AAL: 2
The one path to victory I saw for McCain closed very quickly around 8CT. After seeing PA fall to Obama, shortly followed by OH it became clear that McCain did not do enough to defeat Obama in this election.
So congragtualtions to the President-elect. I believe the office itself is deserving of respect regardless of who's holding it. In yesterday's post I promised to offer President-elect Obama that respect, which many on the left have failed to give Presdient Bush.
This means
1) I am not going to cry and move to Canada like that WLB (cu blogword, whiny little bitch) Alec Baldwin (though Canada did elect their "conservative party" to power in their election).
2) I am not going to call Obama a retard or monkeyman (these being among the tamer insults directed at President Bush)
3) I am not going to write a play or movie about the assissnation of the sitting president.
4) I am not going to draw devisive electoral maps saying the blue states aren't in my country (yes I'm talking about that anti-christian bigot Michael Moore's "Jesusland" map).
While I obviously will oppose many of the policies Presdient Elect Obama has proposed, he is still the leader of the country I love so dearly. And yes, Mrs. Obama, it is possible to be proud of your country whoever is leading it. As an opponent of your husband I believe that, I'm sorry you only believe it when you're winning.
That's a tanget, however I have more promises to make in support of conservatism..,
1) I am going to criticize President Obama any time a meausre passes that hurts the american people, and I will try to quantify the damage as plain as possible. As it turns out it is possible to be patriotic and criticize the President. I hope that doesn't automatically make me racist (however if Obama's house surrogates are any indication, it probably does...)
2) While I will continue to respect the office of President, the office of SCUM Journalism is still my bitch (I'm looking at you Olbeljerk-off).
Speaking of which all is not lost...
As of this writing the Dems have only flipped about 12 seats in the house, and 5 in the senate (we may wait a while for the MN result) far less than what they were expecting, the popular vote for president also is within about 4 points, though the electoral college is looking like a landslide.
Speaking of Minnesota....
We must be the most schizophrenic electorate in the country. Obama carries the state handly, carries the country pretty handly for that matter. In every other state it seems Obama's coattails were alive and well. Yet Ultra-Con Rep. Bachman, John Kline, and Eric Paulson all find their way to victory in house races (stifling Dem hopes to pick up 30 seats), Coleman and Franken are going to the wire, and I understand there is a margin which will trigger an automatic recount. So we can elect conservative house members, liberal presidents, it's going to come down to a couple hundred votes between a comedy writer and a senator/former mayor.
But all minnesotans seem to agree on higher sales and property taxes, given where the constitiutional amendment and most school board initiatives landed...
I don't get it, but what can I say, Minnesota is home.
Future of conservatism...
And lastly I want to point out before Rush does on his radio show later today, that it's not like conservatism got beat today. The RNC has had this push to become moderate, to try and pick off democrats by becoming more like them. And that's how we ended up with a rather liberal nominee like John McCain. McCain did the consevative base one favor by selecting Gov. Palin. I hope the RNC took notice that she's the only reason there was any energy about Sen. McCain in the final 2 months of his campaign. And as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, all those people that thought a moderate nominee was politically smart ended up endorsing Obama anyway once it seems an Obama victory is unlikley. The conservative rank and file should be outraged that that is what passes for leadership in the Republican party. But the RNC's culpability in this defeat is a topic for another post...
Point being the stakes are high because recovery is possible, look at 1980 and 1994, both attainable goals if the RNC gets its act together...
conservativeuncensored.com RSS feeds
Posts
All Comments
05 November 2008
04 November 2008
Election Night Preview...
An Honest Look at McCain's chances...
Looking at most polls (basically the electoral maps at RCP and Slate, I know no bastion of conservatism), I have some thought's on what to look for, so this is a little amateur punditry.
McCain has made quite a surge in this last week in the popular vote, most polls have either Obama or McCain leading by 2 points either way.
While I question some of the polling numbers (like how the hell can Arizona be a swing state, seriously?), the Electoral Map hold this simple truth. The three biggest states left are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), and Ohio (20). McCain has been surging in all 3 states, and looks primed to take Florida and Ohio. However, it looks extremly difficult for McCain to win the 270 electoral votes without all three. If he does however, it would appear that this could be part of a national trend where McCain would likley pick up all of the "toss up" states and can easily get to 270. If McCain misses any of these states, he's going to have to out-perform the polls greatly in a lot of states to get there.
