MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
DarcPrynce (aka Edward L. Daley)

Edward Daley


Last Updated: 8/3/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: In a Relationship
Age: 46

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 

Category: News and Politics

















































8:12 PM 
30 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, September 11, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
Representative Joe Wilson got so angry listening to President Obama repeatedly lie to a joint session of congress the other day that he barked "you lie" loud enough for all to hear, and now we - America's conservatives - are supposed to feel embarrassed by Joe's outburst. We're suddenly expected to "tone down" the rhetoric, so that MSNBC and the New York Times don't end up committing suicide by hissy fit.

Yeah right!

Sure, what Joe did was uncouth... okay it was downright rude, and I suspect his mother has scolded him brusquely for it by now. Still, it was far less objectionable than what Barack Obama was doing at the time, which was swearing up and down that he's really against doing everything we all know he wants to do, and would have done already if we hadn't stood in his way.

Charming Barry (as I like to call him)  has been behaving like a perfect horses ass of late, as have his many minions in both houses of congress and the "mainstream" news media, and frankly, every single one of them is wearing on my last nerve! I don't care how politically correct or etiquette-obsessed you may be, if you're anything like me you stood up and exclaimed "HELL YEAH" when you heard the junior congressman from South Carolina state aloud exactly what most of us on the right were thinking at that moment.

Oh, and before I forget, when did it become acceptable for any president to call a special joint session of congress to order just because he's got a bug up his butt about some relatively mundane policy issue? The U.S. Capitol building is not some run-of-the-mill town hall that the chief executive gets to use whenever the mood strikes him. If he's not delivering his annual State of the Union address, declaring his intention to take America to war, or commenting on some other truly extraordinary event, he has no business making speeches there.

He's the head of the Executive branch, not the king of the federal government, and I take very vocal exception to him overstepping the bounds of his office in this way. Mr. Obama's speech amounted to an abuse of authority that I hope is never repeated by any future president, and the fact that I haven't heard a single Republican office-holder object to the event on these grounds is more than a little disquieting.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to preach to me about Congressman Wilson's "disgraceful" breach of decorum had better at least be willing to admit up front that the man he was directing his discourteous remarks toward is one of the most arrogant and condescending jackasses to ever hold high political office in this country. If you can't bring your self to do that, then I suggest you keep your big, fat trap shut about what you consider to be acceptable public behavior.

Maybe no one ever pointed this out to some of you "right-leaning" folks, but America wasn't built by a bunch of whiny tight-asses who preferred getting kicked in the teeth to experiencing the (apparently intolerable) shame of those rare individuals who proper society has deemed dreadfully impolite. No, this nation was founded - and has since been held together - by real men and women who never hesitated to call a spade a spade, even when doing so meant that they might be labeled cretins by their peers.

America is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave, but it's also a country inhabited by hard-working, God-loving and often crude sons o' bitches who don't take crap from anyone, most especially public officials who owe their jobs to we the people. So when some little-known freshman Rep. decides he's had enough of the lying, and injects a little truth into a massive, steaming pile of partisan bullsquat, I for one am willing to forgive his temporary disregard for propriety in the name of good, old fashioned, righteous indignation.

Sue me!

By Edward L. Daley
10:12 AM 
27 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, May 11, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
1.) The application of Keynesian economic theory, which advocates government intervention in the free market as a means of avoiding economic disaster, is responsible for deepening and extending the Great Depression of the early 20th century, not ending it.

2.) Human caused global warming is an idiotic myth propagated by politicians and other government bureaucrats who either don't know what they're talking about, or are intentionally lying for the purpose of enriching themselves monetarily.

3.) The Democrat party is the most historically racist, intolerant and corrupt of any U.S. political party.

4.) It is a practical impossibility to tax only wealthy people, because all taxes trickle down to make the poorest citizens poorer, either through rises in the costs of goods and services, decreased wages, rent increases, or all three.

5.) Barack Hussein Obama has never proved that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, nor has he ever been asked to do so by any government agency.

6.) A human fetus is, by definition, human. It is also undeniably alive, therefor, to undergo an abortion is to commit a homicidal act.

7.) Charles Darwin's macro-evolution (speciation) hypothesis is not a fact, nor is it even partially supported by genuine, scientific evidence. It is a modern day mythology embraced primarily by members of the pseudo-religion known as Humanism.

8.) Fascism, Marxism and Nazism are all left-wing ideologies invented by the forerunners of contemporary European socialists.

9.) Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of church and state," or any other words to that effect. The First Amendment merely prohibits the federal Congress from establishing an official religion of the United States. It does not prohibit that branch of government, or any other, from openly recognizing or honoring the religious beliefs and practices of the vast majority of Americans.

10.) The modern environmentalist movement is responsible for more human deaths worldwide over the past 30 years than automobile accidents, drug/alcohol abuse, and warfare combined.

