Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

America the Last

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

Why is it the America has to be the last country to adopt modern practices sometimes? As per my earlier arguments, we have a long way to go until we are a truly great country. A long, long long way. Aside from the violence, blood for oil, persecution of minorities, state-sanctioned murders, terrible treatment of the poor and rejection of freedom, America is also very far behind when it comes to currency.

A US federal appeals court upheld a ruling that having all dollar notes the same size and texture was unacceptable.

The judges voted two to one to reject the government’s claim that changing note sizes would be too expensive. “A large majority of other currency systems have accommodated the visually impaired, and the secretary does not explain why US currency should be any different,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the court’s opinion.

Good, we’re moving along then. Every foreign country I have ever been to; China, Mongolia, Vietnam, France, Spain, England etc… have different sized currency, for as long as I can remember. Why are we always the last to adopt modern practices?

Baby steps.

-Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Political intrigue

Thursday, March 27th, 2008

As in… there isn’t any anymore. I’m already tired of Clinton and Obama. I’m less tired of Obama than Clinton, I think Obama is better for us than Clinton, but they’re both flawed and everyday I lose faith that anything will be that different after this election.

Obviously, we want social conservatism out of America since its caused us so much trouble in the recent years of the Bush administration, and people clearly benefit from a more socially progressive government.

Recently I’ve read the book “A People’s History of the U.S.” by Howard Zinn, and I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t shaped my recent feelings on government and the United States. I’ve learned that this country’s government is nothing but a history of elitism and evil. Even Bill Cinton was guilty of it, although much less so than Bush and Reagan. These presidents supported and funded terrorist organizations, instigated violence in third world countries, commenced military action in countries where it wanted an economic footing, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

That is what gets me the most of course; the deaths of innocent civilians. America has been responsible for too much innocent bloodshed all in the name of big business.

The presidency to me seems more like an economic opportunity for the wealthy. Is it a coincidence that the rich elite get richer by the passing of legislation, tax relief, and military contracts by presidents? Less than 1% of the population own 40% of the wealth.

Now the question remains, will Obama or Clinton be any different? Obama might, Hillary will not, but not enough to make a real difference I believe. Obama’s policies and popularity is marked with the same vague politico as any president’s campaign. Flip flopping, minor scandals of perceived immorality (I think that pastor was absolutely right about America by the way), and the questions of experience and blah blah blah.

None of it really matters, at least, I’m not convinced it does. Injustices will continue in the name of America & co. because of its very corrupt ultra-capitalist nature. Our history of inciting violence and murder against ideological differences, and then lying about it is too fresh, too recent to mean any major change is coming down the pipe. We still have a vast majority of citizens believing in magical floating deities and preset destinies, and that there is some kind of correct way of uncritical faith and an incorrect way of uncritical faith. We still have greed and corruption stapled into the American flag as if it was supposed to be there. Money and more money, can never have enough money. Lies will be perpetrated by the ultra rich and those in control to convince you otherwise. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and plans on using it, the people of Iraq want freedom from an evil dictator so in we go.

Whats that? You say people in Uganda want freedom from ethnic cleansing and violence?
Well, we can’t spare the resources right now to invade and occupy that country and fight for their freedom. Only Iraq, sorry.
Why you ask?
Economic and investment interests. Its too complicated for you to understand.

I know I’m going off in an unorganized manner, and I know you haven’t heard from me in several months now, so please accept my sincerest apologize with regards to that matter.

So I’m voting for Obama because I think somewhere deep in his heart is a wish that things could be different in America. His background is diverse and he’s probably been taunted and teased for being different growing up, so he may or may not have that tiny spark inside him that could bring about some good social change. The sophomoric Americans who really think a great Abrahamic deity blessed America and not our ‘enemy’ is too common a person, and until this changes we may never have the social progress our cultural superior neighbors up north have, or our cousins in Europe have.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

America the Greek

Monday, December 17th, 2007

In the ancient Greek times, familial ties were everything. If your father was a traitor, then you by definition were also a traitor, and so were your kids and their kids and so on. You couldn’t escape it. You could be a wonderful human being, a saint among men, and still be seen as a “son of a traitor”.

This is what we would call an archaic practice. It makes no common sense and really inhibits the progress of human kind in its own small way.

But it seems that America, the land of regressing hundreds of years into the past in a mere instant, has done just that.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president Sunday but stirred a continuing controversy by noting her chief rival’s name is “Barack Hussein Obama” and that Obama had Muslim ancestors.

And while Kerrey’s comments were ostensibly made as a compliment to Obama, they resurrected a troublesome issue for the first-term junior senator from Illinois.

Obama’s attendance Sunday at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Mason City, Iowa, was as much an observation of faith as it was a rejoinder to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States.

What is even more ridiculous is that he has to assure people that he is a Christian, because otherwise he would be an infidel and an enemy to the holy state of America. Our country is so far behind in so many ways. The whole notion that a person’s religion should have some kind of influence on any public matters is beyond stupid and belongs in the middle ages.

No matter how bad the crazy middle state Christian right-wing conservatives want it, we are not and never will be a holy country. If these same people had any sense or maybe some good education that included history, they would see that such a thing leads only to violence, corruption and eventually collapse. We cannot be a great nation if we collapse. Are we going the way of Rome? We very well could be.

What happens when a country’s majority of his inhabitants believe that they are closer to a deity and are correct in worshiping him, and that another country is wrong and blasphemous; and that same other country simultaneously believes the opposite? Each side thinks God is on their side, and that the eradication of the other religion is righteous and highly moral. This results in violence, war, and death. This is why religious beliefs are so dangerous. Christians have been fighting Muslims for thousands of years because of this, and continue to do so today. It is disgusting that some humans remain so unenlightened.

It REALLY should not matter that Obama is a Christian or has Muslim parents or whatever, it really shouldn’t, but I know and you know that, sadly, it does. Obama could be the most faithful Christian in the land, but because his grandparents were or are Muslim, he is condemned to live his life as a ‘traitor’. I am sorry, but those who do this have no place in modern times or in this country. I can’t think of anything more unpatriotic than to be a Christian-conservative hell bent on their Jihad against Muslims, and on occasion, Jews.

Again, this is why uncritical beliefs are so dangerous. Keep in mind that billions have died because of tenants that are supported by NO EVIDENCE. These people question nothing, and can (and have) been brainwashed into believing anything, because they do not demand evidence or a reasonable explanation. Jews are an inferior race? Okay, lets kill them. Islam and Muslims are infidels and must be eliminated? Alright, lets invade their land and kill the non-believers… I mean shit, its in the bible!

Obama staffers and volunteers say they periodically encounter voters who say they cannot support Obama because they’ve heard he is Muslim, a claim that has been making its way through Internet sites and blogs since he announced his candidacy for president.

The issue gained prominence earlier this month when Clinton’s campaign forced the resignation of two Iowa volunteer coordinators who had forwarded e-mails that falsely tried to tie him to Islamic jihadists.

On a side note, it is common for the conservatives on this site to dodge issues and invent arguments. I know that these people will try and argue that Obama has said that he doesn’t think politics and religion should be totally separate, but I will head these people off at the pass. I know that Obama has said that, and you know what? I don’t agree with it. I think it makes him less of a good candidate in MY EYES. Of course, those who are religious but not as conservative will like that… in fact, conservatives who are sick of too much of their own medicine will like that as well. I do not like it. But if you are going to argue my points in this post, focus on my actual points, not on Obama. I know this will be tough for some of you who are so entrenched in faith without evidence that the whole act of arguing is beyond you, but try.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Jihad Jihad Jihad!

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Can anyone tell me what Newton’s third law of motion is? I’ll give you a hint, it has something to do with “equal” and “opposite”. Thats right! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In physics, that means that every force you apply to another mass is met with equal and opposite force. For example, gravity is a vector force pointing downwards towards the Earth. You standing on the Earth represents a downward force onto the Earth’s surface, but you know what keeps you from sinking right through the surface? The fact that the surface is pushing back on you with equal and opposite force. If you increase your weight, the surface increases its push back. So the harder you push, the harder it pushes back.

I’m not trying to be deep or philosophical here, but I see the same trend in a more ephemeral sense… with religion.

In America, we are supposed to enjoy freedom from religion, meaning, the state and the government is supposed to refrain from picking an official religion to side with. Why is this important? Because 250 years ago there were many difference religions that people believed, and among those religions were many sects that often contradicted each other. If the government had picked one sect of one religion, they would have alienated everyone else. The whole point of America was supposed to be the opposite of that. It was and still is supposed to be a place where you go to be free of any kind of state sponsored religion.