My bottom line is this. If McCain doesn't get all three of the states I identified above, he's likley to lose. However, if McCain does, look out, Obama's in a lot of trouble as it appears McCain would also win the remaining "toss up" states (in most of which he currently enjoys slight leads).
A more personal note...
No matter who's elected, I promise to offer the respect the office of President affords to whoever holds it. This means, no Alec-Balwdin-crybaby "I'm moving to Canada stuff." This means no Michael Moore style electoral maps depecting half the country as "commie-land." While I am likley to have many disagreements with an Obama administration, and I won't be silent about them (as long as the 1st amendment applies to the internet), I will still promise to afford him the basic respect that President Bush has been denied for the last 8 years by the angry left. I promise I won't refer to Obama as retarded, or ignorant, or any of the other absolutly disgusting things that have been said and believed acceptable about President Bush. No matter what happens I hope the left looks at the way they've behaved the last 8 years with shame.
Should Obama win the election, I hope we as conservatives don't have to look at how we acted during the Obama administration with the same sense of shame. It's very tempting to take the horrible level of the left's rhetoric in revenge. However, I urge conservatives to think about the way they attack Obama should he be elected. And the people in the middle that aren't affilated will be able to compare the way we act out of power with the way they did, and that message will pay off extrodinairaly when we meet at the ballot box two and four years from now.
Final Thoughts...
I know this sounds like I'm resigned to defeat, I assure you I'm not. I still believe McCain has a very real shot to win in the scenario I laid out above. But no matter what happens, let's hope for the best, and that starts by respecting the Presidency for the great office that it is...
Looking at most polls (basically the electoral maps at RCP and Slate, I know no bastion of conservatism), I have some thought's on what to look for, so this is a little amateur punditry.
McCain has made quite a surge in this last week in the popular vote, most polls have either Obama or McCain leading by 2 points either way.
While I question some of the polling numbers (like how the hell can Arizona be a swing state, seriously?), the Electoral Map hold this simple truth. The three biggest states left are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), and Ohio (20). McCain has been surging in all 3 states, and looks primed to take Florida and Ohio. However, it looks extremly difficult for McCain to win the 270 electoral votes without all three. If he does however, it would appear that this could be part of a national trend where McCain would likley pick up all of the "toss up" states and can easily get to 270. If McCain misses any of these states, he's going to have to out-perform the polls greatly in a lot of states to get there.
My bottom line is this. If McCain doesn't get all three of the states I identified above, he's likley to lose. However, if McCain does, look out, Obama's in a lot of trouble as it appears McCain would also win the remaining "toss up" states (in most of which he currently enjoys slight leads).
A more personal note...
No matter who's elected, I promise to offer the respect the office of President affords to whoever holds it. This means, no Alec-Balwdin-crybaby "I'm moving to Canada stuff." This means no Michael Moore style electoral maps depecting half the country as "commie-land." While I am likley to have many disagreements with an Obama administration, and I won't be silent about them (as long as the 1st amendment applies to the internet), I will still promise to afford him the basic respect that President Bush has been denied for the last 8 years by the angry left. I promise I won't refer to Obama as retarded, or ignorant, or any of the other absolutly disgusting things that have been said and believed acceptable about President Bush. No matter what happens I hope the left looks at the way they've behaved the last 8 years with shame.
Should Obama win the election, I hope we as conservatives don't have to look at how we acted during the Obama administration with the same sense of shame. It's very tempting to take the horrible level of the left's rhetoric in revenge. However, I urge conservatives to think about the way they attack Obama should he be elected. And the people in the middle that aren't affilated will be able to compare the way we act out of power with the way they did, and that message will pay off extrodinairaly when we meet at the ballot box two and four years from now.
Final Thoughts...
I know this sounds like I'm resigned to defeat, I assure you I'm not. I still believe McCain has a very real shot to win in the scenario I laid out above. But no matter what happens, let's hope for the best, and that starts by respecting the Presidency for the great office that it is...
03 November 2008
My closing argument against Barack Obama...
