Now that President Obama has presented his "freedom papers," can we get to solving some of the issues of this country? I find it appalling that this has even become an issue. If someone can provide false documentation and ascertain the position of President of the United States, then are we really a super power?
My wife's friend was recently told by her employer that she had a week to leave the country because her VISA was attached to the job, and the job was coming to an end. America denies VISAs to any one that is HIV positive (how they determine this in the process without becoming moderately evasive eludes me). Arizona's "Show Me Your Paper's" Act of 2010 has been amended to a degree, yet still enforced.
Back to the topic at hand, this would not have been an issue if Barack Obama was born Barrett O'Bama, born to a single white mother and raised by his grandparents. Whatever happened to George W.'s military record; didn't that issue disappear during debates; even though it wasn't completely resolved. Wasn't the birth certificate "issue" resolved about four years ago? That's right, this country doesn't get that resolution should have some finality to it.
Now to solving problems...there's unemployment, healthcare, two wars, and the budget. I choose to highlight the budget. The Tea Party and Republican have taken an initiative started by Nancy Reagan as their position to any Democratic budget proposal; "Just Say No" was a bad way to solve the drug problem that plagued the inner cities of our country, but proves to be a great political strategy in matters of the budget. "Just Say No" has always been a very simple approach to a very complex problem. Now it is the very simple approach that adds even more complexities to a problem that will not solve itself. Congress has gotten by for decades without addressing real issues...unless you count steroids in baseball. What part about, jobs create tax revenue goes over the heads of politicians? Oh yeah, no matter what is proposed, "Just Say No."
Sort of like President Obama's "freedom papers," now we have to check them for integrity. Yes they have the official seal of Hawaii, but we want to add a little redundancy by also requiring that it be notarized. Mr. President, you better make sure all the license plates in your motorcade are up to date before you hit the campaign trail in Arizona...or you will be the first President ever deported.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Decision 2012...and beyond
Before I begin, let me preface this with, I AM NO KARL ROVE; although Trump probably blames me for getting President Obama elected too- Karl Rove calls Donald Trump a Joke
Now, time to get to the serious business of political strategizing. I am not really a party guy, however I do get irritated at how strategically organized the GOP is compared to the democrats. So, here is my strategic advice to the democrats for 2012. Okay, it’s a given that President Obama will be on the ticket. To really compete with the GOP/Tea Party, let’s change his running mate. Although I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton personally, I respect her political position more than I do VP Joe Biden. That and she never called (then Senator) Obama "clean...and speaks well." VP Biden has been known more for his gaffes as Vice President than anything else. I say let him "voluntarily" step down from the 2012 ticket.
Our President is getting his 2012 campaign slogan off the ground and who other than Hillary Clinton can help him better achieve, "Let's Finish What We Started!" With this bold move, President Obama should then solicit Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State to show how bi-partisan he is willing to be. Of course I wouldn't expect either of them to accept this position, however, in the name of bi-partisanship; they should have the opportunity to nominate viable candidates for the president to consider.
Bringing someone from the "other side" serves a great purpose; but back to Hillary as VP. The democratic base was spilt for the majority of the primaries leading up to the 2008 election. That type of split will lose the 2012 election after so much has already been accomplished. Besides, who is better to discuss the importance of President Obama's Universal Healthcare plan than Hillary Clinton? She was only the biggest supporter as First Lady in 1993. Her role as Secretary of State only gave her a much deeper grasp of foreign policy and the political landscape of foreign allies and enemies. Not to mention, you get the most popular democrat of them all, Bill Clinton, all over the campaign trail. Of course this would springboard Hillary right to the top of the 2016 ticket where she can, "Continue the Movement!"
As I stated at the beginning of this blog, I am no Karl Rove- let the criticisms fly.
Now, time to get to the serious business of political strategizing. I am not really a party guy, however I do get irritated at how strategically organized the GOP is compared to the democrats. So, here is my strategic advice to the democrats for 2012. Okay, it’s a given that President Obama will be on the ticket. To really compete with the GOP/Tea Party, let’s change his running mate. Although I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton personally, I respect her political position more than I do VP Joe Biden. That and she never called (then Senator) Obama "clean...and speaks well." VP Biden has been known more for his gaffes as Vice President than anything else. I say let him "voluntarily" step down from the 2012 ticket.