Now, Oatney recently wrote a post that condemned those who have problems with public displays of Christianity. This shows us that Oatney is unpatriotic, in the sense that he doesn’t agree with the original purpose of this country.

If you happen to be one of those religious people who feel that A) Your religion is really the correct one B) Public displays isn’t forcing religion onto anybody; then you should know that A) You’re wrong and B) you’re wrong.

To think your religion is the only correct one, and the billions of other religious people out there are just simply wrong is arrogant and weak. People in history took that position when they felt the need to oppress and conquer, often over compensating for some inadequacy issues. Secondly, public displays are forcing religion because tax payer’s money goes into it. Lets say you’re Jewish, and you live in an apartment complex where the manager used rent money to upkeep the place, including putting a nativity scene in the lobby. This is forcing the acceptance of Jesus unto those who do not recognize him as the Messiah. When one does this, its hard not to get the impression that the oppressor needs to validity their religion by forcing it onto others.

Pghremodeler in response to Oatney’s post on this subject said:

Where did you get the idea that spending tax dollars to advance the views of one religion over another is a good idea? You must worship a weak and stupid god. I wish you xtians would learn to embrace God
By the way your definition of conservatism is just sick and twisted.

Oatney appeared to be waging a religious holy war against those who were not of his religion. It reminds me of the old testament where the Israelites are commanded to slay the non-believers. This is obviously archaic but also extremely unsophisticated. Oatney shows us that he isn’t capable of critical thought nor is he capable of putting himself in other people’s shoes (a problem all conservatives seem to have). Oatney didn’t even consider how he would feel if public displays of Menorahs and other Hanukah symbolism were the norm. Would he get all uppity about the war on Hanukah? No, because he isn’t Jewish.

Arguments like Oatneys always come off very weak and rather pathetic. When someone can’t think or see beyond their small xenophobic views, that person is lost to the past, and we must ignore or move past them.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Ignorance with Wings Part 4 ::embryonic stem cells::

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

Embryonic stem cells:

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types.

I’m sure you know what this means. ES cells have a wondrous potential to treat or even cure some very debilitating, paralyzing, or fatal diseases and conditions. At this moment, there are millions of men, women and children who are alive and breathing that suffer from one of a number of these diseases. Their lives are torturous, painful, and barely worth living. It seems rather ridiculous then that we don’t fund or expand our research with embryonic stem cells. It fact, it is extremely ridiculous.

The uncritical religious, who’s decisions and beliefs require faith (a principle that has no evidence to back it up) to exist, do everything they can to stop embryonic stem cell research. Why, you ask? The reason is surprisingly absurd.

The religious think that life begins at some point before the embryo, and that destroying an embryo for the stem cells is killing a life. These very same people will turn around and fully support the death penalty keep in mind! For some reason, they are obsessed with controlling people and their choices, and therefor wish to remain on the side of the argument that lacks reason and evidence.

Let us consider some facts, shall we?

1) Embryos consist of 50 to 150 cells IN TOTAL. They are nothing but a collection of microscopic cells that you could count with your eye. At this stage, the embryo is known as a blastocyte, which forms 4 to 5 days after fertilization. In fact, some scientists don’t consider a blastocyte and embryo. You have to understand that there is NO human qualities in a blastocyte. It is literally a simple collection of cells that can be counted by the human eye. 2) Embryos abort naturally ALL THE TIME. In fact, more than half of all embryos die naturally. Embryo destruction is actually the norm, rather than the exception. So that puts an enormous hole in the religious or faith-based idea that embryos are lives that should not be knowingly killed. 220 million embryos die a year naturally, that is more than any other cause of death that we know of. Keep in mind that; Cancer, in all its forms, kills 7.6 million people per year, In six years, the Second World War killed around 60 million people…

We don’t defend an embryo’s right to free speech, because it cannot speak, in fact, it cannot do anything. It has no neurological system, no consciousness, no thoughts, no mind, no brain… no nothing. Yet some would ascribe more rights to it than a black man on death row. This is the ultimate contradiction of the religious right in the United States. Infuriatingly stupid, isn’t it?

There are certain moral questions that are common, that test one’s true morals. For example, consider the train that is flying out of control at break neck speeds. If it continues on its current track, it will fly off of a cliff a la Back to the Future Part III and kill everyone on board; men, women, children… embryos. But you are standing at a switch on the track, and you can switch the track to safely divert the train away from the cliff, however, there is a man tied to the diverted track. If you flip the switch, you kill the one man tied to the track but save the hundreds of passengers on board.

