These Debates Are Turning Into a Joke

I love my friends:)

Notice Michelle Obama clapping as the moderator interrupts Romney in her husband's defense despite the fact that the moderator is supposed to be unbiased and you are not supposed to make any congratulatory or detracting sounds during the debates? Classyyyyyyy.

While finding someone with absolutely no political bias is tricky if not impossible, it is obvious that the Commission on Presidential Debates was barely even trying to find someone who fit that criteria. "To hell with looking for a media figure lacking a blatant liberal bias", I imagine they said.
Jim Lehrer (PBS): Liberal
Martha Raddatz (ABC): Liberal (Obama was a guest at her 1991 wedding and the groom, now ex husband and former classmate of Obama, is the chairman of the FCC)
Candy Crowley (CNN): Liberal
Bob Schieffer (CBS): Liberal

Jim Lehrer was ineffectual and as a consequence was verbally run over by the two much more vigorous candidates. Martha Raddatz allowed the round table format debate to turn into something like The View with Biden playing the role of Joy Behar and Ryan the Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Raddatz was for all intents and purposes Barbara Walters. This is an oversimplification of course, but it denotes the bitch-fest Raddatz allowed the debate to devolve to.
Then there was Candy Crowley. Honestly going into this I had barely heard of this woman, but knowing she came from CNN, my hopes weren't high for her moderation.
Even with the little hope I had instilled in this woman, she failed miserably. It is not the responsibility or the right of the moderator to interject her opinion on a matter or to correct a debater for facts that she deems to be incorrect, but interject she did. Everyone was waiting for this debate to see how the candidates would debate on the matter of Libya but once it was brought up, she couldn't help but to get involved.  Romney pointed out that it had taken 14 days for this administration to acknowledge to September 11th attack in Benghazi as an act of terror with nothing to do with an inflammatory video. She inappropriately countered with the assertion that he called it 'an act of terror'. In the post debate she admitted that Romney's main point was correct but she thought in the way he went about saying it he made it wrong. Um none of your beeswax lady. You're the moderator. If his point was not factual, which it was, it was Obama's job to expose that.
However these candidates answered in regards to questions on Libya, foreign policy and national security was sure to make waves, but Following one week of ineffective moderation and one week of biased moderation, it would have been prudent for the CPD to at least try to make sure their latest moderator was a touch less obvious in her bias. Here's hoping Bob Scheffer is able to be a little more subtle next week.

Also, as some of you may have noticed, I no longer accept comments. This is mainly due to people like this being the main commenters:

Hollywood's Obsession with Objectifying Women

The idea of objectifying women generally is in regards to the exploitation of their bodies for sexual purposes, but I would venture to say the liberal left could be charged as being equally guilty of objectification. They are using women and their bodies as a divisive political issue and as a means to attack the Republican party with oversimplifications, scare tactics and out right lies. Currently, 46% of women consider the economy to be their most important issue going into this election. Less than half of that number, 20%, consider healthcare to be the most important. While both issues are of great importance, the former is a concept that most in Hollywood are not capable of fully grasping. However, Hollywood women do apparently care a great deal about women's rights as we have all heard ad nauseam. Today this jewel of an advertisement for the Obama campaign was released:

First of all, having Eva Longoria as a California Co-chair for you reelection campaign makes about as much sense as having Sylvia Plath be your life coach.

Second, let's break down why these women would be better served statutory raping teenage gardeners on prime time soaps and being felt up by Isaac Mizrahi.

Mitt Romney is for ending money to Planned Parenthood:Scare tactic. Mitt Romney has said that if elected president, he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood. This is true, but in February the House had already voted to cut federal funding to PP (240-185) with 7 Republicans voting against it and 10 democrats voting for cutting funding. Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using federal funding on abortion services, so the cut would effect family planning and birth control services. The big rub most people find is that this would effect many women's ability to receive preventative cancer screenings. The following chart from Planned Parenthood shows that 70% of their business covers the treatment of/ testing for STD's and contraception. Only 1/6 of the entire business covered by PP is cancer screenings.  Federal funding does make up 1/3 of its total revenue but a company that also receives state and local funding, private donations and is partnered with organizations such as Susan G Komen in addition to requiring payment (at reduced cost) for services should, if managed responsibly, be able to more than cover breast cancer screenings. (Susan G Komen donates an average of $680,000 a year to the organization but when they cut funding to them, PP received $400,000 from donors in two days and then Komen decided to once again donate to them.) As far as the abortions are concerned, true it only comprises 3% of their total business, but in that 3% were 329,445 abortions. I do not view abortion as in general an issue of women's health. There are cases, select cases in which abortion needs to be an option, but being irresponsible is not one of them. Suck it up and be a grown up. If you are mature enough to have sex you're mature enough to deal with the consequences. Side note: Next person who says to me "I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion" gets hit. No one is saying you are chasing pregnant women around with coat hangers...

And just because the whole abortion issue really gets to me, in Texas you can get an abortion up to 15 weeks. This is what a baby looks like at 15 weeks:

Yeahhhh definitely not a baby or anything! I absolutely loathe Planned Parenthood.

He said he'd overturn Roe v Wade: Incorrect. According to his campaign website, Mitt Romney's official position is that "He will protect the right of healthcare workers to follow their conscience in their work." In other words, if you are a private doctor who would like to perform abortions, he would not work to stop your doing that. Abortions under Romney would still be provided by doctors in practices which do not receive federal funding. The price at these locations would be up to the doctor. With an issue as divisive as abortion does it not make sense to not force people through taxes to fund an institution in anyway that performs abortions, even if that money does not directly fund abortions? This assertion is incorrect and a scare tactic.

Republicans are trying to redefine rape: Oversimplification. This is obviously in reference to Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin saying that according to some doctors he's spoken with, legitimate rape causes a woman's body to shut down and prevent her form getting pregnant. This statement has been condemned by people on the left and right alike. Mitt Romney called the comment 'inexcusable' and suggested that Akin 'exit the race'. You cannot generalize an entire party by the thoughtless comments of one wayward member. If that were the case, Biden would have long ago completely screwed the democrats. 

Forcing women to undergo invasive ultrasounds: Scare tactic and oversimplification.This is in reference to laws in many states, including Texas, which require a doctor prior to performing an abortion to perform an ultrasound on the woman, show her the fetus and describe its size and any visible limbs and organs. Abortions rights activists have likened the placing the probe inside of the woman (the same probe used for ultra sounds for pregnancies in general and as a means to diagnose a number of medical issues) to rape. Obnoxious much? The goal in this is to show the woman what is inside of her so she can make an informed decision about the life she is ending and not  in the future realize the traumatic consequences of an uninformed decision. It's not a mole you are getting rid of, it is a life and anyway to make the mother more aware of this, lest they come to regret it down the road, should not be considered bad. 

They end this by urging you to vote for Barack Obama as OBVIOUSLY he knows/cares more about the vajay than Mitt Romney. Whatever. Apparently women are not buying this as being the leading issue in this election because as was stated above, women consider the economy to be their top issue this election. In fact in swing states Romney is currently getting a huge boost from women. As in virtually every other area, the Republican party, in regards to women's health, is in favor of personal responsibility. Want an abortion? Pay for it. See the life inside of you and be resolute in your desire to end it.  As for the cancer screening, to say that federally defunding planned parenthood would keep women from receiving cancer screenings ignores the massive amounts of money PP already receives from other sources, including the patients themselves for a variety of services. 

The dems can say and do whatever they want, today the Gallup poll showed Romney pulling ahead by 5 points. What whatttt!:)

Despite my views, the following is HILARIOUS and SO true:

Big Week of Missteps for the Obama Campaign

Number Five:
Las Vegas Review Journal Endorses Mitt Romney

While not technically the fault of the Obama campaign per se, it does speak volumes that any publication coming from Las Vegas would prefer a conservative candidate. I mean seriously, it is "Sin City". Prostitution is legal there, gambling a plenty, booze flowing like the Hoover Dam just burst. Why would a city such as Las Vegas endorse a Mormon who is probably aghast at a lot of what goes on there? That is it right there. He is Mormon. Thanks to stringent laws in Utah which prosecute for polygamy, many Mormons have moved to neighboring Nevada, namely Las Vegas. This is because Nevada is less inclined to prosecute them for their lifestyle choices than Utah because let's face it, LV has way bigger problems to worry about. Next to a kid with a cracked out stripper mother, a kid with 7 moms in prairie skirts is doing pretty good. As Nevada is a swing state that went blue in the last election, Obama should be worried about losing it (Florida ain't looking too good either...)

