Democratic Hypocrisy - How the Democrats are Lying to the American People

From the layman's perspective, the current dichotomy of the two political parties in America today might very well be classified into just two separate ideologies. Those who support America's endeavors in Iraq and the surrounding region and those who don't.

We can be certain of a few things. One is that more people want America and America's military out of the region. Two is most Americans are becoming disenchanted with the current Administration. Three is, a combination of all things considered, Americans, are more or less, worse off than they were just a decade ago. Inflation is high, gas prices are higher. Food costs are soaring and good paying jobs that were once available State's side are now being replaced by machinery or a rogue slave labor source from over seas. Then there is the war...

American's want out, and they want out yesterday. American's were lead into war on the pretense of eminent threat and sacrificed themselves for what turned out to be a farce. Over three-thousands American men and women have lost their lives and countless Iraqi's have lost theirs. When all of this started, no one dared stand up to the President and speak what they believed. Now, they cover up their support with excuses. The Democrats once again led on the American public with talk of change. They spoke of a "new direction" in Congressional oversight and ethics. They told us they would not waiver on the Iraq timetable. They were to have to most productive first one hundred days Congress has seen and we have seen nothing.

Barack Obama's website states:

The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

Hillary Clinton's website states:

In addition to capping troop levels, Hillary's Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 would:

* Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.

* Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.

* Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.

Neither of these Senator's plans include withdrawing completely from Iraq. Both of the Senators know the consequences of such an action. However, they are selling the notion of doing so to the American people. They are leading the American Democrat's and moderates on a proverbial goose chase.

Any rationale politician knows leaving Iraq cannot happen. Leaving Baghdad and securing the boarders of Iraq while strategically removing confirmed targets on the ground with air support or missiles is the only solution. We cannot, as responsible Americans, allow the Iranians and Syrians, or Al Qaeda to establish fully functioning political and economic ties with the country. We need to step out, onto the sidelines, allow the civil war to fight itself out, while brokering peace with each side in a non-combative way. We need to show real signs of leaving when the conflict is over and guarantee the Iraqi people their rights to their oil. We need to leverage the help of the rest of the region as well. That is the only way Iraq will succeed. Leaving now, without supervision and a response force in place will only send us right back in a decade or two.

The American people need to step up to the plate. Much has been sacrificed, and the death toll will always continue rise when there are boots on hostile soil. What the Democrats propose are lies, what they will do, however, is just. We need to get out of the "sectarian hot spots" and focus on the outside influence of Al Qaeda, the Iranians and the Syrians on the Iraqi people. The United States can change the face of this war. It would just be nice if the people trying to do just that didn't mislead the country with political antics to get elected.

The Amazing World We Live In- Yes, It's In Color... (2)

When we as people pre-judge others, situations, or ideas, we will always find ourselves on the same ship of ignorance we always love to accuse everyone else of being on. As the age old saying goes...

"Everyone knows what happens when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me."

About six months ago I started this dead end job I still have. As a matter of fact, I am typing this at work, as I refuse to abide by the policies and procedures set forth by this company because they are not only illogical, but also unethical... I work for the phone company, but I digress. When I began working here in September I met a fellow by the name of Charlie. A young man in his mid twenties with a full beard and the ideology of Ronald Reagan, well, maybe more conservative than Reagan but that doesn't matter. As a "liberal" I was drawn to question his ideals and, basically, way of life... I guess you could say, we got off on the wrong foot.

On to the point!

If you are familiar with my previous post regarding this matter, you might assume that Charlie and I have been "at it" for the last five months. Most would guess that when we cross paths in the hall we exchange looks of resentment or disgust. You would be wrong.

As a matter of fact Charlie and I have become great friends. After the "first encounter", if you will, I have accepted Charlie for who he is and what he believes, and he has done the same for me. I understand his bigoted views towards minorities and liberals and he understands why I feel his stance is inaccurate and ignorant. Nonetheless, we get along. It doesn't matter how benighted, dogmatic or unsound I feel his views are, he treats everyone with respect when it's due and enjoys discussing his personal viewpoints openly. Something I always have to respect.

This is an amazing experience!

I met someone, I assumed, from the get go was ignorant and wrong. I get to know this person, and I realize he is as full of color as I am, but comes from a different upbringing, which gives him an, albeit unusual, but very different perspective on the same issues I care about. I truly believed that this man had no chance when I first met him. I didn't think there was anyway I could get along with someone of his radically conservative ideology... I was wrong, and realized I am as guilty as he was for jumping to conclusions about another human being after hearing four or five words come out of his mouth.

I always knew it was wrong to "judge a book by it's cover", so to speak, but as a fallible human myself, I fell into the trap of ignorance so many others before have fallen into. Even witnessing a victim of ignorance parade through life as though they knew everything about anything could not prepare me for a fate I would soon share. Ignorance is a cruel mistress, and leaves very few hints or clues as to where it hides before you fall on top it. I didn't even realize, as I was writing the original piece, that I was hypocritically judging this man, who I still believe is wrong, on his moral character. I was so engulfed in condemning Charlie's opinion and attitude I blinded myself...

I could not see that I was in the same boat he was.

The Amazing World We Live In- Yes, It's In Color...

I opened up the door to the patio on my work break the other day to go out for a cigarette and there were two gentlemen relaxing in the plastic, non-reclining, lawn style chairs that sit on the balcony. This being my first week on the job, fresh out of training, I have no clue who these folks are. I can however, over hear them taking about, you guessed it, liberals. I decided to interject my two cents into their conversation. Why? Well that's what I do. If I hear something that peaks my interest, and I feel is so off base with reality I just can't help myself. I do of course show respect to the people in the original debate, as this is a must if you want to be taken seriously and respected yourself.

Anyways, lets get back on track. I overheard the younger man, probably in his late late twenties or early thirties tell David, the older man (I know him, sort of), that everything in this world is "black and white". There is a defined right and a defined wrong. We should do this, we shouldn't do that. I simply told the young man he was wrong, and there is a grey area in everything. If white is the absense of all color and black is the presence of every color, how can everything in this world be given the label of all or nothing? His response to me was this "Typical liberal bull." I sat back almost insulted... I do not know this man, and he does not know me, yet based on one line I give him he automatically assumes I am a "liberal". All it took was one line, and he developed this preconceived notion that I am a socialist.

Oh by the way, socialist was the word he used to describe me to his friends the next day. That's right, he had to share what I told him with his 'posse'. I am assuming it is an effort to gain support from them before I can convince them their friend can only see in two colors. Not because he is color blind, but because he is to ignorant or to lazy to want to acknowledge the fact that there are "exceptions to every rule".

Again back to my point. I attempted to re-enter the debate using the welfare system and similar projects as an example. I told him that I am completely against the current welfare system. I do not believe it is strict enough in it's application process and I feel that people that can work should have to work. They should not be able to sit back and pop out a kid every year to increase their income. I do however feel that there are certain people in this country that have to have welfare. The disabled is the example I used. I asked him what the disabled would do if it wasn't for assistance from the government. He told me they can lean on their families for help. I agreed with that, but inquired about the people who no longer have their families to lean on.

He didn't say a word.

This is just one point I hit on. There were about two or three others I tried to make, but he would just come back with, "Liberal this" or "Liberal that" so I gave up. There is no point in arguing about color with someone that cannot see color.

Liability, Comprehensive, Collision...

Uninsured motorist, glass, and rental reimbursement.

What do all of these have in common? Well other than costing an arm and a leg, they are all options people can opt for when purchasing auto insurance. Liability is the only one anyone must carry.

Liability insurance protects, you the driver, and the other driver from the financial burden that comes with an accident. If you carry liability insurance and rear end someone on your way to work, your insurance company will pay for your mistake, however they will not fix your car or help you. They will deal with the other drivers insurance company in court if necessary and pay for the damage to their vehicle. You however, are left with a smashed up car or even worse...

If you carry comprehensive and collision insurance on your policy you are in a little better shape. Your insurance company will pay to fix your car, if it is repairable, and if it is not, they are supposed to compensate you for the loss of the vehicle. Uninsured motorist insurance is just a scam, period. And the other two are self explanatory.

Back to the point...

In the state of Arizona, and in most states across the nation it is illegal for a person to drive without auto insurance. If you are pulled without insurance you are normally fined, but in some extreme situations your car can even be taken from you.

Arizona Auto Insurance Laws

Arizona requires that every motor vehicle operated on the roadways be covered
by one of the statutory forms of financial responsibility. To comply with the
financial responsibility laws, most drivers purchase automobile liability
insurance. This includes golf carts, motorcycles and mopeds.

Arizona minimum levels of financial responsibility are: • $15,000 bodily
injury liability for one person and $30,000 for two or more persons; • $10,000
property damage liability http://www.superiorcarinsurance.com/CarInsurance/arizona.html

What is the problem with this you might ask. Doesn't this law protect the public?

In some circumstances yes, it does. Actually, in most circumstances it does. The problem with the law is that the states are forcing individuals to purchase a service from a private company without any real regulations on the price of said service. All of this while allowing the insurance companies to practice age and class discrimination.

I believe the state is unjustly forcing the people to adhere to a law that benefits a private business. They allow the insurance companies to set the rates of their insurance based on statistics the company finds appealing. As the citizen we are forced to buy this service from the insurers because of a government regulation.

The Rise and Fall of an American Empire

How good does it feel to know you're getting a bargain?

You walk into "Gary's Grocery" and walk down the aisles, looking at the boxes of cereal and the bags of potatoes. You have $100 to spend this week on food and snacks for yourself and your family. You check out of the store satisfied with your purchases. Your cart is almost full, you've got the essentials, and even had a little left over for some treats. You are happy.

Next week, same routine, different store. You heard a friend talk about what he picked up at Wal-Mart last Saturday. All of the sudden, you aren't satisfied with what you purchased last week. Instead you feel as though you got ripped off.

How can one store, ten times the size of another store, with more employees, more stock, and more overhead afford to sell the same goods I buy at "Gary's" for almost half the price? This is where is gets very tricky. Some claim it's buying power. They get better prices on products because they can afford to purchase in higher quantities. Others might blame the low wage's of the company. Arguing, they pay their employees squat and limit their hours which allows them to squeeze pennies off the prices of their products. Some people believe it's a combination of the

two.

One thing is for certain, no matter how you spin it what they are doing is illegal.

Wal-Mart's Growth Is Simply a Failure of Our Federal Government to Enforce the
1936 Federal Law [the Robinson-Patman Act] Prohibiting Price Discrimination

http://www.lawmall.com/wal-mart/

The way most major corporations conduct business is, actually, in violation of the Anti-Trust statutes, specifically the Robinson-Patman Act, that were voted on, and/or accepted by American lawmakers throughout the years, to stop "Big Business" from becoming "all-powerful". These laws forbid "discriminatory pricing" on the basis of buying power or certain 'alliances' between businesses. They are intended to make the playing field fair for all business. Not the business that can afford to skirt around the laws in place to restrict them.

Well how do lower prices hurt the American consumer?

Lower prices on products are great for the individual American consumer and their wallet. It allows them to buy more for less, which in turn gives them more 'buying power'. The individual consumers 'buying power' is the corner stone of the American economy after all. However, what happened in the case of Wal-Mart is their pressure on the manufacturer to produce 'lower cost' goods. They use their 'buying power' to 'persuade' the manufacturing industry to "cut costs." The manufacturer cannot afford to lower the prices of their goods, so they are forced into a predicament. Normally they are forced to go over-seas with their manufacturing. In third world countries, labor laws are scarce and the wages are low(er). They can pay a teenager in Thailand the same in a week as an American will make in a day. As a result of the 'out-sourced' labor "forced" upon the manufacturer by Wal-Mart, the money we spend at the retailer is no longer coming back to Americans in the form of pay checks. Rather, most of it is being sent over seas to pay the cost to manufacture, ship and package most of the goods we purchase from Wal-Corp. Stimulating inflation.

That said, the only real solution to the 'Wal-Mart Problem', if you believe there is one, is to stop shopping there. It appears that Government and Business have become so intertwined the laws in place to protect Americans from big business go un-enforced.