Interesting Quizes...

I was visiting another blog (Jessica's Journal), and I saw these quizzes... so I took them. Here's my results:

---

The Democratic Loyalty Quiz 10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to the Democrats

Your score is 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a devoted Republican. You tend to walk in lockstep with the party, even if you have not agreed with every decision Republican leaders have made. The few differences you have are nothing compared to your complete and utter disdain for the Democratic Party and the elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands.

Take the quiz

---

The Barack Obama Loyalty Quiz 10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to Barack Obama

Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a fierce opponent of Barack Obama. He is the embodiment of everything you despise in a politician: an elitist, morally superior, gun-grabbing, religion-bashing, terrorist-coddling appeaser who threatens all that is good and decent in America. Plus, he bowls like a girl.

Take the quiz

---

The John McCain Loyalty Quiz 10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to John McCain

Your score is 5 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are conflicted about John McCain. On the one hand you like the fact that he's more moderate than most Republicans on certain issues, but you're concerned that he's too willing to shamelessly pander to right-wing extremists in order to get elected. Still, compared to the competition, you think he looks better and better every day.

Take the quiz

I sorta liked the responses on the first two quizzes. The responses are not exactly accurate of my point of view. I am not "lock step" with the Republicans, since I don't vote only for Republicans. Nor do I "despise" Obama, however I will not vote for him, based on what he has said and promises to do. The last quiz I really don't like the summary. I think it was slanted the wrong way. I think I would have worded it a slightly different way:

"You are conflicted about John McCain. On the one hand you like the fact that he's more conservative than most Democrats on certain issues, but you're concerned that he's too willing to shamelessly pander to the left-wing extremists in order to get elected. Still, compared to the competition, you think he looks better and better every day."

Cell Phones

A couple of weeks ago Sweetie told me that our state was banning the use of hand held cell phones while driving, and that this ban would take affect in November. I, of course, being the "know-it-all" that I am told her that "I find that hard to believe." I wanted to say "You're wrong", but in order to save face in case I wasn't right, and to be polite to the woman I love, I edited myself. The following day in our local newspaper ran the article: "Cell phone users warned of bogus e-mails." The article mentions that the state legislature is considering a ban, but that's all so far, just considering. Apparently the proposed ban hasn't even gotten out of committee yet and hasn't been discussed on the house floor, and at the time of the article (10/10/2007) , it hadn't even had it's first hearing in the committee yet. Well I had to do a short "I told you so" comment to Sweetie, and she politely told me (thankfully) that she was surprised, rather than kicking me in the 'nads for doing a verbal "touch down celebration dance". Apparently she had fell victim to an Email scam that was going around telling people that the cell phone ban was taking place on November 11th. The fraudulent Email didn't just snag Sweetie in it's trap, it apparently also caught a lot of other people, who got upset and started to call their state representatives who were completely taken by surprise because most of them didn't even know about the proposed ban yet. There have now been at least 2 newspaper articles in our local paper, a blurb on the hourly radio newscasts, and a short story on the evening TV newscast. In all of these stories they described this massive response to the government representatives. They talk a lot about how people were duped, and how people should check their facts before forwarding on Emails. Not one of theses commentators dared to mention the fact that there were a lot of people who apparently do NOT want a ban. So to me, it sounds as if this proposed ban, should be shot down before it even gets started. Now before I go any further, let me say, that no one is banning cell phone use completely, only that they are wanting to restrict it so that if you want to use the cell phone, you have to use it 'hands free'. Hands free means using an Earphone, speaker phone, or one of those BlueTooth ear buds. This of course means that you have both hands free to drive, or at least one hand free to drive, and the other free to gesture with as you talk. I personally believe that the ban is wrong, but by saying that I don't mean that it's a good thing for people to use hand held cell phones while driving. I have been on many conversations with people who have had "near misses" while talking to me on the phone (yeah, Sweetie, that would be you). Once I was on the phone having an innocuous conversation with my youngest sister when all of a sudden I heard an usual noise and then silence. I later found out she had been in an small accident, and fortunately she wasn't hurt. I don't know if the innocuous conversation contributed to her accident, but I have to believe it didn't help her avoid it. I believe the ban is wrong only because I don't think the government should restricting our freedom to do stupid things. If we start banning stupid things, how long before they ban me for talking? Later Lou

Supreme Court Justice appointment

A young lad that I know (no names to protect the innocent), took a social studies test last week, and one of the questions on his test was:

"What qualifications should a President look for when appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court".

His response was very interesting, especially when I found out that he didn't realize that the President had recently appointed two new justices. The teacher didn't accept his answer, but based on what you hear on the news you would think this was the major qualification:

"If the President is Republican, he should pick a Republican. If he is a Democrat, then he should pick a Democrat."

Of course that' s not what the teacher was teaching him, but that's what he thought. I can only assume he "learned" that from listening to news / political commentary.?

