We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty
than ever before in the history of any land.
-Herbert Hoover
August 20, 1928
Friday, October 31, 2008
Hoover
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Them Dems
(Opinion alert)
You can't deny that John McCain's over-enthusiasm about Joe the Plummer is a little funny. Especially the multiple times he brought it up in the final debate on Wednesday.
However, the democrats have been just as enthusiastic about smearing Joe the Plummer as much as possible. What this accomplishes, I'm not sure. However, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I just heard on a radio newscast.
(Fact time)
The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer isn't registered to vote. He is. He isn't registered under the name Joe because that is his middle name. Unlike some people, Joe likes his middle name.
The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer is not, in fact, a licensed plummer. Surprisingly, that is the truth! Not surprisingly, they leave out this fact: in Ohio, you don't have to have a plumming license unless you are doing enterprise-size jobs. He really is a plummer, Obama. Get over it.
Quick note: I will get verifiable sources for these two facts ASAP. I'm in a rush this morning so I don't have the time. I don't imagine it will be terribly hard to find, though.
(Opintion alert)
Obama supporters, please understand who you are voting for. This man is willing to smear a plummer. He is smearing a plummer. Let me say it again: Barack Obama is smearing a plummer. A plummer.
Isn't this supposed to be the guy that's for the people? Oh, I forgot. Barack Obama isn't really for the people. He is tricking you! What he really cares about is growing the government more, like George Bush did.
I think my next post will be on negative campaigning.
You can't deny that John McCain's over-enthusiasm about Joe the Plummer is a little funny. Especially the multiple times he brought it up in the final debate on Wednesday.
However, the democrats have been just as enthusiastic about smearing Joe the Plummer as much as possible. What this accomplishes, I'm not sure. However, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I just heard on a radio newscast.
(Fact time)
The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer isn't registered to vote. He is. He isn't registered under the name Joe because that is his middle name. Unlike some people, Joe likes his middle name.
The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer is not, in fact, a licensed plummer. Surprisingly, that is the truth! Not surprisingly, they leave out this fact: in Ohio, you don't have to have a plumming license unless you are doing enterprise-size jobs. He really is a plummer, Obama. Get over it.
Quick note: I will get verifiable sources for these two facts ASAP. I'm in a rush this morning so I don't have the time. I don't imagine it will be terribly hard to find, though.
(Opintion alert)
Obama supporters, please understand who you are voting for. This man is willing to smear a plummer. He is smearing a plummer. Let me say it again: Barack Obama is smearing a plummer. A plummer.
Isn't this supposed to be the guy that's for the people? Oh, I forgot. Barack Obama isn't really for the people. He is tricking you! What he really cares about is growing the government more, like George Bush did.
I think my next post will be on negative campaigning.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Abomination
The purposes of this opinion post are:
Let me begin in reverse, by reiterating my position on mudslinging. It is not needed. It doesn't even matter if it is true. All politicians do bad things. Barack Obama has done them and John McCain has certainly done them (though I can't find many bad things done by John McCain that compare to Obama). We should discuss issues and policy (government), not rumors, theories, and mistakes from the past.
That said, I write this post and many other posts on this blog specifically for the purpose of mudslinging Barack Obama. Why do I go against my own principals? As a matter of principal, of course! I must get Sparky to drop his antics (his latest line is "F John McCain, Andrew. F Him!") and start discussing policy. The only way I see to convince him of this is to prove that, by his own standards, his candidate is unfit to be president. If I can prove this, maybe he will change his standards and think about government for once.
Barack Obama: A concise campaign history
The following are Barack Obama's responses (generalized by me, of course) to all allegations against him:
Of course, it would be easy for me to take all those wrong stances, given the evidence. That's why talk radio hosts do it. The evidence is there! So Sparky (or anyone who mudslings McCain on a regular basis), please take this into consideration. Whenever you start a tirade on John McCain's evil corrupt doings, just remember that I love to play the devil's advocate when it comes to mudslinging Barack.
New York Slimes
Speaking of slimy.
The media is not covering the Acorn voter fraud issue accurately. The New York Times in a recent article defends Barack Obama rather than listing all the facts. They list facts all right, but I don't think they've heard the term "selective" before. NYT - On Obama, Acorn, and Voter Registration
Funny, the Slimes was glad to crucify Acorn back in July, before Acorn was connected to Barack Obama. NYT - Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups
CNN, a bastian of balanced news coverage, covered the story in detail, listing all the facts. CNN (YouTube) - Acorn and Obama
What an obamanation!
