Wednesday, June 20, 2007
This Is Why I Support Mitt Romney | Redstate
This Is Why I Support Mitt Romney Redstate:
I think that all serious candidates for president are different from the political class that they are a part of, otherwise they never would have gotten the drive and the people together to make a bid for the White House. I think they are of course all different from each other, in the ways that all people have difference in how they view the world and understand the world. At the same time, they are all the same Presidents and those who would be presidents, in that they strive for the highest seat in the land. They strive towards a goal and a vision that they have for America. I think the statement that you are voting for someone because they are different doesn't mean much in the end.
"“I support Mitt Romney because he is different. He is a leader. He has a record
of real-world executive success. In the faces of a new generation of challenges,
he knows how to make America strong”"
I think that all serious candidates for president are different from the political class that they are a part of, otherwise they never would have gotten the drive and the people together to make a bid for the White House. I think they are of course all different from each other, in the ways that all people have difference in how they view the world and understand the world. At the same time, they are all the same Presidents and those who would be presidents, in that they strive for the highest seat in the land. They strive towards a goal and a vision that they have for America. I think the statement that you are voting for someone because they are different doesn't mean much in the end.
Fred Thompson Speaks | Redstate
Fred Thompson Speaks Redstate:
While I don't know if this is the best format for the American system of government, it is true that communication between the White House and Congress needs to be improved and something similar to this could serve to do that.
"Back in the U.S., we’re able to watch the House of Commons’ “Prime
Minister’s Question Time,” which Mr. Brown will now endure. I’ve thought that
America needed a weekly question and answer period between the President and
Congress. But in the past few months I’ve decided it isn’t such a good idea.
"
While I don't know if this is the best format for the American system of government, it is true that communication between the White House and Congress needs to be improved and something similar to this could serve to do that.
PoliPundit.com » “Illegals using fire to clear border”
PoliPundit.com » “Illegals using fire to clear border”:
Just one more reason that the immigration issue and border security need to be take care of. The solution to this is to force those in the country on to a real path to some sort of legal status. Follow that up by making it so that those who are just coming to look for work do not need to cross the border. Make getting a legal work visa in the US as easy as it can be, and allow anyone who wants to come here to work to do so. I understand that there are those who would want to cause us harm that would try to come into the country. Forcing them underground, or into the dessert doesn't mean they are not making their way into the country. Allow anyone who wants entry to go through a screening process, which would involve simple biometric data and assignment of some form of ID. Don't make it a ten year process, make it a two week process, in the end I think we will have more people coming through the proper channels, we will have more information about who is coming into the country. Those dessert paths will be abandoned to all but those who wish to avoid the formal system because they mean harm to America. With fewer of them crossing it will be easier to track and catch them.
"U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation’s border in some of the
country’s most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens,
who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts
and patrol routes.
The wildfires also have resulted in the destruction of
valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose
an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according
to federal law enforcement authorities and others."
Just one more reason that the immigration issue and border security need to be take care of. The solution to this is to force those in the country on to a real path to some sort of legal status. Follow that up by making it so that those who are just coming to look for work do not need to cross the border. Make getting a legal work visa in the US as easy as it can be, and allow anyone who wants to come here to work to do so. I understand that there are those who would want to cause us harm that would try to come into the country. Forcing them underground, or into the dessert doesn't mean they are not making their way into the country. Allow anyone who wants entry to go through a screening process, which would involve simple biometric data and assignment of some form of ID. Don't make it a ten year process, make it a two week process, in the end I think we will have more people coming through the proper channels, we will have more information about who is coming into the country. Those dessert paths will be abandoned to all but those who wish to avoid the formal system because they mean harm to America. With fewer of them crossing it will be easier to track and catch them.
FOXNews.com Rave Review Included In TV Ads for Michael Moore's 'Sicko' | NewsBusters.org
FOXNews.com Rave Review Included In TV Ads for Michael Moore's 'Sicko' NewsBusters.org:
I don't think that what Fox news has done as a network to news is make it more conservative. What I think it has done is made it more opinionated. That means that the anchors are stepping away from the observation and sharing aspect of the news a little, and stepping into a commentary role. I watch Fox News from time to time, and what I see when I watch it is that conservative views are shared and expressed by the hosts. However in at least some cases the host also expresses liberal views - mostly Alan Colmes, and the guests that are brought on to discuss the issues seem to be evenly split.
I think that activists on the left aren't used to hearing conservative ideas expressed through a news format and are reacting to this fact. Anchors on Fox are conservative for sure, like Bill O'Reilly - but I don't see the network as a whole as being conservative. Even Geraldo Rivera has taken a liberal stand on many issues, most famously on The Factor with Bill, when they had a shouting match about immigration.
"Sometimes, it’s a little tough for the Fox News-bashing left to stamp the Ailes
Network with the Uniformly Right-Wing complaint. For example, it’s not every day
that Fox News looks liberal on CNN. But I caught the new commercial for leftist
propagandist Michael Moore’s new mockumentary 'Sicko' on CNN late this morning.
One of three ecstatic reviewers in the TV ad is Roger Friedman of FOXNews.com
('Brilliant!')"
I don't think that what Fox news has done as a network to news is make it more conservative. What I think it has done is made it more opinionated. That means that the anchors are stepping away from the observation and sharing aspect of the news a little, and stepping into a commentary role. I watch Fox News from time to time, and what I see when I watch it is that conservative views are shared and expressed by the hosts. However in at least some cases the host also expresses liberal views - mostly Alan Colmes, and the guests that are brought on to discuss the issues seem to be evenly split.
I think that activists on the left aren't used to hearing conservative ideas expressed through a news format and are reacting to this fact. Anchors on Fox are conservative for sure, like Bill O'Reilly - but I don't see the network as a whole as being conservative. Even Geraldo Rivera has taken a liberal stand on many issues, most famously on The Factor with Bill, when they had a shouting match about immigration.
Michelle Malkin » Jimmy Carter said what? Part 999
Michelle Malkin » Jimmy Carter said what? Part 999:
Is he honestly trying to say that attempts to take power away from a gang of thugs that are ideologically driven to the destruction of Israel is criminal? Is he honestly saying by not arming a terrorist group that will not agree to a peaceful relations with its neighbors is criminal? The criminals are the terrorists of Hamas, I understand that parts of Hamas are not active in terror. It is not a choice of supporting Fatah and Hamas or just supporting Fatah. It is a choice of supporting Fatah, or doing nothing for the Palestinian people at all.
"The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of
favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening
conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said
Tuesday.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a
conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s
refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”"
Is he honestly trying to say that attempts to take power away from a gang of thugs that are ideologically driven to the destruction of Israel is criminal? Is he honestly saying by not arming a terrorist group that will not agree to a peaceful relations with its neighbors is criminal? The criminals are the terrorists of Hamas, I understand that parts of Hamas are not active in terror. It is not a choice of supporting Fatah and Hamas or just supporting Fatah. It is a choice of supporting Fatah, or doing nothing for the Palestinian people at all.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Jesus wants you to nationalize health care, says Moore
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Jesus wants you to nationalize health care, says Moore:
Moore looks to the part of the Bible where Jesus talk about how we have treated the lowest, saying that is how we have treated him. Jesus talks about asking why we did not feed him while he was hungry or visit him while he was in jail. Moore is confusing here individual morality and group morality. Creating a system where by the state takes care of peoples medical needs doesn't address a persons individual moral responsibility. It could be argued that it puts it off on the state.
I know that our system needs to be changed, I just don't like shallow logic. Moore is a committed anti-market activist and for that reason alone I question his ideas.
"I hate when those wingnuts drag religion into a political discussion.
Plus: bonus footage of Barbara giving “Sicko” two thumbs up and getting snotty
with guest host Star Parker!"
Moore looks to the part of the Bible where Jesus talk about how we have treated the lowest, saying that is how we have treated him. Jesus talks about asking why we did not feed him while he was hungry or visit him while he was in jail. Moore is confusing here individual morality and group morality. Creating a system where by the state takes care of peoples medical needs doesn't address a persons individual moral responsibility. It could be argued that it puts it off on the state.
I know that our system needs to be changed, I just don't like shallow logic. Moore is a committed anti-market activist and for that reason alone I question his ideas.
Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Failed States . . .
Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Failed States . . .:
One of the things that struck me when I read this is the thought about what good our efforts have been in the country of Iraq. It is a failed state now, and the supporters of the war use the argument, and I have made a point of saying, that the troops need to stay to prevent Iraq from falling into chaos and being a staging ground for terrorists. This falls apart though if it already is in chaos and a staging ground for terrorists, could the country really get the much worse.
I know that failed states are threats to our security because they give terrorists a base to operate from. That really is the main thought that I had reading this. There are many failed states in the world, we cannot and should not fix them all. Anyone of them could be a base for terrorists. Somalia a country that the republicans could wait for us to get out of during the Clinton administration is a base for terrorist for example. Creating democracy is a bold idea, sharing it with the world is a generous idea, but in the end i think that it isn't something the people of one country can give to another. They can inspire them, don't get me wrong, but that government of the people needs to be created by the people of that country not ours.
I still don't support an immediate pull out, but this is something to think about when we think about our role in Iraq and our role in the world.
"Iraq has emerged as the world’s second most unstable country, behind Sudan,
more than four years after President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion to
topple Saddam Hussein, according to a survey released on Monday.
The 2007
Failed States Index, produced by Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace,
said Iraq suffered a third straight year of deterioration in 2006 with
diminished results across a range of social, economic, political and military
indicators. Iraq ranked fourth last year.
Afghanistan, another war-torn
country where U.S. and NATO forces are battling a Taliban insurgency nearly six
years after a U.S.-led invasion, was in eighth place. . . .
The authors of
the index said one of the leading benchmarks for failed state status is the loss
of physical control of territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Other attributes include the erosion of legitimate authority, an inability
to provide reasonable public services and the inability to interact with other
states as a full member of the international community."
One of the things that struck me when I read this is the thought about what good our efforts have been in the country of Iraq. It is a failed state now, and the supporters of the war use the argument, and I have made a point of saying, that the troops need to stay to prevent Iraq from falling into chaos and being a staging ground for terrorists. This falls apart though if it already is in chaos and a staging ground for terrorists, could the country really get the much worse.
I know that failed states are threats to our security because they give terrorists a base to operate from. That really is the main thought that I had reading this. There are many failed states in the world, we cannot and should not fix them all. Anyone of them could be a base for terrorists. Somalia a country that the republicans could wait for us to get out of during the Clinton administration is a base for terrorist for example. Creating democracy is a bold idea, sharing it with the world is a generous idea, but in the end i think that it isn't something the people of one country can give to another. They can inspire them, don't get me wrong, but that government of the people needs to be created by the people of that country not ours.
I still don't support an immediate pull out, but this is something to think about when we think about our role in Iraq and our role in the world.
Wikipedia Meet Conservapedia | Air America Radio
Wikipedia Meet Conservapedia Air America Radio:
This is a real puzzle to me, the same with the talk about YouTube being liberal. I think that what the real concern in both of these questions is that they show both sides. Wiki is a website that is open source and anyone can add to or edit an entry. However if I were to change an entry in Wiki to what it says in the conservative version it would probably be changed. Not because the site has a liberal bias, but because that definition is clearly twisted, and false. One could argue that that is the effect of a higher minimum wage, but it is not an honest definition of it.
"Frustrated with the “liberal” bias of the popular Wikipedia, teacher, Andy
Schlafly has taken his frustration and created the conservative answer to that:
conservapedia.com. Conservapedia refers to terms, such as: “hike in minimum
wage” as 'a controversial manoeuvre that increases the incentive for young
people to drop out of school.'"
This is a real puzzle to me, the same with the talk about YouTube being liberal. I think that what the real concern in both of these questions is that they show both sides. Wiki is a website that is open source and anyone can add to or edit an entry. However if I were to change an entry in Wiki to what it says in the conservative version it would probably be changed. Not because the site has a liberal bias, but because that definition is clearly twisted, and false. One could argue that that is the effect of a higher minimum wage, but it is not an honest definition of it.
So Why Can't The Senate Do It?
Captain's Quarters: So Why Can't The Senate Do It?
While I understand the desire to have one bill that will address all of the immigration problems that need to be dealt with, I don't know if that can be done. I think there is some logic in working out what can get through congress in smaller bills, and working towards the harder issues for compromise. I think that if security issues, which everyone agrees on, are dealt with first, it will make the other issues easier. I think the main thing that is hold back those on the right is that they don't believe that the security issues will ever be dealt with. If those fears are addressed, and congress can take action that will earn the trust of the American people on this issue than I think both sides will be more willing to sit down at the table and talk about the problem of what to do with the people who are here.
"House Democrats say they may break the immigration issue up into a series
of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass,
such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have
clear support.
That could buy Democrats more time to work out the tougher
aspects of immigration, such as what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20
million illegal aliens now here, but it would go against the Senate's massive
catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for a broad bill to
pass. ..."
While I understand the desire to have one bill that will address all of the immigration problems that need to be dealt with, I don't know if that can be done. I think there is some logic in working out what can get through congress in smaller bills, and working towards the harder issues for compromise. I think that if security issues, which everyone agrees on, are dealt with first, it will make the other issues easier. I think the main thing that is hold back those on the right is that they don't believe that the security issues will ever be dealt with. If those fears are addressed, and congress can take action that will earn the trust of the American people on this issue than I think both sides will be more willing to sit down at the table and talk about the problem of what to do with the people who are here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
