politics

So what are your views? First off we must remember that politics should not seperate us as much as they do. As you can see there is always humor in it, so it should not ever be taken to far. Although there are many issues out there, that others and I like to talk about. So below I have constucted some thoughts and information that you can look at.

As much as we try to destroy each others parties in our country, and around the world, in the long run we have many similar views. In fact many of the issues that we are adopting were created from certain knowledgable people constructing a plan to make this country suceed. As my knowledge of politics does not range much before the first Bush Administration in 1988, most of the issues that I will talk about are within the last 15 years or so. So, first we need to acknowledge the basic parties and what they are trying to accomplish in my opinion.

Republicans - Their main agendas are what? Okay in short they favor smaller decentralized governments, more personal empowerment, lower taxes for everyone (yes that includes the rich too), self-reliant obligations, and private enterprise. They believe the individual has a moral and economic responsiblity to contribute to society as a whole. They also heavily believe in an unintrusive government and a free market, also known as a capitalist system. They give this support because they see this as the most efficent arrangement for the production and distribution of goods and services. Which is most easily accomplished through a free enterprise system. The mareket will then regulates itself through competition and consumer demand. As long as anti-trust laws, and monopoly regulations are in effect, which they are.

On social issues they strive to find a balance between what the government undertakes and what it can afford. A balance for social programs that are set up based on need not williness to apply. Programs that are set up to show proof of need, at the same time equipping the individual with skills and habits that will utimitley make them self sufficent.

Republicans also believe in fiscal restraint although the media would like you to think diferently. Yes I know Bush is not the leading example for this case. Overall though republicans reject price controls and direct wages for an open market. Experience shows that when fiscal restraint is not present, that direct controls are not effective in controling inflation. Those types of effects are counterproductive and have negative effects on production and distribution. Leaving a negative impact on society and work related habits. When positive work habits cannot be rewarded with monetary compensation, habits have a way of becoming routine and hard work is not encouraged.

As far as personal investment and retirement accounts go, there really is no debate. Republicans hold the advantage here. Continuesly protecting ones investment accounts, giving tax credits for children, increasing maximum investment limits, and erasing rediculos tax penalties. If you lower taxes for individuals the effect is going to be that they will spend more money. In turn increasing sales and business tax inflows. In fact right now we have one of the lowest tax rates in America, but the government is bringing in more tax revenue now then ever before. With the exception of tax hikes during WWII. Overall the individual is able to keep the money in thier paychecks, and we make the corporations and business class pay for the difference. Again the media tries to falsify the information to make it seem that the republicans are out to hurt the poor and protect the rich. When we all know the poor need the tax breaks the most, therefore benifiting the most from payroll tax cuts.

Democrates - First off I must say that I have had some difficulty actually finding what the democrates stand for. They all seem united in hating Bush, but what do they have to offer to the American people. In fact after reading about 10 websites this is what I found "we want an open, transparent government." Not the most moving argument for actually accomplishing anything. Well here goes. Democrates big issues are social liberty, personal safety, and equal rights. In general they want bigger government, more social programs, and higher taxes. Also were I do agree, they do have the edge over rebuplicans is when it comes to science and health issues. I think that the republican party does hinder some important scientific research, like stem cell. However the republican party is not against stem cell research, but are agaist using ABORTED fetus´ to do the research on. They can just as easily use baby placentas, but that may require actually having some respect for human life.
Okay so looking at more sites this is what I have found. Dems want better education for everyone, affordable access to health care, a stronger America at home and abroad, and improved economic status for everyone. So let´s look at those issues. First Bush proposed and enacted the No child left behind act. One of the most successful educational bills to ever be passed. The democrates have the ....... plan for education. If you find the plan you let me know. Next affordable health care for everyone. Okay I give them the credit for wanting to do so, but what is their plan? Throwing government money at the problem does not seem to be working. How about give it for free, like Los Angles´ huge health care problem. Giving away health care to thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants daily. Now illegal immigrants are using free to them emergency room service for their primary family care. Which is putting huge finanical strains on the southern California health care system. And thanks to the dems, doctors are not even allowed to ask if the patient is a legal citizen of our country. So how about making the government pay for it for the ones who can´t afford it. That only works for some and the financial impact on the rest of the country is huge, as we have seen. So really there is no plan to reform the whole system, but just a concept to improve. If you take free market away from the hospitals, which has been proposed by the democrats, then you lose the affect of competition and the services and facilities go to crap. I am writting this in a foriegn country right now, and I can tell you that this plan does not work. If you want to ask Canadians, or the British, or Australitans what there service like is in hospitals go ahead. The answer you will get is ¨well it may suck, at least it´s free.¨ Well not quite they pay it through their paychecks anyways, so whose really winning. Most Americans now pay health care insurence through their business, and the service, when needed, is substantially better. Although we give it away for the illegals and the poor all the time. So really the people getting hosed the most in our system is the middle class. Paying high premiums to cover their plans and the plans of the uninsured. If there is a plan out there that the dems have proposed, let me know. But for now I hear a lot of ideas with no solutions. Next democrates say they want a safer America. Well I think we all know that the republicans lead this issue by far. The main factor in the Bush victory in 2004. Then far left groups like the ACLU could care less about American safety and want all photos and information about Abu-grade prison released. If it were a new story they would have a point, now they just want damaging info to be released, to try to make the Bush administration look worse. The info is nothing new and all that it does is put American soldiers abroad and at home at more risk. Like Newsweeks false report about the Koran, which instantly got 15 American soldiers killed. oops. So I ask you what do the democrates really propose. Besides raising taxes to fund pet teacher, and politician projects around the country. Although the republicans are not completly innocent, at least they have issues and reforms that are being accomplished on the grand scheme of things. In a wrap up this is were democrates, in my opinion, are better to focus on. Promotion of scientific discoveries and breakthoughs, protecting individual rights, womens rights, alternative energy sources, and environmental issues. Although as one state democrate homepage says ¨those issues are not sexy enough for the American people to vote on.¨ Other than that they have pretty similar views as republicans on many topics. With a heavy dose complaining to do and negative media to produce. In fact on the DNC website there are 34 issues they have under a stonger economy link. Every one of them are negative. Here are some examples poverty:Bush doesn´t get it, poverty rate rises, Dean: Bush needs to take high road on gas prices, Sanford fails to deliver on jobs, Record prices;record profits. Okay so they may have some issues that are valid to complain about, but that does not SOLVE any of the problems? Maybe that is why there was record shifts of independents, blacks, and women to the republican party this past election.

Independents - Well there is no real way to describe this group. Because if your a independent you do not have to agree with anyone. Although this group of people does seem to become more attractive when canidates argue whether or not Bush showed up for some physical 30+ years ago, or whether or not that gernade shrapnel that hit John Kerry in the ass in Vietnam was from his own gernade that he threw. Which it apparently was. Anyways certain states like Maine, who like to be very independent, have been gaining some more steam lately. People don´t feel as compeled to stick with a certain party nearly as much, and many issues are very middle of the road these days. With the country split almost evenly on many issues. So it means that the moderate middle is going to control the elections for the next 20 years or so. So which party is playing to their needs and desires more? Well just look which party contols... everything in DC. Also the far left is destroying the democrate party. Great intelects like the wondefull Micheal Moore, Cindy Sheenan, and Jessie Jackson. Pushing lifelong dems to now call themselves independents. And to some degree the far right is doing the same, but not nearly as much. Way to go Pat Robertson, keep up the stupidity, and speading of retarded TV programming.
So all in all the independents in American have a mix of many of the best issues from both parties, we just need a candidate that can get the attention of the American People. Sorry Nader, who when asked what do you run for on the Tonight Show, responded ¨I run for strawberries.¨ He has some good concepts and is quite intelligent on a lot of issues, but he needs to be a lot more mainsteam to catch the attention of middle America. Jesse Ventura was semi-promising until he shot himself in the foot by saying that religion was for the weakminded. Maybe he should have read the stat that says 90% of Americans believe in some sort of religion! Oops.

So there you you go, a quick overview of the political parties. Lets look at some other issues. So who today is actually getting anything accomplished in Washington. Well first thought, Newt Gingrich. With his plan of ten points including the fiscal responsibility act, taking back our streets act, personal responsibility act, the citizen legislation act, and so on. Newt contructed a bill that swept through the congress in mid 90´s and he is at it again. With his new book Winning the Future; A 21st Centurty Contract with America. With Newt being named man of the year from Time in 1996, and passing in insurmountable amount of legeslation through congress, he at least deserves our attention. Who knows he may even be looking a presidential run in 2008. Speaking of that let´s look at the main canidates. Well if John McCain runs, he will probably win. Fits the mainstream American preference now, and is very resolve in his approach to things. Then there is Gulianni, who has a chance, but may be a too moderate to please the far right. On the left we have Kerry, sorry buddy don´t waste everyone´s money again, and the classic Hillary. She will deteriate this country about as fast as possible. Promising money to every little group in exsistence, and not delivering anything. What does she stand for again, who really knows she shifts her views weekly these days anyways.   Joe Biden is a maybe, but he made himself look stupid in the senate hearings for John Roberts, just to get attention. Maybe if we are really lucky Dean will run, oh wait he can´t keep his yapper shut on anything. So it does not look good for the dems in 2008 either. The nation or the world no longer want Bush philosophies in office. So middle mainstream is going to take the cake for quite some time.

Foriegn Thoughts - So what do our friends around the world think of us? First they have not the slightest what mainstream is in America. I can´t blame them too much, living in a foriegn country I have not seen or heard ONE positive thing about America yet. CNN world news.. thats a joke. Which conviently is distrubuted by the NY Times and Washington Post. So the main news the rest of the world recieves as ¨factual news¨ is as liberal as the NY Times, wow what a load. Of course the liberal media would like us to form into a socialistic government which Germany is trying to do. Then we too could have a stagnent economy, and the lowest unemployment rate in decades, and a gridlock government. Keep going Germany with your policies, maybe France or England will take over as the EU powerhouse. Dont worry too much though they are not far behind. So were does that leave the EU? Probably slow to do anything, because they cannot really agree on anything. They also think their (negotiation) skills are going to work with the Middle East. Wait what was that... oh yeah they just admitted their negotiations are going nowhere in Iran. So keep up the flapping with no productivity...wait doesn´t that sound familiar? Okay then there is North Korea. A real threat to Asia and it´s neighbors. But it does seem that they are finally coming around to some talks. Like it or not if it works, a star for Bush, if it really works out. China just needs to go ahead and cut them off. Then North Korea would last all of about a month, until they all died of starvation, because China practiclly owns all of their supply routes.

America Bashing - It is quite sad how local, national, and international news outlets bash America and the government on a countinous basis. For example look at the coverage on the Katrina story. The press immediatly blamed Bush for the hurrican hitting New Orleans or something. Oh the issue was the levy system, which the director of the corps of engineering for the Army said ¨no amount of money would have stopped those levies from breaking.¨ Although the press would like you to somehow think differently. So Bush may have been slightly slow to respond, but most educated people in America got the news that this was not a party issue but a problematic issue with the FEMA organizaion. But what was the response internationally? Well I can tell you from Argentina it was complety Bush´s fault somehow, and the people here do not even take the energy questioning the news broadcast. So our good old friends in Europe, what was their reaction? Okay so your going to have your loony papers that print rediculous reporting. Although the BBC and Reuturs pulished info saying that this was a direct cause of global warming, and that America deserved it. Maybe those people do not know what albedo is. Maybe the same reason France hates England so much is the same reason why the Europeans feel the same way about our country.