Notes
If you are one of those people who never clicks the links I post, click that last one. The video is only five minutes long. Please watch it and understand how corrupt Acorn is.
The Wall Street Journal (a real newspaper) published a transcript of this video written by the Republican National Committee. (I know, Sparky, Republicans. I checked the transcript, okay? It's legit.)
Clarification: The Republican National Committee did not write or sponsor in any way the CNN news story I link to above. CNN did. The Republican National Committee just wrote down all the words in the video in the form of a transcript.
- To convice Sparky that if he is going to classify one candidate as "too corrupt to be president", that candidate must be Barack Obama.
- To discuss the legitimacy of news sources, in particular the New York Times.
- To reiterate my position on mudslinging.
Let me begin in reverse, by reiterating my position on mudslinging. It is not needed. It doesn't even matter if it is true. All politicians do bad things. Barack Obama has done them and John McCain has certainly done them (though I can't find many bad things done by John McCain that compare to Obama). We should discuss issues and policy (government), not rumors, theories, and mistakes from the past.That said, I write this post and many other posts on this blog specifically for the purpose of mudslinging Barack Obama. Why do I go against my own principals? As a matter of principal, of course! I must get Sparky to drop his antics (his latest line is "F John McCain, Andrew. F Him!") and start discussing policy. The only way I see to convince him of this is to prove that, by his own standards, his candidate is unfit to be president. If I can prove this, maybe he will change his standards and think about government for once.
Barack Obama: A concise campaign history
The following are Barack Obama's responses (generalized by me, of course) to all allegations against him:
I voted "present" 133 times in less than three years because....JOHN MCCAIN IS GEORGE BUSH WITH A MASK ON!- It took me twenty years to realize that Reverend Wright is a racist who thinks that God should kill whites because....he seemed nice enough to me!
- I launched my campaign from the house of an admitted, cold-blooded terrorist because....he seemed nice enough to me!
- I only ever worked with Acorn because....they seemed legitimate enough to me!
Of course, it would be easy for me to take all those wrong stances, given the evidence. That's why talk radio hosts do it. The evidence is there! So Sparky (or anyone who mudslings McCain on a regular basis), please take this into consideration. Whenever you start a tirade on John McCain's evil corrupt doings, just remember that I love to play the devil's advocate when it comes to mudslinging Barack.
New York Slimes
Speaking of slimy.
The media is not covering the Acorn voter fraud issue accurately. The New York Times in a recent article defends Barack Obama rather than listing all the facts. They list facts all right, but I don't think they've heard the term "selective" before. NYT - On Obama, Acorn, and Voter RegistrationFunny, the Slimes was glad to crucify Acorn back in July, before Acorn was connected to Barack Obama. NYT - Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups
CNN, a bastian of balanced news coverage, covered the story in detail, listing all the facts. CNN (YouTube) - Acorn and Obama
What an obamanation!
Notes
If you are one of those people who never clicks the links I post, click that last one. The video is only five minutes long. Please watch it and understand how corrupt Acorn is.
The Wall Street Journal (a real newspaper) published a transcript of this video written by the Republican National Committee. (I know, Sparky, Republicans. I checked the transcript, okay? It's legit.)
Clarification: The Republican National Committee did not write or sponsor in any way the CNN news story I link to above. CNN did. The Republican National Committee just wrote down all the words in the video in the form of a transcript.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Mad libs
I will be coming out with some statistics for last night's debate, as I did with the previous two. However, this is an opinion post.
Something hit me last night. At one point, the moderator asked the order in which the candidates would address the problems of health care, energy, and entitlement (social security).
The assumption is that health care and energy are issues that are in dire need of large-scale help from the government and that social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
The part that hit me was that last note: social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
Again, social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
If you haven't just had the same light bulb go off that I did, let me fill you in. We'll begin with some history.
In the 1920's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol. That never went smoothly, and after thirteen years of crime-ridden black markets, the prohibition was repealed.
In the early 1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. That went smoothly for less than a year, and drove the economy into the great depression.
In the mid-1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to (basically) insure the income of retirees. That went smoothly for less than a century, and now social security (and the future of some retirees) is on the brink of destruction.
In the 1970's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose windfall profits taxes on big oil companies. This went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now America has dangerously increased its dependence on foreign oil.
In the 1990's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to greatly strengthen Affordable Housing requirements on banks, giving them quotas to meet on loans to less-fortunate communities. That went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now the entire housing market (and economy) is on the brink of destruction.
