I have been inspired to write this article because it has gradually become very difficult for me to sit back and not say anything concerning my direct observations of the ideology that is currently described as American libertarainism. At first the idea of being libertarian was considered novel and somewhat of a safe place, considering the climate of modern day American politics. No matter who we are, the idea of having to argue all the time with people repeatedly can take a toll on anyone. It is no wonder that many of the conservative friends I once had have seemingly given up on certain ideas in order to "get along" with more people and this objective seems to fit nicely with someone claiming to be libertarian.
2012-10-26
Obama Has Trouble in Math
For those of us that pay attention, we already know about Obama's lack of math skills. For those of you who are are liberal and don't pay attention here is Obama admitting his weakness.
It seems most liberals have very poor math skills. It's the only thing that explains why they have no trouble with extraordinary debt coupled with more spending.
Source.
It seems most liberals have very poor math skills. It's the only thing that explains why they have no trouble with extraordinary debt coupled with more spending.
Source.
2012-10-23
Final Debate
Tonight was the final debate and it was all about foreign policy. From Obama we learned that we no longer have to worry about Russia and he has established stability throughout the word. Amazing. So I guess we are back to ignoring Libya and Egypt again?
Is this guy serious? I'm not sure how one can honestly follow what has been going on the past four years and not realize what a liar this man is.
As usual, Obama could not control himself. He was dismissive, condescending, and rude. The man cannot control his behavior for 90 minutes. Again, those of us that have watched him deal with the press know full well what an angry man he is but, hopefully it is more apparent to those that have done nothing but praise him for basically doing nothing the last four years.
He still has no plan and as far as balancing a budget. How does he plan on doing this, with another executive order? He hasn't been able to pass a budget the past three years. What makes him think this will change over the next four years? Even if he needs the majority of 60 votes to enact the budget, it still doesn't change the fact that none of the democrats will vote for his budget. Unlike Romney, he has not been willing to work with others. Just like his demeanor reveals, he is a child in an adult body playing president. I'm surprised he didn't just throw himself on the floor and begin to scream, while banging his feet and fists on the ground.
(The video will not allow me to embed it here, even though it does offer a code). You will have to click here to see the video for yourself.
After the debate, libs were all over the "Bayonette" comment as if it were some kind of amazing observation but it looks like the pie is on their faces now! Shhh...don't tell a liberal they are wrong, you'll be instantly called a racist.
Obama also insists that he never went on an "apology tour" as Romney pointed out. He went so far as to suggest that all those "fact check" sites confirm this for him. It's nice to know that Obama has to double check with websites devoted to his re-election in order to confirm what he did or didn't do. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. For example:
The liberals actually think Americans are stupid and yes, some of us are, we call them lefty-liberals but, the rest of us that have a brain do not need to hear an exact phrase in order to understand the meaning of a statement. It is just like when Obama made his closing statement. He said that when he came into office...this and this was all wrong...etc. No, he didn't use the words, "It's all Bush's fault," but dear heavens we KNOW what he was implying and he does nothing but repeat this same idea in a different fashion, each and every time he has an audience.
I guess we're also supposed to forget the recent apology made by the administration to Pakistan as well?
First the man declares this was a protest about some obscure film. Then we discover The White House was warned before the attack occurred. There was a deliberate attempt by the administration to cover this fact up because they made heavy attempts to saturate the media with this idea of a short film being the catalyst of this attack.
Then we find that Obama and his minions begin to back off of the story blaming this film. During the VP debate we learned through the laughing-fool Biden that the administration simply did not know until later on that it was a terrorist attack. Finally, the second debate with Romney, Obama claims he always called the attack one of terror. Even if we give benefit of the doubt to Obama and allow him to get away with making that claim, it doesn't explain away why he and others kept up the narrative of placing blame on the film for two weeks after the attack. It also makes Biden look foolish and clueless, considering he claims no one knew it was a terrorist attack initially.
Not only was there so much confusion going on, after the oversight hearing, we learned that the Embassy was asking for additional security because they knew they were not being properly protected. Oh, and let's not forget that this occurred on 9/11! Only a complete fool would ignore requests for additional security around the date of 9/11. With all of this information, what the hell happened?
Clinton decided to fall on her sword and take full responsibility and Obama did the same later on during the second debate. The whole situation reeks of problems. Obama has failed on all points because his administration is obviously incompetent. If all this initial diversion was centered on covering up the fact that this was a terrorist attack, then they are naive to think they could actually try to do such a thing. If they really didn't know, then they really should have just been honest in saying they didn't know and explained that they wanted to take prudent course of action. If they did know it was a terrorist attack, then why the hell didn't they call it that in the first place? No matter what, this was not handled appropriately and all evidence seems to point to the possibility they tried to do what Clinton did for 8 years -- ignore it. This was a political move, putting Obama's re-election above the interest of the country's, as well as the four men that were killed. Those four men were servants to this country and they were left to fend for themselves against hostile terrorists, an attack that most likely could have been avoided. I think we have a name for putting one's own interest above their country's. It's called TREASON and it's punishment is death.
Either way you slice it, Obama doesn't look good and it showed during the debates. Had he spent more of his time actually doing his job and not traveling, spending time on the golf course, or bowing down to world leaders, and hanging out with those cool, Hollywood celebrities, maybe he would have been more aware of what the hell was going on.
Romney won on substance and lost on having an inflated ego. Mr. Obama wins the ego award hands down.
Is this guy serious? I'm not sure how one can honestly follow what has been going on the past four years and not realize what a liar this man is.
As usual, Obama could not control himself. He was dismissive, condescending, and rude. The man cannot control his behavior for 90 minutes. Again, those of us that have watched him deal with the press know full well what an angry man he is but, hopefully it is more apparent to those that have done nothing but praise him for basically doing nothing the last four years.
He still has no plan and as far as balancing a budget. How does he plan on doing this, with another executive order? He hasn't been able to pass a budget the past three years. What makes him think this will change over the next four years? Even if he needs the majority of 60 votes to enact the budget, it still doesn't change the fact that none of the democrats will vote for his budget. Unlike Romney, he has not been willing to work with others. Just like his demeanor reveals, he is a child in an adult body playing president. I'm surprised he didn't just throw himself on the floor and begin to scream, while banging his feet and fists on the ground.
In early 2011, Barack Obama received a report from the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission he himself launched that outlined a series of significant cuts and new taxes that would have at least lowered the rate at which the country added to its debt. Obama ignored the report completely and instead proposed a budget with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, with no serious attempts to cut spending. It was so embarrassing that Republicans had to force the Democrat-controlled Senate in May 2011 to bring it up for a vote, where it failed unanimously, 0-97.Let's take a look at other fibs that came from Obama:
(The video will not allow me to embed it here, even though it does offer a code). You will have to click here to see the video for yourself.
After the debate, libs were all over the "Bayonette" comment as if it were some kind of amazing observation but it looks like the pie is on their faces now! Shhh...don't tell a liberal they are wrong, you'll be instantly called a racist.
Obama also insists that he never went on an "apology tour" as Romney pointed out. He went so far as to suggest that all those "fact check" sites confirm this for him. It's nice to know that Obama has to double check with websites devoted to his re-election in order to confirm what he did or didn't do. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. For example:
Obama to France and Europe: “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”Let's face it folks, he didn't use the words, "I apologize." Will "Blame America" tour suffice, Mr. Obama?
The liberals actually think Americans are stupid and yes, some of us are, we call them lefty-liberals but, the rest of us that have a brain do not need to hear an exact phrase in order to understand the meaning of a statement. It is just like when Obama made his closing statement. He said that when he came into office...this and this was all wrong...etc. No, he didn't use the words, "It's all Bush's fault," but dear heavens we KNOW what he was implying and he does nothing but repeat this same idea in a different fashion, each and every time he has an audience.
I guess we're also supposed to forget the recent apology made by the administration to Pakistan as well?
