Category: Politics

Posted on

Buckle up for 4 more years of Obama Bashing and pissing contests

Images

Romney may be going down in flames…

Not because he said anything wrong…

Well ok, approximately 46% of our population don’t pay taxes and he said 47%. And he should have been more precise… Federal Taxes… 

Romney isn’t being destroyed because of imprecision. He’s being destroyed for telling the truth.

If you do the math, one way or another 46% of our population isn’t paying federal taxes. Guess what? They’re NOT breaking the law. 

A large percentage of them are retired folks, remember the baby boomers??? Well they’re still retiring!

Social Security by definition makes them dependent on the government. It should be remembered that Social Security is technically a term life insurance policy that they have paid into all of their working lives.

Yes, they’re dependent on the government to dispense their money. But NO SSI doesn’t represent an “Entitlement” program. The SSI recipients don’t pay Federal Taxes, nor should they.

Then there are the working poor, they make money, but usually don’t make enough to cross the Federal Tax threshold. Not only don’t they pay taxes… They shouldn’t pay taxes!

Mixed in there somewhere are the perpetual victims, we all know they exist why deny it?

There are always people in any society for whom nothing you do to ease their burden is ever enough. These people are 100% dependent on the government. And they don’t pay taxes either.

So Romney was right and wrong. The problem is that what he said and the way he said it, sounded bad. 

He’s absolutely right that 46% of America is in all likelihood not going to vote for him.  It wouldn’t be in their best interests because they’re as afraid of him cutting social services, as the Republicans are of President Obama expanding social services.

Romney, rather than wasting time trying to convince the hard sells is making a conscious choice to focus on those folks that can swing the election his way.

President Obama is doing the same thing. He’s not bothering to focus on the hardline Republicans. The President is rightly concentrating on those swing voters whose votes will carry him to a win in this election.

So why is it right for one candidate and wrong for the other one? It’s not. Each candidate must ignore those people who won’t carry them to victory and do only what is going to insure them winning.

The truth notwithstanding it’s likely that Romney will loose because of media spin and the choice of the American People to believe exactly what they’re told on TV. I wouldn’t mind our candidates winning or losing based on facts and truth.

No doubt, we all remember the poisonous vitriol the media hurled (rightly so, in many cases.) at former President Bush.

The same venom is being heard time and again regarding Republicans in general, even when they’re agreeing with their Democratic counterparts.

One can get a full measure by simply listening to the difference in reports covering the Tea Party and Occupy (what ever this week). The former are portrayed as nut jobs the latter are spun as victims. I view them as two sides of the same coin. (Another blog post entirely to justify that statement.)

I cringe to think the office of the President of the United States hinges on who makes the best commercial or who the media likes versus the choice being made by informed voters.

Obviously I took a wrong turn because I’m living in a Kardashian / Snookie world.

If you happen to see a door to a real world, please give me a call…

Posted on

Romneys Headaches

You almost have Ap mitt romney leaked tapes dm 120918 wblogto feel sorry for the guy.

I also find the timing of the release of this videos  very interesting… Now the media is picking up on the comments and blowing them way out of proportion. 

I don’t necessarily agree with the guy on all points but I sure as hell believe that he’s entitled to say stuff privately without being recorded and having those recordings posted all over the internet.

Thus far he’s said that “47% of the population is going to vote for Obama because they’re dependent on government.” 

You know that’s probably about right 47% of the population is going to vote for Obama without a doubt…

Just look at the 2008 election,

52.9% of the voters voted for Obama, 45.7% of voters voted for McCain. That’s actually a pretty close split between the Democratic and Republican parties.

If you go back to 2004 Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3%

2000 election 47.9% Bush, 48.4% Gore… Yes! That’s not a typo! That’s what Wikipedia says…

Bush won because of the electoral college. By sheer votes of The People, Al Gore should have been President.

This opens a whole other discussion about the electoral college and why I think it should be disbanded.

However that discussion will have to wait.