In 2003, the government (parts of it) deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. That went smoothly for less than a year, and only now are American forces beginning to make a real difference. And now, because of this misplaced and mismanaged war, thousands of Americans have lost their lives and the United States' debt to foreign nations has been dangerously increased.
Of course, the above is common knowledge. Let's play some mad-libs and figure out some more interesting things. Try and fill in the most witty, zany, wacky government ideas you can! Just make sure it makes sense given the government's history of helping the American people.
Enough fun with mad libs and sarcasm. Let me return to my original point.
The moderator asked the candidates which they would address first: health care, energy, or social security.
Social security is the failed government program of that trio. If government takes over health care, it will be the failure-to-fix for presidential candidates in the 2050's.
Nobody is under the illusion that social security will be "fixed". "Fixed" means deleted. It means people will have to save money for retirement. Bill Clinton once famously said that more people under thirty believe they will see a UFO than believe they will ever receive a social security check. He was right. They are right. Social security bombed.
Let's not do this with health care.
As for energy, both candidates propose aggressive spending in the energy sector. My stance is and has always been that this is good, until the day that the government decides to take over the energy sector and own it. Once that day comes, I will protest it just as much as I protest universalized health care.
The problem with capitalism is that some people prosper and some people don't. Some people get great health care and some people don't. There is suffering involved.
The problem with socialism is that the suffering culminates in a big disaster down the road, after years of ignorant bliss. Human suffering cannot be removed from any equation, only shoved to one side or another.
For years, affordable housing has delayed the suffering of people who don't like living in apartments. They are suffering now.
For decades, social security has delayed the suffering of seniors who couldn't manage to save enough. They will be suffering soon.
Now, Democrats want to delay the suffering of people who can't afford good health care.
If you're one to delay suffering, go ahead and vote for it. Me? I recognize that life is ugly because it must be ugly. If someday it is not, we will cease to be human.
Something hit me last night. At one point, the moderator asked the order in which the candidates would address the problems of health care, energy, and entitlement (social security).
The assumption is that health care and energy are issues that are in dire need of large-scale help from the government and that social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
The part that hit me was that last note: social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
Again, social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.
If you haven't just had the same light bulb go off that I did, let me fill you in. We'll begin with some history.
In the 1920's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol. That never went smoothly, and after thirteen years of crime-ridden black markets, the prohibition was repealed.
In the early 1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. That went smoothly for less than a year, and drove the economy into the great depression.
In the mid-1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to (basically) insure the income of retirees. That went smoothly for less than a century, and now social security (and the future of some retirees) is on the brink of destruction.
In the 1970's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose windfall profits taxes on big oil companies. This went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now America has dangerously increased its dependence on foreign oil.
In the 1990's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to greatly strengthen Affordable Housing requirements on banks, giving them quotas to meet on loans to less-fortunate communities. That went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now the entire housing market (and economy) is on the brink of destruction.
In 2003, the government (parts of it) deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. That went smoothly for less than a year, and only now are American forces beginning to make a real difference. And now, because of this misplaced and mismanaged war, thousands of Americans have lost their lives and the United States' debt to foreign nations has been dangerously increased.
Of course, the above is common knowledge. Let's play some mad-libs and figure out some more interesting things. Try and fill in the most witty, zany, wacky government ideas you can! Just make sure it makes sense given the government's history of helping the American people.
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to _____________. That went smoothly for _______________ and now ______________.Try this one!!
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to universalize health care. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now everybody's health is perfect.It's obvious!! How about this:
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to reinstate the windfall profits tax on big oil. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now America is completely energy-independent and global warming is gone.History proves it!! Another logical one:
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to ban hand guns. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now there is no violence.Come on people, it is only logical! Big government works!
Enough fun with mad libs and sarcasm. Let me return to my original point.
The moderator asked the candidates which they would address first: health care, energy, or social security.
Social security is the failed government program of that trio. If government takes over health care, it will be the failure-to-fix for presidential candidates in the 2050's.
Nobody is under the illusion that social security will be "fixed". "Fixed" means deleted. It means people will have to save money for retirement. Bill Clinton once famously said that more people under thirty believe they will see a UFO than believe they will ever receive a social security check. He was right. They are right. Social security bombed.
Let's not do this with health care.
As for energy, both candidates propose aggressive spending in the energy sector. My stance is and has always been that this is good, until the day that the government decides to take over the energy sector and own it. Once that day comes, I will protest it just as much as I protest universalized health care.
The problem with capitalism is that some people prosper and some people don't. Some people get great health care and some people don't. There is suffering involved.
