As President Obama sat laughing at Wanda Sykes' joke about hoping Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail, it occurred to me that the 44th President of the United States would also like some part of my body to break down.
Sure, I don't posses the power Mr. Limbaugh holds, but I strongly assume President Obama would be thrilled to see an obituary filled with dead conservatives.
The reason it's acceptable to wish that a great plague hits the GOP, is because those in pop culture have done a good job in portraying conservatives as evil swine.
In hopes that people with whom we disagree stop wishing us dead, I would like to apologize on behalf of my fellow conservatives:
I'm sorry for wanting to kill Ahmed before Ahmed comes to kill me. I am sorry that Ahmed's father, brother, uncle and great-aunt have been telling him, since he was two, that Christians are devils. However that fact does not make me want to lay down my life so that he may terrorize humanity. And for that I am sorry.
I'm sorry I believe that the definition of words should not be changed based on the emotional feelings of a specific group. Forgive me for not wanting to read the dictionary anew each morning to make sure I'm up to date, so that I don't embarrass myself by using a word the way I learned it in first grade, only to later find out it's been changed because the original definition was hurtful. For wanting to keep the dictionary the same, I am truly and completely sorry.
For wanting to inflict pain on Ahmed and his friends in order to persuade them to share information that could save the lives of innocent Americans, I am sorry. I am sorry for wanting to have my coffee made by the same barista each morning, my hair cut by the same barber each month, and my oil changed by the same mechanic each 3,000 miles. I am sorry for getting to know those people so well that I would be sad if they were blown to pieces. I am equally sorry for not feeling bad for Ahmed's physical pain.
I am sorry I don't want to give half my money to the government of the United States. While I don't wish for anyone to be without the necessitates of life, I am not the least bit confident the government can distribute my money in the most efficient way. I would much rather give my earnings to those with proven track records for helping people survive today, and become self sufficient tomorrow; while the goal of the government is to keep people continuously needing. I am sorry I see the government as it really is.
I am sorry for understanding that liberalism has never worked.
I am sorry I am not a racist person. Please forgive me for having faith that all races, religions, creeds and genders can succeed beyond their wildest expectations. I am sorry for not seeing a minority and saying, "There is no way he can succeed with help. He simply can't do it on his own." For my undying optimism in everyone, I am remorseful.
Forgive me for loving my country. I am sorry I do not wish that the United States resembled countries I do not respect; countries that value collectivism over the individual.
Lastly, please accept my deepest sympathies for not completely altering my viewpoint because it's not in line with the Democratic platform, or even in line with the viewpoint of liberals who call themselves Republicans. Would I agree with said Democrats and liberal Republicans, I would have their unwavering support.
Oh, and please forgive me for not seeking the unwavering support of Democrats or liberals who call themselves Republicans.
A Future Free from Freedom
Be honest, why did you vote for Barack Obama?
If the reason is because you believe that people who earn millions of dollars have no right to keep the vast majority of their money, or that it's better for thousands of innocent people to be killed in a terrorist attack than the person responsible be detained or waterboarded with the express purpose of preventing said attack, then please go post something on the Daily Kos website wishing a horrific fate to befall someone with whom you disagree politically.
If the reason is because you assumed he would bring much needed change to Washington - yet you're not sure what that change is: read on.
If the reason is because you think he has a great looking family: read on.
If the reason is because he's an African-American: read on.
Now that we've weeded out the people who refuse to listen to reason, I would like to tell the rational people of America who aren't amateur political scientists, that you may want to dig a little deeper, or else run the risk of waking up one morning and realizing you've lost a great deal of freedom: freedom you've likely been taking for granted.
I would like to ask that you do research on your own in order to discover what President Obama is all about.
If you're worried because a conservative is telling you that Obama is an enemy of liberty; go into your research with the express purpose of proving that Barack Obama has no desire to restrict freedom, and that every action taken since he's been President has only been in response to the struggling economy, and his saying things during the campaign such as, "I want everyone to share the wealth," in no way means he wants to limit prosperity.
Though the current Democrat establishment thinks otherwise - letting a billionaire keep his hard earned money is not a negative, or flaw in the system.
Though it's usually not wise to vote based solely on what will benefit you, please consider the fact that President Obama will not reduce taxes for 95% of the population, because liberals, as far to the left as Mr. Obama, fundamentally oppose a reduction in anyone's taxes.
That means, while you won't be financially assisted by President Obama as you were promised, you won't be harmed by his policies either, right?
In response to him proposing a cap in CEO pay, you say, "He's talking about limiting the salary of CEO's who run huge financial companies (whether or not they received bailout money) and I'll never be the CEO of a financial company."
But what if he eventually takes his plan a bit further?
Let's say you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea that will make you a lot of money. You take it to a friend of a friend, who helps make it happen, and when all is said and done you're making $250,000 annually.
But wait, you forgot to consider the possibility President Obama won't allow someone in your position to earn that much money. Perhaps he will have capped the salary of first time entrepreneurs at $100,000.
And even if does let you keep the money, you've got to factor in taxes.
According to President Obama, you will have become rich and are therefore entitled to only a fraction of what you've earned.
Individuals, who don't believe people should keep their money, don't believe anyone should be allowed to keep their money, and therefore will come after folks who make less and less as time goes on.
Blurting out, "We'll give 95% of the American people tax cuts," is a great campaign strategy, but needs to be questioned when it goes against everything the candidate stands for.
Conservatives say, "Lower taxes for everyone," which makes more sense than picking and choosing who receives higher taxes, because the net will be a lot bigger by the end of the tax-raising candidates term - meaning the nice fellow you see walking to the bus stop every morning with a sack lunch in hand will soon be considered, by the government, to be a rich man. You heard right; a rich man who can barely afford public transportation.
Don't take it from someone you label a "Conservative Hate Monger," do research for yourself and think about how President Obama's actions will hinder freedom.
Actions such as...
He wants to limit charitable donations by decreasing tax breaks for charitable givers.
He wants to limit the pay of CEO's of companies who haven't received a dime of bailout money.
He wants to strip the freedom of workers to vote in secret when casting ballots on whether or not to unionize.
He wants to strip you of the right to visit any doctor you wish to see.
Though President Obama says he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, many Democrats in Congress wish to forcibly remove conservative hosts from the radio. The major television networks, they will say, are "fair and balanced." In addition there have been proposals by legislators to bail out near bankrupt newspapers which overwhelmingly favor liberalism. Agree with Rush Limbaugh or not, surely you don't wish to strip him of his First Amendment right to speak while the government uses taxpayer money to further unprofitable newspapers who only offer one point of view. You may not agree with Rush, but can't argue with the fact that he makes lots of money. And if you want to hear a differing opinion; just turn on the television to any over-the-air network or pick up any newspaper.
And we already live in a country where, in certain areas, you can't set your own smoking policies when opening a restaurant!
Let me ask you this: when did freedom become a bad thing?
Not only have governments, which greatly hinder freedom, proven to be miserable failures throughout history; no government has proven ineffective because the people under their control had too much freedom.
In no history book has the following statement been written:
"The country then began to crumble because its people, who had the freedom to prosper using their own ingenuity, simply sat around and did nothing. They didn't strive for greatness, they all waited for someone else to achieve greatness so they could mooch off them. Unfortunately there was never anyone one off whom to mooch. Thankfully a dictator came along and began telling everyone what to do. Suddenly great physicians, inventors and artists popped up everywhere. With freedom, they were miserable; under the steady hand of a dictatorial regime, unlimited wealth was created."
Though now maligned by the news media, entertainment folks, and college professors; freedom is the most important thing we possess.
And instead of taking the word of Chris Matthews, Tim Robbins or Professor Lewis L. Lordington III, you better start doing some research for yourself; then maybe you'll join in the fight for freedom as all patriotic Americans should.
If the reason is because you believe that people who earn millions of dollars have no right to keep the vast majority of their money, or that it's better for thousands of innocent people to be killed in a terrorist attack than the person responsible be detained or waterboarded with the express purpose of preventing said attack, then please go post something on the Daily Kos website wishing a horrific fate to befall someone with whom you disagree politically.
If the reason is because you assumed he would bring much needed change to Washington - yet you're not sure what that change is: read on.
If the reason is because you think he has a great looking family: read on.
If the reason is because he's an African-American: read on.
Now that we've weeded out the people who refuse to listen to reason, I would like to tell the rational people of America who aren't amateur political scientists, that you may want to dig a little deeper, or else run the risk of waking up one morning and realizing you've lost a great deal of freedom: freedom you've likely been taking for granted.
I would like to ask that you do research on your own in order to discover what President Obama is all about.
If you're worried because a conservative is telling you that Obama is an enemy of liberty; go into your research with the express purpose of proving that Barack Obama has no desire to restrict freedom, and that every action taken since he's been President has only been in response to the struggling economy, and his saying things during the campaign such as, "I want everyone to share the wealth," in no way means he wants to limit prosperity.
Though the current Democrat establishment thinks otherwise - letting a billionaire keep his hard earned money is not a negative, or flaw in the system.
Though it's usually not wise to vote based solely on what will benefit you, please consider the fact that President Obama will not reduce taxes for 95% of the population, because liberals, as far to the left as Mr. Obama, fundamentally oppose a reduction in anyone's taxes.
That means, while you won't be financially assisted by President Obama as you were promised, you won't be harmed by his policies either, right?
In response to him proposing a cap in CEO pay, you say, "He's talking about limiting the salary of CEO's who run huge financial companies (whether or not they received bailout money) and I'll never be the CEO of a financial company."
But what if he eventually takes his plan a bit further?
Let's say you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea that will make you a lot of money. You take it to a friend of a friend, who helps make it happen, and when all is said and done you're making $250,000 annually.
But wait, you forgot to consider the possibility President Obama won't allow someone in your position to earn that much money. Perhaps he will have capped the salary of first time entrepreneurs at $100,000.
And even if does let you keep the money, you've got to factor in taxes.
According to President Obama, you will have become rich and are therefore entitled to only a fraction of what you've earned.
Individuals, who don't believe people should keep their money, don't believe anyone should be allowed to keep their money, and therefore will come after folks who make less and less as time goes on.
