Friday, February 15, 2008


I have been in somewhat of a debate on another blog. I'm not a very eloquent writer, and by far not an eloquent speaker. So I have been very choppy at making my points. Tell me what your views are.
I went to another blog in which a person was seemingly upset that so many people were saying McCain was not a conservative. So, then, They went on about how people seem to have forgotten what conservative and republican mean.
My first thoughts were I can tell you why people are upset with McCain. Then, I went off on how I may not be correct on my definitions, but this is why I won't vote for him.
This other person then pointed out that I managed to go off on a tangent and not hit the subject discussed in the article. (also thinking that I belittled a prominent democrat that won a Nobel Peace Prize, just because I said that maybe If McCain helped cut down our greenhouse gases while reducing our dependence on foreign oil by imposing more restrictive and constricting government regulations on our free market he could win one too. I think He could. How is that belittling?) They also said that we need to move away from opposing political views and have more honest political discussion.
Now is when I realize I have to make my point more clearly. So this is the essence of what I said:
By definition a liberal is someone who believes in change and advancement. Politically that would be by incorporating social programs and controls on industry and redistribution of wealth and things of that nature. A conservative is against change or wants very slow change. In other words they want to stick to the original forms like upholding the constitution and they are viewed more as fuddy duddies. These terms are so relative it is impossible to put anyone in either category and be 100% accurate. For example, our founding fathers were ultra liberal for there day. But today if you hold to the exact same things they did you would be very conservative.
So, now lets look at some others. There were a few other liberals not too long ago. One of them enacted some social programs and totally rebuilt Germany in such a good way that he was named Time magazines Man Of The Year.(I guess an award doesn't really mean you are a good guy). There were also a few guys that believed in social programs and whatnot and they incorporated them in Russia. (then people were trying to flee the country) But all those were Liberals, by actual definition.
How about conservatives? You may have heard of this conservative group in Afghanistan that were so conservative that they wanted to hold so tightly to their views that they imposed very harsh restrictions and punishment on their people even down to the clothes the wear. Yeah, they are conservative.
So which do I oppose, conservative or liberal? Like I mentioned before, they are relative terms. It all depends on the setting.
As for the everyone just getting along and agreeing, that is unhealthy. The apposing views help advance the country while keeping one another in check.

So what are your views? Let me know what you think.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Am I Lazy?

A lot of things lately have been causing me to think that our country is getting lazy. Take the news for example. People sit back and believe anything the mainstream media tells them.
They don't want to take the time to research and find out for themselves. Hence, we have ideas like Global warming being perpetuated by the media and movies. And then when people come back from Iraq and say it's not as bad as the media is portraying the media tell the audience that they're lying or twisting the truth.

But it doesn't stop there. What about Health care and other social services. People everywhere seem to be drawn to the politicians that want to give it away for free as long as they can be in control of it. People see this and say, wow, you give me it free and you manage it for me. This has hints of laziness all through it, including the fact that people are to lazy to look around the world at the countries that have universal healthcare and see how horrible there overall healthcare systems are. Oh, and they are too lazy to do the research to find out what types of governments want to control peoples lives.

More liberal type people in our government seem to want people to be lazy. That way they will be more dependent on the government. They want to give money that they took from the wealthier people that worked hard for it(maybe as a punishment for working hard?) to all these lower income people. So what happened to the single lady I know that was going to school and working a job and just wanted a little assistance with daycare so she could continue to get her degree so she could get a better job so she could stop asking for the government's help? Oh, they told her she would have to quit her job and drop out of school. They told her she needed to be lazy and stop trying to make something of herself if she wanted help.

Now its not all a bad thing. There are a lot of things that we all appreciate that allow us too be lazy(running water, Cars, internet, elevators...). I just think the lazier we are the easier it is to be lazier.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008


Upon further consideration, maybe my friend may be right. Though we would be throwing in with the liberals if we vote third party, If McCain gets the nomination, we will have a liberal in the whitehouse for at least four years. If he gets elected, we will likely have a liberal in the whitehouse for no less than eight. (Simply because, Even though he is a liberal, he uses the republican name to achieve his agenda. That will have made 12 years of "republicans" in the whitehouse.) So what happens if Obama gets elected. He wrecks the country for 4 years and Conservatives have a good chance of winning it back. (I believe since he is more likable, he will be more efficient at wrecking.) And what about the Clinton's? Well common Hilary is a woman and has to show the world she is tough enough to be president. Besides That would put the Clinton's in the whitehouse for a total of 12 years. It is doubtful the country will go for 16. So my friend may be right.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

What to do? What to do?

A couple of my friends have expressed dismay over Fred Thompson dropping out. I like his views the best, but he didn't have the drive. Anyhow, my friends don't like the other candidates. So they are trying to decide if they want to stand up for their beliefs and vote third party, or if they should just vote for the best of the evils. Well they were advised not to throw their votes away. One of them thought well sometimes it's worth it to do the right thing.

To me it is a no-brainer. You don't even have to look at it as throwing your vote away even. If you don't stick with the team that has the best chance of beating the people you definitely don't want elected, then, weather you call it throwing your vote away or not, you are not using your vote in the most effective way you can. As a matter of fact your vote will have had no positive impact at all.

So if you believe that everything other than the truth is a lie, and everything that is not right is wrong, then you must admit that when you are not having a positive impact you are having a negative one. Because the world is moving (like a river) there is no "not having an impact" (if you are treading water you are drifting one way or the other).

So if you want to feel better about yourself, When people ask you who you are going to vote for, tell them you are just throwing your vote away. But if you want to do the right thing ( since that's what this is all about), tell them you are throwing in with the enemy to prove a point.