Posts Tagged Politics
Lesser of Two Evils
Posted by clifgriffin in Politics on November 28th, 2007
I have heard the argument made many times that to vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for an evil and is morally wrong, or at a minimum, non-ideal. I have to agree with this concept in principle.
However, I cannot separate a vote from its direct and indirect results.
For instance, Bill Clinton was elected because Ross Perot was able to draw away a healthy percentage of Republican votes. While George Bush was not an ideal candidate, voting against him had the direct effect of electing a morally bankrupt president who made decisions that were bad for America. The indirect effect is that it let Republicans know they needed to stay on message and appeals to their conservative constituents. (Something they did in the midterm elections and consequently won a strong majority in both houses.)
However, if we accept the fact that voting for a lesser of two evils is always wrong because of its direct effects (alllowing a less ideal candidate to win, allowing the involved party to continue undisciplined), how can we isolate ourselves from the responsiblity of the latter decision?
My argument is not for against either position. Both have their meritts. Both have their temporary and long term goals and both have advantages and disadvantages.
I find it difficult to draw a moral line in the sand.
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam In History’
Posted by clifgriffin in Politics on November 12th, 2007
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
Global warming is a lie with absolutely no basis in fact. There is plenty of evidence that global, catastrophic climate change is not happening and that we, as humans, have little to do with the climate. But those who inundate our television and radio airways with suggestions that there is pending doom and that we are responsible are not concerned with the truth.
Political conquests are made through division…dividing people into groups of those for and against and leveraging this to win political offices.
Don’t fall for the hype.
Green Is Something
Posted by clifgriffin in Politically Incorrect, Politics, Rant on November 8th, 2007
Debating global warming is like debating evolution: utterly pointless.
There is so much quasi-science available to construct almost every conceivable argument for and against that facts are nearly useless.
The reason for this is simple: Proponents of impending castostrophic global warming, like proponents of unguided macro-evolution are emotionally driven, not fact driven. It makes perfect sense too.
If you believe that we are the product of natural processes that randomly conspired to form life which eventually beget human life, you are faced with a inescably meaningless existence. While you have the benefit of being autonomous and free to choose your own standard of morality and justice, you have the disadvantage of having nothing to look forward to except for eventual, final degredation into the dirt from whence you came.
Life without purpose is not life at all, as most of us know. How does one find purpose in a meaningless life? By finding a dilemna that is both caused by and solved by humans. This is why man made global warming is so attractive to liberals. Those who spend their days feeling guilty about their own and America’s prosperity, are able to project these feelings onto the entire world.
Global warming will destroy the planet, they say. It’s our fault, they say. But most importantly, only we can stop it.
And therein lies the purpose of their lives. Which brings us to another fascinating quality that liberals share: the desire to force everyone else to act like them.
It is never good enough for a liberal to follow his or her passion in solidarity. Think about it, how many meat eaters are out marching in the streets and writing articles about the dangers of a vegetarian diet and asking congress to ban soy products? None. But there are plenty of vegetarians who would have us belief that beef is toxic and should be criminalized. (and a few that will say that milk causes internal bleeding)
How many suburban drivers are trying to lobby the car industry to eliminate small cars? None. But there are plenty of environmentalist wackos out there trying to stop those who do drive SUVs from being able to.
How many fast food frequenters are trying to make everyone eat fast food? None. But there are tons who are actively trying to shut McDonalds down and add taxes to food considered unhealthy.
The list goes on and on. We should ban incadescent lights. We should force auto makers to make more efficent cars. We should punish oil companies for making too much money in the commodities market. (if you have taken any economics classes, you know how ironic that last sentence is)
Liberals find their meaning in imposing their agendas on the rest of us. Liberals find their meaning in restricting everyone else’s freedom.
When they say that global warming is everyone’s job, they really mean it’s everyone’s fault.
So when I want to vomit everytime I see NBC’s “Green Is Universal” commercial with a helpful tip for how I can save the planet, now you’ll understand why.
Sometimes stopping Satan means voting for a lesser of two evils.
Posted by clifgriffin in Politics, Rant on October 26th, 2007
Government majors love to discuss the moral responsibility of voters.
The dilmena essentially comes down to this: should a voter vote for the person most likely to beat the least desirable candidate, or should they vote for the candidate that is most closely aligned with their belief system?
Those who take the first view argue that it is better to have a somewhat desirable president than a completly undesirable one. Opponents make the sound argument that voting for the populist candidate teaches politicians to be popular, not principled. They say it is better to vote for a 3rd party with no chance of winning than a “lesser of two evils” because no one should vote for an “evil”.
For the most part, I agree with this. It is ideal…that is undeniable. Under any other circumstances I would agree, but alas I cannot apply this logic to this election.
The front running Democratic candidate with the most chance of winning the Democratic primary (and a good chance of being our next president if you believe the polls) is Hillary Clinton.
As many of you know, Hillary Clinton is a close personal friend of Satan. They are so close it is often hard to distinguish them.
Hillary has many ideas for the future of America. They include:
- Free nationalized health care for all (and the taxes to pay for them). This also means the elmination of available private alternatives.
- Legally equivalent domestic partnerships and civil unions for homosexuals.
- Continued protection of a woman’s “right to choose”
- A platform that includes terms like “Prosperity for America” and ideas like giving every person in America 1,000 dollars and every 18 year old 5,000 dollars.
- Welfare expansion and even more entitlements.
- More restrictions on free enterprise in the form of higher taxes and penalties on companies that contribute to so-called global warming.
- Gun control that rivals the communists.
- Much much more….do your own research.
In short, Hillary Clinton is an unabashed socialist and possibly the most dangerous candidate with a real chance to win in history. She is trying to buy the votes of the uninformed with outlandish promises of wealth and protection from the rest of us productive members of society.
She has no actual values, only invented ones. She will say anything that she thinks the American voters want to hear without regard to truth or what is best for America.
She is a Clinton through and through and we can expect the same corruption and deceit.
*catches breath*
You get my point. My point is quite simply this: I will vote for ANY republican who is running against Hillary. Even if that means voting for a Mormon or a Democrat is disguise (Guilliani).
That last sentence is going to shock some of my friends. How could I vote for pro-Abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun control Guilliani?
It’s safe to say that I would not support Guilliani in the primary and that I do not want him to be the next president of America, but in a contest between Guilliani and Clinton I would vote for Guilliani expressly to prevent Clinton from winning.
Why? Because I would rather have a liberal Republican who will be a pacifst on the issue of abortion, gay rights, and gun control than a socialist who will be an activist on those issues. I would rather have abortion uncontested for 4 years than actively protected for 4 years. I would rather have liberal judges elected than socialist ones. I would rather have a liberal president who pretends to be a conservative, than a socialist president who pretends to be a liberal.
This is obviously an extreme example. The election is still more than a year away. I do not expect Guilliani to win the Republican primaries.
Unfortunately, the best choice the Republicans seem to be presenting this year are people who are “not Hillary”. And sadly that is enough for me.
I encourage you to weigh the pros and cons. Is a socialist president worth the satisfation of knowing you voted for the candidate who most represented your beliefs?
Recent Comments