Arlen Specter has become the latest Republican to jump ship over the change in the party in the last several years. Suddenly, he has gone from being a Republican to being a Democrat.
Really?
And the Dems just welcomed him like the prodigal son.
REEEEEEEEallly.
Look, guys... I understand that the party has let you down. Really I do. As an independent, I have not been able to vote Republican with a clear conscience in about fifteen years. And as I wrote in an earlier post, the party seems determined to move farther to the right instead of booting the snake-handlers and coming back toward the center. But the solution to this is NOT to switch from one of the extreme parties to the other.
There's a lot that I like about Joe Lieberman. One of these things is that, when he felt as though his party (the Democrats) was moving in a direction that he didn't want to go, he left the party. But he didn't switch sides. Recognizing that the Republicans would be even further from what he wanted than the new Dems.
So here's my advice to moderate Republicans... don't switch to the Democrats or simply surrender your seat as some have. Instead, get together and form a NEW party – one that is more in line with what you (and I) believe that the Republican party SHOULD stand for. Or, like Bob Barr, follow your heart into the Libertarian party.
One of the reasons that this move by Specter... well... pisses me off is because I have tried for years to convince non-voters that there ARE differences between the parties. This was especially difficult under Bill Clinton, the most Republican president that we've ever had who was supposedly a Democrat. President Clinton was so far up big business' ass that he could see out of their eyes. And now all of this boat-jumping by Republicans has really served to undermine that. Frankly, it makes me question my own belief that there is any difference between the two parties. Maybe the time has come to just end the partisan system altogether. If it's so easy for these (I guess) “former” Republicans to switch to the Democratic side without feeling as if they're betraying their core beliefs, then there really ARE no differences between the parties.
Peace.
Randal
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Good at Heart
“In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good at heart.”
Every time that I hear that, I get choked up. EVERY TIME. Every time that I hear it, say it, write it, think it, I get choked up. EVERY TIME.
For those who don't know, this is the last line from Anne Frank's diary. Again, for those unfamiliar with the story, Anne Frank was a Jewish girl whose family was hidden in an attic from the Nazis for three years. They ate when the family downstairs could bring them food. They had to be motionless when a Nazi entered the house until the Nazi left. This little girl survived difficulties that most of us can't imagine... and yet... the last entry in her diary before the Nazis took her away and gassed her was “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good at heart.”
That's Christlike forgiveness, folks. That's like Christ on the cross saying “Forgive them father... they know not what they do.”
So why am I bringing this up? Because I want to remember it in my daily life. Whenever I hear people on opposite sides of a political issue insulting and belittling each other, I want to remember that both of these people are basically good at heart. When I hear a religious fanatic wishing Hell on one of their gay brothers or lesbian sisters, I want to remember that people are basically good at heart.
And it's tough.
I'm not even going to pretend that it's easy to do that.
Imagine...
Hitler was basically good at heart.
Osama Bin Laden is basically good at heart.
My ex-wife is basically good at heart. (That one is, perhaps, the hardest for me to type and believe... I can feel my left eyebrow lifting in sarcastic disbelief even as I write it.)
So what does this mean to me?
Well, as Christian, it means truly trying to practice the things that Christ taught us. Loving one another. Forgiving one another. Remembering that everyone is basically (say it with me) GOOD AT HEART.
So what brings this to mind for me? Well, again the other day I heard a conservative of my acquaintance defending America's lack of universal health care. This person calls himself a fundamentalist Christian, and somehow can STILL with a straight face argue against caring for his brothers and sisters.
This does not seem very good at heart to me.
This seems very, very BLACK of heart, as a matter of fact,.
So it's tough for me to reconcile this with the idea that everyone is basically good at heart.
Don't really have any final, Zen message for you here about how i've come to a massively greater understanding of my brothers and sisters or the secret to forgiving and loving one another... aside from just DOING it.
So I guess that I end with a request to any who read this. If you can reconcile refusing health care to the very people that Christ commanded that we care for, or denying our gay brothers and lesbian sisters the right to marry, please... drop that as a comment because I really do want to learn to do this.
