I feel this is an appropriate day to write on this topic. I don't think I'm that old but I definately see a difference between girls when I was in high school and girls who are currently in high school with regard to the internet.
When I was in high school, girls were very cautious about having their boyfriends or guys take a risque picture of them because they feared it would end up on the internet. Now, girls do it to themselves. If you go on facebook, you can see this immediately, the girls my age very rarely, if ever, have pictures of them in bikinis or anything risque on Facebook. Then you go to a girl in high school and you see literally multiple photos of them in bikinis, close up of their cleavage, and other pictures that leave little to the imagination. Some even show nipple, which I didn't even know was allowed on facebook but apparantly it is. Now some girls my age or older will slip and have a picture of them in a bikini but like I said, they're very low in number. Almost every girl in high school up until the legal age to drink have facebook pages flooded with risque photos...I'm not sure how or when this switch was made.
Sure you can argue that attractive girls want to flaunt what they got. They worked hard to get their gorgeous physiques so why not show them off? Looks don't last forever so flaunt it while you got it. Especially on Halloween where even girls my age dress like sluts but have rabbit ears or something on so they don't actually say they're dressed as sluts. This is why Halloween is the most popular day to be raped. It is also the most popular day to try a drug for the first time. Go out to a bar and you can immediately see why the former statistic is quite obvious to discern. If you are worried you won't have enough will power to do something disrespectful, don't worrry, the younger ones will post all of it on facebook for your viewing pleasure.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
NBA lockout
The NBA has just announced that we will not have basketball in November. This bothers me to no end as I am obsessed with the NBA. In every debate, one should pick a side. I am siding with the owners.
The thing that the players refuse to agree to is anything less than 52% of all basketball related revenue. This is approximately 80 million dollars. I think the owners are being nice offering 50%. This is a common problem in all businesses and corporations. Secretaries think that since they do all the bitch work and paper work that they are actually running the companies. It is very common for lower tier people to believe those at the tops do nothing and the lower people are stuck doing all the work. This is also seen in construction, those actually lifting steel beams and putting them in place putting the building together hate that the architect of the building gets credit for building it. In all examples, the distribution of the money is fairly distributed.
I have a problem with David Stern in his dress code for the players and tyrannical suspensions. The most egregious of this was suspending Rashard Lewis of the Orlando Magic 50 games for testing positive for DHEA. DHEA is a natural hormone made by the body. Everyone in the world has DHEA...and if you don't, you should go get some DHEA supplements because it is one of the most important hormones your body needs to function. I assume that Rashard Lewis tested higher than the normal limit people have, but that's like faulting him for drinking more water than the average person. It's decisions like these where I can understand the players having issue with David Stern but David Stern and the owners have worked very hard making basketball the global game that it's become. They literally go around the world searching for talent and advertising/building teams that thousands of people will pay good money to watch live. I don't know exactly what goes into the daily operations of an NBA owner so I will just say it this way: NBA players are paid millions of dollars to do something that they've been doing for their entire lives and maybe even paid to do early on. It is the NBA owners responsibility to find a way to make enough money to pay these multi-million dollar contracts while still running a successful team. In no way should the salaried employees be compensated at a higher revenue share that the company brings in than the people who find a way to pay all the salaried employees every week.
I really hope the players give in to the 50/50 revenue split soon. They're asking for something they don't deserve and I really want to watch basketball. If they dismiss what the owners do so much, than they should start their own league like they threaten. At least then I can watch basketball again...and they'll find out just how badly they need the owners!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
The thing that the players refuse to agree to is anything less than 52% of all basketball related revenue. This is approximately 80 million dollars. I think the owners are being nice offering 50%. This is a common problem in all businesses and corporations. Secretaries think that since they do all the bitch work and paper work that they are actually running the companies. It is very common for lower tier people to believe those at the tops do nothing and the lower people are stuck doing all the work. This is also seen in construction, those actually lifting steel beams and putting them in place putting the building together hate that the architect of the building gets credit for building it. In all examples, the distribution of the money is fairly distributed.
I have a problem with David Stern in his dress code for the players and tyrannical suspensions. The most egregious of this was suspending Rashard Lewis of the Orlando Magic 50 games for testing positive for DHEA. DHEA is a natural hormone made by the body. Everyone in the world has DHEA...and if you don't, you should go get some DHEA supplements because it is one of the most important hormones your body needs to function. I assume that Rashard Lewis tested higher than the normal limit people have, but that's like faulting him for drinking more water than the average person. It's decisions like these where I can understand the players having issue with David Stern but David Stern and the owners have worked very hard making basketball the global game that it's become. They literally go around the world searching for talent and advertising/building teams that thousands of people will pay good money to watch live. I don't know exactly what goes into the daily operations of an NBA owner so I will just say it this way: NBA players are paid millions of dollars to do something that they've been doing for their entire lives and maybe even paid to do early on. It is the NBA owners responsibility to find a way to make enough money to pay these multi-million dollar contracts while still running a successful team. In no way should the salaried employees be compensated at a higher revenue share that the company brings in than the people who find a way to pay all the salaried employees every week.
I really hope the players give in to the 50/50 revenue split soon. They're asking for something they don't deserve and I really want to watch basketball. If they dismiss what the owners do so much, than they should start their own league like they threaten. At least then I can watch basketball again...and they'll find out just how badly they need the owners!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Bulletin Board material doesn't exist
After watching the New York Jets beat the San Diego Chargers last week, I have decided that the days of "Bulletin Board material" no longer exist.
"Bulletin Board material" is when an athlete talks trash before a game, which causes the opposing team to get extra motivated to play and subsequently destroy the team that made the offending comment. Most athletes scoff at the idea of Bulletin Board material because "If you can't motivate yourself, than you really have no business being out there in the first place." A valid claim, but in this PC world, given the epidemic of pussification of men as outlined in my book, Bulletin Board material isn't indifferent, it works for the aggressive teams.
It's fascinating to me that I'm going to football for my examples as it has the reputation of having the toughest men. Bulletin Board material under the tyrant that is David Stern (NBA) would probably be heavily fined, which may inhibit players in the NBA from saying it. Really, I just think football is the only sport that actually has remnances of real men who would make Bulletin board comments. Basketball and baseball (I don't watch hockey so won't comment and in this country there clearly is three dominant sports) just don't have real men playing anymore. Now for my examples.
A couple years ago, the New England Patriots stormed through the regular season with a perfect 16-0 record...they went on to win the first two playoff games making them 1 win away from being the second team ever to finish a season undefeated. The only team in their way was the New York Giants. Michael Strahan got on TV and said, "We will beat the Patriots 21-17! They asked Tom Brady, the quarterback for the Patriots, about this comment knowing full well that the Patriots always give vague answers if at all and claim they never listen to the media. Tom Brady asked what the quote was as he never heard it, upon hearing it, he gasped, "We're only going to score 17 points?" then chuckled and continued, "okay." The media had a field day with this. Every sports analysts in the country kept talking about bulletin board material and how stupid Strahan was for saying it. Many said he should have just shut up and they were excited for when Tom Brady walked onto the superbowl stage and said, "Watch this!"
I was watching....the New England Patriots only scored 14 points in their loss in the superbowl to Strahan's New York Giants. Brady and the bully Patriots were punched in the mouth and like most bullies you punch in the mouth, they ran and hid!
Example 2: Last week, Rex Ryan said, "If I had been chosen as the coach instead of Norv Turner, I'd have two rings by now given how stacked those teams were." The Jets were on a three game losing streak at this point. Again, every analyst in the country said that because of these comments the Chargers (Norv Turner's team) would demolish the Jets. The Jets were victorious last week despite their losing ways this season.
Example 3-4: Last year, Rex Ryan before their playoff games with the Patriots and the Colts said, "This game is personal, I hate Tom Brady and I hate Bill Bellichek" and "The Colts eliminated us last year, so now it's personal, I really want to get them back." For both games, the experts said that the Jets would be demolished because of Ryan's comments....the Jets won both games!
In the 80s, if you made these comments, then you better watch out. Given the pussies that play professional sports now adays, you make these comments and those you offend will run and hide! The only example I can think of where bulletin board material actually worked in this millennium is when about 4 or 5 years ago, someone said, "Tiger Woods is overhyped" when he was matched up with him head to head. Tiger Woods went on to win the first 10 holes, with only 8 remaining. In golf this is referred to as "9-8"meaning you're up by 9 with 8 holes to go thus it's impossible to win. It's sad that since the millennium, golf has the only example of bulletin board material actually working!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
"Bulletin Board material" is when an athlete talks trash before a game, which causes the opposing team to get extra motivated to play and subsequently destroy the team that made the offending comment. Most athletes scoff at the idea of Bulletin Board material because "If you can't motivate yourself, than you really have no business being out there in the first place." A valid claim, but in this PC world, given the epidemic of pussification of men as outlined in my book, Bulletin Board material isn't indifferent, it works for the aggressive teams.
