It is apparent with the pending “doom” of this election that the GOP still doesn’t get it.

Lady Justice stands with a balanced scale and a blindfold?  Why is this?  The scales have often been relegated to the balance of justice while the blindfold has been stated to represent that the court is blind to opinion and only open to fact. 

Fact is objective

Opinion is subjective

How many GOP folks understand this difference?  We already know liberals don't.

Sure they can espouse that those who want freedoms beyond the GOP personal values and morals are nothing more than Libertarians. 

If that’s true, why is that such a bad thing?

Moreover, what does it say about the GOP’s rigidity?  My way or the highway?

All values and morals are personal and subjective.  If they weren’t then we’d all live by the same values with the same morals and none of this would cause discourse.

Reality is that each person derives his or her values & morals from whatever source they subjectively decide.  No doubt that any true American would stop you.

A “shared” value doesn’t make it right or wrong.  Germans “shared” the value that Jews were inferior – we know how that turned out.  Americans once “shared” the value of subjugation of women and absconded their right to vote – we saw how that went over.  Humanity thought that blacks were inferior and ought to be enslaved – we can’t live that one down.

A “shared” value or moral doesn’t make it anything other than you happen to agree with another individual.  If Tim McVeigh agreed that bombing a building was moral, found someone who agreed, does this make it right since they agreed?

If Californians took a vote to bring back slavery and it passed, would that make it right?  This is why we vote Representatives who uphold the Constitution and not a “majority” vote of citizens, each with self-interest in withholding freedoms of others. 

No in both cases.  Why?  Because we don’t infringe on the civil liberties of others to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Did anyone actually define life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution? 

Apparently a lot of Conservatives want to define a lot of things right now.  Careful the lighting rod you make for your own back. 

So, did anyone define HOW life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to be sought out? No, and why is that?  Because it’s subjective and each American needs to be afforded equal opportunity by which to pursue that happiness without government’s interference.

Problem is that the GOP gets on their soapbox and screams about gay marriage and abortion to the extent that they have alienated the millions of centered Americans who are socially liberal (live your life as you wish) and fiscally conservative (stop spending my hard earned tax dollars on your junk).

The GOP think that because they have a religion and their subjective version of god tells them what their values and morals are that it is their RIGHT to impose those values and morals on others, to the expense of this election, the one in 2006 and others to come.

Our Founders were brilliant.  They created a Constitution that was BLIND to subjectivity and sought BALANCE through the checks/balances system of government.

Arguably the issue of abortion is a hot button.  To understand that all life is equal across the board and that subjectively we determine which life holds value to the extent that we keep it alive or allow it to die needs to be assimilated. 

Perhaps your god/religion determines that the value/moral of taking a life means (fill in the blank), every decision to kill is rationalized for safety (jihad), comfort (animals), sport (polar bears & caribou), sustenance (chicks & ducks and geese better scurry) among the top ten or more reasons. 

All reasons that each person applies value. 

Killing jihad is good.  Killing your neighbor because you disagree is not good. 

Killing rabbits for coats; good.  Killing your dog because it used your rug for a toilet; not good.

Killing caribou with a license for fun is good.  Killing your cat for fun; not good.

Killing chickens for sustenance is good. Killing your prairie dog for sport; not good.

You get the point…hopefully.

Those with the self-interest of said scenarios must determine subjective opinion of good and bad, thus act in self-interest for safety, comfort, sport or sustenance.

The GOP had determined how each of those situations listed above must be decided, either by god, religion or some other source.  Somehow they have a shared value with others and thus think themselves “right”.  If they’re right, everyone else is wrong.

It is at your own risk and at your own peril to keep thinking this way.

You make a lightening rod for yourself when you do because at some point in a future situation your shared value/moral will be considered wrong and overruled, likely in a minority.  It will be at that time you will turn to your Constitution for protection.  Having determined that your subjective opinion previously imposed was “right” how would you expect a jury or judge to look upon this change of scene?  

Libertarians often get it! They understand balance and objectivity which are the very foundations of our Constitution.  Who would oppose such clarity except those who think they know how the rest of the world ought to live. 

Strangely sounds like jihad, doesn’t it?  Convert, subjugate or die.

Why not bring a greater number of people onto your side of this election by stepping out of the liberal controls of other people’s lives and into the world of freedom and choice.

Yes, abortion is distasteful to a great many people.  Yes, many of us would like to end it.  For now we must understand that until personal accountability and responsibility for choices made hits home to the extent that we actually hold others accountable, we’ll need some things in place to manage it…for now.

For many, gay marriage is against their religion or distasteful in thought.  However, if freedom is your end game then why not get government out of the business of marriage altogether.   Secular ceremonies can be performed for those that are not religious.  Church ceremonies can be had for those who want their religion. In addition, all who choose to engage in a contractual agreement regarding bequeathment of assets, hospital manageability, children and a host of other details will make contracts. No religious or secular ceremonies are considered legal, only symbolic.  Done. 