In a commercial containing clips from their Washington press conferences, subtitled in Urdu, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said “sorry” to the mad hordes attacking the American embassy in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad and deplored the infamous anti-Muslim14-minute YouTube video.Of course, this brings us to the most recent topic that involves the revelation that the attack had nothing to do with a YouTube video. Interesting how no one has bothered to mention that the film maker, Mark Basseley Youssef (a k a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is still in jail!!! Obama should lose any and all credibility for how this entire situation has played out.
First the man declares this was a protest about some obscure film. Then we discover The White House was warned before the attack occurred. There was a deliberate attempt by the administration to cover this fact up because they made heavy attempts to saturate the media with this idea of a short film being the catalyst of this attack.
Then we find that Obama and his minions begin to back off of the story blaming this film. During the VP debate we learned through the laughing-fool Biden that the administration simply did not know until later on that it was a terrorist attack. Finally, the second debate with Romney, Obama claims he always called the attack one of terror. Even if we give benefit of the doubt to Obama and allow him to get away with making that claim, it doesn't explain away why he and others kept up the narrative of placing blame on the film for two weeks after the attack. It also makes Biden look foolish and clueless, considering he claims no one knew it was a terrorist attack initially.
Not only was there so much confusion going on, after the oversight hearing, we learned that the Embassy was asking for additional security because they knew they were not being properly protected. Oh, and let's not forget that this occurred on 9/11! Only a complete fool would ignore requests for additional security around the date of 9/11. With all of this information, what the hell happened?
Clinton decided to fall on her sword and take full responsibility and Obama did the same later on during the second debate. The whole situation reeks of problems. Obama has failed on all points because his administration is obviously incompetent. If all this initial diversion was centered on covering up the fact that this was a terrorist attack, then they are naive to think they could actually try to do such a thing. If they really didn't know, then they really should have just been honest in saying they didn't know and explained that they wanted to take prudent course of action. If they did know it was a terrorist attack, then why the hell didn't they call it that in the first place? No matter what, this was not handled appropriately and all evidence seems to point to the possibility they tried to do what Clinton did for 8 years -- ignore it. This was a political move, putting Obama's re-election above the interest of the country's, as well as the four men that were killed. Those four men were servants to this country and they were left to fend for themselves against hostile terrorists, an attack that most likely could have been avoided. I think we have a name for putting one's own interest above their country's. It's called TREASON and it's punishment is death.
Either way you slice it, Obama doesn't look good and it showed during the debates. Had he spent more of his time actually doing his job and not traveling, spending time on the golf course, or bowing down to world leaders, and hanging out with those cool, Hollywood celebrities, maybe he would have been more aware of what the hell was going on.
Romney won on substance and lost on having an inflated ego. Mr. Obama wins the ego award hands down.
2012-10-18
My Rant
Obama says he wants us to have higher paying jobs with higher skill but, how the hell is that going to happen when the likes of Hollywood has shaped the minds of so many young people to only focus on having sex with a variety of people, using drugs, promoting self-mutilation, and praising immoral behavior? These things have nothing to do with encouraging people to gain higher skills or think on a higher level. They have everything to do with keeping the public ignorant and lowering the standards for everyone. They actually advocate victimization for the American people. How anyone is still struggling to see this is really beyond my personal comprehension.
The dems are the party that support the corruption of Hollywood. Go after the catholic church for their pedophilia! I'm all for it...but, nary a word from these so-called child protectors when it comes to Hollywood molesting children, putting them on a casting couch, and then putting them in roles where they are depicted in a violent rape scene.
The dems have done nothing but stand behind corrupt unions that have destroyed business in this country. Many union officials are the most evil-type of people I have ever run across. They use their union members as pawns; they skim off of the union dues to pay themselves while the members are forced to go along with strikes that many do not even want to bother with, because they need to take care of their families. Most final negotiations gain very little making the protests worth nothing.
Dems actually tell people that there is no voter fraud and when it does occur, it's so small that only a few people engage in this behavior. This is a patent lie and we know that the dems routinely have dead people and criminals vote in elections. If the amount of people committing voter fraud is so small, why are they fighting so hard to protect it?
The same demoncraps are the same people who like to stand behind children rather than in front of them, protecting them. They send THEIR kids to private schools because they KNOW public schools are a massive failure purely designed to brainwash your child into a life of servitude. Even though many solutions have been placed on the table to help poor people/minorities get their children into private schools, the dems refuse to negotiate and the Republicans are shunned and ridiculed. Not to mention that teachers who are utter morons are NEVER fired because, once again, UNIONS that protect these do-nothing teachers and even insist that more money and benefits be handed out to them.
When a Republican is exposed for fraud or other illegal activity, including immorality, our party is active in asking them to resign or be fired. Not dems, they dig their heels in and actually stand behind their corrupt politicians. Somehow they feel if they point to other corruption in the other party, that makes their argument stronger.
They hate war. They will protest constantly and call people war mongers and state that the United States in an evil nation trying to take over the world, even though we have mostly, only gone into areas where we were originally invited to go. Yet, when their "D" president increases a war or proclaims war, not a word about the evils of war. All of a sudden, war is good. Somehow attacking Iraq was bad, even though Saddam was killing his own, linked to terrorists, actively calling for suicide bombers to attack Israel, and other intelligence agencies confirming his immediate threat. Yet, under the guise of a dem like Clinton, attacking Serbia (a long time ally of the US), for fighting the very people who hate us is completely ignored, much like any other terrorist attack that occurs on the watches of our demoncrap leaders.
I am flat out sick of this party and unbelievably astounded by the ignorance that comes from the left. Now they are actually trying to take credit for stopping the war in Iraq when that was already on the Bush timeline, and to top it off they are suggesting that when someone brings up Libya it is some sort of political ploy. To which I say -- No, asshats it's called an incompetent administration that didn't know what was going on, an administration putting their political ambitions above America, or an administration that was trying to negotiate with terrorists....take your pick!
Tell ya what... If you still don't understand that this is the party of corruption, racism, war mongering, immorality, division -- desperate to keep you stupid, dependent, powerless, angry, and a victim, if you still can't see the lies and the half truths the media has been feeding you, do us all a favor and don't vote! This country simply doesn't need idiots voting. You're the death of us all, not just yourself! Stop being selfish and stop voting.
Obama Administration -- Incompetence Or Cover Up?
Is the mishandling of the attacks to our Embassy and Consulate due to incompetence or covering up something else? To be fair there may be a 3rd or 4th option but unfortunately I am not seeing any. We finally learned that the anti-Muslim movie had nothing to do with the attack on our country. You know the movie The White House originally insisted was the catalyst for the attacks that occurred in Libya and Egypt on Sept. 11th.
In fact, when several in the media and on the internet questioned if it was a planned terror attack, these types of conclusions were dismissed and declared to be false. In fact, just a few days later the buzz around this story concluded that not only were the attacks planned but that the administration was warned about them some 24-48 hours before they occurred.
Now Jay Carney is now telling us the attack was an act of terror.
Mitt Romney got a chance to bring up this topic during the debate because of a question asked by a person in the audience. Romney stated that it took two weeks for the president to state that the attacks were those made by terrorists and had nothing to do with a movie as originally stated.
If you saw the debate, you know first hand that the moderator Candy Crowley was none too thrilled with Romney bringing this up and actually went so far as to say Obama did call the attack one of terror.
More stupidity:
Obama also informed us that our gas prices were low when he came into office because the economy was in a state of ruin. He seems to think that we are now on the right track. Our gas prices now are almost 4 dollars a gallon here in the Midwest. So is he suggesting that rates will become even higher if we improve, or that high gas prices is what he has been working towards?
Whatever the reason for Obama's remarks, it's clear that he wasn't very comfortable during the debate. Several times he sort of trailed off. When Romney had a chance to mention Fast and Furious, Obama actually called out for Candy to stop Romney and she complied and was insistent about shutting Romney up.
Obama looked a little hopped up on speed or something. He was too aggressive and once again, seemed like a man about to come unhinged. Both Biden and Obama have made it crystal clear during the past debates that they are unable to control themselves for short periods of time. They both appear to be very angry when they are asked to explain and defend their actions. It is almost as if they truly feel they are above reproach.
My opinion overall was that Obama seemed desperate to do whatever it took to put in a good performance but, once again, we got the same old rhetoric mixed with an over-inflated ego. He gives the audience the impression that he is insecure and he seems to be fully aware of what a failure his administration has been the last four years. It looks like all his ideals, when applied, simply do not work. Had he taken the time to read history a little more and invested some more time in the area of economics, he would have known his old, tired ideas do not work prior to running for office. His knowledge of the economy has proven to be extremely sophomoric. He took a problem and simply amplified it.
On the other hand, I did like Romney's performance overall but there were times that I could see he may not have come off as sincere. I believe him to be sincere, but I was trying to do my best viewing him as someone who is liberal or undecided. He did demonstrate his knowledge and he definitely came off much more presidential. Perhaps if Obama had some facts on his side, he would have done much better during the debate.
In fact, when several in the media and on the internet questioned if it was a planned terror attack, these types of conclusions were dismissed and declared to be false. In fact, just a few days later the buzz around this story concluded that not only were the attacks planned but that the administration was warned about them some 24-48 hours before they occurred.
Now Jay Carney is now telling us the attack was an act of terror.
Mitt Romney got a chance to bring up this topic during the debate because of a question asked by a person in the audience. Romney stated that it took two weeks for the president to state that the attacks were those made by terrorists and had nothing to do with a movie as originally stated.
If you saw the debate, you know first hand that the moderator Candy Crowley was none too thrilled with Romney bringing this up and actually went so far as to say Obama did call the attack one of terror.
The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.
"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.Read more here.
However, Obama didn't explicitly label the Benghazi strike terrorism in those Sept. 12 remarks. What he did say is: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Crowley, during and following the debate, pointed out that despite Obama's Sept. 12 remarks his administration was peddling a different story to the public. She said it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest.
And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point.
"Right after that I did turn around and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape'," she said.Well, gee I'm glad she made that so clear because there were people in the audience that were actually applauding and so many more like them watching from home that now believe Obama did say it was an act of terror. Let's face it, Obama relies on people to not pay attention. This is and always has been the strategy of the left in this country. What an awesome group of people we have running this country -- into the ground.
After the debate Tuesday, Obama tried to clarify his remarks. The man who posed the Libya question, Kerry Ladka, told Fox News that the president approached him after the debate to explain he delayed explicitly labeling the attack terror because "he really wanted to take the time to be deliberate, to make sure he had all the information."Well, well, well, this is interesting. First he says in the debate with full confidence that he did indeed label the attack one of terror and now he's telling this man that he didn't do that originally? I guess the democrats will call this man a liar too, right?
More stupidity:
Obama also informed us that our gas prices were low when he came into office because the economy was in a state of ruin. He seems to think that we are now on the right track. Our gas prices now are almost 4 dollars a gallon here in the Midwest. So is he suggesting that rates will become even higher if we improve, or that high gas prices is what he has been working towards?
Whatever the reason for Obama's remarks, it's clear that he wasn't very comfortable during the debate. Several times he sort of trailed off. When Romney had a chance to mention Fast and Furious, Obama actually called out for Candy to stop Romney and she complied and was insistent about shutting Romney up.
Obama looked a little hopped up on speed or something. He was too aggressive and once again, seemed like a man about to come unhinged. Both Biden and Obama have made it crystal clear during the past debates that they are unable to control themselves for short periods of time. They both appear to be very angry when they are asked to explain and defend their actions. It is almost as if they truly feel they are above reproach.
My opinion overall was that Obama seemed desperate to do whatever it took to put in a good performance but, once again, we got the same old rhetoric mixed with an over-inflated ego. He gives the audience the impression that he is insecure and he seems to be fully aware of what a failure his administration has been the last four years. It looks like all his ideals, when applied, simply do not work. Had he taken the time to read history a little more and invested some more time in the area of economics, he would have known his old, tired ideas do not work prior to running for office. His knowledge of the economy has proven to be extremely sophomoric. He took a problem and simply amplified it.
On the other hand, I did like Romney's performance overall but there were times that I could see he may not have come off as sincere. I believe him to be sincere, but I was trying to do my best viewing him as someone who is liberal or undecided. He did demonstrate his knowledge and he definitely came off much more presidential. Perhaps if Obama had some facts on his side, he would have done much better during the debate.
2012-10-10
Half Truths - Global Warming/Climate Change/Different Weather/Increasing or Decreasing Temperature
Or...whatever you want to call it. See, the difference between a conservative and a liberal is simple. Conservatives follow a story forever and follow up on it: Liberals take the "facts" they like, stick with them, never follow up, never question themselves or their sources, and when challenged insist everyone else is stupid. In the case of global warming, it's called a "consensus" and if you are not a part of that supposed "large" crowd, you are obviously a denier!
2012-10-08
Advocate For Children In Hollywood -- Paul Peterson
When I was young, I was fortunate to grow up with Nick at Nite and watch all the classics from the 50's and early 60's. One of those shows included, "The Donna Reed Show" and as any girl would, I fell in love with Paul Peterson who played Donna's son, Jeff Stone.
2012-10-04
More On That Voter Fraud That Doesn't Exist
Yep. Voter fraud doesn't exist at all according to democrats. Again I ask democrats, if it's not enough to hurt any election, then why are you fighting so hard to protect voter fraud?
Romney Wins Debate, Obama Has a Meltdown
Let me first start off by saying, I truly thought this debate would be a close call. I calculated that if you liked Romney, you would think Romney won and if you liked Obama, you would think Obama won. I can proudly and clearly state with full confidence that Romney kicked Obama's ASS!
So, let's do a recap of what happened tonight...
So, let's do a recap of what happened tonight...
2012-10-03
Hey Black People, Old People, Poor People, and Students!
According to Sarah Silverman, you're all a bunch of idiots.
In this recent "comedy skit" done by the once-upon-a-time funny Sarah Silver, the idea of having a voter ID is being portrayed as a way to stop only blacks, the elderly, the poor and students from voting.
DearSarah Twit,
I find your recent comedy skit to be very ignorant. I am technically considered to be a minority, a women, at one time a student, and I definitely fall into the poor people category but somehow I have a driver's license. I also had a license the entire time I was registered as a student. I am also a Republican.
Exactly what is so difficult about obtaining an ID? Is it any more inconvenient or complicated than registering to vote? Apparently you seem to be under the impression that all of us that fall into these categories are too stupid to go to the DMV and get either a license or an ID. Your continued assertion that the idea of needing an ID in order to vote is solely for the purpose of preventing democrats to vote is just another clue that reveals how little you truly know about this subject. In fact, the proposals that have been made all include making it as easy as possible for someone to obtain a legal form of ID. Not only that but if you are on a fixed income or you live in poverty conditions, the ID's would be given out free. The purpose is to protect citizens' votes.
Are you not aware of the massive amount of voter fraud that has been reported in this country? Here in Omaha, the democrat mayor decided to bus in homeless people in order to ensure that he could protect his position since he was up for a recall vote. At the national level, voter fraud and voter intimidation has been reported and the Obama administration and Eric Holder have simply ignored it, much like they do terrorism.
If someone is so stupid to the point where they do not know how to get an ID, I'm not sure I want them voting in the first place, no matter what party they are affiliated with. If they're a student and do not know how to obtain an ID, then that person should probably give up college and try something a little more simple like flipping burgers...Oh wait, you need an ID to get a job as well! Even the lowest of skill jobs require an ID for hire.
Consider this:
Many of the elections across this country are very close so the very idea that it doesn't matter because there is "not enough voter fraud" is insulting. Voter ID laws are about EVERYONE'S vote being protected. You see Sarah, Republicans do not divide people the way you liberals do. We don't see rich/poor, black/white/brown, or young/old. We believe all people should be protected and held to the same standard because unlike you and the people you support, WE actually believe in EQUALITY.
The only problem with this is we may never be able to stop democrats from registering and having dead people vote.
I'd like to know who all these people are who do not have ID's. Apparently they do not have jobs either because you can't get a job without an ID. You can't get a student loan without an ID. You cannot have a bank account without an ID. So who exactly are these people going around without a picture ID? Obviously people who know very little about what's going on in the world since they refuse to participate in it. So why should people who are ill-informed be voting and why are only democrats advocating this? Well, it's simple really -- democrats rely on the ignorant voter and you now admit to rely on the fraudulent voter. It's how they win and that's exactly why you and your party feel so threatened. G-d forbid we have educated voters in this country. Democrats may never win again! If you didn't know these people were ignorant, then you wouldn't be worrying about them getting a valid ID because they'd be savvy enough to do so.
Being the fair person that I am, it seems as though Republicans have run into some issues concerning voter fraud as well. You can read about it by clicking here. The funniest part of that article is that it is the liberals' response to the advocacy of voter ID laws. Again, pointing to more fraud committed by the other side is not going to win your argument here. In fact, fraud committed by Republicans should be a motivation FOR you to support voter ID laws. So, clearly this issue is one that should be a bi-partisan effort. All votes should count. This is the motivation behind the law and it really has nothing to do with someone's party affiliation. Republicans and democrats should be active in protecting the integrity of our voting system. Why should we not take advantage of all the technology and processes available to preserve local and national elections?
Yes, you and your brainwashed, lefty friends will boldly claim that election fraud doesn't exist and when it does, it really doesn't matter because it's just "not enough" to warrant action to preventing it. This is the same song and dance you all sung when there just weren't "enough" WMD's found in Iraq. Or are you a part of the crew that STILL believes we didn't find WMD's? It's because that big ol' right-winger website, Wikileaks is lying.
Turning a blind eye to an issue or just outright denying it even exists is a dangerous practice of the left that needs to be stopped. Before you suggest there is "NO problem" it would behoove you to do just a little research and learn that voter fraud does indeed exist and should be prevented.
Ya see, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that voter fraud is not a problem and then turn around and say that Republicans would win elections if you stopped voter fraud. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound? If there's no problem with voter fraud then what are you doing spending your time trying to preserve it? How could Republicans automatically win if there's "no real issue here?" If Republicans do win elections by stopping voter fraud then all Americans should be glad that the people finally have a voice and elections will be won by those who the people REALLY wanted elected. I guess it's unfortunate for you that the American people typically are not interested in being represented by a bunch of gangsters in the democrat party.
~Tuesday
In this recent "comedy skit" done by the once-upon-a-time funny Sarah Silver, the idea of having a voter ID is being portrayed as a way to stop only blacks, the elderly, the poor and students from voting.
Dear
I find your recent comedy skit to be very ignorant. I am technically considered to be a minority, a women, at one time a student, and I definitely fall into the poor people category but somehow I have a driver's license. I also had a license the entire time I was registered as a student. I am also a Republican.
Exactly what is so difficult about obtaining an ID? Is it any more inconvenient or complicated than registering to vote? Apparently you seem to be under the impression that all of us that fall into these categories are too stupid to go to the DMV and get either a license or an ID. Your continued assertion that the idea of needing an ID in order to vote is solely for the purpose of preventing democrats to vote is just another clue that reveals how little you truly know about this subject. In fact, the proposals that have been made all include making it as easy as possible for someone to obtain a legal form of ID. Not only that but if you are on a fixed income or you live in poverty conditions, the ID's would be given out free. The purpose is to protect citizens' votes.
Are you not aware of the massive amount of voter fraud that has been reported in this country? Here in Omaha, the democrat mayor decided to bus in homeless people in order to ensure that he could protect his position since he was up for a recall vote. At the national level, voter fraud and voter intimidation has been reported and the Obama administration and Eric Holder have simply ignored it, much like they do terrorism.
