This is old news by now, but nonetheless in triumph. I almost laughed maniacally when I heard this news, except I'm not a liberal. So I settled for a hearty guffaw and a "Celllll-e-brate good times, come on!" Because these are good times. I want to march up to every overpopulation zealot, every enviro-fanatic, every single liberal who preached to me about the environment (not that I like wastefulness), and spew CO2 in their faces: "I was RIGHT!!! THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS! WHAT NOW?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT NOW?!?!?!?" Imagine telling someone something FOREVER and finally being proved right. It makes me happy inside.
It's proof that the truth, eventually, always wins.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Define "Better"...
From FOXNews.com (my comments in bold)--
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has been stronger than the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, Vice President Biden said Sunday, suggesting former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of President Obama's chief critics, is either "misinformed or misinforming."
Okay, I didn't see Bush treating terrorists as citizens or refusing to interrogate them or bringing them to America.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Biden said he thinks Cheney doesn't listen to the facts and is trying to rewrite history.
"I don't think the former vice president, Dick Cheney, listens. The president of the United States said in the State of the Union we're at war with Al Qaeda," Biden said.
Biden said the Obama administration has eliminated 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda leaders, has "taken out 100 of their associates, we have sent them underground ... they are on the run."
Really? Because didn't he also set one hundred or more free? Is that what he means by "on the run"? It's not "on the run" if you let them go and send them off with a candy bar and a friendly wave.
Calling Cheney "factually, substantively wrong," Biden said it's simply not true that the president is not prosecuting the war in Al Qaeda with a vigor never before seen.
I think this kind of vigor HAS been displayed before. By Bambi.
"I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing again to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?" Biden said.
He's been in America. Where have you been?
Cheney said that the Obama administration is failing to treat the battle against terrorism as war. He told ABC's "This Week" that he is glad for what the administration is doing in Afghanistan but he disagrees with those in the Obama Cabinet who "still insist on thinking of terrorist attacks on the United States as criminal acts rather than acts of war, that's a huge distinction."
Agreed. It's not war to them. It's not even a game. It's like, like... sibling rivalry. Figure it out.
Cheney said he also disapproved of President Obama's initial response to the actions by Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
"It was closer to being an act of war than an act of an isolated criminal," Cheney said. "What the administration was slow to do was to come to the realization that this is an act of war."
It's because he was a Muslim. Of course it wasn't an isolated criminal act. Al Quaeda trained the guy! And, yes, he WAS a Muslim! Stop being PC and help the U.S.
But Biden said Cheney's criticism rings false. He added that two of three detainees tried in military courts were set free under the Bush administration, while more than 300 tried in federal courts are now in prison.
"He is not entitled to his own facts," Biden said.
White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones refused to get into it over Cheney's criticism, telling CNN that national security isn't a partisan issue. He added that it depends on what information Cheney has.
"If it's informed, that's one thing," he said.
As for the war in Iraq, Biden said it hasn't been worth its "horrible price."
Of course it wasn't. We overthrew Saddam Hussein and now Iraq has a chance, but it wasn't worth it. Tell that to all the moms and widows who were proud of their kids and husbands: their sacrifice wasn't worth it. It was worth it to those who fought for their country proudly instead of denouncing it.
He said the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda hatched the Sept 11 attacks, he said.
The war also has cost the United States support from other nations, he said, but he predicted Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.
More than 4,370 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded or killed.
But Cheney said, "I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do . It ws hard to do, it took a long time to do.
"We're going to have a democracy in Iraq. We do today ... This is has been an enormous achievement for peace and stability in the Middle East and security for the United States. Joe Biden doesn't believe that," Cheney said.
What does Joe Biden believe? Nothing conservatives say, even with the truth staring him in the face: we won (funny how the media couldn't stop reporting the deaths, but once we started winning, Iraq news suddenly got quiet.
Cheney said that if the Obama administration now wants to take credit for the success of Iraq, after opposing the surge, campaigning against it during the 2008 presidential race and finishing up a timetable set forth during the Bush administration, then "it ought to go with a healthy dose of 'Thank You, George Bush' up front."
Right, that's gonna happen. They're too busy pushing their liberal agenda. They don't even have time to read their own bills, let alone thank a former President of the opposite party (even though Obama is "bipartisan").
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has been stronger than the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, Vice President Biden said Sunday, suggesting former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of President Obama's chief critics, is either "misinformed or misinforming."
Okay, I didn't see Bush treating terrorists as citizens or refusing to interrogate them or bringing them to America.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Biden said he thinks Cheney doesn't listen to the facts and is trying to rewrite history.