Blurting out, "We'll give 95% of the American people tax cuts," is a great campaign strategy, but needs to be questioned when it goes against everything the candidate stands for.
Conservatives say, "Lower taxes for everyone," which makes more sense than picking and choosing who receives higher taxes, because the net will be a lot bigger by the end of the tax-raising candidates term - meaning the nice fellow you see walking to the bus stop every morning with a sack lunch in hand will soon be considered, by the government, to be a rich man. You heard right; a rich man who can barely afford public transportation.
Don't take it from someone you label a "Conservative Hate Monger," do research for yourself and think about how President Obama's actions will hinder freedom.
Actions such as...
He wants to limit charitable donations by decreasing tax breaks for charitable givers.
He wants to limit the pay of CEO's of companies who haven't received a dime of bailout money.
He wants to strip the freedom of workers to vote in secret when casting ballots on whether or not to unionize.
He wants to strip you of the right to visit any doctor you wish to see.
Though President Obama says he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, many Democrats in Congress wish to forcibly remove conservative hosts from the radio. The major television networks, they will say, are "fair and balanced." In addition there have been proposals by legislators to bail out near bankrupt newspapers which overwhelmingly favor liberalism. Agree with Rush Limbaugh or not, surely you don't wish to strip him of his First Amendment right to speak while the government uses taxpayer money to further unprofitable newspapers who only offer one point of view. You may not agree with Rush, but can't argue with the fact that he makes lots of money. And if you want to hear a differing opinion; just turn on the television to any over-the-air network or pick up any newspaper.
And we already live in a country where, in certain areas, you can't set your own smoking policies when opening a restaurant!
Let me ask you this: when did freedom become a bad thing?
Not only have governments, which greatly hinder freedom, proven to be miserable failures throughout history; no government has proven ineffective because the people under their control had too much freedom.
In no history book has the following statement been written:
"The country then began to crumble because its people, who had the freedom to prosper using their own ingenuity, simply sat around and did nothing. They didn't strive for greatness, they all waited for someone else to achieve greatness so they could mooch off them. Unfortunately there was never anyone one off whom to mooch. Thankfully a dictator came along and began telling everyone what to do. Suddenly great physicians, inventors and artists popped up everywhere. With freedom, they were miserable; under the steady hand of a dictatorial regime, unlimited wealth was created."
Though now maligned by the news media, entertainment folks, and college professors; freedom is the most important thing we possess.
And instead of taking the word of Chris Matthews, Tim Robbins or Professor Lewis L. Lordington III, you better start doing some research for yourself; then maybe you'll join in the fight for freedom as all patriotic Americans should.
You Got Straight A's; Now Go to Your Room!
If sending a child to his or her room without dinner after they've arrived home bearing a report card full of A's sounds like bad parenting, why does the act of punishing successful entrepreneurs sound so delectable?
Children who get straight A's work very hard. So do successful entrepreneurs.
Children who get straight A's use brainpower to achieve their goals. So do successful entrepreneurs.
To most conservatives, conservatism just feels right and liberalism feels wrong. One of the reasons we get a bad vibe when a Democrat speaks about raising taxes on the wealthy is because we feel it punishes success. And punishing success is wrong.
As the above argument can get a little stale, let me try to illustrate the problem that might occur if society were to begin punishing other successes.
Let's go back to the child with perfect marks in school. He or she is sent to their room without dinner and therefore stops reading books. In order to avoid further sanction they also fail to complete another homework assignment for the rest of their life. As a result of every child with determination being punished, those who even manage to graduate are ignorant. To fix the problem of children graduating without knowledge, we pour more money into the schools. Of course, because we no longer encourage children to strive for success, none of their predecessors have the know-how to create wealth and the government has no one to tax.
You see what happens when you punish noble behavior? And it's not as if only Republicans view hard work as virtuous.
"With the proper motivation anyone can achieve the American dream," President Obama says. "And when you do I will be standing proudly by your side (with my hand out). And once I get your money, I'll distribute it to those who just felt like 'chillin'' as you worked your butt off."
If we continue down the road of punishing good behavior, future conversations will go something like:
"Wow, I can't believe you pay so much for car insurance!"
"Everyone tried to tell me, 'Speed up, you're not going to hurt anyone!' but I wouldn't listen."
Call us conservatives crazy, but for some strange reason we don't believe a country can function where bad is good and good is bad.
But since Democrats control everything I might as well get used to it, therefore I am just kicking myself for the well articulated points I've made in this piece. I hereby curse my brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!
Curse the: brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!
Children who get straight A's work very hard. So do successful entrepreneurs.
Children who get straight A's use brainpower to achieve their goals. So do successful entrepreneurs.
To most conservatives, conservatism just feels right and liberalism feels wrong. One of the reasons we get a bad vibe when a Democrat speaks about raising taxes on the wealthy is because we feel it punishes success. And punishing success is wrong.
As the above argument can get a little stale, let me try to illustrate the problem that might occur if society were to begin punishing other successes.
Let's go back to the child with perfect marks in school. He or she is sent to their room without dinner and therefore stops reading books. In order to avoid further sanction they also fail to complete another homework assignment for the rest of their life. As a result of every child with determination being punished, those who even manage to graduate are ignorant. To fix the problem of children graduating without knowledge, we pour more money into the schools. Of course, because we no longer encourage children to strive for success, none of their predecessors have the know-how to create wealth and the government has no one to tax.
You see what happens when you punish noble behavior? And it's not as if only Republicans view hard work as virtuous.
"With the proper motivation anyone can achieve the American dream," President Obama says. "And when you do I will be standing proudly by your side (with my hand out). And once I get your money, I'll distribute it to those who just felt like 'chillin'' as you worked your butt off."
If we continue down the road of punishing good behavior, future conversations will go something like:
"Wow, I can't believe you pay so much for car insurance!"
"Everyone tried to tell me, 'Speed up, you're not going to hurt anyone!' but I wouldn't listen."
Call us conservatives crazy, but for some strange reason we don't believe a country can function where bad is good and good is bad.
But since Democrats control everything I might as well get used to it, therefore I am just kicking myself for the well articulated points I've made in this piece. I hereby curse my brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!
Curse the: brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!
I'm Just Looking for an Honest Place to Eat
I know a lot of you probably wonder why we conservatives have such a huge problem with taking what amounts to a few measly dollars from a rich person and giving it to a person of limited means.
Though America leads the world in good people; the majority of U.S. citizens are rotten.
Liberals want to give money to the least deserving of the rotten, i.e., the worst of the worst.
As long as people continue listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers who promote moral self sufficiency, America will always have her share of those who take pride in their job and only desire to bring home money they earn.
And the people that listen to Rush don't want bailouts from the government. They simply want to keep the majority of money that they make, as well as retain the freedom that enables them to earn as much as possible. For these people, living within their means is a source of pride.
Under Obama's plan: plumbers, car salespersons, mechanics, contractors, etc. are people who will get money at the expense of brilliant men like Bill Gates who made our lives much easier with his invention of the computer operating system you likely use.
Sure, there are a few bad apples in the bunch, but the majority of wealthy business owners are in the mold of Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon of Atlas Shrugged fame. They are noble. They are driven to success.
Of course many talented men and women work for wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gates, and a good number of them make less than $250,000 a year - and therefore aren't considered "rich."
"Those people will also benefit from Obama's generosity," you say.
But those are the people who don't want the money, because they didn't earn it.
It's the people who either don't want to work, or attempt to cheat their fellow citizens during every job, that will take advantage of the "free money," provided by hard working wealthy individuals. I know President Obama talks as if it's his money, but it ain't.
It's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's taking from the best and giving to the worst.
"I worked hard all day so you don't have to."
And if you think America is not full of rotten people, most of whom are liberal, just look at all the professions I mentioned earlier: car salespersons, contractors, mechanics, etc. These are people with whom we all hate to deal, because we're scared to death of being cheated or harassed. Should a person in one of these professions have a 50% success rate at performing a task, their clients would jump for joy.
You can't say, "People are inherently decent," when you have huge chunks that are known for spitting in the face of their fellow human beings.
Conservatives are overwhelmingly good.
Everyone else is either a crook, or possesses a job that doesn't allow them to cheat their fellow man as much as they'd like.
While hooked up to a lie detector test, ask mechanics why they chose their profession and I bet most wouldn't respond, "Because I love to work on cars." Rather I bet most would say, "Because I knew it meant I could cheat people who are ignorant about automobiles, thus earning money for work I did not accomplish."
If you think about it; that's what liberalism is all about: giving money to people who don't deserve it.
Let's pretend it wasn't well known that fried foods lead to weight gain.
"I'm looking for something healthy. Are you sure this is good for me," you would ask your waiter after receiving your meal.
"Oh yeah, that chicken fried steak sandwich slathered with mayonnaise and French fry combo plate has only five grams of fat and 20 calories," they would respond, not wanting to lose the sale.For most people; if they could get away with it, they would.
These are the people to whom President Obama wants to give money; money he took from hard working Americans who know right from wrong.
Though America leads the world in good people; the majority of U.S. citizens are rotten.
Liberals want to give money to the least deserving of the rotten, i.e., the worst of the worst.
As long as people continue listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers who promote moral self sufficiency, America will always have her share of those who take pride in their job and only desire to bring home money they earn.
And the people that listen to Rush don't want bailouts from the government. They simply want to keep the majority of money that they make, as well as retain the freedom that enables them to earn as much as possible. For these people, living within their means is a source of pride.
Under Obama's plan: plumbers, car salespersons, mechanics, contractors, etc. are people who will get money at the expense of brilliant men like Bill Gates who made our lives much easier with his invention of the computer operating system you likely use.
Sure, there are a few bad apples in the bunch, but the majority of wealthy business owners are in the mold of Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon of Atlas Shrugged fame. They are noble. They are driven to success.
Of course many talented men and women work for wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gates, and a good number of them make less than $250,000 a year - and therefore aren't considered "rich."
"Those people will also benefit from Obama's generosity," you say.
But those are the people who don't want the money, because they didn't earn it.
It's the people who either don't want to work, or attempt to cheat their fellow citizens during every job, that will take advantage of the "free money," provided by hard working wealthy individuals. I know President Obama talks as if it's his money, but it ain't.
It's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's taking from the best and giving to the worst.
"I worked hard all day so you don't have to."
And if you think America is not full of rotten people, most of whom are liberal, just look at all the professions I mentioned earlier: car salespersons, contractors, mechanics, etc. These are people with whom we all hate to deal, because we're scared to death of being cheated or harassed. Should a person in one of these professions have a 50% success rate at performing a task, their clients would jump for joy.
You can't say, "People are inherently decent," when you have huge chunks that are known for spitting in the face of their fellow human beings.
Conservatives are overwhelmingly good.
Everyone else is either a crook, or possesses a job that doesn't allow them to cheat their fellow man as much as they'd like.
While hooked up to a lie detector test, ask mechanics why they chose their profession and I bet most wouldn't respond, "Because I love to work on cars." Rather I bet most would say, "Because I knew it meant I could cheat people who are ignorant about automobiles, thus earning money for work I did not accomplish."
If you think about it; that's what liberalism is all about: giving money to people who don't deserve it.
Let's pretend it wasn't well known that fried foods lead to weight gain.
"I'm looking for something healthy. Are you sure this is good for me," you would ask your waiter after receiving your meal.
"Oh yeah, that chicken fried steak sandwich slathered with mayonnaise and French fry combo plate has only five grams of fat and 20 calories," they would respond, not wanting to lose the sale.For most people; if they could get away with it, they would.
These are the people to whom President Obama wants to give money; money he took from hard working Americans who know right from wrong.
How Dare You Not Approve Failure!
This is the football equivalent of President Barack Obama attempting to convince congressional Republicans to vote for his stimulus package.
Coach: "We haven't scored a touchdown in a while. In order to boost our point total, I want you, my quarterback, to take the ball and run toward the opposite end zone."
Quarterback: "I don't think that will work."
Coach: "What are you saying? You don't want to score a touchdown!?"
Quarterback: "Of course I do, I just think your method of making that happen is flawed. How can I go along with something I don't think will work?"
Coach: "Because, I am in charge and you should automatically be agreeable to everything I propose. And if you don't agree with it, it means you want the team to fail!"
Quarterback: "No, I want the team to win, but running the wrong way won't help us do that."
Coach: "I stayed up all night devising my 'running the wrong way' strategy. Do you know how tired I am?"
Quarterback: "The fact that you worked hard on your plan doesn't mean it's the right strategy."
You read correctly, folks. During a speech to congressional Democrats, President Obama actually said one of the reasons the stimulus package should pass is because various leaders and their staffs worked long hours drafting it.
So if the Nazi architect that designed Auschwitz said, "You should embrace this camp where we kill innocent men, women and children because I stayed up all night giving Commandant Hoess' living quarters a homey feel," everyone in Poland should have hoped for its success?
In his speech, President Obama basically said that Republicans who oppose the massive spending bill (which won't stimulate the economy) want Americans to go without jobs, while voting for the measure means you not only want to put everyone to work, you also want America to create scientists and save lives! That's right, he said the stimulus package would create scientists and save lives.
I assume the scientists he's talking about are robot scientists, because I don't see how a bill meant to stimulate the current economy could transform people directly into scientists.
So if you support President Obama's stimulus package, you are diametrically opposed to the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.
Sorry, that's wrong.
If you don't support President Obama's stimulus package you are a racist who diametrically opposes the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.
Coach: "We haven't scored a touchdown in a while. In order to boost our point total, I want you, my quarterback, to take the ball and run toward the opposite end zone."
Quarterback: "I don't think that will work."
Coach: "What are you saying? You don't want to score a touchdown!?"
Quarterback: "Of course I do, I just think your method of making that happen is flawed. How can I go along with something I don't think will work?"
Coach: "Because, I am in charge and you should automatically be agreeable to everything I propose. And if you don't agree with it, it means you want the team to fail!"
Quarterback: "No, I want the team to win, but running the wrong way won't help us do that."
Coach: "I stayed up all night devising my 'running the wrong way' strategy. Do you know how tired I am?"
Quarterback: "The fact that you worked hard on your plan doesn't mean it's the right strategy."
You read correctly, folks. During a speech to congressional Democrats, President Obama actually said one of the reasons the stimulus package should pass is because various leaders and their staffs worked long hours drafting it.
So if the Nazi architect that designed Auschwitz said, "You should embrace this camp where we kill innocent men, women and children because I stayed up all night giving Commandant Hoess' living quarters a homey feel," everyone in Poland should have hoped for its success?
In his speech, President Obama basically said that Republicans who oppose the massive spending bill (which won't stimulate the economy) want Americans to go without jobs, while voting for the measure means you not only want to put everyone to work, you also want America to create scientists and save lives! That's right, he said the stimulus package would create scientists and save lives.
I assume the scientists he's talking about are robot scientists, because I don't see how a bill meant to stimulate the current economy could transform people directly into scientists.
So if you support President Obama's stimulus package, you are diametrically opposed to the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.
Sorry, that's wrong.
If you don't support President Obama's stimulus package you are a racist who diametrically opposes the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.
How Dare Dick Cheney Worry about the Lives of Americans!
President Barack Obama promised to change Washington and boy has he done just that.
Gone are the days when level-headed George W. Bush made sound decisions that kept America safe for seven and a half years; decisions that caused the extreme left wing media to criticize the then-President for making the world hate us.
Now far-left Commander and Chief Barack Obama makes crazy decisions that leave all Americans in danger; decisions that cause the extreme left wing media to applaud the current President for uniting the world in harmony.
Already President Obama has dropped all charges against USS Cole bomber Tariq Al-Nasir Rahaman. (Okay, that's not his name, but I bet most of you didn't even realize it and I don't feel like looking it up.)
And of course it's considered improper etiquette to criticize the President, especially if you once held a similar position.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned that the closing of Gitmo could have catastrophic consequences; a warning that has Democrats up in arms.
"How dare the Vice President break the unwritten rule that prevents former Presidents and Vice Presidents from admonishing their successors! I mean, if you don't include Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, no former Democrat President or Vice President has spoken ill of a Republican in the White House."
"It's especially insulting because Mr. Cheney said something as tawdry as, 'I don't think President Obama should make decisions that put the lives of Americans in grave danger.'"
The Democrats are throwing a hissy-fit over the equivalent of former Vice President Cheney saying, "I don't think it's a good idea" in response to President Obama allowing a group of Al-Qaeda members to enter the country with a nuclear weapon. (Is a group of Al-Qaeda members referred to as a "group" or a "herd"? We'll go with "gaggle" until we figure out the proper terminology.)
The major retort by liberals when asked, "How does releasing a gaggle of Al-Qaeda members into the wild make America safer?" is "It just will."
There is no rhyme or reason behind arguments made by liberals regarding National Security, so they attempt to get by with their version of, "Because I said so."
But why do they stop with terrorists? America has a problem with gangs; why are liberals not calling for the release of gang bangers from prison? I can picture Nancy Pelosi saying, "If we show them we are willing to let them get away with felonious assault, maybe they will stop committing felonious assault."
We could wipe out crime completely if we simply let all criminals get away with the crimes we're trying to stop them from committing!
Wow, these Democrats are smart!
Now that Obama is President, America will be transformed from a nation that refuses to negotiate with terrorists, to a nation that refuses to capture terrorists.
"What did you do?" a Federal Prosecutor will ask a man with dark skin. "I tried to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah," the terrorist will respond. "Oh, you're free to go. That's a relief, for a second I thought you lied to a Federal Grand Jury about the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. You stick with that killing innocent Americans thing, because steroids could get you in a lot of trouble."
I recently viewed a PSA regarding the dangers of steroids, perhaps President Obama is thinking about producing commercials to air on Al-Jazeera warning Muslims about the risks of getting involved with terrorism. He did do his first interview with Al-Jazeera after all.
The problem is, now that we're going to make it easy for terrorists to operate without fear of American resistance, there really is no danger in becoming a terrorist.
Ideally Democrats would like everyone to stop bringing up the annoying little fact that they're making America less safe while they continue putting innocent men, women and children at risk in an effort to appease their base.
After all, if there miraculously is no attack under Obama's watch the Democrats will have killed two birds with one (Nerf) stone.
Gone are the days when level-headed George W. Bush made sound decisions that kept America safe for seven and a half years; decisions that caused the extreme left wing media to criticize the then-President for making the world hate us.
Now far-left Commander and Chief Barack Obama makes crazy decisions that leave all Americans in danger; decisions that cause the extreme left wing media to applaud the current President for uniting the world in harmony.
Already President Obama has dropped all charges against USS Cole bomber Tariq Al-Nasir Rahaman. (Okay, that's not his name, but I bet most of you didn't even realize it and I don't feel like looking it up.)
And of course it's considered improper etiquette to criticize the President, especially if you once held a similar position.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned that the closing of Gitmo could have catastrophic consequences; a warning that has Democrats up in arms.
"How dare the Vice President break the unwritten rule that prevents former Presidents and Vice Presidents from admonishing their successors! I mean, if you don't include Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, no former Democrat President or Vice President has spoken ill of a Republican in the White House."
"It's especially insulting because Mr. Cheney said something as tawdry as, 'I don't think President Obama should make decisions that put the lives of Americans in grave danger.'"
The Democrats are throwing a hissy-fit over the equivalent of former Vice President Cheney saying, "I don't think it's a good idea" in response to President Obama allowing a group of Al-Qaeda members to enter the country with a nuclear weapon. (Is a group of Al-Qaeda members referred to as a "group" or a "herd"? We'll go with "gaggle" until we figure out the proper terminology.)
The major retort by liberals when asked, "How does releasing a gaggle of Al-Qaeda members into the wild make America safer?" is "It just will."
There is no rhyme or reason behind arguments made by liberals regarding National Security, so they attempt to get by with their version of, "Because I said so."
