Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Posted by Scott at 11:27 AM
Monday, March 24, 2008
Posted by Scott at 1:57 PM
Friday, March 14, 2008
When in doubt - copy and paste. If you want the prettier version, click here.
I happen to agree, more than I would like too, with much of what Glenn Beck has to say. He's forthright, direct, and gets straight to the point. I don't agree with 100% of what he has to say, but the below post is brilliance in motion.
NEW YORK (CNN) --
Glenn Beck: Florida and Michigan leaders have only themselves to blame if their delegates aren't seated.
What do these stories all have in common?
- A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.
- People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.
- Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
- Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.
These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.
Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."
Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.
Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.
Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.
From Eliot Spitzer's alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there's never been a shortage of "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrites in politics.
But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.
Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.
"But Glenn. ... Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don't want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates."
"But Glenn. ... You don't understand. If we don't seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election."
"But Glenn. .... The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don't let their voices be heard."
If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let's talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let's talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let's talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.
Americans aren't disenfranchised because our leaders won't count votes in a couple of states. They're disenfranchised because our leaders aren't doing their jobs. They're disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.
In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I've patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a "do-over," but quite honestly, they're not arguments at all. They're excuses. If this race wasn't so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.
But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.
In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.
Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules." And Brazile knows a little something about that ... she ran Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.
Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.
Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it's time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.
After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Okay, I stole the above title from this story; but I'm glad to see people finally agreeing with me on the whole FL/MI debacle: they knew the rules. Roland Martin, who wrote this article makes a strong point that FL/MI do not deserve a chance to re-vote, and that the people crying fowl now, are the same ones who did nothing when FL/MI were penalized in the first place.
So, at the end of the day, as I've previously mentioned, the votes either shouldn't count at all, or the delegates should be split 50/50. Our country - no matter what the ostriches running our government with their heads buried in the sand say - is in a recession. We're spending billions of dollars on a war that should have ended/never begun years ago. People are cashing out their 401Ks with alarming frequency, and suffering the taxes/penalties, to pay off their mortgages and somehow save their homes. Gas costs more than a Grande Mocha at Starbucks (at least here in TN). With all that, plus more not listed, taken into account, FL/MI want someone to come up with $20 - $30 Million to pay for another election. Boy, sounds like a perfectly logical solution to me. That's sarcasm, folks, just in case you were wondering.
In the end, the votes from FL/MI (much to Hillary's dismay) do not currently count, and should never count. She - along with all the other politicals whining right now - did not oppose the sanctions in the first place. She/they do not get a 'do-over'. We're not in preschool. Sometimes, life is just tough, and people need to learn to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Have a nice day!
Posted by Scott at 11:32 AM
You have to read this to believe it!
My comments: Get a life!
Posted by Scott at 7:03 AM
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I was hoping for a day off from politics. I refrained from watching politics on television this weekend, and resisted the urge yesterday to view stories on the Internet. I obviously failed in that endeavor.
Two stories from cnn.com - Obama advisors says . . . and Obama camp hammers . . . are the two posts in question.
First Story: Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.
Obama's campaign - justifiably - wants Hillary to repudiate Ms. Ferraro's comments. After all, Obama recently had an advisor resign because of her monster comment about Hillary. The question is: will Hillary comply, when in fact, Ms. Ferraro is one of her topfundraisers? Money talks! Hillary needs money to keep her campaign going. Will another Hillary double standard (i.e., MI/FL delegate debacle) ensue? Will Hillary not expect the same standards of her campaign staff that she allegedly demands of Barack's campaign staff? Only time will tell.
Second Story: Barack Obama's presidential campaign took some of its most pointed jabs to date at Hillary Clinton's claim of experience, circulating a memo to reporters Tuesday morning from former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig that suggests the New York senator uses "false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.
Basically, Hillary believes she has the experience to be President. Obama believes she is exaggerating those claims. Hillary thinks she has passed the 'Commander-in-Chief' test. Obama does not believe she has passed that test. It is a classic case of he/she said without a clear winner in sight. Personally, I don't think anyone is truly qualified/experience enought to be President. It is a job that basically sucks the soul out of a person and ages them quickly. It is not an easy job to do.
Is Obama unjustified in attacking Hillary like this? No. Hillary is basing her campaign on her experience and constantly attacking Barack's alleged lack of experience. If she does not have the experience she claims to have . . . well, I don't think I need to draw a picture to point out what that makes her.
In the end, I count the months until the end of election so sanity can prevail again. I'm not sure what the media will do once all is said and done, I guess go back to making Brittney and Paris the top stories of the day. Gee, something to look forward to . . .
Thursday, March 06, 2008
I have so many responses to the title question, all brought about by this article. In the end, the FL/MI voters should - unfortunate for them - have to vote again. Case in point: Obama was not on the ballot in MI. The decision was made for the delegates not to count in those States well in advance of the primary. Many voters - again see linked article - did not vote because they knew their votes did not count. Shouldn't they get the chance to have their votes count? The only fair way for this to happen is for both States to re-hold a primary, have both candidates names on the ballot, and allow everyone a fair solution to the problem at hand.
Posted by Scott at 2:46 PM
- If you say fudge in place of f&%#, doesn't it mean the same thing?
- If you say shoot in place of sh*&, doesn't it mean the same thing?
The answer: Yes!!!
So, if everybody in this town starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, heck and whatever other sugar-coated word they can think of, aren't they still cussing? Of course they are still cussing. The only reason f&%# or sh*& are nasty words, is because someone, at some point in history, decided that those words - and many like them - were nasty. Maybe it was because of how they sounded or some other inane reason; but whatever the reason, the negative connotation on the word is society driven. Sooner or later, if everybody starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, etc., those words too will have negative connotations associated with them as well.
So, the whole no-cussing thing - again, admirable - is seemingly pointless in the long run since society will, eventually, negatively connotate those words. Just my theory.
Posted by Scott at 8:01 AM
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
- Technically, Obama has more delegates at this point in the game; so, he should get the presidential nod, and Hillary - if Obama choses - would get the vice president option, not the other way around.
- What in the heck do the people of OH have to do with who is President?
Okay, I know the whole theory that who OH chooses is normally President, but there's a first time for everything, so OH might just be wrong. OH does not choose my vote. I believe Hillary is suffering from the same delusion as current President Bush when he announced after the 2004 election that "America has chosen!" No, America did not choose, only 51% of American's chose. The logic of politicians is scary!
In another article Hillary makes the claim that she would be President. Again, definite problems with her line of thinking. Personally, right now, the country has chosen Barack Obama, not Hillary. Go figure.
Posted by Scott at 11:23 AM