Thinking about renting video game online?

Check out my new site, Rent Nintendo Wii Games! While you're at it, also check out Megaton Report - Video Game News

Fox News Republican Debate

First of all, the most glaringly obvious thing about this debate is how superior it was to the MSNBC debate last week. This was probably the most insightful, probing, yet respectful debate I have seen. They did not pose a single question that was as irrelevant as perhaps ten of MSNBC's questions.

As far as the candidates, based on the two debates so far, Giuliani and Romney have clearly risen above the pack. McCain had a fine performance. But the positions he articulated and the answers he gave are simply not going to gain votes in a Republican primary. I've read that either Hunter or Huckabee should be considered first-tier candidates and while both are solid, neither have the record or message, let alone organization and money of the top tier. I don't want to diminish any of the other candidates though. The field as a whole has really been surprisingly impressive.

Ron Paul was simply destroyed in this debate. If he wants to argue that a non-inverventionist foreign policy is better for the U.S., then that is a reasonable position. I even voted for him on the Drudge Report poll last week just because I enjoyed hearing his economic libertarianism on the stage (although Romney won that debate). Even after he was given the opportunity to clarify that he blamed the terrorists for the attacks of 9/11 he declined to do so. The fact is that he now has, literally, no chance at the Republican nomination as opposed to a one in a million shot. I don't even see the point of inviting him to the next debate.

While we are considering limiting the field, there are other candidates that should be considered. Tancredo never belonged there in the first place. Thompson has a great record, but is simply not an insipiring persona or Presidential material. I liked Gilmore in the first debate and I'm not quite ready to say that he should not be invited to the debates, but he really needs to prove his place on that stage quickly. Brownback has given even performances in both debates... but has he really gained any supporters? Perhaps we could have a playoff round where Hunter, Brownback, Gilmore, and Thompson debate and the top two get included in the next debate with the Big Three.

Considering that isn't likely, at least we can be happy that we have a far superior field to those running for the Democratic nomination and keep in mind that the most important thing is not who wins the Republican nomination, but that they defeat the Democratic candidate in a year when the differences between the party are so stark.

Issues with Illegal Immigration

I have been writing a paper on immigration for my legislation course. It got me thinking about a couple political problems that arise due to massive illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration lowers the wages of blue-collar and low income workers. It doesn't take an economist to realize that vastly increasing the number of low income workers depresses wages. There is simply more competition for the jobs of poor and lower-middle class Americans over the past 30 years of high rates of illegal immigration. The problem is not that there is work that "Americans won't do", but that there is work that Americans won't do for minimum wage because it is tough work. Before the recent influx of immigrants, the trash was still collected and the fruit was still picked. Liberals complain about the stagnation of the income of the poor, but support importing the rest of the world's poor. Why would they do such a thing?

Illegal immigration bring more votes for the Democratic party. A study I read during my research said that, at current rates of immigration, John Kerry would have won in 2020 based only on growth in the hispanic population. Bush actually did quite well with Hispanics in 2004, winning 40% of the vote. If Republicans fall back to 30% of the Hispanic vote the picture would be even worse. Liberals are going to try their best to convince low income immigrants that they need government social programs and that they can't make it on their own.

Some Songs with a Freedom-loving Conservative Message for You to Enjoy

"Taxman" - by The Beatles


"Wonderful" - by Everclear


“Won’t Get Fooled Again” - by The Who


"Revolution" - by The Beatles


"Sympathy for the Devil" - by The Rolling Stones


"I Fought the Law" - by The Clash


"Why Don't You Get a Job" - by The Offspring


"Get Over It" - by The Eagles


"Stay Together for the Kids" - by Blink 182


"Rock the Casbah" - by The Clash


"Janie's Got a Gun" - by Aerosmith


"Godzilla" - by Blue Oyster Cult


Thanks to John J. Miller on National Review for the recommendations.

The Democrats Stole the Election!

With only a 1,000 vote margin in Montana and a 7,000 vote margin in Virginia, both in Democrat's favor, is there any question that Democrats have stolen this election? I have numerous sources that back me up on the likelyhood of this election beign stolen.

David Corn of The Nation said, "I've noted that there is good cause to worry about the integrity of a voting system that is overseen by partisan players and that relies in part upon paperless electronic voting machines..."

