Obama is right on the Alaskan natural gas pipeline

Reasons to agree:

1. In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, “Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.“ 
2. Natural Gas is cleaner than coal.
   

Probable interest (or motive) of those who agree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
3. Racism (5%)
4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
5. Money for those living in Alaska, or in the Energy market.
   
6. The desire for lower cost natural gas (more supply)

Probable interest (or motive)  of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
3. Liberal guilt.
4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
5. Money. The desire to sell products to people in Cuba.
6. The desire to see higher prices, so people use forced to think more about their energy decisions. 

Why I Should Carry a Gun

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
 

In 1929, the  Soviet Union  established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Guatemala  established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ---- ------------- ------------- 
  
Uganda  established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Cambodia  established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ----------------------------- 
  
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in  Australia  were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing  Australia  taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: 
  
List of 7 items: 
  
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. 
  
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
  
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! 
  
In the state of  Victoria  alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! 
  
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. 
  
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. 

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the  Soviet Union  established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

    ------------------------------ 
  
In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Guatemala  established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ---- ------------- ------------- 
  
Uganda  established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
Cambodia  established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ----------------------------- 
  
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.. 
    ------------------------------ 
  
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in  Australia  were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing  Australia  taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: 
  
List of 7 items: 
  
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. 
  
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
  
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! 
  
In the state of  Victoria  alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! 
  
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. 
  
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. 

Thanks for linking to this blog

The following is a blog post that links to this site:

http://ffgop.canalblog.com/archives/2009/04/08/13308145.html

For those of you don't speak French, Google can help:

Just copy and paste it into this site,

http://translate.google.com

...and this is what you get

Constructive criticism is one thing that the Democrats (and the Left in general) cannot do.

Right, we seek to improve things, to solve problems. On this same site and with the media, we do not hesitate to support the U.S. President when he's right, even if it is democratic.

Supporters of Mitt Romney released a website with this in mind. The idea is to use the quotes and actions of Barack Obama, and explain how its actions are positive, negative or otherwise.

Visit!

http://r2aadwo.blogspot.com/

Thanks for linking to this blog!

Obama is a republican when it comes to his family, but wants us to live like democrats.

Reasons to agree:

1. Obams says how great public schools are, however he sent his own kids to private schools while he was in Chicago and DC, but he opposes vouchers that would allow us to choose were to send our kids, like he did.


2. Obama said that Rich people didn't pay enough taxes when Bush was president, but he is a millionare, and he didn't pay extra money to the government because he thought it was right. Infact he hardly gave any money to charity. From 2000 to 2006 he gave 1, .5, .4, 1.4, 1.2, 4.7, and then finnaly 6.1%. For 4 years in a row he gave less than 2%. Most average republicans give more than that, and most republicans that had as much as he had gave way more than him. Yet he goes on and on about great he was to work as a community organizer, when that was just a job to get him into politics.

Obama made the right decision for his kids but the wrong decision for our kids

Reasons to agree:

Obama was asked:
Q: Do you send your kids to public school or private school?
Obama said:
“A: My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids. But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to (notice latter why he brings this up). The problem is, is that we don’t have good schools, public schools, for all kids. A US senator can get his kid into a terrific public school (if this is true, why did he send his kids to a private school? He says that it was close, but you would think that if he doesn’t support vouchers, that he only wants us to send out kids to public schools, that he would go to the extra effort). That’s not the question (yes it is. The question you were asked is if you send your kids to public or private schools). The question is whether or not ordinary parents, who can’t work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school, and that’s what I need to fight for and will fight for as president. “2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007.

Obama said he wants to help make it so that “parents, who can’t work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school”, but he doesn’t want them to have the choice he made ol sending them to a private school.
So all the talk about how great our public schools goes out the doors when he makes decisions about his own family.
We aren’t good enough to get vouchers so we can choose were to send out kids… For us, public schools are the best choice, but for him he is going to use a private school.
It goes to show that people are very democratic, when talking about others, but everyone becomes a republican and looks out for their best interest when it comes to their family.
Again Obama made millions of dollars, and always says how the rich need to give more of their share, but he didn’t make any extra donations to uncle Sam himself, so his words are not for him to live by, just others.
But that is the right decision. It shows he loves his kids.
Now he just needs to make the right decision and love our children and give them vouchers so we can make the same decision he made.

Probable interest (or motivation) of those who agree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
3. Political laziness & issue crossover (15%)
   
4. The desire to see more competition in Education (20%).
   
5. Hope in the future.
6. Desire for equality, and better schools for minorities.
7. Racism (5%)
8. Dislike for unions (5%).
9. Preference for variety (many different approaches to education)
10. Despare. We have tried everything else, why not try vouchers.

Probable interest (or motivation) of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
3. Political laziness & issue crossover.
4. Solidarity with the teachers union.

Obama was wrong to have voted against Roberts

Reasons to agree:

1. People on both sides of the isle, say that he is very respectful, to those with whome he disagrees.


2. During his two year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting only two dissents from other judges, and authoring only three dissents of his own. This shows that Roberts works well with others, and builds consensus.


3. Roberts is one of twelve Catholic justices — out of 110 justices total — in the history of the Supreme Court.^[37]


4. His wife is an attorney and a trustee (along with Clarence Thomas) at her alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. He must be pretty cool to have got a smart girl like that to marry him.


5. Roberts graduated graduating with an A.B. in history summa cum laude in three years from Harvard.
   


6. Before attending Harvard Law School, was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review,^[3] and graduated with his J.D. magna cum laude.^[5] If that was good enough reason for Obama to be president, I guess it is good enough reason for Roberts to be Chief Justice.
   


7. He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft. How cool is that?
   


8. All of his maternal great-grandparents were from Czechoslovakia. Roberts understands immigration.
   


9. He was captain of his football team and was a Regional Champion in wrestling. That is pretty cool.

Probable interest (or motivation) of those who agree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)


2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   


3. Political laziness & issue crossover (15%)
   


4. The desire to have more conservative judges on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.


5. The desire to strengthen presidential power and weaken legislative power (not encouraging the legislature to vote against people they don't like, instead of "bad" people)
   

Probable interest (or motivation) of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   


2. Democratic party groupism (40%)


3. Political laziness & issue crossover.


4. The desire to have less conservative judges on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
   


5. The desire to limit presidential power and strengthen legislative power (letting the legislature vote against people they don't like, instead of "bad" people)