If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California. His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games. He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot. (source). Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.
This story is much worse than it sounds, however. The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family. The most recent on April 30th. Each time they completely failed to do what was needed. The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.
So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities. The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to. (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.). These authorities did what they always do. Nothing until someone dies.
So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it. So where he got the guns is no mystery. No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market. (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.) This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say. (Source). Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.
Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman. So on that note I will do the same. Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur". Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". (Hitchens' Razor).
Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms. Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this. To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical. I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.
This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed. They failed each victim. They failed their families. They failed us. Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda. Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help. As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem. More laws wont fix laziness.
Showing posts with label Agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agenda. Show all posts
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The agenda of the useless.
“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.”
Charles R. Swindoll
Charles R. Swindoll
We have all seen this quote, and I have always disagreed. Partly because it is my nature to be disagreeable, partly because nothing so sunny could possibly be true. Mostly it is because it is the biggest, fluffiest ball of crap ever committed to paper.
I say this because having an optimistic outlook doesn't actually change a damned thing. It may help you feel better, assuming you have a high degree of cognitive dissonance, but it changes nothing. Someone born to poor parents will not become rich by having a sunny disposition. Someone who's car was stolen does not recover it by optimism.
All that is accomplished by spreading this manure is empowering useless people to feel vital. We all work, or attend school, with someone who is completely worthless, but feel like they contribute simply by having a positive attitude. My attitude is awful. But if someone wants a something done, done right, and done fast, they come to me.
In fact my attitude is best when those with a positive attitude are nowhere in sight. When I'm surrounded by other grumpy people, all of us see an increase in productivity. I am not talking only about my current position, but every job, and every school I've ever attended.
That is not to say everyone with a positive attitude is worthless. I know quite a few people who are tops in their field, and unabashedly positive. But even if they were the rule rather than the exception, to say that attitude matters more than fact is asinine.
I am also not saying that negative people are all productive. Many are quite the opposite. And a negative unproductive person is worse for morale than a positive unproductive person. In theory anyway. The negative unproductive person will never get an undeserved promotion because of their sunny disposition.
Positive people get promoted more often, but look around your company, do they do a better job? The people who take an honest look at the situation, and make the best of it, are a different class of people than those who only see the good. It's well past time we acknowledge the difference.
Monday, July 30, 2012
WTF is a Kiyi?
The short answer is a fish. The kiyi is a fish. You have never heard of this fish and neither, apparently, has my spell checker. The kiyi is a fish that is supposed to be in ridiculous proliferation in the great lakes, as is the cisco, the bloater, many types of sculpin, the harelip sucker, many types of herring, and the lake sturgeon, as well as a host of others. The Atlantic salmon, (silver to many of you) was native to only lake Ontario, so could be considered a "native species" of sorts. But only here. It is an introduced species in the pacific northwest. (sorry, its true). The Lake trout is the only large sport-fish, currently in any numbers, that has any business in the Great Lakes.
http://www.glfc.org/research/Nativefish.htm
http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/envt/fish/fish_4.html
As fascinating as those two pages are, please take a moment and peruse the next link. Along the left, in blue, is a list of the non-native species now in the great lakes. Each is a link that will tell you more about the fish. http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/nofnonindig.html
Notice anything odd? Anything at all? Something like; every single "sport-fishing" species is either invasive, or introduced. Some, like the salmon, are aggressively stocked every year. Why would this bother a lifelong fisherman, like myself?
We spend tons of cash (yes, literally) to stock the great lakes with introduced species. We spend even more money trying to control "invasive species" like Asian carp and zebra mussels. The short version is that depending on the species we are wasting a lot of money to stock, or de-stock certain species.
The exact cost is proving difficult to pin down. I know you expect better of me than this excuse; I expect better of me too. But the Great Lakes are bordered by many states, several provinces, two countries, and multiple DNR's, each of which has their own budgeting, stocking strategy, and poorly maintained public information sites.
So when we hear these news reports about the horrible infestations of invasive species threatening our native fish in the Great Lakes; think back on the first paragraph here. Those aren't the "Native" species they are talking about. They are talking about the Salmon, that have no business there in the first place.
