Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘current-events’

Love it

I took a brief break from watching or listening to politics altogether as a personal experiment. As I thought, my life changed none, and I am way more relaxed now. This was the first day I listened again and immediately heard something stupid:

Six attorneys are going to decide if a law a state made is legal or not. The six attorneys should stay out of the state’s business because that messes with the Democratic process.

The six attorneys being denounced as useless and in the way happen to be the Supreme Court of the US, and the law that was made legal was the gay marriage law. Now it gets interesting if you know how to argue.

The person I was listening to clearly had no skill in framing his position, almost to the point that he could not justify why he thought this way. I hate but cannot remember what radio talk show I was listening to when I heard this. This was a Republican Congressional member from the West somewhere, possibly CO or WY making this statement. He is suggesting that judges are participating in judicial activism, and they would never do that (sarcasm intended). The odd thing was he was defending gay marriage rights, which I care neither way. I say let them marry, who does it harm? Anyway, this guy was suggesting that if a state passes a law, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction which = absurdity. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of oppressive laws out there (and that is a guarantee). It is the judicial branch’s job to check the power and Constitutionality of laws created by the legislator. If the dispute is not resolved at the lower courts – for you dummies out there, I am talking about the States themselves – then it goes Federal. That is the process and always has been. Is this Congressional member (someone who represents others) suggesting the Supreme Court should not exist or is only in existence to clear up Federal disputes? Once again, absurd.

Second, the democratic process – voting for something – is not a fail proof way of making laws. Remember everyone before you go off pissing in my drink, there used to be laws like this and if I remember correctly, women and colored people were excluded because of a law like this. The white men said they were the only ones who could vote, passed a law by popular vote due to the fact that only they could vote, and by popular vote, they won. Go figure.

For the record, where I am concerned, the “six attorneys” are very relevant although a small amount of judicial activism is unavoidable. Reason I say that is everyone has an opinion. I staunchly disagreed with Obama Care, but the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax. Granted this was sold as something and argued as something else, that is not what the Supreme Court took into account. They looked at the fact that Obama Care was a tax and said Congress could do it. Not being overly happy about that decision did not make me say the Supreme Court should not exist or that the twelve judges are somehow outdated or irrelevant.

I guess after being away from politics for a couple of weeks, and coming back today, I immediately picked up on something extremely stupid. A false anger and fake argument. I did agree with his overall assessment that marriage should be between anyone who wants it and meets a certain age (18 without parental consent). I just would have argued this differently and noted how many judges actually sit on the Supreme Court.

– Me

Advertisements

No Gun Ban

As if this were new… (D) Feinstein’s anti gun bill never made it past CNN and MSNBC. To hear the media heads talking, the entire country WANTED guns banned. So in response to that country-wide outcry, Feinstein created a gun ban law that had overwhelming support!!!

Until it did not have overwhelming support. Amazing the media would have you believe this was coming down the pipe, and then the day of the introduction, NOBODY supported it! It did not even make the Senate, much less anywhere else. Reid did not take it up or allow it – and for good reason. It is stupid and against the Bill of Rights (Which still do matter).

What an idiot this lady is. What idiots the media are. I wonder now if they feel like dopes being proved wrong that everyone wanted this? Probably not because it just doesn’t work that way. They tell you what your information is – so you soak it up. What about when they are wrong, like in this scenario? Will there be an apology of sorts? Nope, just more of the same and I bet a little blame to go around. I have always wondered when the media gets it so blatantly wrong, and starts pointing fingers, how they conveniently miss the mirror pointing back at them?

Anyway, enjoy your gun non-ban Feinstein

– Me

Hunting Humans is LEGAL…

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

I had no idea that hunting humans was legal. CA D Dianne Feinstein made that comment in another poor attempt to explain why anyone needs more than 10 bullets. I am not getting into the weeds with this idiot. I think most know my stance on gun control. The Bill of Rights guarantees it and that’s that. What is truly scary is this CA Senator has been in Congress since 1992. Granted, she is from California, so her brain does not work properly, but hunting humans is legal? I am quite sure she was referencing the USE of what she refers as high capacity magazines, but that is not what she said. She said “. . .it’s legal to hunt humans. . .”