This is not meant to be an easy decision, but no one would call you immoral if you were to flip the switch.

The point is, we have millions of people today who are alive, breathing, have nervous systems, thoughts, dreams, the right to free speech and so on, who suffer and are at risk of death. Trying to save the life of a group of cells over these living breathing human beings is like not switching the track to save the one man tied to the diverted track. In fact, it is much worse. It is as if instead of another man tied to the track, it was a cockroach, and you saved the roach at the expense of everyone on the train.

So how come we don’t consider all 220 million naturally destroyed embryos loss of human life? Because it isn’t loss of human life. You cannot die if you were never born.

If Christians really cared about the lives of children, we’d see a stronger push for decreasing infant mortality in developing worlds. But we don’t see that. We see anti-homosexual bills, sodomy laws, and fighting Islam.

Obviously the potential for life is not the same as life itself, because then every time we wore a condom, every time we used spermacide, every time we went to the sperm bank, every time we masturbated, we would be killing hundreds of millions of people. Does this sound right to you? No. Of course not. An embryo is not a life, a zygote is not a life, a fetus is not a life. Potential life is not life, hence the word “potential”. You don’t put people in jail before they commit the crime.

But MisterE, why not cut the controversy and just stick with adult stem cells? Well, adult stem cells may not have the potential the embryonic stem cells have. We of course need to do more research on this, but science is under the impression at the moment that adult stem cells are unlikely to be nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are obtained from human embryos. They have the capacity to turn into any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells have been found in some mature human tissues, including the brain and bone marrow. There is a scientific debate over whether their ability to become specialized is limited to their tissue of origin, or whether they can turn into other types of tissue.

Adult stem cells have proven their value to medicine. For example, bone marrow transplants are routinely used to treat some cancers and blood diseases. But it’s unlikely that bone marrow stem cells can replace all of the different types of cells that are damaged by disease. Embryonic stem cells are the only ones that are likely to do that.

You have to understand that science does not recognize most, if any religious tenants as fact. But science is where we get our medicine, our help, our computers and advancements and so on… so its obviously the area of reality that we can be sure is real. We have no scientific definition for a human life, and obviously, it has to start somewhere. Since ethereal ideas such as spirits and life creation by a deity are extremely unlikely, we avoid them as explanations. To define a human life, we can only turn to science for the answer, and if science doesn’t have an answer then there may be no answer.

If you look at it purely from a scientific and natural perspective, we are mammals. We are simply organisms that live on this planet that have evolved some very fancy brains. However, a mammal can only live when separated from its chromosomal donor, physiologically. As long as it is a part of the mother, it cannot survive as its own entity, and perhaps remains simply a part of the mother. A human fetus doesn’t develop a nervous system and a brain-stem until very late in the game, and even then it is uncertain whether or not they can comprehend or understand pain, for they are not yet alive. They are being made, like bread in an oven. The question can then become: “Does life start when consciousness starts”? Again, science does not yet have a theory that tells us the precise moment consciousness begins. It is entirely feasible that someday we may find that moment, for it is becoming increasingly clear that consciousness is merely the result of incomprehensible numbers of neural connections in our brains. Without neural connections like that, are we conscious? Are apes conscious? Are cockroaches conscious?

These are all very interesting questions that science may or may not some day answer (and will adhere to script scientific scrutiny so it can be considered fact, unlike religious tenants that can withstand no scrutiny and have no supporting evidence). In the meantime, we are sure (to a statistically significant degree) that an embryo cannot feel pain, is not a human life, and should not be considered so over the well beings and mortality of those we KNOW to be alive.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Hey Buddy, got $9 trillion to spare?

Tuesday, November 27th, 2007

A trillion is a number that nobody understands. Its just too big. A billion is too big as well. A billion is one thousand million. When you have a million, you must collect one thousand of those millions before you have a billion. Well… a trillion is when you collect one thousand of those billions. Nine trillion is when the universe explodes.

Here is what we know. Since Bush took office, he has raised the debt limit five times, and it now currently stands at $9.815 trillion. This is a lot of money. You know who the government borrows from? Your pension and social security. Isn’t that nice? We also owe Japan, China, the U.K., and many oil exporting countries.

But that doesn’t matter, does it? The president is responsible for paying off that debt. He has made it clear that his priorities lie in killing people in the middle east, and lining his pockets, so we are going to have to look somewhere else.

The first thing we need to do is severely curtail military spending. We don’t need more nukes than Jesus. The Pentagon gives itself some 400 billion every year so that it can continue to line the pockets of presidents and politicians who are invested in oil companies. But it also seems like a military build up of mass proportions. Unless we plan on invading planet Earth, I don’t think we need more nukes than Russia, China and everyone else combined times 3.

So, annually we spend $38 billion on education, $50 billion on children’s’ health insurance, $13 billion on humanitarian aid, and $2 billion on non-oil dependency. But then, we spend $463 billion on the Pentagon.

Our prestigious panel of high-ranking retired military and Dept. of Defense officials says $60 billion can be trimmed from the Pentagon budget without putting our troops at risk, weakening our national defense, or hurting our ability to fight terrorists. According to Dr. Lawrence Korb, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s assistant secretary of defense, the savings would come primarily from cutting obsolete Cold War weapons and excessive nuclear weapons from the defense budget. See Korb Report for more information.

-Truemajority.org

If we invested in education and healthcare what we did in the pentagon, we might have a new generation of better educated children (ones who don’t think God created humans with magical clay) with better jobs and more income, which in turn is better for the economy, which in turn is better for the national debt. Countries invest in us because of our strong economy, but we know that in order to avoid losing that interest, we need to keep it strong. So how can we get our economy on the treadmill and lifting glorious weights everyday? Invest in life, not death.

Death is stupid. Life is smart. Two heads are better than one, blowing up someone’s head with an M16 reduces two heads to one head.

It would seem that we are more interested in raising our children to be soldiers who sacrifice themselves so that corrupt presidents can get richer than raising our children to be successful scholars, artists, musicians and businessmen and women.

Obviously, none of us are smart enough to figure out how to reduce the national debt, thats why we need to throw some money at school and hope they produce smarter people.

Enjoy.

“This post is being submitted to the Facing Up Blog Carnival on the $9
Trillion Debt”

whereIstand Tags

I don’t think I’m voting for Hillary

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

I like her, she’s a crap load better than the trash we have in the white house right now, and her husband was one of the better presidents this country has ever had.

But there are two things that primarily bothered me about Hillary right off the bat. The first is that if she were to become president, we would ostensibly be continuing some kind of feuding family legacy. First Bush, first Clinton, second Bush, second Clinton. It doesn’t seem right to have the power in two families hands for 20 or so years.

Secondly, according to WiS, I agree with Obama more than I do Hillary, even though I don’t think Obama is perfect.

Hillary also accepts more lobbyist money than any of the other candidates, and I don’t like that at all.

LAS VEGASOn the eve of the crucial Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate, set for Thursday night, candidate Hillary Clinton has racked up the public endorsement of some of the state’s most influential gambling industry executives and advocates.

The Clinton campaign has unveiled the formation of the Nevada Business Leadership Council led by Jan Jones, a former Las Vegas Mayor and a current top executive of and lobbyist for national gambling mega-corporation Harrah’s Entertainment.

Totally fishy, I don’t like it at all. I doubt she would be much different than the presidents of the recent past who have placed personal wealth and back scratching above humanity.

She likes to distinguish herself from Bush, which is good, nobody wants to be like or sound like that disastrous tyrant, but she simply seems to make herself out to be a much softer, smarter version.

On the war in Iraq, she claimed that she is against the war and will withdraw troops as soon as possible, but she has refused to commit to troop withdraw even by 2012.

Here is what makes me nervous. The invasion and occupation of Iraq I think has less to do with Bush than we’d like to think. I believe it is part of a larger goal. Christians don’t get along with Muslims, and over the history of mankind, many millions of people have died because of their ideological differences. The Muslim faith has become dangerous, and as a country that is primarily Christian and simultaneously wealthy and prosperous, we will always be a prime ideological target for Islamic extremists. The war in Iraq was about two things: a war of religious and the securing of a vast natural resource. So far, Hillary has not convinced me that she doesn’t have some kind of personal stake in all of this. She must have stock or options in an oil company (like every member of the Bush party does) or she’s been convinced by the illuminati to fight the evil in East.

She seems to want to continue combat operations in Iraq. This is wrong unless there is something she knows that we don’t. We never focused on Afghanistan which is where those who attacked us live, we never massed an offensive in there to capture their leader and make him stand trial, it as if we didn’t care. Maybe Afghanistan doesn’t have any oil. You know, if Bin Laden never attacked us, I’m sure we still would have pursued invading Iraq. I believe it to have been a plan set in motion by the first Bush. We need to secure that country for their oil, so we can continue to get rich.

Clinton isn’t making me feel confident enough that she is against this or isn’t a part of it. Her husband didn’t strike me as someone so greedy and stupid, and maybe he wasn’t and thats why we had a golden age during his presidency, but something is just not quite right about HER beliefs on the subject.

For a while, I was caught between Obama and Hillary, but I not I think the choice is much more clear. Obama isn’t perfect, as I said earlier. He admits that his uncritical faith bars him from accepting gay marriage, but his more human and intelligent side combats that (naturally). I think it is only a matter of time before he sees how dangerous and stupid faith without question can be. Hillary doesn’t give me that impression at all.

We shall see over the next year.

Enjoy.

Going doowwwwwnnn in a blaze of inferiority

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Who else is sick of Bush using the "national security" defense? I am, the man farts in public and when he’s called out on it he’d say "its for national security". I am proud of the ABA and the hundreds of thousands of lawyers who are sick of it as well.

Although I think their approach is wimpy, it may accomplish some goals to getting this country back on track.


The American Bar Association yesterday approved a resolution condemning President Bush’s practice of writing exceptions to laws he’s just signed.

Delegates at the ABA’s annual meeting voted 272-99 to reject an effort to postpone consideration and then approved the resolution on a voice vote.

Finally taking a baby step forward. It is frightening how many laws Bush has broken, and how his "national security" defense was getting used. He even wrote an exception stating that he can withhold information from congress in the interest of  "national security". Well, what about international security? The fate of this world rests on the removal of the Bush administration.

Push has written over 800 legislative provisions or exceptions to bills, having only vetoed one bill. Someone has got to tell him that he has two choices, sign the bill and accept it in its entirety, or veto it and call it day.


Greco had assembled a bipartisan task force to review presidential signing statements, which issued a report late last month critical of Bush’s use of the statements and described the challenges as overstepping his authority.

So there are some things that can bring the two worlds together, and its funny that its usually something to go against Bush.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., submitted a bill late last month seeking to ensure that signing statements aren’t used to rewrite legislation or veto parts of bills.

A statement issued after the signing of a bill banning the use of torture on detainees held in the United States also caught Specter’s attention.

Thats kind of an ominous last sentence don’t you think? I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush wrote an exception to that bill stating that torture is okay if it pertains to "national security". I sure hope not because that would really irritate me. I can’t wait to see that movie with Robin Williams based on the idea that Jon Stewart could run for president, and if he did, he’d probably win.

Anyway, like I said, I applaud the ABA for their efforts, embarrassing Bush a little more, but its not enough. The man needs to be impeached, in fact, his whole cabinet and administration does, its that bad! The man has broken several laws both domestic and international, killed thousands upon thousands of people, cheated the American people out of their money on several occasions, and neglected black people because they don’t vote for him or something…

The ABA will probably issue some kind of worthless warning or voice its distress over the issue and leave it at that. Sure that will bring more attention to the matter, but its not enough. Charge him with something, convict him of breaking at least one of the many laws he’s ignored. Get the American juices flowing and get us out of this sense of hopelessness that a tyranny tends to bring upon the people… we can fight this evil and make sure it never returns.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist

Thursday, July 27th, 2006

President Bush extended a civil rights act today for reasons no one understands.

US President George W Bush has signed into law a 25-year extension to the Voting Rights Act, one of the key pieces of civil rights legislation.

The 1965 act gives federal authorities jurisdiction over voting practices in nine, mainly southern, states.

It was renewed for the fourth time by Congress, despite objections of some members from the states covered by it.

 

I don’t remember this working, even in the last two elections blacks were kept from voting places by police and other authorities… this kind of weird refraction of attention isn’t going to work George… or will it? If anything, federal control over many states is a democratic thing… not a republican thing… right? Should we look up democrat and republican on wikipedia? Nahh, too lazy, rather just keep typing.

Critics from the affected states argue the act represents a continuing form of punishment for historical practices which have long since been corrected.

There were also some objections from legislators worried about the growing influence of Spanish – the act contains a provision allowing ballot papers to be printed in languages other than English.


Whoa! Cross pollination, the bees are doing the birds from behind! Again, I understand not this misunderstanding of America by these so called legislators… why is it so hard to pick up a history book? Spanish influence is what defined our country! Our western states were under Spanish control before we got there! Columbus was from Spain, and we name everything after him, despite the fact that was a murderer and tyrant. I hate to tell the critics this, but this has nothing to do with punishment, this has to do with making sure the votes go in favor of the republicans. The rigged machines, the racism, the money laundering… its all part of the same thing.

I just find it so convenient that Bush now has control over the voting practices of these 9 states:

Sorry for the links, too lazy to get rid of them. Man, I’m lazy today, I didn’t get any sleep last night, I think had something to do with the weather changing or something… sigh… I don’t know.

Voting is technically a state-granted privilege and there is no federal right to vote. I think the voting right act had some good intentions in mind when originally created in 1965. It basically removed the legal possibility for discrimination in these states… which some used to require competency tests and literacy tests and even a voting tax… unfair to the poor.

So don’t you think that nowadays these states aren’t necessarily synonymous with racism? Maybe, can’t say for sure, but that doesn’t matter. Giving them their rights back would block Bush from asserting his Mafia like influence over voting practices. Everyday I become more and more convinced this man has cheated.

So what do you think? Why is Bush doing this? A political stunt to impress or sway people during a crucial election year "ooo look, Bush isn’t racist after all, and he does care about civil rights!!" ? Or maybe a sinister move? Or just a place holder, just in case.

How many days until marshal law? Negative 45 is the answer.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Wow, men deciding the fates, freedoms, and choices of women UPDATED

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

I thought we were supposed to be an advanced society? Where people make their own decisions, take responsibility for their own actions? Is that was conservatism is about these days? Not taking responsibility for your actions, forcing people to let others decide for them?

If I were a woman, I would be so pissed that these old men were sitting around deciding what to do with my vagina. I know my girlfriend has expressed a lot of anger at the mere idea that these idiots think they can control what goes in in her uterus. It is her fucking body, her life, her rights, her organic masses and her choice.

Its 2006, so naturally, you’re going to find political stunts like the following in excess during such a decisive election year:

Morning Edition, July 26, 2006 · The Senate has approved a measure that would prohibit taking a minor across state lines to have an abortion without informing her parents. The 65-34 vote is the first time the Senate has approved such a bill — many states already have laws covering such cases.

Opponents charged that the bill is tied to election-year politics.

This is a very small, almost completely useless measure that is barely worth anybodies time, except that its clearly a political stunt in the wrong direction. Why go back on progression from the early 1970s? Why try and turn back time?

Conservatives support war and death and violence in the middle east, but want to try and pretend like they care about nonliving organic masses?? CONTROL, this is about control folks, wake up and smell the testosterone. Men with inadequacies and fear over compensate and cause problems just like this. That is what I think its about, conservatives are either confused about science, or afraid that they’ll lose control over women. I hate to say it, but they lost it a long time ago, and making up reasons to regain it isn’t going to work.

 

But opponents of the bill said that in certain situations, the new restrictions would mean that family members trying to protect a girl from an abusive father could face prosecution.

"This bill, as it is drafted, will throw a grandmother in jail," California Democrat Barbara Boxer said in the debate session, describing a hypothetical case in which a father commits incest against his daughter — who then looks to her family for help.

Thats a very good point, but I don’t think Santorium cares. I really don’t see the point of something like this, forcing people to go underground and seek out illegal more dangerous methods. People will always get abortions, you will never ever be able to stop it. Sure they voted unanimously to not offer protection to abusive fathers… but then whats the point? How is this going to help or solve anything? Not only is this a terrible political stunt, but an attack on freedom… again!!!! Why must we live in Orwellian times I implore of you!

 

UPDATED FOR INFOCATS—————-

Info – stop destroying your respectability and lowering you standards, you’re making yourself look worse everyday with comments like that. Come on, all you do is prove my points, driving my case home, providing examples for why the left you hate is such a better approach to life… why do that to yourself? Saying that we have unlimited freedom in the U.S. is complete and utter ignorance of our situation, you are supporting the exact opposite of unlimited freedom, you’re supporting the restriction of freedom! Why info, why do you hate the U.S. so much? Did a man dressed as uncle Sam beat you up as a kid or something? Get some dignity my friend!! Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

whereIstand Tags