Weblog

Sunday, 14 December 2008

  • What does the election of America's first African American president mean to you?

    I have absolutely no problem electing a black man to the office of President of the United States... I would prefer that that black man was Michael Steele, though. As long as I agree with the majority of ideas and thoughts as a person, it makes no difference to me if that person is white or black, male of female and gay or straight. I elect a person I agree with, not an idea of what something could mean. I truly believe millions of people voted for Obama simply because he's black. How great is it that we Americans elected a black man? Huh? So there, world! In reality, no one knows what he's going to do. In todays political world we are told to look at what someone has done in their past to show what they will do in the future, in Baracks case, its scary. What little we know about him would leave us to believe that, in effect, he would make the USA the USSA- The United States of Soviet America. I know, I know, its taboo to call him a communist. But you know what? He is. Too many people this day and age don't know what that truly means, they see free health care, and free retirement benifits and don't stop to think about where that money for those services come from. I just wish people would vote not out of political correctness or how others will look at them, but that they would think whats really best for everyone.
       

    I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

  • What is your favorite dinosaur? What features of that dinosaur make it your favorite?

    My favorite dinosaur is the Crichtonsaurus, merely because it's named after the late, great Michael Crichton.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

  • If you take away your race, religion, family, education and job - who are you?

    I'd be a homeless, orphaned, raceless aethiest dolt.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

  • People say smoking is a choice. But if you’re addicted to something, doesn’t that rule o

    Smoking is a choice, much like the choice of deciding to pester those who choose to smoke it a choice. Look, I don't smoke, but smokers have rights, too. I concede, second hand smoke isn't healthy, point taken- however, back to choice, non smokers have the choice to not go to a restaurant if smokers are likely present. The individual establishments, i.e. Pizza Hut, McDonalds, Bobs BBQ etc, should be allowed to decide what type of clients they want. If they want to have smokers, they should be allowed to have smokers- non smokers don't have to go to their establishments. Period. Everywhere that smoking bans have been implimented, the local economies have suffered. Like I said, I don't smoke, but smokers have rights, too, we take their rights away, who's going to stop someone else from taking other rights away? Oh, you mean you don't wear colored underwear? Thats fine, but you have to wear colored underwear in the state of Idaho, statewide white underwear ban. Laugh now, thats a ridiculous example, but it speaks volumes. We are on a very slippery slope.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

Friday, 09 November 2007

  • Is the UN really effective as a peacekeeper?

    Absolutely not, they are as effective as the democrat congress. The UN is proof that big bureaucratic organizations fail to complete their said objective simply because they end up creating their own road blocks. It's like the United States current situation with oil and gasoline prices, really. We have the means to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil yet, liberal organizations like the Sierra Club have stopped that from happening. They stop us from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for oil, now however, other countries are allowed to drill there. Worse yet is ANWR- 1.9 million acres unused and wasted, and why? It would take less than 2,000 acres to drill and get more oil than we get from Saudi Arabia. In 2002 it was brought up for debate again, however, democrats and liberals fought it. One of their reasons was the fact that it would take six years to even begin getting oil out. Six years, that would put it in George Bush's term, so they couldn't allow that. No, the UN is not effective, neither are democrats.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!