Archive for the ‘Absurd’ Category

h1

Sodomites and the “Excuse”

March 8, 2008

Here’s a short quip of my thought about homosexuality. For the sake of refraining from writing “homosexual” (and the fact that I REFUSE to give in to political correctness) I’m just going to refer to them as “gay.”

To start off the subject I just want to say that I really don’t care if people are gay. I think it’s a bit gross and it makes no sense to me, but I’ve never held anything against gays for being gay, EXCEPT when they give me the “excuse.” What is this “excuse?” I’ll get to that in a moment.

First let’s get to the legal part. I really have mixed feelings about the subject of gay marriage, simply because I don’t really have the desire to tell people how to live. However, there is good evidence supporting the notion that it should be illegal to allow gay marriage. One argument is that “marriage is the incubator of children.” If you can’t have children, why do you need to get married? Also, marriage is literally defined as “the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other.” So technically, even if gays are “together” they can’t, by definition, be married.

But this post isn’t meant for the legal aspect of gay people, but to give the debate against the “excuse.”

Time and time again, I hear gay people and defenders of gay people tell me that they can’t choose whether or not they’re gay. “They’re born gay.” “They can’t help it.” “They are what they are, not by choice, but by destiny.” Blah blah blah. I don’t buy this for a minute. Ok, I don’t believe God made you gay. Sorry. I believe that you choose your own destiny. You choose your own lifestyle. This excuse is not only false, but hypocritical.

Most gay people (excluding the strange institution of gay Christians) are atheist. Then, they claim that they were born gay. Wait…if you’re born gay doesn’t that mean that some higher power made you gay? Hmmm. But then there’s the people that believe God chooses everything for you…even if that were true, why would God make someone gay? It makes no sense to me. You choose your own lifestyle and nobody can change your mind. So this bogus premise that gays “can’t help it” is ridiculous.

h1

Officially Apathetic

March 8, 2008

It’s late…I’m tired…I’m Annoyed…I don’t know what to do.

The Republican party and all of its “(R) before (C)” members have abandoned me and my fellow conservatives. While the country moves further and further left, I become more and more aggravated. Regardless, here are a few last words on what I think about the candidates before I sleep:

Mitt Romney – You’re a businessman who knows what is and isn’t a bad investment. While it may be a bad investment financially to continue, I say stay in the race just to stand up for what’s right.

Mike Huckabee – You’re a hypocrite and I have no respect for you and your ridiculous claims of conservatism. Crawl back into the hole that you came from along with the uneducated “(R) before (C)” people who support you.

Ron Paul – While you stand up for everything I agree on domestically, you’re an idiot for ever thinking that the US can just “stay out of the way” and therefore I could never vote for you.

And finally…John McCain – You’ve made my party the party of moderates…I hope you’re proud…I’m ashamed.

May conservatism be with you all

David Cooper (C)

h1

The Bad Theories of Supporting McCain (Part I)

February 1, 2008

With John McCain being the alleged GOP frontrunner, I find myslef inclined to put my thoughts on the table about the theories of why McCain should be the GOP nominee.

I could write for days on end about the inconsistencies of John McCain, but let’s face the facts without the tedious, but obvious, long list of McCain’s liberal viewpoint of the world. This post is intended to debunk the mythological premises of the support of John McCain, not argue that McCain is more or less of a conservative than Reagan or even Romney (although I must add that John McCain can never HONESTLY say he was a part of the Reagan phenomena and the reestablished Republican Party as Conservatives…but I digress).

Let’s look at the arguments:

(1) “McCain is the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

– Wrong. 20th century American history has proven time and time again that when Conservatives try to appeal to the left we lose. Conservatives are strongest and near unstoppable when we stick to our values and we are weakest and most vulnerable when we pander to the liberals. Besides, haven’t we already had a Clinton beat a RINO in a general election? Let’s recap…Clinton v. Dole. Who won that election?…oh yeah, that’s right, Clinton. Not only did he win, but he won by an extraordinary percentage…and McCainiacs believe that he is the best to beat the Clinton Machine? Sorry, but you can’t out-dem a democrat.

And what do we do if Clinton isn’t the nominee? What if it’s McCain and Obama? McCain would lose. Not that it would matter anyway, because to me they’re the same and at least at that point the Republican party would still be considered the Conservative party. Let the Democrats be liberal…not the Republicans.

(2) “In a general election debate McCain would show how Clinton is wrong on the issues, and he would ultimately ‘win’ the debate.”

