The Specter- Spectacle
President Obama said:
"..I realize that Sen. Specter will never be a ‘rubber stamp’ for the democratic party, nor will he agree with all of my administrations decisions..."
Barack Obama; you got that right..!!
Having lived in Pennsylvania for most of Arlen Specter senate time, I can tell you that Specter WILL NEVER agree with any party; all the time.
In some cases, this could be viewed as a GOOD thing. I, myself, do not always see eye to eye with the republican party.
However, in Specter’s case, "it wasn’t always a GOOD thing.."
Like when most republicans were getting ready to impeach President Clinton; Arlen Specter was lecturing on European law as reasons NOT TO impeach Clinton.
(Do we live in Europe, Arlen..??)
When MOST republicans had turned away from the spending / stimulus bill; Specter signed on and made speeches in favor of them.
There are so many, many more examples, but let me just say this...
Here in Pennsylvania; we have always felt that Specter represented the liberal / moderate voters in the eastern (Philadelphia) side of the state.
Travel just a couple hundred miles west of Philadelphia, and you have millions of conservatives who own farms, small business, oil well services, etc. We never felt that Specter had our interests in mind.
"So, why was Specter supported by Pennsylvania republicans, all these years, if you didn’t feel that he represented you..??"
Simple...
Because (the republican): Arlen Specter, could BEAT the democrats in every election. (Year after year; for decades.)
I can’t speak for every Pennsylvanian, but many of us felt that his senate seat could easily go to the democrats. Arlen Specter could beat all democratic challengers, election after election.
"It was better to have a ‘part-time’ republican in that seat, than a ‘full-time’ democrat.."
That explains why many of us republicans supported Specter, all these years. (Including myself, however; I did vote for Toomey in the last election and had planned on voting for Toomey again in 2010.) Toomey- Specter’s republican challenger.
Really, this is "much to do about nothing."
Yes, I understand that this is a "big pat on the back for democrats." And democrats should take it that way..!!
If a prominent democrat switched to the republican party, I would be high-lighting it as well.
However, in reality, when you pull away the "party atmosphere", Specter has always been a "headache" for the republican party.
Now Specter will be a "headache" for the democrats.
Just when you need that "one vote" to tip things into your favor; Specter votes the wrong way. (I know, I am speaking from experience.)
I will give you one quick example:
Arlen Specter is NOT in favor of having hearings on Bush administration officials over "so- called" torture of detainees.
Specter is against hearings on "enhanced interrogations." (Specter said so in an interview just this past Monday.) So he will not vote with the far left, who are seeking the revenge of Bush.
When you look at it; not much has changed. We still have a guy that "might" vote with us. Or he might vote against us. It doesn’t really matter whether he has a "D" in front of his name, or an "R".
"..So what is the BIG deal..!!"
Arlen Specter was pissed off at the republican party.
Specter was pissed because the RNC was backing Pat Toomey for Specter’s senate seat. Pat Toomey was ahead of Specter by double digits. (Hell, Toomey was ahead of Specter BEFORE Toomey even said that he would run.)
Specter: who wants to end his senate career with a big fan fare, trumpets blowing, and free chicken dinners for everybody; Specter didn’t want to end his LONG senate career LOSING to a "nobody" republican (Toomey) in the primaries...
So, Specter said: "Screw you, all you republicans that backed me, all those years.."
Specter said: "..I’m getting my free chicken dinners and trumpets. President Obama,VP Joe Bidden, and Gov. Ed Rendel will make sure that I will keep my senate seat.."
Specter said: "..Screw you republicans, I don’t need you anymore. I will retire from the senate on my own terms. I don’t need your little votes.."
Yes, the democrats have won themselves a prize..!!
But is it really a prize..??
Would Arlen Specter favor the Obama administrations decision to fly Air Force One low over New York City, without telling anyone, and scare the SHIT out of everyone in New York City..??
No...
Specter is not that stupid.