I know what most conservatives think of the reasons Obama supporters have. I think most think that they're simplistic and ill-informed. In part that's true, but I choose to give voters a little more credit either way. Of the reasons for supporting Obama, These are the two that I'll choose to dignify.
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
02 November 2008
CU Voter Guide (Long Awaited I'm sure)
AAL1: People I'm (more or less) happy to endorse
Presdient and Vice President:
John McCain and Sarah Palin
It has taken me a long time to get on board this ticket as a conservative. If you thought the St. Paul Pioneer Press' endorsement of George W. Bush in 2004 was backhanded, you haven't seen anything yet. Make no mistake, whoever wins the White House is no friend of conservatism. Both candidates have weaknesses on the first amendment (though Obama has been far bolder about that), while Obama and Biden have tried to paint McCain as Bush III the fact is McCain sold President Bush out weaking his tax cuts in 2003, and selling him out on his judicial nominations for no logical reason other than to play politics by appearing not to play partisainship.
While I am unabashedly close to being a neo-con, one might assume that maybe it was Sarah Palin's choice that made the difference. While I agree with her on almost everything, and if she were to use the constitutional power afforded the vice president, that Sen. Biden is just plain ignorant on, to preside over the Senate I would love to see the look on Sen. "Dirty" Harry Reid's face. I understand her power is very limited unless something should happen to John McCain. However, I think that possibilty has been grossly overplayed.
At the end of the day McCain is right one conservative-friendly issue and none of the other candidates are. McCain understands the challenge of defending this country. A couple years ago, when I wasn't pleased with the primary candidates in both parties that were emerging, I decided I should be a single issue voter, that I was going to vote for whichever candidate is willing to elminate most of America's enemies. McCain gets that the saftey of every american depends on it, Obama wants to negotate with those that are willing to outright lie to us. Furthermore, McCain gets that Obama's redistributive policies are dangerous for the economy and therefore dangerous to our security. At the end of the day, the decision is clear...
Minnesota Senate:
Norm Coleman
While many area conservatives lump Sen. Coleman as a typical RINO (Republican in Name Only, not an original CU blogword) like Rep. Jim Ramstad or Gov. Tim Pawlenty, I give Coleman a pass on his more liberal votes because 1) He has been one of President Bush's strongest supporters on the war on terror. 2) He has been one of President Bush's strongest suppoters on judges (more than McCain), 3) He has been one of President Bush's strongest supporters on taxes.
I did give Dean Barkley some serious consideration, but the fact is for a so-called "political outsider" he gave a very political "I'm not so sure how I would've voted on the bailout" type-answer. If he stood up for the bailout that none of the voters wanted, and both Coleman and Franken support I probably would've gone his way.
I think most Senators now have some remorse that they didn't listen to the american people on that bill, I'm going to stick with Sen. Coleman.
House of Represenatives Minnesota 5th District:
Barb Davis White
I know she has absolutly no shot. It is rare in Minneapolis to find people that see Obama and Ellison's redistributive policies and dangerous for the economy. It's rare to see candidates in Minneapolis that believe in life. In fact most are mocked as being uniformed, as if it takes some great intellectual power to defend the pro-choice argument. White will probably lose 2-1 or so, but she has my support.
Other Area Races (that I won't be voting in).
House of Representatives Minnesota 3rd District: Erik Paulson,
Make No Mistake Madia is another "Tax the rich until they can't hire the poor" liberal.
House of Representatives Minnesota 6th District: Michelle Bachman,
She was one of the very first people to favor domestic drilling, she has been a strong supporter of the president, and she got a bum-rap from Chris Mad-thews for simply suggesting that the Media should do their job and dig into what Obama's policies are (and damn the national GOP for bailing on her, essectially siding with Mad-thews, I hope they burn in hell for that).
Presdient and Vice President:
John McCain and Sarah Palin
It has taken me a long time to get on board this ticket as a conservative. If you thought the St. Paul Pioneer Press' endorsement of George W. Bush in 2004 was backhanded, you haven't seen anything yet. Make no mistake, whoever wins the White House is no friend of conservatism. Both candidates have weaknesses on the first amendment (though Obama has been far bolder about that), while Obama and Biden have tried to paint McCain as Bush III the fact is McCain sold President Bush out weaking his tax cuts in 2003, and selling him out on his judicial nominations for no logical reason other than to play politics by appearing not to play partisainship.
