"Watch one of the balanced networks, like FOX"

Yes, that is an actual quote from a family member.

First off, to clarify. I am not ging to say there is a liberal or conservative media, just one network. A.K.A FOX.

I honestly don't know how one could truly beleive that FOX is "fair and balanced."

With shows such as "Hannty and Colmes" and "the O'Reily Factor", it doesn't seem very fair. While Hannity and Colmes may have a Righty (Hannity) and a lefty (Colmes); It is not near a balanced show.

There are two reasons I see this as such. First: Alan Colmes is the biggest wimp in the party of wimps. Democrats are pretty well known as professional LOSERS. Out of this group, Cmles stands out for his weakness, and inaptitude to make a strong point.
Second: Script anyone? the show is presented much like the agument for Intelligent design. We have three pro intelligent design guys, three against. All Scientists. But wait! the scientific community is more like 10000 against to 3 for. FOX will pull in a conseravtive guest, and him(her) will rant along with Hannity. They will ask what Colmes thinks, and at the risk of his job, he will meekly throw in some Bogus. Hannity and His guest will promptly tear it apart with their views, and thats the show.

Now, O'Reilly. As Al Franken once said (or typed, depending on how accurate you want to be) "Lying, splotchy bully". I will refrain from attacking his skin disease, because that is not within his control. About the show. Balanced? Put an elephat on one side of a tetter totter, and a donkey on the other. Se which way it tips. Thats how balanced his show is.

for Example: I was on spring break, in Colorado skiing with my family and a friend's family. One morning, my friend and I decided to stay in the hotel room for the morning, then go skiing in the afternoon. We don't have much to do, so we turn on the TV. As I am channel flipping, I see that O'Reilly is on. Good Fun. As it turns out, this was soon after the terri Schaivo Incident. So, what is O'Reilly foaming at the mouth about? Terri Schaivo. Big surprise.

o'Reilly had found some amazing pasto who claimed that Schavo had "bent her head" and "closed her eyes" when "I began to pray." What is this?

Oh well, Don't get into a Schiavo Argument, thats not what this is about.

Remeber, when you want to see balanced, read BBC.

And thats a wrap!
Motor.On

Crap

This guy is a moron, and probably lying.

Heres the story

Wow, One of two things has happened here.

Either:

a) He's lying, nobody will care in 3 months besides those morons in the south who get the original story, but not the "Whoops, we screwed up" story.

b)Doctors started out with a screwed up analysis, and he just lost some muscle function.

c)Well, I know that there are nly two, but screw that. The news overexaggerated it.

the most likely thing is c), because that makes the most sense, partially because the right hasn't jumped at the bait, screaming it across the nation at light-speed.


Okay, I don't want to post more now.

Say what ya think!

Fat Wreck Chords

Okay, Barrett. here goes Nothing!

Ya, barrett has no official affiliatio with this post, BUT, he was the one who showed me the light and ways of truth. A.K.A., He introduced me to NoFX and None More Black.

Fat Wreck Chords was founded in 1990 by Fat Mike of the awesome band NoFX.

Okay, since then they have been supporting the punk scene. They also are, due to their punk ideals and general awesomness, liberal.

This is the label that released Rock against Bush! Wh00t!

Okay, I lost steam. The entire point of this is that I got a kool banner-type thingy fo them!

Motor.On

Gay Marriage

Okay, Now a post about Gay marraige.

Before I start Ranting, and you stat foaming at the mouth, Realize this. I AM NOT GAY!


Now to where I rant.


First off, This is the exact same thing that happened in the era between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement to Black people.
It was illegal to treat them as subhuman, but white men were more human than blacks, hispanics, and women.

Now it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace, and that there are laws against racism, plus culture's hatred for it. But, the white men who want to be the majority still find this need to discriminate.


Now where you foam at the mouth.


The first outlet is always those who are different in outward ways. Skin color, Height, Hair color, Gender, whatever you want. So we make fun of/Hate Mexicans. "Q: There is a black guy and a mexican in a car. Who's driving? A: The Cops."

Is that NOT Outward racism? Honestly?! How is that tolerable? Because whites consider themselves a majority? Because that is shrinking guys! Notice that Ploticians focus on controlling Hispanics as much as they focus on controlling Whites? Its a sign!

Then we find a way to discriminate against those who ae different than us in mental /political /moral issues. Here is where Gays come in.


During this part, feel free to throw a chair, or other large blunt object at that photo of me you found, just not AT MY Real body. Vent your anger elsewhere.


Imagine this scenario. Two identical twins are in high school. They are both White, tall and good-looking. One is Gay, the other straight. Who will be liked by his peers? That's right, the straight one if the gay one reveals his desires.

He could be shy, and somewhat social, Kind, caring, a good christian, but if people know he is gay, Pfft. There goes all respect for him.

Because of one defective gene that he has no control over, He catches about as muck flak as you can get. His popularity drops like a stone, even if he doesn't flirt with guys, or stuff like that. He is treated like a pedophile. People HATE him for something he cannot control.

What is one of the most popular insults? "YOURE GAY!" Why? because people hate gays. It is the same thing as saying to a white guy, "YOURE BLACK."

Does any of ths make sense?

No. But it happens.


Please control your Boiling blood, and do NOT shoot me, or my friends, or family.


Then, needing a legitimate way to discriminate against Gays, we make up a reason.

RELIGION! Of course! Jesus was some darker-skined guy in Isreal who loved his neighbor as himself, and forgave all that asked for forgiveness, so he MUST hate Gays! Of course!

WHere in the bible does it say that being gay is bad?

Actevalation 4:67! Of course! and ... Moses 2:36! and....

Point proven?

Does the bible define marragie? Not to my knowledge. (feel free to correct me, but you better tell me a REAL chapter in a REAL book.) Either way, it doesn't define homosexuality as evil!

So why can't we at least say "Hey, I don't want to be involved, but You go ahead"? Why?

Shouldn't civil Unions be allowed at least? WHY NOT? Give me a dozen good reasons. That don't involve your personal fear of the unknown.

So to conclude...

1. We ARE discrimanatory, even though that was supposed t have stopped 60 years ago...
2. There is no basis in religion against homosexuality
3. At least alow Civil Unions! C'mon!

Have fun Foaming!

Motor.On

Energy + the Envronment. Can they Coexist?

Now, I haven't really fufilled the Tree-hugger portion of my Blog, so I shal now attempt that.

No1:
The Arctic National Wildlife refuge.
In the Words of the Fish + Wildlife service:

But thats pretty boring.
Basically, its a big national park in Northern Alaska. There are a bunch of endangered Animals in it, and supposedly a bunch of Oil.

No2:
Oil and the US.
According to Source 2 (s2), the US used ~19.7 million barrels of oil each day in 2002. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this adds up to 7.1905 Billion barrels of oil consumed in 2002.

according to s3, the ANWR, has 16 Bil barrels of Oil. Cool, 2 years of all the US's oil, without imports, right?

Maybe, but most likely not. Oil drilling is a lot of luck. You have to hit the well, or you just dug a big hole. A big hole, that destroys the area.

Even if they have the luck of the Irish, they still are going to destroy 2000 acres of land!

No3:
Oil and the ANWR.

This is the sticky part.

Okay, so lets assume Congress gives the OK, because our oil friend in the big White bulding is gonna say OK, they start to drill.

2000 acres of Oil drills are set up in a wildlife park. How would the public react if Yellowstone was opened for Logging?

2000 acres where The Moose and caribou can no longer roam freely. THey have to worry about the big Oil drills. And the workers. And the Workers housing.

2000 acres where, if they are by the Ocean, the Walrus(s?) can no longer swim, becuase of the noise. The Seals have to fish elsewhere.

2000 acres where something is going to go wrong.

A river Otter is moved out, becuase of the good of the US.


No4:
Oil Drilling and transportation.
How do you transport 1 million barrels of Oil? not in barrels. You are going to use:

An Oil Rigger!

Unfortunately, when transporting these 16 Billion barels of Oil, Something is going to go wrong. Maybe a careless worker leaves empty barrels in a field. Nw something is going to get inquisitive, and probably die.

Or, a shipwreck. Lets assume it is going light. 1 million barrels of Oil spill across a pristine Ocean, and beach. Animals cannot deal with this. Whales coming up to breath are poisoned by Oil entering their lungs. Gulls are trapped by the Oil, thus losing their ablity to fly. Countless fish are killed, thus creating an imbalace of food for the animals. Predators starve. If you are feeling patritic, worry about the Bald Eagles trapped like flies in a Spider's web.

All for Energy! So you can miserably drive to your miserable job, and feed your miserable kids in a miserable household.

No5:
Nuclear Energy and You.
Most likely you have never been near a nuclear power plant. The closest is in Oak Harbor Ohio, ( near Toledo).

The fact about Nuclear power in the US is it is extremely safe. You can literally crash a full speed F16 into the containment building wthout leakage. 10-20ft thick concrete does marvels.

Most people worry about a Chernobyl-type incident occuring, but the chances of that are close to nil. At Chernobyl, the reactor was contained in a GARAGE! Not only that, but the coolant (Graphite) was shut down by the moronic personell, who have conveniently removed themselvs from the gene pool.

For an explosion of that type to happen in the US, you would have to purposefully build a bomb. Then again, you might be foiled by rods of Graphite sticking into the reactor, thus shutting it down completely.

If you know hoe the coolant works, once again there is the fact that there are three interlocking loops (at least) of water. To show this, loop your fingers into two rings.
If there was water flowing through the pipes (fingers), the water would not interchange between them.

+--------+
| w2 |
| +---+ |
| | w1 | |
| +---+ |
+--------+
See? the contaminated water from the reactor is in w1. The water never enters w2! Unless, there is a break. In this case, w2 becomes contaminated. Also, the control room knows almost immideately. There is a second loop like this before the turbine, which provides power. The water for the turbine is from a lake, river or other resivour, and after the turbine is released as the huge clouds of steam near any power plant. This water never becomes contaminated, because after the break in w1, the sysstem is shut down before another break occurs.

Another fear is Nuclear weapons. It is true that some power plants allow the creation of Nuclear bombs, but why not outlaw those types of plants?

The most pressing problem is then, Nuclear waste.

Why not just bury it in a lead-lined concrete bunker .5 miles down that is monitored by the government?

Or a volcanoe? n the middle of nowhere? It was buried way under the earth anyway...

Anyway.. Now I'm bored.

-Motor.On

The War on Drugs and other rants.

FYI Washington: It doesn't work!

Wonder why? Because you can't get rid of drugs permanently! "The War on {insert noun of your choice}" Never works. It always ends up wasting money. Sure, you can win a war against a country, maybe a war against a continent, but not against something like drugs.

If you are going to try to improve the situation, you should take the most cost-effective way out, right? Well, apparently Washington doesn't want to do that.

Here's a quiz:
The best way to get a druggie to stop doing drugs is:
(a) Jail Time
(b) Rehab
(c) Nothing. He'll get a calling from God, and pull out of it on his own.

If you chose (b), you're Right! Whoo!

Now, lets do a similar quiz, but this time it's CHEAPEST way:
The cheapest way to get a druggie to stop doing drugs is:
(a) Jail Time
(b) Rehab
(c) Both

The correct answer is (b).
It costs something like $200000 taxpayers dollars to send that druggie to Jail (Room + board) for a year, while it costs something like $20000 for that SAME druggie to get rehab to quit drugs.

Now, does Jail actually asses the problem? Nope. Rehab does... Rehab FIXES the problem (to an extent).

Now, with Washington handing out tax cuts every other week while spending something like $1B a day in Iraq, which is going to impact the deficit less? $1M (5 years) or 20 grand per druggie? Which solves the problem (more)?

***WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM TO BRING YOU A SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN***

RUN AND HIDE! The boogeyman is going to get you! Run away! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! AHHHHHHHH!

***Thank You. We now take you back to your regularly scheduled program of: “Fake and Faker: Real Reality”***

Remind you of anything? Maybe TERROR (WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!). Oops, looks like I provided a view apart from what the government wants. Guantanamo, Here I come!

Once again, you CAN NOT WIN THIS WAR! Unfortunatley, there is no cost effective way out of this one besides, DROPPING IT! How about Bush admits to his first mistake and says, “Hey, I screwed up. We can’t win this war, so we are just going to improve security. Next time we invade, we won’t make crap up by shoving it down the CIA’s throat and just say, ‘We don’t like you. You are not a nice person, and we want your Oil for free so we are gonna invade you.’ I am sorry I caused you any trouble.”

Just stick with me for this next part.

Lets think about what good the DHS color thing does for us. Whenever someone somewhere is attacked by terror, we say “Run and hide” by turning up the color from Goldenrod to Tangerine. When we are being attacked, we say “OH MY GAWD! WE ARE GOING TO DIE” and turn the color up to Magenta (after changing our way of life). What is your response? Fear? What response does terror cause? Fear. Isn’t this a form of “terrorism” being performed by the government that declared war on it? Think about it. The purpose may have been good, but a terrorist will NEVER attack when the color is above goldenrod. Would you punch someone who has their hands up in defense instead of waiting three months when their hands are down? Not if you plan on being a suicide bomber. If you are going to kill your self to kill others, you might as well wait until it hurts them most!

The entire purpose of terrorism is to change your way of life through fear. Therefore, They already won. We completely changed our way of life after 9/11, not just improving security, because that was necessary, but forgetting (as Michael Moore calls it) our BS sense. When you are confronted by crap and think “BS!” We lost that when we declared war on terror.

That reminds me...

The "Iraq got Yellow cake from Nigeria" story was NOT approved by the CIA. They knew (and told Bush) that the source was highly unreliable and then they sent in an agent (before the war) and HE said it was crap!

Motor.On

Different response to Terror.

I just would like to point out a major difference between London and NYC during yesterday and 9/11 respectively

The british don't freak out. did you notice that? a bomb goes off in their subway (or three for that matter), and they stil ride them where they can! they are still on the mass transit system half an hour later (when the news is bound to have reached a lot of them)!

It took four BIG bombs and a few hours to stop the mass transit. In NYC, four planes crash, half a n hour later, the US is no-fly zone for a week. the tube was running today where the line wasn't screwed over.

Is it just me, or is this a huge difference?

I am willing to bet, the Brits will hunt down the killers and make some security stuff better, but they aren't going to go duct tape their windows, stockpile food and lock themselves inside for three months! or invade anyone! I can't say the same for us though...

Why? I don't know. But I have a feeling it is because the British are somewhat used to this. They didn't think they were living in an impenetrable bubble.

This is a curiosity, but why was America attacked at 9/11, but London was attacked yesterday? Why wasn't it NYC or Britan/UK attacked?

Whatever

Motor.On

Abortion Mk. 2

I know, Barret already posted on this. Shut up.

As you hopefully know, O'Conner resigned. Crap.

Well, as Nicholas Cage says in National Treasure, "A toast to High Treason."

We are screwed. Fortunately, we may be able to keep Voinavich, and whoever the other guy is from voting for any extreme right judges. I don't really want an extreme left judge either, but that is slightly more preferable in my opinion. O'Conner was so good because she was moderate. Maybe Bush will get a clue and nominate a MODERATE JUDGE *shock* instead.

Also, if the senate passes the no fillibuster law, we are screwed. Royally.

In case you didn't know, a filibuster gives power t the smaller party, so they may hav some voice in the senate. it would be bad for the Right if there was a left majority, so therefore it is bad for the left if there is a right majority. From what I know, they do something to temporarily stop the process of creating a law.

Ha Ha Bushies

Well, It seems that yet more evidence is piling up against Bush...

A recently leaked memo from the UK has shown that Bush had been planning about the Iraq war long before it was mentioned to us.

here is the full BBC article.

Too bad Asif can't hear about his, he would have a feild day...

Basially, a mem from a few months before the war in Iraq, or as it is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has Bush onversing with Blair about attacking Iraq.

So what? So if our president was planning to attack without the suport of congress, So what? that ony undermines the system of FREEDOM.

Bush's excuse was :

"Somebody said we had made up our mind to use military force to deal with Saddam," he said.

"There is nothing further from the truth. My conversation with the prime minister was 'How can we do this peacefully?'"

my response? Ya right. next thing, we won't have invaded Iraq, we just went for a stroll. Or should I say "We dun and gitted ourselves a walk!"

If you se their information, which the CIA said was false, how the crap are you going to get an evil dictator, who gasses his people, with WMDs coming out of his ears to leave PEACEFULLY??*

Anyway, my favorite line was:"The affair has received scant coverage in the mainstream US media" This scares me. We are the home of the brave and the free, yet to get news on this, we have to check out the British news?? HUH? Britian has a Monarch, yet their news is more free than ours? What the heck is going on?

Talk to me,

Motor.On

*he gasses them ten years ago and the WMDs we gave him. Yes, the US. Only recently did we decide that he was a dictator and should be removed.

Social Retard

So maybe I am. So what?

My cousin a while ago said, "Don't You want to be cool?" and my answer was, Yes, but not if I have to stop being a nerd. I like it this way. Lemme tell you, Social Retard (SR), I LIKE BEING A NERD! I told Annie this, now I tell You the same thing! OMG! What is so hard to understand about that? I wouldn't mind being cool, but not if I have to change how I am! Its the classic, don't change me, debate. It may not be the best, or most fun now, BUT I will almost definitely be better of than Bogurt, unless he is in the NFL, which won't happen. Ever listen t the radio, or watch TV? Notice all the "Raise your Salary", or "Go to college" commercials? That is for former Jocks! They Used to be cool, but now they are a factory worker. Right now, my grades are not the best, but I am working on brining them up, because 8th grade won't affect my job.

post on the ABORTION POST if you want to be killed about that. Retard.

I took a "Social Retard Test" and got like, a 20%. And Was proud. I don't care If I don't have a girlfriend! Its OK. Anyway, friendships dissolve after High School, especially if you go out of town for College(which I plan to do). I don't love IH, its waaaay to conservative for my tastes. Sorry. Also, cities are cooler than a suburb. I really want to go to California, because that state is AWESOME (not because I am gay. Gay marriage is not legal except in Mass. Even Unions are banned in California.)

So I do have an Ego, but it could be worse! I realize that I make mistakes, and I realize that I have an Ego. It could be worse.

Whatever

P.S. If I know SR, they will suffer.

Health

We probably need to drop this soon, but Im going with it because its FUN!

Introducing, New From Trojan:

The FULL BODY CONDOM! 100% Protection from ALL STDs!

Lol. Anyway, I obviously agree with Doogles. My Idea is, and I really am not all that affected by what you say, that since 1960, women have become more independent.

I dont know about Eric or Douglas, but Scott's mom and my mom Both Go to Work Every Day (his more so than mine) The Stay-at-home-mom has virtually disappeared. When Women become more independent, they DON't have the Time to raise 7 kids.

the modern day average is 2.3-2.2 kids per family. it was around 5.5, NOT 7-10.

Also, I really don’t know how The Pill works, BUT If you take it during the first 3 days of a pregnancy (assuming its still effective then), you have a .02*.02*.02 chance of having a kid. That’s MUCH less than 1%. There is ALMOST NO Chance of "pill failure" Also, you DO have to use a condom 100 times to have it break 3 times.

Out of those 100 times (assuming once a day), there is a 1/10 chance Every day. that means you have a .03*.1 chance EVERY day of getting her pregnant. if you include her taking the pill, your chances (which were 3/1000) becomes 1/60000 (.00006)

t is most definetely NOT "pill failure" OR "Condom failure" My parents DID want to have a kid (actually two, but neveryoumind)

Mr. Roger's Kid was a mistake. But thats completely different.. Mr Rogers was a mistake.

Ya, her facts were:

1.Wrong

2.Made up (when in doubt, BS your way out)

3.unrelated

4.Out of proportion

Now, excluding HPV and Herpes, you have a 1/4 chance of getting an STD. And a condom is 97% effective (if used properly.

Therefore, If you properly use a condom, you have a 75/10000 chance of getting an STD.

Mrs. Jackson (no relation to Michael) told us that condoms have an overall 84% failure rate

Thats STILL good enough to bet on AND prevent a pregnancy. Anyway, if you have a 1/10*84/100*98/100 chance of getting her pregnant, it WON't happen if you dont want it to.

Also, she mentioned that condoms expire. If you Dont use an expired condom, YOUR EVEN BETTER OFF!

whatever

Heath: Return of the Crap

Okay, more Sex (don't-have-sex-or-you-will-die-even-though-its-one-in-four) Ed today.

Less pronunciation slaughter today.

More Crap.

I understand their argument, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.

As Doogles said, 80% of teens who take "The Vow" break it. Before they are married. Also, I would like to point out that ALL of the people who were over 18 that she talked about had THE WORST luck. It was all "My husband cheated", or "He cheated", or "I married someone who had an STD already." You know what? Too BAD!

Also, the "Number vary depending on who did the study" crap was not needed. Of COURSE they vary! If you take the same study Twice, It WILL vary! Unless you ask the SAME people, in which case it is NOT A GOOD STUDY.
Barret, you have a good point of the Gross out factor. That IS lame. Totally (Like, Totally, Like, did you see that, like Guy?*). You cant base the majority of ANY argument (that is good) on a gross out factor if your audience has a maturity level greater than that of a Two year old (Bo, Sorry, you are gone).

The 2 vs. 25 factoid was WRONG. They WERE STILL THERE. Maybe A FEW mutated. But, to the extent of my biological knowledge, A disease DOES NOT change COMPLETELY in 40 years. Try 400. Or 4000. I could go on...

She asked "Why are there more?". There aren't. Putting that aside, they are more common because of two factors:

1. The media. It is MUCH more acceptable to talk about sex now.
2. Travel. The speed at which a disease can travel around the world is MUCH higher now.

Also, If you think about it Almost ALL diseases can be STD's. Lets take the Flu (influenza). When you have the Flu, you stay home and DON'T come in contact With ANYONE. Sex is the ULTIMATE way to transfer a disease.

Scott: The republican fact is TRUE. I'm sorry. The Republican party Funds Abstinence-only Sex ed. It May be that the republican party is in control, but I doubt that. I get the feeling that It is because of the fact that most of the republican party leans heavily on the Catholic Church. :-)

Of course that raises the Question of: "If Not Abstinence Only education, What do we teach?"

I suggest A "We-Don't-Want-you-to-have-sex,-because-this-can happen-but-If-you-do-have-sex-Use-a-Condom-And-here's-how." Education. This would get the kids (20%) who DO keep their abstinence vow, to not have sex, AND it would get the kids who don't to have Safe sex (Which STILL is the term). They Really WOULD have safe sex, because the failure rate of condoms is MOSTLY that the kids don't know how to use them.

Bacteria-> Virus?? Scott, I'll let you take that.

Toodles
Motor.On

Next: the pill?

*Yes, this IS teenage Drama-Queen-Speak. Like totally.

Health

Okay, As y'all Obviously Know, we are doing Sex ed in Health. Or Rather, If-you-have-sex-you-will-get-an-STD-and-die-slowly ed.

The problem with an Abstinece Education is it doesnt work!

Abstinence IS 100% effective at preventing STD's. But an Abstinence Education Isn't.

As weird as it seems, telling Kids NOT to have sex causes them to Get MORE STD's. How doees that work?

Abstinence educations (at least nowadays) are:

1. Sex is Bad
2. Sex causes STD's
3. Condoms are BAD.

Okay. Im NOt gonna argue against the 1st point...

#2. Yes, It CAN cause STD's. One out of FOUR. In Poker, I would Bet on that! Maybe I am Reckless. But, If I was given thse chances, Considering Our Socio-Economic Area, I WoULD BET on those chances. ( not that I am going to be sexually active).

#3. Ummm... HUH? If the idea of this Republican-Funded Program is to stop STDs and Teenage Pregnancy, DOnt You WANT kids to USE a condom?

According to Cory, COndoms, when used properly, have a 97% sucess rate. thats REALLY GOOD. Lets think along the persons line of thought. If One out of Four sexually active teens has an STD, then 25/100 teens has an STD. If they ALL properly use Cndoms, only THREE get and STD. That means 28/100 Otherwise, Who knows...

Now, the 1/4 thing. ONE OUT OF FOUR DOS NOT HAVE AN STD! statistically speaking, of four RANDOMLY CHosen Kids from FOUR RANDOM SOcio-Economic Classes, Yes, One will have an STD. BUT If you have four frends who are active, It could be that One has an STD. ALL FOUR could have one. OR NONE! Or two. Or three.

The statisti is closer to:
100000/400000 Active Teens have STDs. NOT 1/4.

Actually If you think about it, The poulation of Active teens is smaler than the poulation of not active teens. Therefore, Most likely, All or None will have an STD. THE smaller the group, the more likely it is that ALL of them will have an STD.

Now Anywy, I am FINE with an Abstinece Education. I Am NOT fine with a condoms-are-bad Education. Also, I would appreciate some of the OTHER side of the issue.

Wh473v3r.

Bring It ON!

That is one of B\/$|-| 2's most imfamous comments.

The funny thing is, theY DID BRING IT ON. And they killed A LOTof americans.

Here is fox's official list, from May 10th 2004 to Dec 31, 2004

From Mission Accomplished to Wednesday, 5 May, 2004, this is the BBC's list.

This is the Washington Post's list, showing the soldier's faces (use te scroll button to go through)

The numbers of the wounded vary wildly, but it is above ten THOUSAND since "mission accomplished"

Dont tell me Im not supporting the troops, because I AM. Im just not supporting them blindly. I support the troops, NOT the leader.

Anyway, here are some of my other favrite Bush quotes:
"You've heard Al Gore say he invented the internet.
Well, if he was so smart, why do all the addresses begin with "W"?"
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"
"Rarely is the Queston asked: Is our children Learning?"
"For NASA, space is still a high priority"
"[Its] time for the Human race to enter the solar system"
"Its your money. You paid for it."
"The most important job is not to be govenor, or first lady in my case."

Well, thats it for now. Next Up: The PATRIOT ACT.

My theory on the 2004 Election

Ok, Keep the other debates up.

The 2004 Election, John F. Kerry vs. George W. Bush.

This election was, on the left(Kerry) based around Bush's Mistakes, how he hurt the country. For Bush, It was How Kerry's views "Flip-flopped".

Ok, My belief is, Kerry lost because of the Gay-Rights Movement. Many of the Religious (extreme) Right, don't want Gay marriage (Im not saying that ONLY the religious Right don't want Gay marriage). Many of them also don't normally vote. When their beliefs with marriage were threatened by Gay-Rights and Gay marriage, They VOTE. This is not bad, even though I don't agree with their views on Gay Marriage, but it tipped the election to G W Bush.

The reason I say this, is the exit polls had Kerry winning by like, 20%. not at all a small margin.

Flip-Flopped: THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. (Beware: In this portion, I could get VERY mad. Threaten my beliefs, and I defend them too!)

If you listend to the debates, this is ALL Bush said. The question would be "what about the deficit?" And bush would come back with: Yes, Its bad, BUT KERRY FLIP-Flopped.

If you take a Black and White (B&W) view, He DID flip-flop. Then again, if you take a B&W view, Scott is pro-life (see abortion comments). Very little is B&W. Almost NO politics are B&W. Unfortunately, America (and most of the world) view things as B&W, because it is easier to understand.
Just like Scott and Erics views on abortion, Kerrys views were more complex than B&W. The main thing where Bush mentined Flip-Flopping was Iraq. Kerry voted FOR the war. its true. BUT, he had the understanding that it would be WITH UN support. Which never materialised. Then, Kerry didnt want a war. Flip flopping? NO. He wanted it With the UN suppot, not going alone (Yes there was a coalition, but its FORTY countries. and most of them are tiny, were bribed, dont have an army, or forced).

Also, I would Like you to HONESTLY say that your views have never changed. you cant, can you? If you can, You Lie.

I would also like to point out that the states that went for bush had a MUCH lower average IQ than the ones that went for Kerry. Just a fun little fact. This IS accurate, go here to see it.


Also, the Kerry states were usually making more $$$ (except DC, B/cause thats a bunch of politicinas. All politicaians are DUMB)
Toodles
Motor.On

Supply-Side Economics

We WOULD be too young to get this, if Bush II wasn't using it.

Once again, Ill be doing the Arguments and then My view.

Supply-Side Economics (SSE): If we give Money to the rich, they will ut it back into the economy, and then it will trickle down to the poor.

me (me): Umm... How dsoes that work?

SSE: The rich spend the money on the things that the poor make, then the money goes to the poor.

Me: Ahhh... If Only it worked that way. But it doesnt. THe reality is, the rich people are high-up, or the owners of big companies. The rich dont get their money from the government, without the government, they would STILL be rich. They will put their money BACK into their company. For example: My parents work for P&G. P&G is a VERY large company, and my parents are fairly high-up. When they can buy something P&G makes, they will. This money does NOT go to the factory worker in China who makes the Swiffer, It goes to My parents, and the other People at their level and higher in the comapny. The factory worker gets Very little Money. (My parents are NOT evil, they give a TON of 4 to charity, they ARE NOT the ultra-rich that I may discuss later.)

By giving money to the rich, you dont help the Poor. You help the rich (this kinda makes sense doesnt it?)

SSE: But it wrks!

me: no it doesnt. Now let me introduve a plan that WILL help the poor AND the rich.

UPSIDE-DOWN SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS

Here's How it works:

You give 4 to the poor (kinda like welfare, but more of a tax-break). THe poor dont have that muh money, so they will usually not invest, they spend it. Where do they buy from? THE BIG COMPANIES. Who owns the big companies (or works High-up in them)? THE RICH. Now lets put this all toghether. Here is my diagram of where the money goes to:

$from the poor -> goes to buy food, Clothes etc. -> bought from BIG company -> $goes to the rich

This WOULD actually WORK. The poor get the money they need, and then it goes to the rich!

You help the poor, and its harder to follow! BOTH sides are supported by big companies ( I am of the brainwashed opinion that the Democratic paty is less so, but I know thats not true) All laws are made with the rich/Big companies in mind. therefore, when the legislators make a law, it favors the rich + powrful.

My view is it DOESNT work @ all, so drop it. Want proof? Regan employd it, and as Soon as Bush I got into office, he dropped it. If the republicans (who created it) dont like it, Dont DO IT!

toodles

Motor.On

p.s. 85 omments and counting!!

Abortion

I'm feeling like dealing with a heavier topic, so hear it goes! (beware, this may make you MAD) ( if it does, go flush your head down a toilet) (also tell the teenage girl who was raped and her life as saved because she got an abortion that abortion is evil) (did I mention flush your head? Good)

Ok, here it goes:

The standard Pro-life argument goes something like this: All life is precious. You cant kill a person, so why should you go on killing a fetus?

my argument: A fetus is not a person!! DUH!! Then it would be called a PERSON Not a fetus. If you think a fetus is a person, Is a seed a tree? You eat corn and peas, so are you eating a live plant? The fact is, abortion is not necessarily a good thing (there you go, the only thing I will agree with Pro-life PPL), But the argument as I see it isn't about ONLy abortion, its the fact of whether or not a woman has the ability to control yet another portion of her life. You got your dog fixed, therefore are you killing puppies?? PUPPy-KILLER!! I do realize that there is a MAJOR difference between a woman and a dog, but its the same idea. I don't want my balls cut off, thank you VERY much. If you want to cut them off, too bad. I Wont let you.

Also, back to the fetus. It is not a person, it is a group of cells that MAY become a person under the right circumstances. I ALSO argue that it is better to 'kill' (its not really killing, see above) a fetus than send a kid to an orphanage. Or ruin the mothers life. A fifteen-year-old may be able to get her groove on (if you get what I mean), and give birth, but she isn't ready to be a mother! Leave that to the thirty-year-olds. Not the fifteen-year-old. That is common sense. It may have worked in the middle ages, but things are DIfferenT *gasp* Its better to have to dispose of a fetus, than put a kid in a government organization (aka an orphanage).

More Pro-life crap: It cost the government to get an abortion.

Me- HUH??? Since when??? What the crap?? When in doubt, make crap up!!. That's just wrong. Totally wrong.

Pro-life- Embryonic Stem cell research KILLS BABIES

me- Awww.. Then its Evil.. Boo hoo. WRONG. First off, look above for my reason why it CANt kill babies. its a FEtUS/Embryo, not a baby. Second, even if you DO consider an embryo a human, its not killing babies. they ONLY use embryos that are going to be discarded. They dont g up to a prenant woman and steal her embryo, then put it through torture. They use an already aborted embryo, and THEN, and ONLY then do they preform experiments on it. AN it's NOT evil. If it works, when you are old and grey, YOU may need another lung/liver/other organ, and get one from Embryonic stem-cell research. Then Id like to see you say that they are killing babies.

Pro-life: THEY [Liberals/pro-choice activists] KILLED TERRY SCHAVIO. THEY ARE NOT ONLY BABY-KILLERS, THEY ARE ALSO MURDERORS!!!! HANG THEM!!!

Me- On terry schavio. OMG!! how DUMB can you be!?!!?!?!?!?!? she was a VEGTABLE!!! DUH!.

I was on a ski trp when she died. you may ant me to say 'passed away', but tough. had decided not to ski (I was REALLY tired) the day afet, or maybe the day of her death. doesnt matter. Anyway, i was bored, so I turned on "the O'Reiley Fator" (for a description, read the title of barrets blog). They got some cracker preist who was lie "She was very responsive. whn I went into prayer,she bowed her head,and closed her eyes. She knew I was praying, and prayed along as best she could." i instatnly was like OMG!!! what is his problem?!?!?! " she bowd her head" maybe to drool? (no offense) SHE WAS IN A VEGATATIVE STATE! every Non-Catholic dotor (and a good portion who were catholic) said she WOULD NEVER RECOVER. then the pro-life people come back "her husband wants the insurance $$$" Ummmmm.... He HAD To PAy for the feeding tube and other medical treatment fo like 10 yrs. thet cost MOrE than $100000. DUH.

Pro-life: Cloning is EVIL. (ever notice how these guys are ALWAYS mad??)

me- Ummmm... Lemme get this straight. You dont want to kill PPL, but you dont want more ppL? HUH? you say Kerry flip-flopped. Wow. they Say, embryonic stem cell research is bad, because it kills Ppl. Clones are bad becaus they arent PPL. So we cant use clones for Embryonic stem-cell research??? HUH?????? TALK ABOUt CONtRADICtory!

Pro-life: Fetuses can feel things.

me- Hold on. Do you remeber being a fetus?? does anyone??? i can remeber certain things frm being a baby, mostly just little things, but I STiLL ReMeBEr them!! OMG!! Fetuses CANT feel things...

Pro-Life: Be glad your mother chose life

me- Ummmmm.. My MOM was in a COMPLETEly different situation. Not at all similar. i should b offended that you would suggest that.

Ok, b/cause there was some question on my vews, here it goes.

Abortion is not Good. Under certain circumstances, It IS good. See above. Also chek out Erics views. He said it better, and shorter than I did. This is NOT a B&W issue. Nothing is. The world being seen is, in my view, the #1 reason Kerry lost the race (more on that later)


Ok, thats the majority of my rant.

motor.on

Bush

Okay, just to say this, DIDN'T Vote FOr Bush in ANY school Election, and If I had, I would Shoot myself

Hes an idiot
Trust Me,
Its been a while since ive argued about it so im rusty, but whatever


NvM any of this Blog

Crazy Liberal

K, I am As the name Implies I am, A Crazy-Pinko-Commie-Hippie-Tree-hugging-Liberal! And I proud!

The main reasn for this blog is for me to have a place to put my Politically-related crap, so I dont aggravate To many Ppl. Lol