Will Arlen Specter vote with the democrats on issues like health care, gay marriage, and hearings on the Bush interrogations methods..??
Democrats would have better odds if they flipped a coin, than counting on Specter to support them.
Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic
(Note) For Obama’s next "photo op"; instead of flying a plane low over New York City and scaring everyone. Obama plans on having a large tanker truck drive through DC. This tanker truck will have the radioactive "skull and crossbones" symbol on the side of it. And driving the tanker truck will be an Arab man who is yelling: "Death to America.."
That will make a nice photo, for the president, of Americans running for their lives..!!
Religion in modern America
Religion in modern America
Newsweek claims that the Christian Religion is dead in America.
CNN proclaims that the battles for "morality" in America have all been lost by the "religious right."
The Huffington Post laughs at you silly little people who are worried about socialism, the loss of personal freedom, and religious persecution.
And I am here to simply define the word: "Persecution."
Founding Father and the FIRST President, George Washington said this:
"True religion affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible."
Would President George Washington be "persecuted" TODAY, if he made that statement now..??
I believe that he would be.
Why would George Washington MAKE a statement like this, (with all that "separation of church and state" stuff..??)
Because- President Washington; being an extremely intelligent man, knew that a country filled with "free" people would KILL themselves, without a good sense of morality. (Or a King’s Army to control all of you radical bastards.)
Since Washington was among people who fled Europe to get away from "The King’s Army", and the persecution of a State run Religion...
President Washington didn’t want to create an "all-powerful King’s Army" here in America to stop you from stealing my goat. He hoped that you and I, as free people, could work out our differences. The best way he knew for you to learn morality, (if you didn’t learn it from your parents) was from religion.
Today, the liberal left would persecute George Washington for his beliefs, and the liberal left would laugh at a man like John Adams who worried about personal freedom from an over-bearing government.
The founding fathers wanted to form a country where anyone could practice a peaceful religion and be FREE from religious persecution.
Here is where that pesky word: "persecution" comes in.
Many people (on the left) believe that "persecution" MEANS- to harm physically, to banish from the country, etc.
This is not a correct definition.
Persecution simply means: subject a person to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment, persistently harass or annoy.
This is what people on the left are doing to the modern religious believer and exactly what Bill Maher did with his movie: "Religulous."
Religulous does have its funny moments, I will give Bill Maher that. But it should.
After all, Maher started out as a stand-up comic, before he decided to become a "deep thinker." Also, Bill Maher used Larry Charles as his director. Charles; who also directed the movie: "Borat" which stared Sacha Baron Cohen, has made an art out of using stupid people, saying stupid things, to make a point.
Religulous follows the same "mold" as Borat. Charles takes footage of anyone who made a coherent thought and tosses it on the editing room floor. You never see it. However, any person who stumbles his way through an answer; gets in the movie.
So, with Bill Maher and Larry Charles at the helm, it should have been a funny movie. And it was in parts, (if you like to laugh at people.)
However, Religulous was a BOMB for Charles. Domestically, Religulous made 13 million at the box office. Foreign release saw an even worse result with: $355,000 bucks.
Put that next to Larry Charles’ direction of "Borat", which saw 128 million in the US, and 133 million in foreign, for a total of 261 million worldwide, you can see that the 13 million total from "Religulous" was a disaster for Larry Charles.
Throughout the entire movie, you find yourself wanting to grab Bill Maher and begin to quiz him. But you; the audience, never gets that chance. No intelligent religious people are allowed within a mile of Bill Maher, during the filming of this movie.
You find yourself asking: "Bill, do you believe in the talking monkeys..?? You know, the small group of monkeys who decided to gain intelligence, and the thousands of other monkeys that never did..??"
"Mr. Maher, do you believe in the bubbling mud puddle..?? The oozing and churning ‘mud puddle of life’ that created the first single cell..??"
"Bill Maher, do you believe that space aliens planted ‘LIFE’ on earth..??"