"I don't think the former vice president, Dick Cheney, listens. The president of the United States said in the State of the Union we're at war with Al Qaeda," Biden said.
Biden said the Obama administration has eliminated 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda leaders, has "taken out 100 of their associates, we have sent them underground ... they are on the run."
Really? Because didn't he also set one hundred or more free? Is that what he means by "on the run"? It's not "on the run" if you let them go and send them off with a candy bar and a friendly wave.
Calling Cheney "factually, substantively wrong," Biden said it's simply not true that the president is not prosecuting the war in Al Qaeda with a vigor never before seen.
I think this kind of vigor HAS been displayed before. By Bambi.
"I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing again to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?" Biden said.
He's been in America. Where have you been?
Cheney said that the Obama administration is failing to treat the battle against terrorism as war. He told ABC's "This Week" that he is glad for what the administration is doing in Afghanistan but he disagrees with those in the Obama Cabinet who "still insist on thinking of terrorist attacks on the United States as criminal acts rather than acts of war, that's a huge distinction."
Agreed. It's not war to them. It's not even a game. It's like, like... sibling rivalry. Figure it out.
Cheney said he also disapproved of President Obama's initial response to the actions by Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
"It was closer to being an act of war than an act of an isolated criminal," Cheney said. "What the administration was slow to do was to come to the realization that this is an act of war."
It's because he was a Muslim. Of course it wasn't an isolated criminal act. Al Quaeda trained the guy! And, yes, he WAS a Muslim! Stop being PC and help the U.S.
But Biden said Cheney's criticism rings false. He added that two of three detainees tried in military courts were set free under the Bush administration, while more than 300 tried in federal courts are now in prison.
"He is not entitled to his own facts," Biden said.
White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones refused to get into it over Cheney's criticism, telling CNN that national security isn't a partisan issue. He added that it depends on what information Cheney has.
"If it's informed, that's one thing," he said.
As for the war in Iraq, Biden said it hasn't been worth its "horrible price."
Of course it wasn't. We overthrew Saddam Hussein and now Iraq has a chance, but it wasn't worth it. Tell that to all the moms and widows who were proud of their kids and husbands: their sacrifice wasn't worth it. It was worth it to those who fought for their country proudly instead of denouncing it.
He said the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda hatched the Sept 11 attacks, he said.
The war also has cost the United States support from other nations, he said, but he predicted Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.
More than 4,370 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded or killed.
But Cheney said, "I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do . It ws hard to do, it took a long time to do.
"We're going to have a democracy in Iraq. We do today ... This is has been an enormous achievement for peace and stability in the Middle East and security for the United States. Joe Biden doesn't believe that," Cheney said.
What does Joe Biden believe? Nothing conservatives say, even with the truth staring him in the face: we won (funny how the media couldn't stop reporting the deaths, but once we started winning, Iraq news suddenly got quiet.
Cheney said that if the Obama administration now wants to take credit for the success of Iraq, after opposing the surge, campaigning against it during the 2008 presidential race and finishing up a timetable set forth during the Bush administration, then "it ought to go with a healthy dose of 'Thank You, George Bush' up front."
Right, that's gonna happen. They're too busy pushing their liberal agenda. They don't even have time to read their own bills, let alone thank a former President of the opposite party (even though Obama is "bipartisan").
Reconciliation: Something They Desperately Need
I mean my title in two ways. First, I mean that they desperately need to reconcile themselves with the American people before we impeach and deport them all. Secondly, I mean that they must really be desperate if they go to such extreme measures to ignore us in order to push their agenda.
From Wikipedia: Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.
Basically, they can change their bill to match the House bill, thus passing it with only 51 votes instead of sixty, making the Republican filibuster irrelevant and useless. Making the American public's opinion even MORE irrelevant and useless than they already have.
This is what they call "hypocrisy". Obama claims to be a bipartisan President who strives for transparency. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a closed door doesn't seem very transparent, and the Democrats behind that door don't seem bipartisan. Just an observation.
This has been a terrible ordeal. It has become increasingly apparent that the Democrats don't give a crap about you or me. Funny how they'll all be exempt from the wonderful plan they're force-feeding us. Actually, it's not very funny, but you know what I mean.
In this healthcare debate and process alone there has been so much we should be outraged at.
-ignoring the American people
-saying we don't understand in response to our outrage (but proceeding to not explain)
-extortion/bribery (Ben Nelson)
-lies and hypocrisy (which, with Obama, is pretty much a given)
Some might accuse me of being partisan, but I'm just facing facts. I don't see Republicans doing any of this crap.