Our President is getting his 2012 campaign slogan off the ground and who other than Hillary Clinton can help him better achieve, "Let's Finish What We Started!" With this bold move, President Obama should then solicit Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State to show how bi-partisan he is willing to be. Of course I wouldn't expect either of them to accept this position, however, in the name of bi-partisanship; they should have the opportunity to nominate viable candidates for the president to consider.
Bringing someone from the "other side" serves a great purpose; but back to Hillary as VP. The democratic base was spilt for the majority of the primaries leading up to the 2008 election. That type of split will lose the 2012 election after so much has already been accomplished. Besides, who is better to discuss the importance of President Obama's Universal Healthcare plan than Hillary Clinton? She was only the biggest supporter as First Lady in 1993. Her role as Secretary of State only gave her a much deeper grasp of foreign policy and the political landscape of foreign allies and enemies. Not to mention, you get the most popular democrat of them all, Bill Clinton, all over the campaign trail. Of course this would springboard Hillary right to the top of the 2016 ticket where she can, "Continue the Movement!"
As I stated at the beginning of this blog, I am no Karl Rove- let the criticisms fly.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Implementation of a Political Aptitude Test (PATs)
Colleges will not admit you without good, above average or phenomenal SAT scores; Law School has the LSATs, and the MCAT tests aptitude for acceptance in to medical school. Hell, even the military has the ASVAB. So why do we have people holding political positions on the local, state and federal level without undergoing a Political Aptitude Test (PAT).
I for one feel that PATs should be implemented, and no one can be grand-fathered in. If the only Amendments of the Constitution you know are the First (Freedom of Speech, etc) and Second (Right to keep and bear arms, etc.), then you better be really adept at balancing your local, state and federal deficit with your respective gross domestic product (GDP).
I for one am growing tired with the nonsense that goes along with politics. Is Barack Obama a citizen? Really, Don, that would be your running point. We are talking about the highest position in the world as it relates to National secrets, and the ability to initiate the end of the world with the push of a button. To question citizenship is to question background; let me put this into better perspective...
The PATs would have questions such as, have you ever filed for bankruptcy. Yes, you have made and LOST millions, even billions, but as Commander and Chief, I personally, do not want to be lead by someone where the risk would be just as equal to the reward. You sir are a businessperson. Stay there. Mr. Trump, I am interested in how you would fair, on such an aptitude test. Would you be good at finding ways to make this country profitable? I am sure you would, but it would be by doing something as asinine as contracting out our own military, ON THE RECORD… because you would not be able to resist the advertisement of having the best product in the world. Bad enough we sell weapons...but I digress.
Of course, the aptitude test would address conflicts of interest. As President, would you have any business interest that would conflict with your policy-making decisions (Halliburton 2.0 anyone). Yes, I support the institution of Political Aptitude Tests. As the ASVAB does for the military, not just anyone can select Military Intelligence as a military occupation. The results should also be public, to be viewed without "Spin Doctors." We all know the campaign trail has promises; the aptitude test is what it is. I am not singling you out Mr. Trump, as I stated in the beginning, all current politicians from our President to every at-large council-member in every locality, should be made to take such a test. Except for D.C. of course, because they never really counted anyway.
Jack Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Well, the PATs would allow us to ask that of every potential politician.
I for one feel that PATs should be implemented, and no one can be grand-fathered in. If the only Amendments of the Constitution you know are the First (Freedom of Speech, etc) and Second (Right to keep and bear arms, etc.), then you better be really adept at balancing your local, state and federal deficit with your respective gross domestic product (GDP).
I for one am growing tired with the nonsense that goes along with politics. Is Barack Obama a citizen? Really, Don, that would be your running point. We are talking about the highest position in the world as it relates to National secrets, and the ability to initiate the end of the world with the push of a button. To question citizenship is to question background; let me put this into better perspective...