Politics

If you read through my posts you would see that I have attempted to avoid taking a side or even talking about politics. This topic creates quite a bit of hard feelings, and people get really wound up talking about it. My girlfriend, and her family have a different political view than I do, so when we gather together for a holiday or other special event I am definitely in the minority when politics are discussed, so I am pretty good at avoiding political discussions, however I do have political opinions. I base my opinions of the political events on what the President and other leaders say, and more importantly watch they do. I try to base my opinions on facts, rather than what someone else tells me I should think. When I listen/watch, I take in what is happening at face value, and I try not to add some hidden agenda. I listen to commentators of both sides of the political spectrum, because to be honest, that's the only way to get the "whole picture" of what's going on. I try to not dismiss people just because I don't agree with their point of view. However, from my point of view, people on the other side dismiss me and people like me as "dumb", "stupid", or "not worth listening to" because we disagree with their point of view. So... Often, I just keep my opinion to myself. Anyway, to the meat of the topic... Limpy99 suggested that President Bush was stupid because he stutters, and misspeaks. I commented on his blog and said that people who misspeak aren't necessarily stupid, and there are many eloquent people that are stupid. I said we should judge Bush and leaders based on their words, and actions. I also suggested if you can't stand to "listen" to Bush speak, to read his speeches. I know it pains me to listen to him because of his speech patterns, and the pauses for applause and whatnot. I also don't see how someone can become President of the United States by being stupid as I believe it requires quite a bit of intelligence or at least the smarts enough to surround oneself with people who are! Anyway, Limpy responded to me on my blog, saying that he "didn't trust him [Bush] as far as he could throw him". He said that Bush is "power hungry" and that he is "too confident". He also mentioned the "domestic spying" in his comments. When I hear/read things like this I wonder I live in a different world than everyone else, or if I am just blind. Maybe those on the other side of the political spectrum have are right and I am stupid. Maybe I just need someone to explain to me how Bush is gaining power, other than what he has by being President. President Bush has retaliated against terrorists who attacked our country, and countries that support them. He then helped the people of those countries build their own goverment. He could have taken them over and made them "Bushland", made them part of our country, or instituted a government run by him or by our standards. The facts are he didn't. He pushed two big pieces of ledgislation: "Patriot Act" and "Tax Cuts", however they are both temporary! The tax cuts may have given him slight popularity and given the economy a boost, but no additional power to him. I believe more taxes means more control, or more power, so what does "less taxes" mean? The Patriot Act does grant additional executive branch power but it's temporary and has congressional oversight. It is designed to help us against a real threat of terrorism from both international and national sources. From what I understand from the news recently the Patriot Act isn't (currently) being renewed by the Senate. If he was power hungry, why didn't he make it permanent in the first place? I could name about a dozen more things where Bush could have done things to "gain power", but hasn't. To be honest and frank with you, I think he has lost power, by not speaking more frequently about his policies and ideas. His lack of public speaking has distanced himself from the people that would give him strength and power, and his performance polls reflect this. I don't believe he is "rallying" people to his side, which is power, which is something President Clinton did very well. The comments about the "domestic spying" are exaggerated. Bush did authorize spying, as he should, but against known terrorists, and it was done with full disclosure to those government agencies that oversee that stuff. ''It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?'' said Bush during an appearance at Kansas State University. It was "secret" so the people we were spying on wouldn't know we were spying on them, and we could continue to get inside information. This is now harder to do since this issue has become public! Who do you think that helps? Us or Them? And what's even more distrubing about people upset about this issue, is that our current President hasn't done anything that any other President before him hasn't done, and some MORE than he did... These previous presidents weren't categorized as "the bad guys" when they did it, and we weren't at war then! The only last comment I will make is, I would rather follow someone that is sure of himself because he will keep going until he gets there, even if he makes mistakes along the way. He doesn't have to apologize for the mistakes because he succeeds... Does Thomas Edison owe us 4,000 apologizes for failing 4,000 times attempting to create a lightbulb? Or do we thank him for having enough confidence for knowing he could do it, and never giving up until he did! I would not want to follow someone that is tentative, and unsure of where to go, because they will never succeed. Edison would have given up and said it's impossible if he didn't have the confidence that he could do it. If we allow our country, and our President give up now, we will lose, and we will have terrorists attacking our country, and many, many more innocent people will die. I choose to follow the confidence that we will prevail!

Saturday Morning

Well, it's Saturday morning, and it's almost 2 weeks since the 2004 election, in which George W. Bush was re-elected POTUS (President Of The United States). As his supporters were often heard chanting "Four More Years!". I am glad that George was re-elected, but not because I think he is a great president, but because I think Senator John F. Kerry would have been wrong for our country. What I wish is that we had a person who really caputures the hearts of the American people like some earlier presidents... (Regan and Clinton). Even though both of those presidents had staunch opposition, they had the ability to rally the country around them, each in their own ways. Both men had the ability to come across to the country as "one of us". Regan with his ability to express himself and laugh, and Clinton in his foibles and daliances. I heard a radio talk show host say that George W. Bush was a "boring" president. Which of course he is. He isn't all over the tabloids, he isn't on the TV every other second, and he isn't a great speaker. He is however doing a good job of being president. (Oh no... I think I just said something that could get me in trouble!) So which person makes a better president? A person with whom the populace can relate because he puts himself directly in front of the public eye, and trys not to "rock the boat"? Or a person who shys from the public eye, and is shaking things up? Well, as I sit here in the waiting room of my car dealer, waiting for a free oil change, I can't help but wonder why we can't have an endearing President that also "shakes things up"? Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I want a president who makes me proud to say I support him, rather than a president that I have to see who's in the room first before I declare my support for fear that I may be "verbally lynched." Maybe these next 4 years will be different now that Bush has received a clear majority of the vote. I hope so.

Polls

I like many other people, are watching the progress of this year's election with great interest. I have voted in many elections since I became of voting age. I wish I could admit to the fact that I have voted in every election. In any case, this election is holding my attention to a much greater level than any of the elections I have participated in prior to this one. Why am I and so many other people so "glued" to this election? Are the canidates that exciting? Is one of the canidates that outstanding? Are we expecting a surprise ending? Or is it just the simple fact that it appears to be a very close race, and that raises the excitement level? I have been watching the polls as reported on the following web pages: www.electoral-vote.com slate.msn.com www.electionprojection.com None of which match by the way. You would think that since they all use the same source, that they would all report the same results... Funny how they don't. The reason there are "swing" states is because people can't make up their minds and depending on what people see and hear on TV, radio and the newspapers that day is what they decide to follow. Why can't they decide? The reason is that neither canidate is able to capture the hearts and minds of the American people. Before I go on, please let me tell you where I stand. I am a registered Republican. I say that and tremble as if I am saying something bad, because I come from a highly Democratic part of the state of Pennsylvania. I am a Republican because I believe in certain concepts, and I believe that the Republican Party better represents those ideas. My top three issues are:

1. The war on terrorism. I believe that President Bush, and his administration are doing the right thing. They may not have always done it the right way, but they are doing it. We need to attack and eliminate them. We need to show the world, and the terrorists that we will not cower from them. We are not afraid. We need to free the many people who have been held in place by a few. With Freedom, the Middle East can become whatever it chooses to become. And I believe that they will become a place that people will want to go to and live in instead of a place to fear.
2. Sanctity of life. I believe that all life is sacred, and should be protected. I also believe that to protect life, sometimes life has to be taken, as in capital punishment. I believe that without that deterrent and punishment that people who don't hold life as sacred will destroy it. I believe that President Bush and the Republicans hold the same opinions, that I do about abortion, stem cell research, and capital punishment. And this position is in line with my first position above.
3. Lower Taxes, Less Government. I believe that less government involvment in my life means more freedom to do what I want. The less government there is the less I have to pay for it. I believe that the economy thrives and grows when there is Freedom, and the more of my own money I have the more Freedom I have to spend it the way I want. I am more likely to buy items (big and small) when I have on hand cash. I don't like credit, so I like it when I can keep more of my money. I believe that is the same for businesses small and large. I have never heard of a company without money or a bankrupt company giving raises to people, or hiring new people. Although companies with money or profit, usually give raises, and hire new people. Tax them and us, and we all lose.

I believe that the Democratic party believes in the opposite of most of those concepts. They believe that the war on terror should be waged reactively instead of proactively. They believe that life is a choice of a mother, and they believe that more government means more oppurtunity.

So I am voting for George W. Bush. Not because I think he is an outstanding president and captures my heart and mind as a great leader... No I am voting for him, because he more closely represents my ideals as opposed to Senator John Kerry.

I hope that in the next presidential election I can vote for a person that I feel strongly about as a person, not just by the party he or she represents. And then I won't need to follow the race minute by minute.

Later Lou

Newsweek - "Bush and Kerry in Vietnam"

I just got in the mail my copy of this week's Newsweek magazine. On the cover is John Kerry and George W. Bush in their military uniforms during the Vietam "conflict". I was so interested in the article, that for the first time in 6 months of this periodical subscription, I actually read one of the articles in the magazine, rather than just browsing through it. I assume that most people, and I like to think that I am a person that falls within the category of "most people", think of Newsweek as a news magazine. That's the reason I subscribed to it. I am not much of a newspaper person as I don't often get the time to sit and read a newspaper. So I subscribe to get the news "weekly" in one publication rather than daily. Sounds logical... at least it helped me to justify my spending the money for the publication. Well after reading the article I came to the only conclusion I could... This magazine has very little to do with news, and almost all to do with opinion and editorial. The article had sooooo much spin in it; I couldn't tell whether I was reading truth, fiction or fantasy. The article was less a "comparison" of two people running for President than it was for glorifying one person, while lampooning (or is that harpooning) the other. I will let you read the article for yourself and you decide which side of the political aisle the author is on. Maybe I am the naive one thinking that this magazine calling itself "Newsweek" was actually a news magazine, rather than a news commentary from one side. I mean usually when I am reading a political magazine, I usually know it... I often buy them for that specific reason... Sometimes I just want the facts and nothing but the facts, so that I can make up my own mind... But I, like most people, are considered too dumb to figure things out for ourselves, so we must be spoon fed this mush. Later Lou