"Do you believe in the tiny particle that exploded into the universe..??"
If you wanted to ask these questions, you will be disappointed in this movie because they are never asked.
Bill Maher does have a "stock" answer for anyone who asks these types of questions; Bill says: "I don’t know..??"
Deep thinkers, they amaze me...
Bill Maher says: "I don’t know..??"
(Let me frame it exactly the way that Bill Maher says it) "At least I’m honest, I do not know where life comes from. But neither do religious people..."
Well, Bill...
That is only HALF right.
Science also doesn’t know where life began.
Religious people believe they know how life began, but they cannot prove it with a scientific test.
Nor can science. (Prove where life began with a scientific test.)
Bill Maher hides behind a rock while slinging his dangerous barbs at religious people.
When you begin to tear into people like Maher about the oozing "mud puddle of life", or the talking monkeys, Maher quickly hides behind the rock of: "..I don’t know where life began.."
Once you realize that you cannot attack Bill Mahers ideas, (because he doesn’t have any..!!) You have nothing to fight with, and Maher (and his liberal buddies) are free to attack you. (From the safety of hiding behind "the rock of ignorance.")
Bill Maher: attacking religion.
THIS IS: persecution.
What Bill Maher does is exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want to happen.
The persecution of religious people in America.
Yes, Bill Maher has the RIGHT to speak free.
And, "we the people" spoke with our dollars because "Religulous" was a flop.
(I even hated to rent the dam movie. However, I like to know what I am talking about.)
Well, Bill Maher, I believe in God.
I do not believe in an "oozing mud puddle of life." I do not believe in a talking monkey. (Though I have seen a monkey push a yellow button when he wanted a banana.)
If you are a believer in evolution, you must ask "how did this all begin."
The question that Ben Stein asks in his movie "Expelled- no intelligence allowed", if you believe in an expanding universe; it had to start somewhere? Where did it start..??
Science is divided on how "it all started." They cannot prove it.
Bill Maher "doesn’t know" and doesn’t want to dwell on it. He is happy to persecuted religious people like some school yard bully.
I believe that God created it all.
I left the Catholic Church many years ago because I cannot belong to a faith that openly tried to move child molesting Priests around to different churches, and cover up the whole ordeal. I did not care for the politics that you find in some churches.
But this doesn’t corrupt my faith in God. These are examples of evil men doing evil things. Religion has little to do with it.
This is what Bill Maher cannot conceive.
Evil people do evil things. Regardless of origin or religion.
Did Hitler kill millions of people to get closer to God..??
Or did Hitler want to expand Germany and use Darwinism to create a "master race?"
Did Napoleon try to conquer the known world in the name of God..??
No, Napoleon made himself Emperor of France, King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss, and "Protector of the Rhine."
Napoleon was after the cash and the fame.
Did the Crusades take place because God wanted it to happen..??
Or did evil men pervert a religion..??
Does Allah want men to kill innocent people..??
Or has evil men perverted another religion..??
Bill Maher cannot understand this.
Like the person who believes that if you remove guns from society you could stop murder...
Maher believes that if religion went away, the world would be "more fair" without this moral dogma.
I, for one, do not want to live in a world without morality.
Murder is OK. Neighbors possessions are yours for the taking. Killing babies is acceptable. Having sex with your friends spouse is encouraged. Children can be abandoned. And NOTHING is greater than yourself. YOU are the most important thing in your life.
Welcome to the: "Anti- religion."
Bill Maher claims that: "Man would have figured out that murder is wrong without religion.. Man doesn’t need religion to understand that theft is wrong.."
Oh, really Mr. Maher.
Then explain why some jungle tribes, who never had contact with modern religion, feel it is OK to kill your neighbor, and no one goes to jail. Why do some jungle tribes feel that theft is fine because "the strong can take from the weak." That is just a fact.
So the answer is NO...
Men may not learn that crime is evil, without morality.
Morality is the glue that allows us to live together.
Morality keeps good men honest.
Evil men will be dealt with by the police and military.
Without morality, good men have no reason to be honest. The police and military become overwhelmed.
Without morality, the city, the country, the world devolves into animalism. A place where the STRONG take what they want from the weak.
This is what George Washington was talking about, all those years ago.
President Washington knew that no army on earth could control free people, who lost their morality.
Washington didn’t want a powerful government that would rule the people of America. That is why the founding fathers wanted its citizens armed with guns and to have full voting rights. So that Americans could replace its government by voting, or by force, if necessary.
But most of all, the founding fathers wanted a country that practiced morality.
A free people who could police themselves.
For thousands of years, the best way to teach morality is through honest parents and religion.
This Easter weekend, I do worry that America is "losing its religion."
I am positive that even the liberal left wouldn’t want to live in a world with no religion.
Sure, they might receive their gay marriage and be able to abort children at will. They could cheat on their spouse without regard.
But I believe that liberals lack the vision of seeing beyond their own wants.
What about MY wants..??
If I no longer care about being "good." If I no longer worry about a heaven and hell, I might just take your possessions. What would stop me from taking your car..?? The police..??
Even the hard- core liberal might pray for a return of religion.
Which, in an ironic twist, is when many find God. When it might be too late.
Even Charles Darwin found God (again) in his old age.
The young man has the luxury of believing that he is invincible, and can question a power greater than himself.
However, the old man doesn’t have that luxury. At deaths door, is when many begin to believe that there MUST be more to life then a few random particles.
Newsweek claims that the Christian Religion is dead in America.
CNN proclaims that the battles for "morality" in America have all been lost by the "religious right."
The Huffington Post laughs at you silly little people who are worried about socialism, the loss of personal freedom, and religious persecution.
And I am here to simply define the word: "Persecution."
Founding Father and the FIRST President, George Washington said this:
"True religion affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible."
Would President George Washington be "persecuted" TODAY, if he made that statement now..??
I believe that he would be.
Why would George Washington MAKE a statement like this, (with all that "separation of church and state" stuff..??)
Because- President Washington; being an extremely intelligent man, knew that a country filled with "free" people would KILL themselves, without a good sense of morality. (Or a King’s Army to control all of you radical bastards.)
Since Washington was among people who fled Europe to get away from "The King’s Army", and the persecution of a State run Religion...
President Washington didn’t want to create an "all-powerful King’s Army" here in America to stop you from stealing my goat. He hoped that you and I, as free people, could work out our differences. The best way he knew for you to learn morality, (if you didn’t learn it from your parents) was from religion.
Today, the liberal left would persecute George Washington for his beliefs, and the liberal left would laugh at a man like John Adams who worried about personal freedom from an over-bearing government.
The founding fathers wanted to form a country where anyone could practice a peaceful religion and be FREE from religious persecution.
Here is where that pesky word: "persecution" comes in.
Many people (on the left) believe that "persecution" MEANS- to harm physically, to banish from the country, etc.
This is not a correct definition.
Persecution simply means: subject a person to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment, persistently harass or annoy.
This is what people on the left are doing to the modern religious believer and exactly what Bill Maher did with his movie: "Religulous."
Religulous does have its funny moments, I will give Bill Maher that. But it should.
After all, Maher started out as a stand-up comic, before he decided to become a "deep thinker." Also, Bill Maher used Larry Charles as his director. Charles; who also directed the movie: "Borat" which stared Sacha Baron Cohen, has made an art out of using stupid people, saying stupid things, to make a point.
Religulous follows the same "mold" as Borat. Charles takes footage of anyone who made a coherent thought and tosses it on the editing room floor. You never see it. However, any person who stumbles his way through an answer; gets in the movie.
So, with Bill Maher and Larry Charles at the helm, it should have been a funny movie. And it was in parts, (if you like to laugh at people.)
However, Religulous was a BOMB for Charles. Domestically, Religulous made 13 million at the box office. Foreign release saw an even worse result with: $355,000 bucks.