And, as always...
Peace.
Randal
Every time that I hear that, I get choked up. EVERY TIME. Every time that I hear it, say it, write it, think it, I get choked up. EVERY TIME.
For those who don't know, this is the last line from Anne Frank's diary. Again, for those unfamiliar with the story, Anne Frank was a Jewish girl whose family was hidden in an attic from the Nazis for three years. They ate when the family downstairs could bring them food. They had to be motionless when a Nazi entered the house until the Nazi left. This little girl survived difficulties that most of us can't imagine... and yet... the last entry in her diary before the Nazis took her away and gassed her was “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good at heart.”
That's Christlike forgiveness, folks. That's like Christ on the cross saying “Forgive them father... they know not what they do.”
So why am I bringing this up? Because I want to remember it in my daily life. Whenever I hear people on opposite sides of a political issue insulting and belittling each other, I want to remember that both of these people are basically good at heart. When I hear a religious fanatic wishing Hell on one of their gay brothers or lesbian sisters, I want to remember that people are basically good at heart.
And it's tough.
I'm not even going to pretend that it's easy to do that.
Imagine...
Hitler was basically good at heart.
Osama Bin Laden is basically good at heart.
My ex-wife is basically good at heart. (That one is, perhaps, the hardest for me to type and believe... I can feel my left eyebrow lifting in sarcastic disbelief even as I write it.)
So what does this mean to me?
Well, as Christian, it means truly trying to practice the things that Christ taught us. Loving one another. Forgiving one another. Remembering that everyone is basically (say it with me) GOOD AT HEART.
So what brings this to mind for me? Well, again the other day I heard a conservative of my acquaintance defending America's lack of universal health care. This person calls himself a fundamentalist Christian, and somehow can STILL with a straight face argue against caring for his brothers and sisters.
This does not seem very good at heart to me.
This seems very, very BLACK of heart, as a matter of fact,.
So it's tough for me to reconcile this with the idea that everyone is basically good at heart.
Don't really have any final, Zen message for you here about how i've come to a massively greater understanding of my brothers and sisters or the secret to forgiving and loving one another... aside from just DOING it.
So I guess that I end with a request to any who read this. If you can reconcile refusing health care to the very people that Christ commanded that we care for, or denying our gay brothers and lesbian sisters the right to marry, please... drop that as a comment because I really do want to learn to do this.
And, as always...
Peace.
Randal
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Dear President Obama...
Letter e-mailed to the White House at 10:21 PM on April 21, 2009
Dear President Obama,
You don’t know me, of course, but my name is Randal Schaffer and I am a resident of Washington state by way of Arkansas and Alaska.
The first thing that I’d like to say here is that, not only did I vote for you, but I lobbied for your election both during the primary and during the general election. A 40 year old friend of mine who voted for the first time in her life in the 2008 general election voted for you (she gives me a lot of credit for this) and was moved almost to tears when you were elected.
The reason that I’m writing this letter is because I’m concerned about the direction that your administration is headed in these first not-quite hundred days. I would like to express some specific concerns that I have.
First off is the war in Iraq. The thing that probably cemented my support for you was your insistence on keeping the war in the forefront of the election, even to the extent of questioning the wisdom of having entered into this war to begin with. I was pleased beyond pleased when you said that you would release the Guantanamo detainees. Since then, absolutely no progress seems to have been made on this front aside from “re-branding” the war. If we learned nothing else from the debacles in Viet Nam and Korea, Mr. President, we learned that calling a war anything other than “a war” is disrespectful to the men and women who die and a serious tactical mistake. I beg you to take rapid and radical action to remove our young men and women from harm’s way and stop wasting our treasure in this misadventure.
Speaking of the Guantanamo detainees, I must say that I was heart-broken when I saw the press conference where you defended the denial of habeas corpus to the detainees. Surely you realize, as a Constitutional scholar, that the Constitution only allows two instances where a president may do this: insurrection and invasion. Neither of these qualifications have been met. I strongly urge you to reconsider this position.