If the Dems don't reconcile themselves with the American people, we'll reconcile their back ends with the floor of a jail cell.
From Wikipedia: Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.
Basically, they can change their bill to match the House bill, thus passing it with only 51 votes instead of sixty, making the Republican filibuster irrelevant and useless. Making the American public's opinion even MORE irrelevant and useless than they already have.
This is what they call "hypocrisy". Obama claims to be a bipartisan President who strives for transparency. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a closed door doesn't seem very transparent, and the Democrats behind that door don't seem bipartisan. Just an observation.
This has been a terrible ordeal. It has become increasingly apparent that the Democrats don't give a crap about you or me. Funny how they'll all be exempt from the wonderful plan they're force-feeding us. Actually, it's not very funny, but you know what I mean.
In this healthcare debate and process alone there has been so much we should be outraged at.
-ignoring the American people
-saying we don't understand in response to our outrage (but proceeding to not explain)
-extortion/bribery (Ben Nelson)
-lies and hypocrisy (which, with Obama, is pretty much a given)
Some might accuse me of being partisan, but I'm just facing facts. I don't see Republicans doing any of this crap.
If the Dems don't reconcile themselves with the American people, we'll reconcile their back ends with the floor of a jail cell.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
In Search of "Perfection"...
I've come to an important realization. Since everyone has different opinions, it is highly unlikely that you will find the "perfect" candidate (unless he is a smooth-talking "black" man, in which case you would be racist and crazy not to support him). Here is an example:
I thought Sarah Palin was a near-perfect candidate for whatever the heck she ran for. Then I found out she believed in contraception. Just a little thing, and not of much importance on the national political scale. But important to someone whose moral values would not allow them to support contraception. I would still support Sarah Palin, and still believe she is exceptional in many ways, but I was nonetheless disappointed.
I believe contraception is wrong because the marital act is for those who are married and God designed us with the ability to reproduce not so we could casually, irresponsibly, and immorally have sex without the intent of creating another human that we could love and without the intent of creating a permanent union of husband and wife. I'd like to share a recent encounter at school with a boy I know. A class-clown type comes up to me and says, "Hey, Sarah, when are you going to lose your virginity?" My parents were shocked when I told them this, but it was what I had come to expect, unfortunately. I answered, "When I'm married." A different boy, overhearing our conversation, said, "Oh, let me guess, you're SAVING it. Making it SPECIAL." He spat out the word "special" like it was poison, like it was a bad thing. I almost had to laugh, then I realized how truly sad it was.
Which is why I don't support sex ed in schools. Parents need to be involved in their kids' lives and futures. A school should not be telling a kid these things. They should learn from their parents. It's sort of like government on a lower level--it should not interfere with individual rights, responsibilities, and freedoms. Regardless of where it is earned, but especially if learned in public schools, I believe in abstinence-only education. The sex ed norm is like taking a cookie jar, pacing it on the floor, and going out for two days, leaving a note to your dog (whom you did not lock up and sent no one to look after) not to get into it.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand: you won't find anyone who will be you. You're the only one who can shape the world the way you want to.
Here are my criteria for a "perfect" candidate (aka my basic beliefs):
1. Small government
2. No bailouts/stimulus/pork/earmarks
3. No welfare (charity's great, though--when it's not forced)
4. No abortion (no matter what--yes, I am a rigid, incompassionate right-wing extremist who refuses to kill an innocent baby under any circumstances; actually, I support women--I understand their pain but also know that many commit suicide after abortions because they KNOW and some suffer medical issues in the future and less than 4% of abortions claim rape, incest, or serious medical issues; wow, I just fit a fraction of my abortion argument into one parenthetical)
5. No gun control (sorry, criminals and Congress, you lose)
6. Terrorists are terrorists (no, really?), not citizens
7. Secure borders, crack down on illegal immigrants
8. No/minimal debt
9. No gay marriage
10. Implement the FairTax (do away with other--especially income--taxes)
11. No single-payer health insurance system
12. Death penalty only if absolutely necessary
There is so much more, so many things that tie into the issues above. Like the environment. I love the idea of not being wasteful and gluttonous, and think that we take advantage of our resources. But I also think that man-caused global warming (wait, no-- "global climate change", because they can't make up their minds on which extreme to lie about) is a scam. There were ice ages in the past, right? And those ice ages (by our definition, not the scientific one of when glaciers are present but the comon one of when everything is covered in ice) ended, correct? And, correct me if I'm wrong. but for an ice age to end, the ice would have to melt, right? And for the ice to melt, it would have to have been getting warmer, correct? And all this happened--gasp--before there were cars!!!! WHAT?!?!? But I thought (not really) that cars and humans, those wasteful, mongrel Neanderthals, were causing Earth to warm at the rate of Nancy Pelosi's cheeks when Wilson shouted, "You lie" to Obama (which I can't blame him for--I would have done the same thing, and added a few words). Could this mean that "global warming", er, "climate change" could be a naturally occurring process and therefore not be subject to panic in the media and among the most "sophisticated" "experts" on Earth? Maybe they could start cutting down their own carbon emissions--by shutting up about yours and mine.
