Wednesday, March 14, 2012
For so long, America has been viewed, particularly by Americans, as a country that needs to go in and fix every other country, make sure they are run the way we want them to be run, and contol everything we think needs to be controlled. America is the leader of nations. We're the problem solver. We'll step in when we decide that it's necessary.
Not only is this view too arrogant for me to accept, but it is also a very costly one. America cannot afford to be involved in so many foreign disputes, especially the ones that do not pertain to us in any way. If America is truly a sovereign nation, we should be willing to recognize and respect the sovereignty of other nations. Ron Paul recognizes that. He recognizes the common sense of treating those other countries the way we want them to treat the United States of America. We can be a leader in this world and we can be a country others look up to, but that does not make it our job to run the world.
All I hear from most politicians is excuses, arrogance, lies, and really bad ideas that they expect you to view as good ideas. All I hear from Ron Paul is common sense and that is so refreshing.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Learn about his positions on the issues and what others say about him at his website.
No wars that don't make sense. No government that doesn't make sense. No spending that doesn't make sense. It's about time we had a candidate that actually makes some sense.
Monday, March 12, 2012
While the health care debate was raging, I went to hear the President speak at George Mason University. It was the Friday before the big vote. I didn't go to disrupt the event, cause a scene, or even sit there and think about how wrong I thought everyone else was. I went to hear what he had to say. The problem was that nothing I heard surprised me.
I admit that I went in expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't expecting to be impressed, but I did go with an open mind and I did make a determination to at least consider what he had to say. After all, it was a chance to hear him give an entire speech instead of hearing quotes on the news that I disagreed with. I wanted to hear him make the case.
I'm glad I went, but I could have stayed home, watched the clips on TV, and not missed out on anything too important. It was all the exact same rhetoric he'd been repeating for more time than he'd been in office, yet he still needed his teleprompter to remind him of the bullet points he had been rehashing everyday. The fact that he used his teleprompter for such a run down topic made me question two things.
The first was his sincerity. If he truly believes that this is good for America and he truly believes that this makes the most sense, why does he need the teleprompter to remind him of the bullet points that are so rational and straightforward to him? He has poured so much effort into this, and yet in some ways it's like he is pushing himself to sell it. If he cares about it so much and it makes so much sense to him why can't a speech like that come naturally to him without him needing that crutch?
The second was his competence. Think about all the time and effort he had put into this. When he gave this speech, it was not a new topic to him. It was a very old topic, one he had been thinking about and planning for for years. It should have come more naturally to him if he truly believes in it, but the understanding and presentation of his health care plan should have come more naturally as well. It made me wonder how well he understood his own health care plan.
His logic didn't make sense. His explanations of certain points of the bill were very vague. The crowd remained standing the entire time he spoke, as if he was a king. They cheered when he told them the expensive plan wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. They cheered when he said he was fired up. They cheered when he said he would see it through.
I sat there and listened to every word. He mocked his critics, but didn't answer their critisicms. He praised his health care plan, but failed to explain it. He blamed Bush for the economy, but forget to mention that it had been his responsibility for the past two years. He claimed that his economic efforts had saved our economy, yet acted as if the amount of money they cost us and the facts that they didn't even live up to their goals, or in some cases come close, was all irrelevant.
It was all hype. The math didn't add up. The logic didn't add up. And he filled in those gaps by telling stories of specific people he had met who desperately needed help instead of explaining how the plan would offer them help without hurting everyone else or infringing on their rights.
That's the problem with his entire presidency. He just doesn't have the answers. And he uses rhetoric and flowery words to make people think that he does. In other words, half the time he doesn't know what he's doing and it's horrible, and the other half he knows exactly what he's doing and it's equally horrible because he's trying to do something that doesn't make any sense!
The math needs to add up. The logic needs to make sense. The direction needs to be healthy for the country. President Obama doesn't give us that and he is not going to. The words and the actions do not match. We can't afford his rhetoric and hype. And we cannot afford to give him four more years. We can't trust him with four more years.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
A candidate's relgion does matter. It tells us what their core beliefs are and that is relevant in any election, but it is not right for any leader to create an agenda for America based on a particular religion. America is a country for people to practice any religion they want and we should not have leaders that create agendas serving or promoting only one. A candidate who does not understand that should not lead this country.
This sort of thing is so unsurprising at this point that I'm beginning to expect it on a regular basis. It has gotten to the point that I know if I get on the internet or I leave the house it is unreasonable to expect that I will not be called racist or stereotyped in some way simply because I'm a white person who does not hold liberal views. I can't avoid being called racist by not being racist. I would have to become a hermit to avoid being called racist!