Democrats.com lists 24 examples on the front page of why this election is fraudulent.

davidswanson of Democrats.com says, "Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate. "There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia's voters from exercising their right to vote tomorrow." said Jack Young.

On Global Research, Prof. Michael Keefer said, "the likelihood of these midterm elections being clean is approximately zero."

MoveOn.org is offering a $250,000 reward for stories of voter fraud. Far from being a quarter million dollar reward for whoever can make up the most credible lie for DemocraticUnderground to obsess over, this will ensure that the fraudulent 2006 elections are uncovered!

Based on their previous statments, I am sure that these liberal Americans will join me in calling for an aboloshing of these fraudulent so-called elections. As 'enough already' posted on DemocraticUnderground, "It is going to have to be violent to have any impact."

In Their Own Words: Liberals on Karl Rove

I read a National Journal election article on why Rove might be so optimistic. I thought it would be interesting to share every liberal comment below the article. It leaves one wondering: what the hell has happened to liberalism in America?

You overlooked the most important reason: He's delusional.

Billy | 10.26.06 05:22 PM

Rove is famous for playing mind games dating back to his high school debating days. He lugged huge bags supposedly stuffed with "back-up" arguments etc. which actually had blank paper. Rove is a con artist. Democrats would do well to be chirpy and optimistic and watch the voting machines - all of them.

M. Stratas | 10.26.06 05:30 PM

Rove and crew will probably come up with another phoney terrorist alert like they did after John Kerry's acceptance speach to scare the silly american sheep.

lloyd xkey | 10.26.06 05:44 PM

One word: DIEBOLD

jane | 10.26.06 05:46 PM

Mr. Rove is concerned only of keeping "W"'s party in office. Rove is the one of the most evil people in this country. Right along with the others of the "axis of evil", they being Mr. Evil himself, Dick Cheney, and our old buddy Rummy. What a disgusting bunch of worthless frauds. Rove is very much like his grandfather who was a war criminal of the Nazi era.

disgruntled | 10.26.06 05:48 PM

Rove's a Nazi. He spin-doctors and manipulates until much of the American public is confused beyond all reason.
Rovie's pushing a deadly game. 3,000 American soldiers killed and Rovie comfortably tucks himself in at night. 600,000 Iraqis killed and Rovie and the gang keep manipulating. The beat goes on...

Dan | 10.26.06 05:55 PM

How about the fact that Mr. Rove and his pals at Diebold have confident that the election will go there way.

-Matt | 10.26.06 05:58 PM

the first thing rove must do is to take gannons c*** from his mouth

BillyC | 10.26.06 06:00 PM

And then there's Diebold. They can always just steal the election again.

Paul | 10.26.06 06:01 PM

rove should stop drinking the kool-aid. Republican's are going to lose the house.

noway | 10.26.06 06:11 PM

Tha last comment was the only reasonable one! Conspiracies and nazi name-calling are usually signs of a party that is not serious or competitive. Yet most of the base of a formerly great American politcal party has become obsessed with them.

Don't Hire an Alcoholic to Replace a Social Drinker

And Don't Elect Liberals to Spite Republicans

I know the Republicans have spent far too much money the past 6 years, especially during Bush's 1st term, but I'm getting really tired of this idea that they are identical when there are such massive differences. Just because neither party mimmicks your ideas does not make them identical.

Republicans passed big tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Democrats would probably have passed one tax cut half the size of the 2001 tax cut, if that (after all Clinton promised tax cuts and then raised taxes). Most Republicans tried to start privatizing Social Security, a hugely important issue that Democrats will never be as libertarian on.

Republicans are in favor of health savings or universal savings accounts, which are far more libertarian than the Democrat's universal national healthcare plans. Republicans did pass a huge Perscription Drug Benefit, but it was half the size of the one Democrats favored.

Republicans passed a border security only bill that the Democrats never would have passed. Republicans passed bills allowing somewhat tough interrogations of Al Qaeda terrorists, the NSA warrantless wiretapping of terrorists, and a tweaked but still largely in tact Patriot Act. The Democrats would have shredded all 3 security measures, which have been very effective thus far. Democratic positions on counterterrorism measures read like a bill of rights for terrorists.

So while you can be dissapointed at Republicans not being conservative "enough", handing the government to a party that is LESS conservative and in favor of more spending in all aspects is nonsensical.

What is a South Park Conservative?

As far as this site is concerned, a South Park Conservative is someone who believes:

1. That the government doesn’t know what’s best for us


2. That social spending should be left to state and local governments because Utah and New York City don’t have the same problems


3. That capitalism is just a word for economic freedom and high taxes take away that freedom


4. That unequal prosperity is far better than equal poverty


5. That just because you’re a Democrat out of power doesn’t mean the Republican stole the election


6. That local control over social issues is more democratic and national control over social issues builds resentment


7. That smoking pot doesn’t make you a criminal


8. That people should have enough personal responsibility to simply use birth control until they’re married because every child deserves to be born into a loving family


9. That early abortion is a personal decision because its morality is debatable, but partial birth abortion is murder


10. That immigrants are good people, but importing the world’s poor is an insane public policy


11. That just because you’re a professor doesn’t give you the right to indoctrinate your students and stifle dissent in your classroom


12. That terrorism is the greatest threat to the world, not global warming


13. That terrorists in uncomfortable interrogations are better than innocent Americans in caskets


14. That you can’t appease Jihadists, who say things like, "The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy."


15. And that just because you’re famous doesn’t mean you know shit about the government.

South Park Conservative will be packed with small government, tough on terrorism, socially moderate blogging. Does that describe you? You just might be a South Park Conservative. Add SPC to your Favorites

The Bottom Line: Iraqi Sunnis are Reaping What They Have Sown

Sunni insurgents claimed that they were fighting the American “occupation”. Yet throughout the American presence in Iraq we were setting up an Iraqi democratic government and anxious to withdraw more soldiers. Today, elected Iraqis control all of Iraq’s government. But thanks to the Sunni's stubborn pro-Saddam, anti-democratic attitude, they killed thousands of American soldiers and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists that mass murdered both American soldiers and innocent Shiite civilians.

Now they are crying that they don’t want the country to break up. Their AK-47s and IEDs are all rusty with tears no doubt. They couldn’t give up their dominance over the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq, so now they are facing the prospect of being isolated, poor, and landlocked. They don’t want Iraq to split up because they won’t get much oil revenue, but Iraq wouldn’t be on the verge of splitting up if it weren’t for the Sunni insurgency and alliance with Al Qaeda!

Although liberals blame President Bush for violence in Iraq, just as most now blame him for 9/11, Saddam Hussein and now Iraq's Sunnis have always been the catalysts of violence. Saddam Hussein refused to admit inspectors in order to trick neighbors like Iran into believing he had WMDs, which lead to sanctions and the unecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This is also why U.S. troops were based in Saudi Arabia and patrolled no-fly zones in Iraq. Osama bin Laden then used the deaths of Iraqis under sanctions and the troops in Saudi Arabia as his two main justifications for the mass murder of 9/11. Saddam Hussein's success convincing the world he had WMDs through noncompliance with inspections and his connections to Al Qaeda left America no choice but war under the Bush Doctrine, which had 90% public support when it was unveiled on September 20th, 2001.

"But but but Saddam Hussein had no ties to 9/11!!!" Who said anything about ties to 9/11? I sure as hell didn't. However, there is abundant evidence of connections between Saddam Hussein and Jihadist terrorists, including Al Qaeda.

After the fall of Saddam, the Sunnis have been the only group that has consistently opposed peace and democracy. The Sunnis are the only group that has killed and caused chaos since the invasion ended. The Sunnis are the only group who could have made Iraq peaceful by stopping their attacks.

The Shiites were pulling off their best Ghandi impression, resisting any serious retaliation for nearly 3 years. Blaming 20 year-old American boys from Nebraska or Pennsylvania who are trying to keep that country in one piece for the sectarian violence is simply nonesensical. So the Sunnis will now have to deal with the consequences of their savage slaughter of Iraqi civilians and noble, self-sacrificing American troops. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for these terrorist-loving Baathists. The Iraqi Sunnis do not deserve my sympathy or yours.

Article of the Week

Liberal Paranoia

This article by Jonah Goldberd describes how "Intellectuals look at the world through literary prisms of theory. They come up with a vision of the world — one that usually magnifies their importance — and then select facts accordingly." It's a very entertaining must read.