The only person running for president in either party that shares my values seems to be Ron Paul, so I decided that I should whip up some support Ron Paul web graphics.
Feel free to use these images on your site and link them to Vote Ron Paul . com More images to come, I’ll post the source files in the morning so that anyone that wants to can edit them.
After watching the first round of the republicrats debates I thought that it was time to offer a report card of these presidential wanna-bee’s:
A+ Ron Paul
Obviously this guy should be the next president - how different would this country be if we elected a principled man? We’ll never know unless we elect Dr. Paul.
A Mike Gravel
The only candidate that has ever ended a war.
B Dennis Kucinich
Ending the drug war is good, wealth re-distribution is bad. But he has a hot young wife….
B- Joe Biden
Only gets this good a grade because of his pithy answer about running his mouth, and because he looks good compared to the rest of the stiffs.
C+ Bill Richardson
Pro gun, legalized medical marijuana, effective governor, experienced in foreign relations - had a bad night at the debate - does he need a hearing aide?
C Mike Huckabee
I like this cat despite his bible bashing, seems like a good guy -but Mike, religion does not equal morals. And no matter how likeable, how you gonna vote for someone that does not beleive in evolution?
C- Barack Obama
Seemed a little tentative, but I can see why he is building a buzz.
C- Tom Tancredo
He’s a bit of a whacko, but that fun kind of whacko that you want to keep listening too.
C- John Edwards
Not bad, even steven, but not exciting. I keep waiting for him to catch fire, I think it’s gonna happen before it is all over.
D+ Mitt Romney
Only flip flopped occasionally in the debate, his hair was perfect.
D+ Chris Dodd
Oh, yeah, he was there wasn’t he.
D+ John McCain
If you like that Popeye in the headlights look then I guess you could give him a higher grade.
D Rudy Giuliani
Tried his best to seem like he was interested in dominating womens reproductive rights, but couldn’t quite pull it off - but at least he didn’t seem like a total fascist.
D- Jim Gilmore
Better then the guys with F’s….
F Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter
Come on, what are these guys even doing on the stage?
F- Sam Brownback and Hillary Clinton
The Daily Links says: “Sam Brownback - just as bad as Hillary Clinton”
Question: You said October 24th, “Absolutely, we’re winning.” And I wanted to…
Bush: Yes, that was an indication of my belief we’re going to win
Question: Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, “Absolutely we’re winning.” Yesterday you said, “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.” Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?
Bush: My comments — the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we’re going to win; I believe that — and by the way, if I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have our troops there. That’s what you got to know. We’re going to succeed. My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time…”
With regard to the first Q & A just because you believe that something is going to happen in the future does not make it an absolute in the present. Anyone that cannot see the difference should not be the leader of the country.
With regard to the second answer, if it was written by Hunter S Thompson one would say - HST finally crossed the line into complete pyscobabble - but this was spoken by the leader of the free world…
I was listening to Dan Carlins excellent podcast the other day and he called Hillary Clinton a “rather leftist politician” and he’s is wrong about that. His point is well taken, he was talking about her moving to the center to try to appeal to voters for a presidential run, but in the larger picture she is not a leftist politico or a centrist.
She is an authoritarian.
So is George Bush, so is Joe Liberman, Trent Lott, Newt, Pelosi, et. all. These people, along with 99% of our national elected officials, all think that they know what’s good for you. They are going to make sure that they pass laws and regulation to help you, because goodness knows, we are all to stupid to live our lives as we wish.
They are going to protect us, guide us, and make sure that we don’t have to think for ourselves about what is logical or moral.
Want to take a drive by yourself down a quiet country road without a seatbelt?
Not so fast my friend, Mommy government is gonna punish you ( in 49 states ) if she finds out. She has decided this is is not safe for you - Hey she’s just looking out for you - no reason for you to have to worry your pretty little head, she’s doing this for your own good.
The problem is that, on the flip side of authoritarianism is authoritarian submission, where wanna be authoritarian’s bend over for people that they feel are their superiors.
Our once noble and independent citizenry have become sheeple that submit to big nanny government and feel safe because the politicians ( not leaders ) are taking care of them. These politicians have convinced the vast majority of the American Idol watching, Walmart shopping, lemmings that they only have the rights that they give them.
This is completely the opposite of the way our founding fathers set up this republic. We ( the people ) are supposed to have all of the liberties that are not expressly granted to the government.
The Authoritarian’s would have you believe that you only have the liberties that they give you. By continuing to elect authoritarian Republicans and authoritarian Democrats we will continue to allow them to pervert the founding documents of this country.
So it seems that since Bush and the GOP can’t get any real work done ( well, other then providing tax cuts for millionaires ) even though they control all three branches of government, they have decided to try to play the gay card by passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. Besides being one of the most cynical moves that I can imagine it is also ridiculous.
Before I explain why it is so silly I have to say that if I was a right wing fundamentalist type this would piss me off.
By now I would think that these groups could see that this is a ploy to placate them and try to mobilize them to vote in the mid terms - but that is all it is. Bush, Rove, Frist et all know that that this has no chance in hell of passing so why are they doing it? I think that it is because they think that they can use the followers of the Fallwells and the Dobsons to maintain their power while never delivering for them.
Think about it. They are in complete control of the federal government, have they outlawed abortion? No. Have they passed laws to stop “Discrimination Against Evangelical Christians in the Military”? No. Did they get to keep the statue of the 10 commandments in the federal courthouse in Alabama? No. And there is no way that they are going to pass this amendment either. If there is one thing that pisses me off it is being taken advantage of, and I have to wonder if they are starting to feel as if the GOP is using them.
