Conseriberal? Yeah, that's me.

More talking, less bombing.

2008-04-24T23:14:00.004-04:00

Recently, McCain boasted about how it's unwise to talk to dictators like Kim Jong-Il, especially since we've received video of North Koreans visiting a nuclear site in Syria which hold technology virtually identical to plutonium technology that the North Koreans use.

I find it personally repulsive that we should be as ignorant to "Give the hand" to other sovereign nations in the world. This is actually a relatively new phenomenon in American politics...not talking to our enemies.

Didn't we once talk to Stalin? You know, we were once allies with him, and worked on treaties at the end of WWII with him. We talked to other leaders in Kremlin after Stalin. And you know what came after that? Not one hot war did we fight directly with the USSR. It was a Cold War, a war of words and ideas. Which, yes, led to other lesser hot wars (Vietnam, Korea). But we didn't go into an all out war.

It's ridiculous to claim that by simply talking to someone it inherently makes you week, and gives them credibility. Grow up. Isn't that what we're taught as children? Talk issues out, don't use fists. It's amazing that our foreign policy is based on an immature child's mentality.

"Without naming Obama, McCain said those who would meet with a leader like
Kim "should explain to the American people how talking unconditionally to
dictators like Kim Jong-il in the aftermath of recent disclosures advances
American interests."-Reuters

Let's see, how can talking to people about our will, advance our interest? Well, wouldn't talking to them express our interest? Wouldn't that explain to them our side, and hopefully persuade them to do such? What rubbish.

Oh, and Mrs.-wannabe-republican added this:

"Clinton previously attacked Obama's promise to talk to troublesome foreign
leaders without preconditions as naive, but the Illinois senator has made his
willingness to speak to both allies and enemies a centerpiece of his call for a
new approach to diplomacy and governing."-Reuters

Naive? Someone who actually wants to take part in the World's issues, and deal with it directly, instead of through associates hand picked to do your own bidding? Wow, that's naive.

Anyway, people need to grow up....and talk.

Obama and his pastor.

2008-03-15T23:31:00.003-04:00

So, the big thing right now is about Obama's pastor at Trinity Church and his comments supposedly bashing America. Let me copy and paste what he said exactly:

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye,”
...
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.”

And then a little bit later in the sermon, he states:

“No, no, no, not God bless America — God damn America!”

Now, the last statement is a bit overboard, but I believe he's just making a point, but I'll hit on that in a bit.

70,000 people died when we dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and 40,000 died when we dropped it on Nagasaki three days later. Instantaneously, over 100,000 human beings, civilians and military personnel alike, died.

3,500 civilians died on September 11th, 2001.

Now, I am in no means whatsoever, negating the deaths of the people on 9/11. I repeat, I'm not negating it, I'm merely using them for comparison.

America doesn't have the moral high ground when it comes to killing civilians, so I understand where Wright is coming from with this one. It was okay when we killed all those innocents in WWII, but it's practically the end of the world when we're attacked on our own soil. All this is merely stating that the U.S. has it's hands bloody from time to time, and it's an accurate accusation to say so. So I'm not sure why all this crap has been raised by him. He's saying that we should take a good look in the mirror, before criticizing others for less.

But that's just another thing for conservocraps to go crazy over.

I honestly don't care what a pastor of Obama's said, because, simply, that's not Obama. Obama is his own person. Just because he listens to someone preach, doesn't mean he agrees with every single thing he says. So, it's time to grow up people.

Hijab=Muslim?

2008-02-28T00:35:00.003-05:00

Recently, pictures of Barack Obama have been buzzing around the Internet. In these photographs Obama is standing in front of a Somali elder, dressed in some Somali traditional clothing. Notice how he’s still dressed in his Polo and Khaki pants. (See Below)

Of course, people are going hysterical over these photos. Leave it to the right-wing spin machine to label this as proof that he’s a Muslim. I suppose that Condoleezza Rice is a Muslim in disguise as well?

Or, Laura Bush, the First Lady?

It’s honestly time to quit the racist slurs against Obama. If Obama is a Muslim for putting on the ceremonial dress that the natives of Somalia gave him, then shouldn’t Rice or Mrs. Bush be labeled as such? It’s all about respect, as Rice and Mrs. Bush has. When you’re in someone’s country, you pay respect to their customs and cultures, which is all that Obama did. So it’s time to shut the hell up, and grow up.

