For some reason some people have the misguided belief that they should have a say in whether or not I can have a family of my own. Below you will find my letter to these people:
Dear tea bagging douche bags,
You have no right to deny me the ability to adopt a child.
If the tables were turned you would be screaming about your liberties and pulling our your guns. But you are content to judge my worthiness to be a parent. I am sure the Republicans will turn this into yet another ballot making issue drawing conservatives to the polls.
Let me say this: You may keep me from marrying the man I love. But when you use my family (or future family) as a political game, you will find yourself the target of my unending and unlimited wrath. Proceed at your own peril!
Sincerely,
Irate Liberal
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Protesters spit on Democrats
Protesters hurl slurs and spit at Democrats
I know not all Republicans are this crazy. This makes me very angry.
Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't put it past one of these bastards to try to assassinate the President, or someone else that doesn't conform to their militant views.
These tea-baggers think they can get away with these things, but they can't.
You can say whatever you want, but when you spit on people it's time to start smashing some skulls!
I know not all Republicans are this crazy. This makes me very angry.
Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't put it past one of these bastards to try to assassinate the President, or someone else that doesn't conform to their militant views.
These tea-baggers think they can get away with these things, but they can't.
You can say whatever you want, but when you spit on people it's time to start smashing some skulls!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sarah Palin: Bag of hot air
Mrs. Palin gave the keynote speech at the Tea Party Convention.
Some of my favorite parts of the speech are:
1. She says we need to push the reset button on health care reform, and get a plan that has bi-partisan support. She forgets the fact that Republicans have not come up with their own ideas. They simply say no. She and her fellow Republicans only want Obama to fail, regardless of the cost of the status quo. Do you remember the profit Limbaugh (yes I mean profit, as in money) saying he that the failure of healthcare reform would "kill Obama"? She touches on tort reform (litigation limitations), forgetting that litigation is only a drop in the bucket of the overall healthcare problem. It is also something that was addressed when Bush was president.
2. She wants President Obama to be "transparent" about national security threats. She forgets that she said nothing while Bush was wiretapping Americans (a blatant violation of the constitution), and running an illegal "extraordinary rendition" program. Bush was not "transparent" about these. When the "mainstream media" got wind of these programs, the Republicans said it was a matter of "national security", and thus was a secret. Why is Sarah so quick to forget these things?
3. She complains that the Obama administration used the term "overseas contingency operation" to describe the two wars we are fighting. She is oblivious to the fact that a "contingency operation" is a legal term to describe certain operations. Adding the word "overseas" only means that the operations are not taking place in the United States. She again forgets that Bush liked to rename things. Bush renamed taliban soldiers as "enemy combatants" thinking he could get away from the pesky geneva conventions. He renamed a host of torture methods as "harsh interrogation techniques".
4. She complains about the Christmas bombing attempt, and how the Obama administration is treating it as a "law enforcement issue", rather than...she doesn't say. She forgets that this happened in American airspace. As such, this man is entitled to all the protections under the constitution. She goes on to say that we need a "commander in chief, not a professor of law". She seems to think that the President is above the law. Probably in her eyes he/she is. I do not share that belief.
4. "Hope-y change-y stuff". She asks how the "hope-y change-y stuff is working out for ya". She then goes into "transparency", and how Joe Biden's meetings with the "transparency and accountability board" was closed to the public. Let me first say that the existence of this board is "change-y", since Bush didn't care about being transparent. Secondly, I don't believe this board was ever meant to meet publicly. If every meeting were public, the tea bagging dogs would be there screaming, and no one could get any work done. However, the findings of this board are made public. Take that, Barbie!
5. She says that the tea party is forcing both parties to change the way they do business. That would be good, if it weren't simply the screams of a semi-militant piece of the Republican party. They call themselves "Patriots", but they were content to sit by while Bush also ran up huge deficits, and disobeyed the law. They also seem to oblivious to the fact that the "socialist takeover" of several industries began under the Bush administration. Many of these tea baggers would be without jobs had there not been a rigorous attempt to stabilize these industries.
It is very sad that this movement can't be non-partisan. It is sad that they can't call all politicians to task for outrageous spending. It is sad that they resort to screaming spin, rather than rigorous discussion of the issues. They complain about everything, yet they provide no ideas. They are like a child in the "terrible twos", who just throws tantrums and screams NO to anything and everything.
Now that my morning rant is finished, I think I will go get some coffee.
Some of my favorite parts of the speech are:
1. She says we need to push the reset button on health care reform, and get a plan that has bi-partisan support. She forgets the fact that Republicans have not come up with their own ideas. They simply say no. She and her fellow Republicans only want Obama to fail, regardless of the cost of the status quo. Do you remember the profit Limbaugh (yes I mean profit, as in money) saying he that the failure of healthcare reform would "kill Obama"? She touches on tort reform (litigation limitations), forgetting that litigation is only a drop in the bucket of the overall healthcare problem. It is also something that was addressed when Bush was president.
2. She wants President Obama to be "transparent" about national security threats. She forgets that she said nothing while Bush was wiretapping Americans (a blatant violation of the constitution), and running an illegal "extraordinary rendition" program. Bush was not "transparent" about these. When the "mainstream media" got wind of these programs, the Republicans said it was a matter of "national security", and thus was a secret. Why is Sarah so quick to forget these things?
