Friday, February 20, 2004
Go Nader!!!!!!!
Yahoo! News - Nader to Announce Decision on 2004 Bid
Yeeee Haaaaa!!!!! PLEASE vote for Nader. Please!!!!!!!!
Yeeee Haaaaa!!!!! PLEASE vote for Nader. Please!!!!!!!!
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
Best of::
"In 1991 Kerry voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government."
What a scum bag, partisan, ass. Kerry is an absolutely, unprincipled clown. I think that his entire being can be fairly and accurately summed up in that he "protested" the Vietnam war by throwing someone else's medals over the fence at the Capitol in DC. He's a fake!
Sadly, the Democrats today are so convinced of their righteousness that they are willing to lie to achieve their ends: Think Global Warming, Vouchers, Tax Cuts, Welfare, Kerry's protesting of the Vietnam War, PETA, NAMBLA, etc.... When you have to lie about the realities of the world in order to gain support, you are engaging in the greatest of hypocrisies. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It's elementary, however, the Dems truly believe that we, the American populous, cannot be left to fend for ourselves and it is only they who can effectively save us from self-annihilation. The real problem here is that in order to gain the requisite amount of governing power, they must distort the facts of the debate. If they are truly running on principles, why must they lie to achieve their ends? I'll tell you: Because they don't care if they are wrong. They know what they feel and what should be. They want it now, regardless!
This is why we must be vigilantly conservative in our actions. Yes, I agree, sometimes change does not come quickly enough. The black citizenry of this great country waited too long for change, for example. However, Americans must look to the future and in doing so, be willing to sacrifice the "good" of some for the good of the many over time. 'Tis not socialism of which I speak. It is the idea that by carefully weighing the outcomes that policy changes will bring in the future, we can minimize our risks of moving in the wrong direction. It is almost impossible to right a misdirected policy and by enacting such changes in a quick and emotional manner, we run the risk of launching that which we cannot correct.
Emotional and "progressive" policy changes are reactionary (this is not to say that they do not attempt to correct the status quo, which is often unfair or repressive) and lead to reactionary fixes once it is shown that they missed their mark. Conservative progress is the key. Yes, some may miss out on the benefits of the eventually enacted changes in policy if we move slowly, however, we minimize the risks associated with misdirection and thus provide the best possible outcomes for the many in the future.
Check in soon for the 60's architecture paradigm.
"In 1991 Kerry voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government."
What a scum bag, partisan, ass. Kerry is an absolutely, unprincipled clown. I think that his entire being can be fairly and accurately summed up in that he "protested" the Vietnam war by throwing someone else's medals over the fence at the Capitol in DC. He's a fake!
Sadly, the Democrats today are so convinced of their righteousness that they are willing to lie to achieve their ends: Think Global Warming, Vouchers, Tax Cuts, Welfare, Kerry's protesting of the Vietnam War, PETA, NAMBLA, etc.... When you have to lie about the realities of the world in order to gain support, you are engaging in the greatest of hypocrisies. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It's elementary, however, the Dems truly believe that we, the American populous, cannot be left to fend for ourselves and it is only they who can effectively save us from self-annihilation. The real problem here is that in order to gain the requisite amount of governing power, they must distort the facts of the debate. If they are truly running on principles, why must they lie to achieve their ends? I'll tell you: Because they don't care if they are wrong. They know what they feel and what should be. They want it now, regardless!
This is why we must be vigilantly conservative in our actions. Yes, I agree, sometimes change does not come quickly enough. The black citizenry of this great country waited too long for change, for example. However, Americans must look to the future and in doing so, be willing to sacrifice the "good" of some for the good of the many over time. 'Tis not socialism of which I speak. It is the idea that by carefully weighing the outcomes that policy changes will bring in the future, we can minimize our risks of moving in the wrong direction. It is almost impossible to right a misdirected policy and by enacting such changes in a quick and emotional manner, we run the risk of launching that which we cannot correct.
Emotional and "progressive" policy changes are reactionary (this is not to say that they do not attempt to correct the status quo, which is often unfair or repressive) and lead to reactionary fixes once it is shown that they missed their mark. Conservative progress is the key. Yes, some may miss out on the benefits of the eventually enacted changes in policy if we move slowly, however, we minimize the risks associated with misdirection and thus provide the best possible outcomes for the many in the future.