Also, enough with the “Obama” rhymes with “Osama”, which means that he cannot be President. Again, grow up. If you’re judging him because his name SOUNDS like (His name isn’t even Osama, it just rhymes) Osama, then you need to go back to Middle School where shit like that used to matter. As well as the OMG HIS NAME IS HUSSEIN! I. Don’t. Care. His name could be Osama Bin Laden, and I would still vote for him. He is his own person. It’s just his name. Grow up, and judge people on who they are, not because they sound like other people.

Ralph Nader, Bah.

2008-02-25T00:03:00.002-05:00

While, I do agree with many things that Ralph Nader says and stands for, I cannot believe that he is running for President yet again. I'm not sure what exactly he runs for, because I'm sure he knows he won't become President, as well as the rest of us.

I'm so paranoid that it's going to come down like it did in 2000, that had Nader not ran, and all or at least a majority of his votes went to Gore, then the world would be a totally different place.

My Endorsement: Obama.

2008-02-15T03:08:00.003-05:00

So, I've officially switched my support to Barack Obama. I voted for him the Virginia primary recently. Here are the main reasons I now support him.

1) He's Black
2) He's a Muslim
3) He belongs to a church that preaches against da white man.
4) He's a man

But seriously, seeing as I'm not a racist and intolerable prick, I support him for substance. I support Obama because he's the next generation of politics. He's clean and sharp, to quote Joe Biden. He can actually do a speech on the spot, and not screw it all up. Yes, he speaks of ideals. But they are new ideals. People like to point out that. "He's only ideals, and doesn't have anything to actually implement those ideals". Ideals are the first part of the solution. You actually have to have these ideas in order to create change. Quite honestly, I'd rather flock to a candidate that preaches ideals, and not about promises that will never happen.

I still wish that Edwards wouldn't have dropped, but maybe we'll see an Obama/Edwards ticket. I can only hope.

Unfortunately, no more Edwards.

2008-01-31T17:41:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, yesterday John Edwards dropped out of the race to be the Democratic nomination to become the President this year. I supported John Edwards ever since the Democrats lost in 2004.

To me he was the most populist candidate running, his platform was for the poor and lower classes. He was the one who not only realized, but refused to ignore that this country is not perfect, and that all of it's citizens don't wipe their asses with silk. There are some people who cannot afford medical insurance, and the people who can afford it, are being choked to death by it. My family is one of those families. My parents are having to fork out about $250 every two weeks to cover our HMO. But, we have to have it. God forbid something happen to any of us while off on insurance. Edwards' campaign spoke to people like me and my family. Like everyday citizens of this country. Who live paycheck to paycheck. If we can go half-way around the world to "help uncivilized people", then why the hell can't Americans get help? I think we should fix our own problems before going elsewhere. I'd rather spend $1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) to have every American have health insurance, than to spend $1 trillion to get rid of a murderous dictator that we helped get into power in the first place.

Now, I honestly do not know who I want to be the Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to vote for Obama or Clinton over a republican any day of the week. I don't care about something half way around the world when shit right in my own neighborhood is affecting me more. That's not to say that I don't believe in foreign policy, actually, I'm an advocate of it. Foreign Policy: Let's talk about the world, and come to agreements since it affects all of us. There's nothing in there about not talking to someone because we don't agree with them.

At least it looks like McCain is going to me the Presidential candidate for the Republicans. Well, that's not necessarily a good thing for Democrats, because he's probably more electable than Obama or Clinton. It's good in the sense that it's not another Bush running for President. This is someone who has actually fought in a war honorably. He was a POW for years, and he knows what it's like to be tortured, and he will do away with it. I think he's the most moderate and sensible republican in the race. He may not seem like it right now, but he's having to play to the right in order to get the radicals since it's only the primaries. Once he has to start pulling nationally against Democrats, he'll have to be more moderate to try and pull from them, and that's where his true views tend to lie. But that's about as far as I go with him. I'd still rather have Clinton or Obama.

Now, I'd love to see Edwards as a Vice President role again, but I don't know if that'll happen. Since Edwards didn't swing Kerry like he wanted to, they might be less inclined to do so. However, if it's Clinton, I'd love to see a Clinton/Clark ticket. That'd give her an extreme edge for security. Let's have a VP who graduated top of his class at West Point, and actually led a decently successful multi-national military campaign in Kosovo. Plus, he's an excellent debater, I've seen him several times on Real Time with Bill Maher. Before people started declaring their campaigns, I actually wanted to see a Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards ticket. That would've been excellent.

