Monday, November 29, 2004

Operation Plymouth Rock

On Tuesday of Thanksgiving week, the U.S., along with the Iraqi Security Force, launched an attack on the entire Triangle of Death. The Triangle of Death is a “Terrorist Safe Haven” and with the success in Fallujah, the Marines decided to execute this strategic move against the terrorists. A National Review article covers the mission, and it shows how far the Iraqis have come. It talks about an Iraqi SWAT team that apparently has a sense of humor, which is probably a relieving thing in war.

“Still, the success of Plymouth Rock has been overwhelming. And much of that success can be attributed to the Iraqi SWAT team, a U.S. Marine-trained police-commando force that reportedly leaves postcard-size calling cards at raid sites that say, "Are You a Criminal or Terrorist? You Will Face Punishment.”

Isn’t that great?!

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Recount in Florida

Have you talked to any liberals that say they know that Bush cheated in the very democratic counties in Florida? Well, the Miami Herald recounted the ballots in three of the overwhelmingly democratic areas that the President won, and guess what the results showed? Weird, President Bush actually won. Imagine that! Not only did he win, but he won by a surprisingly large margin.

I saw this on Little Green Footballs, and I thought it was so important that I should post it too. Go there and he has an excerpt from the Miami Herald.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Iraqi Government

Today in Iraq, the government declared that they would not postpone the Jan. 30 election day when the Sunni Muslims demanded that it be pushed back. When I read this, it gave me even more hope for Iraq than I had before. Even with increased terrorism attacks, the government continued to be diligent in their decision showing that they would not bow to the evil terrorists. This brings me hope especially when you consider the fact that even the once great Spain folded under the pressure of the terrorists.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

No, allies aren't bad

In response to DaMassPhilosipher's post, I didn't say that allies were bad. I was trying to make the point that going out of your way to get allies in this situation isn't worth it.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Liberal-Conservative President

I know that I'm a conservative but I do have to say I really don't like President Bush. I agree with a good 70% of his policies but with the other 30% is was just him trying to get reelected. No Child Left Behind is seriously a joke, Wayzata is FAILING it! Wayzata (MN) is one of the top schools in the state, if not in the country (top 1000 probably). Some call it underfunded, that's just stupid, it's OVERfunded! $1 is overfunding this.

The biggest problem I think is the stranglehold of special interest groups. Bush himself states how much he hates how much power they hold, yet look what he does. He puts in the working Illegal Immigrant thing, which isn't so terrible, but which he almost certainly did for the votes. He pumps more money into prescription drugs for the elderly, spends tons of money on No Child Left behind. The thing it comes down to is that he is simply trying to get everyone's vote, and that is the major reason we have a $450 deficit. Also, the attack on Iraq, while certainly justified, was not for National Security, but it could only help it and would not "create more terrorists." Note that I don't necessarily feel strongly either way on the attack on Iraq, but I do think it's worth taking an economic bump and some American casualties in order to help save the Iraqi's, although now was probably not the best time (like the plans for going to Mars).

Right now it seems like I absolutely hate President Bush, but there are many more things I like about him. Tax cuts are an incredible idea, the Afghanistan war was well liked by almost everyone around the world. Also, especially after learning more about the UN in debate, I detest the UN. Bush has repeatedly stood by my defiance against it by giving the UN a metaphorical finger. Also, you have not yet heard my rant against Kerry, which would be twice as long as this.

There is one last point that makes me love President Bush, and that is willing to persevere through anything. He isn't afraid of other people, and is willing to hold still to his convictions. Those two qualities are among the best one can have, especially for our president.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Allies are BAD?

I just felt I needed to respond to Youngrightwingers post on Allies in Iraq.

The first point I need to make is that pointing out how shity Europe turned out under Britain's insistence on socialism, that does not mean that allies are inherently bad.

The second major point is we are simply out of troops in Iraq, we are spread thin for the simple reason that America does the majority of the world's fighting (that is a post all on its own).

