Yep, they are sitting pretty and content in Washington lately, despite their “concern” over the economy, because they are getting what they want - control. Somehow, even with a Republican President (debatable in regards to his economic practices), the government has achieved complete control. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the governing body of the great union they formed. If they had any idea it would turn out like this they would NOT have decided on the Electoral College system, but that’s neither here nor there. When I say they have achieved complete control, I mean that the politicians in Washington (most, not all) have completely disregarded what the people of this country want and are succeeding in turning companies dependent on them.
Why? They won't tell you this, nor will they even hint at it because they want to be reelected, but it is because they think you are stupid, in every sense of the word. You are less educated than they are, for they graduated first in their class at Harvard, and you, if you even went to college, went to a pathetic subordinate. You have no experience with federal government politics (wait… I thought this was a non-issue now?). And your feeble mind can't possibly be able to grasp economic concepts on the large, macro scale, if even on the micro level. They truly believe that Joe the Plumber (if even real) is just sitting in front of a bunch of pipes, scratching his head, praying against foreclosure on his house, with nothing on his mind other than hope. Condescending as all hell.
These people have been wheeling and dealing in politics for so long that they have completely lost touch with Americans. They seem to forget that whatever money they promise out comes from our pockets. They seem to forget that economics isn't an understanding that can only be gained by serving in office. They seem to think that we are zombies who should be thankful for their skilled, intelligent, and considerate guidance because they know what is best for us and our money.
Enough of that rant, onto bailouts. Bailouts have occurred a few times since the Great Depression (I'm not even going to get into FDR's economics, I'll save that for a rainy day). However, the frequency with which they are occurring is becoming frightening. This link (http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts) shows all of the bailouts in our history, as well we the amount of the bailout. Not only are bailing out more often, we are bailing out more money! I know, I know, adjust for inflation, but the figures would still be incomparable.
Essentially, the financial troubles that companies and industries are having stem from government regulations. So step back from the bailout and look at the regulation problems. Why does government feel the need to stick their hands in places they have no business being? Why do they think it is their place to meddle? They want control! They want control over anything and everything and everyone. Now step in closer and look at what a bailout actually is. It is the government assigning money to these companies to use only in the manner the government decides. Because the companies will go under without that money, they must comply. Basically, it’s a life raft with regulation attached. It is tightening the government’s grasp on the leash of dependency.
In the short run, almost all of the economic benefits are good: saves jobs, deters foreclosure, on and on. In the long run, however, resulting problems could be detrimental (and we have to think the government should consider the long-run, they certainly do when it comes to global warming, its justification for most of their regulations for Christ’s sake). Later on down the line, when government regulations have caused more problems, what are these companies going to do to survive? Why, ask for another bailout of course! It’s a never-ending cycle transferring power over to the government. How is the government going to fix a problem with the type of corrective actions that caused it? Mighty paradoxical.
Well, it happened. Barack will be president. But it's not going to be as bad as everyone thinks (don't mistake my meaning--it will be bad). Here are a few reasons why:
1) Barack is much more concerned with being famous than he is with actually getting anything done. This is evidenced by the grand shows he adores putting on, combined with the fact that no one is exactly sure of his policy other than "hope and change." Not only that, but look at his record--the man's written two autobiographies, but zero successful Senate bills. General democratic policies will go into place, sure, but while he may lean socialist, his priorities are not getting things done. His priority is advancing the messiah myth he's propagated of himself and getting hang time with Oprah. He'll probably spend more time writing another book than he will implementing any change.
2) Hope and change is empty rhetoric, and that's all he really wants to accomplish. Look at the semantics of "hope" and "change," the two things Barack wants to bring to the White House. Hope is merely an emotion, a wish and a prayer that things will get better. Hope is not an actual result. Likewise, change isn't a real goal either. It would be inconceivable for there to NOT be change when a democrat (any democrat) takes over for W. However, neither of these implies radical new policies.
3) Hillary Clinton is about to become Republicans' best friend. If you think for a second that Hillary is going to let Barack get anything done during his term, you are sorely mistaken. Hillary wants the presidency so badly she can taste it. She all but campaigned against Barack during the election. She is going to do everything in her power to make sure he comes off as weak and ineffectual in an attempt to secure her party's nomination in 2016, if not 2012. With Hillary still in the Senate, the democratic majority is almost irrelevant to Barack because Hillary weilds so much power among Senate democrats.
Whether we end up celebrating or drowning our sorrows, everyone loves a drinking game to speed the process along. In that spirit, I bring you the unCommon Sense OFFICIAL Election 2008 Drinking Game.
