I believe we should strengthen our borders, and punish employers seriously for hiring illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants would not come into this country if there was no employment. Employers that higher illegal immigrants are do it to contribute to our economy. They are hiring these folks to take advantage of people that are willing to work for wages far below the value of the work. Consumers want low cost but I do not believe consumers want low cost at the expense of other people being taken advantage. That is EXACTLY what employers that hire illegal immigrants are doing. They are taking advantage of people to line their own pockets with more cash. Market forces should set the wage rate and price of goods. That relationship should not be manipulated by keeping people poor.
Perhaps some of these jobs are not filled by legal immigrants and citizens because the wages do not fir the work. Employers should raise the wages and the prices to be able to provide these products, they should not take advantage of the poor from other countries so we can have cheap apples and low cost landscaping.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
President Bush is too polite at press conferences
I find it amazing that liberal biased media journalists keep asking the President why he "wanted to go to war". Not only did he not want to go to war but once war was upon us it is the Congress that approved going to war. Why then did these Congress men and women approve going to war. For many obvious reasons that are as true today as they were then. Terrorists brought the war to us and we took our response to them where they live, train, and recruit. The major media outlets seem to want to ignore everything that is true about this situation and only concentrate on the clarity of things brought by hind sight. Journalists that documented the use of WMD's against Kurds in Iraq are suddenly indignant that intelligence reports before the war were not 100% accurate about WMD's. Excuse me, if Saddam used them once, he would certainly be willing to use them again and you can only use the best intelligence you have to make the best decision you can. That goes for Congress as well as the President.
I still believe that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for all the correct reasons. Eliminating terrorist strong holds, bringing freedom to millions that yearn for it, and trying to create some stability in an area of the world that is historically instable. Perhaps if we had been as pre-emptive in 1939 then millions of people would not have been exterminated by the Nazi regime across Europe and Russia.
I still believe that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for all the correct reasons. Eliminating terrorist strong holds, bringing freedom to millions that yearn for it, and trying to create some stability in an area of the world that is historically instable. Perhaps if we had been as pre-emptive in 1939 then millions of people would not have been exterminated by the Nazi regime across Europe and Russia.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
I am part of the BlogOsphere and I support the President
Starting with Rush Limbaugh there seems to be a growing opinion that the BlogOSphere is comprised of extreme liberal nut jobs. Today I heard Tom Hughes, on WGST 640am radio in Atlanta, connect the term extreme left democrats and blogosphere. I realize that organizations like moveon.org are out there on the extreme but not all bloggers are liberals. I am a conservative but rather than preaching fear and half truths on my blog about the President I choose to blog about life in general. Apparently conservative bloggers need to start dedicating some of their blogging to supporting the conservative values we agree with.
According to Tom Hughes, the blogosphere is very angry over the war in Iraq. I am always amazed at how selfish and self-centered liberals can be. Here we are a country that millions around the world have come to for the sole purpose of having freedom and yet we are suppose to ignore regimes like Saddams and NOT help others to have the simple freedom of choosing their own destiny. OH! That's right, liberals know better what is good for us, we should sit down, shutup, and do as they see fit. I do not think so.
I know that bringing freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq has cost us and is costing us American lives. This is not a sacrifice that I or any of us should commit to easily. When we do commit to this sacrifice it must be for something as important and critical to human beings as freedom. We can argue over how Iraq got to where it was for ever and never agree to what should or should not have been done, etc. I do not shy away from that debate I only point out that the current objective of bringing freedom to an enslaved, downtrodden, and abused populace is of such high importance to humanity that at this point it does not really matter how we got here. What matters is the smiling faces of millions of purple fingered people in Iraq that have tasted true freedom and are hungry for more.
As estimated 8 million people, 60 percent of eligible voters braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq. A string of homicide bombings and mortar volleys killed at least 44 people, including nine attackers.
Americans suffer no such threats at 99% of polling places and yet we do not vote in such enthusiastic numbers, that is the power of people that are hungry for freedom, we take our freedom for granted.
99% of Iraqis's are praying America does not abandon them until they can truly stand on their own against the 1% ooppressorsrs that wish to return to the good old days of the powerful few dominating and controlling the lives of the many. Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what liberals want to do to us? Hmmm, maybe their anger with the war in Iraq is making sense now.
Liberals seem to forget or perhaps refuse to understand that conservatives do not "support war" but rather that we understand that in the course of history it is sometimenecessaryry to go to war in order to bring freedom and stability to an enslaved nation. War is NOT the first course of action but it is a course that once chosen cannot be abandoned for selfish reasons leaving other people to suffer once again under the yoke of oppression.
Were liberals so self-centered that the ONLY reason they approved the war in Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction? Did the suffering oIraqis's, the documented brutaatrocitieses of Saddam's regime, and the DOCUMENTED use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds have nothing to do with their decision to support the war? If liberals reasons for supporting getting into the war were in fact so self-centered and narrow then it makes perfect sense that liberals now want out. The war serves no purpose for them and they could care less about what it means to humanity, the future of millions of people in the middle east, or the fact that turning tail and running would reduce our ability to help others in the future.
Let me close by saying that I appreciate the sacrifices that our military men, women, and families have made since 1776 to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and to bring freedom to others. The Germans, the FrenchIsraelis's, and countless others have the freedoms they enjoy as a direct result of our country putting the importance of freedom above the preservation of our own lives. Well maybe the liberals don't but I think the majority of Americans do, and if we don't we are doomed to losing our freedoms very soon.
Thanks for reading, Eric
The following words are designed to help search engines find this article
blogosphere blog-o-sphere blog o sphere
According to Tom Hughes, the blogosphere is very angry over the war in Iraq. I am always amazed at how selfish and self-centered liberals can be. Here we are a country that millions around the world have come to for the sole purpose of having freedom and yet we are suppose to ignore regimes like Saddams and NOT help others to have the simple freedom of choosing their own destiny. OH! That's right, liberals know better what is good for us, we should sit down, shutup, and do as they see fit. I do not think so.
I know that bringing freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq has cost us and is costing us American lives. This is not a sacrifice that I or any of us should commit to easily. When we do commit to this sacrifice it must be for something as important and critical to human beings as freedom. We can argue over how Iraq got to where it was for ever and never agree to what should or should not have been done, etc. I do not shy away from that debate I only point out that the current objective of bringing freedom to an enslaved, downtrodden, and abused populace is of such high importance to humanity that at this point it does not really matter how we got here. What matters is the smiling faces of millions of purple fingered people in Iraq that have tasted true freedom and are hungry for more.
As estimated 8 million people, 60 percent of eligible voters braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq. A string of homicide bombings and mortar volleys killed at least 44 people, including nine attackers.
Americans suffer no such threats at 99% of polling places and yet we do not vote in such enthusiastic numbers, that is the power of people that are hungry for freedom, we take our freedom for granted.
99% of Iraqis's are praying America does not abandon them until they can truly stand on their own against the 1% ooppressorsrs that wish to return to the good old days of the powerful few dominating and controlling the lives of the many. Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what liberals want to do to us? Hmmm, maybe their anger with the war in Iraq is making sense now.
Liberals seem to forget or perhaps refuse to understand that conservatives do not "support war" but rather that we understand that in the course of history it is sometimenecessaryry to go to war in order to bring freedom and stability to an enslaved nation. War is NOT the first course of action but it is a course that once chosen cannot be abandoned for selfish reasons leaving other people to suffer once again under the yoke of oppression.
Were liberals so self-centered that the ONLY reason they approved the war in Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction? Did the suffering oIraqis's, the documented brutaatrocitieses of Saddam's regime, and the DOCUMENTED use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds have nothing to do with their decision to support the war? If liberals reasons for supporting getting into the war were in fact so self-centered and narrow then it makes perfect sense that liberals now want out. The war serves no purpose for them and they could care less about what it means to humanity, the future of millions of people in the middle east, or the fact that turning tail and running would reduce our ability to help others in the future.
Let me close by saying that I appreciate the sacrifices that our military men, women, and families have made since 1776 to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and to bring freedom to others. The Germans, the FrenchIsraelis's, and countless others have the freedoms they enjoy as a direct result of our country putting the importance of freedom above the preservation of our own lives. Well maybe the liberals don't but I think the majority of Americans do, and if we don't we are doomed to losing our freedoms very soon.
Thanks for reading, Eric
The following words are designed to help search engines find this article
blogosphere blog-o-sphere blog o sphere
Monday, March 20, 2006
Call of Duty 2 needs an upgrade!
I have been playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and this game has the kind of lobby system for online play that I wish COD2 had. GRAW is first of all as awesome of a game as COD2, killer graphics, fun game play, and for people like me that love playing but suck we can kill bots in the online game.
I really want COD2 to do a major upgrade and give us a great lobby system. Another problem might be achievements, GRAW gives achievement points for online play while COD2 does not.
On a side note, I believe it would be best if all 360 games(that are xbox live enabled) provided 1000 achievement points for campaign and another 1000 points for online play, or 500 each at a minimum. Today it is a mixed bag where some games divide points and others do all points for the campaign
I really want COD2 to do a major upgrade and give us a great lobby system. Another problem might be achievements, GRAW gives achievement points for online play while COD2 does not.
On a side note, I believe it would be best if all 360 games(that are xbox live enabled) provided 1000 achievement points for campaign and another 1000 points for online play, or 500 each at a minimum. Today it is a mixed bag where some games divide points and others do all points for the campaign
Call of Duty 2 needs an upgrade!
I have been playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and this game has the kind of lobby system for online play that I wish COD2 had. GRAW is first of all as awesome of a game as COD2, killer graphics, fun game play, and for people like me that love playing but suck we can kill bots in the online game.
I really want COD2 to do a major upgrade and give us a great lobby system. Another problem might be achievements, GRAW gives achievement points for online play while COD2 does not.
On a side note, I believe it would be best if all 360 games(that are xbox live enabled) provided 1000 achievement points for campaign and another 1000 points for online play, or 500 each at a minimum. Today it is a mixed bag where some games divide points and others do all points for the campaign
I really want COD2 to do a major upgrade and give us a great lobby system. Another problem might be achievements, GRAW gives achievement points for online play while COD2 does not.
On a side note, I believe it would be best if all 360 games(that are xbox live enabled) provided 1000 achievement points for campaign and another 1000 points for online play, or 500 each at a minimum. Today it is a mixed bag where some games divide points and others do all points for the campaign
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)