Anyways, that's my little rant for right now, and it sucks to not have a computer right now.

Pork Anyone?

2007-12-23T02:57:00.000-05:00

(Snip)
Even in minority, Republicans dish out the porkSenate's two biggest sponsors of this year's pet projects are Republicans

AP Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The demise of the bridge to nowhere notwithstanding, Sen. Ted Stevens and other Republicans remain the kings of pork-barrel spending, proving that GOP mastery of "earmarks" can withstand public scorn, a president's rebuke and even a Democratic takeover of Congress.

The Senate's two biggest sponsors of this year's pet spending projects are Republicans Stevens of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, according to preliminary reviews of fiscal 2008 spending bills by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. Two of the House's three biggest claimants of earmarks also are Republicans: Bill Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California, the group found.

Their continued success at steering billions of taxpayer dollars to their constituents is all the more impressive— or arguably hypocritical —since President Bush and other prominent Republicans sharpened their criticisms of earmarks after Democrats took over the House and Senate majorities in January.

...

Democrats this year shed more light on the earmarking process and reduced its overall cost. Still, about 9,000 earmarks costing $7.4 billion found their way into the final spending measure.

Stevens and Cochran retain their earmarking clout even in the minority. Cochran sponsored $773 million in current earmarks, while Stevens claimed $502 million, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense unofficial tally. Both of them outdistanced Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., perhaps the Senate's most legendary master of pork-barrel politics.
(/Snip)

Now, first off, I'm going to make it clear that both Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of this equally, but the crap has got to stop. I also know that a lot of pork does go to good purposes such as health clinics, transportation projects, and things of that sort that is really good. However, it's just not spread equally across the country. These types of things should be put together is a separate bill. I know that'd never happen, but that's what should be done. I also realize that Democrats pledged to get rid of pork, and they've shown they're just as bad as the republicans, except that instead of having several huge donors like the republicans, they like to spread it out amongst more people more evenly. Not that it makes it any better.

The only way we're going to get rid of all this yummy pork, is for there to be a reform in the bill making process. I.E. Bills have to deal with one topic, or related topics. So, a farm bill can't contain $25 million dollar donation to AIDS charity. I realize that would mean that the House and Senate would need to pass thousands of bills each session, but oh well, that's what they're paid for. Not to sit around and not do nothing. What pisses me off is people like Obama, two years in the senate, and he's never there. He's too busy campaigning for President, when his current job is to be a Senator.

Anyways, that's an article rant for today, enjoy.

My Political Views: (Will be updated at anytime)

2007-12-10T22:09:00.000-05:00

This is a conglomeration of my political views. This will be updated periodically, and it's not necessarily concrete.

The War in Iraq

-I was totally against the War before it was cool to be against it. I believe that the War was never a necessity, simply something that sounded good on paper.

-Saddam, an evil brutal dictator? Yes, there's no denying it. But there's something that a lot of people don't realize. Saddam was perfect for Iraq. As inhumane as that sounds, and it really is, it's true nonetheless. Saddam forced the different sects of the country to live in fear of Saddam's persecution. They were more worried about what Saddam might do to them, than they were about what the other sects were doing. Now that Saddam is gone, they actually are free to worry about the other sects and are fighting over the power of their sects' national interests. Also, people tend to not know that the U.S. (Through the CIA, under Bush Sr.) helped get Saddam into power in the first place. So now, 25 years later, we don't want him in control anymore?

-A lot of people claim that the War was about oil, not just liberal conspiracy theorists, but ultra-conservative friends have told me such. To me this point doesn't necessarily show that Iraq was all that of a necessity. The argument goes that with China expanding astronomically, we took Iraq so that we would always have a source of oil on foreign soils. Which, strategically does make sense, hard and cruel that American and Iraqi lives would be wasted for this cause, but does make sense. Or, people argue that we invaded as to lower gas prices, which is outright laughable. Gas is as high as ever. It's increased higher than ever under the Clinton Administration, and is only comparable to the Carter Administration.

