On November 4 Barrack Obama won the Presidency with what looks like 52% of the vote, Democrats have picked at least 21 seats in the House defeating several incumbents, while only 4 Democratic incumbents were defeated, and one of them was involved in multiple sex scandals. The result in the Senate was just as bleak for the Republicans, they lost 6 seats so far with 3 more to close to call. If all those seats are called for the Democrats they will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving them a super-majority that can kill filibusters.
Long term realignment trends look bad as well, Obama won both Virginia and Colorado which have been trending Democrat for a while and seem to be slightly Democratic now. These 2 states alone push the electoral map below the needed 270 for the Republicans, to win the Presidency again Republicans will have to either win back these states, or turn other blue states red. In congress with the defeat of moderate Connecticut congressman Chris Shays Republicans in the House have been shut of New England Entirely.
On January 20 of next year the Presidency, House of Representatives, and the Senate will all be controlled by partisan, left-wing ideologues who will steer this country far to the left of what the public wants. Conservatives need to lay the ground work for a comeback today to retake congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012. Conservatives need to find a way to control the conversation of political dialogue, as the Democrats did this year, and get even blue states to take a second look at Conservatism.
Conservatives have the public on their side on many issues: taxes, drilling, nuclear power, a secret ballot for union members, and controlling spending to name a few. Republicans can't be pale imitations of the Democrats, but they also cannot be hard-core ideologues who shut out differing points of view. A balance must be struck and it must be struck soon. New strategy is badly needed, and we must be ready for 2010 today.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Say it Ain't So, Christopher Hitchens Supports Obama
Christopher Hitchens parted from the left after 9/11 when he fully supported the U.S. in its fight against Islamic terrorism, he further departed from the left by supporting the war in Iraq. Since then he has not wavered in his support to win in Iraq and defeat the Islamists.
So what truly baffles me is that a few days ago the Atheist firebrand, and anti-surrender in the War On Terror advocate has thrown his support to a man that got the nomination of his party by pandering to the surrender faction, wants to pull out of Iraq regardless of whether it will ensure defeat, supports meeting with the terrorist sponsor state Iran without preconditions, and doesn't think it important enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore.
Hitchens says that McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be president and attacks Palin for her "bizarre religious and political affiliations." Say it ain't so Hitchens, McCain is exactly the man we need in the White House right now, and say what you want about Palins's religion or church, but I find Obama's assertion that the surge was a mistake far more troubling.
Hitchens is an writer I admire for his laser beam logic and eloquence, but on this he is simply wrong. In fact, when I first read of his support of Obama I half expected him to post another article saying this his support for Obama was a joke. That being said he doesn't exactly lap praise on Obama either, in fact he said, "both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated," a little better than unequivocal support for Obama but a rare lapse in logic nonetheless. I hope, but doubt, that Hitchens will rethink his half-hearted, sort of endorsement of Obama, and realize that McCain not only has the character and temperament to be president, but he also has the needed realism on the issue of Islamic radicalism that Obama lacks.
So what truly baffles me is that a few days ago the Atheist firebrand, and anti-surrender in the War On Terror advocate has thrown his support to a man that got the nomination of his party by pandering to the surrender faction, wants to pull out of Iraq regardless of whether it will ensure defeat, supports meeting with the terrorist sponsor state Iran without preconditions, and doesn't think it important enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore.
Hitchens says that McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be president and attacks Palin for her "bizarre religious and political affiliations." Say it ain't so Hitchens, McCain is exactly the man we need in the White House right now, and say what you want about Palins's religion or church, but I find Obama's assertion that the surge was a mistake far more troubling.