I will say, however, that the article actually makes some good points. The main point of the article is that those who claim to support securing the border should want BOTH borders to be secure, not just one. It points out that both borders have problems and mentions some specific issues. In terms of national security and border security, these are very valid points.
This leads me to one question. If you actually have a case to make and have a reasonable argument, why destroy other people's ability to take you seriously by playing the race card? Being a hateful bigot does not make your case stronger and demonizing people you disagree with does not make you the bigger person. Make the case instead of playing the race card.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Newt Gingrich-I like his experience in politics and while I disagree with some things he has said in the past I have been impressed with the way he has defended his positions in the debates. My main concern with Gingrich is that he will do whatever the party wants before thinking about what's best for the country and its citizens. In other words, even if he does have some good ideas and seems competent in the debates he just seems like another typical politician.
Herman Cain-Cain is definitely not a typical politician. While I see the benefits of experience in business when the country is facing economic crisis, I also see the benefits of political experience in terms of being able to get things done within the system. We don't need another typical politician, but lack of political experience can hinder his ability to lead at President. Obama's lack of experience has been evident throughout his entire presidency. The question is will it be any better to elect someone with more common sense who also lacks experience?
Mitt Romney-Romney appears to have enough experience and leadership ability to be a viable candidate. And for some reason he just comes across as more sincere. He doesn't come across as a typical politician. His answers also tend to be a little less vaque than some of the other candidates.
Rick Perry-I have been entirely unimpressed by Perry's performance in the debates. He comes across as desperate and whiny. And he seems to prefer attacking other candidates over defending his own positions and ideas.
Michelle Bachman-She is nothing but a mouthpiece. I like her as a Senator, but whenever she is asked a question she will criticize Obama rather than answering it. She actually reminds me of him in that respect. I'm not impressed by a candidate who prefers bashing the current President over explaining what they want to do as President, mainly because I've seen that before.
Rick Santorum-My problem with Santorum is not that he's a typical politician, but he still seems to want to use the system for the wrong things, mainly his religion. He doesn't defend himself well, doesn't seem to have the maturity to be President, and he seems like the type of politician who would have no problem using his executive position to enforce his religion.
Ron Paul is my favorite by far. The only candidates I don't like are Bachman, Santorum, and Perry.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Experience-We need someone who has experience not just in decision making, but in politics. As much as we all complain about the status quo and career politicians, we need people who know how to work within the system to make the changes we want to see. I don't want someone who is clearly power hungry and has a history of abusing authority, but I do want someone who has some idea what they're doing and what they're getting into. I want someone who has held some type of executive position before, not someone who only showed up half the time as a Senator to shake things up by voting present.
Supports Economic Growth-We need someone who has some solutions to our economic growth other than spending a bunch of money to fix this bridge or grow that government agency. We need to stop devaluing the dollar and get the government out of the way of the American people. Government is not the answer to our problems and we need someone who gets that. We can't spend our way out of a broken system and a soaring deficit.
Supports Individual Freedoms-Many of the Republican candidates supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I do not want someone who thinks that it is okay to use their executive position to force other people to live according to their religion. Compared to Democrats, they support individual freedoms much more strongly on a lot of other issues, but it disturbs me that they would be so quick to have the government dictate a persons lifestyle and use their power to enforce their own religion. There are other things at stake and other issues will most likely be the deciding factor for me, but it's quite pathetic for those who claim to support individual freedoms so much to toss it aside on a whim because of their hunger for power and control.
Ability to Defend Positions-I want someone who can do well in a debate. I want someone who can convince me that their ideas are good ones, not through long speeches or thousand page bills that are meant to confuse me, but by giving me the facts. I also need someone who can stay on point. A lot of them like to criticize Obama instead of answering the question. I don't mind the criticisms. It gives me a more specific picture of what exactly they think he's doing wrong, but criticism of an administration should not be a replacement for an answer to a direct question. (Mr. President, if you're reading this, you might want to be taking notes. "George Bush did it" is not the answer to every question.)
Strong Foreign Policies-My expectations on this one are a bit simple. Don't start random wars that serve no benefit to the United States just because you couldn't think of anything better to do. Don't apologize for America's existence and don't appear weak to America's enemies. And don't send troops anywhere their lives will be endangered if you don't have a clear mission for them that has a possibility of being accomplished.
These are the things I'll be thinking about. What's important to you?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
What I don't understand is why he took so long to give the speech, especially at a time when presidential debates are playing on television and people are beginning to think about the next election.
Essentially, through all of August and part of September we go from...
"The Republicans say no to everything! They have no ideas!"
"Well where are Obama's ideas?"
"Don't worry, he's thinking!"
"The Republicans say no to everything! They have no ideas!"
"Well where are Obama's ideas?"
"What are you talking about? They're the same ideas he's had for the past three years!"
Since I haven't had a chance to read the bill I can only judge Obama's plan by what he said in the speech and I don't see any real difference between the plan he has now and the plan he came up with the first few months he was in office. This sounds just like the first Obama stimulus. He just advertises it a different way.
If Obama was more trustworthy based on his track record I would be giving him credit for a few things. For example, Obama mentioned several things that were in the bill that he said had bipartisan support. Actually including some of the Republican ideas instead of constantly accusing them of contributing no ideas sounds like a nice change, but again, it's Barack Obama. I haven't read the bill yet and I'm not taking his word for it.
Of all of the experiences in the world that I would consider to be educational, being the President of the United States seems like it should be one of them. Barack Obama has learned very little. After all this time, he still thinks pouring more money into the government, whether for construction, education, or welfare programs, will solve our problems. Not only is he trying to sell the same ideas, he is making the same mistakes and setting himself up for the same problems. Before his first stimulus was passed he made a lot of promises about that bill. Those promises did not come true and his response was to act as if it did and give himself credit for saving our economy. Before that may have worked, but his approval ratings are even lower now. He made a lot of promises in that speech and knowing Barack Obama the same thing will happen again-He will receive support based on the empty promises that he has made, the bill will not even come close to meeting any of its goals or fulfilling any of Obama's promises, and Obama will just pretend that it was a great success anyways. He's not going to get away with that this time. It's too close to the election.
We'll just have to see if this bill is really paid for, if it really has as much bipartisan support as Obama claims it does, and if any of Obama's other promises will be fulfilled if this bill is passed. Before Obama had time to recover and make his bogus claims about how he accomplished, but now it's crunch time. More people will notice this time around if those promises are not met. He won't be able to "I saved you" his way out of this one.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The current administration continues to cling to its absurd belief that growing the government and putting everyone on welfare will save the economy. And even worse, they continue to believe that they can convince all of us that making more people dependent on the government will strengthen the economy.
Obama's Secretary of Agriculture is now trying to convince us that food stamps are an economic stimulus. His logic is basically that if more people are buying groceries because they have food stamps more people will be needed to pack those groceries.
I have my own theory about what might stimulate the economy even more-more people buying groceries because they have jobs and can afford to buy groceries. Yes, a higher demand for any product can lead to a higher demand for workers, but the politicians are ignoring the big picture, mainly the high demand for jobs that is not being met. In the meantime, they will continue to create costly programs and agencies and expect us to believe that they solve our problems.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Let's just face the facts-politicians will never be intelligent. They will never justify their actions with logic and they will never act responsibly. This article is an excellent example of that.
After all of this time, all of the accumulated debt, all of the frustrations surrounding the deficit, all of the consequences we have had to face, they still don't get it! Nothing will get through the thick brick wall that is a politician's forehead! As usual, their solution to our problems is to raise their limits so they can spend more money and raise taxes to make up for it. These idiots in Washington are wrong. Taxpayers are paying their fair share. The politicians are just not saving their fair share.
The fact that they want to raise the limits again reminds me of a conversation I once had with a liberal friend. We had an argument about unemployment benefits and spending. I said that I didn't have any major problems with unemployment benefits and certain other programs as long as they had limits. He kept saying that they did, but what good are limits if the people they are meant to restrain can raise them at will? These limits mean very little because whenever a limit is inconvenient for Congress they just vote it out of the way and vote more money out of our pay. These people don't play by the rules and they don't play fair. They just expect us to.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Gingrich made an error he may not be able to recover from when he decided to take a lavish three weeks vacation during crucial campaign time.
It's not just the fact that this decision calls into question his dedication to his own campaign. This decision also deeply affects his public image. The people he needs to connect with are really struggling right now and are very aware of the country's deficit and the terrible state of the economy. These are people who know how to work when it's work time because they don't have any other choice and they'll be lucky if they can afford any type of vacation at all. How can they vote for someone who can't even recognize when it's time to get to work?
Gingrich is also showing one of Obama's major flaws. He fails to take his responsiblities seriously. He can make time for all kinds of parties, then he'll turn around and claim that he had spent that time working on solving a problem. Just like Gingrich is taking a vacation and claiming that he's in it to win it.