The PATs would have questions such as, have you ever filed for bankruptcy. Yes, you have made and LOST millions, even billions, but as Commander and Chief, I personally, do not want to be lead by someone where the risk would be just as equal to the reward. You sir are a businessperson. Stay there. Mr. Trump, I am interested in how you would fair, on such an aptitude test. Would you be good at finding ways to make this country profitable? I am sure you would, but it would be by doing something as asinine as contracting out our own military, ON THE RECORD… because you would not be able to resist the advertisement of having the best product in the world. Bad enough we sell weapons...but I digress.
Of course, the aptitude test would address conflicts of interest. As President, would you have any business interest that would conflict with your policy-making decisions (Halliburton 2.0 anyone). Yes, I support the institution of Political Aptitude Tests. As the ASVAB does for the military, not just anyone can select Military Intelligence as a military occupation. The results should also be public, to be viewed without "Spin Doctors." We all know the campaign trail has promises; the aptitude test is what it is. I am not singling you out Mr. Trump, as I stated in the beginning, all current politicians from our President to every at-large council-member in every locality, should be made to take such a test. Except for D.C. of course, because they never really counted anyway.
Jack Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Well, the PATs would allow us to ask that of every potential politician.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
D.C. Mayor "Vinnie" Gray arrested for trying to influence a vote in D.C.
In response the the 2012 Congressional Budet agreement, the mayor of D.C. and several council members protested the lack of input from D.C. officials. The budget has riders that prohibit the District of Columbia from spending any locally generated revenue on abortions, places D.C.'s needle exchange program in limbo, and continues a program that allows students to use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools. Here is a spoof of how it all played out.
Also involved were Michael "Money Making" Brown the I-at-Large council member and Tommy "Big Gun" Wells. Wards four and seven council reps, Yvette Alexander and Muriel "The Bruiser" Bowser were also rounded up in this sweep of arrests that took place on Constitution Ave in the northeast quadrant of D.C. It has been reported that all of the council members along with mayor "Vinnie" Gray were caught red-handed conspiring to influence budget decisions, with dozens of witnesses available for testimony
Feeling the need to protect their territory from a new player in the area, "Big Balls" Boehner from Ohio, the council sought advice from a former delegate, now congresswoman. Not caught in the conspiracy round-up was Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, known to those in her circle simply as, "Big Mama" has become very elusive to authorities. "Big Mama" was not present at the meeting on Constitution Avenue and information from an unnamed source is "that she refused to be a part of it because she was not allowed to vote on the agreed upon course of action."
"Big Balls" Boehner and is cohorts look to move into D.C. and have apparently frozen the funds of this band of conspirators known now as the "Organized Council." "Vinnie" Gray was very vocal in his thoughts of how it is unfair that his council could not spend the funds they generated how they saw fit due to federal oversight; and thought that being penalized for spending said funds was absurd...he and the rest of his council have also been reported to never use ATM machines outside of their banking network.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Do Ask, Do Tell...Accept
First, I commend President Obama on signing the legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Sadly, the damage of this legislation has already been done. The mindset that was opposed to gays serving openly in the military has not only affected the military, but society as a whole. I will get to society soon enough, but back to the military. Given that we have a volunteer populated military, I personally would never be opposed to someone defending the freedoms that I take for granted, based on sexual orientation. By the way, so do 77% of all Americans. Apparently, the majority of men and women serving in our military DON’T CARE about the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers.
I seriously doubt if this will lead to drag shows in the barracks of boot camp; however this is what the supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will have us believe. The great compromise of 1993 brought about by President Clinton, has seen 13,000 troops discharged because of its institution. I'm sure that when our soldiers are patrolling for suicide bombers, or bringing order to unstable situations, the sexual orientation of the soldier serving at their side is of no concern. Concern over sexual orientation however, is the problem.
This brings me to the impact on society. A mindset that can force people to be comfortable with not expressing their true self is not only manipulative and dangerous, said mindset has the potential to drastically change the scope of society. The term, "Down Low" became very popular in the late 1990s; mainly amongst the African American population. I think that the mindset behind "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the same mindset that brought about closeted homosexuality. To remain closeted, many male homosexuals chose to have committed heterosexual relationships. Not because they wanted to, but because society did not accept them for whom they were. Just like the military, homosexuality was/ is frowned upon in some parts of society, and within the realms of religious purity. I will not get into whether or not homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of religion, which is a matter that is left up to interpretation of religious doctrine.
