Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Government needs snitches.... again



http://beforeitsnews.com/news/83/753/Hilda_Solis_Will_Fight_for_Illegals_to_get_Fair_Wages:_Solis_Offers_Phone_Number_to_Illegals.html


There are a number of things wrong with this scenario: and it seems as though nobody really wins in the end.
I have a theory.


The Illegals:
They may or may not be making minimum-wage. But what are they entitled to anyways? What is anyone really entitled to? Only the government is allowed to say apparently.
But why does the government want to make things perfect for illegals? Amnesty will more than likely be the common suspicion amongst those opposed to amnesty;but does that make sense?
A broke government teetering on bankruptcy doesn't need additional mouths to feed. We know it, they know it, what's the catch? Do they really care about the illegal-immigrant population? Are they after their votes? If it's the votes: Will the votes really matter when the other millions and millions of Americans get angry? Is our intrepid government riding in like some kind of Robin Hood to right the wrongs of the greedy satanic capitalists?
What is their true motivation?


The Employers:
This is the one being painted as evil by the government. Even though this is the entity that has employed them and given them a livelihood in the first place. How many government employees are illegal immigrants?
The government will paint private business out to be an evil, greedy, and exploiting force that the government needs to rescue both illegals AND legal citizens from. This is bait-and-switch. Creative accounting. Whatever you want to call it, the government is pitting pro-illegals and anti-illegals against one "common" enemy. Private business.
The anti-illegals will blame them for giving American jobs to illegals; and pro-illegals will blame them for paying illegals under minimum wage.
Who benefits under this scenario?


The Government:
This is being carefully crafted. Pit two opposing forces against one neutral one and what kind of rewards does the government reap?
Easy.....Money.
The anti-illegals are being used and sold out, and the pro-illegals are being used. The only one that benefits in the end is our wretched government; seeing as they get to fine everyone.

They get to fine the businesses.
They get to tax the illegals.
Unfortunately the Americans without jobs just got screwed. There will be no new jobs as a result. But the government doesn't really care about that. They aren't making any money off those people anyways.

More private businesses will die. But more importantly, you now see where our government's loyalties really lie. They are encouraging illegal immigrants to TURN IN legal citizens of the USA for only the sake of making money for themselves.
Any who think these businesses are going to pay their fines, see the error of their ways, and pay the illegals more, is both blind and stupid. There is a reason why businesses are paying these people what they are: And it isn't because they are too busy yachting to read the latest government mandates in regards to minimum-wage. They are starving out there. Much like the rest of the country.
They are going to go out of business. And now ALL parties have lost except the government. The government leviathan will get it's money one way or another.

Count on it.


My solution:
Fire them. ALL of them. Punch out and go home.
Is it because I hate the enormous Hispanic population of my beloved state of AZ? No. I actually love them and don't want to see them get used anymore.
When the government starts pushing this through and your fellow immigrant populations start taking advantage of it, you lose. FOUR TIMES.
You will be stereotyped as snitches.
You will be considered a liability instead of an asset.
You will now have nowhere to hide from the government. (you will be documented)
You will be out of a job, and with little hope of finding a new one. (see above reasons)





-Paul Fetters

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The E-Cigarette vs. the FDA

I suppose I don't really have to give you or anyone else a refresher on how government ruins everything for the free market. Whether it be through blatant government greed, or simple red-tape bureaucratic ineptness.

My attention was brought to this due to the non-stop outcry around the world on the horrors of tobacco use. But as this particular case unfolds, we are pressed with a very real question: does the government really care about our health?

I have been following a fairly new product around for a bit and believe it (and it's fight with the FDA) to be worthy of mention.

There is a new product on the market that is starting to gain some serious momentum. Well more accurately, as much momentum as the FDA will allow it to get I guess. It's moved from pennys and nickels to a $100 million dollar industry in roughly 12-months.

This is actually not too "new" of a product, it's just recently that it has hit the US shores and managed to anchor itself fairly well.

I'm speaking of the fairly new "smoking alternative" called the E-Cigarette.

The E-cigarette was invented in China, and as a result of this, China is the leader across the boards in the manufacturing of the batteries and other components. Another result would also be the fact that China (of all places) seems to be a lot more accepting of these ingenious devices than our own "democratic" government.

The E-cigarette comes in many different sizes, shapes, and manufacturers. Like any product, all of them naturally have their own pro's and con's. Some of them have great vapor production but have a horrible battery-life. Others have an excellent battery life, but they don't produce enough cigarette-mimicking vapor.

Yes that's right folks: vapor. The E-cigarette is more or less a personal nicotine vaporizer.

There is no actual "smoke," nor is there any actual tobacco, tar, or harmful chemicals. What you actually inhale and exhale is a mixture of Propylene Glycol (or Vegetable Glycol), Nicotine, some natural flavor or another, and water. Now that we mentioned Nicotine, this is the part where the FDA comes rolling in.

The initial argument that the FDA produced after a brief study, was that Diethylene Glycol was a health risk, as it is commonly found in substances such as anti-freeze. What the FDA did here was consciously derail and sabotage the E-Cigarette through their tried and true fearmongering technique of big-worded misinformation.

Here is a part of the original FDA quote:

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze."

Is DG (Diethylene Glycol) considered toxic? The answer is yes. But what the FDA failed to mention is that the tested E-Cigarette cartridges had about 1/10 the DG that can be found in aspirin, and about 1/40 the amount found in your typical tobacco cigarette. It can also be found in a variety of consumable products on the market that we use daily. It's actually not an ingredient in anti-freeze. It's an ingredient in coolants. They mixed that up with PG (Propylene Glycol) which is actually put into anti-freeze in order to make the anti-freeze child-safe and/or pet-safe.

Not that it really matters much. But DG is actually not a typical ingredient you find in E-Cigarettes. It is typically used as a humectant for tobacco products; which would explain its presence in one out of the 18 E-cig cartridges tested. The presence of Nicotine typically means you will also find DG. If you were to test real cigarettes for this chemical, you would find it in %100 of the tested cigarettes.

But, strangely, the FDA doesn't set an embargo on big tobacco.

DG and PG are actually considered "Safe for human consumption" in certain quantities by the FDA in several consumable products. To put it into perspective: You would have to consume around 12,000 E-cigarette cartridges loaded up with DG and PG within 24-hours in order to get yourself anywhere near toxic levels of DG/PG. Sounds pretty freaky until you find out that your average E-cigarette user will puff down 1.5 cartridges per day. The heavier puffers will inhale as many as 3.

So why the scary lingo?

I guess it is possible that the FDA made a mistake and used the "toxic/carcinogen" description for the wrong glycol. Plain Ethylene Glycol is indeed pretty toxic. But they didn't find any of that in the E-cigs, maybe they just liked the contents of EG's toxic properties description. So I suppose we could toss lying and/or being utterly incompetent into the equation. Do they actually have "scientists" under the FDA's employ, or is it just another team of monkeys throwing turds and screeching?

An anonymous commenter writes:

"So why is the FDA focusing on diethylene glycol? Because if they told you that e-cigarettes contain trace amounts of aspirin and nicotine you'd stare blankly and shrug your shoulders. But when someone starts throwing around a term like diethylene glycol people pay attention because nobody knows what the hell it means and it doesn't sound like something you necessarily want a tall frosty mug of."

Where can you find Diethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol?

You can find it in toothpaste, wine, dog food, mouthwash, cough syrup etc etc etc. You can find it in the fog-machines that pump the air full of the annoying stuff at concerts. You can find it in many of the pharmaceuticals that you ingest orally, get injected with, or apply to your skin.

One would have to be incredibly stupid to think that the FDA doesn't know all these facts. They do. They approved all that other stuff; so why derail this?

The magic word here is Nicotine.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Nicotine is the greatest thing to put into your body, it's not. It's essentially a poison and a very effective insecticide. Long-term tests on lab rats never showed any adverse effects of nicotine, but regardless, it is still a foreign chemical that you shouldn't put in your body.

But let's be real here. We've all played around and dissolved metal objects in Coca Cola, it's pretty potent as well. Not to mention that it also contains caffeine, which also has addictive qualities. But you don't see Coca Cola facing any scrutiny unless you count the American Dental Association.

My point being, we'll just leave the unhealthiness of Nicotine at the door and continue.

So we all know where to find Nicotine. Tobacco products are an easy one as well as the various stop-smoking aids on the market in the forms of gum, patches, and those weird little inhalers. Then of course we now have our E-cigs to add to this list. The only difference between these acceptedproducts vs. the unaccepted isn't really the product so much as it is the supplier.

We get tobacco from our lovely tobacco giants, and we get the rest from our lovely pharmaceutical giants. Many of the pharmaceutical giants get their nicotine from the big tobacco giants. So now we have a love-circle between big tobacco, big pharma, and big FDA. Yes, they all sit around and rub each others shoulders while people die.

I would like to quote the great Dr. Ron Paul:

"The FDA, like all federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics, which is why the FDA should not be trusted with power over our intimate health care decisions."

So it would seem that our beloved Dr. Paul doesn't trust them either. They are a roadblock in the free market, and they continually overstep their bounds with the 1st and 4th amendment.

First Amendment you ask? Just ask General Mills. The FDA threatened to label Cheerios as a "drug" due to Cheerios' claim that it can lower your cholesterol.

Seriously people. The FDA actually pulls these stunts with a straight face.

Fourth Amendment you ask? I'll get to that in a moment.

Now back to the E-cig embargo.

As soon as their initial findings were disproved, there was no offer of an apology from the FDA. Instead they immediately shot back with their only fail-safe (seeing as they cannot toss Big Pharma and Big Tobacco under the bus quite yet).

They argued, "The children." Yes, we must think about the children.

The fact that children can feasibly get ahold of these devices via the internet, smoke shop, or mall kiosk is apparently UNACCEPTABLE to the FDA. Yet it's fine that children can get ahold of numerous other things on the internet. Knives, porn, alcohol, energy drinks, and pills to name a few. Any enterprising youngster with his parent's debit card and a copy of the USPS delivery-schedule can make this happen. But even then, what is a kid really going to go for? The $100 E-cigarette kit that they need to purchase online and get shipped to them, or the real-deal in a convenience store down the road for $5 a pack? The fact that not only the FDA, but also the American Lung Assoc, and Cancer Society would spew this at the general populace and actually expect it to be believed, is not just irritating, it's actually insulting.

I believe that upon realizing what a pathetic argument that really was, the FDA and it's parrots were compelled to shoot back that the flavors for E-cigs (E-juice) are appealing to children and adults, hence, unethical.

Such flavors will draw our citizens (against their own free will) into the clutches and jaws of the nicotine beast. They will then be devoured by said beast, smoke millions of tobacco cigarettes, and die. Of course it will be the cheesecake-flavored E-juice's fault and/or everyone else's fault but the free-thinking child/adult that took the first drag.

Ignore all those people who feed themselves and their children bacon dipped in boat lard. We had better go after the despicable "stop-smoking" pushers.

Nobody really bought that one either. Would you?

The next shovel-full argument from the FDA came in the form of an attack on the actual marketing techniques being used by E-cigarette suppliers. This is actually the only real semi-valid argument that the FDA ever produced.

In the early days, most E-cigarette suppliers DID claim that the new devices were (more or less) smoking-cessation devices. The FDA quickly seized upon these claims saying that the E-cig did not actually wean people off of nicotine so much as simply replace their smoking habit with a different habit. Doesn't sound a whole lot different than the Big Pharma FDA-approved patches, gum, and inhalers. But I'll give it to the FDA that they were at leastpartially correct here, albeit incredibly hypocritical.

Upon this accusation, most of the suppliers of these devices made the simple language correction and moved on towards business-as-usual.

"NOT SO FAST!" The FDA spaketh thusly.

And so began the embargo.

Now the FDA has decided that it (under the banner of public health interests) would fly in the face of the 4th amendment and begin seizing these devices from the USPS and other shipping agents without a lawful ban in place.

Mind you, they are not merely confiscating the overseas shipments that arrive in bulk. They are also seizing the small private orders from regular consumers. Regular people who want or need to quit smoking for one reason or another.

When confronted, they use the argument that the devices need further testing. Hogwash I say. They are merely figuring out a way to regulate it, make money off it, and pass it off to their "approved" pushers.

It's money people. The US Government likes money, and big Tobacco and big Pharma make A LOT of money. The FDA knows exactly what side their toast is buttered on, and they dare not bite the hand that is feeding it to them.

Money is at stake for them. And the new E-cigarette industry is sporting $100 million (and growing) that they would like to get their hands on. But they can't steal that money from the market unless they are given the power to regulate it. As soon as they have the power to regulate it, they will have the say-so in who gets to manufacture and distribute it.

Wanna bet who will get the honors of said manufacture and distribution?

Health risks and/or benefits be damned. If you don't bribe off the regulators, they simply bury you. Such is the sad case of the E-cigarette.

Well, such was the case until the land of the frivolous lawsuits woke up and realized that they just might be getting taken for a ride by the FDA and other unseen trolls. Maybe there wasn't a dollar to sue for. But there was a principled point to be made, fun to be had, and government agencies to humiliate.

Somebody sued.

Not necessarily for money, but for the FDA to lift it's injunction on shipments. They won. The FDA got a lovely cease and desist order from the Honorable Judge Richard Leon.

Judge Richard Leon:

"This case appears to be yet another example of F.D.A.’s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices,"

*Gasp!*

Imagine that, a government regulatory branch overstepping its bounds!

Of course the FDA sent in an appeal. They had to do it. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco cannot allow their market competition to survive and hamper their bottom lines.

I believe the FDA has more than likely been pretty reluctant to re-enter the fray. It ends up painting them as more of a monster than a savior. One almost feels badly for them until one reminds themselves that more people have died as a result of FDA-approved products than non-approved. I won't even talk about cigarette deaths. It tells you where their loyalties come to rest at night. Rest assured though, their loyalties aren't to the consumers or the public health.

4000+ chemicals in tobacco cigarettes vs. the 3 found in E-cigarettes. The FDA is trying to kick people back to the former by means of eradicating the latter.

This is a serious lesson to everyone. Who and what do they really care about?

The FDA appeal is where our story ends, as it is still in the gears of our system at the moment. Send up your prayers at night and ask to whomever you pray, to let our dear FDA be the ones to get their sleeve caught in those gears.

So far, it does not look good for them. But they did enough damage already by those who would now continue with regular tobacco because the FDA barfed some nonsense at a press conference.

That so many will continue dumping thousands of truly dangerous cigarette chemicals into their bodies as a result of the FDA lies and/or gross incompetence is sad. And indeed, it is the only real crime here.

For those who decided to go with actual science as opposed to the FDA's campaign of misinformation, you can find many of their moving success stories here.

Years from now, how many will owe their lives to this new technology?

I'm sure the FDA will figure out a way to not let you find out.


Monday, March 22, 2010

Healthcare....

For the love of of all that is holy.... Or unholy I guess..

I believe in the great annals of history, they (the historians) will look back on March 21st 2010 and shake their collective heads. After they go cross-eyed, tear their clothes, gnash their teeth, shake their fists toward DC, and let out wails to the heavens.
This is not only the largest failure-to-be to poke it's head out of DC's butt for the last generation, it is also going to be the most colossal waste of money that we (as a country) have ever been able to NOT afford.
The "hope" that Obama delivered to our weary deadbeats yesterday is certainly unmatched. At least he finally delivered a partial-hope somewhere. It may not have gone to the hard-working hands that deserved it, but close-enough is good-enough in the world of horsehoes, hand grenades, and apparently politics.
Now that we have been forced to dive in to this new cesspool of euro-socialism, there isn't much hope for us at this point to repeal it. Especially seeing as our fearless leader is actually holding our heads below the surface.
The only real reason I see this as being allowed to happen is simply because I don't think people really understand what all this actually means.

Lets look at our healthcare system in it's pre-March 21st, 2010 form...

It is essentially a collection of private insurance companies whose sole-purpose is to offset the incredible costs associated with hospitals, clinics, and medicines.
Now mind you, the only reason that there are incredible costs for these goods/services is a result of said insurance companies and YOU. When I say "YOU", I am referring to the general populace who love to sue anyone and everything at the drop of a hat. YOU are the reason for these out-of-control costs.
Health insurance can be expensive, again YOU are to blame for that.

Now lets look at what our March 22nd, 2010 healthcare system is...

Essentially our golden child's new healthcare playtoy is going to force you to purchase (at a minimum) government-owned health insurance. If you don't have any insurance, you will be fined. Yes, you are being forced to have insurance now people. Regardless of the costs involved.
It brings me back to the very reason I don't have insurance right now, and why a good many others don't have insurance either. I CAN'T AFFORD IT.
So now that the government gets to balance our personal budgets as well as their own nightmare budgets, I feel a lot better... Not really...
They have made it out to be as though all the people without insurance (who couldn't afford it) were clamoring around trying to get it. NOOOOOOooooooo0000000oooooo!!
We can't afford insurance, and that includes any new government-run insurance or fines that are associated with the lack of either! WE DON'T HAVE THE DAMNED MONEY YOU IDIOTS!!
We're in the worst economic recession/depression since 1929 (aka the GREAT depression) and I think it's actually WORSE than what it was then!
What the hell is wrong with these idiots??!! If we didn't have the personal funds before, where in the hell are we supposed to find them now??!!
Have you invented some new pill that we ingest and crap out money?
My theory is they are counting on people to not be able to afford this, ANY reason to mail out a fine is a GREAT reason in the eyes of our worthless bureaucracy.

But moving on....

But I suppose that I should try and find the silver-lining somewhere. It is the nature of the beast that lives in my mind. I enjoy my own incessant griping, but can't stand it when I don't offer myself and others a non-sour sentence or two...

The silver-lining is incredibly simple folks.
Over the next few years, in ALL the congressional and senate races, you are going to watch a great dying off of our stupid-Democrat, complacent-Republican, and crying-Liberal candidates in their respective offices. And in the great year of 2012, you are going to watch an over-taxed, over-lied-to, depression/recession-weary population kick this moron out of the white house.
It is comforting that they decided to ignore the population and seal their own fates finally. Their stealth abilities will no longer hide them as they just lit themselves up on the radar with their simple utterances of the word "yea".
Perhaps the Republicans will take a bit longer to die off, but that is simply due to their ability to toe their own party lines. I for one, am not the least bit fooled by their huffing protests. They should have never let it get this far.

So now the Government has a decent grip on the neck of our country's healthcare, and the psi is slowly rising.

So....

When did we start granting irresponsible people with additional responsibility? Especially when the not-so-meager responsibilities they previously held were far too much for them to even "adequately" manage?
Lets look at DC's resume for a minute so we can get an idea how your typical government program fares in the face of the real-world.

Social Security... Has this ever been the well-oiled machine that the government promised it to be? It's a bankrupt joke.
They promised to save our elderly from dying in poverty. Noble idea, unrealistic goal. Especially seeing as our elderly are coupled up with the likes of Medicare and Medicade.

Medicare/Medicade... This one makes me sick to even say out loud, so I'm just going to call it "M&M(s)"
I will venture to say that the dreaded M&M's were created for the basic purposes of going hand in hand with SS. That would be, "Saving the elderly from poverty, but also giving them insurance coverage". I think that is a safe assumption on my part.
So here we have shoddy government insurance (that we all pay for, but only seniors can use) that is horribly unappealing to any and all medical practices the nation-over. This is due to M&M's love for auditing, constantly doing the "quick-change" on a legislative-level, their cheapening of monies that go towards care for said elderly, and their habit of dragging their heels when it comes to paying-out for care of the elderly. The last part is understandable from a logical standpoint. Maybe if they drag their heels long enough, the elderly will just die.
Just recently, legislature was passed that basically nulled out any hope for a Medicare holder to receive any more than $1800 per year for Physical therapy. This "hope" used to be called a "KX-Modifier".
One of these modifiers would essentially allow a treating physician/therapist the ability to apply for an extension/exemption if the patient needed more treatment and was going to go beyond the monetary cap that M&M sets for such treatment.

But oh wait.... it actually gets better than that!
Because the people who drafted the legislature unwittingly forgot to place a "," between Physical therapy and Speech therapy. Now our elderly are only allotted $1800 per year for both Speech therapy AND Physical therapy.... Yes folks... the absent-minded drafting of a piece of legislature sans ONE COMMA just screwed over a hefty percentage of stroke victims. So not only is it a worthless, uncaring, miser of a system; it's also inept as well.
I guess it's not so bad when it isn't YOUR parents at the gambling table. Or I suppose if you happen to be a senior citizen AND a politician. God-knows, they don't want the same insurance joke that they shove down the throats of our elderly. They use their own.
And keep in mind, M&M was complete crap BEFORE they slashed it's funding in half. So what does that make it now? Is there a lower setting than "crap" that doesn't involve too much profanity or obscure dead languages?

*Side note*
Seeing as M&M funding has been cut in half now, does that mean I am only going to be taxed 50% of what I used to be taxed for it?
You don't actually have to answer that. It was a dumb question...


Now lets move on to a sweet little example of existing government healthcare. That's right people. Let us talk about the VA.

Actually....

Let's NOT talk about the VA. Instead, lets scour the internet and pull up some stories of the pleasantries that our fighting men and women encountered upon walking through the doors of their local VA.

Ok it was a bit difficult to actually find any overt praise of the VA hospital. There may have been some in an alternate reality, but apparently those poor servicemen/women were turned away for some reason or another.
Perhaps if the government could invent a time machine for the VA's use, that whole unfortunate scenario could be remedied in the future... Or would it be the past? Not sure...
The one thing I am sure of is this. Veterans have better stories of success, attentiveness, treatment, and nurturing in regards to the VFW bars than they do about the VA hospitals.


So now for our tally:

Reality - 3
Government - 0


Again I ask. Why are we giving the government control of something that they have absolutely ZERO capabilities of handling?
Nevermind, we actually didn't give them control, they simply took it.

Watch your backs people. They are leading us down a road that was designed to strip you of every personal liberty you ever had. They are doing it to ensure the sustainment of their own little thrones on their own little hills.
The only reason they haven't overtly done so is simply because you still have your guns and you still (for now) have the power over their elections.

Lets out these self-serving men and women. They have failed in their sole purpose(s), and they have done it with a knowing smile. They care nothing for you, your family, your future, your work-ethic, your home, or your life.
You are simply a little bug in their worlds, something they want to figure out how to control so they can better figure out a way to insure their own futures and agendas.

They are treating you and I like stupid sheep.


If you must be sheep, at least be an unruly flock that tends to trample the shepherds that screw up.....


-PF

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Obama...

Ya know... I don't like to typically write about such cliche' topics/people that really could be considered "too easy". But at times, certain things arise that simply warrant a response.

We elected our boy-wonder a little over a year ago. Now I'm not going to say that he needs to make good on all his campaign promises in such a short period of time, but I do believe his time is already drawing neigh in this regard.
I remember listening to a politician..... or maybe it was a tv show with an actor playing a politician...
Either way, the same holds true for real life in this scenario. Trust me.

So I remember watching a politician (real or fake, perhaps both), and they made an interesting statement on the lifespan of an elected-official's productivity.
He mentioned that a 4-year-term'ed official can only spend the first 2-years of their term actually making the "changes" that they desire before they are required to abandon those aspirations and dig in for their upcoming elections. (Of course this would be cut in half if you were a 2-year-term official.)

Now, as I already stated. This is a bit of heresay that I just happened upon, I couldn't pull up my source(s) if my very life depended on it. BUT, there is a ring of truth to it. I only say that because of what I witnessed all those candidates do when they were gearing up for the primaries 2-YEARS before the presidential election!

Now 2-years is a pretty obscene thing to think about when you put any kind of job-duty-description and a job-title into the blender together and hit the "Puree" button.
These men and women are/were public-servants that had been elected to serve the people of their respective states/districts. You were PAYING them while they looked for a better job right in your face!


But I digress..

Back to Obama and his 2-year deadline..


With that big fat "2" in in the mix, now we can get a real idea as to what we can expect from our golden child president. Nothing.
You heard it here folks. Nothing. "Nothing", as in "Not a damned thing".

Now don't get me wrong. Such is the way of DC and USA politics in general. Obama is not to blame for creating this little cute game our public-masters play on our dime. He is simply guilty of playing it with the rest of them. I only hold him accountable for his stupid slogan of "Change we can believe in!". Sadly, we all knew it was a steaming pile of excrement when we first saw it. Well.... I did at least.
For those of you who bought all the rhetoric, don't be too hard on yourselves people. God know, even the people who give out Nobel Prizes fell for it. And they're supposed to be the "smart ones" on our little blue planet... Indeed..

It should have been plain from the beginning that he was talking out his butt. I mean short of donning a cape and flying around DC handing out risque' vigilante justice to the poor and downtrodden, Obama had no hope of making good on even a fraction of his promises. He tried to give everyone else hope when he didn't even have it himself.
Sadly, we can't impeach him on the basis of not making good on his intangible promises. Perhaps as a safeguard in the future, we should force our public-masters to provide us with a minimum of one tangible promise (ie a free car, soda in all the fountains) along with as many intangible ones that they can vomit on us. At least then we may have some recourse when they turn out to be the liars we already suspect them to be.

So after nearly a year and a half of Obama antics, try and re-evaluate just what he has accomplished.

I'll name one accomplishment. I'm generous like that.

Obama has accomplished the herculean feat of clearing the street of his campaign-followers/pushers!!
Never in my life had I really wanted to commit genocide quite as much as I did with these lemming-people that simply couldn't shut up and just let people vote.
After the election/inauguration, they gloated for a brief period of time, that was irritating as well. But at least I didn't have to justify my candidate-of-choice to them anymore.
It was laughable when they cleared the streets before the ink had even dried on Obama's first bailout(s) for the big banks. You can't really blame the poor sots, such was the outrage of the general public for said bailouts, gloating/preaching about Obama would've had them lynched in a New York minute.

Now they are gone, like vapor in the wind... ghosts really..

Thanks Obama.

Thanks for being the non-boywonder, non-goldenchild, non-hopegiver, non-changebringer, and non-decisivedecisionmaker.
If ever there was a 4-year period of feeling absolutely vindicated, you have graciously bestowed it upon me.

Thank you..



-PF

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

To Begin...

I guess i created this for the simple purpose of presenting my views, my truths, my beliefs, and my thoughts on myself and the world around me.
I like to believe that there is little in life that we cannot formulate an opinion on. And I believe that there is little in life that we shouldn't formulate a strong opinion on.

We live in a world that demands attention. A world where even the most inane topic can (and will) roll into a deeper and more pressing issue. If we are unable to directly influence it, then we must at least voice our approval/disapproval of it.

I don't like to edit myself, I don't like to censor myself. If I offend you, just understand that it is how my mind works and how it processes fact, fiction, and/or hearsay.
I find problems and I address them. I don't post facts unless they are indeed, "facts". I listen to arguments and question inconsistencies. If I am inconsistent, I expect your rebuke.


Read on, and ponder my good people.



-Paul