Right now, our government is corrupt, full of liars and extortionists and racists and hypocrites and... well, I'll just sum it up with the term "liberals".
I thought Sarah Palin was a near-perfect candidate for whatever the heck she ran for. Then I found out she believed in contraception. Just a little thing, and not of much importance on the national political scale. But important to someone whose moral values would not allow them to support contraception. I would still support Sarah Palin, and still believe she is exceptional in many ways, but I was nonetheless disappointed.
I believe contraception is wrong because the marital act is for those who are married and God designed us with the ability to reproduce not so we could casually, irresponsibly, and immorally have sex without the intent of creating another human that we could love and without the intent of creating a permanent union of husband and wife. I'd like to share a recent encounter at school with a boy I know. A class-clown type comes up to me and says, "Hey, Sarah, when are you going to lose your virginity?" My parents were shocked when I told them this, but it was what I had come to expect, unfortunately. I answered, "When I'm married." A different boy, overhearing our conversation, said, "Oh, let me guess, you're SAVING it. Making it SPECIAL." He spat out the word "special" like it was poison, like it was a bad thing. I almost had to laugh, then I realized how truly sad it was.
Which is why I don't support sex ed in schools. Parents need to be involved in their kids' lives and futures. A school should not be telling a kid these things. They should learn from their parents. It's sort of like government on a lower level--it should not interfere with individual rights, responsibilities, and freedoms. Regardless of where it is earned, but especially if learned in public schools, I believe in abstinence-only education. The sex ed norm is like taking a cookie jar, pacing it on the floor, and going out for two days, leaving a note to your dog (whom you did not lock up and sent no one to look after) not to get into it.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand: you won't find anyone who will be you. You're the only one who can shape the world the way you want to.
Here are my criteria for a "perfect" candidate (aka my basic beliefs):
1. Small government
2. No bailouts/stimulus/pork/earmarks
3. No welfare (charity's great, though--when it's not forced)
4. No abortion (no matter what--yes, I am a rigid, incompassionate right-wing extremist who refuses to kill an innocent baby under any circumstances; actually, I support women--I understand their pain but also know that many commit suicide after abortions because they KNOW and some suffer medical issues in the future and less than 4% of abortions claim rape, incest, or serious medical issues; wow, I just fit a fraction of my abortion argument into one parenthetical)
5. No gun control (sorry, criminals and Congress, you lose)
6. Terrorists are terrorists (no, really?), not citizens
7. Secure borders, crack down on illegal immigrants
8. No/minimal debt
9. No gay marriage
10. Implement the FairTax (do away with other--especially income--taxes)
11. No single-payer health insurance system
12. Death penalty only if absolutely necessary
There is so much more, so many things that tie into the issues above. Like the environment. I love the idea of not being wasteful and gluttonous, and think that we take advantage of our resources. But I also think that man-caused global warming (wait, no-- "global climate change", because they can't make up their minds on which extreme to lie about) is a scam. There were ice ages in the past, right? And those ice ages (by our definition, not the scientific one of when glaciers are present but the comon one of when everything is covered in ice) ended, correct? And, correct me if I'm wrong. but for an ice age to end, the ice would have to melt, right? And for the ice to melt, it would have to have been getting warmer, correct? And all this happened--gasp--before there were cars!!!! WHAT?!?!? But I thought (not really) that cars and humans, those wasteful, mongrel Neanderthals, were causing Earth to warm at the rate of Nancy Pelosi's cheeks when Wilson shouted, "You lie" to Obama (which I can't blame him for--I would have done the same thing, and added a few words). Could this mean that "global warming", er, "climate change" could be a naturally occurring process and therefore not be subject to panic in the media and among the most "sophisticated" "experts" on Earth? Maybe they could start cutting down their own carbon emissions--by shutting up about yours and mine.