Thanks go out to my brother in law, who speaks on this topic a lot. Also, he is invited to write his own posts, (on any topic he likes) here. (Seriously Gob, just let me know and I'll add you as an author.)
http://www.glfc.org/research/Nativefish.htm
http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/envt/fish/fish_4.html
As fascinating as those two pages are, please take a moment and peruse the next link. Along the left, in blue, is a list of the non-native species now in the great lakes. Each is a link that will tell you more about the fish. http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/nofnonindig.html
Notice anything odd? Anything at all? Something like; every single "sport-fishing" species is either invasive, or introduced. Some, like the salmon, are aggressively stocked every year. Why would this bother a lifelong fisherman, like myself?
We spend tons of cash (yes, literally) to stock the great lakes with introduced species. We spend even more money trying to control "invasive species" like Asian carp and zebra mussels. The short version is that depending on the species we are wasting a lot of money to stock, or de-stock certain species.
The exact cost is proving difficult to pin down. I know you expect better of me than this excuse; I expect better of me too. But the Great Lakes are bordered by many states, several provinces, two countries, and multiple DNR's, each of which has their own budgeting, stocking strategy, and poorly maintained public information sites.
So when we hear these news reports about the horrible infestations of invasive species threatening our native fish in the Great Lakes; think back on the first paragraph here. Those aren't the "Native" species they are talking about. They are talking about the Salmon, that have no business there in the first place.
Thanks go out to my brother in law, who speaks on this topic a lot. Also, he is invited to write his own posts, (on any topic he likes) here. (Seriously Gob, just let me know and I'll add you as an author.)
Sunday, December 4, 2011
American's Elect is a scam
American's Elect (http://www.americanselect.org) is a scam. I had, in the past, recommended those with a dissatisfaction in either or both parties, to head to their website and check them out. That was than. I will state, for the record, A: that the organization I recommended is a scam that had taken me in, and B: no longer exists, as such.
You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states. They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same. A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by. One of them is that they have to disclose funding. Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it. When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked. Then they delayed. Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources. That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate. But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers. So, rich people playing at politics. I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote. Possible. Rich guys, power, Possible. Doubtful. Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote. Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful. Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor. Possible. More likely. Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
Why do I say the lowest form of rich people. Industrialists build things and provide jobs. Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs. Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs. Hedge Funds though:
"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."
"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"
You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states. They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same. A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by. One of them is that they have to disclose funding. Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it. When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked. Then they delayed. Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources. That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate. But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers. So, rich people playing at politics. I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote. Possible. Rich guys, power, Possible. Doubtful. Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote. Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful. Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor. Possible. More likely. Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
Why do I say the lowest form of rich people. Industrialists build things and provide jobs. Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs. Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs. Hedge Funds though:
"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."
Further:
"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"
(Ibid)
Seems we have a winner as to the motivations of this particularly sleazy group. Recent changes to the law will regulate the back-door dealings of hedge fund managers. We can't have that now can we? This is not politics as usual. This is far worse. This is people willing to do anything, to preserve a good old boy network of legalized insider dealing, at the expense of those who can least afford it. And they don't even feel it is worth falsifying donation records. We are so far beneath them as to be not even worth lying to.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Illinois math
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/11/25/state-reaping-less-from-lottery-in-new-fiscal-year/alruvan/
We are then assured this is only temporary.
"The state last year chose Northstar Lottery Group as the Illinois Lottery's first-ever private manager, promising that sales – and therefore the state's share of revenue – would increase."
A little history is presented. The comedic potential builds. Then the punchline:
"Northstar CEO Connie Laverty O'Connor said total sales are up 12 percent and instant ticket sales are up 23 percent, compared to last year"
This is odd since the State's revenues are down... Some clarification please.
"O'Connor said the company still is paying expenses incurred last spring for advertising and equipment as it prepared to take over."
So a state lottery, which has existed for decades, needed advertising and equipment? Perhaps I don't fully understand. Perhaps there is full disclosure, and this is the truth.
William of Occam was a 14th century philosopher who is credited with a bit of logic we all know and love, even if we don't know the name. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is probably correct. What would the simplest solution be here in the land of Honest Abe Lincoln? Let's read further...
"Reports show the state's share of lottery revenue dropped by $2 million in July, to $41 million; by $4 million in August, to $35 million; and by $6 million October, to $49 million. It rose by $6 million, to $59 million, in September."
I don't normally begin with a link, but if you want to read the whole thing here you go. Headlines are all something like: State Lottery revenues down for fiscal year. Something like that. Here are some excerpts. I am using the one from my newspaper, but it was an Associated Press article, so it was everywhere.
"The state's share of Illinois Lottery revenue dropped in three of the first four months of the fiscal year compared to the same period last year"
We are then assured this is only temporary.
"The state last year chose Northstar Lottery Group as the Illinois Lottery's first-ever private manager, promising that sales – and therefore the state's share of revenue – would increase."
A little history is presented. The comedic potential builds. Then the punchline:
"Northstar CEO Connie Laverty O'Connor said total sales are up 12 percent and instant ticket sales are up 23 percent, compared to last year"
This is odd since the State's revenues are down... Some clarification please.
"O'Connor said the company still is paying expenses incurred last spring for advertising and equipment as it prepared to take over."
So a state lottery, which has existed for decades, needed advertising and equipment? Perhaps I don't fully understand. Perhaps there is full disclosure, and this is the truth.
William of Occam was a 14th century philosopher who is credited with a bit of logic we all know and love, even if we don't know the name. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is probably correct. What would the simplest solution be here in the land of Honest Abe Lincoln? Let's read further...
"Reports show the state's share of lottery revenue dropped by $2 million in July, to $41 million; by $4 million in August, to $35 million; and by $6 million October, to $49 million. It rose by $6 million, to $59 million, in September."
So down 2M, down 4M, down 6M, and up 6M. -2+ -4 + -6 + 6 = -6. The state of Illinois is down a net of 6 million dollars, in a year when total sales are up 12%. The article does not state what the total sales were however. But hey this is the internet folks. 3,2,1...
"The Illinois Lottery ended fiscal year 2011 on June 30, with another record-breaking year – its ninth consecutive year of increasing sales. During fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the Lottery generated $2.278 billion in sales, an increase of 3% over last year. Over the past five-year period, since fiscal year 2007, Lottery sales have increased by more than 11%. "
You read that right. Another record year. 2.278 Billion, with a B, in annual sales. And the states share is 41M + 35M + 49M + 59M = 184 Million.
http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news01.htm
The lottery's own page says that 58 cent of every dollar is paid as prizes, the state gets 30 cent, 7 cent is for retailer/ vendor commissions and bonuses, and 5 cent for administrative costs.
Some math, and some double checking later and we have, assuming the total sales of 2.278 billion, as reported: Total prize payout 1,321,240,000. (1.32124 B) Admin costs of 113,900,000 (113.9 M) Vendor take as 159,460,000 (159.46 M) and the State's share as 683,400,000 (683.4 M).
I may not know how to use the square root of -1 in an equation, but I know that 683.4 Million is a hell of a lot more than 184 million. 499.4 Million to be exact. That is 499,400,000 missing from the State's share. I think that the news needs to dig a bit deeper on this one. Why are we not gathering torches and pitchforks, and marching on Springfield? Corruption in Illinois is a big friggin' joke. It's funny too: right up until you realize who it's being played on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/illinois-budget-watchdog-_n_981882.html
"In a statement announcing the report, Laurence Msall, Civic Federation president, described the state's recent budget process as "somewhat improved" over recent years, as the annual gap between revenue and expenses was significantly reduced -- from $3.9 billion to $454 million."
here is a good block quote...
"The Illinois Lottery ended fiscal year 2011 on June 30, with another record-breaking year – its ninth consecutive year of increasing sales. During fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the Lottery generated $2.278 billion in sales, an increase of 3% over last year. Over the past five-year period, since fiscal year 2007, Lottery sales have increased by more than 11%. "
You read that right. Another record year. 2.278 Billion, with a B, in annual sales. And the states share is 41M + 35M + 49M + 59M = 184 Million.
http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news01.htm
The lottery's own page says that 58 cent of every dollar is paid as prizes, the state gets 30 cent, 7 cent is for retailer/ vendor commissions and bonuses, and 5 cent for administrative costs.
Some math, and some double checking later and we have, assuming the total sales of 2.278 billion, as reported: Total prize payout 1,321,240,000. (1.32124 B) Admin costs of 113,900,000 (113.9 M) Vendor take as 159,460,000 (159.46 M) and the State's share as 683,400,000 (683.4 M).
I may not know how to use the square root of -1 in an equation, but I know that 683.4 Million is a hell of a lot more than 184 million. 499.4 Million to be exact. That is 499,400,000 missing from the State's share. I think that the news needs to dig a bit deeper on this one. Why are we not gathering torches and pitchforks, and marching on Springfield? Corruption in Illinois is a big friggin' joke. It's funny too: right up until you realize who it's being played on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/illinois-budget-watchdog-_n_981882.html
"In a statement announcing the report, Laurence Msall, Civic Federation president, described the state's recent budget process as "somewhat improved" over recent years, as the annual gap between revenue and expenses was significantly reduced -- from $3.9 billion to $454 million."
So the amount that the state is short is 45.4 million LESS than what they were shorted by the lottery.
THAT IS A SURPLUS OF 45.4 MILLION. Now that may not seem like much when the deficit is 8+ billion, but if each year we take in more than we spend we get out of the hole. Instead, we are crawling further in.
All numbers reported are as presented by Northstar lottery group and the Illinois lottery. All derivations are mine, so feel free to double check them. I did twice. All anger, ire, rage, and revolution should be directed toward the State of Illinois.
http://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
That's the address above. Please let them know how you feel. And remember this crap come the next election. Remind me: I'll re-run this post.
http://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
That's the address above. Please let them know how you feel. And remember this crap come the next election. Remind me: I'll re-run this post.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Agenda for America
I will admit it freely. I have an agenda. Not a unabomber-manifesto type agenda. Or a tea-party agenda. Certainly not a socialist agenda. I am a centrist. By that I mean I hold x- number of reactionary /libertarian views, and an equal number of socialist views. So they kinda balance out. (example, pro gun, don't care if gays marry) In other countries, such as the Nordic Socialist- democracies, they have names for that. Here we do not. My agenda is simple, and detailed below:
Keep them from f-ing it up. By "them" I mean politicians. You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate. An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
You may be asking, "Why is that good?" I'll tell you my friends, right this way. The eternal dance we call a representative democracy. You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government. They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years. Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will. No I have not been drinking. Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
Equal opportunity bashing: The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year. 3 for 3 as I recall. For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it. (I know, bad grammar) Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will. Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
Now for the righties. Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech. Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks. Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong. Especially if that were part of my job description. But then I'm no congressman. The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong. Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass. Just sayin'.
To the (ahem) neutral media: Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners. Bachman is last in almost every poll. Put Ron Paul on the television. He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Perhaps the only one.
Never wanted to be this guy but here I am: I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites. For the record, it was narrated by a white male. Presumably affluent. That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism." (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first". I have been that guy. Low income, Republican voter. I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone. Although if a candidate promised world domination...
It all starts with assumptions. We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right. We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -Henry Ford-
Keep them from f-ing it up. By "them" I mean politicians. You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate. An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
You may be asking, "Why is that good?" I'll tell you my friends, right this way. The eternal dance we call a representative democracy. You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government. They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years. Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will. No I have not been drinking. Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
Equal opportunity bashing: The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year. 3 for 3 as I recall. For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it. (I know, bad grammar) Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will. Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
Now for the righties. Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech. Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks. Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong. Especially if that were part of my job description. But then I'm no congressman. The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong. Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass. Just sayin'.
To the (ahem) neutral media: Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners. Bachman is last in almost every poll. Put Ron Paul on the television. He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Perhaps the only one.
Never wanted to be this guy but here I am: I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites. For the record, it was narrated by a white male. Presumably affluent. That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism." (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first". I have been that guy. Low income, Republican voter. I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone. Although if a candidate promised world domination...
It all starts with assumptions. We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right. We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -Henry Ford-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)