It's fascinating to me that I'm going to football for my examples as it has the reputation of having the toughest men. Bulletin Board material under the tyrant that is David Stern (NBA) would probably be heavily fined, which may inhibit players in the NBA from saying it. Really, I just think football is the only sport that actually has remnances of real men who would make Bulletin board comments. Basketball and baseball (I don't watch hockey so won't comment and in this country there clearly is three dominant sports) just don't have real men playing anymore. Now for my examples.
A couple years ago, the New England Patriots stormed through the regular season with a perfect 16-0 record...they went on to win the first two playoff games making them 1 win away from being the second team ever to finish a season undefeated. The only team in their way was the New York Giants. Michael Strahan got on TV and said, "We will beat the Patriots 21-17! They asked Tom Brady, the quarterback for the Patriots, about this comment knowing full well that the Patriots always give vague answers if at all and claim they never listen to the media. Tom Brady asked what the quote was as he never heard it, upon hearing it, he gasped, "We're only going to score 17 points?" then chuckled and continued, "okay." The media had a field day with this. Every sports analysts in the country kept talking about bulletin board material and how stupid Strahan was for saying it. Many said he should have just shut up and they were excited for when Tom Brady walked onto the superbowl stage and said, "Watch this!"
I was watching....the New England Patriots only scored 14 points in their loss in the superbowl to Strahan's New York Giants. Brady and the bully Patriots were punched in the mouth and like most bullies you punch in the mouth, they ran and hid!
Example 2: Last week, Rex Ryan said, "If I had been chosen as the coach instead of Norv Turner, I'd have two rings by now given how stacked those teams were." The Jets were on a three game losing streak at this point. Again, every analyst in the country said that because of these comments the Chargers (Norv Turner's team) would demolish the Jets. The Jets were victorious last week despite their losing ways this season.
Example 3-4: Last year, Rex Ryan before their playoff games with the Patriots and the Colts said, "This game is personal, I hate Tom Brady and I hate Bill Bellichek" and "The Colts eliminated us last year, so now it's personal, I really want to get them back." For both games, the experts said that the Jets would be demolished because of Ryan's comments....the Jets won both games!
In the 80s, if you made these comments, then you better watch out. Given the pussies that play professional sports now adays, you make these comments and those you offend will run and hide! The only example I can think of where bulletin board material actually worked in this millennium is when about 4 or 5 years ago, someone said, "Tiger Woods is overhyped" when he was matched up with him head to head. Tiger Woods went on to win the first 10 holes, with only 8 remaining. In golf this is referred to as "9-8"meaning you're up by 9 with 8 holes to go thus it's impossible to win. It's sad that since the millennium, golf has the only example of bulletin board material actually working!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Monday, October 24, 2011
Let the children play
There is a common stigma in this country that the days where kids could run around and ride their bikes around the neighborhood are gone becuase of pedofiles. I can't fault anyone for thinking this way. Hell, in my book, I make a similar claim, but now I'm not so sure. There are two conflicting views on this subject. (1) the stories of pedofiles and the public list of child predators and (2) Most missing child cases turn up that the parents or another family member is the guilty party.
Objectively speaking, the latter is what most convinces me that even now kids can ride their bikes around their neighborhood just like I did as a kid. No matter how many pedofiles show up on that list, the facts remain that the amount of kids abducted by strangers pales in comparison to parents or other family members.
I liken this topic to the question: "Would you rather let your children go to a friend's house that has a pool or one where you know the family has a gun." Most people say the pool, yet statistically and objectively speaking, much more kids get injured or killed in a house swimming pool than by guns in the house. The balancing factor is hearing that a kid got shot is so much more traumatic than that they drowned or slipped while running and became severely injured. The thought that your child can leave home and someone picks them up to rape and murder them sounds so much worse than bad parenting. The reason is, in the former, there are many victims, the children and the poor parents and family that have to endure this....the latter, it's only the child. Few people ever have sympathy for parents that abuse their children, and I don't blame them. So I say, stop sheltering the kids and let them play!