The final point that I’d like to make is the continued financial bail-outs of American businesses. I realize that uninformed people try to paint you as a socialist on this issue, but I would disagree. If you were a socialist, we would take control of the businesses that we bail out and actually get something BACK for the money that we give to them. As it stands now, the hemorrhaging of our treasure begun by the previous administration seems to be continuing boldly under yours.
Finally, please allow me to say that I realize that your administration has barely begun, and that there are at least another three and three quarters years to fix some of these problems. But I believe that the sooner that you get to work on them, the sooner progress will be made.
The republicans attempted to paint you as a dangerous radical during the election. I humbly ask, Mr. President, that you BE a dangerous radical! Like Jesus, come to us bearing an axe. Come to us ready to kill ANY bill, including stimulus bills and military appropriations that bear even a whiff of pork. Allow any business that fails on it’s own terms to FAIL. (Having said that, I understand the importance of propping up the banks, but even that “aid” should be of very short duration and with an extremely long list of demands and requirements attached to it.)
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter (or thank you to whichever of his aids read it).
Although leery, I still have confidence in your ability to lead our country into a better tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Randal Schaffer
Dear President Obama,
You don’t know me, of course, but my name is Randal Schaffer and I am a resident of Washington state by way of Arkansas and Alaska.
The first thing that I’d like to say here is that, not only did I vote for you, but I lobbied for your election both during the primary and during the general election. A 40 year old friend of mine who voted for the first time in her life in the 2008 general election voted for you (she gives me a lot of credit for this) and was moved almost to tears when you were elected.
The reason that I’m writing this letter is because I’m concerned about the direction that your administration is headed in these first not-quite hundred days. I would like to express some specific concerns that I have.
First off is the war in Iraq. The thing that probably cemented my support for you was your insistence on keeping the war in the forefront of the election, even to the extent of questioning the wisdom of having entered into this war to begin with. I was pleased beyond pleased when you said that you would release the Guantanamo detainees. Since then, absolutely no progress seems to have been made on this front aside from “re-branding” the war. If we learned nothing else from the debacles in Viet Nam and Korea, Mr. President, we learned that calling a war anything other than “a war” is disrespectful to the men and women who die and a serious tactical mistake. I beg you to take rapid and radical action to remove our young men and women from harm’s way and stop wasting our treasure in this misadventure.
Speaking of the Guantanamo detainees, I must say that I was heart-broken when I saw the press conference where you defended the denial of habeas corpus to the detainees. Surely you realize, as a Constitutional scholar, that the Constitution only allows two instances where a president may do this: insurrection and invasion. Neither of these qualifications have been met. I strongly urge you to reconsider this position.
The final point that I’d like to make is the continued financial bail-outs of American businesses. I realize that uninformed people try to paint you as a socialist on this issue, but I would disagree. If you were a socialist, we would take control of the businesses that we bail out and actually get something BACK for the money that we give to them. As it stands now, the hemorrhaging of our treasure begun by the previous administration seems to be continuing boldly under yours.
Finally, please allow me to say that I realize that your administration has barely begun, and that there are at least another three and three quarters years to fix some of these problems. But I believe that the sooner that you get to work on them, the sooner progress will be made.
The republicans attempted to paint you as a dangerous radical during the election. I humbly ask, Mr. President, that you BE a dangerous radical! Like Jesus, come to us bearing an axe. Come to us ready to kill ANY bill, including stimulus bills and military appropriations that bear even a whiff of pork. Allow any business that fails on it’s own terms to FAIL. (Having said that, I understand the importance of propping up the banks, but even that “aid” should be of very short duration and with an extremely long list of demands and requirements attached to it.)
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter (or thank you to whichever of his aids read it).
Although leery, I still have confidence in your ability to lead our country into a better tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Randal Schaffer
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
What Our Kids Want
What our kids what from us is boundaries. When a kid misbehaves, it’s not because they like misbehaving, or because they are “bad” kids, it means that they want us to tell them that it’s not acceptable, and WHY it’s not acceptable. They want us to tell them “NO”.
