Tag Archives: democrat

My Anti-Clinton Bias

Posted on by
Reply

I voted Libertarian in 2000. I’ve never much liked the two party system that America has caught itself up into, but in 2004 I felt that Bush had so polarized the nation that voting for NotBush was an absolute necessity. When Conservatives started talking about Hilary running some a couple of years ago, I didn’t believe them. How could Democrats even think about running under the name Clinton after the absolute hell the media had put them through with his sex scandal? Clinton killed 16 civilians when he destroyed the headquarters of Radio Television Serbia in central Belgrade for distributing propaganda. He also killed 6 Iraqi civilians, including a famous artist, in a “retaliation” attack after the suppossed assassination attempt of Bush Sr. in Kuwait. He destroyed an important pharmaseutical plant in the Sudan that had meant the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He had been accussed by multiple women of being a rapist. Then there was the questionable last-minute pardon of Mark Rich and the disgraceful exit from the White House. Although none of these had any direct tie to Hillary, I always pictured them as a single political unit, and her re-entry into White House reflected a kind of tag-team mentality reminiscent of the Bush Dynasty. There are a lot of good, smart people out there who aren’t related to the former bad presidents we have had.

The YouTube debates were absolute crap and the snowman asking about global warming did not exactly help Conservatives take the issue more seriously. The AFL-CIO debate was a little better, but one person stood out as a question dodger and slogan beater and that was Hilary. And all the news comentators absolutely loved her for it. Chris Matthews referred to her “I’m your girl” comment as “post-feminist.” The other candidates made the usual number of bloopers and disputable claims. But by comparing the two using FactCheck.org, one can see that they rise the kind of lies and exaggerations normally found in a Republican debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html

http://www.factcheck.org/sunday_morning_missteps.html

I am just as determined to vote NotBush in 2008 as I was in 2004, but I’m not sure the complete catastrophe that was these last 7 years would make me want to vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils.

Selling Weapons to Arabs

Posted on by
Reply

The White House has been complaining about weapons coming into Iraq from Iran for a while now. The media pretty much lets this through unquestioned, condemning Iran as an enemy to peace. But in case you haven’t heard, there is a civil war going on in Iraq, so what do you expect? If Iraq was throwing a party, then Iran would be selling cakes. But what does not get mentioned is the fact that Saudi Arabia is also selling weapons. Now, the fact that there’s absolutely no news coverage of that fact might lead one to assume we were on the Sunni’s side. But in actuality, Iraq was already under the control of Iraq’s Sunni minority. Since Shi’ites are the majority population, “De-Bathification” and Democratization by their very definition means giving more power over to Shi’ites. Of course, this also means more power for Iran. The Sunnis, however, control the majority of Saudi Arabi’s oil, which makes them natural allies to the West.

After the Iranians rose up and expelled the tyrannical Shah that the U.S. had illegally replaced their legitimtely elected leader with, the Islamic Revolution began to inspire many of Iraq’s Shi’ites to rise up against Saddam’s Sunni-led government. Since the Ayatollah considered the U.S. the enemy, the Reagan administration allied with Saddam and gave him $40 Billion to help fund his WMD program to fight them. Hence the joke, “We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruciton. We have the receipts.” Additional money was spent in convincing Saddam not to ally with the Soviets, making him the third largest recepient of U.S. aid. A famous picture from 1983 shows Rumsfield shaking hands with the dictator. Around a million died and Iraq got into a $75 million debt. Saddam borrowed heavily from other Sunni-led states, much of it was from Kuwait, and since Saddam felt that Kuwait had been protected from the fighting, he argued that the debt should be forgiven. Naturally, Kuwait disagreed. Saddam thought that he could just take over the country and use their oil to help pay off the debt, but failed to realize that the New World Order would not allow this. The UN and Arab countries agreed to help the U.S. expel Saddam, but would not help take him out of power. When asked about taking Saddam out of power, Bush Sr. foolishly made a speech saying that the Iraqi people should do it themselves. Taking this as a que, the Kurds rose up, believing the U.S. would help, and got hit by a poison gas attack, killing some 5,000 civilians. According Iraq’s report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.

So what did the U.S. learn from all of this? I’ll let the following news articles speak for themselves:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/325981_moneyforarabs02.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/01/opinion/main3122492.shtml

Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Clinton on Energy

Posted on by
1

One thing I hate about campaign p is the complete lack of information about candidates, from television to newspapers to radio to campaign signs. Why does every sign say nothing other than “Vote ____ “, as if it’s a product to be purchased? Would it kill them to just add a quick fact below the name that actually articulates the reason for this subliminal command should be fulfilled? Every one of those signs implicitly says that they have more respect for the effects of commercialization on the subconcious than to reveal a position that might make people vote based on concious reason. Democrats just spend more time kissing each other’s asses than talking about what makes them distinct from the others, and the Republicans keep trying to out-Regean and out-Jack Bauer their own party affiliates.

So I was glad to see that the Daily Kos put up a graph comparing some of the Democrat nominees on their energy platforms. I’d like to see something similar only compare to other nominees, including Republican nominees.

Further down on the site you can find a video of O’Reilly red-faced, screaming about how much “hate” the Daily Kos has.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Energy policy area Edwards Obama Richardson Clinton
Plan detail level Medium Low High Low
CO2 reduction goal 15% by 2020, 80% by 2050 80% by 2050 20% by 2020, 80% by 2040, 90% by 2050 No policy
Post-Kyoto Yes: binding greenhouse reductions in trade agreements After we take first step; help developing countries with our technology Mandatory world-wide limits, help finance leapfrogging in developing countries No policy
CAFE 40 mpg by 2016 4% annual increase 35 mpg by 2016, 50 by 2020 No policy
Renewable electric standard 25% by 2025 No policy 30% by 2020, 50% by 2040 20% by 2020
Bio-fuels Goal of 65 billion gallons/year by 2025 (corn ethanol first, then cellulosic) National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: reduce fossil carbon in fuels by 5% in 2015, 10% in 2020; expand E85 and biodiesel life-cycle low carbon fuel standard – 30% lower by 2020 Part of Strategic Energy Fund
Carbon tax or cap and trade? Cap and trade Cap and trade Cap and trade Cap and trade
“Clean coal” freeze on new coal power until sequestration in place No freeze; use cap and trade market to decide by 2020 new plants have to emit 90% below today’s Fund R&D on “clean coal”
Energy R&D $13 billion/year New Energy Economy fund No policy Energy and Climate Investment Trust Fund – several billion dollars/year Part of Strategic Energy Fund
Solar/wind production tax credit make permanent No policy 10-year extension; add storage technology tax credit No policy
Oil company subsidies Repeal No subsidies that increase global warming Invite oil companies to become energy companies Eliminate tax breaks, create new “Strategic energy fund” – oil companies can invest in renewable energy themselves, or pay into the fund
Distributed generation $5000 tax credit, R&D, smart meters, smart grids No policy No policy No policy
Public transportation No policy No policy increase funding, tax incentives for passengers No policy
Buildings weatherizing and other efficiency No policy goal of 50% savings by 2030; incentives and regulations on retrofits and new buildings No policy
Improving Efficiency Goal-based; cut US govt energy use 20%, add R&D dollars Market-based; don’t prejudge what works Strong federal standards; efficiency resource program through utilities Market-based; invest in R&D
Other ideas GreenCorps – volunteers adding renewable/efficient infrastructure domestic auto makers get health care assistance for efficiency investments 100 mpg car, smart growth, bike and walking trails, more specifics “Apollo Project-like program” for energy independence

Glenn Beck

Posted on by
1

What do you do with a hard-line conservative recovering from substance abuse after losing his mother and brother to suicide? Give him a liberal-bashing show on CNN Headline News of course.

Rush Limbaugh has long been considered too offensive for television. He couldn’t even keep his quibs about racial bias silent as a football commentator for ESPN and was let go in 2003 after suggesting that the media only gave positive performance reviews for the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback because he was black (something Rush still bitterly complains about constantly on his radio program). Yet Glenn Beck, who often describes himself as a recovering alcohol and drug addict, runs a show on CNN Headline News that is almost a carbon copy of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. Now, we all know that accepting Jesus or Muhammed or some higher power has long been considered one of the unwritten rules of substance recovery, and in Beck’s case, it was the power of Joseph Smith who helped him overcome his troubles, but only lately has mental instability become accepted as a qualification for news commentary.

By his own admission, Beck has not completely come to terms with his own emotional demons within himself, yet he has taken the attitude that he has figured the rest of the world out (the rest of the world being far less complex than his own mind). You see, the UN is like the Third Reich, environmentalism is the new eugenics, and Al Gore is Hitler. No doubt many manic depressives agree with these amazing and thought-provoking theories. And since those crazy left-wing hippies at CNN have slowly begun to realize that a great deal of the American population hold similar ideas to those who are mentally ill, they decided to give him his own news platform to propell these wonderful ideas throughout the American conciousness.

Here’s what Beck had to say on the subject during his radio show:

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government… You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler’s plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore’s enemy, the U.N.’s enemy: global warming… Then you get the scientists — eugenics. You get the scientists — global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, ‘That’s not right.’ And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”

Now you know he’s up to date, since it was only a couple of months ago that conservatives found out that climate scientists were fudging their data in order to get more grants. The new common knowledge that disproves global warming is that all the scientists are fudging their data because they want to globalize the world under the U.N. This of course, has long been predicted by conservative radio-show prophets who forsaw that the Anti-Christ would come and try to take over the world through the U.N. This proves that the Bible tells us that America must only commit itself to its own interests and not allow devil-worshipping institutions like the World Court take control away from our soverign rights.

