Posts Tagged ‘Debate’

CNN, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

There was a time that CNN lived up to its name as a “Cable News Network”.  These days, it seems it’s anything but the news.  It’s opinion and even then, poorly formed and ignorant opinion.  (I’ll discuss the pit bull, Chris Cuomo, another time!)

As I often do during the day, I’m reading through CNN.com/US and there’s an article about gun control.  The author, Jeff Yang, suggests that an answer to the “epidemic” of gun violence is to make owners of guns get insurance.  The article is stupid enough on its own but simply the fact that CNN would publish it is amazing!

Let’s walk through a few counter-thoughts for a moment:

  1. Requiring doctors to have insurance doesn’t stop malpractice from happening.  It only provides a means for the survivors or victims’ families to carry on, at least financially.  The patient is still injured, suffering, or dead.
  2. Requiring drivers to have insurance hasn’t stopped car accidents from happening.  It only provides a means for financial recovering in the wake of a crash.  The damage is still done, injuries still happened, and in some cases, the dead are still dead.

There is no case I can think of where requiring insurance has prevented a potentially negative event from occurring.  In fact, “requiring” insurance is not always enforced even in cases (such as driving) until or unless an event occurs that brings it to light.  The fallacy of those who think like Mr Yang is the thought process that believes a law will prevent something from happening.  Obviously Not!  Even with all of the thousands of laws on the books today–if not millions–crimes and law violations occur on a regular basis.

Insurance may cause a law-abiding citizen to reconsider gun ownership if the cost of that insurance is too great.  For the criminal, die hard, or mentally ill?  Not necessarily.  And even if a person has insurance for a legally obtained firearm, there is no guarantee that in the heat of the moment, someone will not end up dead.

CNN’s Andre Spicer has an equally ineffective idea:  Let’s convince retailers that selling guns isn’t in their best commercial interest!  Great!  So that takes care of Walmart and introduces more shops that are “gun free” like Starbucks.  It doesn’t get guns off of the streets.  It also does nothing to stop a destructive person from walking into an elementary school with a gun and killing people.  How much more gun-free can you get than an elementary school???

Well, those signs in the windows or at the curbs that says “Gun-Free Zone” were REALLY effective, weren’t they!?!?!?!!!

The only answer to gun violence in this country–or anywhere in the world–is a complete revocation of any rights regarding gun ownership with full surrender, then confiscation, and then extreme punishment for anyone found to own a gun.  At that point, there would almost have to be immediate incarceration on a felony charge with the possibility of life in prison or the death penalty before things would change significantly.

I don’t advocate any of this, by the way!  I don’t advocate anything mentioned up to this point!!!

HOWEVER, I do agree that doing nothing is not the right answer, but there needs to be an unemotional, logical, reasoned out approach, hammered out by liberals and conservatives, and then simply implemented.  Doing SOMETHING and doing the RIGHT THING are not one and the same though.  A change may mean that the Constitution is amended–it has been before and likely will be again.  Not an easy path or a likely one at that.  But if and when it does occur, be prepared to either live by the new rules or to move into the criminal class when you don’t.

And be prepared in that day to live with a lot of other changes that will leave the United States of America less great, less free, and less united!


Read Full Post »

This is the first time ever that I have taken in the debates, both the presidential and vice-presidential.  Currently viewing tonight’s debate, I’m thoroughly disgusted with Candy Crowley’s performance.  And this is a performance.  She appears to be too full of her role in the debate, taking it upon herself to restate questions and press for further answers—but allowing President Obama an extra opportunity to respond to the question.  She has yet to give Romney such a chance and she’s absolutely wrong with regard to the timekeepers working to keep things on track.  Perhaps if she shuts up, the timekeeping WOULD work and the people there who are waiting to ask a question could actually get their questions out!

Unlike four years ago, I’ve kept fairly quiet during this race.  There is enough negativity going around without me adding to it.  But again, this debate has just sent me over the edge!  News personalities such as Lehrer, what’s her name, and now Crowley—they don’t belong in a moderator’s seat!

Read Full Post »

Your annoyance on the Ron Paul post about 9/11 and why we were attacked was obvious if not a bit too sanctimonious in delivery—but you’re wrong!  When Al Qaeda attacked and gave their rationale for doing so, who are you to hear, filter, and reinterpret for your own purposes?

Your answer shows the same arrogant sense of denial that so many Americans have:  “No!  Not us!  We don’t do anything wrong!”

Well, we do plenty wrong.

And whether we can justify our actions or not, we have acted in ways that have given many around the world reason to hate us or despise us.  It’s not only our prosperity but our incessent way of imposing our values on other cultures.  It’s our poisonous ways of infiltrating their countries with our values (or lack of values), our merchandise, and our exploitation of their resources and people for the sake of our comfort and greed.

The sooner Americans learn this lesson, unpleasant as it may be, the sooner this country can begin to become safe.  Otherwise, we will continue to send men and women abroad to keep the threat away from our doorstep, putting those same men and women in harm’s way.