While I am unabashedly close to being a neo-con, one might assume that maybe it was Sarah Palin's choice that made the difference. While I agree with her on almost everything, and if she were to use the constitutional power afforded the vice president, that Sen. Biden is just plain ignorant on, to preside over the Senate I would love to see the look on Sen. "Dirty" Harry Reid's face. I understand her power is very limited unless something should happen to John McCain. However, I think that possibilty has been grossly overplayed.
At the end of the day McCain is right one conservative-friendly issue and none of the other candidates are. McCain understands the challenge of defending this country. A couple years ago, when I wasn't pleased with the primary candidates in both parties that were emerging, I decided I should be a single issue voter, that I was going to vote for whichever candidate is willing to elminate most of America's enemies. McCain gets that the saftey of every american depends on it, Obama wants to negotate with those that are willing to outright lie to us. Furthermore, McCain gets that Obama's redistributive policies are dangerous for the economy and therefore dangerous to our security. At the end of the day, the decision is clear...
Minnesota Senate:
Norm Coleman
While many area conservatives lump Sen. Coleman as a typical RINO (Republican in Name Only, not an original CU blogword) like Rep. Jim Ramstad or Gov. Tim Pawlenty, I give Coleman a pass on his more liberal votes because 1) He has been one of President Bush's strongest supporters on the war on terror. 2) He has been one of President Bush's strongest suppoters on judges (more than McCain), 3) He has been one of President Bush's strongest supporters on taxes.
I did give Dean Barkley some serious consideration, but the fact is for a so-called "political outsider" he gave a very political "I'm not so sure how I would've voted on the bailout" type-answer. If he stood up for the bailout that none of the voters wanted, and both Coleman and Franken support I probably would've gone his way.
I think most Senators now have some remorse that they didn't listen to the american people on that bill, I'm going to stick with Sen. Coleman.
House of Represenatives Minnesota 5th District:
Barb Davis White
I know she has absolutly no shot. It is rare in Minneapolis to find people that see Obama and Ellison's redistributive policies and dangerous for the economy. It's rare to see candidates in Minneapolis that believe in life. In fact most are mocked as being uniformed, as if it takes some great intellectual power to defend the pro-choice argument. White will probably lose 2-1 or so, but she has my support.
Other Area Races (that I won't be voting in).
House of Representatives Minnesota 3rd District: Erik Paulson,
Make No Mistake Madia is another "Tax the rich until they can't hire the poor" liberal.
House of Representatives Minnesota 6th District: Michelle Bachman,
She was one of the very first people to favor domestic drilling, she has been a strong supporter of the president, and she got a bum-rap from Chris Mad-thews for simply suggesting that the Media should do their job and dig into what Obama's policies are (and damn the national GOP for bailing on her, essectially siding with Mad-thews, I hope they burn in hell for that).
25 October 2008
CU Link - Krauthammer's Endorsment
Charles Krauthammer's presidental endorsment. Interesting perspective...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html
CU's voter guide coming next week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html
CU's voter guide coming next week.
22 October 2008
The Fairness Doctorine...
AAL: 2
I hesitate to post this, because all this does is give ideas to anti-press leaders (which in fairness, huh that word again, I consider both McCain and Obama to be), but this recent talk about the fairness doctorine has me worried.
People are always going to choose what they want to buy, or watch, or read, or listen to. Reviving the "Fairness Doctorine" in communicaitons would force many outlets to make sure time is equal. On the surface that seems okay, but lets look a little deeper.
I know the most common argument against the Fairness Doctorine is the trappings in finding the mythical most neutral person in the world to arbitrate this (by the way this person hangs out with Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and all the Super Bowl trophies the Buffalo Bills have won). However I'm going to take a different look at this.
If the goverment gets to control who says what when on the media and that's percieved as fair, does it also seem fair if the government...
1) Forces you to buy an Ann Coulter book for every Al Franken book you want to buy...
2) Forces you to buy a ticket for "W" with every ticket for "An American Carol"...