3. She complains that the Obama administration used the term "overseas contingency operation" to describe the two wars we are fighting. She is oblivious to the fact that a "contingency operation" is a legal term to describe certain operations. Adding the word "overseas" only means that the operations are not taking place in the United States. She again forgets that Bush liked to rename things. Bush renamed taliban soldiers as "enemy combatants" thinking he could get away from the pesky geneva conventions. He renamed a host of torture methods as "harsh interrogation techniques".
4. She complains about the Christmas bombing attempt, and how the Obama administration is treating it as a "law enforcement issue", rather than...she doesn't say. She forgets that this happened in American airspace. As such, this man is entitled to all the protections under the constitution. She goes on to say that we need a "commander in chief, not a professor of law". She seems to think that the President is above the law. Probably in her eyes he/she is. I do not share that belief.
4. "Hope-y change-y stuff". She asks how the "hope-y change-y stuff is working out for ya". She then goes into "transparency", and how Joe Biden's meetings with the "transparency and accountability board" was closed to the public. Let me first say that the existence of this board is "change-y", since Bush didn't care about being transparent. Secondly, I don't believe this board was ever meant to meet publicly. If every meeting were public, the tea bagging dogs would be there screaming, and no one could get any work done. However, the findings of this board are made public. Take that, Barbie!
5. She says that the tea party is forcing both parties to change the way they do business. That would be good, if it weren't simply the screams of a semi-militant piece of the Republican party. They call themselves "Patriots", but they were content to sit by while Bush also ran up huge deficits, and disobeyed the law. They also seem to oblivious to the fact that the "socialist takeover" of several industries began under the Bush administration. Many of these tea baggers would be without jobs had there not been a rigorous attempt to stabilize these industries.
It is very sad that this movement can't be non-partisan. It is sad that they can't call all politicians to task for outrageous spending. It is sad that they resort to screaming spin, rather than rigorous discussion of the issues. They complain about everything, yet they provide no ideas. They are like a child in the "terrible twos", who just throws tantrums and screams NO to anything and everything.
Now that my morning rant is finished, I think I will go get some coffee.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Unlimited Corporate Political Spending
There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around about this ruling, and I would like to clear this up.
It seems that this ruling is limited to political advertising in support or against a particular candidate for public office. It does not allow direct cash contributions to campaigns. Direct campaign contributions are in the works though.
Repugnicans are spinning this as a constitutional fight, one that they won. They are saying this is reinstating the free speech of corporations.
I have a question for these gluttonous capitalists: Where in the constitution does it say anything about the rights of corporations? The answer: It doesn't! Just as a hateful bastard once told me that I have have no "right to marry" that is in the constitution, the constitution also doesn't enumerate any rights to corporations.
There certainly should be a place for business at the table (government), but the government was founded as "we the people", not "we the corporations", and certainly not "we the corporate interest groups". It seems to me that big business is trying to take over the government by placing their own allies in office.
Good bye Democracy. You had a nice run.
Good bye two-party system.
Hello Gluttonous Capitalism, our new lord and master.
It seems that this ruling is limited to political advertising in support or against a particular candidate for public office. It does not allow direct cash contributions to campaigns. Direct campaign contributions are in the works though.
Repugnicans are spinning this as a constitutional fight, one that they won. They are saying this is reinstating the free speech of corporations.
I have a question for these gluttonous capitalists: Where in the constitution does it say anything about the rights of corporations? The answer: It doesn't! Just as a hateful bastard once told me that I have have no "right to marry" that is in the constitution, the constitution also doesn't enumerate any rights to corporations.
There certainly should be a place for business at the table (government), but the government was founded as "we the people", not "we the corporations", and certainly not "we the corporate interest groups". It seems to me that big business is trying to take over the government by placing their own allies in office.
Good bye Democracy. You had a nice run.
Good bye two-party system.
Hello Gluttonous Capitalism, our new lord and master.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger
Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger
This seems extreme. I can understand the need for an "abundance of caution", but this is ridiculous.
Think about it this way: If you are planning to take down or hijack a plane, why would you immediately draw attention to yourself when you board?
The answer: You wouldn't. You would seek to draw as little attention to yourself as possible.
However, if a scenario like this unfolded it would likely distract the flight crew from noticing while you construct your bomb in your (laugh) underwear. It might give you the opportunity to quietly coordinate with co-conspirators in your devious plot.
Let's also be realistic about the fighter jets. They were likely the result of an Obama Administration policy that went into effect right after the "events on Christmas". That shows that Obama is willing to change when he realizes he made a mistake. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would probably have given a similar order. However, I would probably also quietly ask the prosecutor to not seek a harsh punishment for this man's foolishness. I would probably ask for a stiff fine (say, $5,000), but not 20 years in prison.
This seems extreme. I can understand the need for an "abundance of caution", but this is ridiculous.
Think about it this way: If you are planning to take down or hijack a plane, why would you immediately draw attention to yourself when you board?
The answer: You wouldn't. You would seek to draw as little attention to yourself as possible.
However, if a scenario like this unfolded it would likely distract the flight crew from noticing while you construct your bomb in your (laugh) underwear. It might give you the opportunity to quietly coordinate with co-conspirators in your devious plot.
Let's also be realistic about the fighter jets. They were likely the result of an Obama Administration policy that went into effect right after the "events on Christmas". That shows that Obama is willing to change when he realizes he made a mistake. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would probably have given a similar order. However, I would probably also quietly ask the prosecutor to not seek a harsh punishment for this man's foolishness. I would probably ask for a stiff fine (say, $5,000), but not 20 years in prison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)