in people working for what they get and getting to keep what they work for. I understand the need for government but I have a very limited expectation of what they should be doing. I believe charity is a personal preference and not something that should be forced. I feel for kids and the old, but have no simpathy for worthless able bodied adults. I have no simpathy what so ever for criminals and believe it is no ones fault but their own.
So I ask, what happened in 2008. How is it that the number one cable news channel and talk radio programs are conservative, yet a liberal (arguably the most liberal) candidate was elected? Get off the couch, no one is asking you to voice your opinion openly, but get out and vote. Want a conservative but dont like the Republicans, well lets find a third party candidate. Lets vote them hard so our voices are heard. The bad thing about that is it will take a couple of elections to make a difference and we will have to deal with a lib for president for a lot longer. But we could start with our representatives and senators. Start voting in more third party candidates and they will have to get worried about presidential candidates.
Heated Debate - Is it unAmerican?
The hot topic over the past week is the debate at the town hall meetings. You have to live in a bubble to know nothing about what is going on.
Well, instead of posting my thoughts and then having everyone comment. I would like to hear your thoughts on town hall meetings. I do not want to discuss the health care plan specifically.
Do you think the current town hall meetings are out of control?
Are the people that are going to the meetings not allowed to ask the questions they are?
Should they have more respect for the Congressmen and women?
Is Nancy Pelossi right or wrong in her words about the people coming to the meetings?
How do you feel about what you are seeing taking place at these meetings?
Do you think that any organization should be at the meetings? IE. Acorn, SEIU, or any other
Do you plan to go to any town meetings?
Sound off over the next 24hrs. I will give my take on this tomorrow evening.
Well, instead of posting my thoughts and then having everyone comment. I would like to hear your thoughts on town hall meetings. I do not want to discuss the health care plan specifically.
Do you think the current town hall meetings are out of control?
Are the people that are going to the meetings not allowed to ask the questions they are?
Should they have more respect for the Congressmen and women?
Is Nancy Pelossi right or wrong in her words about the people coming to the meetings?
How do you feel about what you are seeing taking place at these meetings?
Do you think that any organization should be at the meetings? IE. Acorn, SEIU, or any other
Do you plan to go to any town meetings?
Sound off over the next 24hrs. I will give my take on this tomorrow evening.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Anti Bowling for Columbine
This is a long video but I would like you all to watch at least the first story and the subsequent interview with Michael Moore.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Northern Muckraker: The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
The Northern Muckraker: The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
Another blogger I subscribe too. His post is about a man in NY fighting the good fight.
Another blogger I subscribe too. His post is about a man in NY fighting the good fight.
Man changing magazine shoots girlfriend in head
This a horrible story and I hope the woman is okay.
This is a problem of shooters not practicing safety. With the increase in gun sales and new shooters out there, it is important that people get the education in safety and proper weapons handling. If the Dirty Lib can do it the right way then everyone else can. My biggest fear is that my friends, who I have introduced to self defense, will have an accident. That is why I stress safety and promote training so hard.
This is not a reason to ban guns. It is a reason to make training a requirement in high school.
by Julia Guzy - Aug. 5, 2009 05:20 PMThe Arizona Republic
A 21-year-old woman survived a gunshot to the head after her boyfriend accidentally shot her in a desert area in Phoenix Tuesday evening, authorities said.
According to police, the woman was with a group of friends shooting in the desert along the stretch of 5100 West Carefree Highway about 6:30 p.m. The woman's boyfriend, also 21, was changing the magazine on a .22 caliber gun when he accidentally pulled the trigger and a bullet struck the side of her head, said Officer Luis Samudio, a Phoenix police spokesperson.
Companions transported the woman to John C. Lincoln Deer Valley Hospital where she was able to provide an account of the incident, Samudio said.
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')
Authorities said she's in critical condition but is expected to survive.
Police said no foul play is suspected but they plan on interviewing her further once she recovers.
This is a problem of shooters not practicing safety. With the increase in gun sales and new shooters out there, it is important that people get the education in safety and proper weapons handling. If the Dirty Lib can do it the right way then everyone else can. My biggest fear is that my friends, who I have introduced to self defense, will have an accident. That is why I stress safety and promote training so hard.
