Saturday, July 02, 2005

How do you define morality...?

Morality is a hard thing to define, the conservative right likes to define "American Family Values" as, well to be honest, something I don't understand. Morality in their mind includes the nuclear family and heterosexuality.

For the most part sexual deviance is considered immoral, but sexual deviance in their mind is non-heterosexual sex.

So gay marriage = unmoral.


Here is what I consider to be "immoral"

1. Starting a war on false information.
2. Changing the reason for war to meet the evidence. (the war was because Saddam Husein 'had' weapons of mass destruction)
3. Sending less soldiers then are required because of costs.
4. Illpreparing those soldiers for war. (no armor for the humvees)
5. Tax Breaks during a time of war (how do we pay for the war?)
6. Over extending reservists and national guard tours in Iraq (they're reservists for a reason)
7. Cutting vetran's benefits during war.
8. Claiming to support the troops when obviously you don't.

So let's review... homosexuality, bad, death, maiming, destruction... good.

I wonder what Jesus would say?

Like a dog on a bone Bush accepts O'Connor's resignation.

There have been a few significant events of recent months, lets review them and then lets review how president bush reacted to them.

1. The tsunami which devistated Indonesia in December, tragic event, Bush's reaction time: 3 full days.

2. Deadly school shooting on Indian reservation, Bush's reaction time: over 3 full days.

3. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor resigns, bush reaction time: LESS THEN A DAY!!!!!

Where are this man's priorities?

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

HEY!!!! I want a raise.

Raises and anti-flag burning legislation... at least congress has its priorities in order. Wish I could simply vote for a raise and get one.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

You spin the truth round (like a record)

Ah, nothing like some good rhetoric on a Tuesday evening. Is it just me or has Bush ran out of new things to say? Its like the 2004 presidential campaign all over again.

How bout some truth, the truth is new. Let's hear the truth.

My favorite part involved bush talking about the terrorists attempting to reshape the middle east in their image, and toppling regimes... HEY! THAT'S US!

UGH and someone PLEASE make him stop saying tyranny... I wonder if he even knows what it means.

Liberty, tyranny, freedom... man someone read to many Captain America comics when he was a kid.

OH MY GOD! He just said "help the military family down the street" HELL YEAH help them, cause their military member won't be back any time soon.

God what a putz.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA a not so subtle attempt to get people to enlist, as you know military enlistment is at an all time low. Heh beg for it Georgie... beg for it.

Monday, June 27, 2005

How to Talk to a Conservative (If You Must)

Having argued with conservatives A LOT over the last 5 years, I will give you a few points on how to talk to a conservative, that is if you really want to.

Conservatives really have no grasp on reality, now they will tell you that liberals and Democrats have no grasp on reality, its all point of view, but given some conservative contradictions... well we'll see who has no grasp on reality.

First point:
Conservatives LOVE to blame Clinton for everything, and the "Clinton" excuse is what conservatives pull out of their ass when they are losing an argument. Well, when you are talking to a conservative and the inevitable "well, Clinton did (insert something the republican run congress did or didn't allow to happen here)..." argument comes up simply remind them that Clinton hasn't been President for the last 5 years.

Second point:
Conservatives love to support the troops, granted supporting the troops means slapping a "support the troops" magnetic sticker on their gas guzzling SUV. That's the extent of it. So, when you are talking to a conservative and they start droning on about how the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and that this is a justified war, suggest to them that they enlist. If this war is the right thing to do and is so justifiable then they should be running not walking to enlist in the Army and do their part in Iraq. When they decline, and come up with some lame excuse as to why they won't enlist (which they will do) politely inform them that they obviously don't believe that the war is justified, otherwise they would enlist. At this point the conversation ends...

This point I am so convinced of I want to carry enlistment forms with me to present to them at the time of the argument... just so I can see them squirm.

Do these clowns even talk to each other?

Rumsfeld: Insurgency could last decade... what? Didn't the "well respected" Vice-President Dick Cheney just recently say "the Iraqi insurgency was in its 'last throes,'"

Don't these clowns talk to each other?!?

Its hard to take Dick Cheney seriously, he's a liar, and what's worse is he lies about things don't matter. When you lie at a debate about having never met a Senator of a congress YOU preside over, just to make political points, then photos and video turns of of at least 3 instances to contradict your obviously LIE... if you are willing to lie about something as inconsequential as this... what else are you willing to lie about?

Its hard staying impartial, really, it is, especially when things like this happen.

Trickle down economics? More like stranglehold economics.

Conservatives love trickle down economics, and why wouldn't they, it means more money for them. But here's the thing, trickle down economics DOESN'T WORK.

Trickle down economics, for those who don't know, is when you give more money to rich people, and they in turn give more money to the people below them, it trickles down from the top. Although, thinking about it, trickle is a good word to use, because like a trickle the money SLOWLY flows from the top, if at all.

The problem with trickle down economics is that it requires rich people to give more money away, either through business ventures or through increased salaries.

Ok, when have you ever known a rich person willing to give away money? In fact, this whole trickle down nonsense is BECAUSE rich people don't like giving away money.

Trickle down economics should be renamed stranglehold economics, because what happens is that tax cuts to the rich mean less money for the state and local governments, which means those taxes go up hence your costs increase. Case in point, crossing the Verazano bridge is now nine dollars, NINE DOLLARS to cross the bridge from Brooklyn into Staten Island, and as anyone can tell you, who the hell wants to go to Staten Island?

So bush, cuts federal taxes to the top 1%, problem is that that 1% pays the most taxes, its fair, they take the most advantage of what this country has to offer, they should pay more. So the states now have less money, the local governments have less money, so property taxes go up to offset that lost revenue. Property taxes go up, landlords have to increase rent to offset those costs, local businesses have to increase their costs to offset the increase in rent. Suddenly you are paying more and more money for everything.

So since trickle down economics doesn't work, how about this... we need a catchy name for it, because the media can't sell a plan without a catchy name, how about pyramid economics.

The concept is simple, give more money to those at the bottom, they spend more, business makes more money, everyone's happy. Or how about "toll plaza" economics, where 8 lanes of toll booths merge into two lanes of highway.

So "toll plaza" economics will work, and rich people will get more money, yes they will pay more taxes, but in the end they will make more money... why?

Ok, give someone with less money, more, and they will buy more, say a DVD player. Well if more DVD players are sold, the companies profits go up. The company's profits go up, their stock price goes up. The stock price goes up, the company hires more people, and increases their profit margin. The profit margin goes up the company's president's bonus goes up.

Wow, so simple it might work right?!? Well duh, any child could tell you that more people spending more money means more money for people at the top, problem is, most rich people are racists and don't like to give their money to poor people and minorities through social programs, which are paid for by taxes.

Granted rich people take advantage of social programs too, do they not drink clean water, drive on roads, do they not want the police to protect them and the fire department to put out their fires? So they not want their garbage taken away instead of piling up in front of their house?

All of these things are social programs.

So, the point of all of this is "trickle down" economics is crap, rich people are racists, and "toll plaza" economics is the way to go.

Sounds simple to me.