What I will get into, is the outbreak of HIV/ AIDS in society. This is a direct correlation of people not being accepted for who they are, and people not accepting people for who they are. The HIV/ AIDS epidemic started out as a gay white man's disease. Now it runs rampant in many of America's impoverished and African American neighborhoods. We say that we are a land of freedom, with the first amendment, and the power of individualism and expression. I ask then, why is the expression of sexuality by individuals who do not subscribe to heterosexuality frowned upon? Is not the best way to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, a problem that the military was not face with, with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is to properly educate society. I say properly, because it seems as though the only people that receive any real information about HIV/AIDS are those that contract it. The rest of us only receive information on how to protect ourselves from it, unless of course we are put in a position to care for someone that has it.
We now have people that have lived with the HIV virus for over 20 years. I say use them, the education starts there. The military is now open to gays serving openly, and I am sure there will be no camouflage pumps or t-shirts tied in knots issued to military uniforms. The mindset that brought about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fears this for some reason. They will have us believe it via uneducated propaganda. The men and women of our military are soldiers. They understand what being a soldier entails. However, in society, due to stereotypes and idiodicy, we will continue to receive the very basic in HIV/ AIDS awareness, "Wrap it Up!" Just like "Just Say No," this is a very simple solution to a very complex problem within society and does not truly address the issue at hand. Accepting people for who they are is the first step. People being honest about who they are is the next; so I move to bring about, "Do Ask, Do Tell...Accept" into our society.
I seriously doubt if this will lead to drag shows in the barracks of boot camp; however this is what the supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will have us believe. The great compromise of 1993 brought about by President Clinton, has seen 13,000 troops discharged because of its institution. I'm sure that when our soldiers are patrolling for suicide bombers, or bringing order to unstable situations, the sexual orientation of the soldier serving at their side is of no concern. Concern over sexual orientation however, is the problem.
This brings me to the impact on society. A mindset that can force people to be comfortable with not expressing their true self is not only manipulative and dangerous, said mindset has the potential to drastically change the scope of society. The term, "Down Low" became very popular in the late 1990s; mainly amongst the African American population. I think that the mindset behind "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the same mindset that brought about closeted homosexuality. To remain closeted, many male homosexuals chose to have committed heterosexual relationships. Not because they wanted to, but because society did not accept them for whom they were. Just like the military, homosexuality was/ is frowned upon in some parts of society, and within the realms of religious purity. I will not get into whether or not homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of religion, which is a matter that is left up to interpretation of religious doctrine.
What I will get into, is the outbreak of HIV/ AIDS in society. This is a direct correlation of people not being accepted for who they are, and people not accepting people for who they are. The HIV/ AIDS epidemic started out as a gay white man's disease. Now it runs rampant in many of America's impoverished and African American neighborhoods. We say that we are a land of freedom, with the first amendment, and the power of individualism and expression. I ask then, why is the expression of sexuality by individuals who do not subscribe to heterosexuality frowned upon? Is not the best way to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, a problem that the military was not face with, with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is to properly educate society. I say properly, because it seems as though the only people that receive any real information about HIV/AIDS are those that contract it. The rest of us only receive information on how to protect ourselves from it, unless of course we are put in a position to care for someone that has it.
We now have people that have lived with the HIV virus for over 20 years. I say use them, the education starts there. The military is now open to gays serving openly, and I am sure there will be no camouflage pumps or t-shirts tied in knots issued to military uniforms. The mindset that brought about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fears this for some reason. They will have us believe it via uneducated propaganda. The men and women of our military are soldiers. They understand what being a soldier entails. However, in society, due to stereotypes and idiodicy, we will continue to receive the very basic in HIV/ AIDS awareness, "Wrap it Up!" Just like "Just Say No," this is a very simple solution to a very complex problem within society and does not truly address the issue at hand. Accepting people for who they are is the first step. People being honest about who they are is the next; so I move to bring about, "Do Ask, Do Tell...Accept" into our society.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
State of the Budget (speech from our President)
My fellow Americans,
Our nation has entered into a defining moment in its history, where we are faced with the possibility of a government shutdown. Let congress be forewarned, that a government shutdown, would affect the citizens of this nation in epic proportions. The best way to approach this challenge is to have a goal, not let politics get involved, and to remember that it is you, the citizens that will be affected if it does. Now, I have met with Majority Leader Boehner and Minority Leader Reid and I expressed my concern, no wait my displeasure, with the amount of time it has taken for Congress to agree on a budget. I do not want to hear any more excuses. I want it done. Do not blame the so-called Tea Party.
