Libs and the 2006 mid-term elections

Bush is nowhere near being a conservative. He ran being associated with that guise, but his voting record has proven that he has made Government ever bigger while he has been in office. Take for example the Dept. of Homeland Security. It’s an additional layer of bureaucracy on an already ineffective security design that has been ruined in the 90s and not improved upon since 9/11. The greatest failure of our intelligence gathering was due to Clinton era politically correct policies that put an end to relationships with assets in other countries due to their “nefarious nature.” As a result, that human intelligence factor became practically useless. In addition, the almost sole reliance on technological means for intelligence gathering is another cause for the failures that led to 9/11. So what you have here, to start, is a start of screwing up our intelligence services.

9/11 occurred, 5 years after that horrible event the Bush administration has trampled on civil liberties with the Patriot Act. What in the world is going on where you use your right to peacefully protest while stuck in a free speech zone? Other aspects of the Patriot Act also violate the 4^th Amendment by warrantless sneak searches for suspected terrorists. On the surface, that is not bad. We need to get those people who commit such crimes, and are intent on doing harm to American citizens. The thing that concerns me about the Patriot Act is the terminology and definition of “terrorist” is not defined, and could also be applied to American citizens. Sneaky wire taps and bloated Government spending is not the action of a conservative. At no time have we seen “limited government” being applied by this administration. Why? Because they are not conservatives.

One good aspect of the Libs getting the House and Senate is the fact that there will be more tied up in Government, meaning no new laws, and that can constitute limited government due to the gridlock causing nothing to happen. That’s the only real hope that I have. Believe me; I have no love at all for libs. Who knows what kind of San Franciscancrat policies Pelosi is going to run through legislation. All I can do is wait and see.

The thing that concerns me the most is things Bush has been quietly working on like the North American Union, and the fact that those few Republicans that pushed for some sort of positive illegal immigration issues fought Bush’s amnesty plan will be out of a job. I read stories that in light of everything, Bush’s push for Amnesty might actually become fact because the libs also have the same idea. It’s going to get much worse in that aspect. The thing that really cracks me up is amnesty was provided to 3 million illegal aliens under Reagan, with the notion that it would resolve the problem. 20 years later, it obviously has not.

I voted solely on the how politician’s records reflected on the immigration issue. Unfortunately, Allen did not win VA. As a guy that sits in the middle, it’s kind of good to see some of these idiot neocons loose some power, but at the same time libs in control of 2 branches of government are not that great of a thing. We’ll have to wait and see. I just hope that we see a true reflection of the checks and balances, and not these globalist morons screwing America more and more.

I heart liberals...

Man Overboard
By Ruth Marcus

“I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html

This is a case example of why liberals are morons. In this piece a Washington Post (staffed by people who masturbate to Lenin or Marx books before they write their Op Ed pieces) reporter analyzes a conservative Harvard professor’s book in which it’s described as: “Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.”

As much as I appreciate the women’s studies stuff that was part of my curriculum in school, I have to state some blatantly obvious facts that this idiot reporter fails to factor in that would at least seem important-those where the basis are from common sense compared to some gender studies filter.

First off, think about a conservative professor at Harvard of all places! That has got to be some sort of affirmative action thing for political parties, but he is no Ward Churchill, so he is probably fine. Now “Man Overboard” is nice if I was some professor stuck in the world of academia where I can hide from the real world. I live and work in the real world. The only consistent thing that I can derive truth from is common sense. Any sort of theory is just that. It’s not absolute. Common sense, by it’s nature, proves to be more consistent. Now here are some things that are more realistic and point out why liberals are morons.

“The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined.” Republicans are not any sort of daddy party. The administration is full of neo-con ***holes who want to push the agenda that has been laid out years ago in The Project for the New American Century publications. The current administration is in no way any sort of fatherly role model. Maybe some daddy who fathers many kids and skips town to avoid child care payments. The Republican Party, save a few, has not showed one ounce of responsibility since the invasion of Iraq.

As for Democrats being called a mommy party? That is giving them too much credit. I would call them the party of indecisive, decentralized Nancy boys. All the democrats do is offer complaints with no solution, and when they are asked to stand up they are total p*ssies. For example, “Oh, I cannot vote to censure the President for violating the Constitution! It’s an election year!” Democrats are utterly useless. They are supposed to provide opposition, but the only thing we see them do is buckle, bitch, and cower. I have way too much respect for mommies to compare any democrat to one.

“Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said.” Sorry, Cheney is not a warrior. That statement is an insult to warriors, those men AND WOMEN serving in our armed forces. The Whitehouse website states that Cheney was a “distinguished career as a businessman and public servant.” He never did any military service, fine…but he is not a warrior either. That is an insult to those men AND WOMEN who defend our country who are the warriors. Cheney is the worst kind of piece of cr*p there is out there. He, and the rest of the chicken hawks in their little committees (such as The Project for the New American Century) think they are warriors, and they know what is best for America. Other sovereign nations, our Constitution, and the American people be damned. I wanted to see justice for 9/11. In March of 2003, with the focus on Iraq, it was a vast change to the focus that united many Americans. We wanted justice and revenge; we gave the government more power to do the right thing. They were irresponsible and screwed us bad. All of these neo-cons are not warriors. They might think they are when they pop their viagra, but they are not warriors. Shooting that poor guy hunting still does not make Cheney are warrior. If I play a soldier in a video game, I know that I am still not a warrior.

“Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.”
I would never call manliness a reason as to why the Katrina was handled so abysmally or an excuse to for the executive branch to violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. I would call it the result of electing a moron as President who fails to handle his job at many different levels. Both home and abroad, the oval office is completely screwing up America. The funny thing is, these people are supposed to be conservatives, but reality shows they practice the total opposite of what the present themselves to be. Manliness not, ignorant power hungry dangerous people, yes.

Manliness, to me, is conviction, integrity, and honorable. The people mentioned in Ruth Marcus’s article are not manly in any way. Not to omit women, it is more important to have conviction, integrity, and honor as a public servant. So manliness as a reason for Bush’s actions is the result of a useless gender specific filter being put on politics. I’d even call Ruth Marcus gender biased, because she is stuck in the rut of seeing things as gender driven, where by its nature you omit women who show conviction, integrity, and honor. Doing that follows the horrible generalizations that liberal elitist idiots do unto themselves. They place labels on things which only hurt themselves.

Liberals are morons, plain and simple.