Donkeys and superdelegates

I think a hilarious contradiction in the Democratic Party is often overlooked by most people. The superdelegate. The symbol of the democratic party is a donkey, supposed to represent the common man. But what I don't get is why only the democratic party has delegates that represent only their self-interests. Superdelegates are delegates that can vote at the democratic convention. They are in no way chosen by the people during the primaries, and most of them are governors, congressman, and other political power figures. They are not obligated to vote any particular way. The last time I checked Obama had quite a few more delegates than Hillary, but she had almost double the superdelegate count. That's what has kept them neck and neck for so long. If you ask me, that is not helping the hard-working common man at all. I suppose liberals would defend the superdelegates by saying that they usually vote similar to the people's wishes. They certainly don't have to vote according to the people's wishes. Ideally shouldn't the Democrats stand up for the common man and be the party without the superdelegates? Superdelegates undermine the definition of "Democratic".

Politics

I've decided to post a blog about who I endorse for president 2008 in easy-to read sound bites so that the general populace will understand.

I will start with the republicans.

The Huckster/Huck&Chuck Inc./Huckleberry or Huckabee as he is commonly known:
I liked some of the things he said. Things like getting rid of the IRS, his immigration policy, and the nice (though somewhat meaningless) sound of more art in schools. Then he said he had a divine right to be president and I decided that my vote would be best spent elsewhere.

Mitt Meister/Mitt Romney: He's the average neo con in my view nothing is really going to change with him except that the Bible Belt will have to deal with the fact that Huckabee didn't win.

McCain: I have a lot of respect for this man. A real war hero and a real leader. I agree on him with many things and he is my 2nd choice for republicans. He likes things like conservative spending, tax cuts, and border security, and so do I. He does have a streak of Neo-con in him though which is why he is my second choice.

Rudy Giuliani/The Rude: He's my least favorite for republicans. He's also probably not going to win. I like that. Nuff said.

Ron Paul: My number one choice overall. He has capitalist solutions (which are the only ones that work in the end) to the Health Care crisis, which is my number one issue. He shows an understanding of the issues above and beyond every other candidate and he plans carefully. He has solutions to America's laughable Social "Security" and he wants a true limited government. Some people call him a racist, which is funny since he is the most anti-racist presidential hopeful by definition of the philosophy he follows: Libertarianism. He's a true fiscal conservative who wants to get rid of America's debt and get out of a war that has gone on too long for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, he probably won't win. Either way he started a movement that will continue on to the next election.

Now its time for the Democrats!

Hillary Clinton: If anything I am anti-Hillary. She is the last person I want to see as my president and it has nothing to do with her gender before you accuse me of being a chauvinist pig. Also make sure you can spell that before calling me one. She has such noble robin hood-esque ideals such as taking big bucks from the big bad corporations and giving the money to innovation (a contradiction with government) of fuel. Not only is she investing the money of the companies into a really dumb alternative fuels, (corn Ethanol) but whenever government socializes business, innovation bombs. I also don't want socialized medicine. That will completely destroy the health of millions of people and outright kill others. I also hate really bad actors. To people who support her wholeheartedly I would encourage them not to be so blind. She's running for president so that she can have power. Helping the people only comes after her agenda.

Barack Obama: On a happier note there is someone who can actually defeat Hillary in this race. Obama. He is my number one choice for democrats and my number two choice overall. People say he's inexperienced, but if he's made it this far in the presidential race then we can at least say he's a fast learner. He's an idealist. He wants to make politics totally transparent and I can't help but jump onboard that train. If he had a conservative economic policy and was for privatization, I think Obama would easily surpass Ron Paul in my book.

John Edwards: I like that he put poverty on the forefront of his campaign. Because of that he's challenging other candidates to place importance on the issue and give their plans. As for his policies I'm kind of unimpressed. He's on the same level as Huckabee to me. The mid-range. I wish him luck in his political career and I'm glad he's still around to mooch votes off Hillary.

So there you have it. My political viewpoint. If you want to you can tell your friends that I endorse Ron Paul and because of that they should too. If they ask who I am just give them a vague answer about my political power. If you tell the whole story then they will think nothing you say is credible ever again. Now how would that make you feel?

Gun Control and Idiots

So I watched Micheal Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine, a few days ago. It was quite an interesting revelation of how disgustingly afraid American society is and the power of the Media. It did not, however, convince me that I shouldn't have a collection of firearms hidden away in my underground basement/bombshelter/government hold out center. Not only was I not convinced by his arguments (perhaps I've done more research than him over the years?) but after doing a little looking on the net I discovered that the whole "documentary" was pumped full of lies. Sorry Mr. Moore, I don't date liars. Hilariously enough a few of the "facts" provided on his own website even discredited him. Particularly the entire speech by Charlton Heston that he so graciously provides on his website. If it's not obvious how Mr. Moore altered his speech then you might want to check this out.
But anyways, rather than tear Mr. Moore's "documentary" (after all it has already been done) apart I will talk about my stance on Gun Control, this really nifty thing that Democrats think will save the world. Being a southern boy I suppose I'm a bit biased, but I like to back up that bias with facts, unlike many of the left.
Let's take the example of the recent shootings in Colorado. A crazy man walks into a church and kills some people. Another church takes proactive action and one of its members volunteers to have a gun at the service in case of another shooting. The crazy man walks into the armed church and is killed. The armed citizen is praised as a hero. Then you begin seeing all sorts of gun control debates pop up with the anti-gun crowd ignoring the facts and ignorantly claiming that citizens shouldn't be able to get a gun. Now let's think about this for a second. If the woman in the church that stopped the shootings was not armed, there would have been several people at that church killed. Since she killed the man before he had a chance to kill a lot of people there were very few deaths and the lady was praised as a "hero". How ironic. Criminals do not want to give up their guns. Why would they listen to the government, which they so readily disobey on other subjects, when the government tells them to hand over their guns? They won't. Only law-abiding citizens will. That means that law-abiding citizens are the ones who are harmed because ONLY the criminals have firearms.
And another example. September 11th. Now the most infamous day in history, hopefully, for the rest of history. What if a citizen had had a gun on those flights? The terrorists only had knives. The deaths of 2,996 killed in the towers, pentagon, and flights. Don't forget the 4,233 US and UK soldiers. And the number that everyone overlooks; an estimated 80,000 - 88,000 dead Iraqi citizens. The bloodiest disaster since vietnam could have been stopped with the civilians on the airplanes having the right to hold a concealed firearm. For the leftists who are still scared that a perfectly sane, law-abiding human being will suddenly go crazy and go on a killing spree because the person behind them has their music turned up to loud; perhaps we could compromise by allowing armed pilots? No one had a defense. Thanks to that the most infamous day in history is no longer D-Day or Pearl Harbor.
Don't forget to think. The Nazis took away guns from the Jews before they began to systematically kill them. The Soviets didn't allow guns in the hands of their citizens because they were afraid that the citizens would rise against them. I am not a warmonger. Guns are not even a hobby of mine. But, if the government ever comes knocking on my door for my weapons, I'll be pointing a rifle right back in their face saying "Get off my property!"