Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Using Tools

From the Examiner:


Most large companies these days do not look at employees as people. HR folks try to distance themselves, lest they get "too close" to someone for fear of showing favoritism. Management folks try to distance themselves, just in case they ever have to let someone go.

The average length of tenure on a job is just a shade over 2 years. That means for every person that holds a job 30 years, there are at least 12 other jobs that were held for a year or less. Of course, a lot more goes into this calculation than 30-year jobs, or 1-year jobs. Still, the point is the same, tenure is not increasing.

Given these facts, it is easy to see why larger corporations give off the feeling of impersonality. If you work for one of these companies, you know the feeling. A well-balanced employee does not hold this against a company, they use it to their advantage.

Let's look at things another way: suppose you have a pen. This pen is nothing special, it is simply a writing instrument. You got it free, and it is a name brand. It writes for a while, but then it either runs out of ink, or suffers mechanical failure, or otherwise just stops working. At that point, there's nobody reading that would think twice about throwing the pen out and switching to a new one that works correctly. A tool that is not capable of performing its purpose is replaced.

Same goes for a job.

If a company is not serving the intended purpose, replace it. Rest assured that they will replace you (or lay you off, outright) if they feel so inclined. Do not take it personally, just understand the nature of your relationship - it is just business. It is ONLY business. The only one who brings emotion to the table is the employee.

The author is not suggesting the reader disconnect from all emotion - that is unhealthy. Instead, disconnect your emotions from your place of employment when it comes time to change places of employment. The company surely will not feel bad if they lay you off or fire you.

Again, it bears repeating:

If a company is not serving its intended purpose, replace it!



I predict Obama will lose the election and blame it on being too concerned with people affected by hurricane Sandy.


Why now?

I don't know if I'm best described as a very conservative person with a strong streak of libertarian values, or if I am a strongly libertarian person with a solid streak of conservatism. Either way, it is what it is and I am what I am.

Many of my friends ask me why I did not vote for Mitt Romney this year. It's a fair question. I think Obama is Satan incarnate when it comes to politics. The man is more socialist than Hitler, Zedong, Marx, Castro and Chavez. Obama has single - handedly set the United States back twenty years with respects to fiscal and social issues. The man is a failure on every front... unless you measure success in terms of the destruction of the capitalistic representative republic that the US was created to be.

So why not vote for Romney? Is he that bad?

In a word: YES.

There is no difference
Romney is every bit as bad as Obama. I cannot say worse, because from where I stand ,my values with regards to the direction of the country are 180 degrees from Obama or Romney. The question is the speed at which we get there.

Actually, that isn't the question at all. Romney and Obama will make big-government decisions that will further erode liberty. They will just do so with a slightly different focus. And they will do so with different language. But at the end of the day, the intent and the direction and the result will be the SAME.

On the issues, Obama and Romney are mirror images on the topics that compel me to vote for or against someone:
- Both are in favor of socialized healthcare (Romneycare = Obamacare, for all intents and purposes)
- Both are pro-murder (aka pro-choice)
- Both are anti-gun
- Both are in favor of higher taxes
- Both hide behind nomenclature with respect to what to call those higher taxes (ie - "fees")
- Both talk about bipartisan compromise
- Both are pro-war
- Both look to have the government subsidize their own pet big-businesses in one way or another
- Both Romney and Obama favor borrowing more money to fund the Federal government
- Both are against gay marriage
- Both are against legalization of marijuana
- Both are in favor of ethanol subsidies
- Both are in favor of subsidies for big oil companies
- Both are in favor of TARP
- Both are in favor of the bailouts
- Both are in favor of the Patriot Act
- Both are in favor of NDAA

Of those topics, I really do not care about gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. I realize it is not government's role to say whom a person may marry - that decision is best left to the parties who wish to marry. I've never used marijuana in any form, but I have researched it, and there is no quantifiable reason to regulate it. Besides, given some of the recommendations by the government on what we should ingest, it is clear that the government needs to get out of food and drug regulation altogether.

Now for me. 
My values on the same issues, minus the two I just named:
- No socialized anything.
- Pro Life
- Pro Gun
- Lower taxes
- War is a last resort
- No government subsidies on anything
- Balanced budget
- TARP was unconstitutional
- Bailouts were unconstitutional
- Patriot Act is unconstitutional
- NDAA is unconstitutional

Gary Johnson
Of these, the only topic I disagree with Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson on is that Johnson is pro-choice, and I am pro-life. That said, Johnson feels this is a states' rights issue and that if a state outlaws abortion, then so be it. I can agree with that 100%.

Of all the presidential candidates, every one of them is currently pro-choice, or has been in the past. So that issue is best resolved with Johnson's take on it - which is constitutional, by the way.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama
Some people will yell this at me. I understand their logic, as it takes a vote away from their candidate, who is <>. However, given the extreme similarities, I am forced to deduce that the only difference between Obama and Romney is that one is a black Muslim, and the other is a white Mormon. Since these differences to not endow a person with any special ability relative to the office of President of the United States, I deem it irrelevant. 

Since there is no difference... I will counter that statement with one of my own that is even more accurate:

Since this is the case, and I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama.
And since Romney is a political clone of Obama (only changing his stance on a few items out of convenience to win the Republican nomination).
It is clear that I must look to one of the other candidates. And I found one!

But Romney is the lesser of two evils
I hear this one a lot. Of course, it does not apply. Here's why:
Obama was the lesser of two evils in 2008
Bush was the lesser of two evils in 2004 and 2000
I do not know many people who think this is a great trend.

Besides, how is that voting for evil thing working out for you so far?
You really think McCain was the lesser of two evils? OK, I'll play. Show me what he would have done differently. OK, since you can't, that means my point stands.
You think Bush was OK, and he was the lesser of two evils? OK, I'll play. He was the one that passed TARP, the bailouts, and the Patriot Act. It was Bush's Patriot Act and some of his policies that led to NDAA. Bush also appointed the pivotal Supreme Court Justice who wrongly upheld the Constitutionality of Obamacare (Chief Justice Roberts!).

I'm through
I am finished voting for the lesser of two evils!
I am finished voting for evil!
I am not going to vote for "more security" at the expense of my freedom!
I will not vote for someone who is fine with senseless death.

Gary Johnson 2012

I voted for him. You can, too.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

I Agree!

I agree with my liberal friends: Mitt Romney is a really poor choice to be President.

I agree with my conservative friends: Barack Obama is a total failure as a President and needs to be fired.

I agree with my friends of Liberty: Gary Johnson is the best choice for President!


They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot

In my professional career, I've driven over 1,000,000 miles in my business travels. During that time, the only incident was being rear-ended whilst stopped at a red light. My employer pays me, in part, to travel. I am a professional driver.

Here is the first of a few hints, based on logic, rules of the road, and courtesy:

In a parking lot, when you are driving down an aisle, and you see a car backing out.
Alternately, on a road, where cars are parked at a diagonal angle along the side.

What I've seen people do:
- Accelerate.
- Try to ram the vehicle backing out.
- Ignore the vehicle backing out.
- Honk the horn at the car backing out.
- Come to a stop and allow them to back out.

The correct answer:
The law, in most places, states that the vehicle backing out must yield to the vehicle that is traveling forward. However, it is often difficult for the person who is backing the vehicle out to actually see the traffic - particularly when that person is driving a sedan and there are trucks or SUVs on either side. Persons driving trucks and SUVs may actually have a bad angle for seeing shorter cars, like sedans, that are traveling down the aisle.

It is polite, and well within the limits of the law in most places, to slow to a stop so that you may show courtesy and allow the vehicle to back out.


Monday, October 29, 2012

Awesome Fun!

OK, I have given a brief review of Lake Winnepesaukah before. Here it is. This year, on their Facebook page, I noticed they were open in October - something they had never done when I was a child. The owners and management redecorate for the Halloween season and "rename" it:

Lake WinnepeSPOOKah

My son decided he wanted to go there for his birthday. Incidentally, his birthday is today (Oct. 29), but since the last day it would be open was last Saturday, October 27, that day would just have to do. And it did!

First, they change the park hours to 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm. We had the kids take a nap, and dressed warmly with the weather in the low 50's and breezy.

I ordered tickets online - they were $20 each. Show me another amusement park where a family of four can get in for under $100.

They encouraged customers to dress up in Halloween costumes. We didn't, but about 1/3 of the attendees did. Almost all of the employees did, too.

A few rides were changed, to be "spooky." All were fun. The more intensely scary rides were appropriately labeled so one would not have to frighten small children.

Riding the rides in the dark was fantastic. When I was young, they used to stay open until midnight some nights, and my brother and friends and I would stay until after dark. Some of the rides - especially the Cannonball roller coaster - are far better in the dark.

The train ride was redesigned and had a haunted house. It was fantastic!

All in all, the kids had a blast, and the adults did, too. We are definitely returning next year. Oh, did I mention that the park plans to open a water park in the spring?


Funny note

OK - perhaps the best note ever left on a damaged car.

Has to be fake, but still worth the read (WARNING - adult language).



Gary Johnson, Presidential candidate representing the Libertarian party, has garnered the endorsement of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. A few of the statements that stand out to me:

Romney may be less eager to tax, spend, attack personal freedoms and disregard the constitutional limits on government than his Democratic opponent, President Barack Obama, but only slightly.
To the extent that Romney offers an alternative to Obama, the difference is in degree, not in kind.
Some may argue that voting for a minor party candidate is a waste of a vote. While Johnson won't win on Nov. 6, the more votes Johnson receives, the more the Republican and Democratic parties are forced to consider adopting his policies.
Others claim that it is wise to vote for the lesser of two evils. The problem with that, however, is that voting for evil only leads to more evil. A vote is an affirmation that a candidate is on the right track, but Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clearly aren't when it comes to limiting government, promoting individual liberty and protecting free market economic principles.

I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100% with every statement herein. Wish I could post it all as it was written.


Friday, October 26, 2012

Debate follow up

Tuesday morning, I had the privilege of listening to a local radio talk show. The host was stating that Obama had won the final debate convincingly. He made known his thought that Obama got more media accolades. This is a conservative talk show host (though he supports Romney... not sure what gives here).

I suggest a different way of thinking: winning a debate is not about getting more media accolades, it is about getting more votes. The talk show host admitted that Romney's strategy probably picked up more votes for him than he lost to Obama.

Way I see it, that is the way Romney won. That's what I based it on when I said Romney won.

As a side note: Romney did not distance himself  from Obama on foreign policy because, at his core, there is not much difference between him and the President.


Words of wisdom

 Some thoughts my brother recently shared with me:
Here's a great, great SCAM you can pull on people, and they never see it coming (not before, not during, and not after you pulled the scam on them)...

You give them Option #1 or Option #2, when really both options provide the same outcome. But it's a wonderfully successful scam because then people BELIEVE they are actually making a conscious choice in favor of the option they "want". But in reality, they were just fooled into selecting the same thing with a different label on the outside packaging.

Rename Option #1 to Romney, and Option #2 to Obama. You now understand why I voted 3rd party this year.

Had any of the other Republican candidates been nominated, I'd have voted for him/her. 


Thursday, October 25, 2012

A graph of political ideals

Came across this graph the other day. Sums up a lot of stuff very well.

If you read the chart carefully, you see why myself and others refer to President Obama as being Socialist. But, you ask, what about contender Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee for President?

Coming up soon!


Christian Police II

Jesus called us to do many things. Most importantly, He said we are to love God and love others.

Some out there live to confront others when they perceive wrongdoing. They point to scripture as their "instruction" to do so. This is an error of the greatest magnitude. This is misrepresentation of scripture - Satan's biggest tool!

I talked about same in part one of this mini-series. Let's get a little deeper here. By going simply.

God's will for us is not constant confrontation but to live at peace and only confront if necessary. This is demonstrated in Romans 12. I'll put the spotlight on Romans 12:18, but this will link to the entire chapter, as it is all relevant.

Romans 12:18 -
If possible, to the best of your ability, live at peace with all people.
 The entire chapter is devoted to living in peace with our fellow man. It is not Christian to go around, pretending (or actually feeling) constant offense so that we may move from confrontation to confrontation. It is God's will that we live in peace. The concept of "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) applies here, as does the concept of "a soft answer turns away wrath" (Proverbs 15:1).

So, is there a time and place to confront another about sin?
Simple answer: Yes.
But not nearly as much as so many "Christians" want.

It would seem Christ wants us to focus so much more on forgiveness. Confrontation makes forgiveness difficult.

Is this a passive-aggressice approach?
Nope. It is Christ's instruction for us. 


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Romney is Liberal

Came across this graph the other day. Sums up a lot of stuff very well.

If you read the chart carefully, you see why myself and others refer to President Obama as being Socialist. But, you ask, what about contender Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee for President?

Basic differences
Differences between Liberals and Socialists: only in the category of Government ownership of business.

Differences between Liberals and American Conservatives: only four categories - a) demands for high taxes, b) disrespect of private property, c) government control of business, and d) demands for quotas in business based on race or class.

Apply to Mitt Romney

A) Demands for high taxes
So, if Romney were an American Conservative, based on this chart, he would not demand high taxes. But, as part of Romneycare, he did increase taxes - though he hid behind the term "fees" (just like Obama said with Obamacare). Currently, Romney wants to increase taxes on "the rich."
So the answer for Romney with respect to demand for higher taxes is Liberal.

B) Disrespect of private property
Romney claims he wants people to "...the right to be heard before being deprived of money or property..." A man who respects private property would oppose allowing the government to ever deprive an individual of said property. There is not a case where allowing the government to seize private property has resulted in positives for society.
So the answer here on disrespect of private property is Liberal.

C) Government control of business
Romneycare... the blueprint for Obamacare. Romney supported TARP and the bailouts. Cannot get much more government control than that.
So the answer for Romney with respect to government control of business is clear: Liberal.

D) Demands for quota in business based on race or class
This one is the most clear of all. As I've already mentioned, Romney supports higher taxes on the rich. That is class-based warfare at its most fundamental core.
So the answer here on demands for class-based quota is also clear: Liberal.

So, in every case on this chart (as well as any other fair analysis), Romney's stance is quite clear: he is Liberal at best. However, when you consider that Romney supported TARP and the bailouts, and those are clear governmental ownership of business, not just control, then you realize Romney is clearly a Socialist - no different than his opponent in this race.

So, you see, my friends:



3rd Party debate

I watched the 3rd party debate last night. Very interesting stuff. I will not give a detailed blow-by-blow, but here are some thoughts on the candidates and what they said:

Jill Stein (Green Party)
She sounds a bit whiny. Still, she espouses some ideas I am in favor of - term limits for Congress, limits on corporate spending on elections, and eliminate NDAA and the Patriot Act - but to be fair, all four of these candidates and their respective parties dislike NDAA and the Patriot Act.  Where I part with Stein and the Green party is they are pro-abortion big time, and really anti-gun.

She also wants an updated "New Deal" - which helped us go down the road to where we are now. Like a little bit of Socialism and a little bit of Libertarianism... whichever suits their agenda best at the moment. This lack of consistency is why I'd refrain from casting a vote for the Green Party.

Virgil Goode (Constitution Party)
Guy sounds like an actor trying to act southern. Still, this is the party with which I agree the most. My question on Goode is his leadership ability. He did not look like a leader in the debate, but he is full of good ideas and would make a far better president than Obama or Romney. 

I really do not have much to say here, as I agree with 99% of the Constitution Party's platform. My single complaint is Goode as a leader. I bet he would be better than Obama, though.

Rocky Anderson (Justice Party)
Can he say Justice enough? 
Seriously, though, this party has some good platforms with respect to personal freedoms. However, they are in favor of more social programs and spending, and that is a recipe for more government control. He also favors different types of gun control than the Democrats, but bad ideas nonetheless. He also favors abortion.

This guy and this party match each other well. They are kinda like the worst parts of the Democratic party with about half of the Libertarian party platform. Still, it is funny to hear his supporters chant "Rocky! Rocky!" like in the Rocky movies.

Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
A lot like Goode, only he sounds professional, and has leadership ability. I agree with about 95% of the Libertarian Party's platform, and Johnson adheres to it well. Only thing I'd change is the stance on abortion. I think it is a States' Rights issue... but I also think the Federal government has the authority to deem abortion as murder.

Johnson is clearly the best orator in the room (though I could see some preferring Stein). This is why the Republicans, Democrats, and leftist media do not want him on a major stage in an active debate. He would mop up Romney or Obama... or both. Much like Perot did in 1992 to Clinton and Bush.


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Liberals for Romney

Liberal organizations and people are showing up in record numbers for Mitt Romney. This is partly because of the total failure that is the Obama Presidency. However, the main part is the total liberal that Mitt Romney is himself.

The Tennessean endorses Romney
This is a total leftist rag of a newspaper. They never endorse anything short of complete socialism. Well, at least that streak stays intact.

Al Gore endorses Romney
At least for his stance on the fiction of climate change.

Douglas Wilder endorses Romney
Wilder, former Governor of VA and former mayor of Richmond, is a leftist stalwart. Among other things, his is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (an anti-gun group, despite the name), and he is a huge pro-Choice supporter. Then again, so is Romney.

Lee Iacocca endorses Romney
Another dyed-in-the-wool leftist. Iacocca, like the rest on this list, did not suddenly become conservative. Far from it...

Go out there, look at it on google and in other places. The left is perfectly happy if Romney wins. Are you?


Product Review - Blackberry Torch

I am a long-time fan of the Blackberry platform. I seek functionality in my working phone over glitz and glamor, and Blackberry provides just that. At the heart of the matter is my texting (3000+ per month) and emailing (20+ per day) needs. Having buttons to type on is of the greatest advantage.

For years, I had a Blackberry Curve, but this past summer, I obtained a Blackberry Torch. It has several upgrades over the Curve, most notably was internet browsing ability and a touch screen (taking a page out of the Droid and iPhone playbooks).

The Torch is not too big - no bigger than a Curve, except maybe a bit thicker. It is heavier, but that is to be expected with a slide-open design. The larger screen is worth the trade. It makes doing things like Twitter and Facebook much easier.

Speaking of Facebook, the number 1 complaint I had of the Curve was that as you scrolled through Facebook posts, you could not stop mid-post on longer pictures and entries. You had to look at the first part, or the last. The screen would skip over the middle, and acted as though it could not balance on it. The Torch can stop at any point, no different than iPhone or Droid.

Calling function on the Torch is better than the Curve in that the audio was louder - actually enabling me to hear people without having to resort to earbuds.

The only software glitch I encountered was a perpetual reboot, which I understand is the bane of the platform. However, once one learns how to reboot using one's computer, the problem is solved easily.

The touch screen on the Torch is appropriately sensitive, yet not overly. It is on par with the iPhone with regards to accuracy and sensitivity. The touch screen itself made use of the rollerball much less than the Curve. Broken rollerballs are known issues with Blackberries, but are also easily fixed. I never had that problem with my Torch, though I did see the issue on two Curves (one personal, one company-issued).

Overall, the Torch is an excellent smartphone. I'd gladly get another. I hate that my employer mandated iPhones for us, as I was forced to get rid of it and the iPhone simply does not possess the functionality.


Monday, October 22, 2012

Final Debate

Mitt Romney leads by a deciding 2-0 in the debates. He has to really lose this bad for President Obama to pull even.

PS - to ensure fairness, I'll tell you that I voted for Gary Johnson last Friday. I have no dog in this fight. 

Question 1: Libya
Mitt Romney is first. He thanks every applicable party, as he has done in the prior two debates. He sums up some of the turmoil in the middle east as a whole. Romney congratulates Obama on the Bin Laden kill, but states we cannot kill our way out of this. He speaks of strong negotiation, and cultural shift.

Obama does not thank anybody, but starts taking credit for all the good from the get-go. He looks overly focused, as he was in the prior debate. He starts explaining away Libya. He goes back to taking credit for the Bin Laden kill, but says that Romney's strategy is all over the map. Correct on that point.

Romney goes back at Obama with basic strategy points, and fires back with holding the Muslim world responsible for rejecting extremism from their own. Romney calls for more foreign aid to the middle east! Bad move! He shifts to pushing for cultural shift for the whole area.

The moderator interrupts Mittens, and allows Obama to butt in.

Obama talks about Mitt's talk that Russia is our biggest threat. First zinger of the evening as the President says: "the 1980's have called and want their foreign policy back." Obama also hits on Romney not having been in a position to make those calls. He points out Mitt's flip-flops on foreign policy.

Romney looks not defensive, but as though he does not wish to lose. He zingers back with "attacking me is not an agenda." Obama tries to interrupt, but Romney calls him down and gets a bit upset in the face. He is back to alpha male in the room. He looks definitely in charge, and directly asks the President a direct question. Obama lies about the troop movement. Romney charges back and states fact. Obama interrupts a few more times, and the moderator steps in and allows Obama a moment to speak.

Obama attacks Romney's position that we should still have troops in Iraq. Obama lists his points of what we need to do in the middle east. Obama talks a good talk about not needing to do nation-building, but first building the US first. Good point, too bad he doesn't do it.

Winner: Ronmey edges this one. 
Obama started strong, but Romney got pissed and started firing back. 

Question 2: Syria
Obama is first, and takes credit for organizing the international community. Ultimately, he states, Syria must determine its own future. He almost seems to not want to get involved. He backs off wanting to send military in. His waffling is being seen by the whole world right now. It is something that our enemies have seen for years.

Romney outlines why Syria is a threat and worthy of mention. He talks about things that must be done. He speaks of arming legitimate authorities in Syria that they may defend themselves, but he weighs it with arming the right people so it does not come back to bite us later. Funny, he doesn't want Americans to have our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep an bear arms. He attacks the President directly and says we need to assume a leadership role.

Obama answers that we are in a leadership role. Evidently, the President is back to smoking weed, and he had some powerful shit tonight. He attacks Romney for wHe states we must do the same in Syria.

Romney answers back and talks about not involving our military in Syria, but arming the right people. He also talks of supporting them. He goes back to his statement about how America should have taken a leadership role. He looks directly at Obama when he says this, but back at the announcer for the rest of the response.

Obama counters by saying Romney has the right idea, because it is the same as his own. He takes credit for doing it right.

Winner: Romney. 
Not a big win, but Obama gave it to him in the end.

Question 3: Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)
Obama talks about the need for Egypt to allow more freedoms, and not to attack Israel. Sounds good, but his policies do not reflect this. He wants more demonstrations and uprisings in Egypt. He talks again about nation building everywhere, but that we need to focus on the USA first. Again, sounds good, but too bad he does not believe it. There was also a "Blame-Bush" moment in there, too.

Romney answers. He says we need free voices there and that the uprising was good. Again, Romney talks about big-picture idea for the middle east as a whole. He talks about taking a leadership role. He talks about being strong. He ties it into not having a strong economy at home setting a bad example. He looks like a leader. He shows, not tells, how Obama is not a leader. Obama looks somewhat defeated, and ABC takes the President off the split-screen. Romney wraps up by talking about our freedom and how we need to lead again.

Winner: Mitt Romney. 
Fair sized margin

Question 4: America's role in the world.
So far, the moderator  is pretty fair, other than a few interruptions of Romney.

Romney again hits on "America must be strong. America must lead!" He hits on how the weak economy ties in to how we are perceived by the rest of the world. He talks of unforeseen threats, and how terrorism was not even addressed at the 2000 debates. He hits the President on his silence on Tehran.

Obama responds by saying we are stronger now than when he took office. Again, he had some really great weed before the debate. He talks about how he has helped make a stronger America and how he is rebuilding it single-handedly. He looks like a Beta male talking about how he has done this and that which he has really not done. He speaks empty words about reducing the deficit, and says the Romney plan doesn't do it. Pot calling kettle black. He makes a Bush-assertion about Romney's plan.

Romney states he has a forward-looking plan. He talks about his plan. Romney looks in complete control and repeats his 5-point plan. Obama looks flustered and frustrated at Romney's points. He is tired of hearing them. Romney looks like a leader, ready to seize the mantle. He talks about a balanced budget. Obama looks to interrupt, but Romney waves him off literally and continues his 5th point.

Obama attacks Romney's small-business development record in Massachusetts. Empty threat, as the circumstances are not what Obama wants to attack. Obama claims we have seen progress here and there... and wants to hire more teachers. Says these teachers will make a difference. He attacks Romney for saying that hiring teachers won't make the economy grow. Problem is - Romney was right on this, and Obama looks like a clown... no... he looks worse, like an ass-clown.

