Wednesday, November 7, 2012

At what point did we stop respecting the president of the United States no matter who that may be? It used to be we as a people respected the office and the person who held it no matter what and backed and supported them. But it seems to me now we are more divided over party lines than ever, people don't seem to care about the issues and truth as much as they care about wether or not their candidate was/is the person who is in office. If that person is not of ones party then they are not going to agree with them no matter what and are going to go against them on all issues even if it is something that is in the best interest for our country. It makes me sad for us all.
 sorry, just get a little frustrated. I don't believe in publicly bashing the president no matter whom that may be. And some of the things I have heard this election year has really made me sad. Our last congress got less done than any other congress in history due to (I believe) quibbling over party lines. And if birthers and conspiracy theorist had but even half of their energy into working out and coming up with comprimises on the problems that matter maybe more would have gotten done in the last four years. Some of the stuff my kids have come home saying about President Obama have just been outrageous, and ya know these kids are getting it from their parents. do people really believe that President Obama had something to do with 9/11? That was one of the crazier things I heard. unbelievable, lies wont solve our contries problems, hard work coming together and truth will.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

obama ss number

so apparently birthers are now convinced that obama has a fake ss#. because his was not only processed out of conn. but it was precessed after his first job, and as everyone knows you must have a ss# to have a job.
ok round 1:  obamas father was living in conn. at the time. obama was in indonesia, so if his father requested it for him it would have gone through conn.
round 2: his first job was when he was 13 which would not have been exactly legal for the company he worked for, therefore they most likely did not ask him for a ss#. and if they had him on record at all they were probably using a fake # to make it legit on paper. shame baskin robbins not obama in that case.
now that we got that settled can we please move on to more pressing matters at hand.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

the fda tries again

the fda has decided that its anti-smoking campaign is not working and that they need to 
step up their game. so their new strategy is they will take over the top
third of packaging instead of just the side, in order to put pictures on the packs
designed to scare people into quitting smoking.
what i want to know is why the fda continually singles out smokers.
 i don't see pictures being put on beer cans, wine bottles or other alcohol 
related products. i am willing to hazard a guess
that more people die every year and more money is spent on alcohol 
related issues than cigarette related issues. is it just because smoking is not as socially 
acceptable as drinking is anymore? and that lobbyists 
for alcohol companies are not shunned (if they even
need lobbyists) i don't think we are in danger of ever going through
prohibition again because drinking is seen as acceptable.
i hate the argument that "i don't like smelling cigarette smoke its gross" well ya
know what i don't like driving on the roads with people who have been 
drinking or dealing with inebriated people on the beach and in stores and restaurants. 
i am pretty certain that alcohol fuels a lot of crimes while
 smoking does not. i'm not saying get rid of alcohol instead or also,
i'm just saying that it seems very prejudicial against a group of people
who really aren't doing anything wrong. and
ignoring a much larger group of people who are.
don't get me wrong i think a lot of the sides of this issue have issues.
the peeps who also cry foul that the tobacco companies are at fault
for making them addicted to smoking are also laughable. every individual who 
smokes made/makes a conscious decision to light
every cigarette. everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions
and quit looking for someone else to blame.
and this anti-southren theory, i don't even know where to start on 
that one. why would the government have an
anti-southren campaign? i really do not understand the 
thinking behind this one, so i cannot put forth alternate
reasoning as to why this is a fallacy. only laugh that the theory exists at
all. i have lived in the south, part of my family is from the deep south,
and today is the first time i have heard of the 
anti-southren conspiracy theory. haha (sorry could not 
help that one)  
am i the only one who feels this way? is there anyone left who
is able to look at issues for what they are and
not for what it will get them or wether or not their 
church/political party agrees with it. i feel sometimes that the majority of
america is acting sheepish (baa) and blindly following
whatever political agenda their party puts in front of them.
i don't know know maybe its just me. 

Sunday, February 27, 2011

are you serious

can glenn beck actually be serious. one would think that he is since he's been going at it for several weeks now. he is verbally attacking a 78 year old lady and telling his listeners that her and her late husband are fundamentally responsible for the collapse of not only the the american economic system but the housing market as well.
one has to wonder what in the world these two people could have done to make such an impact on our way of life and why they have not been stopped.
well it turns out the only thing they did was conduct a study on what percentage of the people who were eligible for welfare were actually on welfare. and then "gasp" they wrote an article outlining a way for these people to apply for welfare. it was their belief that if everyone who was eligible for welfare actually applied for it then the government would take notice of how big a problem poverty really is and would do more about it.
and here is the kicker they did all this 45 years ago.
so i'm guessing old glenn beck perceives that this article that noone has ever heard about that was published 45 years ago is the reason for all of the problems we are having today. he has even gone so far as to call them public enemy number one.
now this 78 year old widow who is a professor at a new york college and the author of a conservative blog is receiving several death threats a day from people who feel she is a terrorist and would like to see her fry.
what i want to know is: number one why has nobody called
him out on this yet; and number two why do his
listeners blindly follow what he says and don't even do their home
work before threatening to kill someone.
is this what our society has come to? we will blindly follow what someone says to the
point of going out of our way to threaten someone without ever stopping to question wether or not there is any validity to the claim? are we that willing to pass the blame on to someone else.
shame on you glenn beck and shame on your listeners.
hmmmm i wonder how many shows someone could get on and point the finger right back at him for hate-mongering and fear-mongering?
maybe its just me and my warped since of justice but i think there should be some repercussions for what he has done and i think that his listeners should be told the real story about these two people.
just sayin'

Sunday, February 6, 2011

What next

So the U.S. just had one of the biggest winter storms in history, australia just had one of the largest typhoons in its history, that volcano in japan erupted six times in a week and egypt is falling apart.
Where are all the dooms-dayers? I have yet to hear anyone declaring that its the end of the world. You'd think they would be all over this. Are they afraid that it may actually be this time and they've discovered that their not as ready as they thought they were? Hmmmm...... I may have to ponder this one further.

Friday, January 7, 2011

politics as usual

i am so fed up with the republican party.when bush was in office it was oh we need to spend more on the middle east, we can't be expected to balance the budget in a time of war,
the fall in the economy was in no way foreseeable and is sometimes normal during wartime.
8 years we listened to all of these reasons why things weren't as bad as they seemed and why
we needed to give up some of our rights in order to become more safe, and why we needed to
spend trillions of dollars on homeland security and the middle east.
now that a democrat is in the office all of sudden they had nothing to do with
any of it. they blame democrats for the economy not bouncing back yet,
they also are going off on a war path about spending, they are saying that there
needs to be away for them to work together more effectively, never mind that last
year when democrats were in the majority they basically said blow it out your ass
when the democrats tried to do the same thing. they are not shutting up about the health
bill being unconstitutional in their view and are threatening to repeal it, and has
anyone reminded them that not that very long ago they themselves came up with a health plan fairly similar, and were upset when it did not go anywhere.
i am so sick and tired of all the hypocrisy and back stabbing, name calling
and selfish behavior that is displayed by these people in Washington
(our so called leaders) on a daily basis.
and what was up with the whole reading of the constitution, and it wasn't even
the full version, key parts and context was left out.  i remember them having the whole media blitz a few years ago about how parts of it were no longer viable
and that certain rights wee going to have to be alienated in order
to have  a safer environment in our country.
it just really chaps my hide. which is my polite way of saying pisses me off!

i wish someone without an agenda other than doing what is best for
everyone could manage to make a difference. but it
would be near imposable with all of the others who would certainly
shut them down.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

shame, shame rio

so here's the deal rio de janero is the site of the next
summer olympics (i don't know whose brilliant idea that
was, but i digress). this new years rio unveiled "their" logo for
these esteemed events. tada here it is.
but, but you say there is nothing wrong with this it looks
just fine some might say (others say its boring anyways).
if only that was all. take a look at this logo:

now you start to see where the problem comes in. not
much is different between these two logos.
you might even say the rio one looks
like an updated version of the telluride one.the red person
is missing and they no longer have legs, the rest is
pretty much the same. you would think (hope) that a big design firm
would have caught something like this before going
public with something as big as an olympic logo.
you would think the olympic committee might have had a look
around to see if the logo was an original before declaring
it to the world. the Brazilian government is saying there is no issue,
no surprise there, of course they don't want to have to recant their logo
to the rest of the world and look like idiots. but i think they are looking
like bigger idiots by not doing anything.
so far the telluride foundation (which is based in denver) has
not come out with a statement regarding the
situation. probably having a lengthy discussion
with their lawyer right at this very moment.
someone had the nerve to say that telluride has no cause
for complaint because their logo looks
similar to this matisse painting.

i thinks there is a much bigger difference between telluride and matisse
than there is between rio and telluride. and while we are on the subject
the matisse painting has probably reached the age to
where it is in the public domain, unless someone
has copyrighted it. so even if telluride had copied the
matisse (which i don't think they did) it would not count as
plagiarism do to the fact that the matisse is in the public domain.