Hello everyone. This is my first post on my blog here. Hope you guys enjoy it!
Today, presidential candidate John Edwards, stopped by my university, Georgia SouthWestern State University, to lavish our professors and left wing worshipers with his weak diatribe against our current administration. He was preaching the conventional left-wing yadda yadda. However I thought his ideology was very flimsy and weak at best.
He spoke about how he wants to raise minimum wage to $9 an hour. I have heard that the argument for this is because most minimum wage workers simply can not afford a home. Therefore we should raise the minimum wage. In addition, the poor will have access to free financial counselors to advise them how to save their money. After all, all Americans are entitled to living in a home and having a personal financial adviser.
Furthermore, he continued saying that we should have free college and books for "qualified" students. Hey, I am currently working on my master's degree. Since I am already in debt with federal student loans, naturally I have a predilection towards the concept of free college! After all, all Americans are entitled to getting a free college education... books included.
Edwards spoke about a universal health care system. He spoke in regards to several cases when a universal health care system would have been more propitious for citizen's who had health problems but couldn't afford surgery or medications. After all, all Americans are entitled to free "state of the art" health care.
He spoke in regards to other various issues as well, however overall I heard a reoccurring theme.
"American's are entitled to the government issuing out happiness to all her citizens."
Now ingresses a famous quote from our Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Americans are not entitled to happiness but rather the right to pursue it!
Furthermore, Americans are not entitled to having a house. If you get a good education, earn enough money, and are blessed enough to afford a house, great! However none of us are entitled to it. Moreover, raising the minimum wage is just a temporary fix with potential calamitous results. First, where will this extra capital come from? Will we inflate our currency? If not, then simple supply and demand will show that over time as more people have more money to spend, the demand for products will go up. That means prices will eventually go up as well to make an economic equilibrium. What kind of gallimaufry of nonsense is this about some poorer citizen's being entitled to a financial adviser? Granted, some people start out living in poverty which is a shame. However should Americans have to pay for personal financial advisers for those who have trouble handling money? Now, Mr.Edwards made it a point to condemn the wealthy and said that he would pay for various issues that he spoke about by demolishing the tax breaks for the rich. Did you know that John Edwards lives in a 28,200 square foot home? The appraisal of his home is around $6 million dollars. Maybe I am an irrational guy, but 6 million dollars is a lot of money to me. Why doesn't he sell say.... $4 million of his home and invest that capital into his plans to help the poor?
Free college sounds great to me. Although my university's tuition is relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme of universities in general, my school's tuition is still rather expensive! Even if school tuition in addition to books were around $2,500, that is still very expensive. Not to mention all "qualified" students would be entitled to this funding. I was galled by the way he dodged any minutia upon how he planned to pay for this. That money has to come from somewhere. Oh where will it come from? Out of yours and my own pocket. Its called higher taxes!
Universal health care? Another great method to RAISE taxes! As a Christian, I am all for helping other people out. However I don't think that it is the government's job to tamper with health-care in general. There are many Christian organizations who are very charitable. The government could set up an aggregation where donations could be accounted for and used for those who truly need the extra financial support. Moreover, what if I get a better rate with my current health-care provider? Will I be forced to pay taxes for a service that I won't even use?
Listen up, I like to eat McDonald's at least once per week. That is part of what I consider my personal "happiness". Therefore I feel that all Americans are entitled to having the government make sure that citizen's get to eat at McDonald's once per week. In addition, who could live without a Nintendo WII game console! Not to mention games! Don't you know that all American's are entitled to a Nintendo WII game console... games included.
Please understand those last couple of statements where rather facetious. However my point is where do we drawn the line as to what Americans are entitled to. Everyone has a different take on what it means to be "happy". The founding fathers knew that and didn't attempt to try and provide personal happiness to everyone. Instead, our constitution was founded to give us the framework so that we could pursuit it. I am not "happy" paying much higher tax rates. Therefore why can't John Edwards make sure I get my "happiness" by not forcing me to pay any? "Happiness" is relative. Furthermore it is not the job of the government to scratch our backs and make us feel warm and cozy at night. The job of the government is to protect our country and execute justice for those who break our laws.
Finally John Edwards ended his speech with a personal unfair diatribe against Washington as most left-wing crazies often do. In general he said that he knew everyone at our university was upset with Washington and its current administration. However that is not entirely true and it is also a bad argument because he can't prove at this moment that he could do any better! Moreover to my understanding, I assume he shot himself in the foot because John Edwards happens to be a Senator who represents the great state of North Carolina. Doesn't that make him apart of Washington too? Not only that, we implicitly sang the same old left-wing song about how bad the war in Iraq is and how it is the current administration's fault. Well for my Liberal/Democratic friends out there who would like to blame the war in Iraq on us Conservative/Republican guys, we don't deserve all the credit! Democrats, please ingress and take your fair share of the credit for the war in Iraq! Check the following video clip out!
Now John Edwards completely dodged broaching the topic of abortion. He failed to mention that he voted NO to the ban on partial birth abortion. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this procedure, for the skinny on sucking brains out 101 check out
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
For more detail check out,
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
Now I found it amusing that John Edwards consummated his speech by saying he wants to live in a moral and just country. How is brutally sucking the brains out of an innocent life... moral and just? Maybe I am a dumb guy but I just don't get it.
John Edwards has also said "One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America — not just the poor kids who get sent to war — are serving this country." Now I could be wrong but I don't think John Edwards has ever served in the military. However if he became president, would he also enforce that on his own son, Jack?
Maybe John Edwards was hoping for an audience of glamor filled robots who would clap at his every sentence. Not me.... GOD gave me a brain so that I could swim through all the quixotic philistine political ninny hammers out there.
I understand that I have been rather pejorative about John Edwards speech. However he did make a few good points. In regards to gun control, he said he would support the right of Americans to bear arms but at the same time, Americans don't need to have AK-47's for hunting. I don't believe most Americans carry around AK-47's however I think to an extent he is right about that.
So in conclusion, I will definitely not be voting for John Edwards or supporting his candidacy.
Terse and pithy huh?
Thanks for checking out my first blog. If I made any errors, please inform me. I am not perfect and will occasionally mess up. However when responding, please do not try and lambaste me with acrimonious or vitriolic remarks. Lets be grown ups and converse in a civilized manner.
Thanks in advance!
Kindest Regards,
Brandon Fogerty
May GOD Bless, Strengthen, Guide, Protect, and Reveal Wisdom to you!!!!!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
John Edwards For President
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
After I saw and read about the process of Abortion, I became Speechless........
Well said, Brandon. Kudos to you on a very elaborate commentary on John Edwards' speech. You make some good points on some of Edwards' proposals. Many of his proposals sounded very ideal, but pragmatism begs on how they can be accomplished, and as you pointed out, if any of them are to be accomplished, it will result in high costs--high costs for Americans like you and myself. As I am sure you are aware of, it is a common tactic of many (virtually all I.M.O.) politicians to make grand promises and dodge pertinent issues in order to tally in some votes. (It's kind of why I usually focus on a candidate's character rather than solely on their policies, but that's another story.) They usually preach what people want to hear.
Obviously, it is no different in this case, which you have made quite evident. However, Edwards did make quite a few good points that you didn't give him credit for. For example, it is true that much more concentration should me made here on the homefront in regards to poverty. Relief efforts on hurrcane Katrina were just an embarassment and that's putting it very lightly. Stronger prevention methods (specifically the levys) should have been enforced, especially considering the layout of that area. I can't help but wonderis it because of the people that live there was why no strong efforts were made. I hate to pull an implied race card on this, butit is one of the recurring thoughts I had, and still have. Maybe it is true that the current administration shouldn't take ALL of the credit for clusterf@#k (sorry I have kind grown fond of that term) regarding the Iraq situation, but something needs to be done and someone more competent need to be appointed. Not only someone competent, but someone who won't keep secrets from the people about it. Call me a "left wing" if you want, but even you have to admit that the current administration's peformance leaves much to be desired.
By the way, I know it takes more than one person and I know it is easier said than done. Like you, I am skeptical about whether or not Edwards could do better, but that skepticism is with any candidate, at least at this point. Edwards made a good point on gun control. I found the AK-47 comment quite humerous, and I am sure it was a fececious statement. That was his way of saying that even though we have a right to bear arms, some more restrictions are needed on what we can have and who can have it. I am all for some kind of psychological evaluation or history on individuals who wish to purchase guns. I agree with you: all Americans are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, which does take hard work. I don't think it is the government's place to provide this, but some government intervention is a good thing if it involves assisting those, due to unfortunate circumstances, who do not have the means of such an attempt such as going to college. Of course, this will cost money, but there should be a reasonable way of obtaining it, a way of obtaining it so my wallet (and everyone else's) will not become any more cobweb infested.
Establishing charitable organizations is a good idea and the contributions to these organizations should start with rich people/politicians like Edwards. It is kind of coincides with what he was saying about nuclear disarmament. If a leader (such as the United States) wants other countries to disarm nuclear weapons, the United States should be the first to do so. If Edwards wants the American people to contribute to these costly proposals, naturally he should be the first to do so in order to set an example. Also, his contribution should be meager by any means.
In closing, I really liked what you had to say. Apparently, you are quite captious and analytical when it comes to politcal speeches. I am glad you have such insight and not easily lead by extravagant promises. However, as "perjorative"as this blog is it, may be a good idea not to overlook the postive credit that Edwards in entitled to. I just think it is a good idea to acknowledge some more of the good points he made. Of course, if your angle of attack to really belittle this guy in his candidacy (and it probably is), then the credit you did give him is enough. Just be prepared to be acrimonized and attacked with many "vitriolic remarks." Because when it comes to discussing politics, such a tone is almost indigenous
One thing, I made a huge mistake on one of my sentences:
"Also, his contribution should be meager by any means."
That sentence should have said:
"Also, his contribution should NOT be meager by any means.
(I didn't see an tab for editing comments.)
Good stuff!
Post a Comment