The third major point is that the problem with allies lies not in having allies but rather in the political differences between them. Youngrightwinger asserts that allies are bad because Germany got F-ed up for 45 years. The English, American, and French area turned out perfectly fine, between three rather similar allies that were all social democracies. The only problem actually, was Russia refusing to give up the "buffer" zone of Eastern Europe that contained East Germany. Had Russia actually pulled out of Germany, I'm sure it would have been perfectly fine.

Do I think that the UN should go to Iraq? Unless we actually need the troops badly enough that we want to send a swarm of Bangladeshen soldiers to Iraq to occupy it while the US is gone. So I would say 'Ell no!

First, there would be political differences between the UN and US troops. This is shown in Somalia mostly, but would be even more apparent here. Second, it would not resolve the conflict in Iraq, the insurgents would attack anyone in their country, and the UN are really not perceived as neutral. Again, in Somalia the UN soldiers were also attacked, the blue helmet is just too much of a target to ignore apparently! The last point you must understand is as all countries serve themselves, all countries in the UN serve themselves through the UN. There is no neutrality! There would be hundreds of arguments about rebuilding and more, as well as the loss of political capital in the United Nations because we had to "call them in" after attacking "without their precious permission".

Basicly, the UN would serve only as troops that the US does not have and would be inferior and only cause trouble in Iraq. However, should another country wish to help by sending troops in, by definition they would be politically aligned with us and it would work perfectly, as our allies right now are working with us to rebuild it.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Black and White

In his last post, Youngrightwinger went into good vs. evil, which I believe is a really strong theme and I agree with it, partially....

This is what this majority of the post will cover.

Some people take a more broad view of "evil". It is almost impossible for me to describe someone who is evil. The best defintion i could have, would be someone who committed an act that they know to be substantially wrong. It's a pretty bad defintion, but it is the best way to express what I believe.

Take heed of whom Bush places in his axis of evil, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda... I'm not sure, but they all easily fit the definition. All of these countries have at least committed evil acts against their citizens, if not other countries.

My personal gray area is a number (not all) of insurgents in Iraq, I'm mainly talking about the ones who are fighting because another nation invaded. This does not include the dispicable ones who have killed and beheaded innocent civilians and who care only about themselves. I'm talking about the Iraqi nationals who fight because another nation. Do I think continuing to fight is wrong, yes, by a long shot! But do I think that all the insurgents are evil, the majority yes, but a select few, I would have to say no.

Again use common sense on what I'm saying, the ones who pretend to surrender and shoot, the ones who kill civilians, and so on and so forth are obviously evil. But remember the United States is a foreign country invading a sovereign (sort of) nation, and maybe, some, are just defending their homes.

Back to the abstract, do I think the South were evil in the civil war, the Germans were evil in WWII, and so on? While I do agree that there were a number of people that were evil in each situation, a majority of them were fighting for reasons other than racial supremacy (and other evil things). For instance, the majority of the South were fighting for National vs. State power, not over slavery. I do not think it was legit for the South to break from the union, I do not think the soldiers fighting for the South were evil. They thought they were defending their land, not trying to take more.

I do not like the mass labeling of evil. It occurs a lot, as Michael Savage said, "These insurgents are all evil, every single one of these insurgents is evil." I hate that! I know I'm gonna spark a ferocious response, but, this is what I think. My last point is that I believe that defending your principles is one of the noblest things people can do.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Good and Evil

Other than values, I think one of the reasons that people who normally sit at home on election day came out to vote for the reelection of the president was because of the great threat of terrorism. One of the main parties believes that there is a battle between good and evil; the other party believes that there is no evil.

When I say that Braveheart or Lord of the Rings are my favorite movies, someone usually asks me why. I usually respond that they are “cool” or have a good story, but I always make sure that I mention that one of the themes of both those movies is Good triumphing over Evil. Generally, when I’m talking to a liberal that I know, they say, “Oh, that figures, of course you’d bring that up.” Occasionally, they just give me an eye roll.

Now I’m not saying that all liberals think this way, and if you’re one of them, listen up.

Liberal politicians are always spouting “Negotiate, Diplomacy!” When I hear that, I hear appeasement, and that is what it is. If you believe in evil, you should know that appeasement never works with people who are evil; history has shown this, and is currently showing this in, along with other places, the Middle East. When dealing with Evil, they will take what you give them and then turn on you.