Check in soon for the 60's architecture paradigm.
The End of Blackness: From Frontpage
Interview: Read It!:
"For too many blacks (African American is just too unwieldy), Afrocentrism means I thumb my nose at Western culture. It's a rejection of white people, not an embrace of something else that lives and breathes. It's a way to punish America for mistreating us by pretending to opt out while availing themselves of every morsel of their American, Western rights and benefits."
"You can’t call yourself Afrocentric without studying the true history and traditions of Africa (that enormous place with all sorts of contradictory traditions), without taking part in the new discoveries that are being made about its lost intellectual traditions and output, without at least knowing and grappling with the significance of such things as that Classical Arabic was the language of knowledge in the Middle East and Africa before the Europeans came. At a minimum, you have to visit there as often as possible and many so-called Afrocentrics are horrified by Africa and just as racist against it as any Klansman."
"To complain that something is Eurocentric, without explaining why that is unhelpful or wrong in any particular situation and without being able to explain what an Afrocentric point of view on that issue is, is not Afrocentrism. It’s just making a nuisance of yourself, its just being a naysayer. I always chuckle when someone draped in Kente cloth from hat to shoes gets hysterical about ‘western rationality’. Ok, what is African rationality? I have yet to get an answer. Being Afrocentric should be about how you live YOUR life, how YOU see the world, not about how others should live theirs or why theirs is less worthy."
"For too many blacks (African American is just too unwieldy), Afrocentrism means I thumb my nose at Western culture. It's a rejection of white people, not an embrace of something else that lives and breathes. It's a way to punish America for mistreating us by pretending to opt out while availing themselves of every morsel of their American, Western rights and benefits."
"You can’t call yourself Afrocentric without studying the true history and traditions of Africa (that enormous place with all sorts of contradictory traditions), without taking part in the new discoveries that are being made about its lost intellectual traditions and output, without at least knowing and grappling with the significance of such things as that Classical Arabic was the language of knowledge in the Middle East and Africa before the Europeans came. At a minimum, you have to visit there as often as possible and many so-called Afrocentrics are horrified by Africa and just as racist against it as any Klansman."
"To complain that something is Eurocentric, without explaining why that is unhelpful or wrong in any particular situation and without being able to explain what an Afrocentric point of view on that issue is, is not Afrocentrism. It’s just making a nuisance of yourself, its just being a naysayer. I always chuckle when someone draped in Kente cloth from hat to shoes gets hysterical about ‘western rationality’. Ok, what is African rationality? I have yet to get an answer. Being Afrocentric should be about how you live YOUR life, how YOU see the world, not about how others should live theirs or why theirs is less worthy."
Nealz Nuze Today's Nuze
Boortz!!:
"You might have a variety of reasons for wanting to push this gay marriage concept, but equal protection under the law certainly isn't one of them. I, as a straight male, do not have one single right under the law that you don't also enjoy. Not one.
You say that you aren't free to marry your gay lover? Well, guess what. I'm not free to marry another man either. Same rights. Equal protection. All single men are free to marry single women. All single women are free to marry single men. Men are not free to marry men .. ditto for women. Same rights. Equal protection."
"You might have a variety of reasons for wanting to push this gay marriage concept, but equal protection under the law certainly isn't one of them. I, as a straight male, do not have one single right under the law that you don't also enjoy. Not one.
You say that you aren't free to marry your gay lover? Well, guess what. I'm not free to marry another man either. Same rights. Equal protection. All single men are free to marry single women. All single women are free to marry single men. Men are not free to marry men .. ditto for women. Same rights. Equal protection."
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Google Search: "conservative athiests"
Wow, Only 38 hits on the world wide web's biggest, baddest, search engine.
Does this mean that I am to forever caucus with the Jesus cult? (No offense sweety!) I am living proof that conservative values need not be derived from a "biblical world view," whatever the hell that might be. Conservatism derives most properly from a positive vision of the future combined with a healthy respect for the realities of the present. It's called logic!!!!!!
