Robbers: Tuition was motive

Any college student will tell you that it's expensive.  But let's cut the bullshit, this robbery wasn't for college tuition.  If you have good grades, you can get grants.  If you are poor, you can get grants.  If you aren't either of these, you can get student loans.

For example, my wife's student loans now sits at almost $100,000 dollars.  That's almost the cost of my first home.  However, college is an investment in yourself.  It allows you to have a job that pays significantly better, while not have to do such backbreaking manual labor.

But these two morons saw it differently.

Robbing a bank for college tuition money?  Bullshit.

Now they will see what life is like when they are in their 40's with a criminal record and NO COLLEGE DEGREE.  Good luck fellas, you're in for a bumpy ride.

If they were after money to steal, why did they fire the shots at the bulletproof glass?  They endangered the lives of everyone in that bank and deserve the 20 year sentence they now face.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Official: Iraqi leader wants 'Chemical Ali,' others executed

This guy simply has to go.  He's the one who orchestrated the massive ethnic cleansing in Iraq in 1988 that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Ali Hassan al-Majeed (aka "Chemical Ali"), Sultan Hashem Ahmed and Hussein Rashid were sentenced to death in June for their roles in the 1988 Anfal campaign, an Iraqi army operation in Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq that killed tens of thousands of people.

The three were to be executed in October, 30 days after their appeals were exhausted, but the three members of Iraq's presidency council have not signed the execution orders, as Iraqi law requires.

However, everyone's feelings are going to be hurt because one group wants him dead (the Shiites) and one wants him to be alive (the Sunnis). 

However, it's the Sunni's who've been helping us out in getting Iraq back on it's feet.

But the simply fact remains that this man is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.  If it were any other crime such as robbery, or assault, one might be willing to give him just a stiff jail sentence.

But with a crime of this magnitude, the guy simply must be hung like Saddam was.

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of fate that people deserve for murdering innocent people.  This is what Chemical Ali is responsible for:

 

Now tell me that someone who's responsible for this atrocity doesn't deserve the end of a hangman's noose?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

 

Congress takes-on credit card firms

Yes...because if it's one thing that Congress knows...it's fiscal responsibility.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Tony Hendra: Enough Spin Already: Bush and Cheney Lied, Iran Didn't - Politics on The Huffington Post

Let's be quite clear how far the men in the White House were willing to go. In the lethal linguistic fog these warmongers and the rightwing quislings who enable them, have plunged us, reasonable people seem to have lost sight of what we're talking about. Nuclear weapons aren't a bigger better version of Daisy Cutters. Nuclear weapons aren't just more bang for the buck. Nuclear weapons are the most cowardly killing devices ever devised by our benighted species.

How about you actually read the fucking report Tony?  I know it's not condensed like you might like, so I'll point out a key statement in the report for you to ponder:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons"

So in other words, when Iran is talking about their nuclear program being for "peaceful purposes only", they are flat out lying.  If you want to take the report as gospel, then you must take this statement as well.

Bush and Cheney WERN' T LYING.  I know it's very difficult for folks over at Huffington to wrap their head around that notion, but the report that you claim proves your case, actually proves both sides of the argument.  Iran wasn't going for just nuclear energy.  That's why they were wanting to shun a neutral third party nation giving them nuclear fuel that could only be used for nuclear energy.

Was Bush overplaying the threat posed by Iran?  You could argue that one way or another.  Personally, when a nation is training insurgents who are actively trying to murder US troops, supplying them with expensive explosives and other weaponry, supporting a known terrorist organization, and calling for the destruction of another nation, I don't think it's a bad thing to see them as a grave threat.

Now, Let's go with the notion that everything in this report is true.  If that's the case, do you want people with a notion in their heads that Armageddon is coming to have the knowledge on how to make a nuclear weapon?

Are you willing to risk the lives of thousands or millions of people who will die if God forbid, they are dumb enough to give or sell a weapon to another group who may very well use it?  Being anti-war is one thing, but being proactive about it is another.  If you want to stop a war, then you need to stop the threats against your home before they fester into something that will dwarf other terrorist attacks.

Now, you can claim I'm all "doom and gloom" all you want, but the simple fact remains that up until 2003, according to this document, Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program.

Do you want to hope your problem goes away or do you want to do something about it?  Diplomacy or military action are really your only options.  Pick one.

Bush has picked diplomacy, I doubt idiots like Tony will pick the military option.  He'll simply want to close his eyes and hope the problem goes away.  That's not how leadership works.  You see a problem, you fix the problem.