The belief that evil is nonexistent is why liberals can think that appeasement will work. Fighting terrorism only makes more terrorists, that is the most absurd thing that you could say, and guess who says that? Liberals. So you’re just supposed to let them attack you without responding? If 9-11 wasn’t a big enough call to arms, nothing would be.

The Americans want to be protected from these psycho evil terrorists and people realized that conservatives are more willing and more capable to wage an efficient war on terror. We don’t want to be protected from evil by people who don’t believe in it. If you are a democrat an believe that there is evil and it is a problem, please think before you vote; many of you, thankfully, did.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Bush Country

This is sure something to be thankful for on this joyous Thanksgiving!
(County by county election map, it really shows that America wanted the President back in office)

(I got this map from Sean Hannity's website)

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Why do we need allies in Iraq

One of my biggest pet peeves while talking about the war in Iraq is when someone says we need to get allies involved. There is a very good argument against this, and Ann Coulter conveys the point well in her article, “How to Lose a War,”

“After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.”

I encourage you to read the rest of this article and after reading just this excerpt, do you still think that we should have gone out of our way to get "our allies" into this war in Iraq? If you don't think of a resounding "No!", then that gives more proof to this statement: Liberalism is a mental disease.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Monday, November 22, 2004

Hannity vs. Rall

Tonight on Hannity and Colmes, Ted Rall and Michael Reagan were on talking about two of Ted Rall’s latest comic strips: the first one is racist comic strip that was attacking Condoleezza Rice and the second strip attacking all conservatives that are minorities.

On the show, Rall was saying that everyone in his business has a few bad strips, and this was one of them. The only problem with this is when you have more than a just few bad strips and you promote some absurd idea, you will have to brace yourself for the people who are going to rip on you. Hannity brought up some of his earlier comics that assaulted widows that received money after their husbands were killed on 9-11. The most preposterous comic that Hannity talked about was one that called the honorable Pat Tillman stupid. Pat Tillman was a selfless man who turned down a contract with the NFL to join the Marines to fight for freedom and serve his country in Iraq. Sadly, his life was taken while in Afganistan; because of this, Ted Rall called him stupid. Because of what Pat Tillman did, I cannot stress enough the amount of respect I have for him.

Ted Rall refused to apologize to the widows of 9-11 and to the memory of Pat Tillman. When Hannity heard this, it looked like his blood started to boil. He began to tell Rall (and remember,they are sitting only feet apart) that he was the sickest person he had ever met. I don’t think that anyone could disagree with this; I don’t think that I have ever see anyone more genuinely mad than Sean Hannity was right that moment, and he was completely justified. It was great to see this man beaten to a pulp verbally. Ted Rall had no idea what to do and personally I am glad that he received this tongue lashing. Michael Reagan hardly had to do anything, because Sean basically covered it in his diologue.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Sunday, November 21, 2004

President Bush Rescues Security Guard

If you haven’t already heard about this story, I think it’s awesome.

Yesterday in Chile, President Bush was entering the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center with his wife, the Chilean President Lagos, and his wife for the APEC Summit dinner when one of the Chilean security men stopped President Bush’s bodyguard from entering. With all of the Chilean security following closely behind the President, he must not have noticed this. The security guard demanded to be let in and all voices started to rise. A second of Bush’s guards was pushed up against a concrete wall and roughed up a bit. The President and his party heard the commotion and approached the crowd and upon seeing his bodyguard in this crowd, he reached over a few rows of people and pulled his Secret Service man out. Do you think that some Elitist president would do that, no way; you can really tell that President Bush is a normal person like you or me, I think that's a great quality to have when you are president.

Thankfully no punches were thrown.

I thought that was worth posting

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Media Bias

Whether you like it or not, you have to understand that the media is biased. Not only does it do everything it can do to make the situation in Iraq look bad, but also anything related to Republicans look like a failure when it is not.