Put that next to Larry Charles’ direction of "Borat", which saw 128 million in the US, and 133 million in foreign, for a total of 261 million worldwide, you can see that the 13 million total from "Religulous" was a disaster for Larry Charles.
Throughout the entire movie, you find yourself wanting to grab Bill Maher and begin to quiz him. But you; the audience, never gets that chance. No intelligent religious people are allowed within a mile of Bill Maher, during the filming of this movie.
You find yourself asking: "Bill, do you believe in the talking monkeys..?? You know, the small group of monkeys who decided to gain intelligence, and the thousands of other monkeys that never did..??"
"Mr. Maher, do you believe in the bubbling mud puddle..?? The oozing and churning ‘mud puddle of life’ that created the first single cell..??"
"Bill Maher, do you believe that space aliens planted ‘LIFE’ on earth..??"
"Do you believe in the tiny particle that exploded into the universe..??"
If you wanted to ask these questions, you will be disappointed in this movie because they are never asked.
Bill Maher does have a "stock" answer for anyone who asks these types of questions; Bill says: "I don’t know..??"
Deep thinkers, they amaze me...
Bill Maher says: "I don’t know..??"
(Let me frame it exactly the way that Bill Maher says it) "At least I’m honest, I do not know where life comes from. But neither do religious people..."
Well, Bill...
That is only HALF right.
Science also doesn’t know where life began.
Religious people believe they know how life began, but they cannot prove it with a scientific test.
Nor can science. (Prove where life began with a scientific test.)
Bill Maher hides behind a rock while slinging his dangerous barbs at religious people.
When you begin to tear into people like Maher about the oozing "mud puddle of life", or the talking monkeys, Maher quickly hides behind the rock of: "..I don’t know where life began.."
Once you realize that you cannot attack Bill Mahers ideas, (because he doesn’t have any..!!) You have nothing to fight with, and Maher (and his liberal buddies) are free to attack you. (From the safety of hiding behind "the rock of ignorance.")
Bill Maher: attacking religion.
THIS IS: persecution.
What Bill Maher does is exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want to happen.
The persecution of religious people in America.
Yes, Bill Maher has the RIGHT to speak free.
And, "we the people" spoke with our dollars because "Religulous" was a flop.
(I even hated to rent the dam movie. However, I like to know what I am talking about.)
Well, Bill Maher, I believe in God.
I do not believe in an "oozing mud puddle of life." I do not believe in a talking monkey. (Though I have seen a monkey push a yellow button when he wanted a banana.)
If you are a believer in evolution, you must ask "how did this all begin."
The question that Ben Stein asks in his movie "Expelled- no intelligence allowed", if you believe in an expanding universe; it had to start somewhere? Where did it start..??
Science is divided on how "it all started." They cannot prove it.
Bill Maher "doesn’t know" and doesn’t want to dwell on it. He is happy to persecuted religious people like some school yard bully.
I believe that God created it all.
I left the Catholic Church many years ago because I cannot belong to a faith that openly tried to move child molesting Priests around to different churches, and cover up the whole ordeal. I did not care for the politics that you find in some churches.
But this doesn’t corrupt my faith in God. These are examples of evil men doing evil things. Religion has little to do with it.
This is what Bill Maher cannot conceive.
Evil people do evil things. Regardless of origin or religion.
Did Hitler kill millions of people to get closer to God..??
Or did Hitler want to expand Germany and use Darwinism to create a "master race?"
Did Napoleon try to conquer the known world in the name of God..??
No, Napoleon made himself Emperor of France, King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss, and "Protector of the Rhine."
Napoleon was after the cash and the fame.
Did the Crusades take place because God wanted it to happen..??
Or did evil men pervert a religion..??
Does Allah want men to kill innocent people..??
Or has evil men perverted another religion..??
Bill Maher cannot understand this.
Like the person who believes that if you remove guns from society you could stop murder...