Moderator tries to shift after that, but Romney insists to respond, and seizes the moment. He talks about the education highs in Massachusetts. Obama tries to interrupt, but looks like a Beta, snipping at the heels of the Alpha. Romney answers the claim dismissively.

The moderator moves it away, as the President looks bad here.

Winner: Romney

Big lead for Mittens now. Obama is on the ropes. He must win out convincingly or else he will lose this debate and the entire campaign.

Question 5: Spending / Military increases
Romney talks about it. He talks about balancing the budget by getting rid of Obamacare - says it doesn't look good and we can't afford it.

Obama responds defensively. He says we have increased military spending under his watch. Obama cannot put things together coherently. He does say it is not driven by politics... but his moves are driven by politics. He makes a weak attempt at saying things are better and he is the reason.

Romney fires back, talks about having 25 years of business experience at balancing budgets. He points out the President has never balanced the budget. Romney answers why he would increase the size of the Navy. He explains simply (and correctly) why - we have fewer ships than we need. He talks about how the President is wrong in his cuts.

Obama responds with a backtrack, saying he didn't ask for the sequester. I think he did. another zinger for Obama: "our Navy does have fewer ships than it did in WWI - we also have fewer horses and bayonets." Somebody tell the President that the US Marines still use bayonets! A few more quips about what an aircraft carrier is, and how Romney's budget doesn't work no matter how many times he visits Romney's website.

Winner: Obama
By a hair. He kept it close and wins with a zinger and some sarcasm at the end.

Question 6: Israel
Obama answers, saying he will stand beside Israel. Too bad his actions do not support those words. He talks of threats in the region to Israel: Iran specifically. He talks of more sanctions. He gives an empty promise of "not taking anything off the table" against Iran. He Betas out here.

Romney responds. Says we have Israel's back - not just in words, or diplomatically. He talks of Iran, and how to cripple them with sanctions and his plan to put the squeeze on them. He talks about a military action being a last resort.

Winner: Romney
Mainly because he got the last word.

Question 7: Iran
Obama answers that the reports in the newspaper are not true, and that Iran needs to do this and do that. He talks about how Romney wants to do the same thing that he, Obama, has done, "because they work." He talks about how Romney's only difference is to "say it louder." He lacks facts, but looks assertive. He waves off the regularly scheduled shift of talking time, and actually looks in control of the stage.

Finally, a minute and a half later, the moderator steps in.

Romney talks in return about how Iran does not see the President as being strong. He hits on the President's willingness to visit with the enemy, then the apology tour. Big blows. He had to have them here. Romney is playing for each round, knowing that is the key to the KO. He points out that is is essential for the President to show strength from the beginning, and how we have not had that. He details how he would deal with Iran.

Obama counters that nothing Romney said is true, including the reference to the apology tour. Man! The President has to be on something much more powerful that weed to actually believe that!!! Obama gets back to crippling sanctions, and being "very clear" about how things in the middle east should not have been done. He talks about mobilizing the world, and that the world was divided.

Romney's reponse is simple: "we are four years closer to a nuclear Iran." He also talks specifically of the apology tour... and points out that the President skipped Israel... and that our enemies noticed. He points out specifics and directly accuses! Big blow!

Obama talks about trips to Israel and to our troops. He is trying to deflect from his apology tour. As the President speaks, he looks at Romney. When Romney returns the glance, with Alpha presence, the President looks away.

Winner: Romney
Alpha male it is.

Question 8: Israel calls and says bombers are on the way. 
Romney says let's not get into hypothetical situations. He changes to an overall big picture. The moderator tries to shift, but Romney is in control. Romney talks again about the weak economy not projecting a strong image, and being weak on military is not good.

Obama counters by pointing out Romney's flip-flops. Good counter here against the biggest flip-flopper we have ever seen in my lifetime in Romney. Obama talks about how Romney would not have "moved Heaven and Earth" to get Bin Laden, but how he, President Obama, did give that order. The President does look like a leader when he talks about making that sort of decision. Obama even talks about how Biden disagrees with him on things like that.

Winner: Obama. 
His most solid performance in this debate series. Probably as strong as he's ever had.
These guys are now trading big blows. This is a good fight now!

Question 9: Withdrawal from Iraq
Romney answers first, has a momentary complaint about not getting to respond to the President's previous allegations. The Moderator says he, Romney, had laid out many steps himself. Romney looks gracious as he says "probably so," and he laughs genuinely and moves to his answer. He talks of getting out of Iraq by 2014, then moves it to Pakistan. What is he hiding here?

President Obama starts by blaming Bush, but says he ended the war in Iraq, and focused on Afghanistan. He states we are meeting many objectives in Afghanistan. He talks of how we are moving rapidly to a point where we can pull out, responsibly, from Afghanistan. The President segues into how we need to take care of these troops coming home in many ways. He actually claims the unemployment is lower now than when he took office! Where is he getting some of this bovine scatology (BS)!?!?!?

Winner: Obama 
Again he looked strong. His body language has picked up. It's almost as if he just now has realized he is in the fight of his life.

Question 10: Time to divorce Pakistan?
Romney says NO. He details why. He explains it well, and talks about the dynamic, and what it will mean for us and them. Follow up form the moderator on the use of drones. Romney says we should use any and all means to take out our enemies and those who threaten our allies. He again points out how we need to move the world away from Islamic extremism and terrorism. He points out we have not seen the progress we have needed to see, and that he, Romney, will provide the strong leadership.

Obama responds again with a quip on Bin Laden. It is getting old. He talks, empty as it is, about what the middle east needs. He says we have stood on the side of democracy. Really, we stood on the side of the road and watched. He says he did so in Libya and Egypt. His intoxication is showing again. He says Al Qaeda is weaker now than it was.

Winner: Romney 
He gets some of his swagger back. One more round for Romney, and this is over.
Still, it wasn't convincing, it was an edge-out at best. .

Question 11: Attitude toward China
Obama talks about the threat posed by China. He again references the previous administration. That, too, is getting old. He talks about cases where we got wins against China. He talks again about taking care of business at home with education and a strong economy.

Romney immediately responds with a zinger: "it's not government that creates business or makes the economy strong." He answers that we can be a partner with China, and not adversarial. He hits on ways China sees us as being weakening before their very eyes. He says America will be strong with him as President... a running theme tonight. He slams China for currency manipulation. Too bad he won't accuse our Federal Reserve of the same.

Moderator asks if labeling China as a currency manipulator will start tension, or even a trade war.

Romney responds with facts, and talks about taking a hard-nosed approach. He hits China on counterfeit products and other unfair trade practices. He says he wants a great relationship with China.

Obama retorts with a zinger about Romney being familiar with shipping jobs overseas, since he ran a company that encouraged others to do just that. He also attacks Romney's position on the US Auto manufacturers. Obama attacks the private sector for not leading with clean air technology. He shows his Big Government roots here. He says we have increased exports since he took office.

Romney counters an attack on himself. He talks about how he was born in Detroit, and his father's involvement. He differentiates from Bush's tactics - which mirror Obama's - and says the way out was not to write checks. Obama interrupts, but Romney silences him, and states that the car companies should have had to go through normal bankruptcies like any other company. He hits the President for government investment in green cars and Solyndra. Again, Obama tries to interrupt, but Romney takes command. He hits at Obama again and again with passion and with facts.

Obama finally gets a chance to respond, and will not look at Romney directly when he attacks back. He back-bites and looks away time and time again with his disagreement. He bunny-trails off on things he states Romney wishes to do and how these things will not make us stronger. He AGAIN states we cannot go back to the same policies of the previous administration.

Romney SLAMS back with agreeing we should go forward, and certainly not the path of the last four years. He states the dismal facts. Blow after blow, indicting the President on four years of failed policies. If this was all I knew of any candidate, I'd vote for Romney in a heartbeat.

The moderator wraps it up: quip about all of us loving teachers.

Winner: Romney wraps up in spectacular fashion!

Parting thoughts: Obama
He likens Romney to Bush... AGAIN!!!! ARGHH!!!
He says he wants to control our own energy (that's what I'm afraid of!)
He gives a blank statement about being Commander in Chief. He ties it into nation building at home. Too bad he has done the opposite.
Obama did not thank anybody... again.

Parting thoughts: Romney
Again, he thanks the proper parties.
He states simply what he wants. He states simply how we haven't had success economically, and how he can do that. He talks about how he knows how to "get along" with Democrats, and how 87% of his legislature in Massachusetts was Democrat. He states how he would lead with a strong nature, and in an open and honest way.

Winner: Mitt Romney... but just by an edge.
If you believe Obama speaks the truth, you probably felt he won the final thoughts.
If you believe Romney speaks the truth, you probably felt he won the final thoughts.
If you are a realist, and do not have a preference, you probably felt Romney had more passion, and a better plan.

Overall winner: Mitt Romney

Democrats will say Obama won.
Republicans will say Romney won.

Independents will say Romney won by an edge. 5-point game if it were basketball. At first, it looked like the President would get blown out again. However, to his credit, Obama got a bit stronger, and actually took over the debate at one point. Romney was, however, the Alpha male in the room. He dictated the debate, and got Obama off track from foreign policy and onto domestic failures.

Alternately, the two candidates had few differences on foreign policy, with the exception of how to treat Israel (Obama's words do not support his actions). Romney did mirror Obama on many things, maybe for fear of being labeled too much like Bush. Maybe so he could attack on the domestic issues, which he did well. 

If Obama's actual actions mirrored his talk tonight, the country wouldn't be in such a sad shape.

Post-Script thoughts:
Romney protected his lead. He still won.
Obama almost looks like he doesn't want it - like a Beta male who is in the presence of a powerful Alpha. Much like McCain looked toward the end in 2008.
Zingers goes to Obama.
Facts go to Romney just by a hair.
I wish Romney really believed what he says he does... I'd have voted for him. 
I could see someone who only watches the leftist media as opining that this was a tie. 

Real winner: Gary Johnson
... and all the 3rd party candidates who were not invited to debate. 
What are the Democrats and Republicans and leftist media afraid of?

Real loser: the leftist media. They actually think Obama never went on an apology tour.


Say What???

Something my mom used to say:

"One man's candy is another man's raisins."

Still not quite sure what it means. She would use it when others might use the phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure."


Obama is just like Bush

Here's a little note for those of you who plan to vote for Obama this fall. Did you know that the President is just like President Bush? When it comes to policies, there is a striking resemblance.

This comes as news, because most who were voting for Obama in 2008 did so because they wanted something different than the previous administration. Obama has let you down, my friends, and here's a short list of how (certainly not all-inclusive):

1. War.
Bush started the wars. Obama has continued them. Both.

2. Uncontrolled deficit spending.
Obama criticized Bush for adding to the national debt. Then Obama signed bills which added more debt in four years than had been accumulated in the previous 225 years combined.

3. Health Care
Bush had Medicare part D (which most Democrats hated), Obama has Obamacare.

4. Appointments
Ben Bernanke anyone?

Bush started it. Obama continued it.

6. Stimulus package.
Same as TARP - Bush started it, Obama continued it. This theme repeats itself.

7. Patriot Act.
Bush started it. Obama renewed it.

8. Bush Tax cuts.
Again, Bush starts it, Obama continues it.

9. Lack of transparency.
Bush did it. Obama does it.

10. Illegal appointments
Bush sidestepped Congress for several judicial appointments.
Obama appointed Hillary Clinton, who was ineligible for Secretary of State.

Here are 100 ways the two are alike.

Go dig for yourself. If you insist on voting for Obama, yet continue to claim after learning these facts that you want something different from Bush, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Probably just trying to act out some sort of odd rebellion tactic against your parents (or whomever) because they liked Bush. Grow up.


Friday, October 19, 2012

Election 2012

I early voted today. 45-minute line in the early afternoon. Pops tells me it was the same where he voted... but since he has a legitimate physical handicap, they moved him to the front of the line.

Here's how I voted, in order of how they appeared on my ballot (as best as I can remember):

Gary Johnson, President. (Libertarian Party)
Mark Clayton, US Senate. (D)
Diane Black, US Congress. (R)
Susan Lynn, State Representative. (R)
Ed Hagerty, Mayor. (R)
For allowing retailers to sell liquor.
For a referendum giving Mt. Juliet residents a recall process.

Some notes:
First time I've ever pushed the button for a D in the main election. Mark Clayton is far more conservative than Bob Corker. He is a TEA-Party guy who infiltrated the Democrat primary and won.

I voted for Ed Hagerty for mayor, but would be about equally happy with his main opponent, Jim Bradshaw. Both men have served Mt. Juliet for several years. Both voted to allow HCP holders to carry in parks here. Both voted against red-light cameras.


Dealing with it

As a continuation of my conversation with my brother from yesterday's post on attachment parenting and the problems it creates for children, let's talk about the root problems. Specifically, the things that I like to call "unintended consequences."

It is often easy to spot the child whose parents believe the attachment parenting lies. This is the child that either cannot handle any emotions or situations that happen outside the realm of what they want, or the child that bullies others so frequently and fervently because they know that there is no punishment looming on the horizon.

These attachment parents are so focused on themselves, that they do not see the harm they are causing in two major ways:

1. The child will later need therapy as he will not learn that life is full of consequences. Only later, once he reaches a fully cognitive state (usually in the early teens for most people), will he begin to learn that there are rewards and consequences in life.

Only later will he learn that the most powerful motivator in life is pain.

Only later will he learn that the second most powerful motivator is fear.

Pain and fear are two things that attachment parents work fervently to keep out of the lives of their child. Problem is, pain and fear are perfectly natural parts of life. Learning to manage pain and fear are essential parts of development. For a normal person, that is.

2. The children bullied by this child will experience undue hardship.
This is the ultimate selfishness shown by attachment parents - a total selfishness and a complete lack of regard for others.

So here is a message to the attachment parents out there:

If you want to permanently scar your child and others:
keep on with the attachment parenting. 

The rest of us will keep at what has worked for thousands of years: powerful motivators and dealing with each part of life as a healthy normal addition.


Fair Question 3

President Obama is Socialist. That is not the same as being Liberal. For starters, a Liberal wants freedom to do the things that he/she wants - so long as those things do not encumber upon another human being.

One thing that many liberals espouse, and that is a tenet of modern liberalism, is the use of marijuana. Pot is a recreation drug that although illegal to use in most places for most reasons. However, there are few if any negative side effects known to be associated with the use of pot.

Question 3: Is Obama in favor of marijuana?
Answer: NO!
Obama put in force a mandate for Federal crackdown on legal medical marijuana businesses. You'd think that if he were in favor of marijuana use (and he should be considering how much HE used as a youth!), then he would lighten the load, not bring the mandibles of the Federal government to bite down on the small-potatoes medical marijuana industry.

One thing is clear:

Obama wants to restrict pot use as much as possible. 


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Proper motivations

From an attachment parenting website:
  • Instilling fear in children serves no purpose and creates feelings of shame and humiliation. Fear has been shown to lead to an increased risk of future antisocial behavior including crime and substance abuse
  • Studies show that spanking and other physical discipline techniques can create ongoing behavioral and emotional problems

While I agree with the notion of not instilling fear, these attachment parenting bozos take the idea to extremes. They go out of their way to avoid their child from ever feeling fear. And that is not healthy.

Fear and pain are the two most powerful motivators out there. For a mind that is not fully developed, these basic instincts can serve as the only possible motivators in many instances.

My brother and I were talking of this a few days ago. The subject came up when we witnessed a young boy on a small bicycle. The boy kept wanting to ride out into the street. The boy's father told him a couple of times not to ride out into the street, and cited the danger of getting struck by a car.

The child waited until he thought dad wasn't looking, then rode out into the street a 3rd or 4th time - on purpose and in full rebellion. Dad saw immediately, pulled the child off the street and to a safe place, then proceeded to swat the boy's rear-end a couple of times.

The boy wailed and made a scene, and in two minutes was perfectly fine.

My brother and I remarked that an attachment parent would not spank, nor would they tell the child about the dangers of getting struck by the automobile, as that might lead to fear. My soon-to-be-ex-sister-in-law subscribes to these "techniques" and is that way. My brother has to do a lot of damage control.

What these attachment parents fail to realize is that getting struck by a car causes a lot more permanent problems than that simple spanking ever did. 


Fair Question 2

President Obama is not Liberal. He is Socialist, but there is a definite difference. Socialism has no more room for Liberalism than it does for Conservatism. Socialism is on a different plane altogether.

One of the tenets of liberalism is to be for common people as opposed to Big Business. However, President Obama has been in favor of Big Business since Day 1.

Question 2: Is Obama in favor of Big Business?

Answer: YES!
He supported TARP (welfare for Big Business), the bailouts, and more.
Obama has simply got a different set of Big Businesses that he is the lap dog for than President Bush had or than Mitt Romney will have if he is elected.

One thing is clear:

President Obama is definitely in favor of Big Business.


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

A Vote for Romney is a Vote for Obama


I said it.
It is true.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. 

No, this is not some trick I pull because I am voting for Gary Johnson and I hear and read over and over the lie that "a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama." I understand the "logic" in that statement. I have simply raised the ante.

Unless and until someone can prove to me how Romney will do anything different than Obama, my statement stands: A VOTE FOR ROMNEY IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Abortion - they are the same.
Taxes - no difference.
Anti-gun - check for both men
Supreme Court nominations? The same.
Romney has changed now? No he hasn't
Foreign policy? Obama messes things up in the middle east, Romney with China. Tit-for-tat.
Government welfare for big business? Only difference is which businesses.

So: A Vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. 

Get used to it. It is a fact. you cannot prove otherwise, and Mittens sure won't prove otherwise.

Oh, and Democrats / Liberals / Communists / Socialists:
A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. 
I can name a list of things that they have done that were exactly the same. 


So, to sum up:




After the absolutely horrible response by President Obama and Mitt Romney on the gun control question last night...

My prediction...

We won't be able to buy guns or ammo at reasonable prices for three more years.


Candidates on guns

Wrapping up from the debate last night, as a gun owner, here are some of my thoughts. Neither of these men is a friend to gun owners. Let's go over what is being said, what the candidates themselves said, and what is truth. 

Transcript of the debate.

What is being said - Romney camp. 
Romney is anti-gun. However, Republicans who are ready for "anybodybutObama" are touting him as having "evolved" in his views on guns. Some even believe the propaganda being spread that Romney actually did stuff in favor of gun owners in Massachusetts. Sadly, none of these arguments holds water. The NRA falls into this sad crowd with this release.

Let's look at some facts. Romney signed an "assault weapons" ban (AWB) in Massachusetts. This ban limits freedoms. The incremental limiting of freedoms is the way tyrants take all freedoms away. This is what is not acceptable.

There are some who say the 2004 AWB in Massachusetts had provisions that favored gun owners (particularly with state fees and accessibility to ownership licensing), and while some of these are true, the real intent was to limit twofold:
A) Limit the types of guns that people could own directly by forbidding AR15, AK47, and Uzi makes, among others.
B) Limit who could even own firearms by asinine taxes, fees, and licenses to purchase or own firearms.

Here is a statement by Gun Owner's Action League, showing what all is limited. Here is a statement by the same group, applauding Romney's actions. Appalling.

What is being said - Obama camp.
Liberals are excited that Obama came out last night and said that he wants another AWB for the nation. Democrats are frightened. The first AWB was political suicide for so many of them, and the ones in power now dare not tread here.

What Romney said in the debate:
Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.
First is automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture for civilian use. There is a provision that fully automatic guns manufactured prior to 1986 are "grandfathered" in, but those are highly regulated. What Romney said is true, from a certain point of view.

Again, from the former governor, and the moderator:
CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.
I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?
ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.
There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked.
CROWLEY: So I could — if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?
ROMNEY: We have —
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: — we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
This is quite damning. Romney admits that he would support assault weapons banning legislation if both parties were for it. Now the fact is that no Republicans and only a few Democrats would risk such a move, but the point is, Romney would sign an AWB into law!!!

What Obama said in the debate:
But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.
So the President admits openly he would support an AWB, and in the next breath, he admits that the vast majority of so-called "gun violence" does not take place with so-called "assault weapons." Why ban them, then, Mr. President???

Also frightening is the fact that the President feels some people (police / military) should have access to certain types of objects while other people (regular civilians) should not. This, my friends, is the very heart of discrimination. 

They both want to ban your guns. The only difference is the way they want to do it. Obama doesn't care how he does it, and Romney wants the legislature to trample your rights. I do not care for either option.


Fair Question 1

Last week, I did a series of questions on Mitt Romney. This week, it is on President Obama.

These questions are geared towards true liberals. Because, the way I see it, Obama does not espouse true liberal causes. Obama is Socialist, which is certainly not the same as being Liberal.

Question 1: Same-Sex Marriage.
It is truly a human rights issue when one considers whether the government should sanction marriage between individuals. Of course, several major religions (mine included) do not condone homosexual marriage. Government and Religion, however, must fulfill different roles in our lives. That is to say, what is correct religiously may not be something government needs to meddle in, and vice-versa.

Obama has flip-flopped on the issue several times:
When he originally ran for President, Mr. Obama said he was against same sex marriage.
This year, Obama said he supports same-sex marriage.
When he first ran for state legislature, he was in favor of same-sex marriage.
Later, he was "undecided."

Obama claims to be Christian, and the Bible clearly does not condone homosexuality and clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Obama has been linked in the past to being Muslim. Islam not only does not condone same-sex marriage or homosexuality, but the Qur'an actually goes as far as to order Muslims to kill homosexuals (Hadith collections)!

At the very least, it is safe to say:

President Obama is NOT committed to 
the concept of equality of marriage. 


Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Debate winners and losers 2

President Obama vs. Mitt Romney, round 2.

First question - jobs for new college graduates. 
Romney looks engaged here - much like the last debate. Might be a long night for Obama. The President is in the background blinking uncontrollably.
President Obama does not thank people the way that Romney did. He looks overly focused. He lies about creating 5 million jobs. He lies by inferring that he is going to divert money from the war - we all know Obama is really pro-war. Obama's answers do not answer the question. He bunny-trails down to his talking points.

The moderator immediately redirects an accusatory question toward Romney.

Romney is really focused. He ties his 5-point plan in really well to his answer. Romney also uses the opportunity to counterstrike on the bankrupt statement.
Obama presumes Romney's position on the bankrupt statement. Obama makes a half-hearted attempt to tie Romney into President Bush's administration. Obama is running the 2008 campaign again.

Winner: Mitt Romney

Second question - energy costs.
Obama immediately comes out with statistics about increasing oil production and coal production. Maybe he forgot that he has hampered both of those? Obama attacks Romney again on being a big-government man. While the accusations are correct, the underlying assumption is that Obama is not a big-government man.
Romney talks about the President's "policies as opposed to rhetoric." He names the actual decrease in domestic production in coal and oil. Romney references Obama's statement in 2008 about wanting to bankrupt a company that tries to open a coal plant. Slam by Romney on the veto of the oil pipeline.

The moderator asks a leading question to allow Obama the hiding point that oil prices are controlled by the oil market, and not government.

Obama makes another quip against Bush. He references a large investment in "clean coal" technology - that was one of the bankrupt "green" companies if I am not mistaken.

Romney answers with a zinger: "That's not what you've done in the last four years." Romney directly asks the question to the President how much has oil production been cut. Obama tries to sidestep. Romney's plan looks good. He is on the attack, and not on the defense. Obama backs down. Romney follows with a direct slam on the price of gas. He really looks in his element.

Obama's body language is that of a fighting Beta, but certainly is not that of the man who is in charge of the stage. Romney's body language is that of the man in charge on the stage. He yields only when he wants.

Obama states some nonsense about the price of gas being low when he took office because the economy was about to collapse. He is reaching, and has reached the limit of his understanding and it shows.

Moderator does not give Romney his deserved follow up answer. He demands it, but she does not allow. Romney ignores, and makes his statement anyways. He is the Alpha male on the stage.

Obama states something about being used to being interrupted. Too little, too late, and not good in light of Biden's performance last week. Poor timing.

Winner: Mitt Romney

Question 3 - tax deductions. 
Romney talks about lowering taxes. He also answers with talk of crushing price increases. Too bad he doesn't believe any of it enough to take truly conservative points of view. However, I see now how so many self-proclaimed conservatives are fooled by the man. He talks with energy and excitement about conservative principles. Even if he has directly worked against those same principles in the past.

Romney keeps using verbage of the middle class being "buried" and "crushed" and ties it well to the President's policies and spending and borrowing.

Obama's answer talks about relief to middle class. He tries again to tie back to the "last decade" - a shot again at Bush. He is deflecting any blame for the downfall of the economy in the last four years. Both he and Romney talk about taxing "the wealthy" even more. Socialist principle. Obama makes a suggestion to go back to policies from when Clinton was president. Too bad he won't actually do it.

Obama talks about what he thinks grows the economy, and yet he implements none of these. Several times, he quotes things Romney has said, somewhat out of context.

Moderator does not try foolish stuff this time, and graciously segues to Romney.

Romney re-states his position of cuts for 95%, and increases for the top 5%. Marxism it is, but that is this race. He hits another heavy blow, talking about the reduction in employment, women being employed less, etc.

Now the moderator gives a softball lob to the President about Romney's claim to keep the top 5% paying what they are now, in addition to raising taxes on them.

Obama takes the cue, and remembers some points he wants to make, and segues them, nicely, into his talking points. He sounds more refined now, like Romney did in the beginning. He slams Romney on "only" paying 14%. He attacks the specifics, and Romney's "attacks" on Big Bird. Now, a direct question for Romney about taking a sketchy deal. Pot calling kettle black... OBMACARE ("pass this bill so we can find out what's in it").

Romney smirks and grins, no different that Biden did last week.

Moderator leads the question again, and does not allow Romney a direct response to the President's reply. Romney though, leads it into Obama's $5 Trillion deficits. He talks of additional debt and Obama's unfulfilled promise to reduce deficits.

Winner: Mitt Romney, but this one was close. 

Question 4 - equality of wages with regards to gender. 
President references his grandmother and her plight. He must not realize that the 2010's are not the same as the 1960's. Obama touts "accomplishments" in his first four years. He bunny-trails, but talks his points again. Liberals need that.

Romney talks about specifics on how he has staffed his gubernatorial cabinet with women. He draws on a clear wealth of experience on how-to make things work for women in the workplace. He talks about how women have lost 500,000 jobs in the last four years, and about how many more millions of women are now in poverty, compared to four years ago. Again, this is a clear point of experience on Romney's behalf. He is debating well, and tying Presidential failures together with it.

Moderator allows the President to respond. No leading.

Obama again references the Lilly Ledbetter bill. He talks about mandating contraceptive coverage as part of Obamacare. He is reaching here to try to make Romney appear to be "against women."

Moderator does not allow Romney rebuttal.

Winner: Romney, barely. But it was two-on-one.

Question 4 - difference between Bush and Romney.
Question was clearly from a liberal, who directly referenced Bush by name twice.She "fears" a return to those policies.

Romney directly references the fact that he did not get a fair take on previous question.

Romney then talks about the question at hand. He has specifics. He speaks again from a wealth of knowledge and direct experience. He talks directly about Bush's failings, then compares them to Obama's even worse failings. Romney leverages it back to his "5-Points."

Obama loves this question! He can blame bush ad nauseum, and does. He claims 31 consecutive months of job growth... I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GROWTH HE IS REFERENCING. He directly attacks Romney's companies on their outsourcing to China. Obama also talks about going after US employers who have unfair trade with China. That's what we need - the government intervening even more! In the end, actually accuses Romney of being more conservative than Bush???? Does he want to lose this election?

Winner: Romney, by a hair. He needs to get out of this funk, and rreassert himself. 

Question 5 - why should someone pay attention to this election?
Author's note - I'm really not sure. there's no appreciable difference.
Obama talks his points again. Not sure if it really directly answered the question or not in the minds of undecided voters. He talks about keeping his commitments, and says the commitments he hasn't kept were not his fault. He likens Romneycare to be the same as Obamacare and points out Romney's flip-flop in once stating he wants to repeal Obamacare.

Romney points out the President's failures: unemployment, medicare & Social Security, immigration, deficit, Obamacare, etc. He again talks about the crushing of the middle class. Romney goes after unemployment numbers and food stamp numbers. Romney clarifies the "5-million jobs" claim accurately, and states it doesn't even keep up with population growth. He hammers away at all the negative economic stats.

Obama occasionally tries to interrupt, but then backs off, obviously aware of the criticism of Biden from last week. Still, it makes him come off as not being in charge. Romney commands this stage clearly, in every case. 

Winner - Mitt Romney. He reestablished himself as the dominant person on stage.

2/3 of the way through - Romney is running away with this!

Question 6 - illegal immigrants
Romney talks first. "We welcome legal immigrants," he says. He talks about some specifics on making the legal system work better, not granting amnesty, employment verification, remove incentives to come to the US illegally, make a pathway for children of illegal immigrants, and he slams Obama for not touching immigration.

Obama talks about empty "accomplishments" that really do not exist. Obama says he only wants to go after illegals ("undocumented workers" he says) who are criminals - and he implies only gang members and the like. Talking out of both sides of his mouth. Obama really steps in it by claiming that Romney likes the Arizona law (which is supported by most Americans!). Bad move!!!

Moderator directly asks about "self deportation" part.

Romney shoots himself in counter response, saying he is not in favor of all of the AZ law. Romney uses the terms "undocumented" and "illegals" as synonyms. Says he won't round them up as he clarifies "self-deportation."

Obama tries to interrupt. Romney disallows it. Moderator tries to interject, but Romney takes control. Romney asks a direct question about the pension, Obama tries deflection saying it is not as big as Romney's. In the fray, Romney is clearly in command, and only backs down when he wants to. When he allows Obama to speak, Obama then speaks.

Obama's response sounds grasping.

Winner: Romney. Big time. 

Question 7 - Lybia. Attacks and who was responsible for security failure.
Direct attack for the failures. Obama does not answer who was responsible, but jumps forward to "after they found out the attacks had happened. He talks about action after the fact, not answering the question about why he allowed it to happen in the first place. Obama again is the pot calling the kettle black as he accuses Romney of politicizing the tragedy.

Romney is solemn in his answer, as is appropriate of a man in that position. Romney clearly does not have intelligence from CIA, but he talks about failure symbolically by Obama to have this attack properly investigated. He calls into question the President's "whole policy in the Middle East." Ne names Israel, Iran, Syria, and talks about each intelligently.

Moderator has a redirect question just for Obama.

The question is about Hillary Clinton taking the blame (falling on the sword would be more accurate). Obama talks about how the buck stops with him. He tries to make it out to be as if he is in control, but he is not. He looks like a Beta male snipping at the heels of the Alpha, looking for advantage.

Romney directly asks the President what he called it. The moderator clarifies. Romney Alphas up, and explains the timeline. His command of the facts is outstanding. Obama tries to butt in, but the moderator calls him down. 

Winner: Romney. It is not even close here.

Question 8 - gun control.
Another liberal question. Obama states he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Then he goes into why we need his ideas for gun control because of too many tragedies. Obama says  we must enforce the laws we currently have, but "we've got more to do." He clearly states that weapons designed for soldiers do not belong on our streets. He skims over another assault weapon ban, then goes straight into violence in Chicago and how that is not being perpetrated with assault weapons.

Again, he wants to get an assault weapons ban, but he wants to "go deeper."

Romney - author of an assault weapons ban - speaks that he wants no further bans. He clarifies accurately that automatic weapons are already nearly illegal. He speaks more to the changing of the culture. He ties back into poverty. He is using this as another hit on the President's economy. He further sidesteps and attacks the Fast and Furious program as being the worst case of automatic weapons used against Americans, and he correctly states it was implemented by the Obama administration! He is hitting this one hard!

Moderator gets onto Romney for not sticking to the question, and adds that Romney signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts.

Romney clarifies, and lies about the roots. He says we need more of this $h!t!!! Wow! He had this one in the bag, and had successfully sidestepped it, then he blew it!!!

Obama steps in and hammers Romney as being "for an assault weapons ban before he was against it." Obama with a big blow. Obama states accurately that Romney only changed his position when he was seeking the endorsement of the NRA. Obama, instead of quoting more on his pro-gun roots (which do not exist) then moves on to how education is the key here.

Winner: President Obama

Question 9 - jobs overseas
Talks about outsourcing during the Obama administration, and also slams against "trickle-down government." He talks of making China "play by the rules," and ties it all back to tax rates. He talks about increased regulation by the Obama administration.

Obama talks of needing to create jobs. Why hasn't he so far??? He talks of closing loopholes on big business. Yet he creates similar loopholes for those that fund his campaign. Obama talks of taxing US companies' overseas revenue. That will run them out of the US entirely!!! Then he talks about doubling exports.

The moderator has a fair redirect question for Romney.

Romney goes back to his talking points about playing fair, and changing the tax codes. The moderator interrupts. Obama accurately states that there are some jobs that will not come back. He sounds good in ways to make the US a place for high wage, high skill jobs. He talks about making investments in America. Romney snaps back that government does not create jobs. Great parting shot!

Winner: Romney. Blow out. 
In a basketball or football game, this is where you put in the subs for some playing time. 

Question 10 - incorrect perceptions about themselves as candidates.
Romney talks about who he really is, as opposed to what Obama characterizes him as. Good strategy. Talks about God, mission work, heading up the Olympics, and not having to settle for the bad things going on right now.

Obama references Romney's last zinger at him about government creating jobs. Obama distances himself from that notion, but brings it around to things being fair - fair shot, pay a fair share, play by the same "fair" rules. Obama talks about himself for a moment, then starts on the attack on Romney. Obama has passion, but does not clear up any missed perception.

Winner: Romney
Mitt Romney does not cruise to a victory, he dunks the basketball in the final moments and makes sure you know that he won basically every round.

Overall winner: Mitt Romney

Folks, if the first match was a 70-3 football game, then this one was a 63-21 game. Obama looked better, but was clearly outclassed. Given these things, I consider a few things:
1. I'd like to debate Obama. I think I could take him.
2. Does Obama actually want this?
3. The President looked better prepared, but just not in the same league.
4. I almost... almost... wanted to consider voting for Romney after hearing this debate. Fortunately, I know too much about the career politician and will not change my vote.
5. Obama had to win this to pull back even. He did not do that.
6. Obama showed moments of passion, but Biden is clearly more passionate. Romney is more passionate.
7. Several times, the two men got physically close, and looked almost as if they might come to blows. Romney never backed down, but forced Obama back in each instance. 

REAL WINNER: Gary Johnson
1. Obama doesn't want Gary Johnson at the debate.
2. Mitt Romney doesn't want Gary Johnson at the debate.
3. The leftist media doesn't want Gary Johnson at the debate.
There is a reason all three of these parties do not want Johnson there. That should scare you. 


Goose and Gander and all that...

Seems that a lot of Republicans are giving Vice President Joe Biden a hard time regarding his behavior at the Vice Presidential Debate last week. Republicans are throwing around claims that Biden interrupted Ryan too much, or that Biden was laughing too much, or that his facial expressions and demeanor were demeaning toward Representative Ryan.

Fact is, a lot of that same body language and non-verbal communication was what Mitt Romney used in his debate trouncing of Barrack Obama just two weeks ago. I feel that from a debate standpoint, Ryan lost, but the margin was much closer than the margin between Obama and Romney.


Guns of Appleseed

I have seen this a lot on the internet: Appleseed folks, well-intentioned as they might be, erroneously passing along the false statement that Appleseed is a "run what you brung" event. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Appleseed teaches marksmanship - particularly as it would be used in sportive competitions like NRA Highpower. They teach "field positions" that increase accuracy. Appleseed does not teach sound training or gunfighting tactics or doctrine. In fact, many of the field positions rely on techniques that are counter-intuitive to orthodox self-defense-with-a-rifle concepts.

Back to the MYTH of "run what you brung" (Myth #2) - first, let's cover why this statement is false:
At Appleseed, the "AQT" is shot more often than any other training device or scenario. The AQT is an amalgam of US Marine Corps known-distance  (USMC-KD) shooting and NRA Highpower (NRA-HP) shooting with a few rules modifications. Both influential courses of fire (USMC-KD and NRA-HP) were originally designed around the M1 Garand rifle and later modified for the M14 and then the M16 rifles.

What guns to bring
The following is a list of guns that are perfect for Appleseed:
- M16A2 clone (also, the M16A4 clone would work similarly)
- M1A

Pretty close to perfect
The following is a list of guns that with minor modification can be run just fine or that just aren't quite ideal, but still a good choice:
- AR15 (See below for in-depth)
- Ruger 10/22 set up as an "LTR"
- Marlin 795 set up as an "LTR"
- M1 Garand (not ideal because of reloading)
- Mini-14

Can be made to work:
The following are guns that are OK. Not as good as the guns listed above:
- Marlin 60 set up as an "LTR" (only this far down because of tube issues)
- SKS (only this far down because it needs peep sights and is top loaded like an M1)
- Remington 597 (only this far down because of reliability issues)
- AK47 (short sight radius, plus mag changes bring the AK down a notch)
- Bullpup style semi-autos.
- M1 Carbine (sling attachment is the factor here)

Do not bring:
- Bolt action rifles.
- Pump action rifles.
- Lever action rifles.
- Tube fed rifles if you have one of the above.
- Single shot rifles.
- Shotguns
- Pistol caliber carbines (though there may be some that might work)


More on the AR15
The AR15 comes in many variants, I will break down here and cover broad categories with suggestions to make them work better.

These suggestions are designed to help the person who has multiple AR15's or who has several types of sights (scope and irons, for example).

1. Carbine barrels
These suggestions are for 14.5" (pinned to 16"), 16", and 18" barrels. The main problem with these barrels will be the sight radius if you intend to use iron sights. The shorter sight radius is better designed for 300 yards and under. A couple of suggestions.
- Use a dissipator (rifle length sight radius) if you have it.
- Use a scope if you are stuck with carbine-length sight radius on irons.
- Mid-length gas systems are better, because they offer more space for your support hand, and they usually have a slightly longer iron sight radius.

2. Barrel free float
Use an AR15 with a free floated barrel if at all possible!
If it is not going to be possible, use a heavy-profile barrel!
If free float and HBAR options are not possible, then you must be very diligent - almost anal - about sling tension. You must mark your sling so that you get the same tension each and every time!!!

3. Stock type
The ideal stock type is a fully adjustable telescoping stock. If this is not an option either due to asinine state laws, or due to the fact that you only have a fixed stock, there are no worries. I'm just stating what is ideal for a wider majority of people.

4. Best overall AR15
Best overall AR15 for Appleseed would have the following characteristics:
- 20" barrel
- A2 (carry-handle) upper or flat top with irons (fully adjustable) / ACOG / scope
- Collapsible stock for some / fixed stock for others
- Free floated barrel
- HBAR (whether free-floated or not)

Why is that the best?
Simple - the AR15 consistently wins service-rifle matches in NRA-HP. It is the best platform for a number of reasons. Those service rifles have heavy barrels (20") that are free-floated, carry-handle iron sights (though an ACOG or scope is really good for Appleseed, and is permitted). Service rifles do have fixed stocks, as per the rules.

So what if I have a carbine that is not free-floated?
Yes, that would be the worst AR15 configuration, but it would still be better for Appleseed than an AK47. Just be mindful (OK - anal) of sling tension. Use a scope / ACOG if possible to overcome the limitations of sight radius. Enjoy your adjustable stock (where permitted by law - most states).

What about AR15 variants that shoot .22LR?
Great choice! Use them.


Monday, October 15, 2012

Global warming is over!

According to a recent study, global warming is over, and has been for 16 years.

Incidentally, per the data in the article, the "warming period" just prior to the current plateau lasted the same amount of time - 16 years.

My sarcastic side wants to say we will now see a "cooling" trend for the next 16 years.

That same sarcastic side wonders why the leftist media will not report this?


Calvinist Corner - October 2012

Calvinism is not Biblical Doctrine. It's a human philosophy that appeals to proud-minded individuals.

Total Depravity
Calvinists believe that man is totally depraved. However, I have a couple of thoughts on this (I know - shocker!):

1. Ever seen a bad man do a good deed? Yep, I have, too.

2. If depravity is total, then there is no choice. If there is no choice, then God would have to predestine, as we could not choose Him.
If there is no choice, though, why then did God make us so that we could only sin???
If there is no choice - why does God judge us based on the concept of wrong choice???
(more on this next month!)