With the whole Clinton Library opening, the former president has been in the news quite a bit. On Nov. 28, CNN was covering the Clinton Library, and Judy Woodruff praised Clinton like none other. "Bill Clinton is the quintessential American, super sized.", "Conjures memories of his often dramatic successes." She claimed, but failing to actually say why, and she never supported it with a fact. She showed Arafat signing a treaty (that lasted long didn't it?), and she seemed to forget that he pulled our troops out of Rwanda and almost let a genocide happen. Judy Woodruff also seemed to neglect the fact that Clinton bombed innocent civilians in Sudan (that curiously happened on the same day that Monica Lewinski went to see the grand jury) These people weren't actually linked to terrorism (It's OK when he bombs innocents, but when President George Bush bombs totalitarian Iraq, it's a war crime!).

They claim to be reporting both sides, but truly they are only reporting the other side. But when you think about it, news really isn’t about reporting both sides of a story, it’s about reporting reality and the truth, not the “other side”, and that is what TV news stations don’t understand.

In Iraq’s case you don’t report all of the horrible things, and you don’t report all of the good things either, but you should report them proportional to the amount that they are occurring. I know there are more good things happening than the major networks show; I have heard many soldiers say how well things are going, and if that isn’t a first hand account, I don’t know what is. In a time of war, if you err on one side, it should be on the side of reporting positive stories, because public opinion is directly correlated to how efficiently we conduct the war, and possibly even if we win or lose. Vietnam was not lost by our troops, it was lost here on our own soil, but that is another argument for another time.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Friday, November 19, 2004

O, The Hypocrisy! O, The Lies!

Tonight I witnessed the true face of liberalism in America today.

Doing her best to prove the phrase, "liberalism is a mental disease," talk show host Leslie Marshall was on Hannity and Colmes tonght, making her case (rather poorly) against the Bush administration. It was typical spewing of distorted beliefs and misguided idealism, filth I can at least live with, but she soon desended into pure lies and hatred.

In her responce to a prompt discussing the Patriot Act, she commited one of the cardinal sins of modern politics: comparing a political figure, in this case President Bush, to Adolf Hitler. Not only did she put this despicable viewpoint forth, but had the nerve to support it with 'evidence,' claiming the enforcement of the Patriot Act by the FBI, a neccessity in the war on terror, is akin to the attempted extermitation by the Gestapo of Jews, Gypsies, the physically/mentally disabled, and the list goes on. Unless 56,000,000+ of the U.S. population along with me are blind, there is absolutely no correlation between the two. Ma'am, the burden of proof is upon you, and you have shown no speck of evidence why the American public should believe your horrendous claim.

If there was any sense in the world of the 'mainstream' media (mainstream by whose count?), there would be mass condemnation from both sides. Alas, this is not the way our world works. Horrifyingly, there are many peace-loving, all-including liberals who share the exact same sentiment. One needs only to look at, with millions of supporters, to see the real views of the radical left today.

Is that a future we can live with? I think not.

Fighting for truth, justice, and the capitalistic way,


Thursday, November 18, 2004

Liberal Talk Radio

The other night, I was listening to the radio, and thought it might be interesting to see what lies were being spewed out over "Air America", the liberal talk radio station. To sum my experiance up, it was very boring, had bad messages which were not supported, and it was slanderous.

I can’t remember the name of the guy who was bloviating those non-sensicle ideas, but it was horrible. On public air waves, it is extremely discriminatory to call an entire group of people you don’t even know “asses.” Not only did he do that, but he called President Bush’s secret service people “bastards.” After this I went into the bathroom to brush my teeth and while I was brushing I couldn’t really hear what he was saying, but every few seconds he screamed loud enough that I heard him yell “fagot”. After he finished spouting expitives, he took a caller and when the caller started to swear, the host cut him off claiming the they couldn't have that kind of language on the show.

Even if this shouldn’t be censored, I do think it is very dumb. I have never heard his Right Wing counterparts on the radio swear that much even when you put them together, and I been listening to conservative talk radio for 2 and a half years. When you host a radio show, or any show for that matter, it is a very bad idea just to insult people and call them names without backing it up. You should present your ideas and then support them with facts or reasoning. He never took callers that disagreed with him, so he never had to actually argue or prove his point. Throughout the entire time I listened, he had underlying themes that seemed to suggest that christianity is a horrible religion but every other religion is fine.

If that isn’t bad, he then proceeded to impersonate conservatives and start to yell out very hateful statements of the like that follows: “I hate gays, I hate muslims, I hate liberals, I hate Jews”, and many other uncalled-for phrases (I think that it is kind of ironic that he mentioned hating Jews, because the conservatives are the only ones who are truly helping the nation of Israel; the liberals are actually the ones who indescriminatly hate Israel and Jewish values). It was the most hateful rant I have ever heard and he was saying that conservatives actually think this, which is completely untrue. It really does show the level that liberals have stooped down to.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Just because a sytem is inherently inferior does not mean it's inherently evil. We've only seen 5 countries attempt Communism, all initiated by 1 leader who obviously then turns himself into a dictator. If it were initiated by something other than a dictator, instead perhaps a very, very socialist democracy using a communist system, it is not evil, which implies that it will historically kill people. It is a terrible system for humans, but nonetheless it is not actually evil. Same applies to Fascism, which works with the correct dictator, but because of the flaws of humans never has the correct dictator.

As for Regan, he embraced something I'm in love with. As a Greek Philosopher stated "Prepare for in peace what you need in war." Disarming has and always will cause military conflicts to occur for one reason, not everyone will disarm. This is similar to making guns illegal for everyone, whats worse, everyone having guns or only criminals having guns? That allows for the people who are armed to suppress everyone else until they are similarly armed. This has been a chosen fact for practically ever, when the US and USSR were both fully armed, they never touched eachother because of the threat of global annihilation.

To all the people who have read Ender's Game will know the very good lesson taught in that book. When you are attacked, you strike back so hard that your enemy will never be able to hurt you again. It's also the theme from Swordfish, his anti-terrorist measures where whenever a building gets blown up he will destroy a city, and so on. The only problem I'd ever have with that is the destruction on innocent civilians, but it's perfectly justified if you only strike back at the actual people who are attacking you.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Communism is evil!

In response to DaMassPhilosopher’s post about communism not being evil, I would say that it is. Like you said DaMass, every single communist society ever created, has become a dictatorship. I believe that because human beings are human beings, and have human nature, communism will never be able to exist without eventually becoming a dictatorship or cause serious damage to its citizens. There is no question that no matter where or when, Communism is doomed to fail, and once that happens, it will hurt the people of that country. So when you think about it (thinking is the key idea here), a government that fails and harms its people every single time it is created, is an evil government.

This debate about communism and capitalism was the perfect segway into what I intended to talk about anyway: Ronald Reagan and how he defeated communism and thusly ending the civil war.

Reagan was a very unpopular president at the time, mainly because hippies and other crazy folk wanted a nuclear freeze, and at first sight, this sounds like a very sensible idea. But when you delve just a little bit deeper into the facts and circumstances, you find out that this would have been much less efficient and potentially very dangerous.

To understand why this would be the case, take a look at capitalism and communism. When the government of a capitalist society needs to borrow money, they can get it from the private sector. When a communist government needs to borrow money, they have to take the money from other government programs, because there is no private sector.

When Reagan increased the amount of money put into missiles and other offensive/defensive programs, it forced the Soviet Union to do the same if they wanted to keep up with America. When Reagan continued to do this, the Soviet Union focused all of its efforts on the Cold War and neglected the other parts of the government. Also, all of the money Reagan forced the communist government to put in to the Cold War efforts had to come from somewhere, and so they took it from other government programs. This caused the government to fall apart very rapidly. Some people say that Reagan was not the reason that the Soviet Union collapsed, it would collapse anyway. For one thing, that proves my first point, that communism is evil, but the real point is that Reagan forced the Soviet Union to collapse before they could nuke us. If we had stopped producing missile defense systems, do you think that, that would have changed their minds and they would have disarmed also, I don’t think so.

This and other reasons are why I think that Reagan was the best president of modern history and one of the best ever.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Communism is Evil?

I just want to start a small discussion going for my first post. I don't think Communism, Fascism, or any other forms of government are inherently evil. Far from it, in fact. Communism is just the name associated with the Russian government, the Cubans, the Chinese, the North Vietnamese, and the North Korean. You'll notice all 5 of these are dictatorships, which is not an actual Communism. An actual Communism would not have a government deciding things against the people's will. Each and every one of these Communist countries did not contain a true Communist system as imvisioned by Carl Marx. So they are not evil per se, it just seems to turn out that way because of when and how a country would generally turn Communist.

However, I'm 100% positive that the economic system best suited for the nature of human beings is Capitalism. This regulates itself, it leaves no zone for human error. Think about it. In a Communist system, the government decides what you need and gives it to you. In a Capitalist system, you decide what you need/want and you are then able to get it by giving a fair amount of money. The only time the Capitalist system has failed us is when one or more needed products has been made by exactly one company. This is the only way where Capitalism becomes second best. All other examples would reduce Communism's value as well, (poor communication and so on).

I also think proponents of Communism are naive if they think that people will work together in harmony. This has and never will occur! Whenever people have been given power, they have abused it! Do not give unnecessary power to an unchecked force, it will eventually grow out of its domain and turn into a totalitarianism that will stifle freedom, which I believe is the most important thing in our lives.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Who is full of hate?

Apparently to my liberal counterparts, us conservatives are filled with an intense hate that is baseless and unreasonable. But when I put on the goggles of nonpartisanship, my eyes see it very differently.

Liberals are actually the hateful and unreasonable ones. There’s a plethora of examples from my life concerning this issue, but I will write of one of the most recent incidents.

One of my favorite t-shirts is a Ronald Reagan t-shirt that is made in the style of those Che shirts (the shadows on the person’s face is what makes the picture of the person). Anyway, the first dreadful day I wore the shirt to my prison (school), I was eaten alive for wearing it. The comments that were thrown at me were along the lines of, “Ronald Reagan was just a bad actor and a horrible person.” , “Communism is worth it.” (I don’t even know what that one is supposed to mean) “Reagan didn’t destroy the Soviet Union.”, “Che was a revolutionary, Reagan was nothing.” and “You Conservatives are so stupid!” Not only were the insults full of hate, they were also backless.

Communism is worth it? I don’t think so; it has only killed 100 million people, it always has and will always fail. I wouldn’t say that 100 million innocent lives are worth that.

As for Che being a “revolutionary”, I say, so what? What really mattered was that he was a revolutionary promoting communism, and communism is one of the great evils this world has to endure until we can wipe it out completely.

Why would anyone even bring up whether or not Ronald Reagan was a bad actor, and saying that he was a horrible person is just unbelievable. I asked that rage-filled person why Reagan was a horrible person, and he didn’t have and answer for me.

My favorite angry phrase I heard that day was “You Conservatives are so stupid!” This line truly unveils liberals’ hatred and elitism. Again I asked the accuser to back-up this claim and once again all they could say was, “Just because.”

Whenever liberals get the chance, they blame everything, even the most random of concepts, on George Bush. The hate they hold for President Bush is completely irrational. No one can defend their hate of George W. Bush and when they attempt to, they use lies or absurd arguments. One such argument I've heard is that President Bush doesn't fund the arts sufficiently. My dad is a professional photographer, I don't think that government should be spending large sums of money on the arts. The private sector is how you should go about funding the arts, not with our tax money.

Whenever a liberal spits out their spineless rhetoric, it really reveals who they truly are, and who is really the one full of blind hate.

In my next post I will talk about why it really was Reagan who defeated the Soviet Union.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

Saturday, November 13, 2004

First Post

Welcome to the first edition of our rants and raves about politics and everyday life.

Hopefully these posts will become a regular habit for us and that our humble opinions will be interesting. Everyday we're thrust into the belly of the beast, public education, and fight against seemingly insurmountable political odds; thankfully we've escaped with our ideologies intact. In fact, this political oppression has only strengthened our belief in truth, justice, and the capitalistic way. The various stories, opinions, and cold, hard truths we've gathered over the years may be surprising, shocking, or simply deserving of a chuckle, but we sincerely hope that by reading the views of a few young conservatives you'll enjoy yourself, and perhaps even learn a thing or two.

If you're not with us, you're against us

My Ecosystem Details