If someone is so stupid to the point where they do not know how to get an ID, I'm not sure I want them voting in the first place, no matter what party they are affiliated with. If they're a student and do not know how to obtain an ID, then that person should probably give up college and try something a little more simple like flipping burgers...Oh wait, you need an ID to get a job as well! Even the lowest of skill jobs require an ID for hire.
Consider this:
Von Spakovsky, meanwhile, devastatingly refuted the leftist arguments against laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls. Critics say the laws make it too difficult to vote, especially for minorities. Yet, as von Spakovsky explained, when voter-ID laws went into effect in Indiana and Georgia for the 2008 elections – after federal judges noted that plaintiffs could not produce a single witness who would be unable to vote because of the new law – minority turnout increased by far more in those states than it did elsewhere in the country.
The reality, von Spakovsky explained, is that it is the corruption of fraud, not ID laws, that deters voting. Consider: After a series of 11 election-fraud convictions in Greene County, Alabama last decade, minority turnout went up. As one elderly black woman explained, she cast a ballot for the first time in years because “her vote was finally going to count.”
One line from Fund that did not make it into my column, but that is worth worrying about, was this: To win an election these days (especially if you are on the right), "You need a margin beyond litigation."
Many of the elections across this country are very close so the very idea that it doesn't matter because there is "not enough voter fraud" is insulting. Voter ID laws are about EVERYONE'S vote being protected. You see Sarah, Republicans do not divide people the way you liberals do. We don't see rich/poor, black/white/brown, or young/old. We believe all people should be protected and held to the same standard because unlike you and the people you support, WE actually believe in EQUALITY.
The only problem with this is we may never be able to stop democrats from registering and having dead people vote.
I'd like to know who all these people are who do not have ID's. Apparently they do not have jobs either because you can't get a job without an ID. You can't get a student loan without an ID. You cannot have a bank account without an ID. So who exactly are these people going around without a picture ID? Obviously people who know very little about what's going on in the world since they refuse to participate in it. So why should people who are ill-informed be voting and why are only democrats advocating this? Well, it's simple really -- democrats rely on the ignorant voter and you now admit to rely on the fraudulent voter. It's how they win and that's exactly why you and your party feel so threatened. G-d forbid we have educated voters in this country. Democrats may never win again! If you didn't know these people were ignorant, then you wouldn't be worrying about them getting a valid ID because they'd be savvy enough to do so.
Being the fair person that I am, it seems as though Republicans have run into some issues concerning voter fraud as well. You can read about it by clicking here. The funniest part of that article is that it is the liberals' response to the advocacy of voter ID laws. Again, pointing to more fraud committed by the other side is not going to win your argument here. In fact, fraud committed by Republicans should be a motivation FOR you to support voter ID laws. So, clearly this issue is one that should be a bi-partisan effort. All votes should count. This is the motivation behind the law and it really has nothing to do with someone's party affiliation. Republicans and democrats should be active in protecting the integrity of our voting system. Why should we not take advantage of all the technology and processes available to preserve local and national elections?
Yes, you and your brainwashed, lefty friends will boldly claim that election fraud doesn't exist and when it does, it really doesn't matter because it's just "not enough" to warrant action to preventing it. This is the same song and dance you all sung when there just weren't "enough" WMD's found in Iraq. Or are you a part of the crew that STILL believes we didn't find WMD's? It's because that big ol' right-winger website, Wikileaks is lying.
Turning a blind eye to an issue or just outright denying it even exists is a dangerous practice of the left that needs to be stopped. Before you suggest there is "NO problem" it would behoove you to do just a little research and learn that voter fraud does indeed exist and should be prevented.
Ya see, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that voter fraud is not a problem and then turn around and say that Republicans would win elections if you stopped voter fraud. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound? If there's no problem with voter fraud then what are you doing spending your time trying to preserve it? How could Republicans automatically win if there's "no real issue here?" If Republicans do win elections by stopping voter fraud then all Americans should be glad that the people finally have a voice and elections will be won by those who the people REALLY wanted elected. I guess it's unfortunate for you that the American people typically are not interested in being represented by a bunch of gangsters in the democrat party.
~Tuesday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)