Category Archives: Government

Blather Rinse Repeat speaks out against Hilary Clinton

Ms. Clinton’s voting record – taken from the site below.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

  •  Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
  • Critic of Iraq war, but won’t recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
  • Regrets Bush’s handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
  • Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
  • Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
  • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
  • Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

  • I am not a professional chef, but I am pretty sure that I smell some serious waffle-age.

    Advertisements

    A stray thought about Myanmar

      Here we have a country run by a small group of military generals that are trying to control hundreds of thousands of citizens. It makes me wonder if Alberto Gonzales is doing some outside consulting on this one.

        Seeing as the country decided to shut down the Internet access to prevent outsiders from seeing direct accounts of its army violently shutting down the protests; I’d say yes.

       I have no doubt that it’s going to get ugly, if it hasn’t already.

    Should Kari Byron be the next president?

    Combining the need for a viable candidate with a very popular search term that brings people to my blog; I am asking my blog readers to offer their thoughts on whether or not we should vote for Kari in 2008.

    First, let me explain that I do not know Ms. Byron. I am simply exploring the political waters for her.

    With that said, let’s do some comparing to the other candidates to see how she stacks up.

    Hillary Clinton – wears sensible shoes
    Kari Byron – wears Chuck Taylors

    Hillary Clinton – is both for and against the war
    Kari Byron – blows things up in parking lots

    Hillary Clinton – has been investigated for questionable dealings
    Kari Byron – conducts investigations on Mythbusters

    Hillary Clinton – may or may not live in New York to satisfy campaign law
    Kari Byron – lives in California.

    Barack Obama – has no political experience
    Kari Byron – has no political experience

    Dennis Kucinich – former mayor of Cleveland, OH
    Kari Byron – people have heard of her

    Rudy Guiliani – former mayor of New York City
    Kari Byron – spent one episode wearing silver body paint

    To me, the choice is clear. Although her background is in the fine arts, she seems to have a solid appreciation and grasp of science. She doesn’t have any political experience, but incumbency has already proven to be useless at this point. She seems fairly articulate and already has a fairly large base of fans. The fact that she spends energy getting to the bottom of information and actually CARES what the findings are is important.

    However, it is possible that the cheesecaky FHM photo shoot might be held against her. I am guessing that Hillary Clinton might try to use that against Kari, seeing as Hillary couldn’t pull off the naughty lab tech look.

    Hey, it could still happen. The only other presidential candidate choices based on search terms that get people to my site include spyware removal, Angel Boris, and girls with long tongues.

    So, if not Kari Byron; should girls with long tongues be the next president?  We’ll just have to see what the voters have in store for us, I guess.

    What is religion’s role in politics?

       First of all, let me say that I believe having religion is important. Religion, in my opinion, is having a relationship with the divine force. Faith is the expression of that relationship with the divine. Morality is the behavioral standard that we apply to ourselves when interacting with the world around us. Unfortunately, we have forgotten or lost perspective of several important things.

        Religion is something one has to find within themselves. Until someone experiences that specific moment where they find their own “proof” for the divine force, it will always be foreign for them. That person might know what to say to sound like a believer, but don’t feel it. They might surround themselves with religious people and the symbols of the faith, but that doesn’t instill faith automatically. Judging, condemning or shouting at people who don’t believe isn’t going to help anything. Telling them they have the wrong faith unless they share yours is even more spiritually damaging. Emphasizing or implying one is better than another is also misguided. I also think that a great deal of emphasis has been giving to religious symbols. Faith shouldn’t be threatened by the presence of some symbols or the absense of others. Destruction or desecration of those symbols, although disrespectful, doesn’t destroy faith because faith is something inside you.

       Does the absense of religion mean that person can’t function within our government? Not necessarily. Should they still be aware of religions? Yes. Can you be a leader in the government with it? Yes. Can you be a leader in the government without it? Yes.  While the presense of faith may influence decisions, the main premise behind a democracy is representing the people. You obviously can’t please everyone, but you also have to take other peoples’ viewpoints (including religious ones) into consideration. Having faith as a leader does not mean using it exclusively to find direction or make decisions. Leaders who reinforce their beliefs exclusively through their position of power carry the appearance of a dictator.