By Edward L. Daley
11:32 PM 
72 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 

Category: News and Politics

       

   
   


Why would anyone willingly give up their fundamental liberties to a small group of people who may or may not have their best interests at heart?

What would make any rational person believe that government representatives, regardless of their intentions, are capable of managing the affairs of the private sector better than the citizenry can?

When has the political class in this or any other country exhibited the ability to behave in a responsible and/or ethical manner over the long term?

Can you name one efficient government agency?

The above questions are not rhetorical in nature. I am asking them because I'm truly interested in knowing why some people insist upon fostering the notion that collectivism is the superior model for running a country, despite the fact that capitalism has been shown time and time again to be, not only more productive in virtually every respect, but more conducive to the advancement of individual liberty.

I understand that there's a small but growing number of people who feel entitled to basically everything that other people have, regardless of how productive they may be, and these folks seem more than willing to trade their Constitutional rights for what they perceive to be free goods and services. These people are, in my humble opinion, parasitic organisms, and no matter what you say to them you'll never be able to convince them that engaging in the free market system is preferable to accepting government handouts.

Still there are many well intentioned, hard working people in America who can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept that, for every government program created ostensibly for the purpose of bettering society in general, their rights as individuals are further imperiled. It is not possible for a man to retain his liberties while simultaneously empowering those in public office to continuously expand their control over how his money is spent or to what degree he may consume available resources.

No group of people in human history has ever lived under a collectivist regime without being subjugated by those in charge of government, because for this sort of society to function - to the extent that it actually does - the people in power have to be above the laws they impose on everyone else. Do you really think that leaders like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong lived by the same rules that the average citizens of their respective countries did? Of course not, they were free to do as they pleased while the vast majority of their fellow countrymen were forced to endure ever-repressive government mandates. Sound familiar?

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the very idea of collectivism, whether it be labeled socialism or communism, is incompatible with that of individual liberty. As much as the latter is dependent upon personal responsibility, so the former is dependent upon the relinquishment of personal choice, and only the extremely naive an uneducated among us believe that one can be both a collectivist and a free citizen at the same time.

So whenever a politician attempts to convince you that some new social program they've concocted is going to be beneficial to America in some way, ask them why they feel they have the right to infringe upon your individual liberties, because that is precisely what they're trying to do. And even if economic security is more important to you than personal freedom, keep in mind that collectivist societies are notoriously poor and unproductive, while capitalist ones are the most prosperous and truly philanthropic in the world.

If you ask me, the choice couldn't be more clear, either you want to live in poverty and have other people make all of your decisions for you, or you desire freedom and prosperity for your self and your family. I think it's fairly obvious which way most of our elected officials are leaning these days, and if you value the principles upon which this nation was founded, you'll do everything in your power to help remove them from office in 2010.


12:32 AM 
12 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Saturday, February 14, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
While talking about the possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News (see video below) a little over a week ago, Charles Schumer said, "you can't say 'government, hands-off' in one area to a commercial enterprise, but... you're allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent." The commercial enterprise to which he referred is talk radio broadcasting, and one of the areas in which government presently intervenes pertains to pornography. This illicit content he unapologetically equated to conservative content, and if it weren't for the fact that this cretin is a U.S. Senator, I probably would have dismissed his remarks as the harmless ramblings of a potential Alzheimer's victim. However, Mr. Schumer is not some innocuous old coot with a serious cerebral impediment, even though he often appears to be to the untrained eye. And considering the position he holds in our federal legislature, one cannot regard his assertions as being merely derisory in nature. They are dangerous, and he's not the only elected official on the national scene who embraces the idea of government-controlled political speech.


I'm not even going to bother picking apart his wholly irrational arguments in favor of the Soviet-style restrictions that he and his Democrat cronies seek to impose on our society, although it would only take me about a minute to do so. Suffice it to say that there is nothing - and I mean literally nothing - about the Senator's perspective on this matter that is intellectually defensible. His brief statement concerning it amounts to pure psycho-babble propaganda, and no sensible person who heard Mr. Schumer address the subject back on the 4th of this month would have been fooled into thinking that he actually believed a word that came out of his own mouth. Chuck Schumer may be many things, but retarded he is not, and that is precisely what he'd have to be to buy into such mindless rhetoric.

Senator Schumer isn't mentally deficient, my friends, he's a fascist pure and simple, and the political party to which he belongs is currently teeming with like-minded parasites. They apply words like fairness to their diabolical schemes because such terms sound so open-minded and progressive that those among us who routinely fail to use their heads for something other than a hat rack, won't notice that the intent of the people utilizing those words is to bring about the exact opposite effect of what they imply. Forcing broadcasters to employ on-air personalities who are unable to compete effectively in the talk radio market, simply because they embrace liberalism, is entirely UNfair to those businessmen who will surely lose money propping up a bunch of talentless hacks at the insistence of the federal government. Genuine fairness amounts to allowing the listening audience to dictate who remains of the air and who doesn't, based on individual performance.

You don't hear people like Chuck Schumer arguing that the NBA should be forced to hire a certain number of Asians in proportion to blacks, do you? Of course not, because most Asians are short... at least by American standards, and short people - with rare exceptions - don't get to play professional basketball in this country. That may seem unfair to some people, but becoming a professional in any field of endeavor has little to do with some misguided notion of fairness, and everything to do with ability.

The reason conservatives dominate the talk radio industry is because people want to hear what they have to say, and as long as they maintain large enough audiences to satisfy their employers and the folks who advertise on their stations, they'll continue to do so. On the other hand, left-leaning talk show hosts will continue to fail miserably because, like short basketball players, they are unequipped to succeed. This is precisely why liberal-fascist legislators insist upon bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. They know that when left to compete in the free market, neo-communist chatterboxes like Al Franken are incapable of drawing large enough audiences to keep their employers out of bankruptcy court.

Scumbags like Senator Charles Schumer also know that if they force broadcasters to air liberal talk shows along side conservative ones, the profits that the right wingers make for those companies may not be substantial enough to cover the losses that they will sustain by keeping a bunch of inept, leftist amateurs on their payrolls, and inevitably, many of them will choose to drop the talk show format altogether. That there are so many people in this country who would argue against the contentions I've just made, is a testament to the inherent disingenuousness and/or substandard intellect of the average liberal.

Indeed, a person would have to be either woefully ignorant of the facts, or just plain stupid to arrive at a different conclusion than the one I have just related, and that is exactly the sort of person that Senator Schumer is counting on to help him further his authoritarian agenda. Unfortunately, our nation is chock full of genuinely clueless and idiotic people, and the small percentage of leftists who are capable of at least mimicking adult (human) thought patterns, don't give a damn about free speech. They only care about fostering the illusion of free speech, insofar as doing so advances their worldview, and a sizable number of these relatively highbrow Marxists are mainstream media journalists, college professors and lawyers.

Now, you may be asking your self at this point why relatively bright people would choose to be leftists when conservatism is such an obviously superior choice. Well, there are probably two or three reasonable answers to that question, however, it's my humble opinion that the deciding factor is laziness... of either the intellectual or moral variety. You see, anyone with an average IQ who openly embraces modern liberalism is pretty much guaranteed a decent job in one of the aforementioned occupations. All you really need is a sheepskin and a big mouth, and you're "In like Flynn." In fact, the bigger your mouth is, the faster you'll likely climb the left wing, elitist ladder, and very little independent thought and/or principled judgment will ever be required of you.

Of course, if this tried and true formula doesn't work for you, you can always become a fluffer for the very same porn industry that Senator Schumer appears to be so concerned with these days... but I digress.

8:40 PM 
9 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, February 05, 2009 

Category: News and Politics

So President Marx went on TV the other day and imposed a $500,000 cap on the salaries of senior executives who work for financial institutions receiving government bailout money. "Americans don't like it when executives are rewarded for failing," he remarked, adding that he "will not tolerate it as president."

While that may sound reasonable to the majority of people in this country, especially since we the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill to supposedly save these bankrupt companies, there's a few aspects of all this that most folks don't seem to have considered.

The first is that allowing politicians to dictate the terms of employment for a company's executives, simply because that company has accepted federal bailout money, kicks open the door for them to begin doing the same thing to ANY business that has ever received a government subsidy. Just in case you didn't know this, the federal government spent over $100 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses last year, and none of that cash was attached to any "stimulus" package.

Secondly, how come nobody is talking about putting a cap on the salaries of our legislators? After all, they're the ones who created the wholly insane laws that all these lending institutions were forced to adhere to, and which inevitably led to the collapse of our nation's housing market. Why aren't Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd getting their paychecks slashed for being monstrously incompetent lawmakers? At least none of the Bank CEOs everybody is so upset with these days were allowed to raise their own salaries last year, unlike Congress.

Oh and by the way, where in the Constitution does it state that the federal government has the authority to hand out taxpayer dollars to any private sector institution that hasn't been contracted to do military or public works projects? Why should you and I be expected to pay a dime to a business that hasn't provided us with a product or service in return?

If you went to Wal*Mart and paid for a TV at the counter, only to find out afterward that you couldn't take it home with you, would you just shrug off the experience and go about your merry way, or would you raise bloody hell? Now ask your self how many moderately priced television sets $100 billion buys, multiply that number by 16, and I think you'll start to appreciate just how completely irresponsible these bailout schemes truly are.

By my reckoning, our elected representatives already owe every man, woman and child in America at least five 32" flat-screen TVs for the last porkulus bill they signed onto, and once the next one passes into law, they'll be on the hook to us for another six. I don't know about you, but I want my freakin' high definition TVs, and I want 'em now!

