The Tax Less Taken

It's been a year. Is it safe to come out of hiding?

Talk about backwards! Our (not so) Dear Leader has once again revealed his true colors concerning his perception of your property. Critical of the Republican plan to extend tax cuts for all Americans, Obama states that to extend tax cuts to the top 3% would be "to give" an average of $100 million to each of those people.

Let me say that again: extending tax cuts = giving money to the taxpayer.

Still didn't catch it? Try this: Not taking their money = giving them money.

I'm sorry... but "not taking" is not synonymous with "giving".

"Not taking" necessarily means that the property not being taken belongs to the person keeping the property, and not to the person wanting to do the taking.

"Giving" necessarily requires that the property must first belong to the person doing the giving.

If the person "not taking" is the government, then the property necessarily belongs to the tax payor.
If the person doing the "giving" is the government, then the property must necessarily first belong to the government.

So...

To claim that a tax cut would "give" property to the rich would necessarily mean that the property belongs to the government... which is interesting, since "tax" necessarily means that the property is surrendered to the government, meaning that it first belonged to the tax payor. But for a liberal, the property never truly belonged to the person earning it, or the "wage earner", which means that at tax time, we are really figuring out how much of our salaries Our Dear Leader is willing to let us have.

Hmmm... have you been watching Greece lately?

Knowing is Only Half the Battle

G.I. Joe used to explain safety tips to us young and stupid kids back in the day. He always said, "Now you know; and knowing is half the battle!" Thanks, Joe. Now I know.

In an attempt to diffuse Republican criticism of the god-awfully unrealistic non-stimulating stimulus package crammed down our throats at every 15 minute news update, and most notably by His Excellency, Himself, Yahoo! Buzz saw it necessary to quell our fears regarding the volcano monitoring and high-speed railway to Disneyland. So you don't have to read it, I'll tell you... volcano monitoring is the monitoring of volcanoes and a high-speed railway is a railway that goes really fast. So now that you know, don't you feel better about spending money on it? "Gosh," you say, "that sounds worthy of my taxpayer dollars!" And now you know.

Uhhh... but wait. This might (or might not) be a great way to spend our precious few (billion) dollars, but what does it have to do with economic stimulus? Why is it in this package? Could it not have found its way into our regular budgeting sweepstakes? I thought "Stimulus Package" meant a package that has lots of economic stimuli - you know, things that stimulate, i.e., grow, boost, support growth, push to grow, make the economy expand, create sustainable wealth... in an economic growing sort of a way.

Now maybe I don't understand just what "economic stimulus" means, exactly. But I'm quite certain that no combination of those two words can in any way connote "liberal binge spending for projects that liberals don't want popping up in regular budget bills."

Thanks, Yahoo!, for the knowledge... but your point was...?

Believe in This...

Looks like His Excellency Mr. President Obama can't find an honest Democrat or a totally nieve Republican. After all his tax-evading nominees bowed out on grounds that they, well, evaded taxes, Obama went across the aisle to see if he could find a RINO to help fill his administration. He found one who was willing to give it a shot, only to find out that he couldn't totally convert the guy to the dark side (referring to, y'know, Star Wars 'dark side' and not, like, well...).

Random Thoughts, Part I

There is a big trend on Facebook to list 25 random things about yourself. In that spirit, I include a few random thoughts of my own:

1. Another reason to be a Democrat: free pass on tax cheating (e.g., Tom Daschle and that other guy nominated to head the Treasury department). It looks like Obama can't find an honest Democrat and has had to start looking on the Republican side for cabinet members.

2. Maybe, instead of borrowing money just to give it away, in an effort to stimulate the economy, we could just pass some great big tax cuts, especially on corporations and stocks, then borrow whatever shortfall we end up with. I'll bet it won't approach ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

3. I just laughed at a guy whose cell phone went off in class, only to have mine go off shortly thereafter.

4. My sweetheart cheered for Arizona because they wore red, and she likes red. I think that was pretty cool, since I was cheering for Arizona, too. I thought it was because I liked Kurt Warner, but I think it was because they were wearing red... and I like red.