Maher believes that if religion went away, the world would be "more fair" without this moral dogma.
I, for one, do not want to live in a world without morality.
Murder is OK. Neighbors possessions are yours for the taking. Killing babies is acceptable. Having sex with your friends spouse is encouraged. Children can be abandoned. And NOTHING is greater than yourself. YOU are the most important thing in your life.
Welcome to the: "Anti- religion."
Bill Maher claims that: "Man would have figured out that murder is wrong without religion.. Man doesn’t need religion to understand that theft is wrong.."
Oh, really Mr. Maher.
Then explain why some jungle tribes, who never had contact with modern religion, feel it is OK to kill your neighbor, and no one goes to jail. Why do some jungle tribes feel that theft is fine because "the strong can take from the weak." That is just a fact.
So the answer is NO...
Men may not learn that crime is evil, without morality.
Morality is the glue that allows us to live together.
Morality keeps good men honest.
Evil men will be dealt with by the police and military.
Without morality, good men have no reason to be honest. The police and military become overwhelmed.
Without morality, the city, the country, the world devolves into animalism. A place where the STRONG take what they want from the weak.
This is what George Washington was talking about, all those years ago.
President Washington knew that no army on earth could control free people, who lost their morality.
Washington didn’t want a powerful government that would rule the people of America. That is why the founding fathers wanted its citizens armed with guns and to have full voting rights. So that Americans could replace its government by voting, or by force, if necessary.
But most of all, the founding fathers wanted a country that practiced morality.
A free people who could police themselves.
For thousands of years, the best way to teach morality is through honest parents and religion.
This Easter weekend, I do worry that America is "losing its religion."
I am positive that even the liberal left wouldn’t want to live in a world with no religion.
Sure, they might receive their gay marriage and be able to abort children at will. They could cheat on their spouse without regard.
But I believe that liberals lack the vision of seeing beyond their own wants.
What about MY wants..??
If I no longer care about being "good." If I no longer worry about a heaven and hell, I might just take your possessions. What would stop me from taking your car..?? The police..??
Even the hard- core liberal might pray for a return of religion.
Which, in an ironic twist, is when many find God. When it might be too late.
Even Charles Darwin found God (again) in his old age.
The young man has the luxury of believing that he is invincible, and can question a power greater than himself.
However, the old man doesn’t have that luxury. At deaths door, is when many begin to believe that there MUST be more to life then a few random particles.
Some rule with FEAR, some rule with GUILT
Some rule by FEAR.
Some rule by GUILT.
However, they both plan on ruling: YOU.
Try and explain to someone the difference between Republicans and Democrats; what you will find is every strawman and stereo type known to mankind.
Republicans- want BIG business to get filthy rich so they can piss on the poor. (And yet, why would so many poor "red state" folks vote for Republicans, if this were true..??)
I know..!!
Because those "red state" people are all stupid. Every last one of them. All dumb.
Line up all your straw men against the wall. Give them one final cigarette; (with the new Obama tax of 62 cents per pack.)
Democrats- "really, really" care about the poor. (Except that the Democratic Party started in 1836. Democrats have been in the office of president for 82 years. How can we possibly STILL have poor people..??)
I know...
Because Democrats are stupid and do NOT really care about the poor people. They just talk about helping poor people to get elected.
The straw men have all smoked their last cigarette; (with the new 62 cent Obama tax on it.) "..Ready, aim, fire.."
The straw men are all dead now.
Both parties talk about helping people.
Democrats- (this is easy) believe that the best way to help people is to take money away from other people and give it to the poor; (in the form of some government run program.)
Republicans- (a little harder to explain) believe that if you let people keep MORE of their money, people will be BETTER off. If big business can keep more of it’s money, they hire more people, and pay higher wages.
That just amazes the hell out of me..!!
Both American parties have the same goal.
To help people.
(Except, we have two different ways of getting the job done.)