Israel is asking for the UN to keep the pressure up, which is probably a good idea.  Get the Iranians to completely dismantle their nuclear program, otherwise, things are going to get quite ugly.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Running Late

Hey everyone, I'm running a little late today, so the posts might be a little more towards the evening.  Not a big deal, but I like to have my posts done before 5pm as my own personal timeframe.

Oh well, sometimes life gets in the way of goals. :)

 

Travis

Rove tells Obama how to beat Clinton

If you take a look at the comments on CNN's site, you'll see a lot of people dismissing Karl Rove's comments as ineffectual and worse.  However, Obama might be wise to take Rove's advice to heart.

Let's disregard the messenger for a minute, does his advice make sense?  Would his advice, if followed, allow Obama to gain a lead over Hillary?

I believe so.  Obama has this squeaky clean image and that's all fine and dandy, but Hillary is simply to underhanded to take the threat of his candidacy lying down.

Let's not forget that she's already stated that she had evidence that would "sink" his candidacy.

When told to "put up or shut up", she chose to shut up.  Why?  She could have easily just put out the information on the table, and said "I tried to take the high road, but you forced my hand", yet she didn't.  She decided to make something up and hope that it would send his approval ratings into the toilet.  Problem was, it didn't work.

Sun Tzu said "know thy enemy" and Obama clearly doesn't.  I can see him making mistake after mistake in this campaign and what's worse is that if I can see it, then either his political advisors don't see it, which shows incompetence, or they do and they or Obama aren't doing anything about it, which also shows incompetence.

It's one thing to go to your political opponent and say "I plan on running a clean campaign, let's agree to go that route", but it appears that Obama is trying to and Hillary isn't.

The idea is to show the American public that Hillary is a liar and avoids taking a stance on any issues.  Everyone except blind and deaf people know that, but unless you're willing to put the spotlight on her and watch her scatter towards underneath the refrigerator, she's going to try everything in her power to make Obama look like a fool.

Not everyone has internet access and a good memory for what was said, when it was said, so pointing these flaws in Hillary out, will gain you a lot more then you think.  Doing nothing will only add to the notion that you're not willing to show true leadership during rough times.

So you can make all the speeches you want about the "audacity of hope", but it won't get you voted into the White House unless you have a plan of action and where you stand on major issues facing everyday Americans.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Term Limits

With the recent slap down of Constitutional changes in Venezuela, I wanted to jump on the topic of term limits.

Way back when, Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented 4 elections to be the longest running US President in history.

With the passage of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, he will remain in that top spot forever, unless the Amendment is repealed.

That allows new ideas and new people a change to become President.  It's generally looked upon as a good thing so that you do not slip into one person's view of how things should be run running the show.

However, those that hold the real power in the United States, members of Congress, do not have such term limits.

So let's take a look at why that is:

First off, any implementation of term limits must be approved by Congress, and let's face it, who's going to vote themselves out of a job?  Especially one that wields this much power?

Secondly, you're going to continually have this power struggle between Democrats and Republicans.  Which of course, doesn't get any work done.

For example, I think we all can agree that the federal deficit is running out of control.  At a little more then $9 trillion dollars, sooner or later, we're going to have to start making tough decisions about what to do about it.

Now me personally, I think we should cut spending down to the bone in certain areas, and leave earmarks completely out of the question.

However, because term limits aren't there, you have prominent politicians who are playing word games with earmarks:

DREW GRIFFIN: ...Last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed a new open earmark process saying finally the American people will know where their money is going, and then she said this.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: If I just might direct the record to another place, why don't we just leave this room today forgetting the word earmark? This is legislatively directed spending as opposed to executive spending.

GRIFFIN: And Ms. Pelosi, for the record, a member of your staff told us you would not reveal your "legislatively directed spending requests."

Yet, when Nancy was running for office, she said she'd be "happy to do away with" earmarks.

But yet, Nancy is giving earmarks to private companies:

Another of Pelosi's earmarks was $2.5 million to Bioquiddity, Inc., a San Francisco biotech company with nine employees, to continue developing drug-infusion pumps. Bioquiddity President Josh Kriesel, who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for the state legislature in 2002, has donated $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since last September. The company received a total of $3.9 million in earmarks in the last two years. Kriesel declined to comment directly on the earmarks.

Pelosi has said some earmarks are ``worthy.'' And she said there is a distinction between those for public projects, which she sometimes touts with press releases, and special interest earmarks.

Pelosi's Response

Asked about her company-specific earmarks, she says ``there are some things that the federal government wants that some of these companies can uniquely do.''

First off, that $3.9 million dollars could have been put towards paying off the national debt.  Now many of you might be thinking "well that's nothing in the grand scheme of things", but that's just one earmark out of thousands.  The last spending bill had $22 billion worth of earmarks.  Plus, why is this money going towards private companies?  Are you telling me that the federal government can't do the work that these companies are doing?  These are private companies, does the government get a piece of the company for their money?  Since they are private companies, they should be competing in the marketplace for their revenue.  If they make a product that the government can uniquely use or decides that shouldn't be selling to other governments, then the company should be bought out or some similar type of transaction.

Let's get a better bang for our buck people.

However, if term limits were in place, we'd only have to endure Nancy Pelosi's shenanigans for so long.

So what's good for the goose, should be good for the gander.  Term limits for members of Congress should be implemented and soon.  And, to prevent people from voting themselves out of a job, let's offer to "grandfather" them in.

Current members of Congress can run for re-election for an unlimited amount of times.  However, once they decide to not run for re-election or they retire, or die, then the next new member of Congress has the term limits imposed upon them.

Fair enough?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003

With a headline like that, you'd think that everything was coming up roses right?

Well when you get to the meat of everything, it doesn't:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produced enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

In other words, they may indeed have stopped their nuclear weapons program, or at least slowed it to the point of trickling, but if they wanted to, they could have a weapon in short order.

However, this is in fact, makes a liar out of Ahmadinejad when he claimed their nuclear program was strictly for "peaceful purposes".

They were working on a program up until 2003, and they were wanting to get weapons.  They are playing the same game that Saddam did with his WMD's program.  Wait out the world, when no one is looking, ramp it up and then hold the world hostage to your demands.

Case in point?  The report reads:

Available intelligence suggests the Iranian leadership is guided "by a cost-benefit approach," not a headlong rush to develop a bomb, the report concludes.

In other words:  "Let's get the bomb at a slower rate when people aren't looking".

Something doesn't smell quite right here, and I wonder why one intelligence report says one thing in 2005, and is severely lighter in 2007.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Newt slams Clinton as "fundamentally dishonest," leaves door open for VP slot

Speaking on C-SPAN's "In Depth" Sunday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich issued a strong condemnation of President Bill Clinton's character, Clinton's recent comments against Gingrich over the 1998 impeachment and the former president's recent claim that he was always against the war in Iraq.

"He is fundamentally dishonest on a routine, regular basis," said Gingrich. "It's just his personality. He tells you the version he needs to be who he is to get through this week. And he just did it in Iowa over whether he used to be against the war in Iraq."

Clinton told a crowd gathered in Iowa on Tuesday that he that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning." This statement doesn't perfectly square with previous statements by Clinton, including one in 2003 when he said, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Really Newt?  It's not like I pointed that out a while ago, what it with his lies about Osama, Iraq, and other national concerns.

It really shouldn't be all that surprising, Hillary exudes the same qualities that Bill does.

And yet, for the fact that everyone can see clearly through her and his dishonesty, they enjoy a commanding lead in some polls.

I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time.

You know what would be refreshing?  A politician who would tell you what they think and feel, and if they disagree with you, why they feel that way.

Also, I'd love a politician to tell me: I don't know.  When was the last time you heard a politician say that when faced with a tough question?  Everytime I seem to think: "that's a softball question", you see politicians try to weasel their way out of directly answering it.

Do I need to run for office to get some real changes done here?  I've already gone on rants with friends and family, and they've said they would vote for me if I ran for office.  What do you think?  Would you vote for me?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Chavez loses vote on new powers in Venezuela

Hugo Chavez got slapped back into reality today as he narrowly lost a vote to make sweeping changes to Venezuela's constitution.

The referendum vote on a raft of reforms would have allowed Chavez to run for reelection indefinitely, control Venezuela's foreign currency reserves, appoint loyalists over regional elected officials and censor the media if he declares an emergency.

Chavez has said he wants to rule for life and turn Venezuela into a socialist state. But defeat will likely put the Cuba ally under intense pressure to slow or halt his self-declared socialist revolution and step down when his term ends in 2013.

And here I was worried that Venezuelan citizens had lost their minds with this moron for a leader.

He already threatened to cut oil off to the US if things didn't go his way and we questioned the results.

That's a real good idea.  Cut off your product from your #1 customer.  I'm sure that wouldn't come to bite you in the ass in some way now would it?

Chavez simply thinks he's a lot more powerful and enlightened then he is and the Venezuelan public let him know it.  Granted it was by a slim margin, but a win is a win.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com