-To me this is a waste of human life. There are many studies that state that the total amount of Iraqi loss in this war is around 500,000. That's around 166 times the amount of American lives lost September 11th, 2001. (In no way am I grouping 9/11 into the Iraq conversation, I'm merely just comparing the death toll) Can you imagine something like that happening in America? What would the American people be doing if it were in Iraq's situation. Well, I know what I would do. Let's say the situation was reversed. America is under an evil brutal dictator, we're being persecuted daily. Iraq, the lone super power in the nation, says it's going to come and liberate us from said dictator. That's all fine and dandy. But, on the first day of the liberation, a bomb hits my house, killing my mother and brother. Severely wounding my father, and myself. At this point, I don't care why someone invades my country and destroys my house. Whether it be a liberator, or an expansionist. From that point on, they are my enemy. I'll make sure that every single day for the rest of my life, that I'll make these "Liberators" lives a living hell. So I cannot hold Iraqi citizens attacking our troops in spite, simply because I know that I'd be doing the exact same thing.

-There was no justification for America to go into Iraq in 2003. Under the argument of WMDs, America is in no way shape or form the moral authority on the issue. We are the only nation as of today, that has used Nuclear Weapons on our enemies. That right there should trump our moral high ground. Gas and biological weapons? We, the U.S. have the most plentiful and most deadly weapons in the world. How can we as a WMD wielding nation, tell another nation they can't have said weapons? It's a bit hypocritical in my opinion. And the argument that, "But we aren't crazy, we're responsible people"...I reiterate that we're the only people to have used nuclear weapons. Of course Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. You know why? The U.S. supplied these weapons so that the Iraqis could fight the Iranians back in the 1980's. I have no doubt in my mind that the weapons Saddam used on the Kurds, were supplied by the U.S.. Do I believe the U.S. to responsible for the deaths of the Kurds? No, that's like saying that Mossberg is responsible for someone using one of their guns to commit a murder. But don't attack the fact that Saddam has the weapons, attack the fact that he's a murderer. And, the fact that he's a murderer is in no way a legit reason to invade a country. There have been hundreds of brutal dictators that America turned it's head the other way when we dealt with these nations. Or we simply just ignored it. Hell, we were allies with Stalin at one point in time, who killed more of his own people that Hitler did. And, if you're willing to say that because he is a murderer we should've invaded, then why aren't we in the Sudan? (I do NOT believe that we should be in the Sudan, it's no different that what it's like in Iraq)

-There was no connection found between Saddam, and September 11th, 2001. So there's no need to waste breath on that argument.
Lets see, Taxes.

-I, like anyone else, don't like to pay them. The difference with me is that I don't whine and bitch about taxes. I understand that there is a reason for taxes, and that as long as there is air in my lungs, then I'll be paying them...even though I'll get taxed some more once I'm dead.

-Since the history of civilization, there have been taxes in some shape or form. It originated for religious reasons, to sustain a full time priest for your religion, it meant that you had to donate so much of your crops to that person so that he may dedicate his life services to your Deity, instead of having to farm himself. (That's just a side note, since we went over that in my Geography class last semester)

-I realize that our government is corrupt and spends money none stop, yes. But the majority of my taxes don't go towards pork. It does go to important and vital programs and necessities. Education, Defense, Health, Senior citizen aid? Yeah, that sounds pretty important and it all comes from taxes. Do I like to see said taxes be wasted on a bridge to nowhere? No, of course not, but there's always going to be corruption in the government no matter what.
Department of Defense

-Even though I label myself more of a liberal, I'm a freaking war hawk. The difference between me and conservatives though, is that I don't think that we should use the army at every single bump in the road. (Yes, I realize that what I just stated was ironic, because true conservatives hold my belief that military interventionism is only a last resort, and only if attacked first, but not with today's neo-conservatives) There is a reason why we have a State Department, and that is for Diplomacy. We used to be good at that, not so much under Bush 43.

-Anyway, I'm all for spending most of our taxes on Defensive spending, I've got no problem. I want us to have the best, most modern, most well equipped army on the face of the planet. But I don't believe in spending money on stuff that just isn't feasible. For instance, the Government is spending billions on the helicopter/airplane that just doesn't look like it would be something used in a war. Dunno, maybe I'm just too old fashioned but apparently they're running into all sorts of problems with it as well.
Torturing

-It's funny how the only person running for President on the Republican side (obviously on the Democratic side as well, but it's more relevant to the Republican side) McCain believes that water-boarding is a form of torture and that it shouldn't be used. While, those who have not been tortured believe that it's not. I'd like to see anyone for the use of water-boarding do it for ten minutes, and tell me if they like it or not.

-We, are above the people that we are fighting. Or, at least, we are supposed to be. We also have signed the Geneva Accords, which hold us to the same level as every other country, and every signee states that they will not torture, and that it is illegal. It's that simple. So why would we break a treaty? Doesn't that make us sink to their level?