Read Full Post »

Obananomics:  Don’t look it up, it’s not in the dictionary—yet.  My guess is that one day, it will be as familiar to us as Reagnomics.  But if you think about it, we’re already familiar with Obamanomics.  The policy follows in the footsteps of Robin of Loxley who also stole from the rich and gave to the poor.  However, Loxley was simply reclaiming money extorted from the poor through nefarious means exercised by the Sheriff of Nottingham.  Obama is nowhere near as noble or lofty in his ideals, but steal he shall.

My version of the American Dream means that one goes to school, does well, goes to college, gets a degree, and makes a good career that can support a home and family.  Nowhere did that picture ever include a fat and lazy populace that looks to the government for housing, jobs, food, and medical care.  You see, I, like John McCain, am a Capitalist, a Federalist, and an American.  It is not the role nor the function of the Federal government to provide for these needs.  And despite the protests of many suffering Americans today (not me, although I am one of those who suffer), these are not rights!  Nor are they a privilege… nor are they a responsibility.

You see, the American Dream says “Give me an opportunity” and the Obama Dream says “Give me loyal subjects who are beholding to me for what I’ve given them”.

Bull, Mr Obama!  Bull!

And Joe the Plumber helped bring this to light:  (source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/joe.plumber/index.html)

Wurzelbacher, 34, unintentionally stepped onto the political scene over the weekend when Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, was campaigning in Holland, Ohio, just west of Toledo.

In that exchange Wurzelbacher asked Obama if he believed in the American Dream. Wurzelbacher said he was about to buy a company that makes more than $250,000 a year and was concerned that Obama would tax him more because of it.

Families making more than $250,000 could see taxes go up under Obama’s middle-class tax cut plan, while those making less than $250,000 would not see any increase.

Obama explained his tax plan in depth to Wurzelbacher, saying it’s better to lower taxes for Americans who make less money so they can afford to patronize his business.

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Obama told Wurzelbacher.

At the debate, McCain said Obama’s plan would give the government the power to redistribute wealth by raising taxes.

“We’re going to take Joe’s money, give it to Sen. Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. I want Joe the plumber to spread the wealth around,” McCain said.

Bravo, Mr McCain!  Bravo!

Just who does Barack think HE is to say that someone who OVER-ACHIEVES the American Dream should be brought down a peg or two?  That his prosperity belongs to everyone else?  That those who don’t work should live off of the fat of those who do?

And you want to vote for this man to be President?

No, Mr/Ms Voter!  No!

Well, I cannot tell you how to vote, but if you cherish all that this country is—and is not—your vote should go to someone who will “Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” once he is sworn in as President.  Your vote should not go to “The One” who is already sworn to subvert that Constitution for his own gain.

If you want to live in a Social Democracy, there are those countries around the world who would love to have you as a subject—I mean, citizen!



Read Full Post »

Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer to this question invariably helps define whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.  Essentially, the answer to such questions goes to the heart of political division in this country, which is itself determined by these two questions:

1.  What is the role of the government?

2.  How far should it go in exercising that role?

The question was asked with regard to the $700 Billion bailout as power, influence, and control transferred over to Secretary Paulson.  And with the health care question, the two candidates helped define the line between ideologies.

A privilege assumes something is or can be earned.  I’m glad neither man chose this answer.  It would have been the height of arrogance and elitism had they done so.

A right:  This answer links health care to the Constitution.  Hmmm… last time I checked, it wasn’t there.  Of course, our founders did have an appreciation for “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.  But that’s found in the Declaration of Independence and cannot reasonably or logically be linked to health care.  No, sadly, health care is not a right–at least, not in a democracy.  Perhaps in a socialist state, that’s the right answer.  But not here.

A responsibility:  Even so, at best one can argue that it is a “moral” responsibility, but not necessarily the responsibility of the government.  But this answer is perhaps the best choice of the three.

A central government is responsible for providing certain protections, treaty management, and defense of the federated states.  If we begin to look at health care as a right, then the government owes this benefit to every citizen.  So what next?  Housing?  Education?  Employment?

Go down this path far enough and you will find something eerily familiar with the USSR of the 1960s and 1970s.

Read Full Post »

What do you not know, and how will you go about learning it?

Well, maybe not the way it was exactly phrased, but close enough.  I don’t like the way either candidate answered most questions but I think both did equally well on this one.

The future is clearly unclear, or better said, certainly uncertain.  Perhaps neither man has a good grasp on what the next 25 days will hold, much less today.  If only we Americans could look ahead and know what we know no-one else knows:  The Future.

So here is my credo on what I know:

I know a lot about a lot of things, a little about most things, but I don’t know everything about anything.

For what I don’t know, sometimes you just don’t know what you don’t know.

Some attribute that statement to Confucius… Really, I don’t know!

Read Full Post »