I appologize for not writing lately.  I started work with a new unit and i have been working my behind off.  Anyway, i popped on USliberals.com today to see what crap they are spewing today, and the first article is about the big 3.  I’d like to take some time to again point out the flaws in some of their arguements.

First of all i would like to preface this by saying: Yes, the big 3 were mismanaged.  I agree that those CEOs need to be held accountable for their actions, but we’ll get to that later.

The article also drops that name bomb of Mitt Romney being the type of guy who would love the Big 3 to fail, because it would also mean the downfall of UAW (http://www.uaw.org/).  This is obviously favorable since all republicans salivate at the dissolution of unions…OR NOT.  Republicans love people working, keeping their money, having successful businesses and buying things which contribute to the economy.  Oh i might mention yet again there is no evidence to support their claim.

Two paragraphs later:  The failure of the companies is drawn to be similar to the iraq war?  What?  What the hell do those things have in common? Removing a dictator who murdered millions of people….failing auto companies…..mass genocide….bad management….i think they are pretty much ENTIRELY different.  But the iraq war is linked to the republicans, so this is a rather desperate and lame attempt at linking the downfall of the american auto companies to republicans.  I am offended as a soldier myself that i am being compared to an autoworker.  Not that autoworkers are bad, but our jobs are entirely different and dependent on different things.  Its like saying that forest rangers are similar to army rangers.

Another awesome claim:  That the reason why we have giant cars and trucks with big suspensions is because automakers do it to make money!  No no…they respond to market pressures and demand.  So america started buying bigger cars…so they started making them!  OH NO!  “Supply…demand?  UGH i was a poetry major at berkley i didnt have time for that economic mumba jibbery joo!” – unknown liberal hoser

If i took the time to dissect every thing that this crazy loon Debora White said, id bore the hell out of you.  She claims that the government must punish the CEOs.  Obviously yet again she knows jack about how corporations work.  Ok look, these “corporations” have things called “investors”.  Now these “investors” have an annual board in which they or their representative “votes” on things such as if the CEO should continue to be the CEO.  But you wouldnt know that…cuz you were busy writing about how America is the great satan and should appologize to the world for its existence while being pounded in the ass by the likes of Iran and colombia.  Choke yourself Debora…not with you hand! Mine!

The recent vote For proposition 8 in california is yet another wonderful example of liberal hypocrisy in America, thus highlighting the fact that most liberal arguments can be invalidated with little thought.

California Proposition 8 essentailly states this: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008).  This is the original vote from the people of California.  The original law was approved by the people by a 61% margin.  I may be bad at calculus, but i do remember that if it’s over 50% it’s called a M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y.  And a democracy operates by what?  Majority rules.  This best represents the people by simple math.

The liberal reactionary defense is essentially this: “Equality under the law is a fundamental freedom. Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong. Prop. 8 won’t affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law.” (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/)

But therein lies the hypocrisy.  Equal protection under the law?  What about affirmative action laws?  These laws have the potential to be detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the country.  On June 23rd, 2003 the supreme court upheld the university of michigan’s law school admission policy.  The policy states that the university will admit students based on racial quotas because the harm caused by excluding certain students is outweighed by “having a diverse student body”. 

After first being ruled constitutional, it was ruled unconstituitional, to be appealed and ruled constitutional, and on that day in june, the highest court in the land ruled it constitutional. 

Now lets ask ourselves: “Would i want the insurance lawyer on my side to be the guy (or girl) who got a C+ in insurance policy theory who happened to be black?  Or would i want the white kid who got an A- in the same class to defend me?”  I think we can all agree that in that case, you would take the white guy, even if you were Jesse Jackson.  Does anyone see how this is damaging?  imagine if this was applied to medical schools?  You’d have the asian kid who got a C- in A&P operating on your childs brain because he filled the “quota” instead of the white kid who got a B+.

Therefore the liberals contridict themselves.  they want homosexuals to be able to marry because of equal protection, but they dont want the white kid from kansas who studied his ass off to get into Yale because he doesnt bring as much diversity to the student body as the hispanic kid from kansas.

That’s horseshit, and you know it!