I case your wondering if'n I might be some angry and confused non-believer, I'll be glad to engage any of my readers in a "who knows the bible?" cage match. Any time...
Does this mean that I am to forever caucus with the Jesus cult? (No offense sweety!) I am living proof that conservative values need not be derived from a "biblical world view," whatever the hell that might be. Conservatism derives most properly from a positive vision of the future combined with a healthy respect for the realities of the present. It's called logic!!!!!!
I case your wondering if'n I might be some angry and confused non-believer, I'll be glad to engage any of my readers in a "who knows the bible?" cage match. Any time...
Tolerance Review
If one were to ask, in this day of mandated tolerance where acceptance and celebration of anything deviant is almost mandatory, the following question: "Where is the push for tolerance ofracism, homophobia, crazy right-wing-wacky Xtians, and the ideals of conservativism?," what would the answer be?
I love Annie Coulter: What a Way With Words!
Read Her:
"Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty : hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte."
Side Note: Hysterical comes from the Greek Hysterikos,: a condition particular to women thought to be caused by the uterus. Dems are often Chicky.
Also, it is important to note that former Senator Cleland has never claimed to have lost his limbs in combat. Indeed, other than being a raving lefty lunatic, I think that he is a fine man who has long served his country with honor and dignity.
"Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty : hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte."
Side Note: Hysterical comes from the Greek Hysterikos,: a condition particular to women thought to be caused by the uterus. Dems are often Chicky.
Also, it is important to note that former Senator Cleland has never claimed to have lost his limbs in combat. Indeed, other than being a raving lefty lunatic, I think that he is a fine man who has long served his country with honor and dignity.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
John F. Kerry: Intrument of Torture!
"Best of" February 18, 2004:
"Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans. The Los Angeles Times reports on Kerry's April 22, 1971, appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which we noted last week:
Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had 'raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.' He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .
Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.
During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"
"Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans. The Los Angeles Times reports on Kerry's April 22, 1971, appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which we noted last week:
Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had 'raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.' He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .
Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.
During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"
The reality of outsourcing
Bruce Bartlett:
"'One facet of increased services trade is the increased use of offshore outsourcing in which a company relocates labor-intensive service industry functions to another country. ... Whereas imported goods might arrive by ship, outsourced services are often delivered using telephone lines or the Internet. The basic economic forces behind the transactions are the same, however. When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically.'
One would have a hard time finding a reputable economist anywhere who disagrees with this analysis. No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad. Nations get rich by concentrating on doing the things they do best and letting others produce those things they can produce better and more cheaply. It is called the specialization of labor, and it is the foundation for economic growth. That is why even Democratic economists like Janet Yellen, Laura Tyson, Brad DeLong and Robert Reich have come to Mankiw's defense. "
"'One facet of increased services trade is the increased use of offshore outsourcing in which a company relocates labor-intensive service industry functions to another country. ... Whereas imported goods might arrive by ship, outsourced services are often delivered using telephone lines or the Internet. The basic economic forces behind the transactions are the same, however. When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically.'
One would have a hard time finding a reputable economist anywhere who disagrees with this analysis. No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad. Nations get rich by concentrating on doing the things they do best and letting others produce those things they can produce better and more cheaply. It is called the specialization of labor, and it is the foundation for economic growth. That is why even Democratic economists like Janet Yellen, Laura Tyson, Brad DeLong and Robert Reich have come to Mankiw's defense. "
Michelle Malkin: Yum
Boortz = Logical; Dems = Illogical
Mandatory Daily Reading:
"Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"
"Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
The equality dogma
Thomas Sowell Rocks!:
"Recognizing the equal humanity of all peoples, and a need to treat everyone with decency and compassion, is very different from insisting on a dogma that their performances are all equal."
"Recognizing the equal humanity of all peoples, and a need to treat everyone with decency and compassion, is very different from insisting on a dogma that their performances are all equal."
Gov.
The purpose of Government is to assure a level playing field for the participants in the game of life. This includes provision of laws that effectively punish those who break societies rules. No provision should be made for the welfare of the state’s citizenry except for those miminum incidents necessary that the best equipped and most industrious of the populous may engage their hearts, minds, and bodies in the pursuit of their own well-being.