-If you think that you are going to die, you're going to say anything at all that you think will get you out of that situation. Even if it's lying. Hell, if I thought I was going to die, I'd make up something pretty damn convincing to get these people off of me. Not to mention, the people we're torturing are suicidal thus, THEY WANT TO DIE, So, what does it matter to them if you torture them? They aren't going to give up secrets when they're planning to meat Allah and 40 virgins.
Abortion

-I'm a self proclaimed Baptist. Not that that necessarily means much, but I am someone who believes that there is a God, etc.

-I believe that Abortion IS murder in some shape or form.

HOWEVER

-I believe that it should be legal. I cannot protect something that the mother should be protecting herself. Think about it for a second. If the mother was seriously contemplating having an abortion, and is willing to go do it...what kind of mother would that person be? Not a mother that I would want to have.

-If anyone has read Freakonomics, it gives a real reason why abortion is some what okay. Crime rate as astronomically dropped compared to what it once was before Roe vs. Wade, and the reason is that the kids being aborted after Roe vs. Wade were kids that were ten times more likely to be criminals that kids that aren't aborted. Since abortion wasn't allowed, those kids were born and they were criminals. So, by having abortions legal, those most likely to produce a criminal are able to abort, which is good for all of us. I realize that this is a demonic way of looking at it, but it does make some sense.

-As a Baptist, I believe that the second that baby is aborted, that it goes straight to heaven as the most innocent and purest thing possible. To a Baptist, that is the best thing anyone could ever ask for. A trip straight to 'home'. So, I'd be more concerned for the mother killing the baby that for the baby if you're a Christian.
Capital Punishment

-Again, I'm a Baptist, so technically I don't believe in it. Even though most Christians believe it's a Saintly activity, it's not. Capitol Punishment is murder, just as abortion is. Thus, under the Ten Commandments, it's not allowed, so I have no idea why so many Christians champion it. Do we have the right to play God and take another person's life, because he took lives? Again, it's kind of sinking to their level. If I was on a life sentence with no parole, I'd probably would want to die. Sitting in a cell for 50 years is no way that I would want to live.

-However, I understand why people want Capitol Punishment to exist. Especially people who were affected by the person on death row. Though, I have no regrets for seeing a murderer die, it's just that it is technically against my beliefs.
Electoral College

-The reason such a system was put in place, is because the founding fathers didn't trust our Government directly in the hands of the people. Which yes, is a bit contradictory to the whole, "for the people, by the people", but anyways, not to mention in those days a majority of the people could not read or write, thus they sit up an elite well read system of people to select the choice of President based on the popular vote, though not necessarily concretely.

-I believe the literacy rate of the U.S. is either upper 80% or lower 90%, either way, it's good enough that we don't have to worry about illiterates voting. Half of the people who can read and registered don't even vote, so I don't think we really have to worry about that.

-The idea that a person can receive less votes nationally, but still win an election blows my mind. How the election of 2000 could happen is beyond me. Gore had I believe nearly 500,000 more votes than Bush, and only trailed by less than a thousand. Gore would've won Florida had it not been for the fucked up ballots, and the Supreme Court ruling.

-So, I vote to abolish it.
No Child Left Behind

-The basic principal of this legislation is that schools that do not have a certain pass rate gets sanctioned and loses money, while schools that do meat the required quota, get praise and more money. Isn't there a fundamental flaw to that argument? Why would the schools that are getting a long fine get more money while schools that NEED the money, don't get it and are sanctioned. You'd think that schools that are having problems would get the most help. Even if it's more staff training, educational aids such as books, computers, supplies, etc. It's utter rubbish to hinder a struggling school, what does that do? By giving the school less money it's not going to enable them to teach the students any better or get them up to that level.

-And, I've not seen any exact details, but from what I've heard it's not working. For example, my High School is an accredited school, and it's one of the best in the area. My brother, an honor student, is in AP U.S. History, and at the end of the year they take an AP final exam that if they do well enough, can earn them college credits. Anyway, since they have to take the AP test, they technically do not have to take the U.S. History SOL(VA Standardized test). However, the school makes them take it anyway, because a class full of honor students is guaranteed passes, if not advanced and perfect schools, thus boosting their statistics. So basically the school is forced to work around the system to make sure that it gets the funding that it needs. That's not the way it should work.

-So, therefore, get rid of it.
...