       Finally, I think the problem with religion in politics now is based on the fact that religion is worn as clothing. It is being used to disguise a candidate to make them appear acceptable to a group of people the candidate believes will help them win votes.  Religion is a beautiful thing, and in my mind, flawless. The flaw is in how it is exploited and manipulated by those who claim to practice it.  Essentially, another layer of the “say one thing, do another” mentality that has most voters fed up with our current political system. Sen. Larry Craig is just another example. Tell the public what you think it wants to hear, even if your current lifestyle doesn’t jibe.

    *****side comments on current presidential candidates

    Most candidates don’t strike me as being particularly religious, at least visibly. The only talk I have heard or read about religion in the presidential race is about Mitt Romney (Mormon) and Barack Obama (Islam).  It seems that some voters are deadset against either of these two because they aren’t Christian. That strikes me as incredibly misguided. What if Christian were a minority faith? Would it make sense to rule them out, simply because of that? Or are people just looking for ways to split the US vs. THEM thing? Bush, who seems relatively open embracing his Christianity(Methodist, if I remember correctly….although I have heard “born again” which strikes me as being generally more fundamental or charismatic for the Methodist line of thought.) His decisions have obviously colored his decisions on legislation. It’s even to the point where his view is the minority, yet it gets pushed through as law. Stem cell research. Case & Point.  I just don’t see how that makes us any better off than a more balanced leader. Of course, Bush never tried to mend any bridges after capturing just enough votes to win the election. A true leader would have reached out to the 49% of the vote that didn’t vote for him. Low voter turn out should have reinforced his need to reach out.

    Of course, the other side of the coin is that Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hilary Clinton could spend the rest of her life claiming to be whatever religion she wanted to. There is still no way I could believe that she have the spiritual substance having been involved with so many questionable legal dealings.  Bill Clinton didn’t do us any favors either. A man who can’t respect the marriage vow doesn’t strike me as one who can be trusted to lead the country. I swear the only difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush sometimes is that Gee Dubya wasn’t as good of a liar as Clinton.

    Would someone please tell me that this next election WON’T be another vote for the lesser of two evils again!!?!

    America falls behind China in Food Scare Technology!

        With China using mercury, antifreeze and other harmful chemicals in manufacturing everything from pet foods to toothpaste, America falls behind in threatening the public safety. China only adds to their domination of injuring and killing off the population with the use of lead paint in the manufacturing of childrens’ toys.

           “Americans have got to pull ahead of the game. Otherwise, we’re gonna fall behind,” George W. Bush quipped while riding in a 10 Extra-large SUV caravan to some $1,000 a plate dinner event to increase environmental awareness of the ecosystem.

         “We got to cut funding to this thing called the FDA, so we can get down to some serious pollutin’ of our food supply,” Bush added.

    Senator Larry Craig should go

      Not only is the writing on the wall, it’s waving it’s hand under it and tapping us on the foot.

    5 reasons I won’t be voting for Hiliary Clinton

    1) I have no interest seeing any more “gates” at the White House. TravelGate, WhiteWaterGate, MonicaGate, etc.  If the next president wants gates, it’d be nicer to just set up an account at Home Depot.

    2) Her ability to express feelings makes me think Senator Clinton took some correspondence courses on emotions through the mail. Either that or Hiliary lost her parents at a young age and was raised by chainsaws in the wild. She has three emotions as I can tell: mostly angry, angry and smug. I don’t trust people I can’t read.

    3) Any educated, intelligent woman who marries and stands Tammy Wynette-style to someone like Bill Clinton is either thick, clueless or manipulative.  She’s a lawyer by trade, right? Maybe that gives us the answer there. (insert Internet lawyer joke of choice here).

    4) She’s for the war. She’s against the war. This woman isn’t presidential material. She’s a freakin’ waffle. Bust out the syrup.

    5) She gets on Senator Obama’s case for being “naive” about things, including foreign policy. She seems to be forgetting that incumbency is viewed by a growing number of voters as a liability rather than an asset. Considering the current state of governmental affairs, I think most voters could even comfortably contemplate inexperience with a candidate. It’s not like Bush is setting the competency bar all that high here.  The frightening thing is that if we were to convince America that the next presidential election was a People Magazine-sponsored ‘Who’s Hot? Who’s Not?” poll; voter turn out would probably be in record-breaking numbers and Matthew McConnaghey would be president. (author note: seeing as it would not be Bush or Ms. Clinton; I think people would be cool with that.)