 |
| Yeah, shoot a couple rounds through the door... |
 |
| I used to think that McCain was a decent pol, now I think he's just a RINO |
 |
| Especially Polosi |
Monday, March 11, 2013
This is why I don't trust Snopes for political verifcation: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/. I also tend to check out some of the other political fact-check sites.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
What this is all about, more or less
"Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has one and they all stink."
In case you don't know me, I'm a card-carrying, life-member of the NRA. I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual's right not the right of government to dictate who has the right to own firearms.
I am not pro-Obama but I do not either identify myself with the Republicans. I'm more of a Libertarian in my political leanings. I am staunchly independent and I disagree with some of each of the prevailing parties.
I'm going to use this platform to 'preserve' some of my views and obviously valuable opinions for as long as the internet lasts.
I am of the opinion that it is only a woman's and her chosen doctor's right to determine if a pregnancy needs to be terminated. I would hope that my relationship was strong enough that if it were my SO or daughter that my input would be consulted.
I could care less about same-sex marriages. Except for the glee that it would no longer be easy for 'those' couples to split up and they'd have to fatten lawyer's coffers like 'regular' married people have had to do for so many years. In point of fact, I do think it would be a much better situation as someone with a legal partner could provide more support and help make decisions when emergency situations arise. I also think that insurance companies, etc. should not be allowed to treat 'those' couples any differently than 'regular' couples.
I am a strong supporter of the U.S. military personnel and thankful for the jobs they do. I wish that I had served but I'm proud that my son is. It's a long story.
I believe that the government should live within its means without going back to the taxpayer again and again. Corporations do not pay their fair share. I propose that business tax should be flat based on all income by a company with no deductions for anything. If a business cannot run without special handouts, and tax breaks are a taxpayer handout, then it has no business surviving. Corporations and businesses should have NONE of the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As has been said elsewhere, "I'll believe that a company should have rights after Texas has executed one."
One of my favorite blogs is this one: http://timbryce.com/. His observations resonate with my values.
In case you don't know me, I'm a card-carrying, life-member of the NRA. I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual's right not the right of government to dictate who has the right to own firearms.
I am not pro-Obama but I do not either identify myself with the Republicans. I'm more of a Libertarian in my political leanings. I am staunchly independent and I disagree with some of each of the prevailing parties.
I'm going to use this platform to 'preserve' some of my views and obviously valuable opinions for as long as the internet lasts.
I am of the opinion that it is only a woman's and her chosen doctor's right to determine if a pregnancy needs to be terminated. I would hope that my relationship was strong enough that if it were my SO or daughter that my input would be consulted.
I could care less about same-sex marriages. Except for the glee that it would no longer be easy for 'those' couples to split up and they'd have to fatten lawyer's coffers like 'regular' married people have had to do for so many years. In point of fact, I do think it would be a much better situation as someone with a legal partner could provide more support and help make decisions when emergency situations arise. I also think that insurance companies, etc. should not be allowed to treat 'those' couples any differently than 'regular' couples.
I am a strong supporter of the U.S. military personnel and thankful for the jobs they do. I wish that I had served but I'm proud that my son is. It's a long story.
I believe that the government should live within its means without going back to the taxpayer again and again. Corporations do not pay their fair share. I propose that business tax should be flat based on all income by a company with no deductions for anything. If a business cannot run without special handouts, and tax breaks are a taxpayer handout, then it has no business surviving. Corporations and businesses should have NONE of the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As has been said elsewhere, "I'll believe that a company should have rights after Texas has executed one."
One of my favorite blogs is this one: http://timbryce.com/. His observations resonate with my values.
The worst among us...
Anyone else think that Congress and the President are the irresponsible ones for taking the weekend off instead of working to stop the 'sequester' (story here: http://goo.gl/D9TW0) which Obama thought was such a good idea when he suggested it but now feels that it was all a heinous GOP plot and is racist?
I think it's really time to start term limits. President for only one term, Senate for two terms, Representative for six terms with a maximum of 12 years combined in congress. What do you all think? While we're at it let's limit campaigns to no more than 6 months including all primaries. We have got to start getting these rich, power-crazed people out of politics. Once someone has served in federal office, including appointments to leadership positions, that individual should be under a lifetime ban from all lobbying efforts or work of any kind.
As for lawmaking, I propose Heinlein's idea be adopted. No law should be allowed to pass unless it has a 2/3 majority support. Any law should be struck down with only 1/3 minority of the vote. The reason being that any law that is not seen as an improvement by 1/3 probably isn't good enough anyway. I'd go a step further and not allow any riders to any bill. If a bill isn't strong enough on it's own to pass then it has no right being a law. That would certainly stop the pork-barrel politicos in their tracks.
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself…” ~ Samuel Clemens
I think it's really time to start term limits. President for only one term, Senate for two terms, Representative for six terms with a maximum of 12 years combined in congress. What do you all think? While we're at it let's limit campaigns to no more than 6 months including all primaries. We have got to start getting these rich, power-crazed people out of politics. Once someone has served in federal office, including appointments to leadership positions, that individual should be under a lifetime ban from all lobbying efforts or work of any kind.
As for lawmaking, I propose Heinlein's idea be adopted. No law should be allowed to pass unless it has a 2/3 majority support. Any law should be struck down with only 1/3 minority of the vote. The reason being that any law that is not seen as an improvement by 1/3 probably isn't good enough anyway. I'd go a step further and not allow any riders to any bill. If a bill isn't strong enough on it's own to pass then it has no right being a law. That would certainly stop the pork-barrel politicos in their tracks.
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself…” ~ Samuel Clemens
Not good at math...
Before I begin, my sincere apologies to any of my GLB friends who might be offended; this is a comparison not an attack. I certainly do support the legality of same-sex marriages (after all, why should only heterosexuals have to experience divorce).
Why is it that the current administration seems to think that the U.S. Constitution gives a small group of people rights but not a large group of people? A recent story (1 below) is about how a particular law (passed apparently legally) violates the highest law of the land even though the concept is not even quoted in the Bill of Rights. However, the Democrats are assailing the rights granted by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which specifically provides rights to the people.
By current estimates there are around 132 million gun owners in America [2] while there are about 31 million GLBs [3]. So, what reasoning could possibly dictate that a group of 132 million is a fringe group of ‘gun nuts’ while a segment of one quarter that number must have specific rights granted to it that are NOT in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What is wrong with our current government that this is even a question?
1. Story http://goo.gl/0vTWm
2. Number of U.S. gun owners (est.) http://goo.gl/9DBM1
3. Number of U.S. GLB’s (est.) http://goo.gl/03PxR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)