I find it insulting these very people like Feinstein are acting as though we normal folks are too dumb to figure out how to use a weapon, while she thinks its legal to hunt humans. I think whatever “test” or “qualification” she and other legislators place on the citizens to purchase weapons, they should have to pass as well to serve in the Congress. I would almost recommend some to a psychological screening as phrases like this spew out of their head leak. Wow, hunting humans now… I know some idiot out there agrees with her – and is probably a voter to top it off.

– Me

Obama Claus Explained

As the title suggests, Obama Claus needs a little explanation. Like Santa and his magical elves working diligently for little to no reward, just to give the fruits of their labors away, the Progressives on the left are trying to fill those shoes in a modern and more adult fairy tale manner. Jello brains say that electric cars are pollutant free and cost efficient while ignoring the fact that you have to plug these things in somewhere. Electricity is not free and the power is not generated from the magical wires in the sky or underground. That juice comes from power plants (nuclear, coal, etc). While the emissions from the actual driving is significantly less while on battery power, the power plant is being overwhelmed by the uptick in electrical demand and is producing more. I wonder which of the two produces more waste now – the electric plant powering your car partially or the car that is self-sufficient. A debate surely worth investigation. Free stuff, it’s already paid for! Once again, the Jello brained adults who believe this are either stupid or blind. Let us take the lifeline free cell phone. A low income person gets a FREE cell phone from the government with 250 talk minutes and 250 texts per month. This is the elf-produced free product that brings about the conversation.

How does the progressive left explain the FREE cell they are GIVING to the masses of underprivileged voters? Short answer is word salad, which I will give you – I will also explain that word salad for those lacking gray matter. This “FREE” cell and usage is actually a tax. This is a redistribution policy where everyone who pays for their cell service pays a tax called the Universal Service Charge. Universal service charge is intended to sound official enough so you do not ask questions. Who would question a universal service charge? It is universal, so no matter the cell company you use, you pay it. Another crafty name for this is all-end-user-surcharge. Basically if you pay a phone bill monthly, you pay the fee to your provider, who then transfers the money to the state, who then purchases cell phones and minute plans to give to the oppressed.

You see how that works? If you work, you pay for those who do not. Interestingly, that is the exact method used for all government programs. Santa Claus and his magical elves are hard at work building you goodies while asking for no pay in exchange. The only pay they require is to see your happy mug receiving your much deserved free stuff. Obama and his magical elves (progressives in government) are “hard at work” making sure those who work pay for those who do not. Obama Claus will punish those who work harder in order to make those who do not receive the same quality of life. After all, shouldn’t the unemployed high school drop out be entitled to a home, car, money to spend, nice clothes, and a cell phone? Why not when Obama Claus and the magical elves are giving it to you for the low price of your loyalty in the voting booth. Your vote is the equivalent of the smiling face for Santa – it is a fairy tale. Santa is not real and if he were would more than likely be exhausted from making toys for the world in exchange for a bit of a cheap cookie and warm milk at every home. Obama Claus is not real either, he does not GIVE anyone anything, he can’t – so he takes from some to give to others…

Maybe it should be Obama Hood instead?

– Me

Attack on Constitutional RIGHT

Roe -v- Wade (abortion) is under attack in Arkansas according to Geraldo Rivera! According to the radio show host, this is the most blatant attack on a Constitutional RIGHT he has ever witnessed and a slippery slope to more scary things. I agree that attacking a Constitutional right is a slippery slope, and that doing so is a tendency toward more scary events. I also disagree with his assertion that abortion is a Constitutional right. It is not. It is a Supreme Court ruling. That is why its not know as the right to abortion, but Roe -v- Wade.

What I find interesting about this Geraldo’s selective acknowledgment of what is a right and what is not. Guns for instance, are not a right according to Geraldo, but abortion is. Right to bear arms is actually in the Bill of RIGHTS, so I am a little confused about the mindset here. How is a Supreme Court ruling more of a right than a RIGHT in the Bill of Rights? Can anyone explain this to me because I just can’t wrap my head around it.