This is not a reason to ban guns. It is a reason to make training a requirement in high school.
by Julia Guzy - Aug. 5, 2009 05:20 PMThe Arizona Republic
A 21-year-old woman survived a gunshot to the head after her boyfriend accidentally shot her in a desert area in Phoenix Tuesday evening, authorities said.
According to police, the woman was with a group of friends shooting in the desert along the stretch of 5100 West Carefree Highway about 6:30 p.m. The woman's boyfriend, also 21, was changing the magazine on a .22 caliber gun when he accidentally pulled the trigger and a bullet struck the side of her head, said Officer Luis Samudio, a Phoenix police spokesperson.
Companions transported the woman to John C. Lincoln Deer Valley Hospital where she was able to provide an account of the incident, Samudio said.
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')
Authorities said she's in critical condition but is expected to survive.
Police said no foul play is suspected but they plan on interviewing her further once she recovers.
Health Club Gunman
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/08/05/20090805HealthClubShooting05-ON.html
A very sad story and obviously a mental person. This story kinda got to me a little more than usual. I think it is because these people were absolutely defenseless and it seems like this guy was looking for easier prey than normal. They were all in work out clothes and didn't even have their phones or wallets on them. I have read a lot about people trying to find a comfortable way to carry concealed while working out, and its kind of a mixed bag. But, If someone at this health club was carrying would this have been a different situation or would it have played out the same way? What if some thing happens while you are out walking your animal or in your driveway washing your car. Just remember this can happen anywhere at anytime, you may not think it will but wouldn't you rather be prepared. Oh yeah and if I haven't had sex in 19 years, I am going to Vegas and getting a hooker.
A very sad story and obviously a mental person. This story kinda got to me a little more than usual. I think it is because these people were absolutely defenseless and it seems like this guy was looking for easier prey than normal. They were all in work out clothes and didn't even have their phones or wallets on them. I have read a lot about people trying to find a comfortable way to carry concealed while working out, and its kind of a mixed bag. But, If someone at this health club was carrying would this have been a different situation or would it have played out the same way? What if some thing happens while you are out walking your animal or in your driveway washing your car. Just remember this can happen anywhere at anytime, you may not think it will but wouldn't you rather be prepared. Oh yeah and if I haven't had sex in 19 years, I am going to Vegas and getting a hooker.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
No Guns For Terrorists???
I must be bored. I decided to take a look at the Brady Campaign website whose sole purpose is to ban hand guns. That website is just full of misinformation, quotes with no sitings, and data with no references.
I don't know what the dirty lib thinks now days, but a couple of weeks ago he asked me what I thought about the the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" bill. I had already read it and told him it was ridiculous and was dangerous.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159
Why do I think it is ridiculous? Because this is America.
In America we do not restrict an Americans rights when they have not been convicted of a crime. We as Americans have the right to a trial where we can confront our accuser before we can be found guilty of a crime. Being suspected of a crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
What this bill does is give too much power to the Attorney General.
Here are my questions:
- How is a known terrorist free to buy a gun in the first place and wouldn't the FBI be notified of their location as soon as the background check is performed?
- Why are these people suspected terrorists and not convicted terrorists?
- What criteria is the Attorney General required to follow before adding someone to the list?
- What oversite is there to prevent abuse?
- Shouldn't a judge be needed, to agree that there is probable cause, to add someone to this list just like a warrant?
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but this sounds like it is more likely to be used against people the Attorney General doesn't like. That could be anyone, including law abiding Americans who do not share his views.
I don't know what the dirty lib thinks now days, but a couple of weeks ago he asked me what I thought about the the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" bill. I had already read it and told him it was ridiculous and was dangerous.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159
Why do I think it is ridiculous? Because this is America.
In America we do not restrict an Americans rights when they have not been convicted of a crime. We as Americans have the right to a trial where we can confront our accuser before we can be found guilty of a crime. Being suspected of a crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
What this bill does is give too much power to the Attorney General.
SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
Here are my questions:
- How is a known terrorist free to buy a gun in the first place and wouldn't the FBI be notified of their location as soon as the background check is performed?
- Why are these people suspected terrorists and not convicted terrorists?
- What criteria is the Attorney General required to follow before adding someone to the list?
- What oversite is there to prevent abuse?
- Shouldn't a judge be needed, to agree that there is probable cause, to add someone to this list just like a warrant?