Right now, our government is corrupt, full of liars and extortionists and racists and hypocrites and... well, I'll just sum it up with the term "liberals".
Friday, February 12, 2010
Huckabee and Palin
I just turned fourteen and got "Going Rogue" and "Do the Right Thing" (Mike Huckabee) for my birthday. I finished "Do the Right Thing" and am reading "Going Rogue". Mike Huckabee talks about the FairTax in his book, and having healthcare instead of disease care.
I think the FairTax is a great idea, because it doesn't require government stalking and regulating. It doesn't require discrimination in the name of "fairness". The FairTax doesn't punish hard work and effort. Instead, it, if I understand correctly, would be just one tax on what people consume. That way the poor would automatically pay less in taxes because they would consume less. It would be "fair", but not discriminatory.
Then there's "disease care" versus "healthcare". Huckabee talks about how we need to "self-govern" ourselves so we have less need for civil government. This way, if we all choose to eat more healthily, healthcare costs would go down because there would be less people getting sick. We could focus on preventing diseases instead of caring for them once they are already upon us.
In Sarah Palin's book, I was truly surprised and disgusted at how corrupt, hypocritical, and cruel people were as she progressed from city counsel all the way up to governor of the state of Alaska. She was trying to put government on the side of the people, trying to limit it, trying to connect with the public and help Alaska's wildlife and its oil industry (helping the people instead of the big oil companies), because the people of Alaska, according to the state's constitution, own the state's natural resources.
Anyway, while she was mayor of Wasilla, a lady came to her office, and expressed her sympathy. Palin didn't know for what. Then the lady told her she was sorry Palin's daughter had been caught smoking pot, to which Palin responded. "She got caught? Dang! Which daughter? My toddler or my kindergartner?" Thhis is the kind of person, hardworking, determined, God-fearing, and grounded. If she and Huckabee ran together in 2012, the GOP might have a chance. And even if they didn't win, at least Reepublicans could, in clear conscience, dust off their mirrors and start using them again.
Another thing I find remarkable about Huckabee and Palin is that both had little funding in their campaigns in comparison to other candidates, but they still changed their parts of the world.
And of course, they are both strong conservatives, and more interested in "vertical politics", which Huckabee talks about in his book. Vertical politics is a sort of moving away from left-vs-right politics, and into up-and-down politics (good or bad effects). While I am still a strong conservative and believe that conservatism is correct, this is a great way of thinking.
And even THINKING at all is a great start.
I think the FairTax is a great idea, because it doesn't require government stalking and regulating. It doesn't require discrimination in the name of "fairness". The FairTax doesn't punish hard work and effort. Instead, it, if I understand correctly, would be just one tax on what people consume. That way the poor would automatically pay less in taxes because they would consume less. It would be "fair", but not discriminatory.
Then there's "disease care" versus "healthcare". Huckabee talks about how we need to "self-govern" ourselves so we have less need for civil government. This way, if we all choose to eat more healthily, healthcare costs would go down because there would be less people getting sick. We could focus on preventing diseases instead of caring for them once they are already upon us.
In Sarah Palin's book, I was truly surprised and disgusted at how corrupt, hypocritical, and cruel people were as she progressed from city counsel all the way up to governor of the state of Alaska. She was trying to put government on the side of the people, trying to limit it, trying to connect with the public and help Alaska's wildlife and its oil industry (helping the people instead of the big oil companies), because the people of Alaska, according to the state's constitution, own the state's natural resources.
Anyway, while she was mayor of Wasilla, a lady came to her office, and expressed her sympathy. Palin didn't know for what. Then the lady told her she was sorry Palin's daughter had been caught smoking pot, to which Palin responded. "She got caught? Dang! Which daughter? My toddler or my kindergartner?" Thhis is the kind of person, hardworking, determined, God-fearing, and grounded. If she and Huckabee ran together in 2012, the GOP might have a chance. And even if they didn't win, at least Reepublicans could, in clear conscience, dust off their mirrors and start using them again.
Another thing I find remarkable about Huckabee and Palin is that both had little funding in their campaigns in comparison to other candidates, but they still changed their parts of the world.
And of course, they are both strong conservatives, and more interested in "vertical politics", which Huckabee talks about in his book. Vertical politics is a sort of moving away from left-vs-right politics, and into up-and-down politics (good or bad effects). While I am still a strong conservative and believe that conservatism is correct, this is a great way of thinking.
And even THINKING at all is a great start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)