3) Forces you to watch "Davey and Golaith" after you watch "Family Guy"
4) Forces you to watch Hannity after watching Olberjerkoff
5) Regulate your computer so you spend equal time on homework and facebook (now I have your attention)
6) Forces you to watch "Gary Unmarried" after watching "How I Met Your Mother" (this one is not really partisan, but only one of these shows is of legen-wait-for-it-dary quality).
I know nobody is talking about doing these thing (yet), and obviously some of them are not possible. But I would like any supporter of the Fariness Doctorine to explain to me what the moral difference is that justifies forcing the media to suddenly make sure everything is equal and forcing any of the changes on the list above.
My contention is whatever argument you can make for the Fairness Doctorine you can make for any of the things on my list.
In a sense that's what Conservativeuncensored is about, becuase the media people want to watch will be forced into media they don't want to watch. The government can get away with this because they own all the licensenes. But they don't own the internet (yet). Enjoy conservativeunsensored.com, before somebody in the goverment tries to force me to automatically redirect you to moveon.org when you're navigate away.
I hesitate to post this, because all this does is give ideas to anti-press leaders (which in fairness, huh that word again, I consider both McCain and Obama to be), but this recent talk about the fairness doctorine has me worried.
People are always going to choose what they want to buy, or watch, or read, or listen to. Reviving the "Fairness Doctorine" in communicaitons would force many outlets to make sure time is equal. On the surface that seems okay, but lets look a little deeper.
I know the most common argument against the Fairness Doctorine is the trappings in finding the mythical most neutral person in the world to arbitrate this (by the way this person hangs out with Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and all the Super Bowl trophies the Buffalo Bills have won). However I'm going to take a different look at this.
If the goverment gets to control who says what when on the media and that's percieved as fair, does it also seem fair if the government...
1) Forces you to buy an Ann Coulter book for every Al Franken book you want to buy...
2) Forces you to buy a ticket for "W" with every ticket for "An American Carol"...
3) Forces you to watch "Davey and Golaith" after you watch "Family Guy"
4) Forces you to watch Hannity after watching Olberjerkoff
5) Regulate your computer so you spend equal time on homework and facebook (now I have your attention)
6) Forces you to watch "Gary Unmarried" after watching "How I Met Your Mother" (this one is not really partisan, but only one of these shows is of legen-wait-for-it-dary quality).
I know nobody is talking about doing these thing (yet), and obviously some of them are not possible. But I would like any supporter of the Fariness Doctorine to explain to me what the moral difference is that justifies forcing the media to suddenly make sure everything is equal and forcing any of the changes on the list above.
My contention is whatever argument you can make for the Fairness Doctorine you can make for any of the things on my list.
In a sense that's what Conservativeuncensored is about, becuase the media people want to watch will be forced into media they don't want to watch. The government can get away with this because they own all the licensenes. But they don't own the internet (yet). Enjoy conservativeunsensored.com, before somebody in the goverment tries to force me to automatically redirect you to moveon.org when you're navigate away.
20 October 2008
What is conservativeuncensored.com
This should've probably been the first post of the blog, but I decided to a get a few current event posts out first before defining what this site is about.
I'm one who's been a conservative as long as I've had political thought. However, I admittedly checked out of the political process in 2004. Though a support of President Bush (43), I still became disgusted with media lies and both republicans and democrats moving left.
"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Unconfirmed Author*
I've decided I can no longer check out, as apparantly conservatism no longer has a party. No matter who wins this election, conservatives aren't going to have a friend in the White House. And instead of politcs being the public service it was intended to be, it's has become a carrer opportunity for the ignorant that only know how to give voters what they want, because their re-election depends on it, even though they don't know how to stop the destruction of their voters in the process.
I think many people that call themselves republicans and democrats in fact have many conservative values. However, the thing the ruling class doesn't like about it is that inheirant to conservative belief is a certain indepence from the government. It's not easy to court voters that know they don't need you. And if you run on the people don't need the government, those that do want to vote themselves the purse will villify you as mean to any number of groups (age, race, etc...)
So while I have conservative beliefs, I think we need to attack the ruling class at all turns, regardless of the letter after their name and before their state. I believe leaders need to start ignoring those voting for handouts, and start convincing people that continuing down this road will lead to our demise, and we need to vote over the temptation in favor of our freedom, that's the conservative way.
Concerning conservatism's opponents, I may use very foul language and very personal attacks, but I assure you it is not just because of who someone is, it's because of what someone stands for. I don't care if you're a small town mayor, a 50 year old lawyer, a SCUM journalist or a carrer politican (actually if anything I will be hardest on career politicains), that in istelf is not enough to bring my wrath. However, if you do anything to destroy the virtue of conservatism, I will use language that will make your grandma blush+, insults that would make your preacher squirm, whatever it takes to demostrate why the ruling class is hurting us to protect themselves.
Welcome to conservativeuncensored.com
*Interesting research on this quote here: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
+how do you get 3 old ladies to say the f-word at the same time?
have the fourth one yell "bingo."
I'm one who's been a conservative as long as I've had political thought. However, I admittedly checked out of the political process in 2004. Though a support of President Bush (43), I still became disgusted with media lies and both republicans and democrats moving left.
"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Unconfirmed Author*
I've decided I can no longer check out, as apparantly conservatism no longer has a party. No matter who wins this election, conservatives aren't going to have a friend in the White House. And instead of politcs being the public service it was intended to be, it's has become a carrer opportunity for the ignorant that only know how to give voters what they want, because their re-election depends on it, even though they don't know how to stop the destruction of their voters in the process.
I think many people that call themselves republicans and democrats in fact have many conservative values. However, the thing the ruling class doesn't like about it is that inheirant to conservative belief is a certain indepence from the government. It's not easy to court voters that know they don't need you. And if you run on the people don't need the government, those that do want to vote themselves the purse will villify you as mean to any number of groups (age, race, etc...)
So while I have conservative beliefs, I think we need to attack the ruling class at all turns, regardless of the letter after their name and before their state. I believe leaders need to start ignoring those voting for handouts, and start convincing people that continuing down this road will lead to our demise, and we need to vote over the temptation in favor of our freedom, that's the conservative way.
Concerning conservatism's opponents, I may use very foul language and very personal attacks, but I assure you it is not just because of who someone is, it's because of what someone stands for. I don't care if you're a small town mayor, a 50 year old lawyer, a SCUM journalist or a carrer politican (actually if anything I will be hardest on career politicains), that in istelf is not enough to bring my wrath. However, if you do anything to destroy the virtue of conservatism, I will use language that will make your grandma blush+, insults that would make your preacher squirm, whatever it takes to demostrate why the ruling class is hurting us to protect themselves.
Welcome to conservativeuncensored.com
*Interesting research on this quote here: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
+how do you get 3 old ladies to say the f-word at the same time?
have the fourth one yell "bingo."
19 October 2008
ACORN and the Supreme Court
AAL2: Surpisingly Calm
So Friday's big news was that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) denied the Ohio GOP's.
I'm going to claim ignorance, but I think SCOTUS basically said since the Ohio GOP isn't a "citizen" they don't have the standing to bring this case.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1
So don't confuse this decision with the innocence of Ohio secratary of state Jennifer Brunner, though CNN, and the rest of the SCUM seem to be content to bury this fact at the bottom of the story, saying it's a "victory."
This was basically thrown out on a technicality, that the law wasn't designed for civil action. It sounds like another challenge will mount.
That said, I do understand the other side of this, and this is one situation where I would prefer the scalpel to the hatchet. I think they need to be careful how they purge the roles, and make sure they are following up on the discrepancies and not just discarding them. It wouldn't be the first time government information is wrong, and disenfranchising voters because the DMV has the wrong address wouldn't be right.
It would be decent of Brunner to at least acknowledge that she shares the goal of an honest election and supports the idea of getting fraudulent registrations off the rolls. However, at best I interpret her actions as she's decided to be apathetic about this (at worst she's conspiring, but I'll need more proof on that) for whatever reason, and seems okay with the risks posed with fraudulent names on the rolls, which I find irresponsible.
This isn't over, those sounding the Brunner victory horns may have to backpedal...
So Friday's big news was that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) denied the Ohio GOP's.
I'm going to claim ignorance, but I think SCOTUS basically said since the Ohio GOP isn't a "citizen" they don't have the standing to bring this case.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1
So don't confuse this decision with the innocence of Ohio secratary of state Jennifer Brunner, though CNN, and the rest of the SCUM seem to be content to bury this fact at the bottom of the story, saying it's a "victory."
This was basically thrown out on a technicality, that the law wasn't designed for civil action. It sounds like another challenge will mount.
That said, I do understand the other side of this, and this is one situation where I would prefer the scalpel to the hatchet. I think they need to be careful how they purge the roles, and make sure they are following up on the discrepancies and not just discarding them. It wouldn't be the first time government information is wrong, and disenfranchising voters because the DMV has the wrong address wouldn't be right.
It would be decent of Brunner to at least acknowledge that she shares the goal of an honest election and supports the idea of getting fraudulent registrations off the rolls. However, at best I interpret her actions as she's decided to be apathetic about this (at worst she's conspiring, but I'll need more proof on that) for whatever reason, and seems okay with the risks posed with fraudulent names on the rolls, which I find irresponsible.
This isn't over, those sounding the Brunner victory horns may have to backpedal...
18 October 2008
Conservative Uncensored Features...
A couple things that I think will make my blog unique.
1) AAL (Anger Alert Level)
This is a parody of the famous Department of Homeland Security multi-colored terror alert scale after the 2001 attacks. It's ranked 1 to 5 and borrows the same terminology with a description in terms of how threating I am to the EO-Cs (new blogword, Enemies of Conservatism). Each post will be rated 1 to 5 based on how angry I am and that will give you an idea of the tone to attribute to my words. There is a graphic on the right hand page.
2) CUBs (new blogwod, Conservative Uncensored Blogwords)
I will seek to define concepts that will be repeated in simple word and acronyms. The first time it appears in the blog I will define it parenthetically as a new blogword or new CUB, as in the two examples in this post. This will become a list on the right hand side of conservativeunsensored.com, and will also appear in the label list so you can see the usage in every post it appears (with the exception of CUB, since that will probably appear in every post).
Now obviously these features don't exist in RSS forwarded versions of this posts, so if you need to see these definitions or my color AAL chart you will have to visit conservativeuncensored.com.
1) AAL (Anger Alert Level)
This is a parody of the famous Department of Homeland Security multi-colored terror alert scale after the 2001 attacks. It's ranked 1 to 5 and borrows the same terminology with a description in terms of how threating I am to the EO-Cs (new blogword, Enemies of Conservatism). Each post will be rated 1 to 5 based on how angry I am and that will give you an idea of the tone to attribute to my words. There is a graphic on the right hand page.
2) CUBs (new blogwod, Conservative Uncensored Blogwords)
I will seek to define concepts that will be repeated in simple word and acronyms. The first time it appears in the blog I will define it parenthetically as a new blogword or new CUB, as in the two examples in this post. This will become a list on the right hand side of conservativeunsensored.com, and will also appear in the label list so you can see the usage in every post it appears (with the exception of CUB, since that will probably appear in every post).
Now obviously these features don't exist in RSS forwarded versions of this posts, so if you need to see these definitions or my color AAL chart you will have to visit conservativeuncensored.com.
Reason I support executions...
Found on Drudge on Friday, warning it's not for the squeamish
(and I know full well by giving that warning that guarantees you will all click it)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078514/Husband-hacked-wife-death-meat-cleaver-changed-Facebook-status-single.html
(and I know full well by giving that warning that guarantees you will all click it)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078514/Husband-hacked-wife-death-meat-cleaver-changed-Facebook-status-single.html
17 October 2008
Joe the Plumber (Can we fix it, yes we can)...
AAL 2:
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
15 October 2008
Presidental Debate Part III
Anger Alert Level: 1 (Low, in fact I'm almost giddy)
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
09 October 2008
Do you really Believe Sarah Palin is Racist?
Anger Alert Level: 3 (Elevated)
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
Furthermore, we have heard from some Democrat Congresspeople..
---
from Brit Hume http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434747,00.html:
[Representative] Yvette Clark was critical of Sarah Palin's repeated appeals to "Joe Six-Pack" and "hockey moms." "Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms?... Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don't find that. It leaves a lot of people out," Clark said.
Congressman Gregory Meeks says in The New York Observer, "They are trying to throw out these codes. He's 'not one of us?' That's racial. That's fear."----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