This is not November 29, 1773, and America is not faced with tariffs, America is faced with a turning point that will ultimately effect, education, jobs, our military and the future. Now is not the time to play party politics. Shutting down the government would affect our troops, who have already sacrificed enough for our country, and to hold their pay as ransom for budget cuts is unacceptable. That's right you heard me, without a budget, our troops aren't compensated. Their families that rely on it must go without; we would be asking the young men and women of our military to sacrifice on both ends. I have utilized Executive Privilege, to extend this congressional session until an agreement is reached.
I have made it clear, that I will not sign off on a budget that cuts programs for higher education yet provides a tax break for the wealthiest one percent. I will not sign off on a budget that awards tax breaks for shipping American jobs overseas, when we have unemployment numbers at its highest point since the Great Depression. However, I will sign off on a budget requires seizing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so that those monies can be used to rebuild the infrastructure of America. The resources are there to create jobs and stimulate the economy, they just need to be re-appropriated.
Now, Senators Boehner and Reid, you have my fullest confidence in the execution of this budget, and I know that you will not let me and the American people down.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Our nation has entered into a defining moment in its history, where we are faced with the possibility of a government shutdown. Let congress be forewarned, that a government shutdown, would affect the citizens of this nation in epic proportions. The best way to approach this challenge is to have a goal, not let politics get involved, and to remember that it is you, the citizens that will be affected if it does. Now, I have met with Majority Leader Boehner and Minority Leader Reid and I expressed my concern, no wait my displeasure, with the amount of time it has taken for Congress to agree on a budget. I do not want to hear any more excuses. I want it done. Do not blame the so-called Tea Party.
This is not November 29, 1773, and America is not faced with tariffs, America is faced with a turning point that will ultimately effect, education, jobs, our military and the future. Now is not the time to play party politics. Shutting down the government would affect our troops, who have already sacrificed enough for our country, and to hold their pay as ransom for budget cuts is unacceptable. That's right you heard me, without a budget, our troops aren't compensated. Their families that rely on it must go without; we would be asking the young men and women of our military to sacrifice on both ends. I have utilized Executive Privilege, to extend this congressional session until an agreement is reached.
I have made it clear, that I will not sign off on a budget that cuts programs for higher education yet provides a tax break for the wealthiest one percent. I will not sign off on a budget that awards tax breaks for shipping American jobs overseas, when we have unemployment numbers at its highest point since the Great Depression. However, I will sign off on a budget requires seizing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so that those monies can be used to rebuild the infrastructure of America. The resources are there to create jobs and stimulate the economy, they just need to be re-appropriated.
Now, Senators Boehner and Reid, you have my fullest confidence in the execution of this budget, and I know that you will not let me and the American people down.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Revolution Should be Televised
For the second time this year, the political parties that run this country have entertained us with the sound bite- "Shutdown Showdown." They have come out of negotiations with two very different reports on progress. I guess they would rather discuss the NFL lockout; instead of doing their jobs. We have the Left reporting that they have agreed with a number to trim from the budget, and we have the Right reporting that they haven't agreed to anything. They want a specific amount cut and they would rather shutdown the entire system than to compromise. Does the Right view the Left as terrorists; and have dutifully instituted the, "This Nation Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists Act of 2012." The only problem with this is, they are colleagues that are supposed to share the same goal of running this country in the best interest its citizens.
So I offer a simple solution, televise the proceedings. Let us see what each side wants to cut, and why. Let us hear the Right argue how those with the most deserve more. Let the Left counter with economic growth, job creation and the ability to win the future are not up for the chopping block.