This is how we raise our kids to be civilized human beings rather than barbarians. I love something that Whoopi Goldberg said. She is of a generation halfway between my parents and myself. She said that her generation raised their kids to be free, not to bow to what others want simply because they are “supposed to”. And they, in turn, raised a generation of MONSTERS. Although this is obviously not entirely true, the point is made. And it goes for my generation, whose kids are now grown, as well. We grew up resenting discipline, and so are afraid to discipline our kids.
And no, by “discipline”, I do not mean spanking. Let me say this utterly clearly… even knowing that I sometimes spanked my kids… SPANKING DOES NOT WORK! The reason that I say that is that when I look back on my childhood, I realize that spanking did not teach me right from wrong. It taught me NOT TO GET CAUGHT. If I get caught, I get spanked, therefore I learned to be more cunning, sneakier. I still did the things that I wanted to do, I just got better at not getting caught.
By discipline, I mean truly teaching our kids right from wrong. What the parenting classes call “logical consequences”. If you do A, then B will happen, and B is an undesireable outcome. If B = spanking, then what happens when the kid grows up and there is no one to spank them?
You know, I had something else to say here, but I’ll be darned if I can remember what it was. I’ll add it when I remember it.
Peace.
Randal
This is how we raise our kids to be civilized human beings rather than barbarians. I love something that Whoopi Goldberg said. She is of a generation halfway between my parents and myself. She said that her generation raised their kids to be free, not to bow to what others want simply because they are “supposed to”. And they, in turn, raised a generation of MONSTERS. Although this is obviously not entirely true, the point is made. And it goes for my generation, whose kids are now grown, as well. We grew up resenting discipline, and so are afraid to discipline our kids.
And no, by “discipline”, I do not mean spanking. Let me say this utterly clearly… even knowing that I sometimes spanked my kids… SPANKING DOES NOT WORK! The reason that I say that is that when I look back on my childhood, I realize that spanking did not teach me right from wrong. It taught me NOT TO GET CAUGHT. If I get caught, I get spanked, therefore I learned to be more cunning, sneakier. I still did the things that I wanted to do, I just got better at not getting caught.
By discipline, I mean truly teaching our kids right from wrong. What the parenting classes call “logical consequences”. If you do A, then B will happen, and B is an undesireable outcome. If B = spanking, then what happens when the kid grows up and there is no one to spank them?
You know, I had something else to say here, but I’ll be darned if I can remember what it was. I’ll add it when I remember it.
Peace.
Randal
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Destroying Arguments
Okay, let’s see if I can destroy the anti-gay marriage arguments once and for all. It’s all balderdash, and I’m tired of hearing it.
1) GOD HATES FAGS
Let me make this simple for you… “Congress shall make NO LAW either respecting or restricting the free practice of religion.” If I believe that God has put me with my partner, regardless of that person’s sex, then you are restricting my free practice of religion by not letting me marry them.
Not only that, but by making this law, Congress would be RESPECTING your religion over my freedom.
Can’t do it. Unconstitutional. Next.
2) SEX AND MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ABOUT REPRODUCTION, AND GAY COUPLES CAN’T, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, REPRODUCE
Okay, if that’s the case, then why is it still legal for me to marry? I had a vasectomy shortly after (and partly in celebration of) my divorce. Why is it legal for elderly women, way past menopause to marry? And if the above statement is true, then why does God choose to let some people be born STERILE? They can’t ever reproduce, their entire lives. Did God mean to deprive them not only of marriage, but of his gift of sexual pleasure entirely?
Makes no sense unless you bar ANYONE incapable of reproduction from marrying. Next.
3) GAY MARRIAGE THREATENS HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
You know, I never understood this argument. I STILL don’t understand this argument. The only time that gay marriage would threaten your heterosexual marriage is if one of you are gay. If that’s the case, then your marriage is a sham anyway.
Also, you know what REALLY threatens heterosexual marriage? Being an ARKANSAN. My home state, right in the “heartland”, in what Sarah Palin drunkenly refers to as the REAL America, leads the country in divorce. If the defense of marriage people are really that concerned about heterosexual marriage, maybe they should be trying to outlaw divorce. Or simply disband the state of Arkansas.
Makes no sense unless you or your spouse are gay, which opens an entirely nother discussion. Next.
4) THIS WOULD REQUIRE A REDIFINITION OF MARRIAGE
Yeah.
So?
How many times has marriage been redefined? Let’s start in Biblical days when marriage was a sacred bond between a forty year old man and one or more thirteen year old girls, arranged through her parents in exchange for a “bride price”… in other words, husbands more or less BOUGHT their wives. Many times, the terrified little girl in question never even knew her husband more than socially if at all. There was no courting. We don’t do this anymore. Redefined once.
Then it was against the law to marry anyone outside your family. Several retarded generations later, this was changed. Redefined twice.
Prior to the civil war in America, “marriages” among slaves were common. But these marriages could be torn asunder by the master, who often continued to have sex with the slave girl even after her “marriage”. BIG redefinition of marriage. By so-called “Christians” of all people.
Through (I believe) the 1930’s in America, it was illegal for Christians to marry Jews. This is no longer the case. Redefined four times.
Through the 1950’s in America, it was illegal for black people and white people to marry. This is no longer the case. Redefined five times.
Do you see what I’m getting at here? Marriage, like about everything else, is an evolving and changing concept. It has never been locked into one definition for very long and that will continue to be the case. Next.
5) IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR MULTIPLE MARRIAGES
Yeah.
So?
Separate argument. We all know that the bigger a community is, the better it generally functions. We all know that kids are better raised with a group of viewpoints than only one or two.
You want to argue against multiple marriage? Do it. It has no bearing on the gay marriage issue. As a matter of fact, I’m thinking of trying to get several women to marry me just so that we can open up this can of worms. Next.
6) THE RICK (THE PRICK) SANTORUM ARGUMENT: DOGS WOULD MARRY CATS AND PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO MARRY THEIR PET SNAKES
Really, Rick?
You’ve got years of tradition and hellfire itself at your disposal, and the best that you can do is bestiality?
Animals can’t enter into contracts, people. Marriage is a contract. Therefore, animals cannot be married, dumb ass.
Okay, now that I have (rather magnificently, I think) shot down all of those balderdash arguments, anyone have any others?
Peace.
Randal
1) GOD HATES FAGS
Let me make this simple for you… “Congress shall make NO LAW either respecting or restricting the free practice of religion.” If I believe that God has put me with my partner, regardless of that person’s sex, then you are restricting my free practice of religion by not letting me marry them.
Not only that, but by making this law, Congress would be RESPECTING your religion over my freedom.
Can’t do it. Unconstitutional. Next.
2) SEX AND MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ABOUT REPRODUCTION, AND GAY COUPLES CAN’T, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, REPRODUCE
Okay, if that’s the case, then why is it still legal for me to marry? I had a vasectomy shortly after (and partly in celebration of) my divorce. Why is it legal for elderly women, way past menopause to marry? And if the above statement is true, then why does God choose to let some people be born STERILE? They can’t ever reproduce, their entire lives. Did God mean to deprive them not only of marriage, but of his gift of sexual pleasure entirely?
Makes no sense unless you bar ANYONE incapable of reproduction from marrying. Next.
3) GAY MARRIAGE THREATENS HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
You know, I never understood this argument. I STILL don’t understand this argument. The only time that gay marriage would threaten your heterosexual marriage is if one of you are gay. If that’s the case, then your marriage is a sham anyway.
Also, you know what REALLY threatens heterosexual marriage? Being an ARKANSAN. My home state, right in the “heartland”, in what Sarah Palin drunkenly refers to as the REAL America, leads the country in divorce. If the defense of marriage people are really that concerned about heterosexual marriage, maybe they should be trying to outlaw divorce. Or simply disband the state of Arkansas.
