An interesting video to explain the different types of government.

Now Barack Obama is in office and we have the oil spill going on in the Gulf of Mexico.  I have  heard people speak of Obama’s oil spill.  To clarify something, I do not agree with Mr. Obama’s policies at all.  On the other hand I do think that it is tragic that our two party system has become so galvanized that one side is likely to blame the other side for anything that goes wrong whether they had anything to do about it or not.    Regardless of the political slant that a person takes, it is sad how many people latch onto these types of stories.  I have reached the point of being suspect of any story of this nature regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

It seems as though both parties have their key issues that they use to get their base wound up and motivated to vote.  The motivation is to vote against the other side.  Usually the one denouncing the other side is not offering alternatives.  While this is not always the case, I think this goes on both sides. The reason I am bringing this up is because I just got home from going to get some dinner.  While I was out in the car, I heard someone on the radio talking about it.  The radio announcer was pointing out the same thing as I am pointing out.  I wish I could remember their name.  I try to avoid these conversations anymore because most times I engage, it usually becomes hostile.  I hope that sometime our current political climate can subside.  For now I just avoid the arguments by ignoring them.

This brings me to the question that has been thrown in my face in the past.  This question is “What makes your morality, to be moral for me?”  They context of the question is that since my morals are based on the Bible, then my morality is irrelevant to them since they do not believe in God.  Essentially saying that morality is relative to your standards or belief system.  These people deny my belief that something is right or wrong because I use the Bible as a gauge, or measuring stick.  If this is true then I can just as easily say to them, what makes what they say right?  You can see the paradox that develops with this argument.  To think that morality is relative is self defeating because to to believe this, the person must believe that morality is absolutely relative.  Since in relative morality asserts there are no absolutes, then the argument is self defeating.

There have been many times that I have heard these people like Leo Laporte claim they do not believe in God.  If they do not believe in God, then the Bible that speaks of HIM, is just a myth.  If this is true then a morality that is based on a Biblical view must be a myth as well.  This leads me to ask by what morality to they make this judgment on Mark Zuckerberg.  How can he be amoral if there is no standard by which to measure right and wrong?  I single out Leo Laporte probably unfairly only because he is the single voice of the “This Week in Tech” podcast network.  The reality is that the vast majority of those in the technology broadcast movement also do not believe in God so they do not have the luxury of having the Bible as a standard of right and wrong.  They typically go farther then just not believing in God by speaking against religion as a whole, virtually discounting all religions.  If there are no  immovable standards by which they measure morality then how do they make this claim about Zuckerberg?

I ask by what standard does one measure right and wrong if it is not measured against a religious standard?  This question is usually answered in essence saying that it is wrong to cause harm to others.  Who defines harm?  Who defines what is acceptable in society?  If a person does not use a religious standard that is immovable then a person’s morality is subject to change with the society.  This seems innocent and acceptable if it is looked at independent of any situations.  The problem with having a relative moral stand is that causing no harm can be redefined.  For example, the German government in the early 1940’s believed they were helping society by removing Jews from society.  They managed to convince themselves into believing that Jews were less than human and therefore their “cause no harm” belief did not apply.  These Jews were not considered people that deserved to be protected.  Since the majority of people in that country during that era thought that way, then one could say that it was moral to kill Jews.  It is dangerous to have a relative moral stand in my opinion.

If people could be convinced that one group of people are are less human than others in one society then it can happen again.  I have heard people speak that education is the answer.  They say that educating people is the answer to all the woes of the world.  This seems reasonable on the surface but then that pesky relative morality comes back in.  Education as a general term is usually seen as a good thing but more and more often it can be manipulated.  Education can and does get used as a tool to spread a belief system.  A simple omission of relevant information, and the use of rhetoric can change the meaning of things.  For example, the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The original intent was to eliminate religious coercion while at the same time prevent the restriction of free religious expression.  Somehow over time, the education system of the United States has managed to convince people that any expression of  of religious speech by anyone associated in the government on any level is strictly prohibited.  In addition to this, the education system has managed to convince many that there are selected groups of people that deserve preferential treatment and cannot be spoken of negatively in any way.

Again, I ask by what standard to these people teach us what is right and wrong?  By their own measure, they have no moral standing to tell me what is right just as I do not have a standing to tell them.  I for one believe in the Bible and so I do have a measuring stick by which I measure right and wrong.  My standard often conflicts with theirs.  I think it is often less honest to impose a moral standard on others when they do not have an immovable standard.  This is because the motive is often self promoting and that is why I question all this Facebook anger.  When a person posts on the Internet, they are giving their personal information on a public platform.  They have to know this and if they don’t then they should be more careful where they post their information.    This notion that Mark Zuckerberg is amoral as stated by one that does not  have an absolute morality makes me laugh.  In my opinion, anyone that does not believe in an absolute right and wrong seems hypocritical to claim someone is amoral.