Hitchens is an writer I admire for his laser beam logic and eloquence, but on this he is simply wrong. In fact, when I first read of his support of Obama I half expected him to post another article saying this his support for Obama was a joke. That being said he doesn't exactly lap praise on Obama either, in fact he said, "both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated," a little better than unequivocal support for Obama but a rare lapse in logic nonetheless. I hope, but doubt, that Hitchens will rethink his half-hearted, sort of endorsement of Obama, and realize that McCain not only has the character and temperament to be president, but he also has the needed realism on the issue of Islamic radicalism that Obama lacks.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Conservatives Win in Canada
The Conservative government in Canada won again on Tuesday's election. The Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper picked up close to 20 seats, but fell short of the majority they were hoping for; winning 143 out of 308 seats. The Liberal Party led by Stéphane Dion lost 27 seats, ending up with a mere 76 seats. In third place the Bloc Party, a party devoted to Quebec Independence, won 50 seats, one short of last time. The New Democratic Party, a harder line left party than the Liberals, led by Jack Layton won 37 seats, 8 up from before the election.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The 2008 Election and it's Consequences
As of today it looks very likely that Barack Obama will win the Presidential election by a comfortable margin. John McCain has finally brought up the very questionable associations of Obama (which I consider wholly legitimate); it appears that it is not working, and that most likely it will not work by election day. People are angry at the economic crisis and are blaming Republicans, and McCain is sadly paying the price for this, even though he had no part in causing the current economic crisis.
The fact is that the housing crisis is largely the fault of Democrats who pushed mortgage companies to give home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. When many of the people these loans were supposed to help couldn't pay they lost their homes, and this contributed to the current crisis. The Democrats, led by hard left ideologues like Barney Frank, said things were fine despite warnings from the Bush administration, in one of the few times the Bush White House has shown competence in domestic policy.
Now not only is it likely Obama will win, it is also likely the Democrats will have the 60 seats in the Senate they need to stop a filibuster. This means the nation will be lead by the extreme team of Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi running an increased majority in the house of representatives, and Harry Reid running a senate with 60 (or more) seats that will push the most extreme left-wing agenda this country has ever seen. They will most likely enact the fairness doctrine, very possibly and even stronger version than before, which will be used to silence the voices of those who oppose their agenda. Taxes will go up, this will kill jobs. Any chance for domestic drilling will be stopped cold which will probably send gas prices up, giving the Democrats a chance to use the increased prices as a pretext to nationalize the oil industry.
As disheartening as this all sounds, it makes me all the more determined to vote to stop this from happening.
There is still a chance to stop a filibuster proof senate which will slow down the far left agenda of the extreme team of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; and you never know we may pull a miracle out of our hats and defeat Obama. Don't give up until the last vote is counted, and if the worst occurs be comforted by the fact that we did our best, and that there will be another day for conservatism.
The fact is that the housing crisis is largely the fault of Democrats who pushed mortgage companies to give home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. When many of the people these loans were supposed to help couldn't pay they lost their homes, and this contributed to the current crisis. The Democrats, led by hard left ideologues like Barney Frank, said things were fine despite warnings from the Bush administration, in one of the few times the Bush White House has shown competence in domestic policy.
Now not only is it likely Obama will win, it is also likely the Democrats will have the 60 seats in the Senate they need to stop a filibuster. This means the nation will be lead by the extreme team of Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi running an increased majority in the house of representatives, and Harry Reid running a senate with 60 (or more) seats that will push the most extreme left-wing agenda this country has ever seen. They will most likely enact the fairness doctrine, very possibly and even stronger version than before, which will be used to silence the voices of those who oppose their agenda. Taxes will go up, this will kill jobs. Any chance for domestic drilling will be stopped cold which will probably send gas prices up, giving the Democrats a chance to use the increased prices as a pretext to nationalize the oil industry.
As disheartening as this all sounds, it makes me all the more determined to vote to stop this from happening.
There is still a chance to stop a filibuster proof senate which will slow down the far left agenda of the extreme team of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; and you never know we may pull a miracle out of our hats and defeat Obama. Don't give up until the last vote is counted, and if the worst occurs be comforted by the fact that we did our best, and that there will be another day for conservatism.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The California SC was wrong, but still...
The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15 of this year that same sex couples could not be barred from marriage, this has provoked evangelical groups to put a ballot proposition for a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage up for a vote in the November election.
I fundamentally disagree with the supreme court's decision, yet I also support same sex marriage, on top of that, the arrogant and insulting attitude among some of those who support the supreme court decision and oppose the ballot proposition almost makes me want to vote for it out of spite.