Thus, all the political fighting on this blog site. Yet, the long term goal is the same? (People; having a better life.)
I was listening to a radio talk show and a liberal caller was explaining why capitalism doesn’t work. She said: "The reason capitalism fails is because, I believe, deep down in every man’s core is dishonesty, and someone has to control this. The government needs to watch BIG business because they can be evil..."
The conservative host, (Andrew Wilkow) replied: "Wait a minute.. You just said that in EVERY man’s core is dishonesty, why would you trust the government- which is made up of men- to rule you..??"
There...
There is the weakness in BOTH parties.
Both the democrats and republicans rely on the "goodness" of others.
Democrats: believe that government officials are MORE honest, and can be trusted as the "watchdogs" for the people. (Yet, every democrat has seen crooked politicians.)
Republicans: do not trust the government with this much power. Leave us alone, my boss and I will work on my pay and benefits. We need no help from you. Stay out of my wallet. (Yet, every republican has seen a crooked business man.)
Both systems could work GREAT..!!
Both systems could fail miserably.
But both systems rely on the "goodness of mankind" in order for each system to work.
OK- if the goal is to make a BETTER country, wouldn’t it make sense to take the BEST ideas from both points of view, and use them..??
I mean, no liberal can deny that social security was a noble concept, (helping the elderly) yet the program was conceived and run in a "half- assed" fashion. S/S- as it has been run, will fail in a few years. Social Security will fail because it wasn’t planned out good enough. (Now, do you understand why any intelligent person would question the idea of "quickly" throwing a national health plan together..??)
No conservative would deny that taking away social security would cause riots in the American streets, as 200 million Americans "bust your ass", (after paying into S/S all these years and you want to end it..??) Plus, taking away money from old people is a mean thing to do.
So here we sit...
One party comes up with an idea.
The other party shoots it down.
One party goes after a terrorist enemy and a ruthless dictator.
The other party tries to make the American President and his administration- the enemy.
I have come to the conclusion that both parties are MORE alike then they are different.
Both parties have goals, and these goals are the same:
Goal 1- get elected.
Goal 2- set the stage for your re-election.
Goal 3- maybe look into some of the crap that you talked about when you were campaigning.
Goal 4- protect your legacy. Tell the American people why you were a great leader.
These 4 goals are shared by both the republicans and democrats. The problem is, these goals have very little to do with helping America.
I have come close to wanting to vote out EVERY incumbent candidate in the Senate and the House. This would allow a fresh / new group of idiots into office.
However, there could be a few good people who need to be returned to office. If I had more time I would create a web site which people could list "good" candidates and they could explain why this person needs to be in political office. Other people could question these choices.
But this web site would be hard to police. It would be easy for a political action group to bombard this site to promote a candidate.
My only answer is that "the answer" lies somewhere between what the two parties are bitching about.
It will take a new president who can step away from his or her party and become "an American" president. Instead of being a "party cheerleader."
It will happen.
I have read about these leaders, from our past.
Until then, I am enjoying being able to watch the democrats struggle with explaining President Obama’s political decisions. (It is NICE being on the offence for a change.)
And I am enjoying all the inventive ways that we republicans are coming up with to scare people into fearing this skinny little man with big ears, that we call "president."
One rules with FEAR.
Republicans- the terrorists will get you. We will all be socialist next year. Eating our swill from a bucket, if Obama gets his way.
One rules with GUILT.
Democrats- America has been "arrogant." America has done wrong. We are rich while we step over the poor. The earth is dying, and you have the arrogance to breath..??
One rules with FEAR.
The other rules with GUILT.
However, they both plan on ruling- YOU.
The Angry Republican
Video Broadcast number 18
"I hope he gives you hell."
(Note) You may hear a "thumping" sound in the payback of this video. I may have blown out the sound card in this computer? Or maybe my video converter? Whatever the problem, we will fix it in the future. The problem wasn’t apparent until after it was downloaded to YouTube. Sorry for the "thumping"..!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)