The more I listened to this podcast while I was mowing the lawn, the more incensed I became.  I kept trying to make mental notes to myself so that I would remember some quotes.  I did not mention most of them on here because this post would go on forever.  I was struck that a podcast labeled “This Week in Google” spent more time talking about Facebook than Google.  I think I have made my point that I do not agree with many things they say while still listening to them.  The reason I do this is because one of my hobbies is being a technology enthusiast.  Since in our country most of these types of industries come from one metropolitan, I follow these individuals.  Honestly, I do not think it is a good idea to be in lockstep beliefs with any one person anyway.  It is perfectly acceptable to take in many opinions to shape one’s own opinion.  In the end though, my disclaimer is that I will use the Bible to measure whether or not I believe it.  Thanks for stopping by and reading my opinions.  I realize that not everyone agrees with them but hey!  We all have them

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

More…

• MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

Enlarge

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html##ixzz0fcGyWOre

I don’t know about you but I am just about fed up with this whole man is destroying the earth mantra from the left wing whackos.  Lately we have been making jokes and poking fun at them by showing all these snow storms and asking them where the global warming was.  These people have swallowed the pill and are so caught up in this fraud that they are actually arguing with us on this point.  They are saying that we are just missing the big picture and short sided to think that any cold snap would be relevant.  To them global warming is something that is measured over decades and cannot be compared with one winter.  To them it is easy to say that all these record snow falls are another example of global warming.

These people refer to people like myself as deniers.  They see us as those who ignore the factual evidence and say that global warming is not true.  I say show us the proof.  They blindly follow this global warming argument with zero evidence.  Some guy produces a hockey stick chart that is never proven and they just soak it up.  They think that this one leaked email scandal in England has convinced us that it is bad science.  They are wrong again.  We never believed in man made global warming, global cooling, or climate change even for one minute.  The leaked email scandal was just one more piece of evidence to validate something that we already believed.  Let us clarify something right here.  There is no man made climate change at all.  Zero!  This movement is created by those that have a socialist agenda.  You have heard the saying “follow the money”.  This applies in this case as well.

Please do not listen to me.  Pay attention to those making this argument and look at the common denominator.  The ones that are advocating global warming are the same ones that are advocating the governmental takeover of industries, healthcare, and the economy as a whole.  The people that were protesting in the streets against the establishment in the 1960’s are those that are in control.  These people were crazy then and they continue to be crazy.  These people are so caught up in this save the world mantra that they cannot even see common sense.  They see capitalism as evil and unfair.  They fail to see that power has the potential to corrupt anyone whether they work for a corporation or the government.  They do not see that government has just as much corruption as those in corporations except that the government has more power over them.   Their blinded hatred toward capitalism has kept them from seeing that their beloved government is even worse.  Look at history and you will see that every government that has tried socialism has either failed or failing.  They use global warming as a tool to scare those skeptics of socialism to believe that corporations are destroying the earth.  They want to convince people to give up their rights to the government so that evil corporations can be punished.

Global warming is 100% fabrications and has no evidence whatsoever.  They prey on the conspiracy theorists that hang out at Roswell, New Mexico and Area 51.  I know you have seen them.  They are the UFO believers and Elvis is still alive groups.  They are Big Foot and Locknesse Monster types.  They are in your neighborhood and mine.  They like to point out crazies that shoot abortion doctors and say this is how Christians are.  They use these crazies to label the whole group.  They are bullies that try to label you as a hate monger if you dare disagree with them at all. In the 1960’s they were bullies and they still are.  They are now media executives and school administrators.  They are idiots pure and simple. 

Weather forecasting on a global scale has not even been possible until two decades ago so there is no way they could get long term forecasts and historic temperatures to measure against even if they wanted to.  Since climate change is not a legitimate science but rather a fabricated left wing tool, it cannot be taken seriously anyway.  They try to bully people by saying “The debate is over” in an attempt to silence the debate.  One thing that the email scandal did validate with me is that these groups that are in charge actively suppress any scientist that would dare question this false science.  I can think of an example of this.  A couple years ago there was a guy that was actually advocating taking away the credentials of any meteorologist that would not preach global warming.  If you follow the link http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=650, you can read about it.  These global warming people are actively fabricating a lie and threatening to take away the credentials of anyone who dare disagree with them.  This is more evidence of their disdain for freedom.  Let us not forget that their beloved socialism was the title given to the former Soviet Union.  You may remember the biggest bullies of them all called the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR).

Just as I posted a few months ago, these people are opposed to the true Democratic free market society and this is the motivation behind their lies.  Also as I pointed out in that post, that they forget that many of us are old enough to remember the 1970’s when the same crowd was talking about global cooling.  They manipulate natural weather patterns to scare people that are too young to remember that a severe weather event is not the first time it has happened.  I know many of you have watched the national news in the United States after any natural disaster.  They find people in the streets that have no clue and ask them what they think about this event that has never happened before.  They talk about how the frequency of heavy rains, heavy snows, hurricanes, or even earth quakes are a result of man made climate change.  They have discovered something about human nature that works for them.  That human nature is to be lazy and not question those in authority.  The media places themselves as authority figures and repeat the same lie over and over again.  If they say it enough times, people are lazy and just accept it as truth.  The real truth is that there is no such thing as man made climate change whether it be cooling, or warming. 

The world is being duped and the media follows right along.   This is because those crazies you saw at Woodstock of the 1960’s are now in control.  They are just as crazy now as they were then.  They are just as much a bully now as they were then.  Wake up people and stop listening to anyone at face value.  Do some research from both sides of any argument and understand that people are self driven.  It is human nature to do things for one’s self and those that are in power are no different.  They know that in any society you are going to have self starters, workers, and lazy people.  It is easier to fall into the lazy category.  They drive people there by inundating us with negative stories on the news every single day to a point that people become numb to it.  Eventually people become so overwhelmed that they do not feel they have time to research things.  They just sit there and listen to what the media tells them not questioning it for a moment.  Stop being lazy and get off your lazy butts and learn something.  Learning is not just listening to someone else.  Learning is listening to an argument with a critical mind.  Learning is questioning what you hear and finding out the truth.  Learning is finding out from many sources and not just one.  You cannot just listen to broadcast media and be educated.  You have to listen to them and listen to those disagreeing.  You have to listen to many sides to the argument and come to your own conclusions.  Do not just listen to me, ABC, CBS, or NBC.  I am biased and I will tell you so.  These guys are biased and will not tell you so.  That is why you have to question both of us.  Learn the truth and not be ignorant.  If you believe this global warming scare then you are not truly learning because I can assure you that there is zero true evidence to back this theory up.  Thanks for listening to my rant this morning. 

Happy Valentines Day!

Romans 1:25…

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

These people see the Earth as a being that must be protected.  This god’s power is only surpassed by the humans god.  They worship this being as being the sole source of life with limited resources.  They see humanity as destroying this being.  They see the world as green and feel that we have a duty to worship and protect this Earth.

The second group of people are socialists that are vehemently opposed to socialism.  These people see global warming/climate change as a tool that can be used to rid the world of capitalism by accusing the industrialized world of polluting the planet.  If they can successfully convince the majority of people that private business is corrupt and greedy then maybe they can convince the public that the government needs to step in and regulate business to a point that government controls business.  By definition, Socialism is where the government is in control of financial and natural resources.  In this imagined utopia everyone is equal and the rich cannot take advantage of the poor.  This philosophy is failed because it ignores the fact that it is not capitalism that is corrupt but humanity itself.  The same humans that are involved in corporate scandals are involved in government scandal.  The only difference is that government corruption has no recourse for the citizens of the country to counter it.

The third group of people are those that are ignorant and partisan.  These people have been raised in areas where their family voted for a party so they are going to do it too.  These people spend zero time questioning their leader’s motives.  They watch the news and take it all in with ignorance as though everything they hear on television is fact.  They are oblivious to the idea that there are people in the media and politics that have agendas that shape their policies.  These people when asked what specific policy of their political leader they support the most cannot even name one.  A large portion of Obama and Bush supporters fall into this category.  Those on the liberal side follow ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, and  CNN as gospel.  In their eyes Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh are the most evil people around.  They believe that government is best suited to run the social affairs of the country.

On the conservative side these people think that ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, and CNN are political tools of the liberal side.  I happen to agree with them in this regard.  They see Foxnews as the only media outlet that is balanced.  They see Ronald Reagan as their political hero.  I agree with them on this one as well with the exception of his arms trade mistake.  The climate change movement is nothing new as there is evidence of their existence since the 1970’s with their global cooling scare tactics.  Back then it was the same people claiming that humanity was destroying the environment that will inevitably result in a new ice age.  I remember this indoctrination in elementary, middle school and high school.  I thought it had gone a way until I started hearing about global warming in the 1990’s.  If  you think I am just making this up, do some homework and learn about these people.

There is a fourth group of people responsible for this and it is “The world owes me” group. These are the ones that are very similar to the union group in that they are lazy and feel that their hardships are someone else’s fault.  They feel that they have been unjustly put upon and the American taxpayer owes them a free hand out.  Many of the groups listed above fall into this category.  The problem with these people is that they do not understand that the government has zero money.  The government takes money from other people to support these people.  Unfortunately this lifestyle eventually becomes so oppressive to the few workers that are left that there are not enough resources to support the ever growing lazy population.