10:08 PM 
6 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
Ever since Barack Hussein Obama won the general election in November, television news anchors, pundits and pollsters have been asking the following question, in so many words: shouldn't we ban together as Americans and support our new President in the spirit of national unity? This is, of course, a rhetorical question asked for the purpose of spotlighting any right-wingers (aka people with common sense) who would dare argue that the answer isn't obviously yes, consequently exposing them to the relentless ridicule that all pc-Nazis in the "mainstream media" believe they deserve.

To put it another way, the question is a setup designed specifically to marginalize anyone who happens to disagree with Mr. Obama's stated objectives of expanding governmental control over our lives, shackling the most successful among us with punitive tax rates, eroding our nation's military capabilities, erasing any gains in border security we've managed to make over the past few years, and destroying America's ability to become energy independent in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, few conservatives on television or radio these days have the balls to confront the Obamagandists who keep throwing this ridiculous question in their faces, which is why I've decided to do just that with this article. I can only hope that one or two of the more wishy-washy right-wing advocates among us will read these words and follow my example, instead of continuing to bend over and grab their ankles every time some self-important, "progressive" journalist attempts to sucker them into accepting the wholly absurd premise underlying such a question.

As anyone who has ever debated a leftist knows, the first thing you have to do before you even consider arguing a point raised by your opponent is clearly define the terms being used. For instance, when a leftist asks you if you are for bipartisanship, ask them to specify exactly what they mean by that word, and before they can answer, ask them if they're talking about the same kind of bipartisanship that President Bush sought for eight long years, only to have the entire Democrat party piss all over his efforts at every turn.

Instead of just conceding from the start that these douchebags genuinely wish to behave like responsible adults and thoughtfully consider the opinions of their conservative counterparts, reach out and grab them by the throat (rhetorically speaking) and don't let go until you've exposed them for the loathsome hypocrites they really are.

Apparently the following basic truths have escaped certain conservatives who seem determined to advance the notion that making nice with a pack of frothing neo-communists is the patriotic thing to do, and I think it's about time somebody set these delusional pantywaists straight about the nature of the people they seek to befriend.

In the first place, Barack Obama and his followers are MARXISTS, and Marxism is a cancer on the soul of this great country. It has slowly but surely extended its tendrils into every facet of American life over the past several decades, and the results have been undeniably disastrous. There is nothing even remotely redeemable or honorable about this ideology, and those who embrace it are clear enemies of liberty, justice and prosperity.

Secondly, these leftists that many conservatives desire to unite with are the very people who have gone out of their way to divide this country since the day George W. Bush first took office, and the vast majority of them have done so for purely political reasons. They have used every Marxist propaganda tool at their disposal to demean, discredit and dishonor not only the former Commander in Chief, but our brave soldiers in the field, while simultaneously emboldening our Islamic foes around the world.

They have also repeatedly exposed America's intelligence secrets to the enemy during a time of war, which is not only despicable but treasonous, and still some of my fellow right-wingers continue to assert that I should adopt a more conciliatory tone toward these parasites. Well you can just put a cork in that bottle of steaming bullshit right now, because I have no intention of swallowing one milligram of it!

If you want to hold hands and sing kumbaya with a bunch of useful idiots who have no conception of what true patriotism is, and wouldn't embrace it if they did, then go right the fuck ahead. But whatever you do, don't come sniffing around my door with your can't-we-all-just-get-along attitude and a fashionable Obama-is-my-president-too button on your lapel, not if you want to keep eating solid food for the rest of your life.

As for all you left-wing Obama worshipers out there who've suddenly discovered the term 'national unity' now that someone with a D next to his name is sitting in the Oval Office, you can blow that happy chatter out your respective asses. Your new golden boy, Barack, is the living, breathing epitome of wasted space, and I pray to God on a daily basis that he fails more miserably than even Jimmy Carter did before we kicked his sorry ass to the curb and elected a REAL President named Ronald Reagan.

Oh but Ed, what about all the people in America who will lose their jobs and maybe even their homes if our economy continues to decline over the next four years?

Well, to them I can only say this: Maybe you should have thought of that possibility before you decided to vote for somebody who has contempt for all that our Founding Fathers held dear. Maybe losing everything you've worked your whole life to acquire will teach you to start taking a serious look at the policies championed by those who seek your vote instead of focussing on whether or not Oprah endorses them. Maybe, just maybe a few years of hardship will force you to recognize the fact that the entire Democrat party is so crooked its leaders have to screw their pants on in the morning.

In short, you get what you pay for in this life, and if you voted for Barack Obama, or failed to support the only viable alliterative to his candidacy - John McCain's - then you just bought yourself a huge pot of shit stew, and now you're gonna have to eat it. Sadly, the many millions of people like myself who tried our best to warn you fools of the monstrous error in your thinking will now have to suffer right along with you, and while I don't look forward to the coming storm, I'm willing to endure it if it means I get to have my country back in 2012.
4:22 PM 
7 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Saturday, December 13, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
These are the members of Congress who voted to screw American taxpayers to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars. Copy this list and keep it as a reminder of who NOT to vote for the next time you go to the polls.

SENATE
Akaka, Daniel [D]
Baucus, Max [D]
Bayh, Evan [D]
Biden, Joseph [D]
Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Boxer, Barbara [D]
Brown, Sherrod [D]
Byrd, Robert [D]
Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Carper, Thomas [D]
Casey, Robert [D]
Clinton, Hillary [D]
Conrad, Kent [D]
Dodd, Christopher [D]
Durbin, Richard [D]
Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Harkin, Tom [D]
Inouye, Daniel [D]
Kerry, John [D]
Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Kohl, Herb [D]
Kyl, Jon [R]
Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Leahy, Patrick [D]
Levin, Carl [D]
Lieberman, Joseph [ID]
Lincoln, Blanche [D]
McCaskill, Claire [D]
Menendez, Robert [D]
Mikulski, Barabra [D]
Murray, Patty [D]
Nelson, Bill [D]
Obama, Barack [D]
Pryor, Mark [D]
Reed, Jack [D]
Reid, Harry [D]
Rockefeller, John [D]
Salazar, Ken [D]
Schumer, Charles [D]
Webb, Jim [D]
Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
---------------------------------------
Alexander, Lamar [R]
Bennett, Robert [R]
Bond, Christopher [R]
Burr, Richard [R]
Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Coburn, Tom [R]
Coleman, Norm [R]
Collins, Susan [R]
Corker, Bob [R]
Cornyn, John [R]
Craig, Larry [R]
Domenici, Pete [R]
Ensign, John [R]
Graham, Lindsey [R]
Grassley, Chuck [R]
Gregg, Judd [R]
Hagel, Chuck [R]
Hatch, Orrin [R]
Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R]
Isakson, Johnny [R]
Lugar, Richard [R]
Martinez, Mel [R]
McCain, John [R]
McConnell, Mitch [R]
Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Smith, Gordon [R]
Snowe, Olympia [R]
Specter, Arlen [R]
Stevens, Ted [R]
Sununu, John [R]
Thune, John [R]
Voinovich, George [R]
Warner, John [R]