5. I was disappointed at the umpiring during the Super Bowl. Harrison got his 100 yard touchdown with the aid of an uncalled holding.

6. I was hoping for a Cardinals win, but either team deserved it. They both played well. It was a great second half.

7. My wife is into sewing now. She is really picking it up fast and making some really cool things. She does a great job. I love watching her. It reminds me of when I used to watch my mom, only my mom would take up every available space and would stretch out the project for weeks on end.

8. While I hope that Obama becomes a good president, I hope that he fails with his ideas as they now stand and as they were promised during his election. He can be a good president by paying more attention to practical and conservative ideas.

9. I wish Republicans would pull their heads out and stand on their principles and quit worrying about re-election.

The Last Minute Voter Guide

1. McCain has experience: served in the Senate since the early 80's, served in the armed forces, as a commander, for years before that, served in Vietnam.

a. Obama gave a speech in 2002. Obama was a Senator for 2 years (his last two years are hardly worth counting).

2. John has judgment: As a captive in Vietnam, under the harshest of conditions, John chose to respect those with whom he associated rather than taking advantage of his position.

b. When faced with the embarrassment of his prior close associations, Barak's leadership style proved to be to turn his back on those associations, even his longtime preacher.

3. John has courage: John chose to serve his country in Vietnam. Rather than give up and give in to his captors, John persevered thru some of the worst imaginable torture. Against strong opposition to a president and mainstream supporters of his own party, John spoke out against cruel torture, even of terrorists. Early in his Senate career, he bucked the very president whom he admired, Ronald Reagan, and opposed certain efforts in the middle east.

c. Barak associated with known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. When he could have stood up for the nation of Israel, he chose instead to remain silent thru a dinner in honor of a friend of his who was a spokesman for the PLO. He applauded and praised this friend. When he thought his association with these friends would cost him politically, he lied about those associations. He renounced his preacher, after 20 years of sermons and support from the right reverend wright.

4. John is bipartisan: he is known for reaching across the aisle. While this is frustrating at times, it shows that his intentions are to further the best interests of this nation, even if that means losing support from certain important factions in his own party. He worked closely with and developed a strong friendship with Joe Lieberman, with whom he found support to promote the troop surge, when it was not popular.

d. Upon graduation, having married a successful attorney, Barak dedicated his time to building up partisan community organizations and finding ways to siphon government (tax) funds for these groups to further his own ambitions.

5. John understands economic realities: While he admitted to not knowing enough about economics, he understands enough to recognize that the fundamentals of a strong economy do not involve "spreading the wealth" or punishing achievements. While details can be worked out on exactly how best to preserve our capitalist system (which, by the way, the whole world, socialists and communists included, relies upon for their own prosperity), he will at least try to preserve our capital system.

e. Barak wants to spread the wealth. He has studied how to do so (as opposed to why not to do so). He believes the economy is best strengthened through governmental interference and management. (The same government that, when the purse strings were placed in the hands of the democrats, ran up a debt the size of which the world had never before imagined possible?) A student of socialism and marxism, he has yet to remove the rose-colored glasses to see the reality of things.

6. John is not in bed with the media: While they loved him early on, they turned on him in a heartbeat when they discovered that he really was, after all, a Republican.

f. L.A. Times, San Fransisco Chronicle, NY Times, Washington Post... (Who's this Bill Ayers? Barak said what? When?)

7. John McCain is a practicalist: While he espouses ideals and holds moral values, he understands that reality dictates solutions. He recognizes that certain core ideals and moral values are superior to others because those cores make it possible for other ideals and values to exist and to thrive. i.e., Equality is only possible where liberty is cherished and honored.

g. Barak is idealistic and idealogical: Reality only exists where he says it exists. Equality is the ultimate goal, and can only be accomplished at the expense of liberty. Equality will be served on a golden platter (which you are only allowed to look at and admire from your equally wretched and decripit hut).

Hope this helps! Now go vote!