But why do they stop with terrorists? America has a problem with gangs; why are liberals not calling for the release of gang bangers from prison? I can picture Nancy Pelosi saying, "If we show them we are willing to let them get away with felonious assault, maybe they will stop committing felonious assault."
We could wipe out crime completely if we simply let all criminals get away with the crimes we're trying to stop them from committing!
Wow, these Democrats are smart!
Now that Obama is President, America will be transformed from a nation that refuses to negotiate with terrorists, to a nation that refuses to capture terrorists.
"What did you do?" a Federal Prosecutor will ask a man with dark skin. "I tried to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah," the terrorist will respond. "Oh, you're free to go. That's a relief, for a second I thought you lied to a Federal Grand Jury about the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. You stick with that killing innocent Americans thing, because steroids could get you in a lot of trouble."
I recently viewed a PSA regarding the dangers of steroids, perhaps President Obama is thinking about producing commercials to air on Al-Jazeera warning Muslims about the risks of getting involved with terrorism. He did do his first interview with Al-Jazeera after all.
The problem is, now that we're going to make it easy for terrorists to operate without fear of American resistance, there really is no danger in becoming a terrorist.
Ideally Democrats would like everyone to stop bringing up the annoying little fact that they're making America less safe while they continue putting innocent men, women and children at risk in an effort to appease their base.
After all, if there miraculously is no attack under Obama's watch the Democrats will have killed two birds with one (Nerf) stone.
Understanding Liberals and the Gitmo Controversy
A lot of times we conservatives try and make sense of the Democrats way of thinking.
We probably shouldn't, as the attempt usually leads to immense frustration.
But for some reason I am trying to figure out why Democrats are so hell-bent on closing Gitmo, the prison in Cuba where we house terrorist detainees.
The prisoners at Gitmo, who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children simply because said men, women and children don't believe in the exact same religion as they do, have a better life than most American prisoners currently serving in the U.S. penal system. In fact, we bend over backward making sure the needs of the prisoners are met.
You liberals, who support multiple organizations that go to great lengths to make sure Christians in America are bashed because of what you consider oppressive and antiquated viewpoints, are ready to stand up and fight for the rights of Muslims who kill innocent people who don't share their even more oppressive viewpoints!
You admonish Christians for not letting gays join the Boy Scouts, but you don't admonish terrorist detainees who murder those who simply tolerate gays.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because you care for these terrorist detainees, whose freedom of religion we must respect, you want them moved out of Gitmo so they can be treated worse in the American penal system!?
Let me give you an analogous situation. You love other people's rotten children more than your own children, who are by and large, good. Because of your undying affection for offspring not taken from your loins, you desire a better life for them, regardless of how much despair their immoral actions will cause society. Therefore you bitch and moan until the children are moved from their middle class home where they are being raised by parents who enforce somewhat strict rules as a survival mechanism and put into a dilapidated orphanage where they will be raised by a real life equivalent of Miss Hannigan from Annie who will simply turn her head as they're constantly being tormented by the their new brothers and sisters.
Perhaps the above scenario was a little too confusing, let me start over.
Your view of the Gitmo situation is the equivalent of you saying, "Even though Timmy has broken all of our rules, he deserves a reward. Let's spank him!"
I suppose I shouldn't complain, because in the end little Timmy gets disciplined for acting up, just like the Gitmo detainees will get what's coming to them when they're transferred to a maximum security prison somewhere in the United States.
Because you know what, Bubba, murdered of three, isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention. Neither is the United States Military when dealing with terrorists, actually, but I have a feeling Bubba cares even less about hearing criticism regarding his bad habit of ignoring conventions.
I just don't understand why you would condemn Cletus from Mississippi for saying the following (in a cartoon-like southern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should not be allowed to get married," yet when you hear Abdul from Syria say the following (in a cartoon-like Middle Eastern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should be hung by their necks until they were dead. Or stoned to death - I really don't have a preference overall, just depends on my mood, really. And women are beneath men. They should not be allowed to look at men or drive cars. If a wife is not obedient her husband has the right to beat her," you liberals respond, "What can we do to understand Abdul better. We've got to open up a dialogue."
Terrorists are nuts and therefore can't be reasoned with. I know that's been said many times before, so I'll try a different approach in hopes you liberals will finally catch on.
99% of all Muslims are not hell-bent on killing innocent people. But according to the 1% of Muslims who are hell-bent on killing innocent people, the Koran indicates the killing of innocent people is required of them. 99% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to act peacefully. 1% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to kill. The 1% is crazy.
Let's say a million people read Little Red Riding Hood. 99% of the readers think that while the book has a message, it doesn't call for violence against anyone, while 1% of the readers think the book is telling them to go kill everyone with the last name "Wolf."
Think you can talk sense into the 1%.
I don't, because you can't talk sense into crazy, no matter how many times you call crazy, "misunderstood."
We probably shouldn't, as the attempt usually leads to immense frustration.
But for some reason I am trying to figure out why Democrats are so hell-bent on closing Gitmo, the prison in Cuba where we house terrorist detainees.
The prisoners at Gitmo, who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children simply because said men, women and children don't believe in the exact same religion as they do, have a better life than most American prisoners currently serving in the U.S. penal system. In fact, we bend over backward making sure the needs of the prisoners are met.
You liberals, who support multiple organizations that go to great lengths to make sure Christians in America are bashed because of what you consider oppressive and antiquated viewpoints, are ready to stand up and fight for the rights of Muslims who kill innocent people who don't share their even more oppressive viewpoints!
You admonish Christians for not letting gays join the Boy Scouts, but you don't admonish terrorist detainees who murder those who simply tolerate gays.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because you care for these terrorist detainees, whose freedom of religion we must respect, you want them moved out of Gitmo so they can be treated worse in the American penal system!?
Let me give you an analogous situation. You love other people's rotten children more than your own children, who are by and large, good. Because of your undying affection for offspring not taken from your loins, you desire a better life for them, regardless of how much despair their immoral actions will cause society. Therefore you bitch and moan until the children are moved from their middle class home where they are being raised by parents who enforce somewhat strict rules as a survival mechanism and put into a dilapidated orphanage where they will be raised by a real life equivalent of Miss Hannigan from Annie who will simply turn her head as they're constantly being tormented by the their new brothers and sisters.
Perhaps the above scenario was a little too confusing, let me start over.
Your view of the Gitmo situation is the equivalent of you saying, "Even though Timmy has broken all of our rules, he deserves a reward. Let's spank him!"
I suppose I shouldn't complain, because in the end little Timmy gets disciplined for acting up, just like the Gitmo detainees will get what's coming to them when they're transferred to a maximum security prison somewhere in the United States.
Because you know what, Bubba, murdered of three, isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention. Neither is the United States Military when dealing with terrorists, actually, but I have a feeling Bubba cares even less about hearing criticism regarding his bad habit of ignoring conventions.
I just don't understand why you would condemn Cletus from Mississippi for saying the following (in a cartoon-like southern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should not be allowed to get married," yet when you hear Abdul from Syria say the following (in a cartoon-like Middle Eastern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should be hung by their necks until they were dead. Or stoned to death - I really don't have a preference overall, just depends on my mood, really. And women are beneath men. They should not be allowed to look at men or drive cars. If a wife is not obedient her husband has the right to beat her," you liberals respond, "What can we do to understand Abdul better. We've got to open up a dialogue."
Terrorists are nuts and therefore can't be reasoned with. I know that's been said many times before, so I'll try a different approach in hopes you liberals will finally catch on.
99% of all Muslims are not hell-bent on killing innocent people. But according to the 1% of Muslims who are hell-bent on killing innocent people, the Koran indicates the killing of innocent people is required of them. 99% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to act peacefully. 1% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to kill. The 1% is crazy.
Let's say a million people read Little Red Riding Hood. 99% of the readers think that while the book has a message, it doesn't call for violence against anyone, while 1% of the readers think the book is telling them to go kill everyone with the last name "Wolf."
Think you can talk sense into the 1%.
I don't, because you can't talk sense into crazy, no matter how many times you call crazy, "misunderstood."
I Hope Barack Obama Succeeds by Morphing into Ronald Reagan
For the past eight years Democrats not only rooted for George W. Bush to fail miserably in every aspect of his presidency, they also cheered for the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat our troops. Other than the lunatic fringe who consider our military personal to be the real terrorists, I don't believe they wanted harm to come to our brave men and woman fighting overseas, but were so desperate for Bush to be proven a failure; they couldn't help but cheer for a U.S. defeat in the Middle East.
Despite their wish that America fail, they don't understand why conservatives are unwilling to at least give Obama a chance to succeed.
Let me get this straight, you want conservatives to give Obama a chance to "turn the country around," yet were so desperate for Bush to fail that you not only openly wished we would lose two wars, you refused to admit it when Bush did succeed.
"The troop surge did not work," you said after the troop surge worked.
So if we acted like you, and Barack Obama turned around the economy, defeated Al-Qaeda and discovered a cheap alternative to oil, we would say, "Barack Obama did not turn the economy around, defeat Al-Qaeda, or discover a cheap alternative to oil."
But that's not the main problem with you admonishing us for not hoping President Barack Obama does a bang up job during his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The problem is that we don't agree with Barack Obama!
Do you wish a verbally abusive father success in raising respectable children? "Sure I disagree with his method of constantly calling his child a 'worthless joke of a human being,' but I wish him nothing but the best in all his parenting endeavors."
You can't wish a president success when you believe his "success" will damage the country.
If Barack Obama takes $5 billion from Bill Gates and gives it to 50,000 people who have lost their jobs, you liberals would cry "success!"
But while you were screaming, "Hallelujah, he turned the economy around by helping the poor," we would say, "Number one, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not right. And number two, that particular method of revitalizing the economy is not a long term solution; it will only work to ensure that future generations will never produce a Bill Gates because it removes incentive from those who aspire to achieve greatness."
So do I root for Barack Obama to succeed?
If your definition of a successful Obama presidency is, "President Obama morphing into a modern day Ronald Reagan by reducing taxes, increasing opportunity for entrepreneurs to succeed, and crushing our enemies throughout the world," then I say "Go Obama; get busy succeeding!"
