Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

Blogstream  >  Politics  >  Blog
 
Poly Ticks


 You gotta love this one
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yYlzX2ZOLM

Posted by Cyberian at 6:04 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 McCain in the middle
 

The middle is beginning to look pretty good

After every vote is counted in November (this could take a while in Florida), if Obama isn't the President-Elect, then every person who didn't vote for him will be labeled a racist by the left. The next big thing to happen will be Michael Moore filming a highly publicized documentary about the racist Republican Party.  But, I can live with that.

Now consider the consequences if Obama does win.  It's certainly no big secret that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reed are all far to the left, not a moderate amongst them.  We must remember that they are the ones who will be running the government if Obama is elected. This should be of great concern not just to conservatives and Republicans, but to moderates and independents as well.  Swings left or right in our Government are normal and to be expected, but swings to the far left or far right doesn’t truly serve or reflect the American people.

When McCain won the Republican nomination I was somewhat disappointed that someone more conservative didn't win.  However, the real beauty of a McCain presidency is that the government would be balanced.  Even the most optimistic Republican doesn’t expect the Democrats to lose control of Congress. That means the executive branch would be controlled by a Republican who has a history of working in a bipartisan manner with the Democrats who would control the legislative branch. This is the sort of practical reasonable government that turns down the volume on the bitterly partisan rhetoric of the last couple decades, and gives America a government more reflective of acceptable to the vast majority of the American people.

The bottom line is, if we don't rally behind the only alternative left to us, this country will become a true Socialist State.

 

Posted by Cyberian at 1:11 PM - 6 Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 I received this in an e-mail
 

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'

George W's war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perh aps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis</ SPAN>, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

WHAT? Were you thinking of someone else?

 

Posted by Cyberian at 2:00 PM - 1 Comment   Add a Comment  
 
 Follow-up
 

I found this in-depth article on same subject as my previous post.

 
Secrets Are No Fun for Unions

Scott Bensing
Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Who are you voting for this fall? The answer to that question is none of my business. In fact, it is a fundamental American right to have your vote be as private as you wish. Unfortunately, Democrats and their financiers, Big Labor, want to abolish a worker’s fundamental, American right to a secret ballot.

Why are they doing this? Maybe because Democrats have openly admitted they owe their 2006 electoral success to Big Labor and have promised the elimination of the secret ballot as a return on investment. That is why during this Congressional session every Democrat in the House and Senate voted to abolish the secret ballot. Thankfully, Republicans in the Senate were able to stop this disastrous bill.

This is a moment when hyperbole is unnecessary. This unprecedented power grab by Big Labor and the willingness of Democrats to ignore such a fundamental American right threatens the very nature of our system of government.

Unions already spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections. Imagine what they could do when entire industries are unwillingly coerced into joining a union and forced to pay dues – dues earmarked for the next election cycle.

In fact, alleged coercion for political gain is already occurring. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Department of Justice to investigate the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The basis for the request centers on this fact:

“The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in ‘local union funds’ equal to the ‘deficiency’ plus a 50% penalty.” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/08)

Can you name any other company or organization that could compel its membership to fund political organizations that rank and file membership may or may not agree with? As I said earlier, hyperbole is not needed on this issue. With November approaching, a potential Barack Obama administration promising to “play some offense for organized labor” and Democrats’ determination to eliminate the secret ballot, the need for a robust Republican presence in the Senate has never been greater.

So important is eliminating the secret ballot to Big Labor that a few weeks ago Democrat Senate candidates, Reps. Tom Allen (ME), Tom Udall (NM), and Mark Udall (CO), along with Kay Hagan (NC), Bruce Lunsford (KY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Jeff Merkley (OR) all scurried to Chicago for a meeting when Union bosses beckoned. The three current Congressmen already voted to eliminate the secret ballot and likely, along with the other Democrat candidates in Chicago, pledged to eliminate secret ballot elections in the future as well.

Are such promises to Big Labor leaders representative of the will of the people? Absolutely not! Amazingly, Democrats don’t seem to care that their agenda flies in the face of public opinion. More than 85% of Americans oppose eliminating the secret ballot and even the media, across all political spectrums, has editorialized against such legislation.

 “Abuses of workers’ true wishes not only are potential, they are guaranteed. There is no ‘free choice’ in this travesty, clearly a payoff to union leaders who contributed so handsomely to the Democrats’ November election victory.” (The San Francisco Examiner, 02/16/07)

 “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to hold a vote this Wednesday on perhaps the most unpopular element of the Democratic agenda… Under the so-called card-check bill, a company would no longer have the right to demand a secret-ballot election to certify a union, thus stripping 140 million American workers of the right to decide in private whether to organize.” (The Wall Street Journal, 6/18/07)

Democrats continue to oppose the will of the people, instead working to reward Big Labor. In fact, this issue is so far out of the mainstream that even ultra-liberal former Democrat Senator and Vice Presidential candidate George McGovern has publicly opposed this legislation.

Additionally, elimination of the secret ballot will be the second payback for Big Labor, since Democrats already cut funding to the federal agency tasked with investigating union corruption. Without Republicans in the Senate to stop them, what fundamental right will Democrats eliminate next at the behest of their financial supporters?

This fall when you go to the polls, the choice is clear (and private); the choice is Republican.

 

Posted by Cyberian at 1:31 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 Labor Unions
 

I am neither praising labor unions nor condemning them.  They have been responsible for both good and bad.   But regardless of your opinion of unions, there is one thing I am sure you will agree with me on.  The union vote should be by a secret ballot.

Well, the Labor Unions and the Democrats (except for McGovern) want to change from a secret ballot, to an open vote.  In fact, Senator Obama introduced a bill to do just that, and if elected, he intends to make sure his bill becomes law.

The Unions have always wanted an open vote.  They know membership would increase because people would be afraid of reprisals if they voted against the union.

Now I understand why the Labor Unions donated so much to Obama's campaign.

 

Posted by Cyberian at 3:47 PM - 3 Comments   Add a Comment  
 
Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
   
  About Me
Author: Cyberian
From Oklahoma, USA
 
My: Profile  Bio  Guestbook 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors
Have you checked out the new Blogstream site,

Question Stream.com?

Many Blogstream members are there already! Quotes from members: "It's like blog lite!" -- "I like the instant gratification!" -- "Stop spectating, get in the game!"

If you have not joined in, you are really missing out!

Send Free
Just Saying Hi
Greeting Cards
at

Greeting Cards.com


Good Morning


  Recent Posts

  Blogs I Like

  Archives

1262 Visitors