The point I’m making here is that the past 3 Presidential elections have been won or lost by a pretty narrow percentage of the peoples vote. The 2008 election had the highest voter turn out of the previous 3 Presidential elections 63% No matter what you may think of President Obama, you have to admit that his candidacy energized the voter base, and that’s a good thing.

Romney is in trouble for saying it, and then qualifying his 47% comment with the following;

“… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

I don’t agree about the no income tax part… But in general I think he’s making a valid observation. I have personal knowledge of a specific group of people in this country who perceive themselves as victims and entitled all the time no matter what!

The people who are dependent on government, NO MATTER THE REASON will vote for President Obama.

It’s obviously in their best interest.

Romney is right, there is nothing he can do or say that will win these people over, short of becoming a democrat and making the same promises the democratic party does.

Why is this such a big deal?

For god sake we have a candidate that spoke the truth as he sees it.  He’s taking the heat and he’s not backing down from his position.

Isn’t that what we want? Leadership?

We don’t have to hang on the Presidents every word, we don’t’ have to agree with every position, We need a President that speaks his mind, has conviction, and who is strong enough not to wither in the heat of battle.

We do need a President that when faced with facts that contradict his opinion is capable of gracefully accepting the new information, incorporating then new data and moving forward.

The problem is, so many of the entrenched politicians in Washington and in the various state government for that matter are fat, dumb and happy. They’re safely ensconced in the halls of power and know it’s not in their best interest to rock the boat, so they don’t. Business as usual in Washington is the way of things.

In this election we need not only a President who is a LEADER we also need politicians in Washington to be leaders. If our politicians aren’t going to lead, then they need to follow. A strong President who’s direct and upfront might be just what we need to make Washington work for a change.

I loved this comment from Jim Messina, Obama for America campaign manager,  “It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.”

I seem to recall that in 2008 Election President Obama disdainfully dismissed the “Flyover States” however I can’t find the reference now so I could be incorrect.

We all have our likes, dislikes, opinions and preconceived notions.

Saying that half the country isn’t going to vote for you is not writing those people off. It’s a statement of opinion and doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve written this people off. In fact, it could mean that you’re going to be more sensitive to their situation. Although I don’t think we haven’t seen too much of that kind of thinking about the “Flyover States” from the Obama administration.

Romney is also taking heat about comments that he made about Palestine

He’s quoted as saying Palestine is “committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel and are uninterested in peace.”

Again… from the observable evidence… this is a true statement.

After all, you don’t keep randomly lobbing RPGs and other explosives into residential neighborhoods if you’re really interested in peace.

Lets give the guy credit where credit is due. 

He’s demonstrating the kind of leadership that a President should, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the statements. At least Romney has a set of balls.

Anybody heard about the new digs Obama is, or has purchased in Hawaii? I thought he & Michelle were going to move back to their Chicago digs after his term in office. After all Chicago is a gun free crime free paradise.

Yeah a little snarky but It’s my blog…

 

Posted on

As we move into Day FIVE of protests in the Middle East

At the risk of further inflaming the Middle East….

I found myself wondering “Who is Muhammad?”

NewImage

Yeah, like most Americans I think of his as someone roughly equivalent to Jesus. A Prophet, a teacher. I think of him as a holy man who was enlightened… after all, thats the image you have of the founder of a worldwide religion right?

I was curious about why the Islamic world apparently loses their minds at the slightest insult to Muhammad, They don’t seem to react nearly a violently if you directly insult God.

Since most information these days is available via a simple Google search I started poking around… There is a lot of information about Muhammad.

Most scholars today accept that the historical accounts from early arabic historians are mostly accurate. The earliest biography was written in 767. The original work has been lost. But was quoted verbatim at great length by a later author so we have a good sense of the original work.

The earliest non-arabic sources of information appear to be Byzantine. These records indicate that the Jews and Christians of the time thought he was a false prophet and Muhammad is portrayed in a bad light.

He lived a long life by the standards of the time. c. 570 – 632 He was born in or around Mecca was orphaned young and raised by his Uncle.

He’s reported later to have been a merchant, and an honorable one. 