Almost is the key word here, as much as I deplore the SC decision, I can't in good conscience vote for any amendment that will once again ban same sex marriage, let this be the election I felt this issue needed. I will vote no and for gay marriage. If the amendment passes I hope the proponents of same sex marriage will in a few years time try to do this the democratic way and put their own ballot proposition up for vote. Once the people votes for same sex marriage it will be much harder to stop than is would if the courts step in and override the public will.
I fundamentally disagree with the supreme court's decision, yet I also support same sex marriage, on top of that, the arrogant and insulting attitude among some of those who support the supreme court decision and oppose the ballot proposition almost makes me want to vote for it out of spite.
Almost is the key word here, as much as I deplore the SC decision, I can't in good conscience vote for any amendment that will once again ban same sex marriage, let this be the election I felt this issue needed. I will vote no and for gay marriage. If the amendment passes I hope the proponents of same sex marriage will in a few years time try to do this the democratic way and put their own ballot proposition up for vote. Once the people votes for same sex marriage it will be much harder to stop than is would if the courts step in and override the public will.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Reconciling Conservatism with Atheism
Most conservative atheists, especially ones who are Republicans, have been asked how they can support conservatives when so many of them are a part of the religious right. Because the religious right, in general, is so hostile to the separation of church and state this is a legitimate question.
The issue of separation has varying degrees of importance to conservative atheists, but usually has enough significance to most of us that this question can give us pause. It is an issue that is important to me, and I do oppose the religious right on this issue. However, it is only one of several important issues,
and is outweighed to me, and to most conservative atheists, by these other issues.
Taxes, and the general philosophy of government is just as important as church/state issues, it affects our lives, one could argue, more than almost every issue out there. The left, which the Democratic party is run by, is determined to increase the size and scope of government, and the extent to how much of our lives it will intrude. They believe an activist government is the best solution to most problems in society.
To pay for this more activist government they raise taxes as much as they see fit, and have grown into an attitude of tax the rich, and big business too, to the point where it stifles free enterprise and costs America jobs. How do they fix the problem of lost jobs? You guessed it, with even more government and higher taxes to pay for it.
I am not someone who thinks that government has no role to play in our lives, there are a few things it can and should do. Defense, education, infrastructure, a minimal safety net to help those who can't help themselves, and minimal regulation to ensure public safety. Beyond that the government, in general, should stay out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best, create wealth and jobs.
Defense is a vital issue that demands our attention as well. The left has let itself be taken over by radicals who, to varying degrees, want to blame America instead of fighting the terrorists who are determined to destroy us. Any issues I may have with the religious right is swamped by this one issue alone.
The Democratic party is under strong influence by radical anti-war groups like Moveon.org who not only want to keep America from fighting the terrorists, but want massive cuts in military spending (gutting our armed forces), and putting that money in social programs that increase the left's grip on the lives of the American people. They even want to get rid of, or at least hinder greatly, surveillance programs that could prevent attacks. This spurs not from a wish to see America attacked, but from a fundamental misjudgment of the enemy, and a distrust of the US government, which they consider oppressive and controlled by big business, which in their minds starts wars to make money.
Lastly the left is hostile to the 2nd amendment. The left claims the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what is say it does. The 2nd amendment reads: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is no other rational way to read this other than the obvious, that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When the supreme court overruled the Washington DC ban and guns there were even a few calls from the left to get rid of the 2nd amendment. This is a fundamentally alien way of thinking to me, and I cannot be a part of any movement that pushes it.
There are many other issues that I could address, but these are the most important ones. Conservative atheists won't agree on every issue, I've seen them disagree with each other on abortion, gay marriage and other issues. However, the core issues I addressed are ones that most conservative atheists, and indeed most conservatives period, agree on.
The issue of separation has varying degrees of importance to conservative atheists, but usually has enough significance to most of us that this question can give us pause. It is an issue that is important to me, and I do oppose the religious right on this issue. However, it is only one of several important issues,
and is outweighed to me, and to most conservative atheists, by these other issues.
Taxes, and the general philosophy of government is just as important as church/state issues, it affects our lives, one could argue, more than almost every issue out there. The left, which the Democratic party is run by, is determined to increase the size and scope of government, and the extent to how much of our lives it will intrude. They believe an activist government is the best solution to most problems in society.
To pay for this more activist government they raise taxes as much as they see fit, and have grown into an attitude of tax the rich, and big business too, to the point where it stifles free enterprise and costs America jobs. How do they fix the problem of lost jobs? You guessed it, with even more government and higher taxes to pay for it.
I am not someone who thinks that government has no role to play in our lives, there are a few things it can and should do. Defense, education, infrastructure, a minimal safety net to help those who can't help themselves, and minimal regulation to ensure public safety. Beyond that the government, in general, should stay out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best, create wealth and jobs.
Defense is a vital issue that demands our attention as well. The left has let itself be taken over by radicals who, to varying degrees, want to blame America instead of fighting the terrorists who are determined to destroy us. Any issues I may have with the religious right is swamped by this one issue alone.
The Democratic party is under strong influence by radical anti-war groups like Moveon.org who not only want to keep America from fighting the terrorists, but want massive cuts in military spending (gutting our armed forces), and putting that money in social programs that increase the left's grip on the lives of the American people. They even want to get rid of, or at least hinder greatly, surveillance programs that could prevent attacks. This spurs not from a wish to see America attacked, but from a fundamental misjudgment of the enemy, and a distrust of the US government, which they consider oppressive and controlled by big business, which in their minds starts wars to make money.
Lastly the left is hostile to the 2nd amendment. The left claims the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what is say it does. The 2nd amendment reads: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is no other rational way to read this other than the obvious, that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When the supreme court overruled the Washington DC ban and guns there were even a few calls from the left to get rid of the 2nd amendment. This is a fundamentally alien way of thinking to me, and I cannot be a part of any movement that pushes it.
There are many other issues that I could address, but these are the most important ones. Conservative atheists won't agree on every issue, I've seen them disagree with each other on abortion, gay marriage and other issues. However, the core issues I addressed are ones that most conservative atheists, and indeed most conservatives period, agree on.
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Democrats are Irresponsible and are Playing Politics with Energy
In my last post I said that both parties have good points and bad points on energy. However, the left is by far the more irresponsible and beholden to special interests than the right. The Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to even allow a vote on offshore drilling, and as I write this Republicans are leading a revolt on capital hill to demand a vote.
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans in the past, but I can say that right now I am proud to call myself a Republican. Finally the GOP are standing their ground against the Democratic majority and the special interests they serve. I am not naive, the GOP have their own special interests too and at times have let them come before the good of the American people ,but right now they are doing exactly what they should be doing, taking a stand for the greater good of the American people.
We've all heard the excuses, "The oil companies already have 68 million acres that they aren't using", and "Even if we drill today we won't see a drop for 10 years", and of course "Drilling will only reduce the price of oil by 1 to 3 cents". All these arguments are deceptive and are only used because the Democrats know they are on the unpopular side of this issue.
Oil companies are drilling, but many of those 68 million acres are either dry or what oil they do have is economically unfeasible to retrieve. On the question of not seeing a drop for 10 years, it is actually more like 2-3 years. Furthermore, if that were true, if we have started drilling in ANWR in 1995 like the Republicans wanted we would have have a steady supply of oil from there for 3 years. The last argument, the one about the impact of drilling only reducing the price by a few cent at most, this is also a deception.
Once the speculators see that America is serious about drilling again, they will speculate that prices will come down. This will send prices down much farther than the Democrats claim. A few weeks ago President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and now prices have dropped under $4.00 a gallon, imagine what could be done if congress lifted their ban as well and the oil companies announce they will start drilling on the continental shelf.
Republicans absolutely need to adopt some of the Democrats solutions, they are already taking alternative energy more seriously. Now they need to consider raising fuel efficiency standards as well. I hope that if the Republicans pull off a miracle in November they do this, it will not only be good for them politically, but, much more importantly, it will be better for America.
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans in the past, but I can say that right now I am proud to call myself a Republican. Finally the GOP are standing their ground against the Democratic majority and the special interests they serve. I am not naive, the GOP have their own special interests too and at times have let them come before the good of the American people ,but right now they are doing exactly what they should be doing, taking a stand for the greater good of the American people.
We've all heard the excuses, "The oil companies already have 68 million acres that they aren't using", and "Even if we drill today we won't see a drop for 10 years", and of course "Drilling will only reduce the price of oil by 1 to 3 cents". All these arguments are deceptive and are only used because the Democrats know they are on the unpopular side of this issue.
Oil companies are drilling, but many of those 68 million acres are either dry or what oil they do have is economically unfeasible to retrieve. On the question of not seeing a drop for 10 years, it is actually more like 2-3 years. Furthermore, if that were true, if we have started drilling in ANWR in 1995 like the Republicans wanted we would have have a steady supply of oil from there for 3 years. The last argument, the one about the impact of drilling only reducing the price by a few cent at most, this is also a deception.
Once the speculators see that America is serious about drilling again, they will speculate that prices will come down. This will send prices down much farther than the Democrats claim. A few weeks ago President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and now prices have dropped under $4.00 a gallon, imagine what could be done if congress lifted their ban as well and the oil companies announce they will start drilling on the continental shelf.
Republicans absolutely need to adopt some of the Democrats solutions, they are already taking alternative energy more seriously. Now they need to consider raising fuel efficiency standards as well. I hope that if the Republicans pull off a miracle in November they do this, it will not only be good for them politically, but, much more importantly, it will be better for America.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Left And The Right Are Wrong On Energy
In a time like today, in which $4.00 a gallon gas is a reality and it will probably only get worse, we should be setting aside partisanship and compromise for the greater good. Unfortunately both the left and the right will not meet the other side half way despite the fact that both sides have good ideas, and the nation would benefit from some ideas on both sides of the debate.
The left wants to invest in alternative energy and raise fuel efficiency standards, this is a good thing, the supply of oil will run out one day and if we don't have something to replace it we are in for some really bad times. However, the left is knee-jerk anti-drilling and most are still anti nuclear power. We still are going to be using oil as our primary source of energy for cars for the next generation at least, and nuclear is a non polluting alternative to to coal. What do these people want? Alternative power is still in it's infancy and can't handle America's energy needs yet, some day this will change and I look forward to that day; until this changes we need more oil and that means more drilling.
The right wants to drill offshore and in ANWR, and to build more nuclear power plants, they are also correct. However, many on the right oppose higher fuel efficiency standards on ideological grounds (opposition to government regulation), and don't take alternative energy as seriously as the left. If we raise fuel efficiency standards this will reduce the amount of oil we use and reduce demand. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we will run out of oil and if we don't have the next thing ready when we run out it will cause the economy and our society untold harm. Also, as we use more alternative energy sources we will use less oil and reduce demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving our energy problems, but real progress can be made if we are patient and are willing to compromise. First thing, drill in ANWR and offshore, Cuba is already drilling off our coast and will get our oil if we don't jump to it fast. Second, fast track nuclear power, build plants as many as we need. France's energy needs overwhelmingly come from nuclear power and it works for them, they even reprocess their nuclear waste for yet more energy. Third, raise fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles every few years, Americans are an innovative people I see no reason why this can't be done. Fourth, Invest in alternative energy and make sure the commitment is real and vigorous.
We should look at the objections of the other side and try to deal with those objections. The left often objects to drilling on environmental grounds, we should make sure there is environmental oversight on any drilling projects offshore or at ANWR, the technology exists to drill without ruining the environment. Similar objections to issues like storing nuclear waste and raising fuel standards should be addressed, but we can't let a few naysayers ground progress on America's energy policy to a halt. If both sides are willing to give a little and get together and do something positive for our country it is possible.
The left wants to invest in alternative energy and raise fuel efficiency standards, this is a good thing, the supply of oil will run out one day and if we don't have something to replace it we are in for some really bad times. However, the left is knee-jerk anti-drilling and most are still anti nuclear power. We still are going to be using oil as our primary source of energy for cars for the next generation at least, and nuclear is a non polluting alternative to to coal. What do these people want? Alternative power is still in it's infancy and can't handle America's energy needs yet, some day this will change and I look forward to that day; until this changes we need more oil and that means more drilling.
The right wants to drill offshore and in ANWR, and to build more nuclear power plants, they are also correct. However, many on the right oppose higher fuel efficiency standards on ideological grounds (opposition to government regulation), and don't take alternative energy as seriously as the left. If we raise fuel efficiency standards this will reduce the amount of oil we use and reduce demand. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we will run out of oil and if we don't have the next thing ready when we run out it will cause the economy and our society untold harm. Also, as we use more alternative energy sources we will use less oil and reduce demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving our energy problems, but real progress can be made if we are patient and are willing to compromise. First thing, drill in ANWR and offshore, Cuba is already drilling off our coast and will get our oil if we don't jump to it fast. Second, fast track nuclear power, build plants as many as we need. France's energy needs overwhelmingly come from nuclear power and it works for them, they even reprocess their nuclear waste for yet more energy. Third, raise fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles every few years, Americans are an innovative people I see no reason why this can't be done. Fourth, Invest in alternative energy and make sure the commitment is real and vigorous.
We should look at the objections of the other side and try to deal with those objections. The left often objects to drilling on environmental grounds, we should make sure there is environmental oversight on any drilling projects offshore or at ANWR, the technology exists to drill without ruining the environment. Similar objections to issues like storing nuclear waste and raising fuel standards should be addressed, but we can't let a few naysayers ground progress on America's energy policy to a halt. If both sides are willing to give a little and get together and do something positive for our country it is possible.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
You Might Be A Left-Wing Wacko If...
1. You don't react when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills himself and a dozen Israeli civilians, yet you are outraged to the point of holding a demonstration when Israel retaliates and kills the terrorist leader who sent that bomber.
2. You think the constitution clearly says that abortion cannot be outlawed, gay marriage cannot be banned, and terrorists overseas calling their operatives in America to plan attacks have a constitutional right to privacy, yet there is no right to bear arms despite it being spelled out in plain English in the Second Amendment.
3. You think Bush is a tyrant but Fidel Castro is a swell guy who has been unfairly demonized by the U.S. government and the thousands of Cubans who have escaped their country.
4. You think that the Islamists are the oppressed victims of western hegemony but the religious right in America is evil incarnate.
5. You think that the right is filled with hate yet you are elated every time a noted conservative dies.
6. You think criticizing another country's culture no matter how oppressive is "Western cultural arrogance", but think America is a land of "Stupid, greedy gun nuts."
7. You think a 13 year old girl is smart enough to make a decision to get an abortion without her parents consent or knowledge, but think adult citizens are too stupid to own a gun, or have a choice in their retirement plans (privatized social security).
8. You think America and the west must cut carbon emissions drastically to save the Earth no matter what the cost but China, India and other undeveloped countries can pollute as much as they please.
9. You think "There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant."
10. You grit your teeth in anger when you hear the words "Private Sector."
2. You think the constitution clearly says that abortion cannot be outlawed, gay marriage cannot be banned, and terrorists overseas calling their operatives in America to plan attacks have a constitutional right to privacy, yet there is no right to bear arms despite it being spelled out in plain English in the Second Amendment.
3. You think Bush is a tyrant but Fidel Castro is a swell guy who has been unfairly demonized by the U.S. government and the thousands of Cubans who have escaped their country.
4. You think that the Islamists are the oppressed victims of western hegemony but the religious right in America is evil incarnate.
5. You think that the right is filled with hate yet you are elated every time a noted conservative dies.
6. You think criticizing another country's culture no matter how oppressive is "Western cultural arrogance", but think America is a land of "Stupid, greedy gun nuts."
7. You think a 13 year old girl is smart enough to make a decision to get an abortion without her parents consent or knowledge, but think adult citizens are too stupid to own a gun, or have a choice in their retirement plans (privatized social security).
8. You think America and the west must cut carbon emissions drastically to save the Earth no matter what the cost but China, India and other undeveloped countries can pollute as much as they please.
9. You think "There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant."
10. You grit your teeth in anger when you hear the words "Private Sector."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)