Makes no sense unless you or your spouse are gay, which opens an entirely nother discussion. Next.
4) THIS WOULD REQUIRE A REDIFINITION OF MARRIAGE
Yeah.
So?
How many times has marriage been redefined? Let’s start in Biblical days when marriage was a sacred bond between a forty year old man and one or more thirteen year old girls, arranged through her parents in exchange for a “bride price”… in other words, husbands more or less BOUGHT their wives. Many times, the terrified little girl in question never even knew her husband more than socially if at all. There was no courting. We don’t do this anymore. Redefined once.
Then it was against the law to marry anyone outside your family. Several retarded generations later, this was changed. Redefined twice.
Prior to the civil war in America, “marriages” among slaves were common. But these marriages could be torn asunder by the master, who often continued to have sex with the slave girl even after her “marriage”. BIG redefinition of marriage. By so-called “Christians” of all people.
Through (I believe) the 1930’s in America, it was illegal for Christians to marry Jews. This is no longer the case. Redefined four times.
Through the 1950’s in America, it was illegal for black people and white people to marry. This is no longer the case. Redefined five times.
Do you see what I’m getting at here? Marriage, like about everything else, is an evolving and changing concept. It has never been locked into one definition for very long and that will continue to be the case. Next.
5) IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR MULTIPLE MARRIAGES
Yeah.
So?
Separate argument. We all know that the bigger a community is, the better it generally functions. We all know that kids are better raised with a group of viewpoints than only one or two.
You want to argue against multiple marriage? Do it. It has no bearing on the gay marriage issue. As a matter of fact, I’m thinking of trying to get several women to marry me just so that we can open up this can of worms. Next.
6) THE RICK (THE PRICK) SANTORUM ARGUMENT: DOGS WOULD MARRY CATS AND PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO MARRY THEIR PET SNAKES
Really, Rick?
You’ve got years of tradition and hellfire itself at your disposal, and the best that you can do is bestiality?
Animals can’t enter into contracts, people. Marriage is a contract. Therefore, animals cannot be married, dumb ass.
Okay, now that I have (rather magnificently, I think) shot down all of those balderdash arguments, anyone have any others?
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Barack Birth Balderdash
Former Bushies, now frustrated that their Bush clones McCain and Palin lost the presidency, have re-started ridiculous claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii, making him ineligible to serve as president.
Let’s address some of this nonsense, shall we?
Barack Obama has a Hawaiin birth certificate. PERIOD. A birth certificate is considered Prima Facae evidence in any court. When you present a birth certificate, any argument before a judge questioning a birth is OVER. That’s why the courts refuse to hear these idiotic arguments.
There is NO evidence that President Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya (or anywhere else outside the US) in 1961. If I remember the bios that I’ve read about Obama (yes, including “Dreams of My Father”), the first time that his mother left the country was when she was remarried and went to Jakarta, Indonesia in 1967.
Also, guys… may I be frank here? You guys managed to cause all kinds of trouble for president Clinton. To this day, people think that Clinton did something wrong in the handling of Whitewater, despite the fact that three boards found him not guilty of any malfeasance, including one headed by Kenneth Starr. Now you’re trying to do the same thing with Obama, right? Trying to bury and obfuscate anything good that he does under a ton of noise and static? WELL, STOP IT YOU MORONS! The country’s in a mess right now, and we all have to pull together to fix it. If we don’t, our country will pull apart. Is that what you idiots want?
Also, stop and think for a moment. Your party got tied up in a burlap sack, beaten with a stick and thrown overboard in the 2008 elections. Obviously not beaten badly enough to learn any lessons from it, but beaten nonetheless. What do you think is going to happen to you in 2010 and 2012 if you manage to remove not only an extremely popular president, but the first African-American president through trickery like this? You guy’s party is on the decline. You’d better pull your heads out of your puckers and get with the program, or the Republican party will become the Whig party of the twenty-first century.
And what do you think will happen if you manage to remove President Barack Hussein Obama? That McCain will be appointed president? No, you idiots. Joe Biden will become president. And I can almost guarantee that PRESIDENT Biden would be reelected in 2012 and followed by another democrat in 2016, as people tried to expunge the taste of sewage from their mouths over what you did.
And need I remind you Lords of the Dense that it’s YOUR party that’s pressing to have the Constitution amended so that people not born in this country can become president? That you have a horse named Ah-nold in this race? So you’d better stop shooting off at the mouth before one of those shots hits your foot.
Your guy lost. And if, when Bush “won” in 2004 with 1/3 of one percent, it was a great mandate of the American people, what does that make Obama’s seven or eight per cent victory?
Your guy lost. You need to shut up. Glenn Beck needs to shut up. Rush Limbaugh needs to shut up. Bill O’Reilly needs to shut up and so does Sean Hannity. All of you morons need to SHUT YOUR MOUTHS, and do what you told us to do for eight solid years… support our president, even if we don’t like or agree with him.
So do it, you hypocrites.
Sorry, no peace tonight. Only war. War on morons. War on the neo-con noise machine. War on the IDIOTS who have taken the amazing republican party and turned it into something nasty and malicious.
Randal
Let’s address some of this nonsense, shall we?
Barack Obama has a Hawaiin birth certificate. PERIOD. A birth certificate is considered Prima Facae evidence in any court. When you present a birth certificate, any argument before a judge questioning a birth is OVER. That’s why the courts refuse to hear these idiotic arguments.
There is NO evidence that President Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya (or anywhere else outside the US) in 1961. If I remember the bios that I’ve read about Obama (yes, including “Dreams of My Father”), the first time that his mother left the country was when she was remarried and went to Jakarta, Indonesia in 1967.
Also, guys… may I be frank here? You guys managed to cause all kinds of trouble for president Clinton. To this day, people think that Clinton did something wrong in the handling of Whitewater, despite the fact that three boards found him not guilty of any malfeasance, including one headed by Kenneth Starr. Now you’re trying to do the same thing with Obama, right? Trying to bury and obfuscate anything good that he does under a ton of noise and static? WELL, STOP IT YOU MORONS! The country’s in a mess right now, and we all have to pull together to fix it. If we don’t, our country will pull apart. Is that what you idiots want?
Also, stop and think for a moment. Your party got tied up in a burlap sack, beaten with a stick and thrown overboard in the 2008 elections. Obviously not beaten badly enough to learn any lessons from it, but beaten nonetheless. What do you think is going to happen to you in 2010 and 2012 if you manage to remove not only an extremely popular president, but the first African-American president through trickery like this? You guy’s party is on the decline. You’d better pull your heads out of your puckers and get with the program, or the Republican party will become the Whig party of the twenty-first century.
And what do you think will happen if you manage to remove President Barack Hussein Obama? That McCain will be appointed president? No, you idiots. Joe Biden will become president. And I can almost guarantee that PRESIDENT Biden would be reelected in 2012 and followed by another democrat in 2016, as people tried to expunge the taste of sewage from their mouths over what you did.
And need I remind you Lords of the Dense that it’s YOUR party that’s pressing to have the Constitution amended so that people not born in this country can become president? That you have a horse named Ah-nold in this race? So you’d better stop shooting off at the mouth before one of those shots hits your foot.
Your guy lost. And if, when Bush “won” in 2004 with 1/3 of one percent, it was a great mandate of the American people, what does that make Obama’s seven or eight per cent victory?
Your guy lost. You need to shut up. Glenn Beck needs to shut up. Rush Limbaugh needs to shut up. Bill O’Reilly needs to shut up and so does Sean Hannity. All of you morons need to SHUT YOUR MOUTHS, and do what you told us to do for eight solid years… support our president, even if we don’t like or agree with him.
So do it, you hypocrites.
Sorry, no peace tonight. Only war. War on morons. War on the neo-con noise machine. War on the IDIOTS who have taken the amazing republican party and turned it into something nasty and malicious.
Randal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)