In 610 he received the first of a series of revelations. Three years after the event he started preaching. In the beginning,  the message isn’t a bad one.

He preached a complete surrender to God and a monotheistic religion.

The people of Mecca weren’t impressed and he had few followers.

The Meccan tribes began persecuting he and his followers primarily because he was preaching against the polytheistic beliefs of the Meccan Tribes. They eventually forced Muhammad and his followers to Medina.

The people of Mecca seized all the lands and possessions of Muhammads followers effectively leaving them destitute.

I wonder how much of this was punitive and how much was simple practicality. Medina is 200 miles from Mecca and realistically if land or possessions were abandoned by people who’d moved 200 miles away at the time, you didn’t expect the owners to come back.

From this point on Muhammad appears to become a brigand, and warrior

It’s shortly after the move to Medina that his people start raiding Meccan caravans. They’re acquiring wealth and power from the raids.

This leads inevitably to armed conflict with the Meccan tribes. At some point Muhammad leads his followers in a raid on a caravan but the caravan takes a different route.

A large force from Mecca had been sent to protect the caravan. They learned that the Muslim raid had failed and decided to confront the Muslims. This is referred to as the Battle of Badr.

The short story is that the Muslims prevailed even being out numbered 3 to 1. This resulted in the capture and subsequent ransoming of some 70 Meccan prisoners. (Sounds Familiar!)

The Quranic verses of the time deal with practical issues of government and distribution of spoils. (Distribution of Spoils? this is sounding more like Ali Baba)

And here is where the story gets interesting. While the victory strengthens his people faith that he is a prophet. He also starts becoming less tolerant of anyone that hasn’t converted.

Pagans are killed, the tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes are expelled from Medina (THEIR HOME) without their possessions to Syria. Muhammad wanted them killed because they spoke out against him. (I ask, you punished the whole tribe for the outspoken comments of what was probably a few?)

NewImage

Mecca began to send ambush parties to Medina and Muhammad led raiding parties on Meccan caravans.

Conflict continues to build between the Muslims at Medina and the Meccans until after many many battle and sieges Muhammad takes the city of Mecca.

After taking Mecca, the enemies the Muslims had made in their rise to power began massing against them.

Muhammads forces defeated the forces of Hawazin in the Battle of Hunayn. 

Then the Muslims went on to destroy or convert opposition in the remainder of Arabia, In the process uniting the land.

If you’re interested do your own search and read the history about this guy.

What I took away from the historical accounts is this.

1) Muhammad started out as a decent guy. He was a family man, a merchant, honorable, and “Average Joe”

2) At some point in his 40s he starts having visions. (At first he’s sure he’s cracking up and it’s only after a long time that he decides he’s not crazy.)

3) His visions are sometimes accompanied by seizures. (This makes me wonder if he had a brain injury, but there have been many other historical “Game Changing” people throughout history who shared these characteristics so I’m willing to be flexible.)

4) He appears to start using “Visions” to justify his actions, and the actions of his followers. Even though they’re doing things that are expressly forbidden by the earlier 10 commandments which Islam is supposed to believe in.

5) He’s sanctioning raiding caravans, (Stealing) then making war on and later outright murder of  people that don’t believe as he and his followers do.

6) Ransoming prisoners is OK in his way of doing things.

So you think OK… this guy isn’t such a good person.

But then you look at the last of his sermons to the people. And he’s back to preaching things like equality for everyone regardless of race, abolishing old blood feuds. He says to treat women well. 

Then he has a fever, pains in his head and he dies.

I’m left feeling that it makes little sense. It’s like there are two distinct people here.

Was the “Warrior, Brigand” created because he wanted to return home? Once he returned home did he cast off that persona?

It’s almost as if the religion is a perfect reflection of the schism in the personality of Muhammad.

On the one hand you have people that are truly about peace and light.

On the other hand you have people that are all about the warrior brigand.

Muhammad was profoundly against Polytheistic beliefs and serious about eliminating his enemies, including those who were disrespectful towards him or his followers.

So I guess in this context the rioting and violence makes sense.