– I can’t believe it. How can McCain win a debate against Clinton when he can’t even win any of the 15+ debates we’ve had so far? Every time I hear McCain speak he is slow, dry, unexciting, and uninspiring. Not to mention he can’t even defend his stances because he knows they’re “iffy” and inconsistent. And when he goes on “attack” mode, he does so with fake and skewed statements, then he claims to be “straight talk.” Just look at the last debate when he tried to say Romney was for a timetable of withdrawal. Everyone knew it was wrong and taken way out of context.

Romney, on the other hand, would DESTROY Clinton in a one-on-one debate. He has proven that he can gather his thoughts and deliver them without socially inept one-liners. Also, he can actually answer a question, rahter than avoid the question and swim around it. I know Romney isn’t perfect. I personally think that he’s too nice in debates. He could have questioned McCain’s liberal support and tactics in the last debate, but he didn’t…he’s trying to take the high road. Against a democrat, however, I think he can really “unload.”

(3) “John McCain is the best candidate for the War in Iraq and National Security.”

– This is one theory that is a trick. We are tricked into thinking that he is the best for foreign policy because he was a POW in Vietnam. McCain likes to pull the “war hero” card, but it’s misleading. I respect his service and I admire his strength throughout his imprisonment, but how is he by definition a “War Hero?” We let him get away with pulling this card a little too much. If he can’t answer a question, like a question about the economy, he pulls the card and starts talking about foreign policy. I don’t believe that you have to serve in a war to be a successful president during war time. Some of the best presidents never served in war.

Another thing, how is McCain the best for national security when he doesn’t have much interest in closing the border. Sure he says he wants a secure border now, but his record the past year disproves . In addition to the border, and just as important, is Gitmo. How is closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists to America to use our justice system good for national security? Someone please explain that to me.

These are just a few thoughts to derail the attempted justifications for uniting behind McCain. Next I will talk about the Economy (in which McCain has NO idea what to do about), China (which Romney is most prepared for), and the fate of our party as we know it.

h1

Madeline, Are You Serious!?

January 10, 2008

After reading this article about Madeline Albright’s opionion that Bush is the worst president in history, my assumption that Democrats want to destroy the greatness of America has been confirmed.

Albright descriminates Bush for not doing enough about global warming. She said that the next president should embrace the “global view of climate change.”

Ok… As if the president doesn’t have enough on his plate with the confrontation in Iraq. Bush can’t do it all people. Even the Reagan administration didn’t try to solve every problem in America (not to say that there is really a global warming problem). They made priorities, stuck to them, and worked their hardest to solve the problems.

I can play the game of the President possibly not having the right priorities, but when she says that the job of the next president should be to look after the interests of foreign nations I draw the line. NEVER in the history of organized government has a country looked after the interests of others. One way or another a country always does what will benefit themeselves.

The next absurd statement made by Albright was when she said, “the next president […]has to have the capability of dealing with other countries and being interested actually, in what their national intersest is and in listening.” WHAT!? So in other words, if we pander to terrorists and just stay out of the way, but at the same time get involved with helping, but not so much as to make them mad, but just to listen to them, but don’t say or do anything even if it leads to the fall of America, blah blah blah. Hippie talk. Wake up people! That’s like saying if we would have just lifted our oil embargo from Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor we wouldn’t have had to go to war and they would have left us alone. Yeah right.

In addition, Albright says that globalization is inevitable and we should do what we can to decrease the gap between rich and poor. Madeline, are you willing to give up half of your earnings to pay for the poor? If so you’re an imbisile. Of course you can stop globalization! It’s easy, be American. Stop pretending to be “world citizens” and start becoming American citizens! Besides, countries in the middle east don’t want to become part of some global community, they want to control it!

This is the path to the destruction of prosperity. Americans want to better their lives while Democrats want to worsen the lives of those who worked hard by taking their earnings and distributing to the people who are lazy and don’t want to work for it. America is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Remember that.

But wait, Madeline wants global equality. She says, “If we were all rich, that would be nice. If were all poor, it would be too bad, but at least we would be the same.” Ahhhhhh! No prosperity. No opportunity. No individuality. Just COMMUNISM! It’s official; Albright wants to destroy equal opportunity and redistribute for equal outcome. I’m sorry Madeline, but me and many of my fellow conservatives will not let this happen. We will stop you at all costs.

To my fellow conservatives (and Americans for that matter), keep fighting.

 David Cooper