Objectively speaking, the latter is what most convinces me that even now kids can ride their bikes around their neighborhood just like I did as a kid. No matter how many pedofiles show up on that list, the facts remain that the amount of kids abducted by strangers pales in comparison to parents or other family members.
I liken this topic to the question: "Would you rather let your children go to a friend's house that has a pool or one where you know the family has a gun." Most people say the pool, yet statistically and objectively speaking, much more kids get injured or killed in a house swimming pool than by guns in the house. The balancing factor is hearing that a kid got shot is so much more traumatic than that they drowned or slipped while running and became severely injured. The thought that your child can leave home and someone picks them up to rape and murder them sounds so much worse than bad parenting. The reason is, in the former, there are many victims, the children and the poor parents and family that have to endure this....the latter, it's only the child. Few people ever have sympathy for parents that abuse their children, and I don't blame them. So I say, stop sheltering the kids and let them play!
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Getting involved
Recently I was on the subway going home when this group of what I presume to be high school students walked on to the train. There were three girls and two guys. It was a relatively crowded train so they weren't all standing together. But one of the guys was within arm reach of one of the girls. When she wasn't looking, he would extend out and pat her on the back. She turned around, smiled and told him to stop. Every now and then she would hit him. When she would scold him, he started calling her names such as "Ugly" "Big nose" "Jew" and "Arab." What her background was, I am not sure but she had very light skin, which doesn't reveal anything really. But, clearly she couldn't have been Jewish and Arab, but I'm going to guess Jewish.
When we reached the next stop, some people got off and the guy moved in and was right next to the girl he was harrassing. He said, 'Now, that I'm right next to you, I can really harass you." To which she smiled.
As the train continued, he kept up the name calling, and messed up her hair by pulling it over her face and holding it there so she couldn't see. When he let up, she'd be smiling while hitting him in the chest and telling him to stop.
Throghout this time, I was against the doors on the opposite side of where they'd be opening. This was happening in front of me yet I did nothing because the girl was smiling and it just seemed like they were joking around. I could tell by the expressions on everyone else in the car's faces that they were just as annoyed as I was, but nobody said anything. We got to the next stop and a lot of people got out freeing the area next to me by the door. The guy wraped his arms around all three girls and shoves them into the door next to me. They hit the door pretty hard but had no reaction. He continued to mildly harrass her and then they stopped.
Throughtout this time, I urged myself to say something, but I didn't. My logic was, "She's smiling, so she's not too concerned about it and not in any harm. For all I know it's her boyfriend or brother or something." When he shoved them into the door, I asked myself, "What exactly needs to happen for me to step in?" Where is my threshold? Would it be different if she wasn't smiling? If she needed help, why didn't she ask for it, there were people on the train? Then again, battered women rarely run and ask for help, they actually vehemently defend their assailants. Maybe I just don't want a confrontation. I didn't know these girls. They mean nothing to me, I'm not going to get in a fight for them. If charges were brought, the girls wouldn't back me up. so why bother? Then I thought of a quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."
I regret not getting involved. I've seen confrontations like this on the train before and usually the aggressor immediately backs off when a stranger scolds them. Something, I've never really understood either but that is normally how these things end. I'd like to think that if it escalated, I would have done something, but the more I think about it, the more I think of the Kitty Genovese story. Kitty Genovese was violently raped and murdered on a lit street. At least 27 people saw her get raped and subsequently murdered, yet nobody called the cops. When asked why, they replied, "I thought someone else would have."
I was just like those 27 people. I waited around for someone else to get involved. I would like to implore those of you out there to learn from my mistake. I hope if this ever happens again, I'll be confronational because I really don't like feeling this guilty. If I said something, and I had the 5 of them yelling at me about how it was just a joke, at least I would have known I tried!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.
When we reached the next stop, some people got off and the guy moved in and was right next to the girl he was harrassing. He said, 'Now, that I'm right next to you, I can really harass you." To which she smiled.
As the train continued, he kept up the name calling, and messed up her hair by pulling it over her face and holding it there so she couldn't see. When he let up, she'd be smiling while hitting him in the chest and telling him to stop.
