So I'm watching Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity talking about Ludacris's new song for Obama. The only I have to say about the song is this the reason Obama won't win. Most American voters are white. This isn't racism, its fact. And middle-class white voters aren't going to vote for someone who chronically associates himself with extreme racists.
But what has stirred me is the line about Barrack winning majority vote in every state. It was also used by Hillary at the end of her FAILED bid for the Presidency. If I may quote the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President..." and "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President..."
So basically it says each State shall appoint Electors who will vote by ballot for the President, and the person with the majority shall be the President. Can anyone find anywhere in the United States Constitution where the President of the United States is elected by the majority vote of U.S. citizens? No, you can't because it doesn't exist. That is not how our system works, it never has! So teachers and parents, take the time to learn how our government works so this fallacy will stop. And die-hard Democrats, quit your bitching about the 2000 election. George W. Bush won the majority of electoral votes as outlined in the Constitution and has been a far better President than the weakling coward liar Al Gore.
And don't waste our time in November by complaining that Barrack Hussein (yep, I said it!) Obama lost unfairly. He will lose because he is wrong: the wrong person for the job and wrong about everything he believes in (except that men should be more responsible fathers, he is right on that score, but he should expand to include women too).
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
California Communists Strike Again
According to a Wall Street Journal article today, LA city-council member Jan Perry wants to band fast food restaurants from opening in her section of the city. Her reasoning is perfectly consistent with the Left's philosophy that people are not responsible for their own actions. In a quote from the article "The targeted area is already home to some 400 fast-food restaurants, she says, possibly contributing to high obesity rates there..." Did you get that? Possibly contributing... So let's create laws banning some of the greatest free market success stories because maybe, just maybe they might possibly be helping people get fat.
Let's completely ignore the fact that in order for fast food to actually make people fat, the people first have to choose to eat it and then they have to choose to not exercise. We can ignore that because that falls to individual responsibility wherein each person makes that decision on their own, each and every time they eat there. And since the Left doesn't believe that even exists, we can't really use that as an argument. So when we eliminate that, what remains?
Oh yeah, that fact that you can't even support your own claim, and admit with your own words. You want to limit financial growth and prevent the creation of new jobs in your district for the sole reason of making it seem like you are dealing with the obesity problems in your district.
People like you, Jan Perry, make me sick to my stomach. You look at the Constitution (you have read it, right?) and say "well it doesn't expressly forbid me from limiting civil liberties in this way, so it must be ok." The job of lawmakers is not to create laws just to make it look like they are earning their salaries. In fact, the problem of obesity in your district is not yours to solve. It is an individual problem to face. If an individual asks you for help, them help that person.
And I'm sure your primary argument is that it raises the cost of public health care. But here is a thought, radical as it is. How about denying health care to people who are not willing to take responsibility for their own health. Oh, but we can't do that, healthcare is an American right! Isn't it, Liberals? It says so right in the Constitution, doesn't it? Wait, I can't find it. Did I miss it somewhere?
No, I didn't because it does not exist. Denying people the right to choose is not the answer to any problem, unless the problem is "How do we turn the United States into a Communist State?" If people are choosing to be obese and unhealthy (and make no mistake it is a choice for 99% of those who are, its a choice to take the easy way out and blame others), then chose to deny them free health care.
But that's not a Liberal response, so try this. Assign a health care tax to every plate of chili-cheese fries. Increasing taxes is a very liberal response, plus it helps offset the cost of health care. Set a colorie limit, total the calories in each bill (its not that hard since nearly every restaurant uses a computer to calculate the bill) then divide by the number of eaters. If the average exceeds 600 calories, slap a sliding-scale tax on it. Either the eater pays for his/her own health care, or they can't afford to order the item so they don't get fat from it. (Please note, I do not endorse this. It is simply a suggestion to help the Left tax their way into feeling good about themselves.)
Let's completely ignore the fact that in order for fast food to actually make people fat, the people first have to choose to eat it and then they have to choose to not exercise. We can ignore that because that falls to individual responsibility wherein each person makes that decision on their own, each and every time they eat there. And since the Left doesn't believe that even exists, we can't really use that as an argument. So when we eliminate that, what remains?
Oh yeah, that fact that you can't even support your own claim, and admit with your own words. You want to limit financial growth and prevent the creation of new jobs in your district for the sole reason of making it seem like you are dealing with the obesity problems in your district.
People like you, Jan Perry, make me sick to my stomach. You look at the Constitution (you have read it, right?) and say "well it doesn't expressly forbid me from limiting civil liberties in this way, so it must be ok." The job of lawmakers is not to create laws just to make it look like they are earning their salaries. In fact, the problem of obesity in your district is not yours to solve. It is an individual problem to face. If an individual asks you for help, them help that person.
And I'm sure your primary argument is that it raises the cost of public health care. But here is a thought, radical as it is. How about denying health care to people who are not willing to take responsibility for their own health. Oh, but we can't do that, healthcare is an American right! Isn't it, Liberals? It says so right in the Constitution, doesn't it? Wait, I can't find it. Did I miss it somewhere?
No, I didn't because it does not exist. Denying people the right to choose is not the answer to any problem, unless the problem is "How do we turn the United States into a Communist State?" If people are choosing to be obese and unhealthy (and make no mistake it is a choice for 99% of those who are, its a choice to take the easy way out and blame others), then chose to deny them free health care.
But that's not a Liberal response, so try this. Assign a health care tax to every plate of chili-cheese fries. Increasing taxes is a very liberal response, plus it helps offset the cost of health care. Set a colorie limit, total the calories in each bill (its not that hard since nearly every restaurant uses a computer to calculate the bill) then divide by the number of eaters. If the average exceeds 600 calories, slap a sliding-scale tax on it. Either the eater pays for his/her own health care, or they can't afford to order the item so they don't get fat from it. (Please note, I do not endorse this. It is simply a suggestion to help the Left tax their way into feeling good about themselves.)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
fSexfuallfy Exfplicfit
Can one of you spammers please explain to me this naming system? If I have taken the time to create a filter blocking the word "Sexually Explicit" from reaching my inbox, why would I open your spam-mail? Its obviously the same material I purposefully blocked initially, so why would I now open it when it has clearing been sent by a moron this time?
Do us all a favor SPAMMERS, make it clear and concise in your subject line what your email is about without trying to bypass filters. That those who will actually open your garbage will still receive it and open it (since they won't have created the filters in the first place), but saving those of us who will never even open the spam-mail much less give you money from your filth. Can you do that? Probably not since you are scum to begin with.
Do us all a favor SPAMMERS, make it clear and concise in your subject line what your email is about without trying to bypass filters. That those who will actually open your garbage will still receive it and open it (since they won't have created the filters in the first place), but saving those of us who will never even open the spam-mail much less give you money from your filth. Can you do that? Probably not since you are scum to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)