The problem with socialism is that the suffering culminates in a big disaster down the road, after years of ignorant bliss. Human suffering cannot be removed from any equation, only shoved to one side or another.
For years, affordable housing has delayed the suffering of people who don't like living in apartments. They are suffering now.
For decades, social security has delayed the suffering of seniors who couldn't manage to save enough. They will be suffering soon.
Now, Democrats want to delay the suffering of people who can't afford good health care.
If you're one to delay suffering, go ahead and vote for it. Me? I recognize that life is ugly because it must be ugly. If someday it is not, we will cease to be human.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Computers
I haven't graduated yet, but I know a thing or two about computers.
The Government did not invent computers, you ass.
http://www.maxmon.com/timeline.htm
The Government did not invent computers, you ass.
http://www.maxmon.com/timeline.htm
Friday, October 3, 2008
Follow Up 2: Debate 1 Analysis
In my last post, I promised that I would repeat my debate statistics experiment for a third time. I did. Once again, as with the second time around, I used my debate tracking tool.
The results were the same.
Presidential debate statistics (2)
Refer to my last post.
It has now been verified twice! Please, correct me where I am wrong.
The results were the same.
Presidential debate statistics (2)
Refer to my last post.
It has now been verified twice! Please, correct me where I am wrong.
Follow Up: Debate 1 Analysis
A few days ago, I posted some approximate statistics and some factual generalizations about the first presidential debate. After receiving some feedback on the reliability of my statistics, I decided to improve the experiment and do it again. (Original post here)
So, I programmed a debate tracking tool. Although the tool is still in its infancy (and quite buggy), it works. It allows me to generate verifiable statistics regarding any debate. I now have a set of verifiable statistics to back up some of my original statistics.
Verifiable debate 1 statistics
In fact, I am so happy with how the tracker works, I will be repeating this exact experiment once again to guarantee accuracy. I encourage you to do it as well! Watch the same YouTube video that I did and track the same statistics. Please!
To wrap it up, this experiment verified the following generalizations:
In your face.
So, I programmed a debate tracking tool. Although the tool is still in its infancy (and quite buggy), it works. It allows me to generate verifiable statistics regarding any debate. I now have a set of verifiable statistics to back up some of my original statistics.
Verifiable debate 1 statistics
In fact, I am so happy with how the tracker works, I will be repeating this exact experiment once again to guarantee accuracy. I encourage you to do it as well! Watch the same YouTube video that I did and track the same statistics. Please!
To wrap it up, this experiment verified the following generalizations:
- McCain talked about his own record about twice as much as Obama talked about his own record.
- McCain talked about Obama's record more than Obama talked about McCain's record.
- Obama mentioned George Bush seven times more than John McCain did.
- McCain talked more about his own record than he did Obama's record. Obama talked more about McCain's record than he did his own record.
In your face.
To New Blog Readers
New blog readers, welcome! Thanks for reading. If you are new to my blog, please just read the following points:
- Please leave comments! At the bottom of each post there is a link that says "0 comments". If you click that, you will be able to leave comments on my blog.
- Please check out my posts from September and August! To do this, click on the dark grey arrows located on the right side of the screen.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP Debate Stats
The VP debate has just ended.
Literally minutes before the beginning of the debate, I finished programming a version of a debate tracker which I will be using to generate statistics on all the debates (as well as to verify my statistics on the first debate).
Here are the results: http://andrewpeace.com/debate-tracking-tool/results.php?id=1
Note: For "Referenced their own record" I only included instances where the candidates referenced themselves. For "Referenced their opponent's record" I included instances where they mentioned their opponent or their opponent's principal (the opposing presidential candidate).
Please, verify any of the events marked in the log. Here is how you do so:
Peace!
Literally minutes before the beginning of the debate, I finished programming a version of a debate tracker which I will be using to generate statistics on all the debates (as well as to verify my statistics on the first debate).
Here are the results: http://andrewpeace.com/debate-tracking-tool/results.php?id=1
Note: For "Referenced their own record" I only included instances where the candidates referenced themselves. For "Referenced their opponent's record" I included instances where they mentioned their opponent or their opponent's principal (the opposing presidential candidate).
Please, verify any of the events marked in the log. Here is how you do so:
- Find a video of the debate (try YouTube)
- Find the moment when the moderator begins the first question (my synchronization event)
- Look at the time the event occurred in my log and add that time to the time on your video source where the moderator begins the first question.
- Once you have added the times, skip forward to that time on the video to see the event happen.
Peace!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)