If the proceedings were indeed televised, this is how I imagine it going (closed caption provided by my keyboard).
Right: If we allow this administration to create jobs, it will undermine our 2012 bid for the White House.
Left: Unemployment is at an all-time high, and job creation is what everyone in this room ran on.
Right: And we will create jobs, starting on January 21, 2013- just in time to save us for the mid-term elections. Nothing personal, just politics.
Left: But it was you all that put the country in this predicament to begin with.
Right: The past is the past and we've change; we understand what is important, and just as our pledge stated, "We will continue to do what we've always done."
Left: Okay, you win. Can we break out the Wii now?
(Final six hours of the proceedings go to blue screen)
Both sides emerge from the proceeding looking tired, (mainly from the physical exertion of playing Wii) and the Dems seem very satisfied. The Republicans look beaten, yet victorious.
This is what they report:
Donkeys (because this is where they make an ass of themselves): Compromises were made in the name of Bi-partisan ship (meaning we switched up teams in our Wii playing after we proved to be the dominant party) and everyone had the opportunity to express themselves in this compromise.
Pachyderms (so named because they never forget how good those good olde times were): We didn't get everything we wanted (they lost at Wii), but we are satisfied with the cuts that were made. We got to mix it up a little bit with the asses over there and I must admit, they were just as serious as we are about keeping the government running (Wii track and field).
Tea Leaves: These proceedings were business as usual in Washington.
So I offer a simple solution, televise the proceedings. Let us see what each side wants to cut, and why. Let us hear the Right argue how those with the most deserve more. Let the Left counter with economic growth, job creation and the ability to win the future are not up for the chopping block.
If the proceedings were indeed televised, this is how I imagine it going (closed caption provided by my keyboard).
Right: If we allow this administration to create jobs, it will undermine our 2012 bid for the White House.
Left: Unemployment is at an all-time high, and job creation is what everyone in this room ran on.
Right: And we will create jobs, starting on January 21, 2013- just in time to save us for the mid-term elections. Nothing personal, just politics.
Left: But it was you all that put the country in this predicament to begin with.
Right: The past is the past and we've change; we understand what is important, and just as our pledge stated, "We will continue to do what we've always done."
Left: Okay, you win. Can we break out the Wii now?
(Final six hours of the proceedings go to blue screen)
Both sides emerge from the proceeding looking tired, (mainly from the physical exertion of playing Wii) and the Dems seem very satisfied. The Republicans look beaten, yet victorious.
This is what they report:
Donkeys (because this is where they make an ass of themselves): Compromises were made in the name of Bi-partisan ship (meaning we switched up teams in our Wii playing after we proved to be the dominant party) and everyone had the opportunity to express themselves in this compromise.
Pachyderms (so named because they never forget how good those good olde times were): We didn't get everything we wanted (they lost at Wii), but we are satisfied with the cuts that were made. We got to mix it up a little bit with the asses over there and I must admit, they were just as serious as we are about keeping the government running (Wii track and field).
Tea Leaves: These proceedings were business as usual in Washington.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Filler-Uhhh....No
Okay, today at approximately 5:00PM it took $58.00 to fill up a 4-cylinder vehicle, did BP blow another underwater well? Oh, that's right, oil is now $108 dollars a barrel. I just purchased half a barrel of oil. I knew that filling up would cost me, which is why for the last three months I've set a $25-30 limit on gas procurement... which would sometimes get a half a tank or slightly more. So why did I even bother to fill-up, curiosity. I remember before I even knew how to drive, $5.00 worth of gas would get my mom across town on Sunday; then back and forth to work for the week. Now, five bucks just gets me as far as the next gas station. A gallon of regular gas in the late 80's was 0.89 9/10 a gallon, we are talking over a 400% increase, with gas in my area topping out at $3.79 9/10 a gallon.
First, we had the Iraq war to blame, then Katrina, Rita and BP. Now, we have Libya, oh yeah, and greed. It's the latter I have more of a problem with, cause in my opinion, helping the people of Libya was the right thing to do. Two, three years ago, I had a problem paying that much for gas, just to get back and forth to work. Now, I understand why the cost is what it is, and maybe blame is to harsh a word for Libya. Gaddafi, Khadafi, or Qaddafi whichever way its spelled on Mondays, did something to his own people and threatened far worse because they wanted change. If taking action costs $3.79 a gallon, then I am willing to accept that for the greater good.
The greed on the other hand, I cannot accept. Don't fleece me at the pump, and still report record profits. If I have to pay more, then so be it; but where is your sacrifice Big Oil? One barrel of oil generates between 42-45 gallons of gasoline...so my $58.00 should have been good for at least 21 gallons and I only have a 15 gallon tank... so the cost per gallon should be between $2.40- $2.60 a gallon, who gives a damn about processing and overhead, have you scene the economy, make a sacrifice.
I just purchased half a barrel of oil, and used approximately 85% of it. I consider that a 15% gratuity added to my tab, which is somewhat unfair, because I was very dissatisfied with the service.
First, we had the Iraq war to blame, then Katrina, Rita and BP. Now, we have Libya, oh yeah, and greed. It's the latter I have more of a problem with, cause in my opinion, helping the people of Libya was the right thing to do. Two, three years ago, I had a problem paying that much for gas, just to get back and forth to work. Now, I understand why the cost is what it is, and maybe blame is to harsh a word for Libya. Gaddafi, Khadafi, or Qaddafi whichever way its spelled on Mondays, did something to his own people and threatened far worse because they wanted change. If taking action costs $3.79 a gallon, then I am willing to accept that for the greater good.
The greed on the other hand, I cannot accept. Don't fleece me at the pump, and still report record profits. If I have to pay more, then so be it; but where is your sacrifice Big Oil? One barrel of oil generates between 42-45 gallons of gasoline...so my $58.00 should have been good for at least 21 gallons and I only have a 15 gallon tank... so the cost per gallon should be between $2.40- $2.60 a gallon, who gives a damn about processing and overhead, have you scene the economy, make a sacrifice.
I just purchased half a barrel of oil, and used approximately 85% of it. I consider that a 15% gratuity added to my tab, which is somewhat unfair, because I was very dissatisfied with the service.
It Begins With YOU, not us.
Mr. President, this is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you.
President Obama's re-election campaign has been officially announced. Oddly enough, the ending leaves us with the message, "It begins with us." I understand that choosing our elected officials begin with us; but re-election rests solely on the candidate and what they were able to accomplish. Mr. President, you have accomplished many things while in office. The only thing is, no one knows what. You've spent the majority of your presidency defending the decisions you've made as a leader.
First Decision- the BAIL-OUT. Okay, I agree that the bail-out was needed; the information provided afterwards is what's lacking. Everyone received the information that Corporate America received checks from the government (our tax dollars) with a lot of zeros on them. There was a government takeover of the some dealers in auto industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Back to the bail-out; what gets comingled in the bail-out is unemployment. Yes the economy was on the verge of meltdown, and the bail-out was needed because our banking system was indeed TOO BIG TO FAIL! Now, what most citizens don't know is that only $411 Billion (cough) of the $700 Billion in bail out money was distributed, and more importantly, 70% of it has already been repaid. This is where it gets tricky though...unemployment hit an all-time high; foreclosures went through the roof; and we had "cash for clunkers."
Unemployment, while still too high, gives the impression that the economy isn't recovering. The bail-out wasn't a job-creating bill, it was an "OH SHIT, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE AND FAST" kind of bill. Both the left and right knew this. The Right used it to posture themselves for the 2010 election, citing that the government has spent trillions of dollars and that deficit is at a record high. Once the bail-out was approved, the message to those of us that funded it disappeared. Unemployment. For some reason, that keeps coming up. See how it just gets mixed in there.
Job creation is what I want to hear about. Not how important it is that you get re-elected, and that "It begins with us." You promised to begin bringing troops home from Iraq, and you held up your end of the deal on that. You promised to fix the economy, still a work in progress; just work on your communication. Like Ed in North Carolina, I don't agree with everything you've done, but I do trust you (most of the time). So tell us that you are going to create jobs- then make it happen.
Speaking of working on your communication, what's the state of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Thought we forgot about it didn't you. I refuse to do another Google search to get 3000 links to different information tainted by bloggers, FOX, and also liberals that spin the information provided to achieve ulterior motives.
What I don't want to see are "Happy Hours" at the White to discuss "race issues" with Prof. Henry Gates and Sgt. James Crowley...you are the President! This should have been played out in a court of law, regardless of who was right or wrong.
Also, what I don't want to see is another episode similar to Shirley Sherrod. Mr. President, you possess a Harvard education, deductive reasoning, critical thinking and proper decision-making skills. You jumped the gun without receiving all the information. If anyone should have been invited to the White House for a drink, it should have been Ms. Sherrod; with defamation of character and slander charges brought about on Andrew Breitbart. But I digress.
What is to be done about unemployment, or is that something that also, "begins with us," as well.
Mr. President, I have decided to support your re-election campaign, just know, IT STARTS WITH YOU, NOT US.
Tell us what you accomplished; tell us what you plan to accomplish; cause above all other things, you have one thing going for you that not many elected officials do, I still trust you.
President Obama's re-election campaign has been officially announced. Oddly enough, the ending leaves us with the message, "It begins with us." I understand that choosing our elected officials begin with us; but re-election rests solely on the candidate and what they were able to accomplish. Mr. President, you have accomplished many things while in office. The only thing is, no one knows what. You've spent the majority of your presidency defending the decisions you've made as a leader.
First Decision- the BAIL-OUT. Okay, I agree that the bail-out was needed; the information provided afterwards is what's lacking. Everyone received the information that Corporate America received checks from the government (our tax dollars) with a lot of zeros on them. There was a government takeover of the some dealers in auto industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Back to the bail-out; what gets comingled in the bail-out is unemployment. Yes the economy was on the verge of meltdown, and the bail-out was needed because our banking system was indeed TOO BIG TO FAIL! Now, what most citizens don't know is that only $411 Billion (cough) of the $700 Billion in bail out money was distributed, and more importantly, 70% of it has already been repaid. This is where it gets tricky though...unemployment hit an all-time high; foreclosures went through the roof; and we had "cash for clunkers."
Unemployment, while still too high, gives the impression that the economy isn't recovering. The bail-out wasn't a job-creating bill, it was an "OH SHIT, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE AND FAST" kind of bill. Both the left and right knew this. The Right used it to posture themselves for the 2010 election, citing that the government has spent trillions of dollars and that deficit is at a record high. Once the bail-out was approved, the message to those of us that funded it disappeared. Unemployment. For some reason, that keeps coming up. See how it just gets mixed in there.
Job creation is what I want to hear about. Not how important it is that you get re-elected, and that "It begins with us." You promised to begin bringing troops home from Iraq, and you held up your end of the deal on that. You promised to fix the economy, still a work in progress; just work on your communication. Like Ed in North Carolina, I don't agree with everything you've done, but I do trust you (most of the time). So tell us that you are going to create jobs- then make it happen.
Speaking of working on your communication, what's the state of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Thought we forgot about it didn't you. I refuse to do another Google search to get 3000 links to different information tainted by bloggers, FOX, and also liberals that spin the information provided to achieve ulterior motives.
What I don't want to see are "Happy Hours" at the White to discuss "race issues" with Prof. Henry Gates and Sgt. James Crowley...you are the President! This should have been played out in a court of law, regardless of who was right or wrong.
Also, what I don't want to see is another episode similar to Shirley Sherrod. Mr. President, you possess a Harvard education, deductive reasoning, critical thinking and proper decision-making skills. You jumped the gun without receiving all the information. If anyone should have been invited to the White House for a drink, it should have been Ms. Sherrod; with defamation of character and slander charges brought about on Andrew Breitbart. But I digress.
What is to be done about unemployment, or is that something that also, "begins with us," as well.
Mr. President, I have decided to support your re-election campaign, just know, IT STARTS WITH YOU, NOT US.
Tell us what you accomplished; tell us what you plan to accomplish; cause above all other things, you have one thing going for you that not many elected officials do, I still trust you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)