What a ridiculous man with stupid thoughts. He tries so hard to be popular and have the majority thoughts that he can no longer form his own opinions. He is actually contradicting himself now and does not even realize it. I guess I just take it as entertainment at this point.

– Me

“Absurd” sequester debate

According to the Washington Post, the debate just got absurd with this…

Amendment to HR 993. Basically states that public money will not be used to transport the President to and from the golf course until the White House tours begin again.

My question is this: Why is that absurd? Why is it absurd for the President to cut back a little. After all, is that not what he asks of everyone else? Put your money where your mouth is, and stop golfing for a spell – I can’t afford to anymore. And for the WP… The sequester debate was absurd when the “super-committee” was FORMED.

– Me

Church Violence

In Huntsville, there is one abortion clinic. Alabama Women’s Center where a both-sides protest is currently playing out. Now, this is just dumb to me but let us talk.

The Right: A local church is protesting utilizing local permits and space allotted as per that agreement with the city. They are using religion in an attempt to persuade women not to have abortions and bringing awareness to the clinic itself. This is a religious argument and a religious based protest against their particular moral compass and point of view.

A local Catholic woman was arrested for spraying an unknown liquid in the air and in close proximity to a pro-abortion (sorry pro-choice) protestor in what appears to be a response to a burning object (rolled up paper or magazine maybe?) being carried around. You can clearly see the woman spraying AND the woman holding the burning object in the video.

The Left: Pro-“choice” protestors are opposing the church protestors. The claim is they are giving the other side of the coin and showing women they have a choice in their medical care.

My Take: This is dumb. Both sides have a right to do what they are doing, and neither should require any permits to do so. We the people have a right to peaceably assemble no matter how absurd the justification. These two groups are exacerbating each other with their actions. In the video, you can see the lady with the smoke, which is intended to aggravate people and nothing more. This aggravation is very childish but not illegal I would imagine. The lady with the squirt bottle crossed the line by making physical contact and actually squirting the pro-choice lady. I hear people saying well it’s just water blah blah blah, but what amount of water is it all right to squirt people with legally? Think about that. In the name of Christianity, this Catholic peaceful woman is misting people she disagrees with using a spray bottle. This is not an assault and should not be spun as one, but it IS harassment when you take the politics out of the situation. You simply cannot go around misting people with water and expect that to be OK. Once a person crosses the line of bodily contact like that, then the police NEED to get involved. This scenario has all the necessary elements to escalate force. Think about it, the old lady squirts, the other pushes, then others get involved taking up for the poor defenseless old lady.

There are those who use a condescending tone like this quote from the video comments:

OMG what a horrible crime to spray water on some one!

OMG what a horrible crime? she just sprayed water on some one! Well, I don’t recommend prison time in Maricopa County’s tent city for this act, but it is a violation of personal space and a malicious act. She intentionally did it and that is hard to argue against. I wonder if the person I quoted would have the same attitude had HE/SHE been sprayed with water? My guess is no, and I further my guess with reasoning that he backs the political position of the person spraying the water. What if the old lady had been sprayed instead of doing the spraying? That changes everything now doesn’t it. The quoted person would change his position from condescending to serious and demand punishment for the Liberal aggressor. After all, how dare a pro-choicer spray an innocent Christian protestor at an abortion clinic? This is not me agreeing to either side, but you can see how the positions would change given scenario hiccups.

Abortion, no matter your opinion on it IS legal! That is a fact. These protests may make these religious zealots feel better about themselves and give them bragging rights amongst their particular circle of confidants, but it does not change the fact that the clinic is doing nothing illegal. As I stated before, they have every right to protest and I actually encourage them to do so if they feel compelled, but do so peaceably. After studying this particular case and scenario, I wonder if the pro-life group (under the flag of religion) stage protests at divorce hearings, bars, liquor stores, tattoo parlors, or strip clubs? My initial guess would be no and my reason would be because those are not politically charged venues. That makes me wonder the true intentions of the religion-based argument from this particular group.

– Me

%d bloggers like this: