"... relativism is for physics, not for ethics"
                                          -Albert Einstein


It has been a long known fact that in any society you have had those who simply don't understand the concept of their own person contribution. They scream freedom... but it isn't freedom for such noble things as living and pursuing a productive life as a member of that society, it is usually based on endlessly narcissistic and vain machinations based on their individual perspectives - which are visceral, b aser... and flat out sensual by nature, e.g.  homosexual behavior, lesbian behavior, indulging relativism as a means to justify it all along a list of sophic indigences and inflammatory rhetoric espousing some of the most radical abasement of common sense the human mind can conceive - all in the name of attempting to escape the conviction of their folly.

The post modern education system told us that nothing was relevant but what we felt, that is a lie... apparently it is not. The therapeutic system in place now says, well it isn't your fault, there must be some repressive social pressure causing the problem, so... there it is - it's societies fault and not that of your own. Now this system only works if there is no system of internal accountability. Without a system of balanced, principled ethics and morays to give light to one's personal constitution, the social liberal ends up with a system of self valued behavior, in other words, smelling their own fumes. The "A" word for short... is a system of liberal thought applied to a complex of personal governance illiterated to us from Voltaire and Russo's Humanistic rabble, or Bertrand Russell's philandering antics down to Darwin's rage induced theories interpreted by and expounded on  by elements useful to Carl Marx, or even more contemporary voices such as Barton, Sanger or in psychology such as Maslov or Skinner. These voices have worked to not only to silence principled basis for an internal system of accountability - they mock and reduce the overall validity of the merits of Bible based principles or just simple moral awareness. Yet this social voice in politics seems to feel they have the answers for social conservatives as well?

The reality is absurd, completely. To somehow espouse the notion that social and moral renegades can serve the same social interests [and here is the kicker] achieve the same results - knowing you aren't living right... How can you represent the voice of those who are producing the visible results of right living? Not saying that social conservatives are perfect... But they didn't start a civil war of social dissidence based on moral incorrectness, and other self serving political and social philosophies expedient to their overall agenda. The bottom line is they are radically different and one, in the end, as it is revealing now will prove utterly disastrous.

 

I have to say... this was a gem, after the behavioral correction the Clintonista's suffered after Super Tuesday... It must have dislodged Hillary's ability to judge not lest she be judged, as she stepped up her rhetoric while addressing a throng of her "disciples" prior to the Washington state primary. He had the unmitigated gall to accuse Barack Obama of speaking in more generalized, floating, frothy, vicseral, baser, and evocative yet empty platitudes than her political nemesis Barack Obama. I have been trying to hunt down the footage but, it was one for the ages I tell you. Have you noticed it as well?

That Darn Republican

Well, I hate to be the one saying I told you so... but, I told you so. We had obvious hints of the Giants ability to stiffle the Patriots during the regular season.  New York was the only team to get within three points of the Patriots usual rout of an opponent. And here we are... post Super Bowl with bookies with hits on them, I told you so! Plexico Burres and Michael Strahan were phenonemal. That Pats were just handled by the Giants - plain and simple.  Buress with the winning touchdown... nice job, and a well deserved MVP nod if he gets nominated. Now... I am not a huge fan of any of the Manning boys, so I'll keep it short and sweet. Eli takes too many chances with experience he doesn't have... sound familiar, Hillary? the only differences is... he has talent. He needs to temper it. Payton is loveable as a great smashmouth football player, but with all the issues with them and their dad, well... I'll leave that be. They played well and showed their stuff.


Well deserved lads!  And now Coughlin can breathe a sign of relief... he has checks coming.

You just have to check this link... this is great!  HillaryTheMovie  In a typical debate with even the most skilled voice amongst the ranks of social liberals all one need do is press the issue of platform over platitudes and you'll literally stymie them for all they worth. And last nights Rocktoberfest in Hollywood [go figure] leading up to Super Tuesday was no different.  The two leading voices for the Democratic National Committee were addressing each other in the most toned down rhetoric thus far in this race to date. Barrack Obama did one thing last night [and it actually wasn't that he did it last night] that forced The Billary camp to do one thing... shut up and deal with a capable opponent.  I may despise both of them and the ground they walk on, but the Obama people's continued ignoring the race bating charges of the Clintonista;s on the far left have paid of with multiple dividends. For one, black voters who were hailing Bill Clinton as the "first black president" [as absurd as that is] just got a stiff dose of ethnic bias slant poised back at them form the Billary destroy you machine... Ole Bill campaigned hard for his [well] wife that somehow inner city blacks were choosing Obama over the Clinton's. Hmmmm, where does that one-sided rhetoric sound familiar? Perhaps it was Hillary who somehow felt entitled to the female vote, and got a stiff reality check when the only strong voice of female voters where her pants suit feminist nutter buddies taking the charge for her, and were the first to voice their disdain and reveal their overt ethnic bias toward Obama when they lashed out at John Edwards for quietly supporting Barrack Obama when he stepped aside, hmmm and they call conservatives bigots?

This show will implode for Hillary... period. If there was a female candidate for this country, she is the farthest from it at any time. Peep this little gem... and don't be surprised who you see co,ming out of the woodwork against Hillary Clinton... and no this isn't inflammatory hate mail, this is a matter of historical record with people who know and worked with or for Bill and Hillary Clinton, the house divided:

 

That I suppose you may find useful if you really want to be objective about Hillary as a person and a candidate, because you're blind without it. She is a political chameleon, she will say anything and do anything to get elected. Obama will do anything and say anything to support what he wants to get done... as he clearly is the most liberal [next to Dennis Kucinich] of any of the front runners for the highest office in the land. On Tuesday we will find out if the Hillary crush machine will have an effect on Obama.

As we now draw near to Super Tuesday, the field is narrowing on both sides of the political isle. But yet the comfort of association is strong on the liberal side because this is the first time in American history we have had all the liberal candidates espousing varying degrees of socialist sensitivity.  We don't have such a comfort zone on the right, and why is that? Well mainly because the difference between liberals and social conservatives is that there is a difference between platitudes and platforms.  On the right... a platform is something you stand on - and on the left a platitude is something you voice based on what you feel. And in the natural this things play themselves out. Now following that to its natural conclusion... the far left is far more comfortable talking about things they never intend on acting on and speaking in broad general terms with evocative language, and stirring feeling rather than confronting the facts and dealing with real social issues rather than talking point they construe as important. The left has no platform, that is why they have continued to loose presidential elections because they omitted principals or any relevant social platform over their agendas [respectively]. The problem is; are American conservatives being given the right conservative choices?  and the answer clearly is neither Romney nor McCain are true social conservatives. A true social conservative is without question a social conservative on social issues, and either a fiscal conservative or a moderate at best. Hawkish on the war and border matters and a strict constitutional understanding rather attempt to "interpret" the constitution in ways that aren't contextually accurate.

A liberal is soft on social issues , soft on any military matters... pro environment, anti-humanity, big on government spending.  A Kennedy democrat [however] is hawkish on the war and civil defense,soft on social issues and government spending but not [necessarily] soft on moral issues all together. The latter is what we seem to have on the right with McCain, Romney and Huckabee.  But, the MSM is praising McCain as though he made some huge cataclysmic advent in Florida. But when you stand back and see the state of Florida for what it was... the demographic is almost identical to Arizona, McCain's home state. John McCain is from a retirement state.. many retired or retiring American's find their way to both warm climate states. Affectionately... they have done their duty for God and country, all they want is warm meal and blanket... can you blame them? Hardly... so why was the victory in Florida such a "stunning" victory for John McCain when we are no where near Super Tuesday? I find it just a bit incredulous for pundits who were mouthing at him a week earlier now heralding his praises now. I find myself in the strange position of having to if not flat out know my vote won't matter and just vote for Huckabee... this if course is being entirely arrogant and presuming the worst for the man... but being some how realistic seeing Romney as someone I may actually have to vote for.  McCain crafted the notorious McCain-Feingold campaign contribution legislation, probably the biggest affront to the 1st. amendment is as many years.  He is soft on border security,and tends to be as obstinate on matters of social importance on social issues that are party platform staples i.e. pro-life matters, same sex issues etc.  Why is it republican's are running to this guy... he is against drilling for oil in the Anwar area, bass-ackwards campaign finance reform, supported legal assurances for enemy combatants [say what?], closing Guantanamo Bay... a no-no. He says he is a strong voice for the war effort, but the latter two points work against him. He is no social conservative.. this is apparent, but what are we to do. Huckabee may be bucking for Vice President position with McCain, which tactically... may not be a bad idea, McCain [ if elected ] would probably only be a one-termer anyway. Twenty five years as a Washington insider is a bit is a bit disconcerting this race, especially when we have to be as mindfull of these sophic-minded liberlas who will [like Hillary] will be exactly what you need the to be and say precisely what you need them to just to get elected, and then they pull the rip-cord... at this time in history, can be devastating.