Basically the Democrats view of success is "Turning the United States into a country opposite of what our forefathers envisioned."
Our view of success is, "Helping the United States once again resemble the country our forefathers envisioned."
So we conservatives do root for Mr. Obama to succeed, but in order for that to happen he would have to somehow obtain an entirely different system of beliefs, and despite your love for the man, I doubt such a transformation would make you Democrats very happy.
Despite their wish that America fail, they don't understand why conservatives are unwilling to at least give Obama a chance to succeed.
Let me get this straight, you want conservatives to give Obama a chance to "turn the country around," yet were so desperate for Bush to fail that you not only openly wished we would lose two wars, you refused to admit it when Bush did succeed.
"The troop surge did not work," you said after the troop surge worked.
So if we acted like you, and Barack Obama turned around the economy, defeated Al-Qaeda and discovered a cheap alternative to oil, we would say, "Barack Obama did not turn the economy around, defeat Al-Qaeda, or discover a cheap alternative to oil."
But that's not the main problem with you admonishing us for not hoping President Barack Obama does a bang up job during his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The problem is that we don't agree with Barack Obama!
Do you wish a verbally abusive father success in raising respectable children? "Sure I disagree with his method of constantly calling his child a 'worthless joke of a human being,' but I wish him nothing but the best in all his parenting endeavors."
You can't wish a president success when you believe his "success" will damage the country.
If Barack Obama takes $5 billion from Bill Gates and gives it to 50,000 people who have lost their jobs, you liberals would cry "success!"
But while you were screaming, "Hallelujah, he turned the economy around by helping the poor," we would say, "Number one, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not right. And number two, that particular method of revitalizing the economy is not a long term solution; it will only work to ensure that future generations will never produce a Bill Gates because it removes incentive from those who aspire to achieve greatness."
So do I root for Barack Obama to succeed?
If your definition of a successful Obama presidency is, "President Obama morphing into a modern day Ronald Reagan by reducing taxes, increasing opportunity for entrepreneurs to succeed, and crushing our enemies throughout the world," then I say "Go Obama; get busy succeeding!"
Basically the Democrats view of success is "Turning the United States into a country opposite of what our forefathers envisioned."
Our view of success is, "Helping the United States once again resemble the country our forefathers envisioned."
So we conservatives do root for Mr. Obama to succeed, but in order for that to happen he would have to somehow obtain an entirely different system of beliefs, and despite your love for the man, I doubt such a transformation would make you Democrats very happy.
You Couldn't Make This Global Warming Stuff Up!
As I read daily updates about states, counties and cities passing financially burdensome laws with the aim of curbing global warming, I become more and more amazed that the people who dreamed up the whole, "Man is creating global warming" theory actually got away with it.
They took two things that science can't prove have anything to do with each other and presented it as a fact that one was causing the other.
And people bought it.
Not only did they buy it, it's costing American citizens millions of dollars.
I find it hilarious when gullible morons get fleeced by politically correct do-gooders, but when laws that make everyone suffer financially are passed, it is cause for alarm. Especially in the trying economic times we face today.
Say I get together with a bunch of scientists who claim walking on Tuesday will eventually kill you.
Sounds far fetched, but because there is no evidence indicating man is causing global warming, those of you who believe it without question would surely believe something like walking on Tuesday is deadly.
Sure hundreds of scientists come out and say you can't link walking on Tuesday and death. But they can't prove it. No one has ever made a conscious decision to stop walking on Tuesday and everyone eventually dies.
Motorized scooters and padded mats that make crawling to your desk easy on the knees are just the beginning.
And of course everyone can't be expected to purchase their own motorized scooters and padded mats, therefore the bill will go the taxpayers, i.e., motorized scooters and padded mats are on the rich!
Also, each and every scientist who claims that walking on Tuesday is not detrimental to ones health faces tremendous scorn, and in some cases, receives death threats.
That really happens to scientists who conclude there is no correlation between man and global warming. The global warming freaks, who deride faith-based teaching in schools, also deride scientists who don't buy into the "Global warming is caused by man" theory; a theory based solely on faith.
So if you do accept the non-scientifically backed assertion that global warming is caused by man, you probably want to change your, "If you are of a certain ideology I will believe any words that come out of your mouth," stance, because the people you trust may eventually take advantage of your naiveté.
But don't worry; walking on Tuesday is perfectly healthy.
But I'm sure you'll still want to check with Al Gore.
They took two things that science can't prove have anything to do with each other and presented it as a fact that one was causing the other.
And people bought it.
Not only did they buy it, it's costing American citizens millions of dollars.
I find it hilarious when gullible morons get fleeced by politically correct do-gooders, but when laws that make everyone suffer financially are passed, it is cause for alarm. Especially in the trying economic times we face today.
Say I get together with a bunch of scientists who claim walking on Tuesday will eventually kill you.
Sounds far fetched, but because there is no evidence indicating man is causing global warming, those of you who believe it without question would surely believe something like walking on Tuesday is deadly.
Sure hundreds of scientists come out and say you can't link walking on Tuesday and death. But they can't prove it. No one has ever made a conscious decision to stop walking on Tuesday and everyone eventually dies.
Motorized scooters and padded mats that make crawling to your desk easy on the knees are just the beginning.
And of course everyone can't be expected to purchase their own motorized scooters and padded mats, therefore the bill will go the taxpayers, i.e., motorized scooters and padded mats are on the rich!
Also, each and every scientist who claims that walking on Tuesday is not detrimental to ones health faces tremendous scorn, and in some cases, receives death threats.
That really happens to scientists who conclude there is no correlation between man and global warming. The global warming freaks, who deride faith-based teaching in schools, also deride scientists who don't buy into the "Global warming is caused by man" theory; a theory based solely on faith.
So if you do accept the non-scientifically backed assertion that global warming is caused by man, you probably want to change your, "If you are of a certain ideology I will believe any words that come out of your mouth," stance, because the people you trust may eventually take advantage of your naiveté.
But don't worry; walking on Tuesday is perfectly healthy.
But I'm sure you'll still want to check with Al Gore.
Minorities Will Revive the Republican Party
You hear a lot of political pundits predict that the Republican Party will cease to exist due to the fact that minority groups will soon become the majority.
Basically the "experts" say that the Republican Party must turn into a party of liberal ideas in order to remain relevant.
It's true that the country is on the verge of embracing socialism and the Republican Party is in for some difficult times, especially if no adequate leader emerges.
After a while, however, the minorities turned majorities will grow up and become annoyed they're still being told what to do every step of the way.
"You're an adult now and can make your own decisions, Jose. Now, this is what doctor you'll go to, this is what university you'll attend (because they're in desperate need of Hispanic students), this is how we're going to invest your money, so you needn't worry about that, etc..."
Then Jose's going to say, "But I want to make those decisions myself. I can think for myself. I can create my own success. I want freedom to prosper."
"But freedom is what caused your people to be oppressed, Jose."
"Look at all the successful minorities in this country, starting with Barack Obama. The only thing that matters is my ability and determination," Jose will counter.
"That's antiquated thinking, Jose. Now I'm going to get started registering you for the classes society thinks it's best for you to take?"
I don't mean to go all Ayn Rand here, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you strip freedom away from people they will revolt, and unfortunately the naïve among us are currently electing individuals who wish to strip more and more of our liberty.
So while the pundits are correct in saying that the Republican Party will be in shambles once the minority becomes the majority, it will only be a temporary situation.
Because regardless of race, creed or color; people hate being told what to do, which is why children are in such a hurry to grow up.
And I'm confident this country will eventually grow up.
Basically the "experts" say that the Republican Party must turn into a party of liberal ideas in order to remain relevant.
It's true that the country is on the verge of embracing socialism and the Republican Party is in for some difficult times, especially if no adequate leader emerges.
After a while, however, the minorities turned majorities will grow up and become annoyed they're still being told what to do every step of the way.
"You're an adult now and can make your own decisions, Jose. Now, this is what doctor you'll go to, this is what university you'll attend (because they're in desperate need of Hispanic students), this is how we're going to invest your money, so you needn't worry about that, etc..."
Then Jose's going to say, "But I want to make those decisions myself. I can think for myself. I can create my own success. I want freedom to prosper."
"But freedom is what caused your people to be oppressed, Jose."
"Look at all the successful minorities in this country, starting with Barack Obama. The only thing that matters is my ability and determination," Jose will counter.
"That's antiquated thinking, Jose. Now I'm going to get started registering you for the classes society thinks it's best for you to take?"
I don't mean to go all Ayn Rand here, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you strip freedom away from people they will revolt, and unfortunately the naïve among us are currently electing individuals who wish to strip more and more of our liberty.
So while the pundits are correct in saying that the Republican Party will be in shambles once the minority becomes the majority, it will only be a temporary situation.
Because regardless of race, creed or color; people hate being told what to do, which is why children are in such a hurry to grow up.
And I'm confident this country will eventually grow up.
We're All Closeted Racists
Unfortunately, if you're Caucasian, everything you're doing not to further the cause of a minority is racist.
Sorry, I know you don't want to hear that you're constantly acting in a racist manner, but we can no longer deny facts.
And please excuse those of us who can't keep up with the definition of "racism" as it changes frequently and seems to differ based on which minority is speaking.
Because I think we missed the day where the definition of racism changed from, "discrimination based on race," to, "not asking yourself, 'will my actions assist a minority group,' before doing anything."
Because if every action we take is not to further the success of a minority; we're racist.
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, bringing up the fact that Barack Obama had a spiritual guru who'd uttered phrases such as "God damnAmerica
Again, even mentioning the aforementioned Jeremiah Wright was considered racist; though it had nothing to do with the fact that Reverend Wright or then Senator Obama are African-Americans.
Why? Because those vile enough to bring up the subject of Reverend Wright and his fervent Anti-Americanism weren't furthering the career of Senator Obama or Reverend Wright.
Let's talk college football.
If you choose to hire a Caucasian coach to lead your college football team, you are a racist.
It doesn't matter what your reasons are; no African-American head coach equals blatant racism.
Why?
Because the racists in question are not living every moment of their life to reverse decades of racism.
When you download a CD from iTunes, do you choose the new Travis Tritt, Jewel, or John Mayer offering? Or do you go with a 50 Cent, Kanye West or Lil Wayne recording?
If you answered Travis Tritt, Jewel or John Mayer, why that means you're a racist.
Just like it doesn't matter if there is a legitimate reason to hire a Caucasian coach, it doesn't matter if you went with Travis Tritt because you like country music, Jewel because you enjoy her soothing voice or John Mayer because you're confused about your sexuality. No, none of that matters. It only matters that you didn't further the career of a minority.
Shame on you.
Don't buy music from a Caucasian artist that you'll enjoy; buy music produced by a minority and learn to like it.
Because it's not about what you want; it's about what's best for the minority community as dictated by the minority community.*
Remember, what you want has nothing to do with you; and if you think differently... why you're a raving bigot.
*Minority community retains the ability to change their mind on a whim.
Sorry, I know you don't want to hear that you're constantly acting in a racist manner, but we can no longer deny facts.
And please excuse those of us who can't keep up with the definition of "racism" as it changes frequently and seems to differ based on which minority is speaking.
Because I think we missed the day where the definition of racism changed from, "discrimination based on race," to, "not asking yourself, 'will my actions assist a minority group,' before doing anything."
Because if every action we take is not to further the success of a minority; we're racist.
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, bringing up the fact that Barack Obama had a spiritual guru who'd uttered phrases such as "God damn
Again, even mentioning the aforementioned Jeremiah Wright was considered racist; though it had nothing to do with the fact that Reverend Wright or then Senator Obama are African-Americans.
Why? Because those vile enough to bring up the subject of Reverend Wright and his fervent Anti-Americanism weren't furthering the career of Senator Obama or Reverend Wright.
Let's talk college football.
If you choose to hire a Caucasian coach to lead your college football team, you are a racist.
It doesn't matter what your reasons are; no African-American head coach equals blatant racism.
Why?
Because the racists in question are not living every moment of their life to reverse decades of racism.
When you download a CD from iTunes, do you choose the new Travis Tritt, Jewel, or John Mayer offering? Or do you go with a 50 Cent, Kanye West or Lil Wayne recording?
If you answered Travis Tritt, Jewel or John Mayer, why that means you're a racist.
Just like it doesn't matter if there is a legitimate reason to hire a Caucasian coach, it doesn't matter if you went with Travis Tritt because you like country music, Jewel because you enjoy her soothing voice or John Mayer because you're confused about your sexuality. No, none of that matters. It only matters that you didn't further the career of a minority.
Shame on you.
Don't buy music from a Caucasian artist that you'll enjoy; buy music produced by a minority and learn to like it.
Because it's not about what you want; it's about what's best for the minority community as dictated by the minority community.*
Remember, what you want has nothing to do with you; and if you think differently... why you're a raving bigot.
*Minority community retains the ability to change their mind on a whim.
It Takes a Little Thought to Vote Republican
There is a lot of news out there about a Zogby poll that scientifically proves those who voted for President-elect Barack Obama were woefully ignorant about the issues. (Basically the poll revealed that most Obama voters didn't know basic facts such as which political party currently controlled Congress, etc.)
What a shocker!
In response, Democrats are asking, "Are you calling us stupid?"
The answer would be no. We're calling you ignorant regarding the issues; which the poll proves. It was you who called Republicans stupid after George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004.
See, the problem with your, "Republicans are stupid while Democrats are smart" argument is that it takes a little thought to vote Republican, while we learned today that voting for the Democrat means you know very little about the state of our great country.
And it's not that you're stupid, so please don't accuse everyone who points to a scientific poll, the one that says Obama voters were not well informed, of making disparaging remarks about your intellect.
Obama voters just simply don't follow politics. If I asked someone who won the 1985 Super Bowl and they responded with a blank stare, I wouldn't call them an idiot. I would simply deduce they don't follow sports.
See the connection?
You see, being ill informed means you were easily swayed by the partisan media and persuasive Barack Obama talking points.
Barack Obama said things like, "I'll give 95% of the country a tax break," and you non-politics-following people thought, "He looks like an honest guy and I heard somewhere that Democrats do look after the little guy."
Of course you don't realize that Democrats love taxes and we could very well have a case in which Mr. Obama was relying on your ignorance. He knew you weren't going to discover for yourselves that he and those with similar viewpoints believe taxing everyone is the way to go. He told you what you wanted to hear – and you bought it.
The other night Jon Stewart tried to tell Bill O'Reilly that an Obama victory meant that the country was not center-right as most polls suggest.
But let's break down the advantages held by Barack Obama going into the 2008 Presidential Election:
The United States is in the midst of two unpopular wars.
The mainstream media was in the tank for Barack Obama.
President George W. Bush is extremely unpopular.
When you add the fact that Barack Obama hid his far left beliefs from the country by campaigning as a centrist, along with the fact that John McCain had a lead in the polls until a Democrat-caused financial crisis hit the United States, it's a wonder why Obama didn't win with Reagan over Mondale type numbers.
(For those of you who voted for Barack Obama; Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by 512 electoral votes. That's a lot.)
Instead Obama only won by 8 million votes. A healthy number yes; but a decent McCain campaign would have cut that number in half... and possibly kept a Republican in the White House.
And Mr. Stewart mentioned that far left people like him are not really far left. Instead he claims that they simply believe in an increase in taxes for the richest in America from 36 to 39 percent. But something tells me Jon Stewart is currently only paying the minimum as required by law. Actually, he probably has a team of lawyers trying desperately to make sure he pays far less than the minimum. In other words, Mr. Stewart won't give the government what he believes a person of his income should give until he is forced to do so.
That's the Democrats new mantra, no?
"Come tell us how to live, President Obama – without you we are sinners; with you we are noble."
I guess we can't blame the Democrats for not having faith in the American people when they don't even have faith in themselves.
What a shocker!
In response, Democrats are asking, "Are you calling us stupid?"
The answer would be no. We're calling you ignorant regarding the issues; which the poll proves. It was you who called Republicans stupid after George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004.
See, the problem with your, "Republicans are stupid while Democrats are smart" argument is that it takes a little thought to vote Republican, while we learned today that voting for the Democrat means you know very little about the state of our great country.
And it's not that you're stupid, so please don't accuse everyone who points to a scientific poll, the one that says Obama voters were not well informed, of making disparaging remarks about your intellect.
Obama voters just simply don't follow politics. If I asked someone who won the 1985 Super Bowl and they responded with a blank stare, I wouldn't call them an idiot. I would simply deduce they don't follow sports.
See the connection?
You see, being ill informed means you were easily swayed by the partisan media and persuasive Barack Obama talking points.
Barack Obama said things like, "I'll give 95% of the country a tax break," and you non-politics-following people thought, "He looks like an honest guy and I heard somewhere that Democrats do look after the little guy."
Of course you don't realize that Democrats love taxes and we could very well have a case in which Mr. Obama was relying on your ignorance. He knew you weren't going to discover for yourselves that he and those with similar viewpoints believe taxing everyone is the way to go. He told you what you wanted to hear – and you bought it.
The other night Jon Stewart tried to tell Bill O'Reilly that an Obama victory meant that the country was not center-right as most polls suggest.
But let's break down the advantages held by Barack Obama going into the 2008 Presidential Election:
The United States is in the midst of two unpopular wars.
The mainstream media was in the tank for Barack Obama.
President George W. Bush is extremely unpopular.
When you add the fact that Barack Obama hid his far left beliefs from the country by campaigning as a centrist, along with the fact that John McCain had a lead in the polls until a Democrat-caused financial crisis hit the United States, it's a wonder why Obama didn't win with Reagan over Mondale type numbers.
(For those of you who voted for Barack Obama; Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by 512 electoral votes. That's a lot.)
Instead Obama only won by 8 million votes. A healthy number yes; but a decent McCain campaign would have cut that number in half... and possibly kept a Republican in the White House.
And Mr. Stewart mentioned that far left people like him are not really far left. Instead he claims that they simply believe in an increase in taxes for the richest in America from 36 to 39 percent. But something tells me Jon Stewart is currently only paying the minimum as required by law. Actually, he probably has a team of lawyers trying desperately to make sure he pays far less than the minimum. In other words, Mr. Stewart won't give the government what he believes a person of his income should give until he is forced to do so.
That's the Democrats new mantra, no?
"Come tell us how to live, President Obama – without you we are sinners; with you we are noble."
I guess we can't blame the Democrats for not having faith in the American people when they don't even have faith in themselves.
No Checks and Balances with Obama Win
Not only will a victory for Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama mean the White House and Congress will be under far left rule, it will also result in the media becoming, if you can believe it, even more irrelevant.
Currently the media believes its job is to harm Republican politicians by any means necessary. Lying, cheating, stealing, writing articles that insinuate John McCain has had an affair despite an overwhelming lack of evidence, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I know some of you refuse to believe in press bias, so please let me speak to the rational citizens of the United States for a moment. According to the media, Democrats, especially Barack Obama, can do no wrong.
Hang out with terrorists... ABC is cool with that.
Steal from the rich and give to the poor... AP Analysts Analyze that they like that.
Choose a preacher that says America is to blame for everything bad in the world... MSNBC says, "That's exactly what we've been saying!"
Basically this means the radical liberals in Washington, after an Obama victory, will pass insane laws that hinder liberty and take material possessions away from those to whom they rightfully belong.
The only place you will be able to hear from the couple whose house was taken by the United States Government and given to a bunch of homeless homosexuals so they'd have a safe place to have gay sex, is Fox News. (Unless Fox News is shut down due to the soon-to-be implemented Fairness Doctrine because the liberals running Washington will consider Fox News to be the only biased television network while they deem one Republican for every 200 Democrats on MSNBC completely in accordance with the Doctrine.)
Those in the media left standing after the passage of the Fairness Doctrine will applaud the stealing of the house belonging to the straight white couple and spin it to make it sound like an achievement of Robin Hoodian proportions.
I can already picture the article...
"During the Bush Administration, whenever Joe the Homeless Guy had gay sex with a strange man it was always on top of disease infested syringes in a dumpster behind the Arby's off I-47, which means his partner wasn't the only thing poking Joe in the butt. But thanks to a bill recently signed by President Obama, he'll now have the use of someone else's comfy bed."
Of course an Obama Presidency will mean the end to traditional marriage due to the fact that President Obama, Congress, and the media will ally with each other and pass a law making gay marriage a permanent fixture in America. The Supreme Court won't be able to save marriage as being homosexual will probably be a requirement for nomination.
What am I talking about – having ties to, or previously having been, a terrorist will probably be a prerequisite to being a member of the United States Supreme Court. After all, there will be a lot more terrorists walking around after Obama is elected – and they deserve representation!
I suppose my fear can be summed up by the famous quote "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The liberals are going to have all the power. The media will refuse to negatively report on any controversial action taken by the Democrats. "It's good that they did that," the press will say in a creepy, Twilight Zone sort of way. Instead of Jonestown, the United States will become Obamatown.
Yes, it's safe to say Democrats will enjoy power of this magnitude and do anything they can to retain it – perhaps even some of the things for which they have previously criticized Republicans.
You liberals need to think about how kindly you take to opposing viewpoints. Do you calmly listen to conservative speakers or do you pelt them with rotten eggs?
Well, if, sometime down the line, you have a disagreement with the Democratic Party which controls the White House, the Congress, the media, as well as the courts, where are you going to turn? Are you going to call your neighbors and start a grass roots movement!? Good idea, but are you sure you and your neighbor are the only ones on the line? Perhaps there was already a similar case where the person with the idea to begin a movement went missing and was never heard from again!
After all, Siberia is a pretty big place, and I have a feeling Putin is one of the first men President Obama will attempt to befriend.
No, the Democrats would never take a, "the ends justify the means" approach!
Well, they are involved in voter fraud (ACORN), they do lie about Republicans (McCain had an affair), they refuse to admit their actual plan (redistribute wealth), they pretend it's the Republicans fault that the economy is in shambles (Democrats forcing Fannie and Freddie to loan money to people who were clearly unable to pay it back).
But people who believe in a "let's look out for the common man," approach wouldn't abuse power, would they?
Sure, there were a few loose cannons who enjoyed butchering their subjects, but that could never happen in America, right?
Oh, it could happen, because to Obama and the rest of his cronies, retaining power by any means necessary is in your best interest; whether you think so or not.
Currently the media believes its job is to harm Republican politicians by any means necessary. Lying, cheating, stealing, writing articles that insinuate John McCain has had an affair despite an overwhelming lack of evidence, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I know some of you refuse to believe in press bias, so please let me speak to the rational citizens of the United States for a moment. According to the media, Democrats, especially Barack Obama, can do no wrong.
Hang out with terrorists... ABC is cool with that.
Steal from the rich and give to the poor... AP Analysts Analyze that they like that.
Choose a preacher that says America is to blame for everything bad in the world... MSNBC says, "That's exactly what we've been saying!"
Basically this means the radical liberals in Washington, after an Obama victory, will pass insane laws that hinder liberty and take material possessions away from those to whom they rightfully belong.
The only place you will be able to hear from the couple whose house was taken by the United States Government and given to a bunch of homeless homosexuals so they'd have a safe place to have gay sex, is Fox News. (Unless Fox News is shut down due to the soon-to-be implemented Fairness Doctrine because the liberals running Washington will consider Fox News to be the only biased television network while they deem one Republican for every 200 Democrats on MSNBC completely in accordance with the Doctrine.)
Those in the media left standing after the passage of the Fairness Doctrine will applaud the stealing of the house belonging to the straight white couple and spin it to make it sound like an achievement of Robin Hoodian proportions.
I can already picture the article...
"During the Bush Administration, whenever Joe the Homeless Guy had gay sex with a strange man it was always on top of disease infested syringes in a dumpster behind the Arby's off I-47, which means his partner wasn't the only thing poking Joe in the butt. But thanks to a bill recently signed by President Obama, he'll now have the use of someone else's comfy bed."
Of course an Obama Presidency will mean the end to traditional marriage due to the fact that President Obama, Congress, and the media will ally with each other and pass a law making gay marriage a permanent fixture in America. The Supreme Court won't be able to save marriage as being homosexual will probably be a requirement for nomination.
What am I talking about – having ties to, or previously having been, a terrorist will probably be a prerequisite to being a member of the United States Supreme Court. After all, there will be a lot more terrorists walking around after Obama is elected – and they deserve representation!
I suppose my fear can be summed up by the famous quote "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The liberals are going to have all the power. The media will refuse to negatively report on any controversial action taken by the Democrats. "It's good that they did that," the press will say in a creepy, Twilight Zone sort of way. Instead of Jonestown, the United States will become Obamatown.
Yes, it's safe to say Democrats will enjoy power of this magnitude and do anything they can to retain it – perhaps even some of the things for which they have previously criticized Republicans.
You liberals need to think about how kindly you take to opposing viewpoints. Do you calmly listen to conservative speakers or do you pelt them with rotten eggs?
Well, if, sometime down the line, you have a disagreement with the Democratic Party which controls the White House, the Congress, the media, as well as the courts, where are you going to turn? Are you going to call your neighbors and start a grass roots movement!? Good idea, but are you sure you and your neighbor are the only ones on the line? Perhaps there was already a similar case where the person with the idea to begin a movement went missing and was never heard from again!
After all, Siberia is a pretty big place, and I have a feeling Putin is one of the first men President Obama will attempt to befriend.
No, the Democrats would never take a, "the ends justify the means" approach!
Well, they are involved in voter fraud (ACORN), they do lie about Republicans (McCain had an affair), they refuse to admit their actual plan (redistribute wealth), they pretend it's the Republicans fault that the economy is in shambles (Democrats forcing Fannie and Freddie to loan money to people who were clearly unable to pay it back).
But people who believe in a "let's look out for the common man," approach wouldn't abuse power, would they?
Sure, there were a few loose cannons who enjoyed butchering their subjects, but that could never happen in America, right?
Oh, it could happen, because to Obama and the rest of his cronies, retaining power by any means necessary is in your best interest; whether you think so or not.
Reexamining Female Suffrage
If you examine the 2008 Presidential poll numbers you'll notice that one group could very well be deciding who occupies the White House beginning January 20, 2009.
Women.
Women currently favor Barack (Hussein) Obama overwhelmingly, while men favor John (I Don't Know His Middle Name, But I Know It Ain't Hussein) McCain.
With rare exceptions, men run everything in the
And, not to belittle her accomplishment, but the business with which she was successful revolves around two things women are notoriously good at: sitting on your butt and shopping.
Sure, there are ladies who are "successful" in politics.
There is Hillary Clinton who rose to the top by marrying a known womanizer who also happens to have the ability to put a voodoo spell on half the country.
There is Nancy Pelosi who rose to the top by doing nothing other than purporting a far left wing agenda in a district full of the most radical left winged people on the face of the earth. If you find someone successful simply for rising to the position of top loon in a land of loons, you have to consider People's
The only truly successful women in politics are Republicans.
Condoleezza Rice comes to mind as a woman who made it based on merit. But unfortunately for those on the left, she does not have a liberal equivalent.
So the gender that hasn't really done much in terms of progress is the one that gets to decide the President?!
Fortunately there have usually been enough smart women to keep a Republican in the Oval Office.
However Democrat Bill Clinton became President because he was charming, good-looking, and full of non-specific ideas that he promised would "change" the country.
Uh-oh!
That's one of the reasons we're looking at an Obama Presidency.
The second reason is because (and this is not meant to be sexist in the least) women don't understand how things work.
Women hear: "I'll cut taxes for 95% of the American people," and they instinctively react, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!" Women don't understand that raising taxes on businesses, which Barack plans to do, will cancel his prospective tax cuts to the working class because of the fact that they, and every other woman, spend their husband's money purchasing goods created by businesses that will pass their tax increases onto the consumer.
They also don't understand that Barack Obama won't cut taxes to 95% of the people because Democrats fundamentally believe in higher taxes across the board!
Again, not to be sexist, but women only care about how things feel – while reality is a pest that should be pushed aside.
That's the reason they're likely to vote Democrat.
The Democrats shovel the following talking points which are very effective in convincing people who don't think...
"We will raise taxes for the rich, who won't miss the money. We will cut taxes for the poor, who desperately need the money."
"Republicans will lower taxes on the rich while offering no relief to the poor because poor people aren't like them – and Republicans despise people that aren't like them."
So if you women would do one simple thing before heading to the polls, I guarantee this country would be better off...
Ask your husband for whom you should vote.
Of course there are some men who make every decision based on irrational emotion...
We call them gays...
...Not that there's anything wrong with being intimate with members of the same sex. In fact, I'd rather they have inappropriate relations with their own kind than make decisions that effect the entire country based on irrational emotion.
Fernando Would Hate the Democrat Party
"It's better to look good than to feel good," was the favorite saying of Fernando: the Saturday Night Live character made famous by Billy Crystal.
For the Democrats of today, however, it's all about feel.
"We feel like everyone in America should have a beautiful home; why don't we "strongly encourage" the lenders to make that possible! Poverty discrimination is just like any other form of discrimination."
It's the same thing with minimum wage.
A company pays Tim and Jim $8 an hour each. Minimum wage rises to $10 an hour. The company can't afford $20 an hour so Jim gets the axe. Eventually a lack of manpower causes the company to fold and Tim is also out of a job.
Do Democrats care?
No, they're at home feeling good with pictures dancing in their head of both Tim and Jim going home to tell their families about the huge raise they just received. Then they imagine those evil CEO's pounding their fists in frustration because their ability to exploit the less fortunate has been greatly diminished.
And if you try to inform Democrats of Jim and Tim's termination they will likely put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs. They do this because learning of layoffs doesn't feel particularly good – especially when it was their actions which directly caused working class people to lose their jobs.
Matt Damon said the rise of Sarah Palin resembles a bad Disney movie.
What! The entire ideology of the Democrat Party resembles a bad Disney movie!
Bosses are evil! Having the audacity to desire a profit is immoral! If you have employees you are automatically trying to screw them and the only reason they're not chained to their chairs is because you fear incarceration!
To the Democrats, everyone who employs others is Ebenezer Scrooge – only without the inherent ability to reform themselves!
In the mind of a Democrat, this is how a typical business gets started...
Husband: "Let's open a corner bakery."
Wife: "Why, so we can be our own bosses, provide for our families and do something we love?"
Husband: "No, so we can (expletive deleted) over the working class!"
Wife: "That sounds like soooooooo much fun – I'm in!"
Why do Democrats think like that?
Because it feels good.
They hate when people work hard and achieve greatness without help from the government, and therefore it makes them feel good to think of bosses as evil individuals who are only successful because they practice deviant behavior.
Everything liberals believe revolves around feel.
Reality: We don't know that global warming is being caused by man.
Democrat Mindset: Putting my empty water bottle in the blue receptacle as opposed to the trash can makes me feel like I'm saving mankind – just like Superman!
Reality: Those willing to kill women and children are usually somewhat stubborn and therefore difficult to appease. Democrat Mindset: Applying that "Give Peace a Chance" sticker to my bumper felt great! Besides, the shade of taupe they used for the peace sign matches perfectly with the ocean water in the picture of the earth they used for "O's" in my "Make Love, Not War" bumper sticker!
Why don't you Democrats try and improve America by paying attention to that which is real. Sure, reality doesn't always feel great, but isn't that what life is all about!
For the Democrats of today, however, it's all about feel.
"We feel like everyone in America should have a beautiful home; why don't we "strongly encourage" the lenders to make that possible! Poverty discrimination is just like any other form of discrimination."
It's the same thing with minimum wage.
A company pays Tim and Jim $8 an hour each. Minimum wage rises to $10 an hour. The company can't afford $20 an hour so Jim gets the axe. Eventually a lack of manpower causes the company to fold and Tim is also out of a job.
Do Democrats care?
No, they're at home feeling good with pictures dancing in their head of both Tim and Jim going home to tell their families about the huge raise they just received. Then they imagine those evil CEO's pounding their fists in frustration because their ability to exploit the less fortunate has been greatly diminished.
And if you try to inform Democrats of Jim and Tim's termination they will likely put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs. They do this because learning of layoffs doesn't feel particularly good – especially when it was their actions which directly caused working class people to lose their jobs.
Matt Damon said the rise of Sarah Palin resembles a bad Disney movie.
What! The entire ideology of the Democrat Party resembles a bad Disney movie!
Bosses are evil! Having the audacity to desire a profit is immoral! If you have employees you are automatically trying to screw them and the only reason they're not chained to their chairs is because you fear incarceration!
To the Democrats, everyone who employs others is Ebenezer Scrooge – only without the inherent ability to reform themselves!
In the mind of a Democrat, this is how a typical business gets started...
Husband: "Let's open a corner bakery."
Wife: "Why, so we can be our own bosses, provide for our families and do something we love?"
Husband: "No, so we can (expletive deleted) over the working class!"
Wife: "That sounds like soooooooo much fun – I'm in!"
Why do Democrats think like that?
Because it feels good.
They hate when people work hard and achieve greatness without help from the government, and therefore it makes them feel good to think of bosses as evil individuals who are only successful because they practice deviant behavior.
Everything liberals believe revolves around feel.
Reality: We don't know that global warming is being caused by man.
Democrat Mindset: Putting my empty water bottle in the blue receptacle as opposed to the trash can makes me feel like I'm saving mankind – just like Superman!
Reality: Those willing to kill women and children are usually somewhat stubborn and therefore difficult to appease. Democrat Mindset: Applying that "Give Peace a Chance" sticker to my bumper felt great! Besides, the shade of taupe they used for the peace sign matches perfectly with the ocean water in the picture of the earth they used for "O's" in my "Make Love, Not War" bumper sticker!
Why don't you Democrats try and improve America by paying attention to that which is real. Sure, reality doesn't always feel great, but isn't that what life is all about!
The Government Isn't to Blame for Everything
Listening to the Democrats speak, I can't help but get the impression they truly believe that the United States Government is responsible for everything that goes wrong in America. Scratch that, I get the impression Democrats truly believe that the United States Government is responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world.
"President Bush made my boss fire me."
"Those damn Republicans made it where the drug company must charge me $30 for the medicine required to control my gout."
"The House of Representatives moved that coffee table on which I stubbed my toe, thus further aggravating my gout!"
Have you ever thought that your boss may have fired you because you were never on time, as well as took the overall attitude that he or she owed you something? Maybe, like all Democrats, you thought of your employer as evil and tried to perform an exorcism on him or her? Or maybe the CEO of your company inexplicably tried to switch from selling windshield wipers to selling exotic Sri Lankan cheeses and the business folded?
Maybe the drug companies charge you $30 because they must receive $30 in exchange for their product in order to turn a profit. I mean, you're not saying that the people at the drug companies should lose money and therefore get sick because they can't afford to purchase their own products, are you?
And perhaps your lack of focus caused you to stub your toe? Maybe you were dreaming about Barack Obama solving all your problems with the stroke of his pen and weren't paying attention to the path in front of you?
The point is that the government cannot be blamed for any of the problems that you Democrats regularly complain about. And I would say the same thing no matter which party was in the White House. The job of the government is to build roads and protect its people - that's it. They're not supposed to hold your hand from the moment you're born until the moment you die. The government is not supposed to make sure you're always gainfully employed. The government is not supposed to make sure you can afford everything your little heart desires, and it's not supposed to make sure you can retire two years after your 20th birthday.
I mean, why do you Democrats ever leave the home of your parents if you want to be taken care of from the cradle to the grave?
And I would like all you Democrats to give me one example of something the government should do to create jobs? Should they invent a bunch of governmental busy work? Force large conglomerates to hire people they don't need?
I can't wait to go to Wal-Mart and hear this, "Hello, my name is Bonnie and I'll be in charge of following you around with a calculator in order to give you an updated total, including tax, of all the items in your cart."
"But I don't need that service."
"You might not have wanted to put your seat belt on during your trip here, either, but it wasn't your decision, was it? In other words, it's mandated by the government."
Call me crazy, but I still have this wacky belief that the private sector should create jobs.
And I love it when Democrats speak about giving citizens everything they want, without the citizens having to lift a finger, and then declare that if you work hard you can accomplish anything.
Translation: "With hard work your wildest dreams can come true, but if you'd rather sit on your butt and do nothing we'll make sure you're taken care of just the same. It's win-win!"
Or I suppose what the Democrats are really saying is that if you worked hard and didn't succeed it's the fault of the government.
Ordinarily Citizen: "I worked like, really hard, you know, and I ain't got me nothin' to show for it."
Barack Obama: "That must mean that the government prevented you from succeeding due to racism, sexism or ageism."
On second thought, the Democrats believe government is the cure for everything.
Now I'm confused.
It's the government's fault you lost your job and can't afford medicine, so the government is going to help you get a job and pay for your medicine.
It's kind of like asking Mike Tyson to help protect you from Mike Tyson.
You Democrats are always talking about the Bible being contradictory; have you looked at your own system of beliefs lately?
"You can do it!"
"Actually it's really hard so we'll have to help you."
"Some of you can do it!"
"But if you do we're going to take all your money and give it to other people."
Repeating What People Say is Not an Attack!
Michelle Obama said recently, "For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country."
Ladies and gentleman I have just attacked Michelle Obama.
Because in today's political climate attributing words to their original speaker is dirty pool.
So the next time a Democrat tells you something like, "Michelle Obama said it should be a priority to heal the sick children of America," you should admonish them for their ruthless attack on Mrs. Obama!
"How dare you repeat what she said like that! Have you no shame!"
"But Mrs. Obama stands by her statement that the sick children of America should be healed," you say.
Well how are we supposed to know which statements she stands by and which statements shouldn't be repeated by anyone, at anytime, ever?
And what if we're asked? "Did Mrs. Obama say, 'For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country.'?"
If I answer yes I am attacking her! If I answer no I am lying! Do I say, "I cannot confirm nor deny any previous remark made by Mrs. Obama, Senator Barack Obama, his campaign staff or any Obama supporter."?
If I direct them to Wikipedia and they discover she said, "For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country," am I guilty of indirectly attacking Mrs. Obama?
I have a better idea, why don't we all openly discuss what the candidates and their wives say on the campaign trail and then use the information we've gathered through intelligent dialogue as a basis for our decision regarding who we vote for come November! Sure it's radical, but I think it's just crazy enough to work!
Oh, that's right, you Democrats are all about free speech as long as it doesn't harm your candidate or oppose your beliefs.
I'll start working on another plan.
Darn it, I really thought I had something there with my idea of using information to help us choose a candidate.
Ladies and gentleman I have just attacked Michelle Obama.
Because in today's political climate attributing words to their original speaker is dirty pool.
So the next time a Democrat tells you something like, "Michelle Obama said it should be a priority to heal the sick children of America," you should admonish them for their ruthless attack on Mrs. Obama!
"How dare you repeat what she said like that! Have you no shame!"
"But Mrs. Obama stands by her statement that the sick children of America should be healed," you say.
Well how are we supposed to know which statements she stands by and which statements shouldn't be repeated by anyone, at anytime, ever?
And what if we're asked? "Did Mrs. Obama say, 'For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country.'?"
If I answer yes I am attacking her! If I answer no I am lying! Do I say, "I cannot confirm nor deny any previous remark made by Mrs. Obama, Senator Barack Obama, his campaign staff or any Obama supporter."?
If I direct them to Wikipedia and they discover she said, "For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country," am I guilty of indirectly attacking Mrs. Obama?
I have a better idea, why don't we all openly discuss what the candidates and their wives say on the campaign trail and then use the information we've gathered through intelligent dialogue as a basis for our decision regarding who we vote for come November! Sure it's radical, but I think it's just crazy enough to work!
Oh, that's right, you Democrats are all about free speech as long as it doesn't harm your candidate or oppose your beliefs.
I'll start working on another plan.
Darn it, I really thought I had something there with my idea of using information to help us choose a candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)