Friday, November 5, 2010

cheeseburger anyone?

I'm sure you all thought I was long gone. In fact, at a time, I thought I was. I just didn't have the heart to blog anymore. The country has been spiraling out of control--and I just had to close myself from it--to maintain my own sanity.

Well, I'm back. Hopefully for good.

So, I am considered a pretty healthy eater. I rarely eat out, I try to cook my own healthy meals...but I also work full time, go to school full time, volunteer in my community, and sometimes, well, I just don't have TIME. So yes, I drive through the dreaded drive thru--get me a greasy burger and greasy fries--and I feel NO REMORSE.

Southerngirl--where on earth are you going with this, you ask?

To San Fran.

They have lost their minds.

And so have my friends.

My good ol' trusty FB account always provides for some very interesting topics of discussion. Wednesday was no exception....enjoy, I most certainly did. (Some people are just beyond insane).

LIBERAL: I love San Francisco for banning happy meals!

SouthernGirl: Glad they think parents can think for themselves. :)

LIBERAL: If parents could think for themselves we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic among children.... I think parents have had their chance, it's time for kids to.

THIRD PARTY: Totalitarianism "for the good of the people" is still totalitarianism.

SouthernGirl: Sure, SOME parents do a terrible job...My concern is--when do we stop telling people what to do/how to do it and just let them suffer their own consequences, ya know? I mean--why just outlaw happy meals? Why not add televisi...on, video games, etc.? I don't know, I just feel like it might be crossing a line into something that is bigger and scarier than what we can imagine. PLUS...happy meals are smaller portions. NOW, those parents will just buy a regular sized meal and give it to the children. FINALLY...there are days when I just really want a greasy burger, and not from the regular meal. I guess all I should really hope for is I never get a craving while in San Fran. :)

LIBERAL: Slippery slope arguments are weak guys. If we can keep kids from smoking and drinking, we can keep them from eating poo on a bun (aka fast food beef). Doesn't mean we will suddenly be in a dictatorship.

COMEDIAN: But I....I....I like happy meals.

SouthernGirl: I don't believe it is a slippery slope argument. I believe that there has to be a point when enough is enough. If you don't like fast food, ok, don't eat it. If Jim Bob likes it, well, then he will have to face the consequences and it is not your job to tell him whether he can have it or not. As for children, no government better tell me if my child can have a happy meal or not. That is my choice as a parent.

SouthernGirl: I suppose, I just fear the nanny state is getting to be too much. We need to teach proper nutrition, respect, so on and so forth, but we can not take away people's choice, even if that choice will clog their arteries.

THIRD PARTY: "Slippery slope arguments" aren't weak when the subject of the argument is our government, who have proven time and time again that they will take away every right we will let them. B: Just because you and 51% or more of San Franciscans p...refer and can afford Whole Foods gluten free organic farm raised grass fed all natural carcinogen free carbon neutral humane green tea ginko boloba beef doesn't give you or them the right to meddle in my "shut the hell up and eat this so I can make it through this shopping trip without freaking killing you" situation. C: And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy in banning ONLY happy meals, that's just retarded. If I can't buy a happy meal, I can buy a McDouble, small fry and a small drink for $3.18 and give my kid a dollar instead of the piece of shit toy and they're still getting the shaft nutritionally. If they actually gave a shit and weren't just pandering to their granola-head constituency, they'd shut McDonalds down entirely. 3. I ate happy meals growing up AND smoked and drank and I turned out JUST F-F-F-F-FINE. Granted, I'm three inches shorter than average, have an enlarged heart and severe psychological and emotional issues, but compared to a lot of... er... some.... ok, a few people, I'm the picture of health. You can have my kids' Happy Meals when you pry them from their cold, dead hands.

COAST GUARD: Im loving it! Sorry just had to do it.

COMEDIAN:This argument is silly. Who the fuck really eats McDonalds anymore. The real issue is what they are fed at school, period. Anyways, its not the governments fault, or the parents, or even McDonalds....Its that Godforsaken Marilyn Mansons fault. You guys are all stupid!

THIRD PARTY: I bet San Francisco schools have some pretty kickass lunches.

LIBERAL: Ok you're right. On that same token, we need to remove penalties for smoking crack while preggers, beating ones own child and child sexual abuse if it's done by parents. It's a parent's right to choose!!!!!!!! In all seriousness, I never tho...ught I'd say this but COMEDIAN you are so right!See More

LIBERAL: Just sat down at the gate at the airport across from an obese woman eating .... Wait for it ..... A Happy Meal!

COMEDIAN: Im right all the time. BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!

THIRD PARTY: In LIBERAL'S world, Happy Meals are like incestuous child rape. Someone should outlaw them so that fat woman will be incapable of making stupid decisions about her diet and activity level and become fit and healthy as a result.

LIBERAL: Oh so the slippery slope can only go one way? I'm learning here....

THIRD PARTY: Yeah, you have to keep the leaps of logic within one or two light years of each other. Goverment taking away one right --> government taking away others. Feeding a kid a happy meal-------------------------------------------------------------...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> kidrape.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Bayh Resigns

FROM The Washington Post: "After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh said at a press conference in Indianapolis. Bayh cited the lack of bipartisan comity as one of the main reasons for the decision. "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said. "Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done." He specifically cited the recent vote that killed the creation of a debt commission as evidence of the partisan gridlock."

Friday, February 5, 2010

How to Fix Congress

I just got this email forward and I must say, I think it is PERFECT. I am 1000% in support of this. Send this on to your friends and family as well! It's time to do something. Being in D.C. SHOULD NOT be a lifetime career. They forget what it's like to actually be an American citizen once they're there too long!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms

B. Six Two year House terms

C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure/No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay he or she are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work...

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retire-ment fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote them-selves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen; congress-men made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Another Tax Threat

From our friends at the US Chamber of Commerce:

Some politicians in Congress are proposing a new "tax on financial transactions" ... the last thing our recovering economy needs and another obstacle for America's job creators.

The stock transaction tax would assess a fee on the sale or purchase of any stock, raising transactions costs, forcing businesses overseas, and creating a loophole that only lawyers and lobbyists would benefit from.

Bottom line: this tax would increase the cost of doing business in America, limit opportunities for investors and sacrifice more American jobs.

Not surprisingly, this new tax is backed by Big Labor, and would impose a .25% tax on all stock trades in the misguided hope of raising $150 billion for another stimulus bill.

But this bill won't stimulate the economy -- it will do the exact opposite.

In fact, a similar transaction tax was repealed by Congress in 1966 for the depressing effect it had on the American economy.

Once repealed, costs fell and the number of Americans investing in the stock market dramatically increased -- helping markets grow and prosper.

If you ask me, I'm getting REALLY tired of these "know it alls" that are in O's administration that have NO idea how to successfully run a business (let alone a country) telling us what is and isn't good for us. Stay away from my money!!!

Monday, February 1, 2010

riddle me this

How can ANYONE use the "Bush spent too much money excuse" now?

2010 budget released--sending our country into a $1.56 trillion deficit. Now that is the way to start a Monday morning!!

Graph pulled from March 24, 2009 post on The Foundry

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The State of Obama Address

I haven’t written on this blog in some time, but last night’s “State of Obama” speech led me to respond in the manner I would have hoped the conservative opposition might have responded.

First, he is an effective speaker – his delivery is fine, even though he was noticeably more subdued than in past speeches or on the campaign trail. It is the content, however, that gives me pause. We were hoping for a move to the right, not a mere head fake. Such a move would have been understandable and appropriate for a politician who was not so narcissistic that he cannot see the obvious. Instead, we got a less-than-impassioned defense of failed policy.

Defiant He tried to offer a defiant tone, but his defiance was only of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the will of the people. The Supreme Court’s recent decision was a strong defense of the First Amendment, which no fair-minded constitutional scholar could fault. Every election of substance since his inauguration has been a clear statement of opposition to his big government, big spending, leftist policies. Does he not see that the people overwhelmingly disapprove of his primary goals of healthcare “reform” and cap-and-trade initiatives? Is it not clear to everyone that these major moves toward a socialized command economy are anathema to all but those who would trade liberty for security?

Resolute His “we don’t quit – I don’t quit” line was more recalcitrant, truculent, and na├»ve than it was resolute. This kind of willful ignorance in the face of the obvious would be laughable if he weren’t holding the job he holds. It is strangely incongruent to use America’s history of resolution in the face of great threats as a basis for policy initiatives designed to destroy that fiber, and leave us all dependent social democrats hoping for favors from the government.

Mea Culpa Even here, where he has obviously screwed up, losing key elections and watching key initiatives die a slow death while he fails to show real leadership, he can’t bring himself to admit that he failed. He offers instead that “he failed to explain it well enough.” That is no admission, and it doesn’t fly anyway. Does he think voters don’t know what his cobbled-together policy will do to this country? His alibi is much like the guy who robbed the grocery store saying, upon his conviction, that he did nothing wrong – he simply didn’t explain to the jury well enough why he needed that money more than the store owner.

Populist Whenever a politician is losing ground, there is always the populist approach. This elitist Ivy Leaguer vainly attempted a Trumanesque approach, against Wall Street and in defense of the middle class. As to the former, he has surrounded himself with former Goldman Sachs and Wall Street executives who have protected these greed-mongers from the effects of their own failures, at the expense of taxpayers. By giving huge bailouts to political cronies on Wall Street, he has saddled future generations with the cost of their gambles and patent disregard of risk. And his keystone agenda items promise to saddle the middle class with more taxes, more costs, fewer jobs, and a failed healthcare system – hardly a defense of middle class security or prosperity.

Patriotic It is this affront, when Presidents throw out their obligatory statements about the strength, decency and courage of this country and its people, that most offends me. As a soldier, I was prepared to fight and even die to defend those great principles upon which this country was founded and thrived. But there is no copyright on the use of patriotic phrases, so politicians who would intentionally destroy all we have built not only trot them out, but are actually “offended” if their patriotism is questioned. Does he not know that we did not succeed by punishing the producers, nor by failing to protect our vital national security interests both here and overseas? Does he not understand that we rose to world prominence by renouncing the repeated attempts of elitists to socialize every aspect of our economy and social policy? He says he wants to “carry the dream forward”, but I would ask – just what dream is he talking about? That America will take its place as yet another weak or failed social democracy? He says he will “never accept second place for America”, so I ask – is third place better? Fourth? We have lost freedoms sufficiently in this country under his watch that we now rank below the top ten countries in liberty and freedom – what is it that he thinks we should accept – a failed state, soaked with debt and defaulting, in order to pay for his dreams of wealth distribution and government largesse? Having defended the principles of individual liberty, a market economy, and small government most of my life, I am both afraid of and offended by “patriots” who would give all that away for their own grandiose visions of statism. His is not the America I defended, and it is not the America I want.

Side note: Southern Girl apologizes for neglecting Bless Our Hearts. It is not intentional. Life has snuck up on the both of us--and we had to choose our priorities. Unfortunately, Bless Our Hearts fell to the bottom of the list. We both hope to improve our presence in 2010.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8

Psalm 109:8 May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.