Of course, there are a few minor problems with this comparison. One is Hitler was head of his government whereas Al Gore is not. Another is climate science is peer-reviewed by other scientists from around the world rather than political appointees of one nation. But in this case, nearly all the climate scientists are in on it. So it’s no wonder that the Bush Administration has been forced to continuously block reports from their own agency:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0927-10.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml

Obviously, since eugenics was once considered “science,” we can never rely on this undemocratic form of tyranny ever again. This would explain other “scientific” reports that the Bush Administration has so wisely blocked, like this one on health care that was blocked in 2006 for “being too political.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801420.html?hpid=topnews

Obviously, liberals are no more interested in scientific purity than conservatives. Take their irrational stand against sociobiology, the idea that IQ is determined by evolution. Richard Hernnstein’s book The Bell Shaped Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, funded by the conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, in 1994, argued that classes were becoming more divided by intelligence rather than racial or social disadvantage. Conservatives touted the book as proof that Affirmative Action was unnecessary while liberals roundly criticized it. So if liberals could take such an anti-scientific stance against eugenics then, how do we know they won’t take an anti-scientific stance for eugenics in the future?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n3_v122/ai_16424249

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

Zero Tolerance

Posted on by
3

When the government talks about “Zero Tolerance” in the War on Drugs, they are of course only talking about some drugs, and not only that, but some people who sell some drugs. For example, when Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, there were no drugs because the penalty for growing them was death. Now, 90% of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan, making it the number one export, but you won’t hear anything about it being a problem because that would endanger the lives of 3 million farmers. Of course the US could care less about that — they’ve destroyed the lives of plenty of cocoa growers in South America — but that would in turn bring public resentment against us, which undermines our war efforts there.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-05-20-edit_N.htm

During the Iran-Contra scandal, the CIA made an investigation of itself, and although it never admitted to selling cocaine to fund revolutionaries, they did admit to “getting in bed” with drug dealers in order to achieve their objectives.

The threat of drugs has also been used to further the immigration agenda of conservatives through the story of the cops who shot a Mexican drug carrier in the butt when he tried to evade them. The border agents, knowing what they did was wrong, picked up the shell casings and then filed a false report to cover up their actions, yet conservatives have tried to make these would-be murderers into heroes. Of course, if the man was white it would never have been a big story, but aside from the cover-up, it’s just what conservatives need to get the racist right wound up on their immigration policy, so the part about the coverup is routinely dropped. But ask those same conservatives if they would have appreciated it if their own son or daughter was shot while trying to flee the police in order to escape a drug conviction and that the cops then tried to cover the crime up and i’m sure you’d hear a different story.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200701/NAT20070126a.html

Immigration is of course a worthy topic of discussion, but rather than blaming liberals for convincing Bush (as if he would listen), conservatives should look at their own platform. Democrats may have a stronger Mexican vote, but its the business sector that has all the influence with the Republican Party and its in their best interests to keep illegals coming across the border because it means cheap labor for them. While conservatives are talking about constructing a giant wall and creating a mass transit system to move millions of illegals out of the country, they could have simply devised a system of making employers check their employees before they hire them. If illegals couldn’t get jobs here, they’d go back on their own, but that won’t happen because its not profitable for the Republicans who matter.

Meanwhile, the War on Drugs have gotten so out of hand that our Right to Free Speech has not become its newest casualty. Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old adult, displayed a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” in his car. The message is nonsensical and obviously made only for humor’s sake. The principal of his school took it down and suspended the student, despite the fact that the car was on a public sidewalk outside the jurisdiction of the school. But apparently jurisdiction and free speech are meaningless as long as there is a “reasonable” chance that a message implicitly promotes the illegal use of drugs, according to Bush’s Chief Justice appointee, John Roberts. As Justice John Paul Stevens said, “This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.” The Bush Administration is, naturally, on the side of the principal, and its hard to doubt that John Roberts got the message before his own decision on the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

But this opens up another case, while we’re sacrificing our civil liberties to the War of Drugs, the government is aiding and abedding the “enemy” for the sake of the War on Terror. Regardless of the circumstances, helping some drug deals while putting others away is nothing more than Protectionism, keeping prices high for one supplier by doing away with the competition. The gospels say, “you can not serve two masters,” and in the same way, you can’t fight two enemies with equal zeal. If the War on Terror really is the most pressing concern America has, then we shouldn’t have the time and money to be fighting this other unwinnable war. By legalizing or at least decriminalizing drugs, it would help bring down the black market and help put an end to all the violence associated with the drug trade. But that would be “declaring defeat.” Of course we haven’t even had a president who “just said no” in the past 15 years, but if its one thing conservatives are good at, its deluding themselves into believing in a an undefinable victory far, far into the future.