No disrespect to religion.  No disrespect to others who choose “happiness” unlike our own. No issue with contracts since they can be between whoever and how many.  Goats and bigamists will have to find a special church.

This is objective and government is out of our business.

Is this Libertarian or is this just smart?

Are you against liberty?  If so, how do you live in this nation then when its tenets are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Is the pursuit of happiness only possible if it agrees with your personal subjective view of what is “happiness”?

Liberals are anything but liberal; the GOP is starting to look more like liberals everyday they want to enforce restrictions to freedoms and imposing their personal values and morals on others.

“Imposing” anything on people is inherently taking away their freedoms. 

If you want to know how to win this election and every single one after, then start talking about pluralistic issues that create more freedom and choice while not imposing on others.

Start looking to utilizing pluralistic tax dollars for pluralistic issues regarding freedom.

Start overturning laws and regulations that seek to hijack these freedoms.

Start allowing freedom and choice without infringing on the civil liberties of others.

Start speaking to freedom of choice in healthcare, marriage, schooling and a host of other subjects.

Look for the most objective component of an issue and if the decision to make a move creates more freedom then you’re most likely on the track of upholding our Constitution.

Too many GOP voters and clearly too many liberals have to come “believe” that their subjective opinions are actually facts to behold and abide.

Freedom, baby! That’s what we want more of and less imposing of personal values and morals. 

Not giving someone a choice is attempting to control and manipulate.

Arrogantly thinking you know how others should or ought to live is more liberal than you know.

GOP and Libertarians UNITE! 

Independents are independent for what reasons? Because they don’t agree entirely with either side; more often than not, they’re balanced (remember Lady Justice and her scales?).

Let’s get it done; let’s respect our differences the way the Constitution was set forth to do. Let’s stop judging personal decisions, subjective opinions and choices while not infringing on another’s freedoms & choices to create that personal pursuit of happiness we all want in our lives.  

 

 

With the appearance of "A-mad-jihad" at Columbia, I wish to remind people who want to invoke our Free Speech here in the United States:

1) We offer Free Speech to OUR Citizens

2) You are NOT an American Patriot if you endorse the Free Speech of a dictator who violates all the precepts of our Independence and Constitution.

Am I questioning your Patriotism?

NO! I'm telling you outright, YOU'RE NOT AN AMERICAN PATRIOT!

No If's

And's

of But's!

What can you say about a man who hates America, so much so, that he wants to blackmail the American Congress and Senate into a bullying tactic of bringing forth the draft? Rangel is under the impression that there is a huge majority of people who DON'T want to serve this country. This is Rangel’s fateful mistake.

This shakedown by Rangel’s at worst anti-American and at best a political ploy that exploits Americans in one of the most egregious ways.

It is Rangel’s view that Americans would NOT be willing to vote in Congress or the Senate, in this country's best interest, to send their sons and daughters into war to uphold our country's belief in freedom and democracy. This borders on Treason.

Although it would be difficult for parents to see their sons/daughters be drafted, it is still a part of this country's foundations of freedom and opportunity, of which Mr. Rangel has partaken of continuously.

Rangel’s shakedown occurs by his attempts to thwart potential wars in the future which would be in this country's best interest in protecting it's people for a variety of reasons, by placing fear and blackmailing our officials about their off-spring being drafted. This is extortion in a manner of speaking.

You should all be disgusted by this particular so-called "representative" of our nation who was elected to his official position. Who cares what party he's affiliated with, but we know which one by his vitriol. It's truly unforgivable and un-American.

Mr. Rangel, there's a ship leaving New York Harbor for France, be on it.

When I awoke today and hit the Drudge "refresh" button I had no idea I would see this article listed:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/D8LCTCSG0.html

Before you read the entire article it would be interesting for you to read this statement and see if you understand the totality of the article before you see it:

"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa- Nqakula told the National Assembly." 

This statement is one of the most beautiful I've read regarding this subject and clearly shows the understanding of responsibility when it comes to democracy not for just a few but for all. Again, the beauty of it recognizes that not all agree so not all need to participate if doing so goes against your particular religious faith - it couldn't be more respectful while protecting civil rights for all.

I realize this is an issue for many but this was a great day for all of mankind when it recognizes the differences we all have but the desires we all share.  

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rumsfeld2.html

This story cracks me up! I was laughing out loud at the story and the premise right from the start. I had no idea that The Hill was so humorous and wrote good comedy.

The idea that the GOP lost the election because Bush didn't fire Rummy prior to the election, is absurd at best. As if Rummy or Foley or Haggard had the balance of the election riding on their shoulders. Get real! The reason the election was lost varies from person to person.

Personally, I think part of it is that the Far Right has hi-jacked this party and won't get off their soapbox of self-righteousness. They won't stop talking about religion, their faith, blah, blah, blah.  They're not realizing that society, while respectful of their right to practice their faith, doesn't want to hear about it.  Christopher Hitchens made a great point the other day on Hewitt's show and I agree, I'm not going to vote for someone who can't separate his/her faith from politics. 

Another factor is that politicians when faced with the debate quesiton on television/radio with regard to Iraq never pressed the question about what the Dems plan was, oh sure they asked or made their talking point, but the way you get the sound bite out is you hammer the question home, "sorry, Mr. Casey, but I've asked you now 5 times to list concretely and specifically the Democratic plan for Iraq and you've avoided the question each time, gave me your talking points, or your hate Bush policy, but you're dodging my question"

Too often these people get on television/radio and instead of getting some decent time to answer questions they get 3 minutes of yelling, arguing, cutting each other off with nothing accomplished. Is it really worth it? Not if you aren't getting your message out. If the program can't offer you enough time to seriously have the discussion then don't do it. Yeah, right.

You win elections by honesty. You win elections by connecting to people in a way that says, "I get it". You win elections by understanding the issues not by "hating" the other party. The Republicans had ample opportunity over the past years to step up, do what was right in the face of their fear about elections and get things done. They didn't. They paid the price.

This isn't to say the Democrats did a better job either, or that they have what it takes, but now at least they have a chance to reveal themselves for who they are and the world is watching, but will they remember? Will they hold the Democrats to the same standard as the Republicans? And will the Republicans get their sh*t together over the next couple of years?

No one I know wants another 8 years of Clinton White House, at least no healthy minded, sane person I know.

I'm sure you've all been hearing and seeing all the hoopla related to the latest Democratic "Rockstar"(yes, I've heard reporters, liberal mind you, using this term) Barack Obama. It's what I call the "Swoon Factor", just like Clinton before him, a virtual nobody in politics, save for a couple of years in the senate? This site has a terrific breakdown of where he stands on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

But aside from all this politics, which is more important than any of the rest of it, Obama has "it". The factor that helped catapult Clinton to unbelievable rockstar status, all the while engaging in behavior that was to be his downfall. 

What the Left never seem to get about Clinton and his Lewinsky behavior were 2 things:

1) You don't have sex in the workplace, people get fired for that behavior. You especially don't have sex in the workplace while speaking to another President of the United States and in the Oval Office. 

2) When you're caught, you don't lie under oath

I don't care if Clinton wants to have a 1000 affairs, that's his business. But if his workplace is an office for which I am one of the millions of "bosses" and it's in "my office" - in the words of Donald Trump - "You're Fired".  The Hellary fallout is all on him, I don't care. But then to make the matter worse he LIED about it under oath. If you can't understand either of these points there's nothing else that could be said to you to make you understand. 

Which brings me to BO - (does it stink yet? we're about to find out in '08). What excused Clinton's behavior WAS his rockstar status. In the face of his completely inappropriate behavior he still had a high approval rating from....the "bobbysoxers". Unbelievable. They excused his cheating on his wife. They excused his disrespect for the Presidency. They excused his disrespect for the Office of the White House. They excused his disrespect for our courts and his profession by lying under oath. 

We should have learned from that experience that "Rockstars" are fun but at the end of the day we want someone who is serious in politics and not using their histrionics in the guise of sexuality to entice voters, sway opinion and make the women AND men swoon.  I could swear that Dan Rather was trying to flirt with Clinton. But I digress.

Keep a watchful eye. You heard it here that the BO Swoon Machine is in motion and will do their best to create puff pieces, shrewd appearances, and an aura of being untouchable. All of which are the leading indicators you DON'T want when it comes to the serious issues our nation faces and voting someone into that prestigious office.

"We have serious issues that need serious solutions and your 15 minutes are up"
 Michael Douglas, An American President

There's nothing I can add to this story that isn't so eloquently stated by Jim Geraghty from National Review On-Line, check it out for yourself. 

 http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

Here's a preview:

"I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been  "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.

Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.

The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match."

It's a thing of beauty!

Kerry either intended to disparage our troops or is just a liar.

His "joke" was supposed to insult the President? By lying that the President didn't have a valid education?

Let's review, shall we:  Bush received a degree from Yale and another from Harvard. So is Kerry also then insulting alumni from either of those schools indicating that their education was crap, as well?

Wow, this gets better all the time; truly the gift that keeps on giving.

So, this first part of the joke insults the President and alumni from both schools; Bush's grades were better than Kerry's - enough said.

The second part then was meant to disparage the troops. His subconscious says exactly what he's thinking which has been a pattern of behavior since he returned from Vietnam.

Either way you slice it, he's a liar and insulted Harvard/Yale alumni or intended to disparage the troops, you choose which one.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/03/D8L5PJLO0.html
 
How nice is this issue at the forefront of the news! Mr. Haggard says that he never took the drugs and will probably say that he didn't know Jones was an escort. The latter I can probably buy since many legit massage therapists list themselves with quality hotels and will usually work out a percentage kickback to the hotel for the referral, no problem with that one.

But, the idea that being gay is worse than being a drug addict is crrrrrrrrazy! So is the fact that Evangelicals have disdain for gays.

First off let me say that I hope the family of this soldier has all the love and support they need during this time in their life, certainly they'll need it.

At first I thought this was a joke, but then slowly the bad news eeks out that this ex-patriot, yes you read it correctly, ex-patriot decided that her depression was too awful and took her life. Certainly it's her right to do so as I have no delusion about an adult making the choice of when to end their life, so long as they are not taking down others with him/her. 

Now this ex-patriot decides to do this act as one of "dissent" because she reportedly, was being asked to do something she didn't believe in with regard to "techniques".  Personally, if someone asked me to do something I didn't want to do that was out of line with my values I would simply say no. If it were my job at risk, I would take the risk of losing the job, or in her case being CM'd, to stand on principles. 

But, no. That's not what happened. 

Don't anyone for a minute think that this was just about "not wanting to perform torturing techniques". I find it hard to believe that someone hasn't thought this act through prior to performing it. Most people who are depressed have a history of this behavioral attempt to end their life, time will reveal that aspect. 

To attempt to martyr yourself for the "sake of the country's understanding" seems just a bit dramatic to me.  Why not a huge sign painted in red, instead of the huge blue sign sending Kerry a message earlier this week? Why not protest by going AWOL? Why not protest in any other ways? Why suicide? Why now?

There's a terrific book called The Suicide Syndrome, worth reading if you get a chance. It outlines clearly why individuals take their lives and the various syndromes which are manifest from the desire. Typically the "victim" role is one taken by someone who commits suicide because they feel like they have no other choices. Insane? Perhaps. Not of sound mind? More likely. In protest of a war or the techniques? Now you're just looking to create a media hype around your dissent of the war. "This will show 'em since nothing else will". 

Kickin' it up a notch, huh?

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2006/11/02/news/20061102_news_30.txt

Isn't this something, just days before the election and another gay sex scandal, makes me wonder if the Left is obsessed with gays, being gay, gay sex and everything gay!

So, Mr. Haggard has been ALLEDGEDLY have gay sex with an escort, euphemism for hooker, and we should all be concerned about the fact that, possibly, just possibly, there are gays in the Republican Party! What in the name of Kathi Lee Gifford is going on over there?

Who cares? Mr. Haggard's incongruent behavior with that of his faith, if that's what he was doing, is his business, not mine. Is he running for President or having sex while at work in the White House? Why do I care what his position is on the gay marriage ammendment, I'm not married to him, I'm not raising his kids, let he and his wife work it all out.

The fact that this escort revealed this information close to the election, motivation being he saw a disconnect from the gay marriage ammendment to what Haggard was preaching, is beyond stupid. Didn't someone just say recently that the reason you pay an escort is so at the end of it he/she leaves? Seems like a reasonable contract. Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. So much for discretion.
 
Whatever. I digress.

The media and far left attempt to gay bash, AGAIN, trying to scare the Right into thinking that all gays are just flitting about having gay sex with 18 year olds and escorts, well that's just stupid, they have sex with ministers, too! 

More attempts to bring down the election with another sex scandal.

Haggard did the right thing by resigning his position, temporarily or otherwise, while it's all worked out. When will the gay community, black community, hispanic community and other minorities get it that the Democrats are doing, have done nothing, and will continue to be impotent to do anything for you. (impotent, get it?)

I really do think the Left is sexually addicted. Oh, yeah, that's right, Bill Clinton was their moral leader for 8 years, I should've figured that out before. Duh!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061103/D8L5IM680.html
 

Well, it finally happened, Mr. West showed his true personality and victimization by ranting about not winning a particular award at the MTV European Awards. Why is this significant you ask, or at least you should ask?  Because Mr.West likes to play the victim and blame others when things aren't going his particular way in the world.

"George Bush hates Black people". Wow, I guess that George really hates you then Mr.West because he probably called those Europeans and told them to NOT give you the award just to p*ss you off and let you know who's really in power.

This guy is a piece of work. Like Cindy Sheehan and others before/after, if you give any of them enough time they will reveal themselves for who they are so the rest of the world can understandably discredit their rantings and ravings.

Poor little rich guy, didn't get his award.

Drudge reported this first:  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061103/D8L5JBHO0.html