Global Warming So global warming is the cause of the planet heating up right? What is it that is making the temperature rise? Pollution from cars, SUV´s, and industries right? So here is the issue I have a problem with. The world loves to point to the fact that it is because America has so many SUV´s that that is the reason there is global warning. Well first off let´s get our facts straight. First off, what state has the highest amount of SUV´s? Since if our SUV´s are the problem for planet heating the planet we should know this first. So the answer is California, not to hard to figure since they also have the highest population. Okay so it would be logical then to assume that California pollutes more towards the world than any other staight right? So the world wants you to think that we cannot follow the Kyoto protocal agreement right and that is the cause of global warming. Wait, what was that? Oh yeah the WHOLE state of California follows the guidlines for global warming. Yup that´s right, the state with the most SUV´s completly follows the Kyoto Protocal agreement. So therefore you cannot conclude that the reason global warming is taking place is because of the SUV´s that Americans drive. I have heard the argument too many times from too many foriegners who really don´t know what they are talking about. They say we are responsible for natural disasters to our country and others becuase we drive SUV´s and pollute more than they do. That is irresponsible, irrational thinking from ill educated people. Also between the countries that I have visited, as well as friends, America is the cleanest country they have been too. Although we are by far the largest consumers of energy, that does not give the right for others to blame us for polluting the whole world. Plus we have state poputions that are much larger than their counties whole population. The other main factor keeping Europeans and others around the country in not that they give a damn about pollution, but the fact that gas costs a lot more to them. They also cannot fathom what a 100km (66 mile) commute to work is like, because our cities are much more spread out. Another interesting fact is I met one fellow recently that works of the coast of Nigeria for an oil company, and he says they dump oil waste DIRECTLY into the ocean. And guess what Nigeria could care less, because the oil company is bringing money into their economy. Okay so the Europeans think they are so clean right? Too bad many poeople have to wear full face masks to ride their bikes to work in London. The pollution is soo bad that when you blow your nose at the end of the day all it is, is black soot. Not to mention Asian countries that have extremely little to no regulations on pollution or rivers, or waterways. In fact they bathe in rivers that have floating feces and dead bodies in it. So their perception of clean can´t be too good. So before everyone accuses the US for polluting the planet, look at your own country first. Okay so enough of the blame game, let´s look at the issue. Over the history of the world over the millions of years, ever 15,000 years there has been an ice age. Right before an ice age the planet naturally heats itself up and melts the icecaps. Which in turn raises the water levels and eventually spins the planet over time into an ice age. Guess what? The last ice age was exactly almost 15,000 years ago. So unless the rocks and trees polluted the world, it is a natural process. So take that into factor that maybe the planet may just be heating up on it´s own. The temperature is only a couple degrees hotter now than it was over a 100 years ago anyways. Okay what about the ozone layer depleting. Well first off I am probably the only one out of anyone reading this to have actually been exposed to the sun without the protection of the ozone, so what about it. So there is a problem that is worth considering. Although this was reconized in the 90´s with the ban of CFC´s. Which the whole world complied on, and since we have seen a decline in the size of the whole in the ozone. Although lately it has somewhat fluctuated again. I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that the whole in the ozone increases heat though. It does allow for more harmful UV rays to be passed through, but that does not conclude that it is hotter because of it. More dangerous yes, hotter no. Also as mentined above the Earth has a natural process of controlling the heat levels. It is called Albedo. It naturally increases cloud levels to reflect sun light from the planet. In fact it is one of the new techiniques they are trying to reproduce to help control the heat levels. So before you go around accusing the American´s for their irresponsible approach to global warming, please learn some facts! We have a lot of people looking at these issues and in fact the Bush administration put together a group of scientistst to research and DEVELOP technologies to slow the process down. I haven´t heard of any other counties doing that. Just a lot of complaining as always.

Gay Marriage - Well if your at my site, I doubt that your gay. Well execpt for you, yes the one reading this. Anyways should it be allowed? Well the some think so. But at what cost does it affect others? If you want to play hide the sausage with another dude, in my mind have at it. However it does not mean that I have an obligation financially support it. I don´t think the government has a right or responsibility to police the bedroom, however when you want government assistance and discounts for participating in an act that is an extremely small percentage of the population that´s where it becomes an issue. First off the liberal press would like you to think that 10% of the population is gay. Well that is not true, I have not see any evidence for this, and the accepted percentage of among socialogists puts it much closer to 1-2%. Okay so you have the argument that the government does not have the right to descriminate against anyone... well let´s see. Can you name me one study that proves being gay is somehow natual or your born with it. If you just cited a study your sadly mistaken, there are none. ONE study came out that said gays had a smaller hypothalomis than hetrosexual people, BUT they could not prove if that was from them being born that way, or if it was a result from already being gay. Sorry if you have no proof of you being ¨born¨ that way, the people of this country do not have a responsibility to support and pay for your chosen habits. Not to mention the gay community is stirring up the AIDS population in the US again. Which declined a good bit in the late 90´s. Although the best argument is that if the government must allow you to be married, because you want to, then they must also allow polygamy. Because if the person wants to they should be able to it right?.... wrong. Sorry only a few crazy Mormons still hold on to that thought as being sociably acceptable.

Iraq War-

HARD TRUTH
Despite Everything, The Right War.

By : Sen. John McCain
The New Republic - Last August, during my first trip to Iraq, I was struck not by hostility toward the United States for toppling Saddam Hussein--I encountered none--but by a burning ambition among Iraqis to build their country anew. Nothing I saw then and nothing I have learned since has changed my conviction that the war was just. We were right to liberate Iraq and end Saddam's threat to the world.

Still, we have learned some bitter lessons in the process. Our intelligence failed--we greatly overestimated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction while underestimating Saddam's destruction of Iraq's human capital. We invaded Iraq with enough troops to topple the regime, but not enough to prevent looting, stabilize the country, or maintain security. The administration misjudged the natural nationalism of the Iraqi people and hesitated to hand them true power over their own affairs--an error that has compounded the sense of unwanted occupation that prevails in some parts of the country. Yet, while we have made costly mistakes and encountered serious obstacles, the decision to invade Iraq was the correct one, on both security and moral grounds.

By early 2003, the status quo Iraq policy--a kind of weak containment that no longer enjoyed much international support--was crumbling and simply could not be sustained. The sanctions regime no longer constrained Saddam's ability to spend money as he wished, and the regime was growing stronger, not weaker. Critics around the world were demanding that sanctions be lifted, U.S. and British warplanes were taking frequent fire in the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, thousands of American troops were based in Saudi Arabia to deter Saddam, and Iraq remained in violation of 17 Security Council resolutions. Things were falling apart.

Then there were the weapons of mass destruction. Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has said that "we were almost all wrong," and, at this point, it is hard to argue with his assessment. I am serving on the commission that will examine prewar intelligence failures, and we will get to the bottom of this critical issue. But, while supporters of the war probably erred in depending too heavily on WMD as the basis for their argument, the key word in Kay's phrase is "all." Let's recall the facts as we knew them in March 2003. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons and might be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Most European intelligence services agreed that Saddam had active WMD programs. Even Hans Blix and his U.N. inspectors, often critics of U.S. positions, acknowledged that Baghdad may have been concealing weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had secretly destroyed the weapons he was believed to possess, he had numerous opportunities to document this destruction and announce it to the world. But he did not do so.

At the same time, the world was painfully familiar with Saddam's use of WMD in the past, including his chemical attacks on Iranians and Kurds. We knew that Saddam was by far the most belligerent leader in the region, having invaded and pillaged Kuwait, launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and attempted to assassinate a former American president. We also knew of Saddam's past involvement in terrorism and his hatred of America. And we knew that, even if Saddam's WMD programs were destroyed, he planned to restart them once the time was right--presumably, once sanctions had fallen apart, he had his hands on billions of dollars in oil revenue, and international attention was again distracted. This was the situation in early 2003: The threat was grave and gathering.

But, even if Saddam had forever abandoned his WMD ambitions, it was still right to topple the dictator. I supported humanitarian intervention in order to stop genocide in Kosovo, and I wish the United States had acted--with force if necessary--to stop genocide in Rwanda. In neither of these places were America's vital national security interests at stake. But our national values were: The United States should not stand silently by in the face of massive humanitarian destruction. Time and time again, the world has witnessed vast brutality, done nothing, and then said "never again." In Iraq last year, we ensured that Saddam could never again slaughter Iraqis.

Added to this justification for war were the potential benefits to the region--the ripple effects that a free and democratic Iraqi state can still have on the Middle East. Naysayers have accused hawks of playing dice with people's lives: How could we possibly know that a democratic Iraq would have a demonstration effect on the region? On one level, they are correct; we cannot know. But we did know what would happen if we didn't try. The ossified situation in the Middle East, with its utter lack of political freedom or economic opportunity for millions of men and women, helps breed murderous ideologies that threaten the United States. And the region's autocratic but pro-American regimes are increasingly incapable of stifling these deadly, anti-Western tendencies in their own people. The Saudi regime pledges its love and respect for the United States, yet 15 of 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi. Establishing a democratic Iraq in the heart of the region was, and remains, our best chance for encouraging the necessary transformation of the Middle East. Already, the effects of Iraq are being felt: A major reform conference recently took place in Alexandria, Egypt, and the Arab League has endorsed a reform agenda.

So, in the end, we had essentially three choices--deal with Saddam early, while we could; deal with Saddam later, after sanctions had lost force, he had resuscitated his weapons programs, and more Iraqis had lost their lives; or simply sit back and hope for the best. We were right to act. And we have paid a high price for our noble ambitions--over 800 Americans dead, well over $100 billion and counting spent on the war, disgrace at Abu Ghraib. But, when I stood in August at the mass grave at Hilla, where 10,000 Iraqis were executed--some tied together and shot so as to save bullets--I did not wish to take it all back. We believed we would be greeted as liberators, and in many places we have been--not everywhere, to be sure, but, during my visit to the country, there was widespread thanks for the coalition.

Should we have done things differently? Of course. We should have worked harder before the war to get more European allies on board and offered greater political support to those nations that did join our coalition. We should have invaded with more troops, acted more quickly to stop looting, stabilized key cities, secured arms depots and borders, and established checkpoints in key areas. We should have handed power more rapidly to Iraqis. But were we wrong to invade? No. On the biggest question of all--whether Saddam had to go, by force if necessary--we were right. I would do it again today.

More issues here -

POLITICS