Free Republic

I'm voting Democrat because I know what the authors of the Constitution MEANT to say, even more so than they did. After all, they were all rich white men who owned slaves, what do they know about running a country?

I'm voting Democrat, because I believe the only way to make Americans responsible consumers is for the government to tax them into oblivion, and do whatever they want with the money.

"Frank Brimsek
Born: Eveleth, Minn.
Position: Goalie
Teams: Boston Bruins (1938-43, 1945-49); Chicago Blackhawks (1949-50)
Statistics: 514 games; 252 wins; 40 shutouts; 2.70 goals against average

No American ever had the immediate impact upon the league that Brimsek made the moment he pulled on a Bruins uniform.

Replacing four-time Vezina Trophy winner Cecil (Tiny) Thompson in the Boston net, Brimsek blanked the Montreal Canadiens 1-0 in his NHL debut Dec. 1, 1938, posting a pair of three-shutout streaks during his first 10 NHL starts, earning Brimsek the nickname Mr. Zero.

Despite a career that was interrupted by service in the U.S. Coast Guard during World War II, Brimsek won another Stanley Cup with Boston in 1940-41 and was a nine-time NHL All-Star choice. In 1966, he was the first American-born and trained player to be enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame."

Great American - served his country and shut out the Canadiens.

Fred on the Assassination:
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/fred-on-benazir-bhuttos-assassination/

Just in case anyone wanted to see it for themselves.

"'A Real American Hero' -- is a tough sell..."

...despite the fact that G.I. Joe toys are sold all around the world successfully and movies about U.S. soldiers do well internationally.

In any event, there are parts of the world where it's an issue, like Western Europe, and parts where it isn't, like the U.K., Australia and Asia.

Maybe the movie should be set during WWII and we'll see how much Western Europe minds a movie about the American military.

I have heard Newt speak and it is a sight to behold. However, I don’t see him as running for President. I think what he is doing right now is trying to interject his rhetoric into the republican campaign and essentially he is running for VP (and I think his favored candidate is Rudy). The one time I saw Newt live, he mentioned two candidates: he blasted McCain over immigration and campaign finance reform and he praised Rudy for his social security and health care plans (which sound a lot like what Bush was never able to accomplish). I think it would be a strong ticket.

One current thing I attribute to Newt is the use of the adjective “Islamic” when discussing terrorism. It’s a small change, but a step in the right direction and Newt was the first major Republican associated with the 2008 presidency I heard use it. Now they all do.

Another thing Newt brings to a ticket is the young vote - believe it or not. People my age (18-25) don’t know about his baggage and could really care less about it. In college classrooms, Newt Gingrich is praised by people on both sides of the aisle for his intellect, ability to communicate, and commitment to make government more efficient. While I don’t see him as an electable president, those qualities could make him an effective VP (which do not forget acts as President of the Senate which could be a great role for him given his stances on government spending and government bureaucracy).

Anyway, whatever, I’m still waiting for Fred to run before I decide what I’m doing in the NJ primary.

By selecting Ron Paul as a vice presidential running mate, you will keep him from running as an Independent third party candidate that spoils a close race against the eventual Democratic nominee. There have been many instances of libertarians running for office and spoiling a win for the Republican party in an attempt to move the party platform.

I have thought about this, and wouldn't Ron Paul probably pull more away from the democrat candidate then the republican? Assuming Hillary wins, Ron Paul is the only legitimate antiwar vote and thus many young people and far left would be a fan (they would also be bigger fans of his libertarian views on social issues as they relate to government interference). I don't think a republican gets hurt by adding another antiwar candidate.

Having taken several anthropology classes in my college career, I think I may be able to shed some light on the liberal ethic that would state Judeo-Christian practices are incompatible with a secular modern state while Muslim practices must be accommodated for.

Anthropologists (and liberal academics) believe in the existence of three worlds: the first or developed world, the second or developing world, and the third or undeveloped world. We as Americans of course belong to the first world. Despite the fact that the first world has given to liberals all the luxuries they enjoy, their own moral relativism still leads them to believe that those in the third world are entitled to stay in the third world. After all, who are we as members of the first world to say that our way of life is superior to those in the third world such as the indigenous peoples of South America or the tribal peoples of Africa and the Pacific Islands? Furthermore, liberals believe it is their duty to go out of their way to maintain the supposed purity of these kind of societies, even if they adhere to codes and commit acts which do not mesh with that of modern society. How then does this ethic apply to the Muslims and furthermore what makes it so much more dangerous?

No one in modern times has done a better job of playing the victim of the first world than the Muslims and in particular Arab-Muslims. Despite their vast oil revenues, universities, and relatively modern major cities - their cries of abuse by the first world going back to the Crusades until today’s War in Iraq has placed Muslim extremism in a very favorable place given the naivete and “kindness” of the modern liberal. Thus our accommodation of the Muslim religious practices and Arab society within American society is seen by liberals not as encouraging an Abrahamic religion in the public square, but rather an exercise in multiculturalism. It is a particularly stark course of action because others in the third world are happy with remaining in their current location and merely ask not to be disturbed while the Muslims are using this liberal ethic to transplant their own society on top of the modern world.

Are we afraid of violence if we don’t comply with their wishes? I’m sure that’s some of it. But I would argue the attitude of multiculturalism as the liberals have wrongly applied it to the Muslims has caused the perfect storm we see today.

I don’t know how I feel about such statements but I will say this: you’ll notice that protestants and catholics in Europe did not poor into the streets blowing up each other’s churches.

This made my day. Killing two birds with one stone (abortionists and unions).

With the way Putin has been acting, we may need this guy again.

So does the People’s Republic of New Jersey as Russia.

Five bucks says Bush pardons these guys before Scooter Libby.

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.

Odd, when Bush's approval rating is down to because of his handling of the war in Iraq, it's every other news story. Yet, when it is because of his clear support for a bill the American people do not want, the media falls quiet. You know something is wrong when the media is being nice to Bush (well, except for talk Radio of course).

So, what is the Republican Party about to do? They're about to back a bill that is so unpopular with their own base that it will significantly hurt fund raising, lead to primary challenges for senators up for reelection, and will probably peel off millions of potential voters who will stay home or vote for third party loser candidates in protest, rather than vote for the GOP.

Not to mention create a base of 12 million new Democrat voters. California will never be a red state again thanks to the amnesty of the 80's - and now we may do the same thing to Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. This will mean the death of the Republican party.

The GOP seems to be under the impression that conservatives have a duty to support their policies and decisions in office. This is exactly backwards and is the sort of thinking you'd expect from Feudal lords, not from American politicians.

That impression the GOP seems to be under also reeks of Soviet Communist politics. Not surprising I suppose if you're trying to legalize 12 million people (eventually 65 million after family and friends get to come too according to the Heritage Foundation) that will vote on populist lines. When party-first politics could mean the end of your party, its time to go in a different direction.

I guess she’ll be the first woman to travel to Mars too, cause if she wants to see all the places currently experiencing global warming she’ll have to go there too.

Maybe we can convince her to stay there too!