Throghout this time, I was against the doors on the opposite side of where they'd be opening. This was happening in front of me yet I did nothing because the girl was smiling and it just seemed like they were joking around. I could tell by the expressions on everyone else in the car's faces that they were just as annoyed as I was, but nobody said anything. We got to the next stop and a lot of people got out freeing the area next to me by the door. The guy wraped his arms around all three girls and shoves them into the door next to me. They hit the door pretty hard but had no reaction. He continued to mildly harrass her and then they stopped.
Throughtout this time, I urged myself to say something, but I didn't. My logic was, "She's smiling, so she's not too concerned about it and not in any harm. For all I know it's her boyfriend or brother or something." When he shoved them into the door, I asked myself, "What exactly needs to happen for me to step in?" Where is my threshold? Would it be different if she wasn't smiling? If she needed help, why didn't she ask for it, there were people on the train? Then again, battered women rarely run and ask for help, they actually vehemently defend their assailants. Maybe I just don't want a confrontation. I didn't know these girls. They mean nothing to me, I'm not going to get in a fight for them. If charges were brought, the girls wouldn't back me up. so why bother? Then I thought of a quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."
I regret not getting involved. I've seen confrontations like this on the train before and usually the aggressor immediately backs off when a stranger scolds them. Something, I've never really understood either but that is normally how these things end. I'd like to think that if it escalated, I would have done something, but the more I think about it, the more I think of the Kitty Genovese story. Kitty Genovese was violently raped and murdered on a lit street. At least 27 people saw her get raped and subsequently murdered, yet nobody called the cops. When asked why, they replied, "I thought someone else would have."
I was just like those 27 people. I waited around for someone else to get involved. I would like to implore those of you out there to learn from my mistake. I hope if this ever happens again, I'll be confronational because I really don't like feeling this guilty. If I said something, and I had the 5 of them yelling at me about how it was just a joke, at least I would have known I tried!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Girlfriend vs. Wife.
It seems common sensical that what qualities you look for in a girlfriend should be what you look for in a wife. True, most people have to date many people before they find the one they want to marry, but that's more testing the market and seeing what you like and dislike so you can better judge what your wife should be like...but does this work?
It's odd I think about these things as I am asexual, but just because I don't want to do something (get married and/or date) doesn't mean I can't ponder about it. My parents have the best marriage that I have seen, yet they are completely opposites. My dad is a scientific-minded, black and white, hard facts kind of guys, and my mom starts most sentences with "I feel" and is more an intuitive type. What ends up happening is they balance each other out and thus their weaknesses are thwarted by each other. This is why people say, "Opposites attract" but does it HAVE TO be this way? Can a marriage work if the two of you are similar?
When I look at dating couples, it seems you do not have this "opposites attract" thing. Instead, they normally are quite similar. They think the same way, this is why they can understand each other better than most outside individuals. My two closest friends understand the way I think because they too are very logical. Because of this, they can handle me in all my forms. They know why I'm doing what I'm doing and, more importantly, how to handle me and how to get through to me much more effectively than my close intuitive friends. This got me thinking about this. Although none of them I am emotionally involved with, I entertain how I would react with someone like them. It seems that by my parents example, the intuitive ones are the ones fit to marry. Yet, shouldn't your wife be able to handle you? Shouldn't your wife know how to get through to you? By the way, feel free to reverse the genders, the rule still applies. They say that you should never marry/date someone that is exactly like you because although your strengths are magnified, the weaknesses are too. There's no balance. Does that con outweigh the fact that your with someone that is incapable of understanding how you think?
My logical friends know exactly how to get through to me, how to debate me, how to counter my defense mechanisms. Maybe I haven't found someone to match the wife credential. Maybe it's someone that's intuitive but knows how to handle me even though they don't understand why it works. That last sentence makes no sense to me but I'm leaving it to help spark the thought in your head.
As far as why there's different characteristics in your wife than your girlfriend, the only reason I can think of is that your wife is much more vested in it. Sure, a girlfriend can be happy that you want to live within your means, but when you're married, you have to think of their needs too. Your decisions affect your wife much more than your girlfriend, so that's why you may need someone to balance your decisions to make sure you don't go too far down the wrong path. You're opposite, however, doesn't know how you think and therefore may not know how to get through to you to stop you. So, again, does the pro outweigh the con?
My conclusion is you should date people like you but as soon as you're ready for marriage, start looking for people who fit the criterea outlined in my book but think the exact opposite way you do. Again, we come back to my biggest problem with relationships...they're just so illogical.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.
It's odd I think about these things as I am asexual, but just because I don't want to do something (get married and/or date) doesn't mean I can't ponder about it. My parents have the best marriage that I have seen, yet they are completely opposites. My dad is a scientific-minded, black and white, hard facts kind of guys, and my mom starts most sentences with "I feel" and is more an intuitive type. What ends up happening is they balance each other out and thus their weaknesses are thwarted by each other. This is why people say, "Opposites attract" but does it HAVE TO be this way? Can a marriage work if the two of you are similar?
When I look at dating couples, it seems you do not have this "opposites attract" thing. Instead, they normally are quite similar. They think the same way, this is why they can understand each other better than most outside individuals. My two closest friends understand the way I think because they too are very logical. Because of this, they can handle me in all my forms. They know why I'm doing what I'm doing and, more importantly, how to handle me and how to get through to me much more effectively than my close intuitive friends. This got me thinking about this. Although none of them I am emotionally involved with, I entertain how I would react with someone like them. It seems that by my parents example, the intuitive ones are the ones fit to marry. Yet, shouldn't your wife be able to handle you? Shouldn't your wife know how to get through to you? By the way, feel free to reverse the genders, the rule still applies. They say that you should never marry/date someone that is exactly like you because although your strengths are magnified, the weaknesses are too. There's no balance. Does that con outweigh the fact that your with someone that is incapable of understanding how you think?
My logical friends know exactly how to get through to me, how to debate me, how to counter my defense mechanisms. Maybe I haven't found someone to match the wife credential. Maybe it's someone that's intuitive but knows how to handle me even though they don't understand why it works. That last sentence makes no sense to me but I'm leaving it to help spark the thought in your head.
As far as why there's different characteristics in your wife than your girlfriend, the only reason I can think of is that your wife is much more vested in it. Sure, a girlfriend can be happy that you want to live within your means, but when you're married, you have to think of their needs too. Your decisions affect your wife much more than your girlfriend, so that's why you may need someone to balance your decisions to make sure you don't go too far down the wrong path. You're opposite, however, doesn't know how you think and therefore may not know how to get through to you to stop you. So, again, does the pro outweigh the con?
My conclusion is you should date people like you but as soon as you're ready for marriage, start looking for people who fit the criterea outlined in my book but think the exact opposite way you do. Again, we come back to my biggest problem with relationships...they're just so illogical.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Defending Obama vs Ron Paul
Ron Paul recently attacked President Obama by saying that his drone strikes were unconstitutional. I have a problem with this.
The constitution says that the President, being the commander in chief, can authorize any act of war for up to 90 days without congress' consent (Articles of Confederation). Although up until President Clinton, no president had actually utilized this, it was in the constitution for emergencies. Clinton used it to bomb Baghdad, Kosova, and many other places whenever heat was on him about scandals. That was an abuse of this right. The drone attacks, however, I don't think are an abuse. President Obama has done a good job killing Al Queda members. He is responsible for taking out Osama Bin Laden and even American defectors. I don't know how Ron Paul can fault him for this.
Ron Paul wasn't doing well in the polls to begin with, but this made me jump off his band wagon (If you look at previous posts, I actually liked him). I still want a president that's going to be able to do what's needed to be done in the war on terror. Although, I wouldn't give President Obama the highest marks for this, these drone attacks were a very good strategy.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this webpage.
The constitution says that the President, being the commander in chief, can authorize any act of war for up to 90 days without congress' consent (Articles of Confederation). Although up until President Clinton, no president had actually utilized this, it was in the constitution for emergencies. Clinton used it to bomb Baghdad, Kosova, and many other places whenever heat was on him about scandals. That was an abuse of this right. The drone attacks, however, I don't think are an abuse. President Obama has done a good job killing Al Queda members. He is responsible for taking out Osama Bin Laden and even American defectors. I don't know how Ron Paul can fault him for this.
Ron Paul wasn't doing well in the polls to begin with, but this made me jump off his band wagon (If you look at previous posts, I actually liked him). I still want a president that's going to be able to do what's needed to be done in the war on terror. Although, I wouldn't give President Obama the highest marks for this, these drone attacks were a very good strategy.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this webpage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)