About Me

Name: GRVOORHEES
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Why Rush Limbaugh is Only Right 97.9% of the Time

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Friday, April 03, 2009 6:23:05 AM
Rush Limbaugh is a notable figure in the Conservative realm, he is very entertaining and has a lot of good things to say. The late president, Ronald Reagan even went as far as to call him, "The voice of conservatism". He has been called "the truth detector", "the dr. of democracy" and "the last man standing." I have listened to him for years and am a big fan for the most part, however, I don't drink all of his Kool-Aid, let me explain...

On his show dated 03-16-09, Mr. Limbaugh stated, "I am all for the AIG bailouts, and I am all for the AIG bonuses." When I heard this I couldn't believe my ears, my initial reaction was to assume he was pulling one of his sarcastic spiels using a ridiculous scenario to make a finer point. But that was not the case, on his show he went on to explain that he is a long time customer of AIG and as a result, he has preferred pricing. It all goes back to the "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" saying. Now, Rush may have been standing up for his buddies at AIG who may feed him, but the problem is when he did this segment he was in turn biting the bigger hand that feeds him (ie. the premise of Conservatism that draws listeners into him making him the most listened to talk show host in America). Later in his show he justified all of this by saying, "I figure, why shouldn't taxpayers bailout the company... I'm paying a bunch of people's mortgages out there. Fair's fair, folks." No Rush, right is right and wrong is wrong! You claim to be, "a man of principle" even though bailouts are not Conservative principles. When talking about the $165 million you said, "this is chump change compared to the waste and the fraud that exists daily in the United States government." This is my point, chump change or not it's still a waste of tax dollars and you can't go around supporting the government's growth beyond its Constitutional means and be against it in another. That's not Conservative, that's not right, which is why Rush Limbaugh is documented to be ALMOST always right 97.9% of the time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ask not!

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:11:16 PM
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" The famous words of the late president John F. Kennedy, much different from the verbiage you hear coming from the spouts of modern day Democrats. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas* recently was quoted as saying, "The message today seems more like ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you." What ever happened to our message of liberty? How has our country been so polluted by this mentality of entitlement? These are questions I hear on a very regular basis, now a days everyone feels as though the government owes it to them to provide for their every need. But why is this? I don't believe there is any one person or event that we can point our fingers at but I can tell you now that the Obama administration and most of Washington are not helping the cause of smaller government. There isn't a Democrat politician alive today who would give a speech like JFK's January 20th 1961, Inaugural Address. In fact there are few Republicans who give speeches and have voting records that promote the three tenants we as Conservatives hold so dear. Small government, free markets, individual liberties and thus in the words of Ann Raynd, "We are now moving forward into complete collectivism or socialism, a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody."
-Griff

*The Conservative Declaration is pleased to announce that we have unconfirmed arrangements to interview Justice Thomas on our talk show in late March or early April! Stay tuned for details...

For more great Conservative media including written blogs, video blogs, talk show, issues page and much, much more visit: www.conservativedeclaration.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Jeremy's Meat Problem (pun intended)

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:09:54 AM
Ron Jeremy is one of the biggest icons of the porn industry. He made it into the Guinness Book of World Records for "Most Appearances in Adult Films" and was ranked as number one of AVN's "100 Top Porn Stars of All Time" list. It is no secret that Jeremy has no shame for his body, but there is something else about him that he is equally proud of that you may not have known. Ron Jeremy is a proud advocate for PETA, the animal rights group.

Does anyone else see the irony here? Ron Jeremy, a man who made a career out of treating women like a slab of meat, wants his fellow human beings to treat animals humanly? Where does the word humane come from? It comes from human. Now lets look back at how Mr. Jeremy treats other humans, women in particular. This is just one man' s opinion, but I don't think his code of conduct is very humane, moral, or ethical. Speaking of ethics, isn't that what these self-righteous PETA groupies claim to stand for? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, hello?

Now don't take this the wrong way, I am not a supporter of bans on Mr. Jeremy's industry. I am a Conservative, and I would like to think I am not a hypocrite. Ron Jeremy has every right to video himself in the buff and sell the footage and so does everyone else. That is a God given right by the way and I can't take that away from him anymore that the government can, it's called free will. I believe the things he does are disgusting and immoral but that's just my opinion. He would be outraged if I were to fight to take away that right of his, yet he supports groups that want to take away the rights of farmers, hunters and restaurants that serve meat. It amazes me the hypocrisy of these people. You see, in Ron Jeremy's opinion, hunting is disgusting and immoral and he wants to ban it. That is a double standard if I ever saw one. I got an idea for you Ronny boy, how about you start treating humans humanely before you start asking humans to treat animals like humans. How is that for a start?
-Griffin
For more Great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Super Bowl vs. Politics

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:06:40 AM
As anyone who knows me on a personal level can attest, I am not much of a football fan. Call me un-manly or un-American or whatever you want, but it simply won't change the fact that I am not a fan of the sport. Don't get me wrong, I love to play a recreational game of it from time to time, but when it all comes down to it. I don't watch any of the games until it comes down to the Super Bowl. Same goes for most other sports, baseball is the one exception, I will usually go to 1-3 games a year and I play softball for my church. But even then, most regular season games I pay little mind to. A lot of my friends who are big into sports think I am some sort of a nerd because I pay more attention to politics than I do sports. I would argue that it is not me, but the person who pays more attention to and invests more time and energy into sports than politics is the truly crazy person. Let me explain...

Yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday, and the vast majority of Americans gathered around their TV's, got together with their friends and invested money into the team that they believed would win. Some people would put down as little as $5 and others would gamble away several hundred dollars! The anger, excitement and passion these people have for this sport is unreal. Gambling issue aside, once the hype had died down by morning, it was all over. Other than "bragging rights" for the Steeler's until next fall, nobody was effected long term by this game. I mean the game is over and the aftermath of who ever won is not in any way a life-changing event in the grand scheme of things!

When it comes to politics most Americans are like me when it comes to sports. They pay as little attention to them as possible up until the BIG GAME. In the sport of politics the big game is the first Tuesday of November, and it only comes every four years. After spending years not paying attention to the sport and once there is only two teams left competing, they just vote for the person who has the same letter after their name as they do whether that be an (R) or a (D). Most Americans don't even know what half of the plays these politicians are planning on executing during their time in office. All they know is once the election is over they will go back to living their lives in anticipation of the next big sporting event!

This last election season is the perfect example of how pathetic it is that people don't follow-up on their politics. America has elected a man to run their country who ran a campaign on the premise of taking their rights away. Yet not a single person who voted for Obama even realizes that in electing this man they are essentially surrendering some very basic rights. Like the right to more money that the government will tax them for. Like the right to continue choosing where they will go to the doctor. Like the right to keep and bare arms or should I say the right to self-defense! The right to protect your family from an armed predator!

I suppose the theme of this blurb is that politics affects you on a day-to-day basis. Once your government has taken away one of your rights by force you will never have it back. Every socialist program an Obama administration will implement will affect your children and your children's children. Just like the politicians your parents and grandparents elected affect you today. The American dollar would actually be worth a dollar today and we would have never suffered from its inflation, if it weren't for Woodrow Wilson implementing the Federal Reserve in 1913 and Richard Nixon abandoning the gold standard in 1971. All of the problems senior citizens face with Social Security could have been avoided by not electing FDR. All the news you hear about peoples identity's being stolen wouldn't have happened if not for FDR's 1935 Social Security Act and the New Deal and the SS number becoming identification. Not many people can tell you what happened in the sport of basketball in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't be the disaster they are today or better yet wouldn't have ever been implemented in 1965 if not for LBJ and the people who elected him. Super Bowl I of 1966 was played some 43 years ago and the results of it have no serious impact on our lives today but the effects of LB flippin' J sure do. So I ask you, who is the bigger fool? The man who pays all of his attention to a sport that has no long-term effect on the American people? Or is it the man who has a watchful eye out for corrupt politicians and failing social programs?
-Griffin
For more Great Conservative media:
www.conservativedeclaration.com
<a href="http://www.conservativedeclaration.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/links/images/450x200.gif" border="0"></a>
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Adam Carolla on the Tonight Show

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:01:30 AM
From what I know about talk show host, Adam Carolla he seems to have a very small government view on politics. From the little I have heard from him speak, I pick-up that he is in favor of lower taxes and systems such as the flat tax. Some people may even loosely call him a conservative. This left me in utter surprise when I saw him being interviewed on the Tonight Show on Wednesday, January 6th, 2009. Jay Leno was hosting his show with two guests Adam Carolla and singer/actress Queen Latifah. Leno asked Carolla some basic questions like, "Are you looking forward to the New Year?" Carolla then responded in saying that he was angry because the new year didn't fit the stereo types that all of the futuristic movies portray. Carolla said, "Everyone wore jump suits, there was no denim there was no fat people, it was awesome!"

It didn't take long for the awkwardness to register in Carolla's mind. After all, he had just basically said in more or less words, 'I am angry that the future has fat people when in my fantasy future, fat people don't exist.' whilst sitting within spitting distance of Queen Latifah who just so happens to be fat! Now I do not honestly believe that Carolla had any intention of offending anyone maliciously, and I don't think he actually harvests any thoughts of hatred towards overweight people, but for fear of coming off that way, he immediately turned to Latifah who was already demanding a recall. Carolla said in a politically correct accent, "No, no, no, no you're, you're, you're... full-figured! You're yeah a, a, a mocha grande latte..." Hold on - what does that even mean? What theme could anyone try to convey by calling someone a 'mocha grande latte'? That makes no since. My point here is not to figure out how calling someone a liberal coffee drink is a compliment. That's neither here nor there, What this all comes down to is Adam Carolla labeled Queen Latifah "full-figured" because he was afraid to call her fat (as if fat was an insult!). I hear people use this kind of politically correct rhetoric all the time, stocky, husky, big-boned, and of course my all time favorite, fluffy. What these people fail to realize is these words are all synonyms for FAT! I have to go with what comedian Brad Stine has to say regarding this topic, "I'm not a Liberal, I don't believe a country is better when you can't say someone is fat. I'm a Conservative, I believe a country is better when you don't think fat is less attractive than thin. That's what I believe in. When you appreciate every type of body because that's the way we were made! If you're fat, you're fat, that's all I'm saying. You should feel proud. I don't care how many vertical stripes your wearing, we can tell! You see, you have two choices when someone calls you what you are, you can let it destroy you or you can let it drive you!"

So the moral of today's lesson is that there is a difference between maliciously offending someone and somebody being offended by truth, and if you are offended by truth, that's your problem not society's! So don't expect the politically correct police to be sensitive to your feelings. This is not a matter of sensitivity, it is a matter of censorship, and censorship I disagree with!
-Griffin
for more great Conservative media visit: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Monday, January 19, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Today, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, millions of people all around the world will celebrate the life of MLK and the dream that he had. This years festivities will undoubtedly be kicked up a notch or so from any other year because today is the eve of Martin Luther Kings wildest dream coming true. Isn't that right? Wasn't this Martin Luther King's goal to advance the movement of blacks in society? Wasn't his hope that one day a black man would be elected president based on his skin color and not his character? Let's take a look at his life to find out, for starters let's reflect on what King is known for, his legacy if you will. I believe that when most American's think of MLK they think of him as an inspirational speaker. MLK was a Baptist preacher whose public speeches made him great fame during the Civil Rights Movement. King was most noted for his "I have a dream" speech that he delivered on August 28, 1963. King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and proclaimed, "I have a dream today, that one day my four little children live in a world where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Now whether King actually meant every word he said in that speech or any of his others is debatable. The sad truth about King is that he is also known for his hypocrisy. King was known to have had numerous affairs on his wife even when the Bible that he preached out of spoke strongly against that sort of behavior. There are also pictures of King sitting in communist training camps and as we all know, Communism does not proclaim to judge people according to their character or merit. But that's neither here nor there. My point is simply this: we as Americans have decided long ago to overlook who King really was behind closed doors and remember him for what he preached. What King is remembered for is not that he wanted blacks to become superior but that all men and women would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. This is why tomorrow may not be as historic as we are making it out to be. We are judging Obama by his skin color and not by his accomplishments. In my opinion the only thing historic about tomorrow's inauguration is the fact that we are swearing into office the most inexperienced, socialist president this country has ever seen, and that is nothing to write home about.
-Griffin
For more Great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And Now to Al Gore with the 5-Day Forecast...

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Monday, January 12, 2009 12:00:00 AM
"Be sure to make it out to the stores to get your milk, bread and eggs," the weatherman announced all last week. Every meteorologist was forecasting 3"-6" of snow followed by freezing rain. The snow was supposed to come Friday, January 16th and continue precipitating until Sunday the 18th. Some of the weather channels were calling for up top 10" of snow here in South-Central PA. But how much snow did we get in York, PA? 3,6,9, 12" of snow? Hardly. Until it was all said and done, we didn't even get a dusting! In fact, we hardly got any accumulation at all! A little frost on windshields caused by morning dew, but that's about it! This is no freak occurrence either. I would say a large percentage of the time, the weathermen are wrong! I am sure you have found the same where you live too. Now consider this, if our best and highly trained weathermen can't predict the weather with a 100% accuracy for three days in advance, even with all their state-of-the-art equipment that they posses, how can we expect non-scientists like Al Gore to predict the weather for 10 or even 100 years from now? Seems to me if global warming "scientists" are so accurate at predicting weather decades from now, then they should be the ones calling the shots on the weather channel and not the idiots we have now!
-Griffin
For more great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does Major League Baseball need a Salary Cap?

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Friday, January 02, 2009 12:00:00 AM
The question concerning a salary cap for Major League Baseball came to the surface yet again after the New York Yankees controversial signing of A.J. Burnett, C.C. Sabathia, and Mark Teixeira in the sports off-season. Mark Attanasio who owns the Milwaukee Brewers franchise seems to be one of the biggest winers of them all. Attanasio was quoted as saying in an article on MLB.com, "At the rate the Yankees are going, I'm not sure anyone can compete with them. Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap." The Brewers CEO also went on to say, "This is very reminiscent of what they have tried before. It didn't work then, and I'm not sure it's going to work now."

Hold on a minute...are you getting this? This moron just contradicted himself. One minute he is saying that the Yankees will be untouchable and the next minute he claims the Yankees have tried to buy a team before and it didn't work then and it probably won't work now either.

Personally, I think the idea of a salary cap or a ban on how much a team can spend on players is ridiculous! Attanasio is exactly right in his second statement, the New York Yankees cannot buy a team or a World Series Championship. If they could have, they would have purchased every World Series since 1973 when George Steinbrenner (Forbes 400 list of richest people in America) bought the franchise from CBS. But that is not the case; in fact they haven't won a World Series Championship since 2000!

What this all comes down to is class envy. Mark Attanasio is a socialist pig who can't stand the fact that Steinbrenner can spend $420 million on three players when all he can afford to dish out is $220 million for his entire roster. It is not the role of the government or anyone else to tell any business owner how much he can or can't spend on his employees. A salary cap is an anti-capitalist idea that should sicken you. It doesn't matter if you are a Yankees fan or not, salary caps are un-American, they have a certain Marxist ring to them. If Steinbrenner wants to waste $1.3 billion on a failing team, then let him. As all of us learn in life money isn't everything, if the Yankees make poor judgment calls and their ownership makes bad decisions, $1.3 billion is not going to make a difference. Let's not forget that in order for a team to spent than kind of money they first must earn it.

As of right now a salary cap is nothing more than small talk and it doesn't appear to be a serious threat to the sport. However, the MLB currently has a "luxury tax", which is a tax or penalty paid to the league for any team that spends more than X amount of money on their team. Since this tax was implemented six years ago, the New York Yankees have paid $148.3 million in taxes. This also is a socialist idea. It is the same thing as a progressive, income, or labor tax read about it in the 10 planks section of the Communist Manifesto. Regardless of if you love or hate the Yankees, if you love baseball and or capitalism, fight to prevent a salary cap before "Americas Past Time" becomes, the "Marx Past Time".
-Griffin
For more great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Backbone!

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Monday, December 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
As most of you know by now I am an employee at Carl Beasley Ford in York, PA. I have been a devoted non-union worker here for the past three years. This was my fourth Christmas at the dealership and I must say, the owner, Ed Baker, treats his employees exceptionally well. The things he does for his employees throughout the year and especially at Christmas-time are things most company's wouldn't even consider.