The rules are simple. So simple, in fact, even your democrat friends can play!
1. Watch election coverage on TV. There are three levels of difficulty of play, and once the rest of the rules are explained, it will be apparent why. The easiest level is Fox News. The average player should go with CNN. Seasoned alcoholics (aka "Country Club Republicans") should go for MSNBC.
2. Every time someone on TV says or does the following thing, take the prescribed number of drinks from your beverage of choice:
+1 Someone says hope
+1 Someone says change
+1 Someone talks about voter fraud
+2 Someone says that a particular state is a swing state this year, even though it clearly is not (i.e. Georgia)
+2 Someone refers to the perception of Sarah Palin as unintelligent
+2 Every time a state comes in red.
+3 Every time a state comes in blue.
+3 Someone says "hope and change"
If Barack wins, finish your drink and appropriate the drinks of all your democrat friends. Socialism in action is awesome! Redistribute that booze!
If McCain wins, ask for separate checks.
3. Last man standing wins!
GO VOTE. Seriously, go now, if you haven't already.
If you have, please enjoy these video selections from an insane election day:
1) Tim Robbins crying at polling place in Hollywood: This actually happened. And the cops were called. So gratifying.
2) "Security" at Pennsylvania polling place: Security being Black Panthers with billyclubs.
3) This guy likes Barack so much, he voted for him twice: I'm sort of afraid to comment on this one, in case the Black Panthers with billyclubs show up at my house.
Hi everyone,
Sorry we haven't had time to post in a while. Part of it is because we are really busy doing other things, and part of it is because we are nervous about tomorrow and don't even know what to say. I will say this though: if you haven't already done so, VOTE tomorrow! I know some states are already in the bag for McCain (Louisiana) but still, the popular vote is somewhat slightly considered if there have to be recounts and all of that, even if just by the media. With all of the voter fraud going on in certain states - thanks to ACORN and Barry himself - we cannot take any chances. So park your car somewhere safe tonight so your tires don't get slashed (especially if you have a McCain or NObama sticker on your car) and take the extra 30 minutes out of your day to vote against socialism. This really is one of the biggest elections in most of our lives, don't take it lightly.
I hate social issue voters. There are a few general reasons for this, the most important of which being that the President does a lot of different things, and social issues are, at best, an extremely small part of the job description. You need to make sure you like most of what a candidate says they'll do, not just the part that relates to your pet social issue. What follows is a more specific list, refuting the idea that social issues should be any major reason for your presidential vote.
1) Social issues are completely tied up with economic issues.
When people say that social issues are more important to them than economic ones, they're missing a fundamental point of how our society works. People, everything comes down to money. You can deny it all you want, but money makes the world go around. On a really simple level, it takes a lot of money to raise awareness about social issues. Even more importantly, though, the way a given society feels about hot button social issues is entirely dependent on a) how financially secure it is; and b) the structure of its economy. Third world countries don't care about social issues at all because feeding people is a much more important goal. Likewise, rich countries have plenty of time to debate social issues because we've reached the point where most of our population is pretty much irrelevant, productivity-wise. The thing is, America is not a rich country right now. As we've all heard a thousand times, most people can't pay their mortgages. The dollar is insanely weak in international trading. We have much more important fish to fry than debating things like abortion and gay rights.
2) Social issues are self-normalizing.
While the argument that the government has to step in sometimes to provide important social rights (see Brown v. Board of Education) is definitely valid, this can only happen when most of our nation has accepted a particular viewpoint. Brown was completely necessary, but it could not have happened before it did (unfortunately). If Brown had come to the Supreme Court even 10 years before it actually did, it would not have been successful. As it was, Brown was an extremely contentious decision that required 20 years of follow-up opinions from the Supreme Court. But the Court in Brown recognized something important--most states were already doing what they were telling a few hold-out Southern states to do. The Court didn't force integration on the nation before the entire country was ready. They just forced it on a few states who were behind the times. If Brown had been attempted too early, it would have FAILED.
A good example of this is the distinction between Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. Both cases deal with gay rights issues--specifically, whether it is constitutional for states to maintain laws that make consensual homosexual sexual activities conducted in the privacy of one's own home a criminal act. Bowers was decided in 1986. There, the Court decisively held that states were within their rights to make such activity criminal. The concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger quoted William Blackstone's characterization of sodomy as "a crime not fit to be named." Burger concluded, "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." This decision dealt a major blow to the cause for recognition of privacy rights for gay Americans, showing not only a disagreement with the proposed extension of the law, but also a revulsion for the lifestyle choice of homosexuals. This was mostly because the case came before the Court well before America was ready to address the issue. At the time, there was little awareness about gay issues, and most Americans were hostile to them. However, in 2003, the Court reversed itself in Lawrence, holding that consensual, private homosexual activity was part of an American's constitutional right to privacy. At that time, many of the states had eliminated anti-sodomy laws of their own accord. Additonally, most Americans (but obviously not all) were open to the idea that homosexual adults have the same privacy rights as heterosexual adults.
All of this history makes a key point. While the Supreme Court can (and many think that they should) step in to make a few hold-out states accede to the national majority viewpoint, they cannot change the country's mind before the country is ready. Information about the nation's stance on a particular social issue is available from a variety of sources--pop culture, news organizations, polling, and the list goes on. But a key source of this information is state law. Our federal system was designed exactly for this reason, allowing states to be testing labs for new ideas. If people don't like the direction their state is taking, they can move or have a more direct impact at the polls through greater accessibility. This is not true of the national government. You can't just pick up and move from the US quite as easily as you can cross state lines. Furthermore, the average American's representation in Washington is extremely indirect. However, at the state level, each citizen has a representative who serves a smaller area and is therefore more in tune with individual views. As such, states are, by far, the better representation of the people's stance on social issues. And when a majority of states have come around to a specific viewpoint, socially, it's a safe bet that the nation will, too. That is when the Supreme Court can act.
As of now, there are only two states that recognize gay marriage (although a handful recognize civil unions). Plainly, the nation is NOT ready to recognize gay marriage. Yet many people will vote for Barack because he is more friendly to this idea. (A side note: that's not even true, people--Barack explicitly admitted in the debates that he is not for gay marriage.) My point here, though, is not gay marriage specific. My point is that social issues will work themselves out through the testing grounds of the states. We should not pick our president because of something that he plainly should have nothing to do with. Social issues are borderline irrelevant to the presidency.
3) Whoever gets elected is not, NOT, going to overturn Roe.
I hear this all the time. "McCain wants to overturn Roe, so I'm voting for Obama. As a woman, you should too." This is total crap. Roe has been established Supreme Court precedent for 35 years, backed up by Casey (which reaffirmed its validity in 1992). Whether republicans disagree with the holding of Roe or not, the right to abortion has been in place for almost four decades. And the vast majority of Americans born in this time believe that there IS a right to choose. Overturning Roe would practically cause riots. NO COURT is going to step into that hornet's nest.
Additionally, McCain would have ZERO say over whether Roe stays or goes. That's the Supreme Court's decision. And McCain can only control the Supreme Court by naming nominees IF a sitting judge retires or dies. The only justice who's even CLOSE to that is Stevens. Furthermore, even if McCain gets to make a nomination, he has to get them past what is currently a democratic congress. No democratic legislature is going to let someone through who is gung-ho about obliterating Roe. The actual chances of Roe going anywhere are remote to nonexistent. Therefore, this is a moronic criterion on which to base one's vote.
I titled this post "A step below undecideds," because if you're undecided you have no idea what the issues are and you're casting a vote based on no real criteria. Social issues voters are a step below even that because they're basing their presidential vote on the WRONG criteria. When you select someone for a post as important as the president, this is not only idiotic, but also dangerous.
Barack is really reaching now to try to portray to people that he is just a regular man, just like everyone else. He, oh wait, I mean his controllers, believe that by simply putting him in jeans and tennis shoes that now the people of the greatest country in the world (and all of the worst - lets not kid ourselves, he is the terrorists' candidate) will think they can relate to him. He wears jeans, I wear jeans, that means he's just like me!! What a pitiful attempt at normality. We all know you are an elitest, Barack.
Look closely at him, the awkwardness practically comes out of the picture and strangles you. There is nothing natural about that stance he's got going on. He couldn't be more uncomfortable if you stuck an eightball of coke up his butt. And the shoes are pristinely white, obviously brand-new, never-been-worn.
Please, Barack, stop these ridiculous attempts to lower yourself from your beloved "Messiah" status to be just one of us regular people. The people that your party takes money from through organizations like Fannie Mae to fund your flights to Hawaii and your wife's Lobster and Caviar snacks. The people that will be punished for having a successful small business and almost half of their income will be confiscated. The people that you continually smother until we gasp for air and pray for our life, then you come along and pretend to be our savior. Well I've got news for you, we don't need or want your help.