Number Four: 
Obama campaign accused of threatening NAACP official

Whether of not this is true remains to be seen, but the leader of the South Suburban branch of Chicago's NAACP David Lowery has filed a police report against the campaign for allegedly receiving threats. Lowery has stated publicly that he does not support the president as he does not believe he has done what he promised for the black community. He says in a recent phone conversation a campaign official told him, "You know what? I know everything about you. We've been watching you, and since you don't support Obama, we'll deal with you." The campaign responded by saying there was a miscommunication between the official and Lowery.

Number Three:
Obama campaign found to be soliciting illegal contributions

In order to donate to an election in the United States directly or indirectly, you must be a citizen. However, the Government Accountability Institute has found that the Obama administration has been illegally soliciting foreign donors via social media outlets. 20% of visitors to the Obama campaign owned my.barackobama.com  "originated form foreign locations"and at no point are donors on said website asked if they are legally allowed to contribute to an American campaign. It goes against federal law to "solicit, accept or receive" donations directly or indirectly from a foreign national so we shall see how this plays out in the coming days.

Number Two:

$5 trillion number inaccurate

Taken from Snoop Dogg's Instagram

The Obama campaign concedes that their allegation of Romney's $5 trillion tax-cut, a point on which a large part of their campaign is based, is not true. Note this is CNN, a network that while more balanced than Fox or MSNBC, still tends to lean liberal.

Number One biggest gaffe of the week:

Obviously, the debate from hell. 

As of today, thanks in large part to Obama's dismal debate performance on Thursday, Gallup is showing a 5 point boost for the Governor. Obama was sitting at a 50-45 lead, a gap that has since been closed leaving both candidates at 47%. Rasmussen Report similarly shows each candidate receiving 48% of the vote in polling. It is clear that the lead had by Obama pre-debate has narrowed if not having closed due to his Thursday night performance. Since then, he has been on a whirlwind delayed comebacks tour as he comes up with clever quips to put Romney in his place.

Politics Can Be Funny

In the interest of lazy Sunday, I give you some of my favorite politically themed skits (mostly from SNL):
 

President Bush Reacts to Osama Bin Laden's Death with Will Ferrell from Will Ferrell

 And of course, no list of politically themed skits would be complete without:

Ron Paul and The Great Debate

Anyone who watched the debate last night can agree it was a classic case of the tortoise and the hare. The main stream media and even Romney's own camp downplayed the likelihood of Romney doing well in this debate as he is not the great orator that Obama is. The arrogant Obama clearly did not see Romney as a worthy opponent and because of this came off as unprepared. He seemingly sought to play it safe as he currently has a slight edge in generally every poll. He played it so safe in fact, that he spent the entire night playing defense to Romney's relentless attacks on the last three and a half years and Obama's vision for the next four.

The anchors and analysts of MSNBC were in a state of panic as they attempted to spin a dismal performance into a positive for the party, but even Obama's greatest cheerleaders found themselves  incapable of doing so. It has been widely stated that on all accounts, Romney owned Obama last night. He had the facts and figures, oratory skills, debate competency and vigor that Obama lacked. Romney alluded to his desire to do away with PBS, the home channel of the moderator right to his face. He gave himself a degree of likability in his proclaiming his love of Big Bird.

What does this mean? Currently, polling on who won the debate shows Americans predominantly thought Romney won. How the debate effected voters opinions on candidates is still unknown as there has yet to be a substantial amount of definitive post debate polling on the issue.

Next up, the VP debate. Let the bloodbath begin... Mwahahahahaha

Sorry for you little baby ears, but I'm not going to mince words. If you vote for Ron Paul under the guise of "wanting what's best for America", you're an idiot.

America currently has a two party system, democrats and republicans. Hate to break it to you, but this will not be the election that brings in a third party or ousts one of the two main parties. There is no end in sight for the two party system.

While as a libertarian I like Ron Paul, he does not have a shot in hell at winning. His refusal to formally step down and ask his followers to endorse Mitt Romney for the sake of getting Obama out of the White House in all honesty makes me question his character. Ron Paul forsook his customary party, the Libertarian Party, for the Republican party believing that by going with one of the two  main parties he would have a better shot at a legitimate nomination. However, in the Republican primaries, Romney obtained the votes of 1,462 of the delegates, Santorum 234 votes, Gingrich 137 and Paul only 122. While the number of votes he received is not a lot less than the number Gingrich received, Romney received nearly 12 times as many votes as Paul. (These were all hard counts) Since his loss, Paul has been the only primary candidate, including those who did not make it to the official GOP primary, (Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Roemer, Huntsman) to not fully endorse Romney.

Anyone with a legitimate desire to get Obama out of the White House would have asked their followers to endorse the Republican party's official candidate once they were no longer in the running. But not Ron Paul! Ron Paul does not care about getting Obama out of the White House or the GOP reclaiming lost ground. No, Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul and about getting himself elected. Despite his aligning himself with the Republican party, he has made it clear that he does not care for party unity and has this created a small faction of americans rallying behind their fallen angel.

Lat me be clear, a vote for Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson or really any third party candidate) is a vote for Barack Obama. As of today, polling still shows Obama with a slight lead (this is due in large part to what is thus far a lack of post debate polling) and Romney cannot afford to have what would otherwise most likely be a Republican voter writing in another name.

Most of my Facebook friends touting the Ron Paul 2012 agenda reside in Texas, a state which can afford a small number of voters and their dumbass-ery as there is no way Texas will go blue. However, swing states cannot afford this. For anyone who does not fully understand, this is how the electoral college works:
It is what is called an indirect election. What happens is that based on congressional voting membership (435 representatives- House, 100 senators- Senate and 3 from the District of Columbia),  there are 538 'electors' who will, based on the popular vote of the state from which they are elected, will vote. (Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the constitution details how many electors each state gets. Each elector is technically expected to look at how his or her state voted and vote the same. Forty eight states operate under the 'winner take all' system in which the winner in the state receives all electoral votes form the state. However, Maine and Nebraska have what is called the 'district system'. What the district system says is that the candidates that win the state receive two votes and all other votes cast go by district. For instance, in Obama won Maine at large, he would automatically receive two votes, however, the remaining votes could be divided if Romney won districts that Obama did not. Confused yet? Me too. As far as the 'winner take all sates', it is entirely legal for electors to not vote in accordance with the popular vote of their state which causes a great deal of frustration in the American voter. Texas for this election has gained 4 more electoral votes form the last election (34 in 2008, 38 in 2012) which is great as Texas is a definitively Red State so that there is a guaranteed 38 votes.

Now, on to why a vote for Paul or any third party candidate, is idiotic. According to the Rasmussen report, as of polling done predominantly pre-debate last night, Obama has 49% of voters, Romney 47%, 3% are undecided and 1% are for a third party candidate. As Paul's positions are generally considered conservative (excluding in terms of the war, legalization) it is safe to assume those voting for Paul would vote Republican if they had to choose between Obama or Romney. Because of this, you are losing a chink of voters form Romney, Obama is largely not losing anything by your Ron Paul vote. In fact, he is gaining an edge. Take for instance the swing ste of Florida. This is a complete fabrication and not based on any numbers, but say Obama gets 50% of the vote, Romney 49% and Paul/ 3rd party candidate receives 1%. Technically the expectation would be that the electors form Florida would vote Obama because that is how the popular vote went, even with such a minuscule margin. Because of those going with the third party, Romney would lose that state. (The chance of a margin this small happening are like slim to none.)

It is imperative that we oust Barack Obama from the White House and to do this, party unity is a must. It is reckless and irresponsible for Ron Paul to not advocate for party unity in the face of such a close election.

Not to be a fatalist, but a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

Legalize/ Decriminalize

Ohhhhhhhh my Godddddddd Hunter Parrish let's get married now and have all kinds of beautiful, blonde babies...

The other day I was talking with an old friend on a WIDE range of topics, but as he seems to be the male equivalent of me in nearly every way, the conversation eventually turned to politics. While both of us consider ourselves to be devout conservatives, he made the remark that I was "a bad republican". At first I was somewhat taken aback, but then I began realizing he was kind of right. Most of my friends would be shocked that anyone could say this about me or that I would admit it about myself. I mean seriously:

That took me all of 3 seconds to find on my Facebook. I am solidly in the fold of the right, except on a couple of issues. First of all:

I LOVE the gays. Love 'em. Love each other, get married be as miserable as straight people twenty years in. I like boys, why shouldn't you?

Secondly, and perhaps more surprisingly, I am for the legalization of marijuana. I cannot personally tell you what the draw to the stuff is or why someone would want to walk around life stoned out of their mind, but it's a plant. The idea that lighting a plant on fire and inhaling it is illegal and that people are killed over it just blows my mind. LEGALIZE it. For one thing, the stoners will finally shut up, something I know we all desperately want. Secondly, tax it. There's a sin tax on alcohol, candy, gambling, cigarettes, etc... make those pot heads pay a little tax. Lifting the prohibition on marijuana would save the government approximately $7.7 billion a year in prohibition enforcement and would raise $2.4 billion a year if taxed normally or $6.2 billion if taxed as alcohol and tobacco are (much more likely). Third, other synthetic forms of marijuana are showing up in the hands of our youth and having dire consequences. Ever heard of the substance K2? Yeah it's been known to cause myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) in some cases and is now largely illegal in the United States.  Would you not rather people were smoking a plant and hitting up Taco Bell than having heart attacks from using the synthetic form of a plant which according to the bible:

The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang: marijuana) is one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" created and blessed by God on the third day of creation, "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12)

So..... yeah. Apparently marijuana isn't THAT bad. However, I feel it is my moral obligation to remind you that regardless if and when it is legalized, "It is one thing to spark up a doobie and get laced at parties, but it is quite another to be fried all day. Do you see the distinction? "

Does my advocating for the legalization of marijuana primarily on the basis of its economic advantages make me a bad republican? No, most would say it makes me an ideal republican: seeking the economic exploitation of nature. Whatever, hippie. However, this next statement kind of does make me a bad republican:

I think we should decriminalize the possession and consumption of all drugs. 

I know, Nancy Reagan would die if she heard me say this. Personally, I'm just saying no, but I'm all for your right to say yes. Blame it on my being more of a libertarian than a true conservative, but I think you have the right to succumb to social darwinism if you feel so inclined. 

Basically, I believe that what has been implemented in Portugal is a much more logical response to drug possession. In the face of swelling prison populations due to drug related crimes, the Portuguese government sought to replace prison time for small amounts of narcotics  with drug rehabilitation. A few years out and the results are even better than expected. The number of teens beginning to use has gone down, there are fewer new cases of HIV as people are not sharing dirty needles and more than twice as many people are seeking help for addiction than before.

Currently the United States is mostly ignoring a burgeoning problem in the south as our borders are repeatedly and violently being breeched by drug cartels. Americans are dying over the importation and distribution of drugs and the decriminalization of such products would do a great deal to curtail such unnecessary violence. Putting a heroin addict in prison for a balloon (I've seen Pulp Fiction:) ) does nothing to help them fight their addiction. Drug rehabilitation rather than criminal action being taken against the user would do much more for the person and society as a whole.

*I cannot stress enough I am advocating for the decriminalization not the legalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.. There is a big difference. 

Here is a few clips of some typically Hollywood liberal TV shows about drugs that I actually enjoy. Weeds may or may not be the best show ever created.