Via Hot Air:
“I’m just hoping that whatever is in the White House next year is a Republican. I can’t bear to watch what’s happened to our great country. Everybody’s got their head in the sand. Everybody in the industry is like, ‘Oh, Obama’s doing such a great job…’ I don’t think so. Not from what I see.My friends, let me present you the prominent Republican and former heroin addict who made these statements:
“Looking at the Republican candidates, I’ve got to tell you, I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney’s five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money? So there’s some questions there. And watching Newt Gingrich, I was pretty excited for a while, but now he’s just gone back to being that person that everybody said he was – that angry little man. I still like him, but I don’t think I’d vote for him.
“Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it’s inert gases, but it’s the two percent that’s left that will kill you. What that means is that he’ll make total sense for a while, and then he’ll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we’re like the Taliban… I’m sorry, Congressman Paul, but I’m nothing like the Taliban.
“Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable. Also, just watching how he hasn’t gotten into doing these horrible, horrible attack ads like Mitt Romney’s done against Newt Gingrich, and then the volume at which Newt has gone back at Romney… You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I’m hoping that if it does come down to it, we’ll see a Republican in the White House… and that it’s Rick Santorum.”
Dave Mustaine, co-founder of Metallica and leader of Megadeth looks like an angry white male to me, which I guess most metal-heads are, so, his views can be discounted by the elites of our great nation.
And here is a video of Megadeth at their rip-roaring best. Great drummer and Mustaine is a great guitarist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm175LWTka0
I am not going to argue here for Santorum. Just to point out that prominent metal monsters are for Santorum. Sorry Paulbots, but Dave echoes my view of Ron Paul. All remaining Republican candidates have serious warts to go along with their good points. I'll go along with whomever is nominated. Dave just settled whom that will be.
I wonder why a heavy metal guy would vote for Santorum.
ReplyDeleteDave Mustaine said "I’m just hoping that whatever is in the White House next year is a Republican." I wonder if that means a republican in name only or a real conservative.
Santorum is the guy I am voting for. I can vote for Paul, Santorum, and maybe very begrudging for Newt. For Romney, I don't vote for socialist even if they are running under the conservative banner and the other option is a bigger socialist. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. I guess for some Republican voters, the name of the candidate's party is all that counts. I have family members that vote this way, simply by party affiliation. If republican voters nominate a socialist, then we deserve what is coming.
I regards to the picture above, I think the republican establishment and the ruling class are giving the American people and republican voters the finger and a smirk. They are laughing at Americans who think they are being presented with a choice in this election and the republican voters who are having Romney shoved down their throats by the establishment.
ReplyDelete"The US Congress has passed a bill which approves government’s deployment of up to 30,000 spy drones in the country’s airspace by 2020, raising serious concerns about the ensuing privacy infringement."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.presstv.ir/detail/226010.html
"According to the latest news from our bureaucrats in Washington, agents answerable to the U.S. Department of Agriculture will now be inspecting parent-prepared lunch boxes to make sure that children are being fed a lunch in their schools in compliance with government standards. If the parent’s lunch is rejected, the child will be required to eat what the school cafeteria deems appropriate and pay for it.
In a case reported in North Carolina and commented on by Rush Limbaugh, a parent was told by the Fed Food Police that the lunch she had prepared for her daughter was not in compliance with federal guidelines, which apparently now have the power of law. Instead the child was given three chicken nuggets by the school cafeteria."
http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/10881-fed-agents-now-monitor-school-lunches
Keep voting for people that support making the government bigger and they'll keep finding ways to take away your civil liberties.
Glenn Beck did a show on this http://www.theblaze.com/stories/say-hello-to-1984-beck-talks-frightening-new-world-of-big-brother-technology/
ReplyDeleteI think that developments like the spy drone issue are being movtivated by advances in technology and not by the designs of the government to controll people. Although I do think that this will be the end result of these developments and future economic and social cohesion issues.
"Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over
the direction in which it is going." http://mises.org/books/roadahead.pdf
I hate to sound like a defeatist, but I think that stuff like this is going to continue to happen no matter what happens. People simply don't care enough to stop it, and economic and social cohesion issues will force the government to have to spy and control people to an extent in the future. I just assume that what I browse on the internet, my text messages, my emails, my phone conversations are able to be viewed by anyone. I also assume that my movements can be tracked by using my phone and my actual conversations that I have in private are able to be intercepted by using my phone. Do I think that people actually are, no. But the capability does exist for people to. Do I really care, not really.
The lost of privacy and personal liberity is going to continue to be eroded no matter how much we complain about it. This is part of the inevitable trend and cycle that has persisted throughout human history: tyranny, oppression, and slavery. America and this level of freedom and economic prosperity is a blip on the timeline of human history and a freak of nature --like a naked fat lady all of a sudden running through the wall at slapping you in the face and running through the other wall. Only 5% of mankind has lived under anything that we would consider freedom. So enjoy it while it last. The question is do you know what developments like this lost of privacy that you point out are leading up to and how to deal with it and prosper in the new enviroment that is headed our way? Or are you stuck in fallacy of recency bias and just assume things will continue the way they have over the short course of lives.
