Not that these tests really mean anything….
| You are a Social Liberal (78% permissive) and an… You are best described as a: Libertarian |
Which is as I would expect. Squarely Libertarian… inasmuchas tests like this can determine.
Hrm… seems WordPress or something screwed up the graphics… the way they were plotted didn’t make sense. I edited out the graphics and left in the basic numbers.
Anthony G. Martin said it well enough about the interesting reasoning within Obama’s speech last night. So, I’ll just let him say it. Click and read.
Updated: Ok, I changed my mind. I’m going through my morning webroll and read this article. It kinda set me off.
He says the economic crisis is one he inherited from Bush. Now I’m no fan of Bush, but last I checked the Presidency had no control over economic matters. That’s the job for Congress, which of course Obama was a part of during the Bush administration. And Obama is on record as voting for all those damn bailouts. So uh…. who helped to create the mess, Mr. Obama? You helped to create that inherited mess. But maybe this is just showing Obama’s ignorance for the Constitution he’s supposed to be sworn to upholding. I mean, he also believes that government has a role in solving our problems… don’t know where that is in the Constitution, but I guess since he apparently believes it to be the case, then it must be Fact and Truth, right?
Y’know, for all the American families that are having to tighten their belts, most of them are not only reducing their spending but many are also reducing their income. So why is it that the folks in Washington give lip service to reducing their spending, but at the same time just voted to jack up their “income” at the taxpayer expense? If you really want to eliminate all those problems, Mr. Obama, you probably shouldn’t have signed that trillion dollar “stimulus” (go read Anthony Martin’s article above).
Now he’s saying the bank bailout is going to cost more (surprise surprise). So we have to cut spending, but now if Congress has to “do whatever proves necessary”, which just means increase more spending (huh?? which is it?? reduce spending or increase spending?)… which means more borrowing against our grandchildren’s future… which means further tanking the US’s standing in global markets, which means further dollar weakening…. yeah, do whatever’s necessary. Keep flushing the country down the toilet, and continue to use the Constitution as your toilet paper.
*sigh*
Because we all know, inanimate objects do things all by themselves.
We need a ban on computers… it’s the only way to keep our children and Interwebtubes safe, dontchaknow.
Funny how some things come together.
Today I made a post and then I receive a comment from Kellene Bishop from Women Of Caliber. Never heard of her or her group before, but I’m starting to read her blog and she presents some good food for thought. She is of course geared towards women and self-defense issues.
Then I’m reading over at Joe Huffman’s blog and he links to the brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondant.
Kellene, looks like some good stuff for your cause.
Rob Longenecker has a nice explanation of the stimulus bill.
The Advocates for Self-Government have posted the February 20, 2009 issue of The Liberator Online.
In this issue you can read about:
Once again politicians break promises, once again politicians demonstrate corruptness. And once again the American populace demonstrates their apathy to the situation, accepting that such is how things are. Why should you accept bad things, when with a little work you can have good things?
Here’s an email I received from my US Senator, John Cornyn, regarding the “stimulus”.
Thank you for contacting me about efforts to stimulate the economy. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.
As you know, the Congress recently passed-and President Barack Obama signed into law-the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) along partisan lines. I could not support this legislation, which increases the size and scope of the federal government, adds over $1 trillion to the federal deficit, and fails to reduce the tax burden on all working families and small businesses. In fact, this legislation will increase Texans share of the national debt by almost $90 billion and according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, will have a negative impact on economic growth over the next ten years.
Nonetheless, I remain committed to finding real solutions that will have an immediate, positive impact on the economy. During the Senate’s debate of P.L. 111-5, I supported an amendment that would have helped address the struggling housing market. The Fix Housing First Amendment (S.Amdt. 353) would have made 4 to 4.5 percent mortgages available to every creditworthy American in an effort to ease the pressure on family budgets. Millions of Texans would have qualified for this refinancing option-translating into an average $300 reduction in the monthly mortgage payments of middle-class families. Additionally, this amendment would have created a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit for the purchase of any principle residence and would have encouraged lenders to modify privately held mortgages, a provision that would have helped stem the number of foreclosures. Finally, S.Amdt. 353 would have put in place a number of critical tax incentives, aimed at creating jobs and spurring small business investment. Unfortunately, S.Amdt. 353 was not included in the final version of P.L. 111-5.
Furthermore, excessive taxation hinders job creation for small businesses and overburdens taxpayers during difficult economic times. According to the Tax Foundation, taxpayers worked almost four months last year to pay for government operations. This is more than what they worked to pay for food, clothing and housing combined. As such, I offered an amendment to P.L. 111-5 that would have lowered the 10 percent tax bracket to 5 percent. This proposal would have provided tax relief to every Texan who pays the federal income tax. Hard-working Texans deserve to keep more of their own money to spend, save, and invest how they see fit. Although the Senate failed to adopt my amendment, I will continue working to provide broad-based tax relief to all Americans.
Finally, I understand the frustration of American taxpayers regarding Congress’ inability to restrain spending-the primary factor contributing to the budget deficit and our national debt. Like you, I am concerned about the long term effects of excessive government spending, often on wasteful, ineffective government programs. In an effort to be a better steward of tax dollars, Congress must eliminate government waste and fraud and restrain runaway spending. Although P.L. 111-5 included some meritorious funding initiatives, I believe that any programmatic funding should be openly debated during the annual appropriations process. While I am not a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the annual appropriations bills that allocate federal spending, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that all Texans are well served.
I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate, and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation be considered during the 111th Congress. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
So we keep hearing about the violence in Mexico due to drug cartels. Do we not learn from history? Do we not learn from past mistakes? Do we not realize that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
We tried treating alcohol as a crime and that caused more problems than it solved (read: alcohol prohibition was a failure). Now we treat alcohol as a health issue and we don’t have the violence and criminal activity. Treating drugs as a criminal problem is well… what’s keeping it as a criminal problem and frankly causing this crime to exist. “Give evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself.” (Tao Te Ching #60). Treat the drugs as the health issue that they are.
In a 3-0 decision, the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in support of allowing employees to store legally owned firearms in locked, private motor vehicles while parked in employer parking lots. I wonder how this will affect efforts here in Texas, such as HB 1301 and SB 730.
I’m torn on this issue, because it’s a mix of personal rights to self-protection and property rights. Here’s some debate on the matter:
And if you spend a little time with Google, you can find a lot more on the debate.
Stuff From Hsoi 