Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
MSNBC Hosts Moonbat Mania
I did my best to watch the Democratic debate on MSNBC tonight, but I had to quit after half of the participants stated by a show of hands that they did not believe in the global War on Terrorism.

To me, that is like saying, "I don't believe in the Cold War." Of course, some moonbats actually believe the Cold War was all hype too.

It's sad. No matter how much I would like to vote for someone other than a Republican, the Democratic candidates make it absolutely impossible.

Chris Dodd and Biden need to check into Dr. Kevorkian’s office.

Obama and Richardson are by far the most tolerable.

Hillary married a sexual deviant, which doesn’t say much about her judgment or her personal integrity.

Edwards actually made sense on a couple things tonight…unfortunately he promotes economic divisiveness and looks like a bobble head.

The last guy I had never seen before. He said something about getting rid of a standing army which I half way agree with, but since I don’t know his name, I will never know where to find more information about him.

My advice for Democrats running for president:

• Don’t talk about the president violating the constitution and then try to ban guns – it makes you look very dumb.

• Shut up about global warming. If you want to diversify our sources of energy, then do it, but don’t hide behind global warming. More importantly, don’t do something so drastic that if it turned out that global warming was a scam, you would be viewed as a complete failure. Any environmental policy should be based on hard facts rather than conjecture by some weatherman that lives in his mothers basement.

• Don’t be so negative. I know you hate the president, but you don’t need to turn every single question you answer about what you would do into something about how President Bush screwed up. Biden insinuated that Bush was responsible for the situation in North Korea. That is retarded.

• Don’t use socialism to solve our healthcare problem. Not only would it hurt our country, it is unnecessary. There are plenty of pro-market reforms our country can adopt that could help lower prices.

• Don’t raise taxes. Why would you even think that is an option? 2.5 trillion in tax revenues isn’t enough?

• Shut up about your homosexual and other social agendas and let the states decide. Not only is it constitutional, but it is the path of least resistance.

Some of you readers are probably thinking that I am basically asking for them to be Republican. That is not true. They could easily follow my guidelines, get their agenda done (the reasonable part) and not be so divisive while doing it.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
6 Comments:
I more worried the advice will cause them to lose the election than turn them republican.

-Any enviromental policy should be based on hard facts rather than conjecture-

I really like this statement but I think it should apply to all policy decisions (especially war). I am quite confident of the fact that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

Don't be so negative. Well that is the correct political strategy right now, for republicans too http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/27/schneider.gop/index.html

No one wants to be part of the failure of this administration, If you want to give proper advice tell them to distance themselves for pelosi and reid.

there are several nations that are not socialist that have univerisal healthcare. In fact the vast majority of first world nations have universal healthcare. I really don't think is any evidence that it would hurt the U.S. To the contrary In every measurable healthcare statisitic i.e longevity, child mortality...a country with socialized medicene is first.

How come the budget is not balanced if we have enough money

let the states decide? on social issues??? Resch vs. Ashcroft

Raich vs. Ashcroft, sorry about the spelling, My point being it should be left to the states, but the republicans have brought it to the federal level, Bush even proposed a new amendment defining marriage be between a man and a woman.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
I don't think anyone would argue that a war should be based on hard facts.

my question regarding over burdensome policies trying to "correct" global climate change is this:

what is the goal of the policy and what are you trying to stop? al gore suggests that he is trying to stop a global flood that would occur if hte earth were to get warmer...i think that is a bunch of monkey brained bullshit for reasons i have stated in past blogs.

i don't think any politician should be negative...republican or democrat. i actually mind it less when they are negative about people in their own party though.

the problem with healthcare in this country is that there are too many fat people, not that we have a market based system. America is a free country and as long as it stays that way, people will have hte right to be fat. With that right comes responsibility. if you choose to be a lazy fat fuck, then you are on your own. If you want the government to be in charge of your healthcare, then you better be ready for the government to start regulating lifestyle. and why shouldnt they. If obesity raises the cost of healthcare by 30% then shouldnt we require people to not be obese?

with socialism comes the inevitable loss of freedom. You can not avoid it. socialized health means you are putting a vital part of your life into the hands of the government. that would probably be a good thing for people who need a baby sitter or a big brother to take care of them, but not for people who are responsible and know how to read.

i think the best way to improve our healthcare system is to get healthier as a country, and free up the market. buying meds from canada, buying health insurance across state borders, and allowing for people to buy cheaper health insurance with less coverage.

ill say this...maybe the dems can concoct a "universal healthcare" system that is market based. if they can do it, hten they should. They should try to lose the term "universal healthcare" though.

the budget should be balanced but I would give a war time president some slack on an issue like that.

as for states deciding local issues...

the feds have not forced any new conservative social agenda under president Bush.

Well i suppose the one exception is partial birth abortion, but that issue has been federalized for a while.

as for raich v ashcroft...i read the wikipedia article on the trial and a couple interesting things came up.

1. the government won their case with the support of the liberal judges.

2. according to wikipedia, environmentalists supported the government because they were afraid that a lose for the government there would severly limit their future ability to pass legislation.

drugs have been federalized forever. this is not anything new.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
you could throw a million dollars at some fat lazy piece of shit and he would still be unhealthy.

that guy could also go to the dr every single day and still be unhealthy.

its not about spending, and its not about access to preventive care. most diseases are prevented by the individual, not a doctor, and definitely not by money.

You are right about preventative care, I really like Huckabee's stance on healthcare. I mean it would be tough to vote against him in a general election.

But I think he is a longshot to get the republican nomination.

To me the most important issue in the coming election is healthcare, and i am probably going to vote on such.

I think he has to key ideas. focus on preventative health, and expand coverage. I think that will alleviate enough pressure from the healthcare system, to make affordable for everyone.

But I hope Some democrat comes up with a better plan, they just really have not given much details yet.(but i do give kudos to huckabee)

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
I agree with need to move away from oil. however, that is already happening (albeit seemingly slowly).

one things that democrats keep talking about is raising fuel economy standards in cars. obviously raising standards will help, but i dont think that government raising standards will move things any faster. if they had forced car companies to raise standards in the 80s and 90s then they could have made a difference.

however, as of right now, fuel economy is apparently driving the market. that is why toyota is kicking the american car companies asses right now (not an expert on the car industry, but that appears to be what is happening to me).

my point is, whether or not the congress forces improvements in fuel efficiency, improvements will happen. Chevy is releasing an electric car in 2010.

it seems to me that electric is the way to go.

Links to this post:
Create a Link