Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 December
2004 November
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Iran Seems To Think We Are Stupid |
| 12.08.04 (9:54 pm) [edit] |
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, finally a new story for the "What Are We, Stupid?" file. Iran said today that the plutonium it is producing will be used for FOOD. What in the WORLD?!? It said it's making frosted blueberry Pop-Tarts with it. POP-TARTS?!? How friggin obvious. One thing, they get specific with it. How stupid. Just to show how stupid the French are: "French Foreign Minister Michel Bernier, who, like his predecessor Dominique de Villepin, is a man, said allowing Iran to continue making plutonium was 'a humanitarian concession designed to show our goodwill to our new peaceful friend. By permitting the plutonium production, we show Iran that we trust them not to bomb our people. This allows us to achieve security through unilateral vulnerability.'" Not to bomb "our people"?!?! Who are your people, you idiot? You know, France, if it weren't for us, you would still be in ruins after WWII. First, you oppose getting a vicious dictator out of power. Then, you say that a partner country of Iraq making plutonium will achieve security?!? I think France should be exiled to Antarctica. They should not be allowed to be a country. They should be ashamed of themselves. France... go to hell.
|
|
|
| |
| Voting Errors Not Why Kerry Lost |
| 11.16.04 (10:28 am) [edit] |
|
Alright people. Yes, there were voting errors in Ohio. Ohio isn't the issue. Ohio isn't why Kerry lost. Quit whining that Democrats are always being screwed over by voting errors. If Kerry had won the South, Ohio wouldn't have even mattered! The fact is that Kerry was WAY too liberal for most Southern voters. Kerry didn't win a single Southern state. The South holds 148 electoral votes. If Kerry had even won two, then Ohio wouldn't have mattered. Think about it: yes, Ohio has 20 electoral votes. However, if Kerry would have won Tennessee and North Carolina, for example, that would have been 26. Ohio would not have mattered for him. To say that polling errors constitute the ONLY reason Kerry lost is ridiculous and ignorant. I think the Democrat party needs to worry more about how to win back the South than squabbling about voting errors.
|
|
|
| |
| Currently Reading: "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" |
| 11.07.04 (4:06 pm) [edit] |
|
So, I got to get out of this one-horse-that-laid-down town for a weekend and went to the bookstore in my hometown. I got to see all the new stuff they (Books-A-Million) had. I saw a few things I liked: The Conservative Guide to Liberal Lies, The I Hate Republicans Reader, a Bill Clinton talking doll... all this was far overshadowed by one part of my experience. There happened to be ONE copy of Zell Miller's book left. ONE COPY! Needless to say, I snatched it up and am currently on page 12. I tend to be agreeing with what he is talking about. He also uses statistics in a very familiar way. He states his case much like the opening speech in a debate. Zell is quite convincing in his argument that the Democrat Party has lost the Southern vote. Good Ole Zell makes his case using statistics such as the fact that in Hubert Humphrey in 1976 carried Texas only because of Lyndon Johnson. Also, he made the case that the only Southern state Jimmy Carter in his reelection bid was his home state of Georgia. That 3 separate election years have seen NO Southern states carried by a Democrat. That Al Gore lost HIS OWN STATE, lost Clinton's state, and even lost big time Democrat bulwark West Virginia. Zell makes my case for me: the Democrat party no longer has the Southern vote and it is time the Democrat party woke up and did what it should. He made mention to when JFK and LBJ passed the budget in 1963, they did so with tax cuts across the board, including the top bracket. Zell Miller was voted the most popular governor in history by a leading magazine and left office with an 85% approval rating. What did Zell do? Well, he established the HOPE Scholarship, set up the Georgia Head Start program, and also provided the catalyst for many other educational reforms. How? By cutting taxes AND spending. See, there is a way to do that. Zell downsized government personnel, cut frivoulous spending from Georgia's budget, and cut taxes across the board. But hey, let's think about what people want. Obviously, they want morality and tax cuts. Conservative Democrats are definitely for morality, but realize that gays should be given equal access. How can one person sit and cuss and smoke and drink (destroying his/her temple of God) and then start to tell homosexuals how to live their lives. People that do that need to begin worrying about their OWN spiritual destinies rather than trying to tell a person who loves another person of the same sex that they can't love that person, that it isn't right, and that they cannot have access to their partners in emergencies, have access to inheritances, or even get insurance. Homosexuals are considered "high-risk" candidates for insurance. That in and of itself is horrible. I know a chain smoking 57 year old who is also an avid alcoholic who got a $10, 000 life insurance policy and a non-smoking, non-drinking 45 year old homosexual male who was denied 4 times in 4 days. This nation needs to change; Zell has the right idea of how we can change.
|
|
|
| |
| A comment or two on "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" by Ronald Reagan |
| 11.04.04 (5:20 pm) [edit] |
|
Just today, I stumbled upon a simply stated, yet well articulated, writing by the late Ronald Reagan. Then-president Reagan sent in a much-needed policy essay addressing the moral dilemma of abortion; this essay was done in the light of the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision ruling abortion to be a Constitutional right. Having been a liberal before, I was a supporter of Roe until I stepped back and looked at it from another perspective. I realized I had fallen off of a necessary moral pathway. This straight-and-narrow pathway is called the Walk. As a life-long Christian, I was raised in the very accepting, very lenient United Methodist Church. The Book of Discipline was a second Bible to me. I still, as a Conservative Democrat, accept homosexuals, those who get divorces, those who get abortions, murderers, etc., because I have been taught to love my fellow human as I love myself. However, this doesn't mean we have to support these acts. Here, President Reagan makes a strong point that we SHOULD NOT accept the act of abortion, much less support it. From 1973 to 1983, Reagan said that "more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions" (Reagan, http://www.humanlifereview.com/" title="http://www.humanlifereview.com/" target="_blank"http://www.humanlifereview.co...). He went on to say that this total was more than ten times more than the number of Americans killed in wars. Let me repeat that: the number of unborn children killed by abortion in a span of only 10 years was 10 times more than all the total of Americans killed in wars over a span of 220-plus years. Now, is this not a crisis to the population of this world. For one thing, it will be a sad sight when the death rate is higher than the birth rate. What is hideous, purport, and ridiculous is that the deaths of innocent children by mothers having abortions aren't even included in U.S. death rates! Because some moron sitting in Washington D.C. saying that life begins at birth, innocent babies are killed every day and it doesn't even count against the death rates in this nation. Now, how can you feasibly tell me now that with the passage of Laci's Law -- a law designed to add an extra count of murder to an indictment if the victim was pregnant -- that life doesn't begin at conception? It's a legal case of having your cake and eating it too. How can a person who has killed a pregnant woman AND an unborn child get charged with murder and a person who aborts a child cannot? This is an outrage and another example of this stupid legal system leaving too much room for interpretation. I agree with Reagan's stance that abortion is a HUGE moral crisis for this nation. I also say this to the lawmakers in Congress: regardless of what other's believe, you have just made a law saying that an unborn child killed deserves a murder sentence. How does the method of killing matter? This nation needs a tough stance on abortion. It is now the time to take that stance. Call your politicians in Congress and chide them for trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Remind them that Laci's Law makes an unborn child, even barely conceived, a living person warranting a murder charge. Now is the time to act: thank you once again, Gipper, for showing us the real truth.
|
|
|
| |
| The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat |
| 11.04.04 (12:23 pm) [edit] |
|
How can the term "Conservative Democrat" be logically defined? This is the question many people ask when confronted with the term Conservative Democrat, and this is the question I will attempt to answer. First, a Conservative Democrat is NOT fully conservative. Conservatism is a belief system with emphasis on avoiding abrupt change and avoiding extremes, thus creating a harmonious balance of ideas. Liberalism plays a bit into the mindset of a Conservative Democrat, as the Democrat part implies. Zell Miller, the now retired senator from Georgia, penned a book recently that helped establish the ideology of the Conservative Democrat. In his book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, Miller notes how the Democrat party has drifted too far left, leaving Southern conservatives in the cold and changing what it doesn't necessarily need to. I agree with Miller's opinion that the Democrat party has lost its touch in the South. What happened to the days when the good ole Southern Democrats like Huey Long and Al Gore, Sr.? What happened to the days when Southern Democrats could actually relate to the people they know and love in their parts of their South? Zell realizes those days are gone, but not for good. Feasibly, those can be reborn. Also, Conservative Democrats are not always against change. Many Conservative Democrats support stem cell research and other progressive ideas. Conservative Democrats seek a balance between conservation and change. So, essentially, a Conservative Democrat shouldn't be a politician; he/she should be a public servant, elected to work with both sides to ensure proper representation for the people. Any questions? E-mail me at flyboy4life228@msn.com and pop a question about Conservative Democrats and search for groups near you.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