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but this sounds like it is more likely to be used against people the Attorney General doesn't like. That could be anyone, including law abiding Americans who do not share his views.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Alumna sues college because she hasn't found a job
A big shining star of a person not taking Personal Responsibility. This is also a prime example of how we have become a society of people expecting immediate results with little exertion.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/03/new.york.jobless.graduate/index.html
This woman graduated with a BS in Business Administration in Information Technology 3 months ago with a 2.7 GPA and expected the college to already have found her a job. A 2.7 GPA in college is shit. It is one thing to get that in High School when you don't really give a crap, don't see the point, and are forced to go. But in college you or your parents are paying for college. You should be taking personal responsibility for your education at this point and working hard to better your future.
Even with hard work, you are still at the mercy of the job market. Also, a 2.7 is not average grades. Those are shit grades and I would not even consider you, especially from a no name school. It also helps to do research and she would have learned that Information Technology was all shipped to India. IT is gone in the US, you have to have a degree in Computer Science to get into that industry in the US.
Another argument made by this woman is that the college finds jobs for the kids with a higher GPA first. Is it that they are actively putting forward more effort for those graduates or is it easier to place them? In addition, isn't in the colleges best interest to promote those graduates?
I will end this by expressing my disgust at the entitlement being expressed by Americans today. You are not entitled to anything. Work hard and maybe you will become successful, but that is not even guaranteed.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/03/new.york.jobless.graduate/index.html
This woman graduated with a BS in Business Administration in Information Technology 3 months ago with a 2.7 GPA and expected the college to already have found her a job. A 2.7 GPA in college is shit. It is one thing to get that in High School when you don't really give a crap, don't see the point, and are forced to go. But in college you or your parents are paying for college. You should be taking personal responsibility for your education at this point and working hard to better your future.
Even with hard work, you are still at the mercy of the job market. Also, a 2.7 is not average grades. Those are shit grades and I would not even consider you, especially from a no name school. It also helps to do research and she would have learned that Information Technology was all shipped to India. IT is gone in the US, you have to have a degree in Computer Science to get into that industry in the US.
Another argument made by this woman is that the college finds jobs for the kids with a higher GPA first. Is it that they are actively putting forward more effort for those graduates or is it easier to place them? In addition, isn't in the colleges best interest to promote those graduates?
I will end this by expressing my disgust at the entitlement being expressed by Americans today. You are not entitled to anything. Work hard and maybe you will become successful, but that is not even guaranteed.
From the Airport Terminal - Tourists in Iraq!?!?
WTF!?!?!
We have tourists in Iraq? Are people actually suprised that something bad happened to them while hiking across Iraq? I am sure they never expected it to be the Iranians who took them into custody, but they had to know they were rolling the dice with the house being heavily favored.
Now, I am sure you hanky stomping libs are going to hate me for my next statement, but I don't care.
Screw them!
Yep that is right, Screw em!
Just like the journalists that went to North Korea, screw em.
We have enough to worry about and wet nursing idiots who go into unfriendly territory is not high on my list. I don't care if there was a high noble purpose, if it wasn't government sanctioned then you don't get support after you screw up.
The world is not all reality TV and happy endings. There are very bad people in the world and Americans have to wake up and realize this. Just read the news TODAY and you will see Iran, North Korea, and Venezuala acting up.
Do you think Obama has the balls to deal with them? I hope he finds some for the Nations sake, but I doubt it.
We have tourists in Iraq? Are people actually suprised that something bad happened to them while hiking across Iraq? I am sure they never expected it to be the Iranians who took them into custody, but they had to know they were rolling the dice with the house being heavily favored.
Now, I am sure you hanky stomping libs are going to hate me for my next statement, but I don't care.
Screw them!
Yep that is right, Screw em!
Just like the journalists that went to North Korea, screw em.
We have enough to worry about and wet nursing idiots who go into unfriendly territory is not high on my list. I don't care if there was a high noble purpose, if it wasn't government sanctioned then you don't get support after you screw up.
The world is not all reality TV and happy endings. There are very bad people in the world and Americans have to wake up and realize this. Just read the news TODAY and you will see Iran, North Korea, and Venezuala acting up.
Do you think Obama has the balls to deal with them? I hope he finds some for the Nations sake, but I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