HOUSE
Cramer, Robert [D]
Davis, Artur [D]
Pastor, Edward [D]
Mitchell, Harry [D]
Grijalva, Raul [D]
Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Berry, Robert [D]
Snyder, Victor [D]
Ross, Mike [D]
Thompson, C. [D]
Matsui, Doris [D]
Miller, George [D]
Pelosi, Nancy [D]
Lee, Barbara [D]
Tauscher, Ellen [D]
McNerney, Jerry [D]
Stark, Fortney [D]
Eshoo, Anna [D]
Honda, Michael [D]
Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Farr, Sam [D]
Cardoza, Dennis [D]
Costa, Jim [D]
Capps, Lois [D]
Sherman, Brad [D]
Berman, Howard [D]
Schiff, Adam [D]
Waxman, Henry [D]
Becerra, Xavier [D]
Solis, Hilda [D]
Watson, Diane [D]
Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
Waters, Maxine [D]
Harman, Jane [D]
Richardson, Laura [D]
Napolitano, Grace [D]
Sanchez, Linda [D]
Baca, Joe [D]
Sanchez, Loretta [D]
Filner, Bob [D]
Davis, Susan [D]
DeGette, Diana [D]
Udall, Mark [D]
Salazar, John [D]
Perlmutter, Ed [D]
Larson, John [D]
Courtney, Joe [D]
DeLauro, Rosa [D]
Murphy, Christopher [D]
Boyd, F. [D]
Brown, Corrine [D]
Castor, Kathy [D]
Mahoney, Tim [D]
Meek, Kendrick [D]
Wexler, Robert [D]
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]
Klein, Ron [D]
Hastings, Alcee [D]
Bishop, Sanford [D]
Johnson, Henry [D]
Lewis, John [D]
Barrow, John [D]
Scott, David [D]
Abercrombie, Neil [D]
Hirono, Mazie [D]
Jackson, Jesse [D]
Lipinski, Daniel [D]
Gutierrez, Luis [D]
Emanuel, Rahm [D]
Davis, Danny [D]
Bean, Melissa [D]
Schakowsky, Janice [D]
Costello, Jerry [D]
Hare, Phil [D]
Visclosky, Peter [D]
Donnelly, Joe [D]
Ellsworth, Brad [D]
Hill, Baron [D]
Braley, Bruce [D]
Loebsack, David [D]
Boswell, Leonard [D]
Boyda, Nancy [D]
Moore, Dennis [D]
Yarmuth, John [D]
Chandler, Ben [D]
Jefferson, William [D]
Melancon, Charles [D]
Allen, Thomas [D]
Michaud, Michael [D]
Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
Sarbanes, John [D]
Hoyer, Steny [D]
Cummings, Elijah [D]
Van Hollen, Christopher [D]
Olver, John [D]
Neal, Richard [D]
McGovern, James [D]
Frank, Barney [D]
Tsongas, Niki [D]
Tierney, John [D]
Markey, Edward [D]
Capuano, Michael [D]
Lynch, Stephen [D]
Delahunt, William [D]
Stupak, Bart [D]
Kildee, Dale [D]
Levin, Sander [D]
Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]
Conyers, John [D]
Dingell, John [D]
Walz, Timothy [D]
McCollum, Betty [D]
Ellison, Keith [D]
Peterson, Collin [D]
Oberstar, James [D]
Thompson, Bennie [D]
Taylor, Gene [D]
Clay, William [D]
Carnahan, Russ [D]
Skelton, Ike [D]
Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
Berkley, Shelley [D]
Shea-Porter, Carol [D]
Hodes, Paul [D]
Andrews, Robert [D]
Pallone, Frank [D]
Pascrell, William [D]
Rothman, Steven [D]
Payne, Donald [D]
Holt, Rush [D]
Sires, Albio [D]
Udall, Tom [D]
Bishop, Timothy [D]
Israel, Steve [D]
McCarthy, Carolyn [D]
Ackerman, Gary [D]
Meeks, Gregory [D]
Crowley, Joseph [D]
Nadler, Jerrold [D]
Weiner, Anthony [D]
Towns, Edolphus [D]
Clarke, Yvette [D]
Velazquez, Nydia [D]
Maloney, Carolyn [D]
Serrano, José [D]
Engel, Eliot [D]
Lowey, Nita [D]
Hall, John [D]
Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
McNulty, Michael [D]
Hinchey, Maurice [D]
Arcuri, Michael [D]
Higgins, Brian [D]
Slaughter, Louise [D]
Butterfield, George [D]
Etheridge, Bob [D]
Price, David [D]
McIntyre, Mike [D]
Shuler, Heath [D]
Watt, Melvin [D]
Miller, R. [D]
Pomeroy, Earl [D]
Wilson, Charles [D]
Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Jones, Stephanie [D]
Sutton, Betty [D]
Ryan, Timothy [D]
Space, Zachary [D]
Boren, Dan [D]
Wu, David [D]
Blumenauer, Earl [D]
DeFazio, Peter [D]
Hooley, Darlene [D]
Brady, Robert [D]
Fattah, Chaka [D]
Altmire, Jason [D]
Sestak, Joe [D]
Murphy, Patrick [D]
Carney, Christopher [D]
Kanjorski, Paul [D]
Murtha, John [D]
Schwartz, Allyson [D]
Doyle, Michael [D]
Holden, Tim [D]
Kennedy, Patrick [D]
Langevin, James [D]
Spratt, John [D]
Clyburn, James [D]
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [D]
Davis, Lincoln [D]
Cooper, Jim [D]
Gordon, Barton [D]
Tanner, John [D]
Cohen, Steve [D]
Green, Al [D]
Reyes, Silvestre [D]
Edwards, Thomas [D]
Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Rodriguez, Ciro [D]
Doggett, Lloyd [D]
Ortiz, Solomon [D]
Cuellar, Henry [D]
Green, Raymond [D]
Matheson, Jim [D]
Scott, Robert [D]
Moran, James [D]
Boucher, Frederick [D]
Inslee, Jay [D]
Larsen, Rick [D]
Baird, Brian [D]
Dicks, Norman [D]
McDermott, James [D]
Smith, Adam [D]
Mollohan, Alan [D]
Rahall, Nick [D]
Baldwin, Tammy [D]
Kind, Ronald [D]
Moore, Gwen [D]
Obey, David [D]
Kagen, Steve [D]
---------------------------------------
Young, Donald [R]
Gallegly, Elton [R]
Bono Mack, Mary [R]
Shays, Christopher [R]
Castle, Michael [R]
Buchanan, Vern [R]
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [R]
Diaz-Balart, Mario [R]
Kirk, Mark [R]
Weller, Gerald [R]
Biggert, Judy [R]
Johnson, Timothy [R]
LaHood, Ray [R]
Tiahrt, Todd [R]
Boustany, Charles [R]
Gilchrest, Wayne [R]
Upton, Frederick [R]
Knollenberg, Joseph [R]
Miller, Candice [R]
Ramstad, James [R]
Pickering, Charles [R]
Emerson, Jo Ann [R]
LoBiondo, Frank [R]
Saxton, H. [R]
Ferguson, Michael [R]
Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
King, Peter [R]
Fossella, Vito [R]
McHugh, John [R]
Walsh, James [R]
Hayes, Robin [R]
Hobson, David [R]
LaTourette, Steven [R]
Pryce, Deborah [R]
Regula, Ralph [R]
Sullivan, John [R]
English, Philip [R]
Gerlach, Jim [R]
Dent, Charles [R]
Murphy, Tim [R]
Platts, Todd [R]
Wamp, Zach [R]
Smith, Lamar [R]
Davis, Thomas [R]
Capito, Shelley [R]
Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
2:26 AM 
13 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, December 04, 2008 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
The following videos incorporate subjects which led me to engage a few leftists in two separate debates concerning atheism and President-elect Obama. Feel free to add your two cents worth to the mix.





DarcPrynce
Apparently nobody ever pointed out to the atheists who put up that anti-religion sign that atheism is a religious belief. Agnostics simply state that they don't know whether or not God exists. Atheists, on the other hand, claim that God definitely doesn't exist, something which they could not possibly know, yet they still believe unquestionably. That is, by definition, a religious view. Atheists aren't anti-religious, they're anti-God.

bull579
Atheists (or at least this one) are not anti-religion or anti-god.

DarcPrynce
You can't be anti-religious and be an atheist, because atheism is a religious belief. That having been said, if you state that God does not exist, even though you've no way of knowing that he doesn't, how is that not an anti-God position? Atheism is not like agnosticism.

bull579
Atheisim is not a religious belief I currently know a God does not exist because there is no scientific proof that one does. This burden of proof does not fall on the skeptic.

DarcPrynce
No, you don't know God does not exist, which is exactly why yours is a religious belief. Not believing something exists because you lack proof of it, and knowing it does not exist aren't the same thing.

bull579
Well, then I want proof. Show me tangible, solid, peer reviewed scientific proof. Until I see that, I do in fact know that god does not exisit because in science we don't allow for this line of reasoning. Religion is a man made thing and God or whatever idol is approprate is another part of this man made invention.

DarcPrynce
There is no tangible, solid, peer reviewed, scientific proof that love exists... or even true sentience for that matter, but there are all sorts of logical reasons to believe they do. Some people have argued that love really doesn't exist, and that human consciousness is basically just a lot of biochemical reactions. There is no hard evidence to disprove those assertions, yet the vast majority of people would disagree with them.

bull579
I disagree with your statement, however I suspect that this is not going any further so I'll just leave it at that.

DarcPrynce
Fair enough, but please allow me to leave you with this final thought on the matter. None of us know that we have free will. There is no way of proving it. We might just be complex biological machines that have been programmed into believing we have free will when, in actuality, every action we take and every thought we think has been scheduled in advance. It could be that we are merely living out a play that's already been written... but I don't think so. Of course, I can't prove otherwise.

Optics233
Atheism is not a religious belief. Not believing in something is NOT in of itself a belief. You CHOOSE to believe in a god or religion, if you do not choose to you are simply not believing; there is no 'believing in not believing' - that's a bunch of BS.

DarcPrynce
Atheism isn't simply not believing in God, that is agnosticism. An agnostic says I don't know if there is a God or not, and since I'm not sure, I can't say I believe in God. Atheism, on the other hand, is the conviction that God does not exist. An atheist doesn't say he isn't sure about whether or not God exists, he claims he is sure, in spite of the fact that he can't know. That is a religious belief.

Optics233
I know what Atheism and Agnosticism are, thanks. Atheism simply IS a disbelief in God. Being agnostic is not a disbelief in God, it's an uncertainty of God's existence. Uncertainty is not the same as no belief.

DarcPrynce
The essence of being an agnostic is that you take no position on the matter of God's existence. The essence of being an atheist is that you do take a position on the matter, and your position is that, because you have no proof of God, God cannot exist... not that God MAY not exist, but that God CANNOT exist. That is, of course, not true. God CAN exist regardless of whether you are able to scientifically prove his existence or not, yet atheists still BELIEVE that God does not exist.





idiotwind75
Experience & change are not mutually exclusive mr. ding dong - by including jonas brothers, twilight, etc. in your tags it is obivious that you are just searching for attention/views - do you think that being black and hating on Obama makes you unique?! -lol, go watch some more news programs & then come back on here & regurgitate everything you heard - unoriginal tavis smiley wanna-be.

DarcPrynce
Hate? I didn't hear any hate on this video, just valid criticisms. Do you hate everyone you disagree with? Do you hate your friends when they act like fools? Do you hate your family members when they exhibit hypocrisy or say things that you know aren't true? It seems to me that Will isn't the one with hate issues here.

idiotwind75
"hating on" is a urban term used by street poets such as myself - it translates to "heavily criticizing" - Will has no faith in the black race _ everytime he speaks, MLK rolls around in his grave - nuff said.

DarcPrynce
Bullshit. 'Hating on' means criticizing with hateful intent. As for Will not having faith in the black race, did you ever stop to think that the black race isn't his main concern when he's talking about the character of an individual who just happens to be half black? MLK was against judging people based upon their race, and he would have never voted for a Marxist like Barack Obama because he was a Republican who believed that a person's actions and words were more important than their skin color.

idiotwind75
did you even watch this video?! lol_he mentions the black race numerous times during this video and admits that if Obama inspires the black race to "step up their game" then he will support Obama on that one key issue_ and of course MLK was a republican in the 1960's (almost all Black Americans were Repubs during that era) but times have changed DarcPryncess-MLK would not have supported illegally invading Iraq, just like he did not support Vietnam-MLK would have voted Obama, based on that issue

DarcPrynce
Will doesn't even mention the black community until the last minute and a half of his video, and when he does he explains that one potentially positive thing about the Obama presidency is that it might cause some people within that community to start doing things for themselves and stop counting on politicians to do everything for them. But that wasn't the main aspect of his video. His primary message is that Barry is no different than any other politician who'll say anything to get elected. As for MLK, if you think he'd simply forget the fact that the Democrat party opposes virtually every other moral position he ever embraced, just to put an end to the war in Iraq, you've been engaging in too many wake-and-bake sessions.

DarcPrynce
By the way, I agree with you that experience & change are not mutually exclusive. Hitler had very little experience and he changed the world more than just about anyone in the 20th century.

idiotwind75
Hilter was nothing but a coward with a chip on his shoulder _ the only life he changed was yours, you illiterate wacko.

DarcPrynce
So Hitler didn't change any lives when he started World War II, which led directly to the slaughter of millions of people and destroyed most of Europe... Do you realize how idiotic your response is? As for me being illiterate, if that were the case, I wouldn't be able to post remarks here. Try learning the meaning of words before you use them, schmuck.

idiotwind75
It is easy to kill, rape, murder, & exterminate - EASY - on the other hand, it hard to live a life of righteousness on this earth & to treat your fellow man with love & respect - when push came to shove, Hitler committed suicide instead of dealing with his consequences like a real man- But you are correct in a sense; Hitler did make the Jewish people stronger & more prosperous than ever, after they perservered through the horrific holocaust - you read, but you don't understand.

DarcPrynce
What does anything you just wrote have to do with the FACT that Hitler changed the world, and that he was relatively inexperienced in politics before he took power? He never held any public office before becoming Chancellor. His only experience was one of street agitator, yet in less than a decade he controlled most of Europe and half of Asia. As for Hitler making the Jews stronger and more prosperous, he did no such thing. The Jews became stronger IN SPITE of the Holocaust, not because of it.

DarcPrynce
What's easy is convincing average people that you are capable of making their lives better, if you happen to be a gifted and charismatic speaker. The hard part comes when those people begin to realize that only they can make positive changes in their lives, and that politicians usually make matters a whole lot worse all the way around. The best thing any politician can do is inspire people to achieve their dreams and then get out of their way and let them. Marxists refuse to get out of the way.
8:15 AM 
17 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
Every abortion opponent I know believes that life begins at conception. Every abortion proponent I know says they can't be sure exactly when life begins. To a pro-lifer, committing abortion is the willful destruction of a human life, and therefore, murder. To a pro-choicer, having an abortion is essentially no different than having a wart removed.

That being the case, I have a few questions for the pro-abortionists, and they are as follows. If you don't know when life begins, how can you claim it doesn't begin at conception? Clearly all human life begins at some point, and since you claim that you cannot know when it begins, how can you positively state that you know when it doesn't? If you destroy a fetus without knowing whether or not it is a human life, what makes you think you haven't committed murder?

What pro-abortionists routinely engage in is what is commonly referred to in legal circles as an affirmative defense. They're not saying that they haven't committed some sort of overt act. What they're claiming is that the act they've committed is not a crime, yet whenever a person engages in an affirmative defense to a criminal charge, the burden of proof no longer lies with the prosecutor, it lies with the defendant. That is to say that if you are certain that destroying a fetus is not murder, the onus is on you to prove that contention beyond a reasonable doubt. Since you have already stated that you cannot know when life begins, you cannot possibly prove that you know when it doesn't, and therefore, you cannot prove that you have not committed murder by destroying a fetus.

This is logic 101 folks, no matter what your religious views on the matter may be, and for pro-abortionists to repeatedly fall back on the tired argument that the issue is primarily one of a woman's right to chose what she can or can't do with her own body, is an affront to common sense. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want with their body if what they are doing infringes upon the rights of another, and I simply cannot understand how any person can say that they don't know when life begins, yet still claim matter-of-factly that they are not taking a human life when they undergo an abortion.
6:26 PM 
18 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate