Cal-Lib: A Liberaltarian that Doesn't Shut Up

Gary Johnson would get my vote.

2012-01-20T12:50:00.000-08:00

That is, pending his Libertarian nomination. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-online gambling... yet he doesn't come with all the 19th century economic policies of Ron Paul.

I don't understand why Ron Paul appeals to people more than Gary Johnson. I guess it's name recognition and a more rabid fan-base. But pragmatically, Gary Johnson would be the best libertarian choice. He doesn't go to the extreme philosophical libertarian viewpoints, arguing that bestiality or owning nuclear warheads should be legal based on the "non-aggression principle" and a very stretched interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

His views come from what makes sense financially , and being freer both economically and socially is the answer to that. Ultimately, the libertarian party should appeal to those who wish to have less government intervention than we do currently, without a purity test to see how "free" you can go before you're considered a libertarian.

I fear that the LP may end up putting up another anti-immigration bonehead who just happens to say the right words to appeal to them. But if Gary Johnson were the nominee, I would vote for him over Barack Obama. People love to paint me as some Obama fanatic, but I like him for different reasons than a lot of others do.

A lot of people seemed to expect him to be the answer to all their liberal prayers, but he's really just center-left in our country, or center-right in most other democracies.

I am really beginning to sense that Obama's election is inevitable with the way the Republicans are attacking each other, and even if it's a close election, my vote for Gary Johnson in Cauliflornia (state name changed in honor of Ahhnold) wouldn't make a difference.

Rumors of Obama's death are much exaggerated.

2010-01-13T22:42:00.000-08:00

Some like to describe Obama as in a "tailspin" currently, with rapidly falling poll numbers. However, that is not the case. Depending on which poll collection site you choose to chart-watch with (Pollster or Real Clear Politics), Obama has either declined slightly or increased slightly in his approval rating. Even so, poll numbers are very volatile, and depending on the success of his health care plan on achieving its goal of expanding coverage while lowering the cost burden to families and the general health of the economy, his numbers could go up or down sharply from now. Most people do not understand that the president has little to do with the economy. The best a president to ensure economic growth can do is interfere little with the economy in terms of raising taxes or utilizing tariffs and subsidies.

Obama, so far, has done okay in this regard. I do not see the stimulus so much as a bad thing. I feel that it may just help an already recovering economy recover faster than it would have without such a bill. Whether that is worth the money they spent on it is up for debate. I personally see Obama's numbers remaining stable, and trending upward over the next year as the economy improves and the average person gives him credit for things he did not do, and does not give him credit for things he did.

I will make the folloowing proclamation: On January 13, 2011, Obama's average approval rating will be 53 approve, and 45 disapprove, with Rasmussen, of course, claiming Obama is tied at approve and disapprove based on their bogus calculations that always differ about 10-15 points from the pack. It seems suspicious that they are always more pessimsitic than the rest of the pollsters when it comes to predicting Obama's numbers.

I have no real formula or methodology behind this post... it's just an educated guess.

Obama's Consistent Job Approval

2009-06-08T17:11:00.000-07:00

While experiencing a slight decline in recent weeks, Obama's job approval has hovered around 60% since March and doesn't show much of a sign of changing. I don't see any reason for this to change soon, since the nation is rather polarized. I suppose it all depends on the success of the stimulus and his healthcare plan. Only time will tell. The honeymoon period is over as the 65-70% rates are gone, but Obama remains somewhat popular.

9 days, but I'm mad now!

2009-01-11T17:42:00.000-08:00

Nine days until President Obama. I am excited ,and I expect a stock surge. Maybe I'm just predicting there.

I really enjoyed this election. I was always on FiveThirtyEight and RCP, analyzing the polls. I was confident Obama would win, and thank God he did, or else I would be insane and whiny.

I wish the news were more unbiased though. Just report the news, less opinion. But I guess you can't report 24 hours without some sort of discussion. I just wish said discussions were more balanced.

I'm optimistic on the economy as well. I think we'll be back to positive GDP growth by the summer. No depression.

Rachel Maddow annoys me.

2009-01-05T20:30:00.000-08:00

She gloats so much about liberals winning this time around. I admit I'm happy too, but can't she be less obvious about it?

Keith Olbermann is similar, but not quite as bad.

MSNBC needs an actual conservative. Pat Buchanan is barely a conservative. I want honest political discussions with more than just liberals and Mr. Christianity is under siege OMG.

I forgot one more great American on our side.

2008-10-26T08:17:00.000-07:00

Goldwater.

If every candidate from 1932 to 1976 would have been on our side, what now bitches?

We're all "in the tank" for Obama except a few white supremacists/borderline white supremacists like Ron Paul.

The whole flat tax/fair tax thing is trying to stop the income tax.

Obama's proposing the negative income tax. Which is one of the most "Free market" ways we help the poor. We as in the world. Even Bush. Bush knows Obama is the next president. You can see it in what he says about Colin Powell and on MLK day etc.

We should be proud of Bush more than McCain. It's not that we're Bush, it's that McCain is not like Bush on good things either, such as Bush has never been a racist and really is one of the Goldwater Conservatives.

And CC Goldwater is much prettier than Palin!

The Capitalist Revolution

2008-10-26T08:13:00.000-07:00

In America we're about to have a great capitalist revolution of innovation.

Here's what's stopping us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU

The kind of people that made fun of me for being a retard my whole life.

This revolution is coming from the bottom up and it is not forcing any "Hate speech" laws.

America is just coming back to the time when we all wanted the greatest good for the greatest number.

But because I play World of Warcraft, I am a faggot and can't stand up for my country becauseI don't have a gun. Didn't know that, Hitler 2.0!!!!!

Anyone voting McCain should now be asked to reason it. Even Knights of Columbus are breaking rights. Fuck yes.

WWMD (What Would MIlton Do?)

2008-10-26T04:44:00.001-07:00

Most people who invoke the name Milton Friedman do not know anything about him or what he represented. Calling the Right, the Religious Right "Milton Friedman" is like calling the left Karl Marx.

It's more accurate to call the US Center (aka Barack Obama) Milton Friedman, the Religion Right christofascism, and Naomi Klein the nutsy left who doesn't realize that economists are on Obama's side too.

Yet Naomi Klein like many Americans think Milton Friedman was some mastermind behind Bush.

That is wrong.

Even his son, who is more anarcho-capitalist than he ever was, prefers Obama. Friedman believed in a smaller government.

Back in the early 60s, all the free world had a principle called utilitarianism as opposed to communism. "Greed" was good to Friedman, not because he wanted Joe the Plumber telling Obama not to take his money, but because he felt that the free market was the most effcient and most moral alocation of goods.

He is probably right.

He woud like Barack Obama. He would right now be part of Obama's crack economic team helping them with their "Soft Paternalism."

Soft Paternalism is basically the idea that people are idiots and need incentives to do the right thing. So that means instead of tariffs, he gives job credits if they stay in the US. That's not far "leftist."

The Religious Right has become a fascist people. Sarah Palin doesn't care about the poor because she thinks she is going to heaven no matter what.

Neo-con + Christian = Christofascist.

Vote the party of Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon, and John F Kennedy, and every president before "Ronnie Raygun."

The New Democrats.

Ronnie Raygun was a fucking retard who started us into Christofascism.

Milton Friedman = Barack Obama. He would 100% be like "McCain is a fucking idiot, this is not the Republican party I remember. They don't know what they are talking about anymore. Everything Obama says is stuff I support, but no one seems to know it."

I'm saying it for him.

I am sorry if your Lolbertarians want to be John Galt, but there is room for compassion in government! Keynes too would be on the side of Friedman. They'd have more in common with each other than McCain has with either of them

They would call him a corporate nazi, the plutocrat he is

I should be on MSNBC

2008-10-24T22:52:00.000-07:00

I am objective and biased. I can go on there with my annoying smirk. I say the exact things in my blog that the people on their shows say!

Anyway, I have a theory about Matt Drudge.

He is not biased, but he is an idiot.

He is the Joe The Plumber of the Media. A Libertarian who thinks that we need to repeal the 16th amendment and replace it with the "FairTax," a rather Lolbertarian idea.

I offer FairTaxers another solution. Negative Income Tax. Look up US history. We are at a new time and we can try to propose this idea as economists. A new intellectual youth is coming.

I am 23 and I am told I am "indoctrinated" for pointing out facts I learned on Wikipedia by some of these people.

Matt Drudge hates both candidates. The belief is that one of McCain's people leaked to Drudge to get this fake story out, and it backfired in a major way. I think Matt Drudge knew it was fake the whole time.

But besides that, I just want a president that I personally could talk to for three hours about economics.

The Obama 2012 Landslide.

2008-10-21T02:43:00.000-07:00

This is assuming that his presidency is a success, and he is able to fulfill most of his promises and turn the economy around.

I gave him every state he's predicted to win now, every state that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and also Indiana and North Dakota, which are considered toss ups this year.

He would win 455-83.

I think that's a little much. I think Southern Democrats, the ones who loved Clinton and Gore because they were both from the South, might finally go for Obama if his first four years are a success.

Of course, it also depends on who the Republicans pick in 2012. If they run a Southerner against Obama/Biden, the South (but perhaps not Virginia and North Carolina) will remain Republican.

If they go the fiscal conservative route (someone like Romney) and realize the social conservatives are an insane minority, the South will be more competitive.

Here are the states that will probably be going Obama in 2012 but McCain in 2008: (If Obama does a good job)

Arizona - They are becoming more liberal, and the only realize they are Solid McCain is he is a respected senator in the state. Without the home state advantage, Arizona will probably go to Obama in four years.

West Virginia - They voted for Clinton in 1992/96, and it's a toss up this year, though it looks like McCain will pull it off.

Indiana - Another close state that will probably go for McCain, but depending on the success
of Obama's first four years, it will go for Obama.

North Dakota/Montana - Two close races this year that would go to Obama if he does well.

Georgia - Not as close as the other states listed, but they'd probably still switch over if Obama did well.

The South in general tends to be swayed more by the economy (and Southerners on the ticket.)

The Southern states that went with Clinton could go for Obama by 2012.

Even Texas is possible but not likely. They tend to vote for Texans over anything. There's been a Bush on the ticket every election but one from 1980 to 2004, but in 1976, 1968, 1964, and 1960, they went with the Democrats.

Reasonably for 2012, I predict something around the level of Bush-Dukakis. I also am optimistic for Obama's presidency. If he does well enough it could be the level of Reagan-Carter.

I think the bottom for Obama is probably Kerry's situation or a bit worse. I am very optimistic he will be around for 8 years. The Republicans are split into many factions and they have to reorganize. That's going to take more than 4 years.

Ned now showers more than he posts.

2008-10-15T16:03:00.001-07:00

Iamned.com hasn't posted one of his blogs for about three weeks. So therefore, I can now say he is showering more ofthen than he posts his blog. A rare and impressive feat.

He's been proven wrong. He kept insisting McCain would win, and once McCain held a two-point lead a week after the RNC, he was excited and gloating.

Then the market crashed, and McCain struck out with his "suspended" campaign. And Obama has a 7 to 8 point average lead, and InTrade has him around 80%. FiveThirtyEight predicts him the winner 95% of the time. This includes a trend that will make the election tighter.

And the last 1000 simulations have Obama winning 99.9% of the time based on current state polls.

So basically, Obama is our next president, whether the 22 year old basement dwelling Republicans want it or not.

NRA to Montana: Darkie turrist gonna take your guns

2008-09-14T22:01:00.000-07:00

Montana Gov: No, he won't.

http://www.gunbanobama.com/

I've never seen the NRA so active in an election. They probably caused both Gore and Kerry to lose, but Bush was more for gun rights than those two.

But Obama and McCain are pretty much the same. Obama has a state record of regulating guns, and McCain's is national but now he's pretending it never happened. He used to stand up to the NRA and said they should not be a major force in the Republican party.

The Heller decision was only 5-4, and the important part was it established the right to bear arms as an individual right.

Both McCain and Obama believe that, though Obama (and probably McCain) feels communities can regulate guns on their own.

So that doesn't really apply to Montana, anyway.

I think the NRA is racist and they are afraid of lawsuits against the gun manufacturers they lobby for. That's the only national gun policy Obama has even voted for, and it makes me suspicious that he is right, that gun manufactueres are giving a lot of guns to gangs. Why else would the NRA make a big fuss about him?

The NRA is an agent of the Republican party. Hunters/sportsmen most people who have guns would not care about Obama's position. Both Obama and McCain would pick people who would keep the Heller decision. The only difference is Obama would get them in easily and McCain would have to do deal with the Democratic House/Senate.

The Democrats try to elect pro gun senators etc because of what has happened in the last two elections.

This time it's just the NRA being afraid of Dark Skinned Man with Terrorist Name. They are really clinging to their guns!

And this won't change any minds. A few might pick Barr, but I see Virginia, Nevada, and maybe Montana going to Obama.

Most gun owners realize neither candidate has a huge issue with guns and will pick on other more important issues.

There is no way I see Obama losing this election. That bitch Hillary Clinton should admit she tried to make him seem like he was a Muslim so she could beat McCain in 2012. And if McCain won in 2012, I think Obama would be the candidate in 2012.

I think Hillary should campaign for him in North/South Carolina and admit he is a Christian.

If she doesn't and Obama loses, she owes me Chelsea's phone number. She's pretty.

If the Obama campaigin made no more ads against McCain and just spent their money getting out the youth vote, they could win easily. If they did nothing they'd still win.

this 273-265 Obama-McCain is the LOW END of what we'll see.

Abortions

2008-09-14T00:11:00.001-07:00

I hate how the Republican elite use religion to attempt to ban abortion completely.

It's all about forcing poor women to stick coat hangers up there.

Some of them say: Let the states decide.

Others want it banned.

No sane person wants to completely ban abortions.

Catholics are traditionally pro-life but most of them vote Democratic.

McCain and Romney both flip-flopped on abortion to appeal to voters.

But Joe Biden isn't all that pro-choice himself. He's anti-abortion, yet pro-choice, and that is how many people are.

He's one who says he doesn't want to jail women and doctors for it, but we should ban partial birth and stop federally funding it. If "partial birth" Obama (or infanticide) listens to Biden, his victory will be even more dominant. Like a Clinton/Dole level.

People and Politics.

2008-09-13T04:24:00.000-07:00

I know several actual swing voters. most "swing" voters have already swung. A swing voter is usually a moderate, not an independent. An independent is just not Dem/Rep. So an Independent could be from the Constitution party, the party that wants America to become a third-world theocracy.

A moderate is someone who is actually centrist/sees themselves as moderate. MODERATES are significantly in favor of Obama.

Here are a few actual swing voters:

1:

Male
18-29
Not Pro Life or Pro Choice, but realizes abortions have to be legal, and encourages adoption (Like McCain 8 years ago!)
Pro Gay Marriage (but thinks allowing states to legalize it may be the only way it can work)
Fiscally is conservative
Not sure about the war 100%, but he's somewhat pro war, but not passionately so.
Would probably want semi-autos to stay unbanned (hint Obama...)

This person voted for Bush in 2004 and dislikes Palin. Obama if he does well on the debates, which he will.

Person 2:

Female
18-29
Not sure, but not pro life, I think.
Pro Gay Marriage/Adoption
For Affirmative Action
Doesn't want socialized medicine (neither does Obama.) (probably mostly fiscally conservative)
Not sure about war.

There are probably a lot of people like this. Both of them were probably raised Republican, but like most young people realize gay marriage is going to be legal and think it is ok.

These are the sort of people that will be choosing Obama. I think this is a pretty common profile for young people. Fiscally conservative/socially liberal.

lots of younger people have issues mostly of gay rights, civil liberties, and reproductive rights. Obama is stronger on all of those.

The real difference is what their parents are/were.

The debates are key here. A lot of people like to call Obama a Communist, and some people really believe that, especially FOX news.

The Bill O'Reilly interview helped that out a bit,and the real debates will help it out a lot.

I think O'Reilly should ask questions of McCain too, but the opposite.

O'Reilly: McCain, you were wrong at the start. Iraq didn't have Al Qaeda until we came there. Would you admit that, if I admit you were right about the surge?

Not sure how he'd answer, but I could see McCain throwing a temper tantrum in front of O'Reilly and losing some FOX viewers. :-)

I think he really should, unless he's been interviewed on the same topics before.

Who Lies More?

2008-09-13T03:54:00.000-07:00

Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden.

Obama:

True 39 (39) 34.2%
Mostly True 24 (24) 21.1%
Half True 21 (21) 18.4%
Barely True 12 (12) 10.5%
False 18 (18) 15.8%
Pants on Fire

114 total claims. Note this includes the primaries.

I haven't gone through all of these, but I might do something in a few days.

Basically, Obama is VERY honest for a politican. I will call True/Mostly True/Half True Truth, and Barely True/False/Pants on Fire a lie.

So Obama
True: 73.7%
False: 26.3%

This looks good, so I will now do McCain.

True 25 (25) 22.1%
Mostly True 20 (20) 17.7%
Half True 19 (19) 16.8%
Barely True 21 (21) 18.6%
False 22 (22) 19.5%
Pants on Fire 6 0.5%

113 Claims.

Pants on Fire, are of course, the worst. It means a complete lie intentionally done. False may not be as intentional.

McCain:

True: 56.7%
Lie: 43.3%

So, the old adage about Politicians lying all the time is false, but Obama is significantly more honest than McCain.

Let me put it this way. It may not be that big of a difference, but theoretically, the odd of two Obama statements being true is 54.3% (73.3% squared), that is two statements. Almost as much as McCain's 1 true. Two McCain statements being true is a lot less. Only 32.1%.

The difference is less than 20% but in the long run it matters.

Now I will do the VP, but this is unfair to Biden because it includes anything he said over the entire primary season and Palin JUST entered the race.

Palin so far cannot be analyzed. They keep the woman silent for good reason. I mean she is a woman. Just kidding. There are female Republican senators. It's because she's a dumb hockey mom who doesn't know shit.

She's only made 8 statements and all of them are in the True range. That is not enough to measure. I will admit I am biased, but I'd say you'd need close to 100 to get a good idea.

She has flopped on Global Warming (or McCain told her, you're for fixing it or GTFO the Gay talk Express.") And on the bridge to nowhere.

Get it, Gay opposite of straight? :-P

Now Biden.

Actually, Biden has not had enough statements, but from what I saw he leaned toward the True side.

But Obama is more honest than McCain, and that gap will widen as McCain continues to let his campaign write his ads and put his "I approve that message" on them when he may not actually approve them himself, but decided to just let the Dark Lords take over and go against his old ways of being a good person and honest man.

In a monthi I will post an update to this and see who is being more honest.

And one more.

Chain emails.

True 2 (2) 5.1%
Mostly True 5 (5) 12.8%
Half True 2 (2) 5.1%
Barely True 3 (3) 7.6%
False 16 (16) 41%
Pants on Fire 11 28.2%

39 total.Yup.

True: 23%
False: 77%

So question for you. McCain and Obama each say three things, and a chain email says one. Who do you trust.

Obama: 40%
McCain: 18.2%

As you can see, Obama's gap becomes more important. If Obama tells you 3 things, there is a 40% chance that ALL THREE are true. it's late, so I won't do binomial probability here, but I will do a bit more.

Even at 4 statements, Obama is more likely to be true ALL FOUR TIMES than one chain email!

And at 5 statements, he's at 21.7%, just barely below one chain email.

This is important to people who care. All these claims are documented and graded.

Obama also has never had a Pants on Fire moment, meaning he doesn't make obvious horrible lies like McCain does. The Palin chain emails do, but that is not related to Obama. Blaming Obama for MoveOn is like blaming McCain for FreeRepublic.

Sorry for the blogs. I love Obama and people need to realize he really is different. Think about it. If I were to bet on 4 things being true said by Obama (all four) vs one chain email being true, it'd be wise to bet on Obama.

The straight talk express derailed. McCain is a bitter old man who realized that he couldn't be a moderate sane person and win the election. It's sad.

There is Nothing Wrong with Obama going on the offensive.

2008-09-13T02:59:00.001-07:00

He has to. John McCain lied about running a clean campaign. Obama really hasn't done anything that dirty. Attack ads happen every time, but McCain's are flat-out lies.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/

Pretty much every Obama ad is Half True or Mostly True. McCain's last two ads have been blatant lies.

Obama has to fight back. It's not dirty politics if it's true. Right-wing bloggers posted some obscure story 8 years ago about how McCain could not type because of injuries to his hand that required a comb. This somehow got on Drudge, which ended up being a great thing for Obama. Drudge follows all news leads and this will play well for Obama.

Here is the Freeper post. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081279/posts

It's trying to make the McCain/Biden camp look like a young guy and and old guy who hate "disabled people."

Here's Biden's story:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/america/biden.php

That seemed like an honest mistake. He wasn't paying attention and then realized it made him look bad. I don't like Biden. I think the Virginia Gov. would have scared the shit out of the Republicans, because Obama had someone considered more Southern. But we're stuck with Biden and he will be okay, I suppose.

Here is the Forbes article from 2000. http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html
And the Boston Globe article from earlier that year .

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml

The right-wing bloggers are spinning this as a young whippersnapper who doesn't apperciate the service of McCain. These are the same people who believed the Swift Boat story, which was like. John Kerry had a firefight with Viet Cong, threw a grenade, killing like 3 of them, and he had some shrapnel and they're not aware where it came from. Of course, if you accidentally have shrapnel in your arm a grenade you threw and killed three Viet Cong, that would still deserve a Purple Heart. And John McCain agrees. Maybe he wouldn't now. Or he probably still does, but his masters have told him to stay quiet and just say "I'm John McCain, and I approved that message."
Or maybe they told McCain that they will "Attack" and he doesn't even see his own ads...

But back on the topic. The right-wing spin almost worked. It saddened me. But then I thought about it. That was 2000. And the media loved McCain. He had a huge internet campaign that if it had not been for Karl Rove, could have rolled what was REALLY the Straight Talk Express. And he probably would have beaten Gore, since he was truly a moderate.

If we had McCain in 2000, we'd be a lot better off now. I think if there had been an Iraq war, McCain would have managed it better than Bush. It might even be over by now, and we'd have someone, maybe even Obama, having an honest debate about supply-side vs. Demand-side economics with some random Republican.

Sadly, that never happened. If I could go back to 2000 and tell Nader to GTFO of the race (causing Gore to win) or help McCain run over Bush with the Express, I would do so.

But anyway, the right wing smear worked on me at first. I was saddened that Obama would attack McCain for being a POW. It didn't seem consistent with anything he had said ever before.

And I watched the entire Yahoo/Politico.com segment where they had Huckabee and Paul saying they used PCs, and then Romney saying PC and then saying he'd convert to Mac because his kids loved them. And then John McCain said his famous line. Nowhere did he mention things like "Cindy reads my emails to me and I dictate a response."

That was most likely the media trying to spin a moderate sensible experienced senator with a very moderate bi-partisan record to win the Republican nominaton instead of the drunken son of a former president. Sadly, it didn't work, and neither did the spin today.

Because Huffington Post caught on to it, after someone there found it on Drudge.

Matt Drudge plays a huge role. He's not really anti-Democrat. He just despsies the Clintons, and when Obama takes them on and defeats them with a campaign funded by small donors, the "Drudge-Obama crush" is a reality. You'd see it more before. Drudge would have a picture of McCain with a mole and saying "Does McCain have cancer again?"

Here's what happened. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review uses Lexis-Nexis and finds a couple of articles praising McCain 8 years ago. This gets out to all the right-wing bloggers, and someone decides to give it to Drudge.

See, everyone reads Drudge. The Huffington Post reads Drudge.

And here's what happens to this attempt at smearing Obama by the right-wing bloggers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/yes-mccain-can-use-electr_n_126130.html

The Huffington Post is clearly liberal, but it is a lot more coherent than the Freepers who think Libertarians are all people who only want guns (when it shows that Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative support Obama) and most right-wing blogs.

This right-wing lie has been exposed, and Obama does not have to apologize to anyone. Neither does McCain, of course. Though McCain should apologize for all the attack ads he's done, or admit he's decided to stay out of those and campaign instead.

What really pisses me off is how the right-wing tries to make Obama look bad. Old people use computers. Most of them do. My grandpa is 16 years older than McCain and he edits Wikipedia when it is inaccurate on chemistry articles. Most people older than McCain can use Google and check email. The fact is, the two articles about McCain were just trying to make him look good, and have been disproven.

If McCain can hold a cellphone to his ear, he can comb his hair, and he can easily type if he wants to.

He does understand the importance of blogs. I admit that. He reads them, though I imagine it's one of these scenarios:

His wife does a few bookmarks for him and makes them very easy for him to find.

So he has a few:

1. Drudge Report
2. His daughter's blog
3. Some news site.

Or worse he says

"Cindy, can you get me to that there Drudge site, I want to see if he got rid of the picture of me with my mole!"

And his trophy wife does it for him.

A lot of people say "the president doesn't need to understand computers" but it's about more than that. People who don't understand something usually fear it. Such as video games. McCain actually may be better than "For the childrens!" Hillary Clinton, who would have caused me to write in myself or Brian Holtz (CA-14, please look him up and spread his message for LP Reform) for President if she had been nominated.

The McCain camp (or more realistically, right-wing bloggers) are trying to make people bad for saying anything about their candidates. They have two "untouchables." A war hero/POW and a woman.

I say fuck them. Seriously. They attacked Hillary Clinton all the time, and you know what they did to John Kerry.

And as I was saying, someone who does not understand something will want to ban it or blame it for society's ills. Bill Clinton (or more likely Joe Lieberman) tried to blame Marylin Manson and "violent video games" for Columbine. You've heard all of that.

Games like Doom are "realistic" and train kids to be murderers. Now, it's GTA.

I think it'd be good if kids tried to act those games out literally. For most shooters, you'd have someone try to attack people. After killing one person and getting seriously injured, they'd run around looking for "Health Packs" or eat Food and wonder why they are not getting better.

If people actually tried to act the "violent video game" universe, there would be a lot of Darwin Awards.

My friend and I used to joke that I'd be a video game lobbyist. I'd say:
"Mr. Lieberman, how about we have some Kosher dogs and fried Matzo? I used to love that as a kid. I am half-Jewish, and I love the food even though the tradition died with my grandma. Want to try out some video games with me? I want to show you they are not as bad as violent movies."

What I'd like to see is more warning against Saw movies. What's worse: Running over people in GTA, which is very cartoonish-looking, or watching "real" fake torture?

Obama is the candidate for gamers and after hearing him talking to parents and his propsal to help autistic/AS kids, I am very excited for his campaign.

John McCain (or the bloggers) need to shut up about the POW thing. The Democrats have been nice enough not to pretend the "Songbird McCain" people were serious. It was probably a few extreme right-wingers who did not want a "moderate" in the White House, so they Swift Boated him.

No matter what you say, Obama is not doing "dirty politics." He is telling the people that John McCain is a liar, which any site FactCheck, etc will show you. He still talks issues on campaign stops while McCain likes to say things like "OMG OBAMA CAL PALIN PIG HE SEXIST."

The Republicans think that just screaming SEXIST because the VP is a woman will make all women abandon their belief in women's rights to vote for a Tina Fey lookalike that hunts moose.

The real issue with McCain is gun control. He's for it. More than Obama, I'd suspect. Obama just has some things he said as a state senator, but he also said that communities can make laws to control guns. I'm not sure if he meant States or just cities. Probably just cities, urban crime areas.

Neither of the men are strong with the gun-rights type, but neither of them are the "OMG GUNS BAD THEY KILL PEOPLE I WANT THEM GONE FOR THE CHILDRENS" that most Democrats before Obama said. Obama needs to make an ad about McCain's votes with the NRA/other gun sites, and explain his rational take on gun control.

The Republicans know that the Democrats could steal states like Montana. Obama had a 5 point lead a few months ago, then was tied, but now Obama has a lead. The reason: Palin.

People actually think Palin will do something. She's just there to get votes from the NRA and "moral values" voters. And moral values mean gay couples cannot adopt kids. Which is not moral, and if anyone held that value, I would never vote for them.

And it wasn't just Montana. Blacks had given Obama a lead in North Carolina. Even South Carolina was close. The Palin pick was not to get women, but to get the gun-rights vote.

Obama, or the gun-rights folk need to examine their records. There's very little difference between the two, and no one will take away guns from hunters. I hope Obama doesn't want to ban a Colt 45 which is a semi-auto. He might think of "automatic" guns as being big, so maybe he doesnt' realize the first was the Colt 45. If I had a criminal attacking me, I'd rather have a Colt 45 than a regular pistol. I could defend myself a lot better, but at the same time, a Colt 45 is not really that dangerous at all compared to assault weapons.

A lot of people think the "gun" vote is going Republican, but this is the LEAST gun rights friendly Republican, and the most gun rights friends Democrat since gun control became a big issue.

Obama will win. McCain can call Obama sexist all he wants, but that's only because he knows Obama will kick his ass in the debates.

McCain vs Obama, D&D story.

2008-09-12T19:38:00.000-07:00

First McCain:

John McCain.

Level 10 Human Blackguard.
Lawful Evil
Stats: (lost some due to aging)
STR: 12
DEX: 11
Con: 14 (he does jog a lot, I think.)
Int: 12
Wis: 7
Cha: 14 (was higher, around 16, when he was a Paladin in 2000 and 2004)

That is a fallen Paladin.

Here is his story. McCain fought bravely in the Vietnam war. He was taken prisoner and became a politician in the early 1980s. As a Lawful Good Paladin, he was a true Maverick, fighting injustice on both sides. He became a level 13 Paladin by 2000. He attempted to run in the 2000 primary against True Neutral Level 5 Aristocrat, George W. Bush. Bush's Neutrality was not a philosophy. He was just dumb.

However, despite being low level, he was the son of George H.W. Bush, a level 11 Aristocrat. His puppetmasters hired Karl Rove, a level 20 Neutral Evil Gnome Illusionist.

Rove mislead voters in North Carolina about McCain's adopted elf child, saying he didn't know the child's mother. McCain had adopted a child from an elven country. But this "push polling" allowed the Puppetmasters to bring their Drunken Aristocrat into power.

The Paladin would be defeated and return to the senate, where his Lawful Good nature would cause him to oppose the Bush tax cuts because spending was being increased.

He remained Lawful Good and stood up for Neutral Good (leaning toward Law) Level 9 Fighter John Kerry, both who had served in Vietnam. Many lower-level fighters who had not actually been with Kerry lied about his war injuries in order to take Bush back into power, who after the 9/11 attacks, had become Lawful Neutral, and a Level 8 Aristocrat.

Similar low-level fighters of Vietnam would try to call John McCain "songbird McCain."

When McCain won the nomination due to support for moderates although he was slipping toward Lawful Neutral, the Gnome Illusionist Karl Rove told him he could give him the election if he became a Blackguard.

A Blackguard is an anti-Paladin. Still Lawful, but Evil. Therefore, McCain was a Paladin who sold his soul in a last chance to win the election.

Now, Obama.

Obama, right now is a Bard. You could say Cleric, but the Charisma is more for Bards.
Some would call him a Paladin, but that is not quite right. I would call him Neutral Good, not Lawful Good.

Obama is a Level 14 Bard. I do not believe he has hit "middle age" in D&D terms yet, so perhaps in offfice he will gain intelligence and wisdom while losing Str and Dex? And Con, right?

Barack Obama
Level 14 Neutral Good Bard (Half-Elf)
Senator, Illinois
Str: 13 (is in good shape)
Dex: 14 (very good at basketball)
Con: 14 (Probably about the same as McCain.)
Int: 16 (He really is a fucking genius, if you hear him talk.)
Wis: 16 (Also high. Admit it, he was right on Iraq in the first place.)
Cha: 20 (as he has gained levels he has put his level 8 and 12 bonus into Charisma, giving him 20, which is possible at level 14. At level 4 he added one point of intelligence.)

Obama's life is interesting. He was neutral, drifted toward chaos, and then toward good, and has been Neutral Good as a community organizer, a state senator, and a senator.

Human peasants are worried Obama, as a half-elf (half-black) will ignore their problems.

Paladins for Obama. Jessrond, level 70, dethecus.

Some Demographics.

2008-09-12T17:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

House of Representatives 2006. 60-38 youth toward Democrat. 12% of the total population. That should go up. The whole "cell phone" polling theory matters now, because Obama and social networking have changed the face of politics.

I've donated $301 to Obama. I donated $201 after McCain's anti-gamer comments and listening to Obama tell parents to raise their kids and not tell the government to do it for them.

My.BarackObama.com is amazing. The right wing loves to complain about Socialists or whatever, but there are also Libertarians and Republicans for Obama.

Four years ago my mom had to give my email to her friend to get me to volunteer for Kerry. Now I can give my address and phone number and RSVP for an Obama event to call voters in Nevada. And it even offers me directions for MaqQuest! Times have changed. It is easier to volunteer. I would have done it a lot more in the past few weeks if I had known I could just find some house in a city nearby and volunteer.

I've donated money instead of volunteering mostly this year, because I figured my money would help more than my time, which for most of the past two years, I've had very little. But for the next couple of weeks, I have plenty. I could even try to get my dad to do it.

Some said this: Howard Dean was the Wright Brothers, and Obama is the moon landing, in terms of internet donors. Obama may have a huge supply of funds, but it's because of millions of small donors like me, not special interests. Picking Biden was a step back, but Biden was picked to fight against the Republican spin machine so Obama could still seem like he was running a clean campaign.

Look at these demographics. Basically, it shows the only Republican group is really the Religious Right.

John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get that group, and to trick gun-rights advocates into picking him over Obama, when neither of them have a good record on gun control.

Obama's state gun control bans can't be viewed from a national level. He's said the second amendment is an indvidual right, but communites can enforce common-sense regulations. So what he did for Chicago would not apply to what he would do as a president.

Obama and McCain are both on the fence on gun control. Obama is honest about being on the fence. He never really flip-flops. McCain is claiming he's against things he's consistently voted for. The NRA sort who claim they need an AK-47 to shoot dangerous animals are insane, but if Obama stopped supporting semi-automatic bans, he'd get some votes.

I didn't know what a semi-automatic is, but apparently it inclueds the Colt-45 and Garand. Those aren't really that dangerous, I think.

This election will go to Obama easily. I predict that Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico will go to him from 2004, and Iowa.

I think that gives him 296 votes. That's all based on messing around with sliders on some site.

Of course the site didn't factor in white men/white women, just men, women, black, white, etc.

Obama should also go hunting with the Democratic governor of Montana.

He was right about "clinging to religion and guns" whether you like it or not.

What was ignored was clining to anti-immigration, anti-trade. That comment also show he believes in trade, and is not a racist protectionist, but may just want to renegotiate NAFTA, which is probably a good idea, since things change pretty often. I hope he uses trade with Cuba as a bargaining chip. Cuba means nothing to us, but trading with us would help them,

We could say: Be a Democracy and we will trade with you.

Sane Libertarians vote Obama. the LP writes in Ron Paul or votes for an AK-47.

Gun Control

2008-09-12T01:35:00.000-07:00

I do not own guns. I do not know if I ever will. If I ever bought one, it would be the Garand from World War II because I liked it from Call of Duty. Barack Obama bans the sales of "semi-automatics." I believe this is because he knows little about guns. He probably thinks semi-automatics are a lot more like AK-47s and M-16s than a Garand or a Colt 45. Someone needs to show him the Wiki page of guns.

John McCain is pro-gun control as his record shows. He chose Palin to hide that because he was tied in a lot of red states or even losing on some polls. If Obama learns about semi-automatic guns before the election, he will easily defeat McCain.

Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, would all be on his side if Obama learns more about guns. This is very important.

And here is a video of Obama on video games.

The Clintons loved to ban video games, especially Hillary.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/

This is a big issue, and Obama is the only pro-game, or not-anti-game candidate.

He may say things like "put the games away" but he is talking to PARENTS.

He's saying what Libertarians and all gamers have been saying for a long time. Put the games away. And he's not talking about educational games. I'm sure he'd like learning games. He's saying kids are spending too much time watching TV and playing video/computer games that it hurts their grades, and parents need to watch what their kids are doing.

On the video, he doesn't pretend he knows about the game. He uses the phrase "goo gobs of money." Which is technically true. He doesn't make up lies like kids can learn how to steal a car. If kids really tried to imitate GTA games they would run out in the middle of a street because cars get stuck trying to drive past you. If the kid didn't die, he'd try to open the door and throw the driver out.

Obama grew up playing games. Not the games we played, but he was born in fucking 1961. My dad was born in 1950, and I think he played Atari/Pong.

Obama was born in 1961. Assuming he played games until he was 20, he would have seen many of the early system. 30, he'd have seen Nintendo and the birth of the SNES.

Obama is the Gamer's choice. He takes the Libertarian position on a very important issue. Never before has a major candidate told parents "raise your kids, the government can't do it for you."

Any TRUE Libertarian who votes for John McCain is not a Libertarian.

They are just a Republican who has been told Obama will raise their taxes because he is a Marxist.

And on Economics:

You know who Adam Smith would pick? Obama.

Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand directing money to where it is needed thus the government should not interfere. But the government should not also encourage loopholes in the tax system that encourage companies to move elsewhere. A lot of neoliberal economists love to use a sentence out of Adam Smith to say he is for the way things are.

We are back at Mercantillism, what Smith rallied against. Adam Smith would vote Obama. Corporate tax loopholes are the visible hand of special interests. Obama knows his economics. McCain, as well know, does not.

Keynes would do, but Keynes and Smith, if they had known each other would both be against communism.

For those of you who think Keynes = Communist, Keynes is the last thing communism wanted. He told capitalists that they could adjust to conditions. Communists would say that is the capitalists bribing the poor to not revolt.

His theories did work for a while. I think it was more Richard Nixon abusing Keynesian theory and completely fucking it up that make it look bad. Price freezes on all goods were not something Keynes wanted.

Any sane person who has taken any advanced economic class and Economic History/econmic thought will realize Obama is the best candidate. I've never heard a major candidate actually reference Adam Smith before. Hopefully the American people respect that. I certainly do!

The Libertarianism Livejournal group does not represent Libertarianism, but a few people who want to argue beastiality and the right for a private person to own nuclear weapons.

Ron Paul may be a nutcase, but a lot of his supporters did not agree with all he says, and are going to Obama. They aren't going to fall for his "vote for any third party" trick.

Polls looking better for Obama again.

2008-09-10T04:37:00.000-07:00

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

This shows the +10 McCain is an outlier and should be ignored, and a couple of these polls are not in realclearpolitics yet.

Maybe in a couple of hours, but I'm going to bed now. When I wake up in the early afternoon (yes all liberals are lazy. But no, I just have free time until I work this weekend, and then I'm starting graduate school) I'll see some better numbers.

This "RNC Bounce" is going away fast. WE'll see an AVERAGE on RCP of around +4 Obama in a week or so.

I wish they'd let Palin answer questions and show how dumb she is. We'd see a huge jump for Obama.

McCain bounce wearing off quickly.

2008-09-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

It was around +3.2 McCain yesterday, and 2.4 today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

There is one +10 McCain poll that is way off from any other. It is an outlier, so I will throw it out. Everything else is much closer.

Taking away an outlier poll gives McCain a +1.3, which is probably more accurate. The bounce may be gone in just a few days.

Here is some advice to the Obama campaign.

DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT:

They are what is wrong with America, using terms like "Moral Values" to define denying gays any rights.

Consistently, polls have shown that about two thirds support Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, only one third not wanting either. For a lot of people I think the issue is the actual word "marriage" and not anything against gays.

Therefore, Obama should speak in favor of civil unions. Those that support Civil Unions would be happy, and the Gay Marriage supporters would be glad he's even bringing the issue up.

GO FURTHER TO THE RIGHT ON GUN CONTROL:

Obama admitting that gun control is an individual right protected by the 2nd amendment is a big step for Democrats, who tend to want to ban guns for no real reason. He should stop supporting ridiculous city-wide bans as well, and many gun-toting Libertarians may move to Obama.

GO FURTHER TO THE RIGHT FISCALLY:

He's already doing this one by supporting charter schools, which is a good thing. He needs to be near Bill Clinton fiscally. A lot of socialist-Democrats hated Bill Clinton for being "too much like a Republican on the economy." That's exactly why I liked him. The socialist-wingnuts of the Left are a very small part and Obama should not pander to them. I hope he gives up the windfall tax idea as well. I am glad that he did not support the joke that was the Gas Tax Holiday, showing he understand economics more than either Clinton or McCain. He also shows a willingness to change. He changes his position because he approved it in 2000 for his state, and it didn't work! Wow! That's a relief from people like Bush, who don't care about facts.

MAKE NOT USING PUBLIC FINANCING LOOK GOOD:

I am glad he didn't take public money. The public financing is a fraud to support the two-party system, and Obama has shown that his support from many small donors can be more powerful than that. McCain is trying to make him look bad for that, but who can blame him? When you can raise as much money as Obama, there's no reason to give it up. And it's coming from small donors, not lobbyists. He needs to explain that he didn't want to take the taxpayers money that he didn't need. That would make him look good to me at least.

His economic advisor is seen as a centrist and not anti-capitalist at all. Hopefully Obama will be Bill Clinton without the sex scandals.

I'm Back.

2008-09-09T01:51:00.000-07:00

I haven't blogged on politics in years, but they are my passion, and I decided I should come back.

To start, I am a real life friend of "Iamned." Iamned has never had any job nor has he driven a car. He spends all of his free time bragging about how people are spending a lot and staring at, but never owning, any stock. He actually believes most of what he says.

I won't spend all of my time attacking him though, because that would be too easy. The title "Cal-Lib" means I am from California and I am a Liberal/Libertarian. I could easily be defined as both.

I believe Obama will still win, even though McCain has had a remarkable RNC bounce. The Palin pick was a poor choice for McCain, because it showed that he was not a maverick willing to work with both sides, but someone looking to pander to the Religious Right, and hoping to steal the 0.1% of Hillary's voters that voted to her just to have a woman in power.

There were many more viable candidates for him. By choosing Palin he has lost the elections. Moderates and independents will run to Obama. And if the Democrats can get out the word that Biden's wife and two of his kids died in a car crash and he raised his two boys alone as a single dad, the whole Palin being the mother thing won't help her anymore. There is sexism against single fathers. Mothers are assumed to be the better parents. Mothers win child custody a lot more than fathers. The assumption that Palin "runs the household" because she is a mother is sexist.

I know some will ask: Why does someone who claims to be a Libertarian support Obama?
I'm not a LP member. The LP is for people who want to shoot deer with AK-47s. I do believe in the 2nd amendment, but there have to be some limits.

I follow the beliefs of Market Liberalism, generally, which means market solutions for environmental problems such as Cap and Trade, which has proven successful in the US in combatting Sulfur emissions.

And anyone living in the 14th District of CA House should vote for Brian Holtz. He represents a Libertarian who is willing compromise with other parties.

I suspect Obama will be ahead by next Monday, or perhaps sooner. The polls have almost always shown Obama ahead. Mccain on Realclearpolitics overall is 2.9 points ahead, his highest ever. But Obama had nearly a 7 point average lead after his bounce. The lead will be Obama's in a week or less. People are going to get tired of Palin talking about how she is better than everyone else because she's from a "small town."

People will realize she is a complete joke, and the VP Debate will make her look horrible.

I think the Presidential Debates will be a wash. Obama is a more eloquent speaker, but McCain has more experience, as he has ran for president many times.

Carol Brouillet is such a Palo Altan!

2006-10-23T00:26:00.000-07:00

Carol Brouillet annoys me. Greatly. She's the Green Party candidate for the 14th district here in California, and I think she is the biggest Palo Altan I have ever seen! Her only issue is impeaching Bush due to her belief in 9/11 conspiraces. I've seen her on some TV show and she has the whole Palo Alto look. The "more open-minded than thou" crap that I just can't stand!

I've lived in Palo Alto for a few years and people there are so stuck up. I think on occasion if someone was nice to me when I was walking around my neighborhood, it was probably a Stanford student from out of state or at least out of town.

Palo Altans have this whole belief that they are better than everyone else. There's even the Palo Alto accent that they develop by living there. It has this arrogant tone to it. And it seems like there is this vegetarian wiccan cult in their high schools... except that these girls wear leather shoes and eat ice cream for breakfast, so it's not about health or morals, so it's just a stupid stuck up teenage fad.

Anyway, I don't like Palo Alto or Palo Altans, for personal reasons. (my stepsisters.) But that notwithstanding, vote for Brian Holtz. he's a libertarian but he's not some psychotic nut who thinks that people should own nuclear bombs and that the poor should beg churches or die in the streets. he's sane. Do not vote for Carol. She is a nut. Seriously, if you look at her campaign finances almost all her money comes from herself... who wants her to run?

This is a safe seat for Anna Eshoo... vote for Brian Holtz for a message. he's a sane libertarian.

Stop the recounts! STOP THEM.

2005-01-19T17:46:00.000-08:00

I've heard about all these recounts going on. Why? The election wasn't even that close. It was a matter of more than 100,000 votes. If it was within hundreds or a few thousands either way then yes I understand the need for a recount with all the possible problems with the machines. But I don't think it's close enough to give reason to all these random recounts.

I believe Bush definetely stole 2000. Whether he meant to I am not sure, but thousands of jews would never vote for Pat Buchanan. But it wasn't nearly as close this time and hard-line Dems are screaming about another stolen election. I wish they'd get over it and work for getting someone good out there to oppose Bush's heir in 2008 instead of living in the fucking past.

It's time to move on and try to make things better. Hell, start right now with local races and governor races... and 2006 with the House and the Senate. THE FUTURE IS BETTER THAN THE PAST.

What the Democrats must do to win.

2004-11-29T16:43:00.000-08:00

It's a depressing and conservative world out there. I feel your pain, I really do. The Democrats have to elect a moderate to push a more progressive agenda into the mainstream. They can't win with a proclaimed liberal, because the word liberal has become a dirty word in today's political landscapes. We need another Bill Clinton, another JFK, someone who will be memorable and successful.

I fear that the Republicans will put up strong candidates like John McCain or Colin Powell and easily win in 2008. I myself have nothing against either of those two men and I wouldn't cringe daily if they were the leader of the free world as I do with G.W. Bush. I fear that the Democrats are dying and we are entering an era of Republican dominance. Of course, as we all know, domniance can be stopped. The Democrats dominated throughout the 30s and the 40s until Eisenhower stepped in, so we too can get our own Dwight Eisenhower and grab control of the reins.

Here's to hoping.

Bush Won!

2004-11-16T16:07:00.000-08:00

Well, it's over, yet it seems that a lot of people don't want it to be. Hey, I too wish that somehow magic ballots will land on earth and all be for Kerry in Ohio, switching the election around. But realistically, it's not going to happen. Bush won. Bush had a more solid victory than he did in 2000. There may have been a few problems with voting machines, but that doesn't mean they were rigged.

I voted on an electronic ballot myself. I know I could have opted for the paper ballot, but I'm pretty comfortable with machines and I don't think anyone would try to rig a Cali voting machine. Sadly, it's over. Bush won. Kerry lost. And we have to get over it and regroup for next time. What we need is another Clinton. We need a charismatic leader who can bring the Democratic party some fresh air.

A Country Divided

2004-11-06T21:46:00.000-08:00

Today we are a divided country. It's 140 years after the Civil War, but there still is a culture war between the North and South. Eleven states have now banned same-sex marriage. Even liberal Oregon and Michigan. I've never understood the underlying logic of banning gay marriage. It's not harming anyone, and something that doesn't harm others and gives two people happiness should be allowed in my opinion.

Some of these gay marriage bans even ban civil unions. I really don't get it. I mean, it's one thing if there is an issue with the word "marriage" but I REALLY can't get people banning civil unions too. That's just rampant homophobia. These same people banning gay marriage also rant about gays spreading AIDS and being promiscuous. Well, wouldn't homosexual couples getting married lower the risk of AIDS because they would be in monogamous relationships? Hmm, something to think about!

Eh. I've just lived in a liberal bubble my whole life, so the level of intolerance exhibited by those in other states comes as a shock to me. Even my conservative friends support civil unions.

Even the President does. There's no real difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue, yet the voters that chose "moral values" as their main reason for voting for their candidate heavily voted for Bush. Yet there's not much of a difference between the two on the gay marriage subject.

The Right did a good job painting Kerry as an extreme liberal. He's really just center-left, I would say. More left than Clinton but not a raving extremist of any variety.

Well that's all for tonight. Stay tuned!

Welcome to My Blog!

2004-11-06T21:43:00.000-08:00

I'm a self-proclaimed liberal libertarian. Or vice versa. My political opinions generally lean left, but I enjoy laughing at all extremes (Especially Al Sharpton.)

This blog will be full of my daily political thoughts, which ideally shall be numerous.

Enjoy!