Every year over 100 employees and retired former employees filter through the dealership in December to take part in a Christmas luncheon that the owner provides for his employees, amongst many other things. In the four Christmas luncheons we have had since I started, I have yet to make it in time for the beginning of the fest. Every year something comes up and I can't make it up until the second wave of employees made their rounds. This year was different, I made sure I mad the first shift so I wouldn't have to scrape the bottom of the cheesecake tin for the leftovers. So around 12:00 I made my way to the showroom and stood in a single file line that wrapped half way around the room with my fellow employees. Ed Baker took the floor and made an announcement. He spoke with his strong sturdy voice and asked, "Is there anyone here opposed to me asking the blessing?" Then he added, "Because if any of you are, there's the door!" as he pointed to the door leading to the brisk outside weather. Not a soul objected, so Mr. Baker bowed his head and thanked the Lord for sending His Son to save us and asked Him to bless the food that we were about to eat and the hands that had prepared it. Amen!

Although I was not at all surprised, because I know Ed is a good Christian man, I was however thoroughly impressed and very proud of him! This is the very Christmas spirit that I have always been talking about, the American spirit that Adam and I are so fond of. Don't misunderstand me - this has nothing to do with offending people or hurting anyone's feelings. This is America for crying out loud! America, where the vast majority of the people believe in God, where most of us celebrate Christmas, and where we don't believe in political correctness! This is America and we have all been given the rights from our Creator that allows us to speak our mind where we want to, when we want to, and if you don't like it - there is the door! I am sure Mexico will gladly take you, but this country deserves a higher-class citizenry.

These days, it takes a real man of courage and integrity to stand on his beliefs and speak his mind like Ed Baker did. The kind of courage and integrity that made this country great! We need to see more of this. If you are one of these people who stand your ground, give yourself a pat on the back. As for the rest of you, I urge you to stand up for yourself and have some pride in what you believe in.
-Griffin
For more great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming? Al...what now?

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:00:00 AM
In an article by Michael Kunzelman featured on aol.com news entitled, "Rare Snow Coats Louisiana, Mississippi", tells the story of, "a rare snowfall blanket[ing] south Louisiana and parts of Mississippi on Thursday, closing schools, government offices and bridges, triggering crashes and leaving thousands without power." About 8" of snow accumulated throughout these southern states. One New Orleans resident said that the last time she saw any snow fall at all was back in December of 2004. Close to 5" of snow is the record for these states set back on December 30, 1963. A weather service remarked that, "the previous earliest date for measurable snowfall in New Orleans was Dec. 22, 1989."

Now for those of us living in snowier states like Pennsylvania, 8" of snow isn't bad enough to close down most businesses because we are prepared for the wintry mess. Here in Harrisburg, PA between 1948-1991 We averaged 35.4" of the white stuff each year! Between December and February we average between 7" and 10". Snowfall is not uncommon, so our road crews are prepared and so are our citizens, we have adapted to it over the years. But these poor southerners never have snow so most of them don't own shovels, plows or salt resulting in cancellations, delays and closings. What I want to know is where is the self-righteous Al Gore when all of this is happening? I am confused; I was told the world was warming. In January, 27, 2006 Al Gore said, we only have about 10 years before we reach the "tipping point" - 'the point at which we no longer have as much ability and opportunity to stop the damage and change things, and reverse global warming.' If that was Gore's goal to reverse global warming, which translates to me as, 'cool the earth down', then his work here is done and he can go home now and shut up. Gore has successfully stopped global warming, thanks to the help of the followers of his cult. After all, if the Earth were still warming each year, our friends down south wouldn't be shoveling snow right now with their garden picks and hoes (no offense intended to ladies of the night).
-Griffin
For more great Conservative media: www.conservativedeclaration.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

1994 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Monday, February 04, 2008 4:22:34 PM

Mother Teresa was a true woman of God. She was a Roman Catholic nun who dedicated her life to helping the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying first in India and then in many other countries around the world. By the 1970's she was recognised world wide and she was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her humanitarian work*.

 

If you were to take one look at the lady you could tell she did not have many earthly possessions. She seemed to have truly take the, 'Sell all of your possessions and follow me.' catch phrase literally. Mother Teresa had nothing yet she still gave her everything, to her cause.

 

Mother Teresa traveled all around the world to give speeches and serve others. One year she was invited to give a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. So on On February 3, 1994 Mother Teresa traveled to the United States to share a message from God to thousands of Americans gathered, among the audience was the then President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton, first lady Hillary Clinton and their daughter Chelsea Clinton. Before taking stage Mother Teresa insisted on seeing President Clinton privately. She was told that would be impossible, but she refused to take the podium until she spoke with the president alone. The president was then brought to her.

 

And when she stood before the most powerful man in all of the world who had everything at the tips of his finger, this little sawed off woman from the Republic of Macedonia who had nothing but the close on her back! shook he bony little finger at the most powerful man in the world and said, "ONE DAY AMERICA, will be JUDGED according to how she treats HER CHILDREN... Both the BORN and the UN-BORN!" And all the president of the United States of America could do was hang his head in SHAME!

 

Mother Teresa then came out from back stage and gave one of the most powerful pro-life speeches of all time. The entire speech can be found in the book, "So...Help me God" by Forrest Church, here are some of the highlights, "I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself."

 

She continued, "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts."

 

"By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

 

"And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion."

 

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

 

"Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness."

 

"If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world."

 

"From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak - the unborn child - must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!"

 

At the end of her speech the crowed gave Mother Teresa a standing ovation and clapped profusely. Apparently thirst overwhelmed Bill and Hillary Clinton at that very moment because wile everyone else went in an uproar of applause the Clinton's just sucked on their water bottles. Later when questioned, about Bill's meeting with Mother Teresa Bill's only response was, 'I can not argue with a life that had been so well lived.'

 

 

*When Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prise it was actually an honor. Today the award is becoming a laughing matter. Which you will read more about latter.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal media

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:08:09 AM

It is a question that has often been asked, "Does the media have a political bias leaning in one way or the other?"

In a survey conducted Feb. 20-26, 2007 by Zogby.com the vast majority of the 1,757 American voters believed the majority of the media has a liberal bias. 83% of the likely voter’s surveyed said the media is biased in one way or another, when only 11% believe the media doesn't take political sides.

 

The survey was taken online at the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is based at George Washington University located in Washington D.C.

 

Nearly two-thirds of the people surveyed who detected bias in the media (64%) to be exact said the media leans left, while only (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their newspaper columns.

 

Out of the Republicans surveyed 97% said the media is very liberal, two-thirds of Independents said the same thing, but less than one in four independents (23%) claimed they saw a conservative bias. Many people would stop there and not give all of the facts. However I am not like most people, I am not a liberal. Out of the Democrats surveyed just two-thirds were certain the media skewed right and 17% of the Dem's said the bias favored the left.

 


Source: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

 


If the truth were known, most Liberals are in denial to the notion that the media has a bias. Why? Because they do not want people to think that they have an unfair advantage. Seems everyone turns to PMSNBC, ABC, CBS and all of the other alphabet channels for their news updates about everything in their day to day lives ranging from the war on terror to the weather and the election. They gut the news with a Liberal twist. In this country there used to be a day when people could trust their news broadcasters like, Walter Cronkite the voice of America. Unlike the idiots we have today such as Dan Rather, Matt Lauer, Peter Jennings and don't let me forget Keith Olbermann who I believe is the biggest liberal idiot of them all. Unfortunately some people feel as though they can still trust the media to give you the whole story without a bias one way or another. But sadly the days of trust in the media are over, according to Gallup polls people are slowly loosing trust in their bias media news reports.

 

But how do I know? How can I be so certain as to make such a claim or accusation like, "the Media has a Liberal agenda"? How can I say such a thing with out having any facts? Or having only one survey of nearly 2,000 American voters? The answer is I can't state my argument merely on opinions so here are the black and white facts:

 

"Journalists in the mainstream media are prominently liberal." That’s what the 1996 Freedom Forum, an independent foundation which studies issues relating to the media and the Roper Center, an opinion research firm. Prominent liberal journalist Evan Thomas of News Week acknowledges the bias in the media. In 1996 Thomas made an appearance on the syndicated round table, "Inside Washington" and said, "There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85% of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the educators and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a bias at News Week the magazine I work for. Most of the people who work at News Week live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias."

 

Don't believe me? Don't believe Evan Thomas? Well consider these poll results from the 1992 Presidential election.

 

85% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton compared to the 43% of non-journalists voters who voted for Clinton.

 

7% of journalists voted for George H.W. Bush compared to the 37% of non-journalists voters who did.

 

50% of journalists said they were Democrats. 4% of journalists said they were Republicans.

 

If the truth were known, the political leaders of the main stream media or the liberal media are way out of touch with mainstream Americans they are way out of touch with traditional America.

 

 

In his New York times best seller "Bias" Bernard Goldberg, former CBS correspondent, documents the main stream media's left wing bias. He writes, "a pole back in 1972 showed that of the reporters who voted 70% went for McGovern, the most liberal presidential nominee in recent memory, while 25% went for Nixon, the same Richard Nixon who carried every single state in the union except Massachusetts."

 

In 1985 the LA Times conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 3,000 journalists and the same number of people in the general public to gauge their stances on important issues:

 

23% of the public said they were liberal. 55% of journalists said they were liberal.

 

56% of the public favored Ronald Reagan when only 30% of journalists favored Reagan.

 

49% of the public were pro abortion; 82% of journalists were pro choice.

 

74% the public were for prayer in public schools compared to the 47% of journalists who were supportive of it.

 

56% of the public were for affirmative action; 81% of journalists were.

 

75% of the public were for the death penalty; 47% of journalists were for the death penalty.

 

50% of the public were for stricter handgun control; 78% of journalists were.

 

Not to mention late ABC anchor Peter Jennings admitted a liberal bias, "Historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are."

 

In his book "weapons of mass destruction" Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, chronicles media bias with regard to taxation, environmental issues, gun control, religion and abortion.

 

Bozell references the three main broadcast networks’ coverage of the Bush tax cuts proposal of January 2003. Between Jan. 2nd and Jan. 15th Jan. of that year, he had his colleagues found 28 stories about the proposal aired on ABC, CBS and NBC. In these he says, "the liberal media was repeated over and over. Bush’s tax cuts comforts only the rich." They cant help but try to put a spin on something good our president does because he is a Republican. And to the liberal media President Bush is the enemy!

 

Americans trust of the media continues to decline. A July 2003, Pew Center report showed 53% of Americans "believe that news organizations are politically biased." And "twice as many say news organizations are liberal."

On top of all this compelling evidence that the media has an untrustworthy liberal bias an Aug. 2003 Gallup survey showed 46% of Americans, when asked how much trust they have in the news media, their responces ranged from, "not very much" to "none at all."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global warming or Natural Phenomenon?

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:17:09 AM

  Global Warming


The problem with liberals today is that they don't listen, It is not un common for me to hear a lib say "I don't care what you say" that means they are not listening. And if all you do is talk and don't listen you cant learn anything. I have listened to both sides of the "Global warming" argument for the past 6 years or so. I have listened to Al Gores story too. But I have a hard time believing anyone who is as big of a hypocrite as Al Gore. After all he flies around the world in a private Jet telling everyone to use less energy or they will all die. If you think that's bad consider this: Just one of Al Gores three houses uses more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. To put that into prospective for you, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Al Gore is a two faced lying s.o.a.b. if I ever saw one! and Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and a liberal to boot. Why anyone chooses to listen to him I will never know.

 


I am and always have been a regular church going Christian and I am sorry but if I heard Bud, the pastor of my church say, "Don't drink because you are giving money to an organization who went after my kids!" and then I see him at an Orioles game slurping down an ice cold Coors Light you can bet your bottom dollar that I will not listen to another word that comes out of his mouth. I would find a new place to worship. So with Al Gore's track record I will turn to a more reliable source. For instance scientist, John Coleman; the founder of the weather Channel who said, "Man-made global warming is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus." Don't believe me go to, http://myrightmind.blogspot.com/2007/11/founder-of-weather-channel-debunks.html and read his entire article about global warming.


But who am I to take one mans opinion for truth? So I turn to the facts that NASA has reported just this year: Here it is:

top 10 hottest years on record

1:1934

2:1998

3:1921

4:2006

5:1931

6:1999

7:1953

8:1990

9:1983

                                                                      10:1939

 


Notice 2006 just barley made the top 5 list and 2007 did not make the list at all. In fact 2006 is the only year from the 20th century that made the list. And most likely only three or four of the top ten were you and I even alive for! Now I know you can say, "Well 2007 isn't over yet it could top the charts." NO IT CANT! its December for crying out loud, it aint getten any warmer! Now I know you are also thinking, "Notice all of the years are in the 1900's though" But remember we didn't keep track of this information in the 1800's or ever before that.
 

Now Al Gore and other global warming "scientists" or should I say scam artists claim that the earth's temperature has raised 2° in the past 10 years (which is true) But what they don't tell you is that NASA has been studying the temperature of earth compared to the temperature of other planets and how they are similar for years! NASA reports that "Earth's temperature and the temperature of Mars have always been very similar. Although the temperature are off by hundreds of degrees when ever the Earth's temperature gets colder over a certain time span Mars gets colder as well." And, "Over the last 10 years earths temperature has gone up 2° on average and the average temperature of Mars has gone up exactly 2° over the same time span." How is this possible if there are no HUMMERS on Mars?



Also consider this; the same scientists who tell you global warming is true also claim that there was a huge "Ice Age" Thousands of years ago that killed the dinosaurs. They claim the earth was completely covered in ice and then it began to thaw and then people came about etc. Now how is it possible for the earth to completely thaw out. How is it possible for the ice to retreat to only two main places on the earth if Little Foot the dinosaur did not sport a gas guzzling SUV?



The answer is climate change is and always has been a Natural phenomenon. Man's pollution has no effect on the earths temperature. It comes and it goes, there is no specific pattern to it. Right now we are having a little bit of a hot spot but I can guarantee you, we will go through a cold spurt again too. Our earth will never catch fire due to man-made global warming! It will NEVER happen, not in a MILLION years.


As for me I will continue to drive my gas guzzling Jeep and disregard what Al Gore has to say. Don't get me wrong I am not pro pollution I am anti propaganda. I think it is wonderful that people care about the environment and I think we do need to work on some things to improve our way of life to stop or mineralize our pollution. Because pollution is not good for the environment. and we need better alternatives than oil but it has nothing to do with the climate. I will not do as Al Gore says because like I said I am anti propaganda and that is exactly what "man-mad global warming" is. It is a lie that gets you to do something they want you to do, by telling you that you will die if you don't abide buy every word they say. That is propaganda my friends, and propaganda I disagree with.


So I hope you have taken into consideration some of the facts and opinions that I have given you. However if you decide not to believe me, John Coleman or NASA. Ff you choose to keep a closed mind to anything that you are not told by the liberal media that is cool with me, I wont hate you. But you better believe that in 50 years when it has been proven to be false without a shadow of a doubt. If you and I are both still living I will say, "See, I told you so."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti Christian Lawyers Union

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:02:01 PM

 

                                 ACLU
They call themselves the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Founded in 1920, Roger Baldwin (an anti militarism who endorsed communist rule) and Crystal Eastman (a feminist, socialist, and pacifist) set out, "To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States" Or at least that is how they stated it in their mission statement. But sadly like many politicians today what they say and what they do are two completely different things. It is possible to preserve individual rights in a communist country or organization. In communism there is no individual it is a group effort. And as it has been proven in Nazi Germany communism is not the answer! As I have said the ACLU was founded on the basis of Communism. That is not my opinion that is the simple truth of the mater. Baldwin and Eastman were socialists. And socialism was invented by Karl Marx as a stepping stone to communism. If you don't believe me, then skip on down to your local library and look it up in an en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh for yourself, its all in there. But then again if you don't believe me your probably to lazy to go down to the Library because you, yourself are an aspiring communist. You are too lazy to do anything for yourself, so you want the government and everyone else to cater to your every need. You probably don't even know what a library is you moron!


But ware is the ACLU today? I am sure you have heard of them in fact you probably don't have anything negative to say about them. To you they are nothing more than another good intention, non profit organization. That is because the Liberal media always seems to shelter them as if they were their first born. They make the ACLU out to be the good guys when in all actuality they stand up for the bad guys. They defend the idiots who spill coffee on themselves and sue McDonalds, the nutcase's who fall out of a window wile robbing a bank and sue the bank for not having a ladder conveniently located just out side the window for they to climb down on. If you think that's bad consider this. The ACLU stands for the person who kills their own children and says it is a tradition of their family or a custom of their native country. Again you don't believe me do you? But seems you are a lazy communist, instead of making you go out of your way to find the story published in a news paper, book or magazines, I will tell you the story and save you the footsteps or in your case the miles on your car driving to the lahy-brer-ee. So don't ever say I never did anything for you...


Take for instance Fumiko Kimura a Japanese woman who drowned her kids in Santa Monica California after learning that her husband was having an affair with another woman. After slaying her offspring Fumiko attempted to commit suicide by drowning herself before she was arrested. As all criminals in the United States she was granted a trial and a liberal lawyer represented by the ACLU. The lawyer claimed her actions could be justified by a Japanese tradition or custom called "oyako-shinju", which is a parent child suicide. The ACLU won the case and Kimura was sentenced one year in prison and probation. Today this child suffocating murderer is a free woman, just as free as you and me, able to go any ware and do anything. How is this fair? How was Justice served? What about the innocent children who were killed in cold blood! The ACLU didn't stand for them. How civil is that?


NAMBLA

Pretty sick isn't it. I wish I could say it was a rare case of this madness but it wasn't. In October of 1997 Jeffrey Curley was playing just outside his house in Cambridge, Massachusetts when two young homosexual men approached him. Jeffrey had been looking for his bike for sometime now, after it had turned up missing. The two young men asked Jeffrey what he was looking for and suggested that they could help him find it. Jeffrey told them he was missing his bike. The men proceeded to help little Jeff find his bike.


What Jeffrey didn't know is that the two men had stolen his bike and were using it to lure him in. After pretending to look for his bike for a few minuets they offered to buy the young lad a new bike all he had to do was ride along with them to the store so he could pick one out. What did poor Jeffrey know? He was just an honest kid in a deceitful world. So he got in their car and went along for the ride. The rest is history; on the way to "the store" the two gay men offered Jeffrey money in exchange for sex after he refused the men stuffed a rag doused in gasoline down the Child's throat and suffocated him to death. Then they took his corps back to their apartment and sodomized it. And incase you don’t know what sodomized means, it means they brutally raped him. They molested this poor kid’s dead body. They disgraced him. I am not going to get into details on how these two gay lovers raped this you man; you can figure it out yourself. And when they were satisfied, when their lustful, homosexual, pedophile needs had been met they then stuffed his lifeless abused body, that is Jeffrey Curley's lifeless abused body into a plastic container and dumped it into a nearby river.

 

Once the local authorities caught wind of what all had happened they arrested the two gay murderers and searched their homes. Charles Jaynes who was one of the gay men was reported as having countless pamphlets and books about a group called the NAMBLA which stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association which is an organization who; you guessed it advocates sex with under age children. One of the pamphlets said and I quote, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and boys, whether society is willing to admit it, desire sex with us" The police also found a manual published by NAMBLA entitled "rape and escape" a book that gave detailed descriptions on how to lure in children rape them and then cover it up to prevent getting arrested. If this doesn’t disgust you, you are a freak! You aught be thrown in jail, throw away the key! You are a mentis to society. Go kill yourself!


Now Jeffrey’s parents sued the NAMBLA for the part it played in their late son’s death and you would never believe who came to the NAMBLA’s rescue, none other than the ACLU. This organization should have been put out of business and all of its members arrested after an incident like this but not as long as the ACLU has a breath in its body. They stood up for these pedophiles on the basis of freedom of speech. And the NAMBLA is still in business today handing out the same twisted litterateur that it gave to Charles Jaynes and his gay lover.

Ware did you see little Jeffrey’s individual rights given to him by the constitution being protected? Ware is the closure for the Curley family? What is wrong with our legal system here? How has it become such a disgraceful joke?


Not enough?

Do you need more proof that the ACLU is corrupting America? Consider this…


The ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois.


The ACLU fought to take down a cross on a World War II memorial saying it was forcefully shoving Christianity down people’s thoughts.


In 1994 the ACLU fought against the people of California to give illegal Immigrants welfare, non emergency medical care, and public education and they won.


The ACLU supported the "Dream Act" which allows illegal immigrants pay instate tuition fees sometimes half the price that students from neighboring states have to pay.


The ACLU took the boy scouts to court because they swore allegiance to God and used public land for their events without paying for it.


The ACLU opposed parental notification of parents when their under aged daughter has an abortion.


Just to name a few...


Other than the fact that the ACLU has been defending evil since 1920 by standing up for murderers and pedophiles, removing the 10 commandments from the front of courthouses, and trying to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance they have also been hard at work trying to make Christmas illegal.


How the ACLU stole Christmas.

In Burkley Michigan the ACLU demanded that the city have a nativity scene removed from public property and moved to private property on the basis that the manger was offensive to non Christians. The ACLU sued the city of Burkley and threatened to take them to court if the Christmas display was not removed. So the people of Burkley voted to have it moved to a nearby Church to avoid paying court fees. However what most people wont tell you is that the city also had a Star of David and a Menorah on display to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah and not a single spokesmen from the ACLU made fuss about that. Why is this? What is it that the ACLU has against Christians that they have to attack all of our holidays? I will tell you what it is. It has nothing to do with offending people! It has everything to do with the fact that CHRISTmas has Christ in it and after 2,000 some years he is still intimidating people. And the over sensitive left labels that kind of intimidation as "offensive" and they say it’s not Politically correct. That’s right Christmas is now officially politically incorrect! Why because it might offend someone who doesn't believe in Jesus! I find this argument to ridiculous! I mean for crying out loud, the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas because it may offend the 5% of people in this country who do not celebrate Christmas! Are they out of their flipping minds? What about the 95% of people who DO celebrate Christmas? If their logic of banning things based on the fact that it might offend someone was so important to them, then the ACLU would have to BAN ITSELF because they are offending me and the majority of people in this country with their stupidity! Honestly which catch phrase here is more offensive; "peace on earth" or "good will towards men"? Id say the only thing offensive about Christmas these days is the fact that we have take Christ out of it and replaced him with some fat, fictitious character who likes little children to sit on his lap! At the rate of the ACLU winning 1 in 4 four court cases your children probably won’t even know what a manger is; In fact it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't either. So the ACLU is hard at work stealing Christmas and not just outside ware everyone can see it. They are also stealing it from our homes.


Just recently I heard of a story ware an old lady in an old folks community center was told by the ACLU that she would face a lawsuit if she did not remove a Christmas display from the common areas in her living quarters. They told the woman she could not display "any symbols that represents Christmas in the common areas" of her apartment. Notice they didn't say she couldn't display any religious symbols. They specifically said Christmas. They even went on to tell her she couldn't even put any thing with an angel out either. A Star of David is fine a Menorah is fine but God forbid she set up a picture of little baby Jesus. They might as well have sucked her Christmas decorations out of her home with a giant vacuum. Or cut a whole in her floor for the tree to fall through. The truth of the matter her is the ACLU has been spoiling Christmases for everyone since 1920.


What the ACLU has screwed up is that the constitution gives us the Freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion. If you don't celebrate Christmas FINE! If you’re not a Christian FINE! But I got a quick news flash for you. Christianity happens to be the belief system that this country was founded on weather you like it or not! Don't believe me? well seems you refuse to go down to the library then go Google search "constitution based on the bible " read em' and weep. Don't think about telling the ACLU that though if you are a Christian. They don't want to hear it they hate you as a Christian they just cant stand you! Here is just a thought I had; maybe the ACLU or American Civil Liberties Union should actually be called the Anti Christian Lawyers Union instead. Makes sense to me.


WHO SUPPORTS THE ACLU

It was hard to find a list of politicians who support the ACLU because it is a very controversial issue to most people. It may not seem controversial to you now that you have read this article. Hopefully by now you know what sick people the ACLU represent. But like I said earlier, to the uninformed public who relies on the liberal media to give them their good dosage of evil every morning and evening, believe the ACLU is nothing more than another good intention, non profit organization. And nothing could be further from the truth! That is a lie that came straight from the enemy himself. Don’t ever let anyone tell you any differently!


And seems it is so controversial most people who donate do so privately. However Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance has been noted by the ACLU as the biggest supporter of the ACLU. In 2001 Peter Lewis donated $7 million to the ACLU and in turn got a sizeable tax deductible for it and then again in 2003 Lewis donated another $8 million to the so called "Charity". I will not under any circumstances give even one dime, to an organization who supports such freaks as the ACLU! I don't care If Peter Frick'n Lewis has the funniest commercials, the best rates or the coolest slogan. I would sooner drive with no insurance at all, than to give one cent of my money to this soulless being! Because Peter Lewis donated at least $15 million to an organization who supports an anti Christian, anti Boy Scouts, anti Freedom, anti American. Pro Nazi, pro pedophile, pro illegal immigrant, pro abortion organization. Shame on you Peter Lewis, shame... on ... you!

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libs you gotta love em'

Posted by GRVOORHEES on Monday, November 05, 2007 8:43:11 AM
                            "What is it that you like about Barack Obama?"

     I don't even know what to think anymore... I have a good friend who is a liberal. Actually, I have very many friends who are of the liberal persuasion. I may disagree with them on a lot of issues but they are still my friends that I love to no end. In fact, although we disagree on nearly every political issue, I would still fight to the death to defend their right to speak their minds. They are humans too, they are Americans too, and the first amendment applies to them as well.

      
    It's like I said, you got to love them. Without them you wouldn't have anyone to laugh at or entertain yourself. For instance, just recently, I kindly questioned a liberal friend of mine who's name will remain anonymous, on their beliefs. I sent this person a message on myspace.com (An internet networking site)I simply asked, "What is it that you like about Barack Obama?"

      
    Simple question right? I even made it easy on this Lib, I gave anonymous a multiple choice question I listed a large variety of topics that Obama supported. I didn't even make this young scholar* research the issues Obama stands for, I stinkin' listed them for anonymous, all he/she had to do was point out the ones that tickled their fancy. And what did anonymous do? Anonymous wrote back to me and said "I am sorry that you cannot respect others opinions when they view things differntly then you thank you for the email" (Not that I am much of one to talk but notice; differently was spelled incorrectly.)

      
    Then to top it all off, to put the icing on the cake if you will, this person DE-FRIENDED ME! Yes, you heard it correctly, they removed me from their "myspace friends list" and blocked me from being able to even view her profile! Then she deleted my message I sent her in response. (Oops cats out of the bag anonymous is a girl).

      
    I am sorry but if you are a Liberal, you should be embarrassed by this person! She is one of your species, she is from the same church you grew up in, and she is makig a butt out of your whole religion! I mean honestly how mature can a college student who pays enough attention to politics to pick a favorite candidate be? If you support something you sure as heck better be able to stand up for it. after all it has been truthfully said, "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."

      
    And that is just it. This girl will fall for anything! She just did and all because she cant even stand on her own convictions enough to defend her own opinion in a friendly, healthy debate. Shame on you!

     
     Now I know some of you might be thinking "well you may have worded your e-mail in an offensive way" But if you are honestly that interested I have the e-mails saved and I will gladly send you them with her name blanked out so you can judge for yourself. And if you are thinking about asking who this girl is, you can forget about it. She is my friend regardless and I will not release that information. I would never go out of my way to embarass or humiliate one of my friends, I am not a Liberal!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »