Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Mr. Clean for President 2012
Rights Boy's good friend Mr. Clean has announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2012 - from the Basket party, the new inclusive third party alternative. Mr. Clean wants President Obama to be successful and all. But just in case, he's waiting in the wings and getting in the queue right now.Rights Boy has thrown his full support behind Mr. Clean and the People of the Basket.
The grassroots campaign is gathering steam on the Des Moines Register website. Read about the campaign at Mr. Clean's page:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=pluckpersona&U=d037b64dcc1f488aa46a4f6a304ebfa1
Also stay tuned to these other bloggers as they write about the campaign.
Mr. Clean's running mate and Co-President on the Basket party ticket is Alphakat, who blogs about the campaign at:
Blogger Kath87 covers the campaign at:
Stay tuned for more campaign news as it develops!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Rights Boy and Mr. Clean endorse Barak Obama
Probably the surprise decision of the day, at least in Rights Boy’s own head…
While I respect the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, he’s no Ron Paul. The Libertarian platform is 100% right on about 70% of the issues. Some of the other stuff is sort of crazy.
It comes down to my personal litmus test issue of 2008 - foreign policy - coupled with the insane selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP choice.
There are many things I like about Obama. It’s especially refreshing to see an eloquent, intelligent thinker actually willing to take the abuse to run for President.
But he’s a liberal Democrat to the core. Besides Bill Clinton, there hasn’t been a Democratic President since Jack Kennedy that understood supply side economics. He has proposed an additional nearly trillion dollars of domestic spending. That’s above the ongoing $12 Billion monthly for wars and the current misguided trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. The basic problem with his economic policy is that there aren’t enough rich people to tax in that top 5% to pay for all this. What that means is that the middle class will make up the difference with hidden taxes – fees, licenses – OR we go further into debt, and further beholding to best friends like China.
The thing is, I can live with all that…. If we can actually spend our way out of misery, then Great! I don’t think it will work, but maybe it will. But if it doesn’t, the great thing about America is that you can get rid of the slugs eventually. Vote ‘em out.
But I want someone in charge of foreign policy that believes that peace is better than war, that diplomacy is a tool to use before a bomb, and doesn’t see a radical Islamist terrorist around every corner. I don’t get even a hint that McCain or Palin are against an ongoing war, with practically anybody. I want someone who can look over the horizon and see something besides “enemies.” I want someone that doesn’t think foreign policy experience comes from looking out your window in the morning, or being Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (which provides NO public services. Did you know that?) I want someone who will be the President of the whole USA, not some condescending Hockey-mom-come-lately that thinks pro-America can only mean rural, religion, intolerant and safe from witches.
I believe there are alternatives to occupying Iraq for the next 100 years. McCain and Palin do not. I can’t stand the idea of another four years of “Iraq’s behind 9/11, eminent threat, mission accomplished, their oil will pay for the war, occupation for generations, bla, bla, bla” drumbeating. That’s exactly what we’ll get with a McCain administration.
I simply think there is a better chance with Obama to repair the foreign policy damage of the last 20 years, but particularly accelerated by the neocons in this last administration.
So in the end, I think more goodness is possible from an Obama presidency than McCain. I can live through Obama’s economics. I don’t think the government can take it all away from me fast enough in the next four or eight years. And if it doesn’t work, we’ll change direction once again.
But the thought of an ongoing forever war of choice is too much for me. We’ve already lost too many brave troops, and the thought of losing one of my own sons to this needless occupation is just too much. I can survive Obama’s economics better than I can survive that.
Obama 2008
Comments??
While I respect the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, he’s no Ron Paul. The Libertarian platform is 100% right on about 70% of the issues. Some of the other stuff is sort of crazy.
It comes down to my personal litmus test issue of 2008 - foreign policy - coupled with the insane selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP choice.
There are many things I like about Obama. It’s especially refreshing to see an eloquent, intelligent thinker actually willing to take the abuse to run for President.
But he’s a liberal Democrat to the core. Besides Bill Clinton, there hasn’t been a Democratic President since Jack Kennedy that understood supply side economics. He has proposed an additional nearly trillion dollars of domestic spending. That’s above the ongoing $12 Billion monthly for wars and the current misguided trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. The basic problem with his economic policy is that there aren’t enough rich people to tax in that top 5% to pay for all this. What that means is that the middle class will make up the difference with hidden taxes – fees, licenses – OR we go further into debt, and further beholding to best friends like China.
The thing is, I can live with all that…. If we can actually spend our way out of misery, then Great! I don’t think it will work, but maybe it will. But if it doesn’t, the great thing about America is that you can get rid of the slugs eventually. Vote ‘em out.
But I want someone in charge of foreign policy that believes that peace is better than war, that diplomacy is a tool to use before a bomb, and doesn’t see a radical Islamist terrorist around every corner. I don’t get even a hint that McCain or Palin are against an ongoing war, with practically anybody. I want someone who can look over the horizon and see something besides “enemies.” I want someone that doesn’t think foreign policy experience comes from looking out your window in the morning, or being Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (which provides NO public services. Did you know that?) I want someone who will be the President of the whole USA, not some condescending Hockey-mom-come-lately that thinks pro-America can only mean rural, religion, intolerant and safe from witches.
I believe there are alternatives to occupying Iraq for the next 100 years. McCain and Palin do not. I can’t stand the idea of another four years of “Iraq’s behind 9/11, eminent threat, mission accomplished, their oil will pay for the war, occupation for generations, bla, bla, bla” drumbeating. That’s exactly what we’ll get with a McCain administration.
I simply think there is a better chance with Obama to repair the foreign policy damage of the last 20 years, but particularly accelerated by the neocons in this last administration.
So in the end, I think more goodness is possible from an Obama presidency than McCain. I can live through Obama’s economics. I don’t think the government can take it all away from me fast enough in the next four or eight years. And if it doesn’t work, we’ll change direction once again.
But the thought of an ongoing forever war of choice is too much for me. We’ve already lost too many brave troops, and the thought of losing one of my own sons to this needless occupation is just too much. I can survive Obama’s economics better than I can survive that.
Obama 2008
Comments??
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sarah Palin for Pope !!
Finally, someone who has my pro-life / moose cleaning / secede Alaska from the union / hockey mom / the pledge of what?/ vote.
Forget about vice president. Sarah Palin for Pope !!
Shootin', smokin', under-age drinkin', and skin. And probably shooting drowning polar bears in that pool of crude oil.
And what a patriotic display of the American flag! I bet that thing gets it's share of salutes.
Flag pin? Who needs a stinkin' flag pin on your lapel when you can identify your state's star right on her crotch.
Family values rules! Sarah Palin for Pope!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Annie get your gun
TOP 10 REASONS WHY SOME MEN FAVOR HANDGUNS OVER WOMEN
#10 – You can trade an old 44 for a new 22.
#9 – You can keep one handgun at home, and have another for when you’re on the road.
#8 – If you admire a friend’s handgun, and tell him so, he will probably let you try it out a few times.
#7 – Your Primary handgun doesn’t mind if you keep another handgun for a backup.
#6 – Your handgun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo.
#5 – A handgun doesn’t take up a lot of closet space.
#4 – Handguns function normally every day of the month.
#3 – A handgun doesn’t ask, “Do these new grips make me look fat?”
#2 – A handgun doesn’t mind if you go to sleep after you use it.
#1 – You can buy a silencer for a handgun!!
The US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision Thursday on the Second Amendment. It will be the first of many striking down unconstitutional ban on handguns, primarily in large cities.
Rights Boy has previously blogs on this subject here:
http://rightsboy.blogspot.com/2007/10/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html
Rights Boy's good friend Mr. Clean commented on the ruling on the Des Moines Register website.
I read this argument a couple of times that this decision 'won't change much.' That's true for this one decision in DC re: federal law only, but this will set up dominoes for NRA lawsuits in Chicago, Detroit and other cities and with unconstitutional bans.
This decision will change A LOT. No more nonsense about self-defense just being privy of militias or other civil authority (or criminals) You as a 'people' have a RIGHT to defend yourself, and the government's only interest should be to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and the gun-challenged.
In a truly free society, there is always the potential of danger lurking about. That's one of the prices of liberty. The government should NEVER infringe on constitutional rights in the name of security. The government is the one you need to be afraid of.
It never seems to get through to some people that the highest crime rates are where the strongest restrictions exist. And while Giuliani takes credit for lowering the crime rate in NY with gun bans, the fact is, violent crime went down statistically in ALL major cities in the 90s, even in cities with no restrictions, for a variety of reasons, and NY was right in the middle of the pack. There were NO extraordinary good results from the NY or DC gun restrictions. Just the opposite.
Here's another good reason to have a gun. Adrenalin-laced cops in paramilitary gear, kicking down doors in the middle of the night with no-knock raids, shooting the dog, shooting anything that moves. And then realize they are in the wrong street. Happens too frequently, and it's accelerating.
You ought to inventory the military gear showered on local police forces in the 15 years. You wouldn't recognize Barney Fife in Mayberry anymore. Dude looks like GI Joe now. And he doesn't need his one little bullet in his pocket anymore. He has an AK-47 and a bazooka.
TOP 10 REASONS WHY SOME WOMEN FAVOR HANDGUNS OVER MEN
#10 – Guns can be traded in.
#9 – You can shot the lazy lump on your couch.
#8 – If you have a rifle, the handgun won’t feel betrayed.
#7 - Handguns can actually compliment that new motorcycle.
#6 – A handgun doesn’t mind if you ask for directions.
#5 – A handgun doesn't smell of beer if you give it a night off.
#4 – No handgun would feel unloved if it had to sleep on the shelf for a week.
#3 – Handguns only cause drama when they are used on accident.
#2 – Handguns stay good looking for many years.
#1 – Handguns don’t hog the remote!!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Neither party reassures voters
Rights Boy’s good friend Mike Burgher was featured in this morning's From the Editor's Inbox on the Des Moines Register website. You can find his edited letter, along with a lively discussion from other readers, here. The unedited opinion follows.
It’s always interesting to add up and compare the potential cost of various programs proposed by the presidential candidates. It’s often very surprising, sometimes downright depressing.
Barak Obama gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago outlining the Democratic economic platform. It must have been the worst news ever for Wall Street, small business, and even the middle class when you think it through. It included the expected “soak the rich” themes along with repealing Bush’s tax cuts.
Most economists estimate the cost of Obama’s proposals and promises - including $150 billion for green energy, $65B for expanded health insurance, $60B for infrastructure -to total $800 Billion and counting. He says it will be funded by repealing the tax cuts and increasing capital taxes.
The problem is Obama’s math doesn’t work. With everything else the same, repealing the cuts combined with his proposed tax increases won’t pay for his spending. Using his own model on who should pay more, one recent estimate showed his plan would result in up to a 40 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 40 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
That’s not going to happen, and that means the middle class is going to get squeezed even further, with taxes disguised as usage fees, access fees, entrance fees, licenses and assessments.
Obama will also have to raise corporate and capital taxes which will styme business production, raise the cost of everything, and will directly affect your your compensation and take-home pay.
Now we look at the other side. What will McCain cost us? He would certainly cost less than Obama domestically, because McCain proposes very little, with almost no economic impact. He does have a new-found religion on global warming, but I don’t think even he knows what he’s proposing yet beyond $300M for new battery technology.
It’s McCain’s foreign policy that jumps out. Another 100 years in Iraq at current costs would be about $2.5 Trillion dollars and the loss of about 80,000 more brave troops.
And you wonder why so many people feel totally disenfranchised by both political parties.
It’s always interesting to add up and compare the potential cost of various programs proposed by the presidential candidates. It’s often very surprising, sometimes downright depressing.
Barak Obama gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago outlining the Democratic economic platform. It must have been the worst news ever for Wall Street, small business, and even the middle class when you think it through. It included the expected “soak the rich” themes along with repealing Bush’s tax cuts.Most economists estimate the cost of Obama’s proposals and promises - including $150 billion for green energy, $65B for expanded health insurance, $60B for infrastructure -to total $800 Billion and counting. He says it will be funded by repealing the tax cuts and increasing capital taxes.
The problem is Obama’s math doesn’t work. With everything else the same, repealing the cuts combined with his proposed tax increases won’t pay for his spending. Using his own model on who should pay more, one recent estimate showed his plan would result in up to a 40 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 40 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
That’s not going to happen, and that means the middle class is going to get squeezed even further, with taxes disguised as usage fees, access fees, entrance fees, licenses and assessments.
Obama will also have to raise corporate and capital taxes which will styme business production, raise the cost of everything, and will directly affect your your compensation and take-home pay.
Now we look at the other side. What will McCain cost us? He would certainly cost less than Obama domestically, because McCain proposes very little, with almost no economic impact. He does have a new-found religion on global warming, but I don’t think even he knows what he’s proposing yet beyond $300M for new battery technology.
It’s McCain’s foreign policy that jumps out. Another 100 years in Iraq at current costs would be about $2.5 Trillion dollars and the loss of about 80,000 more brave troops.
And you wonder why so many people feel totally disenfranchised by both political parties.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Iowa Flood of '08
IOWA Flood of '08
Survival Kit
Toilet Paper.......................................................check
Bud Light..........................................................check
Keystone Ice.......................................................check
Budweiser..........................................................check
Red Dog............................................................check
Misc. other bottles of alcohol....................................check
Piece of plywood to float your lady and booze on.....double-check
Monday, June 9, 2008
What role has race and sex played in the election?
Rights Boy’s good friend Mike Burgher opined about the role of race and sex in the election in yesterday morning’s Des Moines Sunday Register. Since the letter was submitted, Hillary Clinton has thrown her support to Barak Obama, so the Register edited the letter to discussing the race issue only.
Please don't read this and then invite Mike or Rights Boy to speak at your KKK rally or the next burn-your-bra bonfire. It's my opinion that charges of racism and sexism in this election serve no purpose but to distract voters with short memories from looking at real issues.
You can find his edited letter, along with comments from other readers, here.The unedited opinion follows.
___________
It was hard to follow the twisted logic in Leonard Pitts’ article “Let’s face up to the ugly Truth,” but I think he was concluding that a black person voting for Obama wasn’t racist, but a white person voting for Hillary probably was.
Pitts’ victim argument - that white and black people aren’t equivalent, the white man always keeps the black man down, blacks are “owed” – is so old and tired. But it somehow leads him to declare that even questioning race-based entitlements is automatically off-topic and not to be taken seriously.
Pitts claims that blacks have never had a choice but to support white candidates and implies that white voters somehow owe black candidates a ‘favor.’ I assume Pitts dismisses the viability of former candidates Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and ironically forgot that when the Clinton camp made a similar gaff it was skewered as racist.
The race in the Democratic Party circus is historic this year. The sideshow includes the wooing of uncommitted super delegates as well as a game of musical chairs by Florida and Michigan. But the big tent includes a historic race between two viable candidates – a white woman and a black man.
What measure shall we use to determine the next leader of the free world? What are the important qualifications? So far, we have examined Hillary’s hair, cleavage, pantsuits, tears and her choice of ice cream. We’ve looked at Obama’s lapel, his family tree, dance moves and his church. Now pundits like Pitts are saying everything comes down to one issue, race, and white people won’t vote for a black man. I guess he’s confused on what happened in Iowa and many other states earlier this year.
People vote for candidates for many reasons. During the Iowa primaries, an 85-year old black woman was quoted in the Register declaring, “I’m voting for Obama no matter what. I want to live to see a black man run the White House.” A white female friend of mine recently made a similar comment about Hillary and living to see a woman running the US government. Another black friend said that he was for Obama because it “just sent the right message to the world.” None of these people are making a decision based on the issues. But I’m not sure they are necessarily racist or sexist. Are they?
Some people are so quick to call anything racist these days and an article like this just perpetuates the tactic.
Please don't read this and then invite Mike or Rights Boy to speak at your KKK rally or the next burn-your-bra bonfire. It's my opinion that charges of racism and sexism in this election serve no purpose but to distract voters with short memories from looking at real issues.
You can find his edited letter, along with comments from other readers, here.The unedited opinion follows.
___________
It was hard to follow the twisted logic in Leonard Pitts’ article “Let’s face up to the ugly Truth,” but I think he was concluding that a black person voting for Obama wasn’t racist, but a white person voting for Hillary probably was.
Pitts’ victim argument - that white and black people aren’t equivalent, the white man always keeps the black man down, blacks are “owed” – is so old and tired. But it somehow leads him to declare that even questioning race-based entitlements is automatically off-topic and not to be taken seriously.
Pitts claims that blacks have never had a choice but to support white candidates and implies that white voters somehow owe black candidates a ‘favor.’ I assume Pitts dismisses the viability of former candidates Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and ironically forgot that when the Clinton camp made a similar gaff it was skewered as racist.
The race in the Democratic Party circus is historic this year. The sideshow includes the wooing of uncommitted super delegates as well as a game of musical chairs by Florida and Michigan. But the big tent includes a historic race between two viable candidates – a white woman and a black man.
What measure shall we use to determine the next leader of the free world? What are the important qualifications? So far, we have examined Hillary’s hair, cleavage, pantsuits, tears and her choice of ice cream. We’ve looked at Obama’s lapel, his family tree, dance moves and his church. Now pundits like Pitts are saying everything comes down to one issue, race, and white people won’t vote for a black man. I guess he’s confused on what happened in Iowa and many other states earlier this year.
People vote for candidates for many reasons. During the Iowa primaries, an 85-year old black woman was quoted in the Register declaring, “I’m voting for Obama no matter what. I want to live to see a black man run the White House.” A white female friend of mine recently made a similar comment about Hillary and living to see a woman running the US government. Another black friend said that he was for Obama because it “just sent the right message to the world.” None of these people are making a decision based on the issues. But I’m not sure they are necessarily racist or sexist. Are they?
Some people are so quick to call anything racist these days and an article like this just perpetuates the tactic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