Something I stumbled upon two weeks ago that I found interesting about the past decade.
ReplyDelete"The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present.
On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:
"A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 to the present(Obama just signed this recently).
.....It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example, according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy:
"Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress."
How can a decade pass and congress still not know the details of the "administrations" plans on such a vital matter. The spirit of a Continuity of Government plan is good for reasons like 9/11. But how long will it be implemented, permanently?
Here are some situations from the blog, possible under this new plan...
What would things look like if the COG plans were already being implemented?
Top leaders of the “new government” called for in the COG would entirely or largely go into hiding, and would govern in hidden locations
Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what was happening
Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums
The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government
A lot of Paul's comments about "being like the Taliban" are taken out of their context. I would like to hear the entire dialogue of his conversation. Paul loves this country and he believes in American Exceptionalism.
ReplyDelete"98% of what he says is good but the 2% will kill you." Are you saying that any other candidate is 99% on point? Gingrich is a joke, Romney's health care issue is too burdensome, and Santorum is a social nightmare. All three of these jokers have way more than 2% of baggage.
Paul is what this country needs and he gives the GOP the best chance at winning this. Paul would steal independents from Obama and the conservative base would have to vote for him.
I would like to see Gingrich debate Obama. I think that would be very fun to watch.
ReplyDeleteRomney is a conservative in the sense that he will conserve the welfare state and socialism.
I like Santorum the best.
What is up with Paul not attacking Romney? I read there was some truce between the two campaigns. Romney is the least conservative of the candidates, but I haven't heard an attack by Paul on Romney. Paul should be focusing his attacks on Romney.
Santorum will not do the domestic government downsizing that is necessary to prevent your fears.
ReplyDeleteThe Paul Romney alliance is a hollow issue. The reason is one of two things or both. They are personal friends (which we should not be worried about) and they have a strategic alliance (this could be a tactical decision for both parties). I don't think it is a big deal either way. It is funny that the alliance is getting more headlines than Paul ever gets. The only time mainstream media wants to talk about Paul is when it is bad.
He's had some ads of Romney but what I believe his strategy is to make it a two man race Romney - Paul. So the quicker he can attack/eliminate Ging/Sant out of the race the better it would be for him.
ReplyDeleteThis year it seems to be Romney and non-Romney. If you do a circle chart it would be about 40% - 60% respectively (not accurate numbers). So for all the voters out there that want to vote for their (R) but don't want Romney it would be a nice demographic to go after from a campaign perspective.
Stay Frothy
It's the lesser of the evils this year:
ReplyDeleteRomney - Continues to say maddeningly non-conservative things (along with some good things), and of course developed the template for Obamacare. Perceived to be acceptable to the Mushy Middle.
Santorum - Too much of a social conservative for a chance in a general election, was not overly fiscally conservative when a Pennsylvania senator, but certainly espouses conservative values now, and is staunchly American in foreign policy
Paul - Old school (pre-WWII) Republican isolationist a la Pat Buchanan. Deplores America sticking up for its interests overseas. But domestically/economically spot on right. Possibly hypocritical regarding deploring federal pork while at the same time sucking it up for constituents.
Gingrich - Morally ambiguous, loose cannon, and poor image. But awesome debater, seeming to be the best one of the bunch for taking it to Obama. Authored and pushed through the Contract with American in the Clinton administration. The most successful post WWII conservative political accomplishment.
Does "sticking up for interests overseas" strictly mean going to war with bad guys?
ReplyDeleteYou realize that we lost these wars right? Afghanistan is up in arms right now over the Koran burning incident and Iraq is bloodier than ever. We'll end up eventually leaving Afghanistan and it will be the same shit hole that it was when we first arrived. Sure, we'll have killed a lot of scumbags, but we could have done that with strategic strikes and had minimal American casualties. I think Paul would have done some military strikes after 911, but he would never have occupied. We have lost thousands of lives. I want to know why. I want to know what good this sort of interventionism has done. Why do you slam him for not wanting sustain a shitty policy?
Events in the Middle East are not leading to anything good for America. I think there is a possiblity of a much larger war ocurring over there. Our military is rottening away from the inside with social experiments, politcal correctness, and driving God out of the military. I now view those wars as lost.
ReplyDeleteThis Paul Romney alliance is a blot in Paul's small government image.
At the end of the day, American's have no real choice in the direction the country is headed.
ToeJamm, because they're not shitty policies. They're the right thing to do. Again, just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Just because something doesn't work out right, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.
ReplyDeleteTo get Saddam, we needed to go in big. Period. You can argue about the wisdom of nation-building in the aftermath, but not the wisdom of going in. And we did need to get Saddam.
Same with Afghanistan after 9/11.
Though it probably is time to pull out of Afghanistan.
I don't think there is any reason to say that occupying these countries is or was the right thing to do. Strategic strikes would have been sufficient. We had videos of the locations of where we thought the WMD's were held. So we should have bombed them. I think you are choking on your pride.
ReplyDeletePaul would punish people who threaten America.