Condolences to his family. Beyond that I haven't much to say about the man. What I might have had to say, I've said already. If anyone cares to eulogize the man, here's your chance.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Rep. John Murtha, (D) Dead at 77
Well, that's ONE way of getting him out of office.
Condolences to his family. Beyond that I haven't much to say about the man. What I might have had to say, I've said already. If anyone cares to eulogize the man, here's your chance.
Condolences to his family. Beyond that I haven't much to say about the man. What I might have had to say, I've said already. If anyone cares to eulogize the man, here's your chance.
Friday, February 5, 2010
No Limits To Our Descent
I was going to post about this article at my blog, but thought it fits better here. I mean, this is a fine example of American Descent if ever there was one.
There are many things over which even those of the same political persuasion could argue regarding how tax money is spent. Some don't like that we went to Iraq, while others see it as a necessity. But few things are more pathetic than to allow tax deductions for sex change operations. The principles in the article liken it to deductions for apendectomies. Give me a break. What qualifies more as cosmetic if not sex change operations? It's not as if they are actually changing a person from one sex to the other. They're only changing the appearance of the person. That's called cosmetic surgery.
And it's not as if they're "fixing" anything as in the case of someone needing reconstructive surgery after a disfiguring accident or as in the case of a woman after a double mastectomy because of breast cancer.
No. This is totally cosmetic and it does not address the real issue, which is the problem of these people thinking life as a member of the opposite sex is the way to go. The struggle is not that a man who believes himself to be a woman must live as a man, it's that he believes himself to be a woman. THAT'S the issue that is NOT being resolved by sex change operations. If I must contribute my tax dollars to such people, I'd much prefer my money goes to their psychological treatment rather than this expensive dodging of the issue.
Just as bad is the fact that the tax court actually agree with this claim. They speak of medical evidence but I doubt there is any to support the notion that this is the proper course. There certainly isn't any medical evidence that justifies homosexuality being considered no different than heterosexuality. This decision is a travesty and more evidence of our decline as a nation.
There are many things over which even those of the same political persuasion could argue regarding how tax money is spent. Some don't like that we went to Iraq, while others see it as a necessity. But few things are more pathetic than to allow tax deductions for sex change operations. The principles in the article liken it to deductions for apendectomies. Give me a break. What qualifies more as cosmetic if not sex change operations? It's not as if they are actually changing a person from one sex to the other. They're only changing the appearance of the person. That's called cosmetic surgery.
And it's not as if they're "fixing" anything as in the case of someone needing reconstructive surgery after a disfiguring accident or as in the case of a woman after a double mastectomy because of breast cancer.
No. This is totally cosmetic and it does not address the real issue, which is the problem of these people thinking life as a member of the opposite sex is the way to go. The struggle is not that a man who believes himself to be a woman must live as a man, it's that he believes himself to be a woman. THAT'S the issue that is NOT being resolved by sex change operations. If I must contribute my tax dollars to such people, I'd much prefer my money goes to their psychological treatment rather than this expensive dodging of the issue.
Just as bad is the fact that the tax court actually agree with this claim. They speak of medical evidence but I doubt there is any to support the notion that this is the proper course. There certainly isn't any medical evidence that justifies homosexuality being considered no different than heterosexuality. This decision is a travesty and more evidence of our decline as a nation.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Absolutely
I got the following in an email from my wife, who got it in an email from her cousin. I don't care about its origin, but it's absolutely true.
"Someone wrote this on a blog and is making the rounds. An interesting perspective.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”"
This echoes a question I've had since he won the nomination: How can a guy like this get as far as he has? Who are the people that back this dude? I can understand the opposition not wanting to support the GOP (I can understand ANYONE not wanting to support the GOP back in '08). What I can't understand is anyone supporting Obama without finding out anything about him. And who took the time except for those who DIDN'T support him (mostly conservatives-Clinton supporters didn't research him OR Hillary)? It's one thing to say that we're ready to elect a black president or a female president or even a black female president. But this guy? No way. And he's proving constantly what a bad choice he truly has been.
The answer is in the quote above. Fools. Fools are responsible for the election of this guy and fools will be the bane of America's existence long after Obama's gone, which should be 2012. To be fair, as well as balanced, conservative fools are responsible as well. At least GOP fools, as the state branch of the party in Illinois must accept a large share of blame for this buffoon getting as far as the US Senate. They totally botched the race and are the foremost culprit in my mind.
From that point, though, we have to look at independents, those noble beings who refuse to align themselves with any party as if they are somehow deeper thinkers for doing so. Independents, who don't toe any party line but vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. I wanna bitch slap the lot of 'em. As poor a option as McCain was, how could anyone in their right mind think Obama was the better choice?
Fools. Too many fools with voting rights putting our nation at risk. I was once scolded for the opinion that some people shouldn't vote. I never said anyone should be barred (except for convicted felons), but only that some people shouldn't vote. Barack Hussein Obama is proof of the truth of that opinion.
"Someone wrote this on a blog and is making the rounds. An interesting perspective.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”"
This echoes a question I've had since he won the nomination: How can a guy like this get as far as he has? Who are the people that back this dude? I can understand the opposition not wanting to support the GOP (I can understand ANYONE not wanting to support the GOP back in '08). What I can't understand is anyone supporting Obama without finding out anything about him. And who took the time except for those who DIDN'T support him (mostly conservatives-Clinton supporters didn't research him OR Hillary)? It's one thing to say that we're ready to elect a black president or a female president or even a black female president. But this guy? No way. And he's proving constantly what a bad choice he truly has been.
The answer is in the quote above. Fools. Fools are responsible for the election of this guy and fools will be the bane of America's existence long after Obama's gone, which should be 2012. To be fair, as well as balanced, conservative fools are responsible as well. At least GOP fools, as the state branch of the party in Illinois must accept a large share of blame for this buffoon getting as far as the US Senate. They totally botched the race and are the foremost culprit in my mind.
From that point, though, we have to look at independents, those noble beings who refuse to align themselves with any party as if they are somehow deeper thinkers for doing so. Independents, who don't toe any party line but vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. I wanna bitch slap the lot of 'em. As poor a option as McCain was, how could anyone in their right mind think Obama was the better choice?
Fools. Too many fools with voting rights putting our nation at risk. I was once scolded for the opinion that some people shouldn't vote. I never said anyone should be barred (except for convicted felons), but only that some people shouldn't vote. Barack Hussein Obama is proof of the truth of that opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)