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? Does Anybody Really Care?

OK. So I find this video report about the protests planned for the GOP convention, and the first line says, "If you think actions toward protesors against Democrats were big, wait until you see what's planned for the RNC convention next week."

So I says to myself, "Self," I says, "do you recall any news coverage of protests in Denver?"

"Well, not really," I answer. "Maybe I was just watching the wrong channel."

So, I google "protesters at DNC", and here, I discover why I didn't see any news coverage. There were no protestors!

That's right folks, none... save a few here and there. And they weren't even protesting against the convention, really.

How can this be? Well, uh, it's because the cost of gasoline has prevented people from making it. Yeah. I mean, it's in Denver. You'd have to drive, or fly, and and and they just can't afford to do that.

Young people - who have no families to care for, drive cheap cars, and usually buddy up to share rent - can't afford to drive to Denver?

I think they were a little closer to the reality of the situation when they mentioned that these young people don't think protesting is very effective. They just see people standing outside doing nothing and getting arrested, and then nothing changes.

I thought Obama was the inspiration to millions that change can happen.

Maybe young kids are just realizing how stupid it is to stand outside chanting stupid chants and holding cardboard signs. Or, maybe no one's volunteering to bring the beer.

Or maybe, just maybe, its just not that important to them.

Breaking News: Biden's Blunderings Redacted

I found a copy of Biden's notes for the speech writer. Though you might find this interesting:

"1. Let's see if we can't beef up this Obama plan a little. Like: You want
something? He'll give it to you. Free health care? It's yours. Cheap college?
You got it. Tax breaks? Yours. Barbecue'd ribs on every table and a hybrid
midget car in every garage? Yeah, baby! (Note: Scratch that last one... and get
me some of those ribs)

2. Let's see: a. The Bush administration has been
an abysmal failure. 2. Barak's positions are right because Bush is doing what
Barak said should be done. Hmmmm.
(I know the logical conclusion is either
that Barak's positions are abysmally felacious or that Bush's administration is
doing the right thing. But, just see if you can't hide them both in there.)

3. I know that I compared McCain's position on Afghanistan three years ago (when the oppressive Taliban
had been run out of town and a democratically elected government was looking
promising) with Obama's position less than two years ago (when things started looking a little sour), but, you know, I
mean, what else am I supposed to do when my guy just doesn't have a whole lot of
positive foreign policy statements?

4. Put something in there about how
much I love and respect McCain, so I can at least get the "bless his heart" in
there before I talk about how just sucks.

Oh, and, uh, change, uh...
something something token change, and uh, let's make change! Or something like
that.

Don't worry about making it coherent. Just get a few "Bush sucks!"
in there."

NOTE about his actual speech:
I will admit when I have been impressed. The first half of Biden's speech impressed me. The introduction by his son, and Biden's comments about his family and the lessons he learned from his parents and his overcoming obstacles gave me a new level of respect for Joe. Unfortunately, he somehow turned that into an "entitlement" speech, and then went off into misstated comparisons, etc., as you can see in those speechwriter notes. So now, instead of a major as$ho^e, he's been demoted to lieutenant as$ho^e.

Barak , for a Change

The Great One hath spoken - and the name he spake is 'Biden'. I am afraid I was asleep as the heavens parted. I am sure when the grand concourses of angels descend upon Mile High for the coronation of His Exhalted One, I shall be in the midst of school, or work, or eating dinner, or watching a movie with the kids, or maybe just sitting in the loo, reading.

There is really no need to watch it. I can tell you how this whole thing will play out:

The entire Mountain West will black out for exactly 45 minutes. This will be the direct result of the simultaneous plugging-in of 42,000 greenmobiles at the exact same time, a moment which will forever be remembered fondly by now-short-haired-hippies and wannabe hipsters, and beard-brandishing-back-to-nature-from-whence-I'm-sure-I-would've-come-had-my-conservative-parents-not-been-multimillionaires-AlGorians as the Great Power Outage of '08. Once power returns, Hillary will announce the official motto of the Demoncratic Party as "Bush Sucks". As the applause dies and the brown smoke begins to clear, Pelosi will then enter the Mile High to announce the official platform of the Demoncratic Party to be as follows:
'1. Change
2. Something about Change
3. Change...something something... Change
4. Let's make some changes
5. Change: Good
6. Department of Change
7. Spare change tax
8. Obama is now God
9. Bush sucks
10. No, change that last one to "Bush Sucks!"

At that point, Ing-Deng-Wang, the UN Secretary General, will rise to declare his support for Obama's campaign for World King.

The Right Reverend Wright will then rise to call upon all within the sound of his voice to take to one knee in humble reverence for Obama Almighty (oh, and to throw off the white yoke of oppression, while we're at it).

Biden will stand and speak for exactly 3 days, 2 hours, and 17 minutes, and still come across as an a$*ho^@.

Then the lights will dim, trumpets will blare, and a chorus of angels will sing His Name, as He Whose Name is Too Worthy for Mere Mortals to Speak enters the great chambers. All will hush and cry as His hand passes over their heads.

He will then address the world, giving them hope that the hour cometh when they shall be delivered from the evils now plagued upon them by this country he unfortunately must call home. He will express appreciation to the freedom fighters who have sacrificed so much for his cause. He will remind Americans of our duty to negotiate with those who strive for our extermination because our mere existence offends their god. Finally, he will remind us all that changety change change change.

And the crowd goes wild!

So saith I.

Obama Plan: Inflate the... Numbers

Obama makes the off-hand prediction that if all Americans would inflate their tires and maintain their vehicles regularly, we could offset all the oil we are losing by not drilling off our own shores. McCain calls him on it. Most of us realize how preposterous this is. But wait... suddenly there is all kinds of evidence that doing this would save more than quadruple the amount of oil anticipated from off-shore drilling.

Now, I know Time and CNN are media gods, and if they say it, it is true... but would it be so difficult for them to give us one (1) little bitty source? Maybe just a little insight into their calculations of how I can personally save one whole barrel of oil this year?

Let's see... inflating my tires... tried that... I pick up about one half mile per gallon. Using Time Magazine's method of computation, I am saving 400 gallons per year. (Prove me wrong.)

Maintaining my vehicle regularly. Change my oil every three months or 3,000 miles. At 5 quarts per change... per vehicle... I am using some 50 quarts of OIL per year. But I am gaining another half mile per gallon of gas. So, using the same scientific computation as above, I can not only cancel out all that oil, but decrease my gas consumption by... oh, let's see...(carry the 1)... 200 gallons per year. Let's make it sound really good, and say that each barrel of oil produces some 10 gallons of gasoline, and voila! Obama is not only on the right track, but has underestimated his own energy policy, as I am saving 60 barrels of oil this year!

Isn't number crunching fun? Using this method, I can save $30,000 this year by simply eating 1 egg and 1/2 piece of white toast for breakfast.

Seriously, do these number crunchers take into consideration the impracticability of rebuilding one's home to make it more energy efficient. From what I've seen, it would cost some $20,000 of remodeling to save $2,000 of energy per year. Over the course of 10 years, you'd wind up having to upgrade, at a cost of another $5,000 to $10,000. Not to mention the amount of interest your paying for your remodeling. The new appliances are all made with plastics... which come from... OIL.

And even if we could save some 200 million barrels of oil each year by inflating our tires, does that diminish the advantage of expanding our domestic drilling and building new refineries? Is it enough to simply decrease usage? Is it not plausible to decrease usage and increase production? If we do decide to save on oil, would it be so wrong if the oil we were saving on came from our own shores?

Come on, mass media people, do you really think we are so stupid that we don't know that inflating our tires increases fuel efficiency (and saves on tires)? But do you really believe that this is the key to breaking our addiction to foreign oil? Really?

You've Come a Long Way, Baby!

If gender stereotyping offends you, you have a new champion in Tyson Slocum, the Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program (why "Public" was even used in the name is beyond me... seems kind of unnecessary, doesn't it?). Anyway, he was on the O'Reilly Factor (Yes, we now have Fox News Channel...We discovered that we had been paying for Starz channels forever and didn't know it. Mrs. The Practicalist found that we could drop the Starz channel and upgrade to whatever package gives us the Fox News Channel, and actually save money!) where he was talking about how sucking 20 BILLION barrels of oil out of Alaska would do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, during which discussion he said, and I quote (sort of): "blah blah why can't everyone just take the subway blah blah not going to knock us back into the cave-(slight careful pause)-'person' days blah blah blah".

Cave-PERSON?!! Are you kidding me?! Like, who is going to be offended by the term "CaveMAN"? That's like telling "stupid people" jokes. Who is going to come and ask you to please refrain? I'll give you that not only men deliver the mail, so some sensitive fe-uh-person (?), er, wo--person, girl might appreciate being called a mail person... but is she going to raise a fuss because you just made a generalization that only men were backward cave dwellers? What was so funny was that Mr. Tyler didn't even use the term naturally. He actually caught himself preparing to say "Man" and conscientiously selected the term "person".

Person, oh, person! (Note: After writing this post, I searched online and found that, perhaps, this guy might have something. For evidence, click here.)

So... Who are the 79?

The House, in a "bold" attempt to condemn politics, declared MoveOn's Betrayus ad a betrayal. While I agree that it is contemptuous, dispicable, disgusting, ugly, filthy, treasonous, dishonest, loathsome, hate-filled, immature, slanderous, revolting, repulsive, sickening, ghastly, sordid, horrid, nauseating, vile, foul, abhorrent, detestable, and distasteful, I think it is almost equally poor taste for the media to allow Democrats to so anonymously play politics with the issue.

If you read the article, you will not find a single mention of any of the 79 reps who voted against this condemnation. I mean, as soon as I saw that there were 79 people in all of America who would even think this was OK, my first thought is "why?", and then the immediate follow up question, "who?" Naturally, Mr. Media felt it was not in my best interest to know the answers to those questions. Or perhaps he is merely tired of doing all the reporting work for me, and is trying to help me hone my own investigative skills. Perhaps he thinks I am just too lazy. (He may have a point there.) Regardless, I thought this is why we pay him (or, well, somebody pays him).

The other problem with this whole vote is that, unless the vote is recorded as a roll call, it is OK for any Democrat to safely appear appalled by the ad without actually biting off the hand that feeds him/her.

Maybe I'll get off my butt and look it up. Maybe I won't. Won't matter, anyway. If I do it, the only people who will know the truth will be the two or three of you who are still with me. Maybe instead, the three of us can get together with torches and storm this reporter's castle... or play Madden 2007.

Impeach Clinton

Take a look at this opinion in the Arkansas Traveler (U of A newspaper).

I agree with the writer. I think Bush should be impeached... along with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Laura, Jenna, John Roberts, and Bill Gates. And just for good measure, I'm in the process of writing up articles of impeachment against Mitt Romney, John McCain, and the Rudster. But since neither of them have been crowned king apparent by the MSM, I think it is time we begin preparing proceedings against Hillary, as well. In fact, in a sense, I am hoping she wins. That way we can all just recycle our old "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers. Only this time, they will be a little more appropriate, what with the "and her husband, too" punchline.

Pander Bears

Some stories just combine elements to form the perfect pun. Take this one, for example:

Hillary, Obama, Brill Boy Johnny Ed, and the ragtag groupies of the AFL-CIO all conversed on Soldier Field in Chicago. All of them claiming to be the voice of the "working man", as unionists like to call themselves (although whether that actually constitutes a misnomer is still up for debate). Two of them clamoring for a reference to the beloved Bears, on whose grass they have trodden to pander, pander, pander. (You see the pun now? 'Pander'...'Bears'... huh? huh? Aw, c'mon, I thought it was good.)

And pander they did. With no real plans to set forth to improve conditions, they instead praised the renovation of the great stadium in which they stood, for the jobs it created. While I have not seen a transcript of these references, I feel quite confident that they did not credit the businessmen whose vision and money funded said renovations. I'm sure, however, that they did call attention to those workers who were not permitted to even bid on the project, as they decided to not pay dues to the AFL-CIO gestapo.

OutFox'd?

Johnny Ed is leading the Democrappy candidates' boycott of FoxNews. Fearing that the FoxFolks might actually think for themselves, the Democlowns have decided that such activity is worthy of punishment, and have called on each other to refrain from reaching out to people who don't like them.

(Actual Quote: "The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.)


Now, Edwards has turned on the waterworks over the Wall Street Journal falling into the the hands of the dangerously right-winged Murdock.

"Give the money back! Don't take contributions from News Corp. people. They might say bad things about you. Things like, like ...(snif) 'liberal', or 'the Democratic presidential candidate who can't compete with Hillary and Obama.'" (Not actual quote, but it could've been.)

So... if their strategy in the campaign is to run from an uncomfortable situation, what does that say about their leadership should one of them get to be President when he/she/it/? grows up?

A Man for all Women

So, I'm listening to NPR as they discuss the latest Demo Bros Three-Ring Debate. Hillary, who has hand crafted her own voting bloc of female hitmen to "get the word out", proclaimed herself to be the voice of women who have successfully sacrificed their own families for their careers. Suddenly, Johnny Ed quickly declared that he had already claimed said title, had a copyright on it, and would sue her if she did not take it back.

His wife backed him up on it. "Look at him," argues Mrs. Ed, "he looks more like a woman than Hillary could ever dream to be."

She then held up this poster, marked "Exhibit A".






"Oh, Yeah?!" retorted Hillary, in a moment of temporary sanity. "But can you do...


THIS?!"

I'll mark it "Exhibit B--".

Coulter... Controversial?! Say it isn't so!

OK. Personally, I don't much care for Ann Coulter. I understand what she is saying, and why she is saying it. Sometimes, I appreciate that she says some of the things she does. I have no problem with her speaking impassionately. For the most part, I think she is politically correct (although not necessarily in the contemporary context of that term). I guess I should rather say I think she is correct, politically. But sometimes, I wish she would just shutup. I would say that about several of the conservative commentators, as well. I know what it is like to try to make a point on the fly. You begin talking before your thoughts are complete and in order. Consequently, the way you word those thoughts can sound very immature or reactionary. I am afraid that Coulter suffers from many such unfortunate moments. But I appreciate what one writer said... something to the effect that she shocks us into dialogue over some important, but often taboo, subjects.

Unfortunately, she is also victim of editorial privilege. He who writes the news gets to shape it in whatever way he wishes. Without going directly to the source of her comments, particularly this last one about wishing John Edwards was killed by a terrorist assassination plot, many editors are allowing the comment to be understood as a personal wish of hers.

One in particular specifically states that she wished he was killed by assassins. Talk about fodder, Edward's campaign jumped all over it and raised millions of dollars. But what she really said was basically that if Bill Maher could publicly state his personal and sincere opinion that the world would be a better place if terrorists had killed our Vice President while he was in Afghanistan, to which there was very little public discussion, then maybe she can get away with saying that she hopes Edwards is killed in an assassination plot. This cannot seriously be taken as any sincere desire of hers, but only as an illustration of the hypocrisy of the left and those who determine what is to be public discourse. The current outrage certainly illustrates her point much better even than she did. Liberal Maher announces that he would have appreciated terrorists killing our VP, and nothing is said, while Conservative Coulter says what do you think would happen if I said I wish a presidential nobody candidate was assassinated, and the sh** hits the fan (as my mother used to say). I'd like someone to please justify this one to me.

Yeah, right.

A Little Frightening...

As you know, the President vetoed the bill in which Congress legislated Congress to be the President. Bush commented that this seemed a little unconstitutional. Harry Reidiculous replied, basically,

to hell with the Constitution. We are the Congress, dammit, and it is our job to be president if we want to.

I am paraphrasing, of course, because mr. reid is a Mor(m)on who would say "heck" and "darndiddlydangit" instead. For you skeptics out there, who just have to have "the facts", here is what he actually said, after "bristling" at the claim:

"We are not going to be submitting our legislation to somebody at one of the law schools to look for its constitutionality. We have an obligation, under the terms of the Constitution, to legislate," he said. "That's our job."

I think I summed it up pretty well.

So do these...



These folks don't seem to think we have a constitution.





See that feller over yonder? He assures me that we still have a constitution.







Whaddyall think?








I am saddened this day to find that we do, in fact, have a constitution.

Another Perspective

I have come across a site I am considering adding to my list of favorite sites. The Good Democrat is an LDS blogger with some incredible insight. I have commented on a few of his blogs, in part to challenge, and in part to glean a little wisdom. I have already linked to him in a couple of my blogs.

It is rare to meet an LDS Democrat, especially one who can present thought-provoking arguments backed up with research and authorities. I have found him to be a little too idealistic, but still with a few toes touching the ground. Spend a little time over there. But then check back here every now and then.

Speaking of Chris Matthews...

I think I have found why Libs will always be Libs, and why they will never understand this war. They have no substance. For evidence, check out this blog. Particularly striking is Chris Matthews comment about why people were so supportive of Bush when he delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

As Matthews saw it, people jumped on the war wagon because they liked the idea of having a hero for president, because we like having a "guy" as our president. Thus, we supported the war, not because there were two very tall buildings no longer in the New York skyline,
or a big hole in the Pentagon, or a scar on a field in Pennsylvania. Not because Saddam had given us every reason to believe he was supporting the guys who dunnit. Not because Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and threatening to use them to destroy us. Not because this was an important stage in the war against terror. Not because we saw this as a strategic element in the big picture.
No, Chris gives supporters of this war no credit for having any substantial reason for supporting this war, and the commander-in-chief. We supported this war because Bush is a "guy".

"Sam," you say, "this seems to be evidence that conservatives have no substance." If you believe that, then you have just demonstrated your own lack of substance. Chris has no substance because he cannot accept that there may be valid reasons that people supported this war. He has no substance because he actually believes that supporters of the war have no substance, and that a person can only support the war because they are nothing but sheep. He has no substance because he looks at the person of the President rather than the substance of the President's arguments. He has no substance because he refuses to support the war only because he refuses to support a Republican president. And that is why he will always be a Lib. It's just too easy.

Cheap kicks

OK. In case you haven't noticed (the three of you who actually look at my site), I have stayed away from politics for a while. That is partly because I have other important things going on, like samokin' meats, and other stuff (school, work, fixing the stupid van, spending time with the family, shooing flies, watching grass grow, and so on). I happened to glance at Chris Matthews (has anyone else noticed he's starting to look less round and more decrepit?)











(Just kidding!)




(Here's the real comparison.)






and just couldn't stomach the blatant group kickfest at the expense of the president. Republicans may have been incompetent, but at they weren't dangerous. Dems just seem to be there to play the game. Listen to the words being spewed by any one of them, and you will find very little that has to do with the reality of whatever situation they are addressing. Rather, you will find carefully chosen and timed phrases that do nothing more than give either the party or the person, or sometimes the idea, a crafted edge in a political game. I have a hard time seeing how anything they say has any basis in actual public policy. Think about it. The "little guy" gets mentioned all the time, but never benefits from any of the talk. The Dems have done nothing for the "little guy" (oh yeah, there was the raise to give three people in all of America their first raise in ten years).

I couldn't take it. But don't worry. Once my life settles back down to absolute doldrum, I'll start paying attention again. In the meantime, go Romney!

I do love Algore, though. Who couldn't? He's a big geeky looking teddy bear of a man with a lisp whose fur has been all rubbed into annoying little balls from getting kicked across the floor, and who travels the country in his own private jet to get the rest of us to quit using our private jets or face a future of continual swimwear. Give the man a Nobel Prize (that'll shut him up).