Well it appears as if an initiative that would divide up California's 55 electoral votes is going to make it onto the ballot some time next summer. The proposal, proposed of course by a Republican, would divide California's electoral votes in the 2008 election. The winner of the popular vote statewide would get 2 electoral votes and the rest would be divided up by the popular vote in a particular district.
This is nothing but Republicans trying to cheap shot democrats. Democrats have recently carried, by a wide margin, the entire state's popular vote, but there are some small counties who vote Republican. What is so wrong with this proposal, besides its creation for partisan purposes, is that a district with a 200,000 people could vote for a democrat, while a district with 20,000 people could vote republican, yet both districts would carry the same amount of weight. A candidate could get millions of votes over another candidate and still technically "lose" California because districts with small populations voted for republicans. Its wrong no matter how you look at it and I encourage every Californian to vote against it!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Are democrats better at lowering abortions than the GOP?
While watching a CNN special last night, titled, "God's Warriors: Christians", I was a actually taken aback when an evangelist preacher suggested that its democrats who would be better at lowering abortions than the republicans who use it as a major issue in their campaigns. As I said, I never thought I would hear those words, especially from a preacher, but after reflecting on it I began to realize, that indeed, he had a good point.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Republicans-----fiscal conservatives? (a special editorial by John Lucia)
When George W. Bush leaves office in 19 months, the last three so called conservative republican presidents will have served 20 years at the helm without balancing one federal budget, without sending one balanced budget to congress, piling up record deficits and increasing the national debt to levels never heard of before. Ronald Reagan started it all with record federal deficits, then the Bush 41 broke Ronald Reagan records and then the present Mr. Bush broke both his fathers and Reagan's deficit spending records by whopping margins.
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Another jumps ship!
I am please to report that a key, and much respected, republican Senator has finally seen the light. Sen. John Warner of Virginia said today that:
"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"
The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.
5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.
"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"
The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.
5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.
Is the surge really working?
This question has popped up in the media as of late, especially among conservative republican commentators who support this war. There has been talk of the surge making progress in such places as Anbar province. However lets get the facts straight-----there is indeed some improvement in some areas because of an increase in troops. In several reports I have heard from men who fought in Iraq, say that they(the troops) can spend 30 days stabilizing a town, but in 30 minutes after they pull out, its back to the the old chaos. It makes sense and I'm not denying that increasing troops in certain areas can lead to a reduce in violence. Its like putting a policemen on watch in a dangerous criminal neighborhood here in the U.S. There might be a reduce in crime while they're patrolling the area, but once they leave, the criminals come out again. This is the same thing that is happening in certain areas of Iraq. There is no long term solution in these areas and its ridiculous for us to put our brave men and women's lives at risk for progress to only last a half an hour once we leave.
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Catfight!!!----Freddy vs. Rudy
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is expected to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination some time in September. Although I do believe getting in the race too late is going to be a great obstacle for Fred to overcome, taking shots like this one at his fellow candidates is a good way to start building you support base, without being "officially" in the race:
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
FreedomWatch.org---a $15 million lie
Freedomwatch.org, a conservative, pro-war organization has just spent over $15 million on an ad pressing the need for support for this war. Now while I do respect the opinions of all people, I do not respect those who straight up lie in order to try to make a point. In this television ad, there is a graphic of the 9/11 attacks, with the airplane flying into the World Trade Center. While this graphic is being displayed, the following statement is read about Iraq:
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Another White House official to leave
Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary said Friday that he plans on leaving before President Bush finishes his term in office. When he does depart, Snow will join the long list of names who have resigned from the Bush administration, among the most recent are: Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Andrew Card. Now while we have heard the typical excuse, "the leaving to spend more time with my family", from many whom have left the White House, Tony Snow's answer must take the cake:
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
Update: Guiliani compares himself w/ the Rescue Workers
As former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani hits the campaign trail for his White House bid in 2008, he has been using his 9/11 record as his groundwork for becoming president. Last week when asked why he didn't warn of the health conditions posed to rescue workers working at Ground Zero, Rudy had this to say:
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
Define Pro-Life
This is a topic which is obviously very sensitive, but after something that happened to me today personally, I feel I need to address it. I was confronted today by someone who blatantly asked me whether if I was pro-life, it was an out of the blue question and an awful way to start a conversation, but I answered nonetheless. I told this person, I am pro-choice. He immediately jumped on me and called me "anti-life". After being taken a little back by his response, I quickly said, no I'm not anti-life, I'm just not what people like to define as "pro-life".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)