Let me preface this next section by saying that if you are a devout Christian ( and by this I mean that you try and live your life Christ-like ) and do not try to impose your religion on others, then I have a great deal of respect for you and mean you no disrespect with the following ramblings.
Now the reason(s) that this amendment is so stupid, and the larger issue of the selective use of the bible by today’s American Christians.
First, If gay marriage is not acceptable, then why is divorce? If you get married in the church are you not supposed to love and honor your spouse till death do you part? I would suggest that if you are going to support changing the constitution to read that marriage is only between a man and a woman it should also say that once you get married, that is it - you have got to stay married until one of you dies.
It’s just logical that if you are gonna impose Judeo Christian mores on followers and non believers alike that you should not pick and choose which of the rules you should include and which are okay to break.
This leads me to why I think that the majority of todays “Christians”, and almost all of the “Christians” that hold elected federal office are so nonsensical.
Their stance on homosexuals is that it is wrong because in the old testament, in Leviticus 18:22, there is something about homosexuality being an abomination. Okay, that is fine if that is what you believe, but my question is why is that principal more important to the other principals in Leviticus that are never mentioned, much less have political platforms made out of them.
Why harp on homosexuality and then go and get your hair cut? Isn’t their something in that same book about forbidding haircuts and beard trimming? Why are they not making offerings of burnt animal carcasses? I think that is in there too. I think that it talks about slavery being copacetic but I don’t see any amendments to the constitution seeking to re-instate slavery because there is a passage in Leviticus that justifies the practice.
The homosexual issue is just one issue where most of today’s “Christians” selectively quote some parts of the bible as gospel but ignore other parts all together, I mean when was the last time that you saw a “Christian” stone his children because they disrespected him?
I’m just asking…
Update: Judge to decide on AT&T spying suit
If your telephone company is one of the companies that decided to take financial compensation from the federal government in exchange for illegally proving your records to them it seems to me that they owe you $1,000. Now IANAL but this seems pretty damn clear cut to me.
The Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access, Section 2703(c) outlines exactly five reasons that a phone company can disclose your records to the fed:
a warrant
a court order
the customer’s consent
for telemarketing enforcement
administrative subpoena
Keep in mind that the NSA does not have subpoena power and it is easy to see that not only is your federal government breaking the law by stripping you of your expectation of privacy in your papers and effects but that the Telcos are breaking the law by supplying this info to the Fed.
Section 2707 of the Communications Act says that the phone company are liable for $1000 per individual violation of the Act and outlines a private right of action to any customer “aggrieved by any violation.”
So there you go, a clear cut explanation of why your phone company ( unless you are lucky enough to be a Qwest customer ) owes you $1,000. If there is one thing that big corporations understand is profit and loss - I think handing out millions of thousand dollar checks will get their attention.
I’m so tired of hearing these big, bad conservatives try to characterize decent people who try to do the right thing as wimps…
Exactly correct, if these guys were real bad-asses they would be in Iraq, Afganistan, or Bensonhurst not in Scarborough Country.
You see, I don’t think you’re tough at all. I think you’re a little coward who is ready to give up all your rights at the first sign of trouble. You’re so scared of big bad Al Qaeda, you’re willing to cede your liberties to George Bush…
Again - dead nut. Do you think real tough guys like, say, our founding fathers would roll over and take it when the powers that be starting taking away their rights? Of course not, they stood up and demanded their rights.
I challenge you ( Michael Smerconish ) to a fight - verbal or physical. I promise to kick the living shit out of you, either way.
Classic. Now that is something that I would pay to see.
Well I heard ‘ole Neil put him down….
While it is sad that it takes someone from that other quagmire’s generation to release the first protest album for our current debackle of choice, at least we get a real album from one of the most important voices in the history of Rock n Roll.
On May 2nd, Neil Young will release “Living With War” — a 10-song collection that the artist describes as a “metal folk protest” — as a digital download album.
“This album is about exchanging ideas,” Young told CNN in a live interview last week on the steps of Warner Bros./Reprise Records in Burbank. “It’s about getting a message out. It’s about empowering people by giving them a voice. I know not everyone believes what I say is what they think, but red and blue is not black and white. We’re all together. It’s a record about unification.”
You can listen to Living With War Here.
Neil Young on CNN - A Video Discussing Living With War
“Living With War” has already set fans and the media abuzz over the Internet due to its reflections on the Iraqi war and the turmoil in this country.
It was written and recorded in two weeks with Young on electric guitar, vocals and harmonica, Chad Cromwell on drums, Rick Rosas on bass, and Tommy Bray on trumpet, along with a 100-member choir. One choir member, speaking to a British newspaper, said the recording session was “like being at a 12-hour peace rally.”
While to my ears this does not stack up to the best of Neil Young, not much really does, it is far and away the best album I have heard from a 69 year old in quite some time. The third track is vintage Young - Don’t Need rails against the lies of Bish Co. as well as other things in the modern world that we clearly don’t need.
And it seems to me that the point of this record is not to try and rival Tonight’s the Night, Neil has got something on his mind ( and before you reject him as some long hair pinko fag you might want to do some research…) that he needs to share, and something that we need to hear.
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot. They have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.”
- Thomas Jefferson
After three years and the death of more than 2,300 American soldiers ( amd 17,000 wounded ) in Iraq, Congress has yet to consider, debate and vote on alternatives to the President’s disastrous course.
Right now, in the House of Representitives there is a resolution sitting on the House floor - House Resolution 543. If it is signed by 218 members it would stop the House in its tracks and force them to debate on the Iraq war.
Then the congresscritters would be forced to take an up-or-down vote on any proposed alternatives to the “stay the course” non strategy of Bush Co.