You will find a clear link between those that are socialist in their beliefs and those that are claiming climate change.  It is still not considered acceptable for people to admit they are socialist and in fact many of them do not even think they are.  Their ideology is clear but they do not like to be called Socialists.   I mean socialism as defined by Wordnet search meaning “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry”  The Democrats have become a party of Socialism in this regard.  They are comprised of many different disgruntled groups of people such as the labor unions (AFL-CIO), elderly (AARP), minority groups (NAACP), homosexual rights, the poor to name a few.  These groups have one thing in common and that is “worry”.  They are various groups that are worried that someone is trying to take something from them whether it be their rights, possessions.  Their leaders have done a very good job in placing blame upon the Republican party.  The Democrat leadership have portrayed themselves as the savior against this enemy.  They galvanize these groups of people by portraying the Republican party as the sole source of their worries.  This tactic has been so successful that even the Republicans have begun to do this.

The Republican party has given up on their ideology of conservatism because they have discovered how successful the Democrats have been.  The Republican party has found refuge by many “other” disgruntled groups such as the gun rights, illegal immigration crowd, and Christians.  The Republican party has a poor track record of effectively representing these groups the way they say.  They use these groups to gain power just like the Democrats though they never follow through on these promises.  They have shown themselves non trustworthy because they never do what they say.  Since the main stream media are active participants in this Democrat versus Republican game, they will portray the Republicans as right wing extremists all the while the conservatives are scratching their heads trying to find out where these extremists are.  For example the media portrayed George W. Bush as a right wing extremist while his constituency was being disappointed by his liberal spending.   George W. Bush was anything but a right wing extremist.

The moral of the story on all this is that Democrats falsely claim climate change to advance their socialist agenda  while the Republicans deceive their constituency to stay in power.  For this reason, the conservatives stayed home in 2008 giving Barack Obama a commanding lead in the election.  For this reason he feels emboldened to advance his socialist agenda while the conservatives are fed up with their lying leaders.  The climate change is just one of many tools the Democrats/Socialists use to give the government more power over individual rights.  Homeland security is just one of many tools the Republican leadership uses to do the same thing.  The way I see it is that Democrats are just plain evil and Republicans are just plain useless. 

So as we freeze to death on one of the coldest winters in decades you can blame it on global warming.  That makes as much sense as putting some water on the stove to make ice cubes.  You and I are being played by both parties.  The Democrats are the ones feeding us this lie called global warming while the Republicans are too busy selling us out.  The sad thing about all this is that the third group I mentioned above are becoming the minority.  Those that will sit in their comfortable chairs and take the news reports as gospel without ever questioning their accuracy will continue to soak in the lies.  The people need to wake up and realize that both parties are playing them.  Neither party has the best interest of the people at heart.

Twitter Douchebag Alert: RT @amazingatheist: Ruch Limbaugh hospitalized with chest pains. Let’s all hope he dies.

RT @owillis: wait, is rush limbaugh dead? Not dead enough

Rush Limbaugh on Death Bed? Taken to Hospital in Hawaii: Would we really miss this fat, sloppy racist, pill popping…

Rush Limbaugh is a prodigious waste of food and I will be happy when he dies. There, I said it. #tcot #p2

Dufus @JenJen_623 What the f**k do you expect? Rush Limbaugh is evil

There are so many others that are even worse but you get the picture.  This does not surprise me because I have dealt with their compassion for a long time.  I think you can disagree with someone without wishing death upon them.  I do believe you can have crazies on both sides but the sheer number of these posts are truly sad.  Rush Limbaugh as of the time of this posting is listed as the second most commented words used on Twitter at the moment.  Literally thousands if not millions of these are being posted online.

I think that despite your political slant, this type of behavior is completely inappropriate.  I do remember seeing similar posts when Ted Kennedy died.  I will be honest, as a Conservative, I strongly disagreed with his policies.  I do not agree with wishing death upon him or anyone else.  I would hope that people will come to their senses and not be so hostile to the point of wishing death upon people.  For those of you that can actually disagree with someone without hating them, I would like to thank you.  It is hard for me to imagine the mindset that you must hate someone that disagrees with you.  If I were to take that attitude I would hate half of my own family.  People come from different backgrounds and see the world differently. One person may see something as being unjust and feel strongly that something is wrong.  This person may perceive this action as being unfair when the so called perpetrator had no malice whatsoever.

For this reason I believe that it is okay to have a difference of opinion.  We can agree to disagree and still maintain a relationship.  Can you imagine having such strong feelings about something  that you would be willing to throw away a relationship with your own family?  If the offense is something that I just cannot get past, I would at least try to be civil and avoid those topics to the best of my ability.  I have met some people that just cannot let things go and desire to argue.  In those cases all you can do is agree to disagree and refuse to discuss these issues.

The idea that people would disagree with someone so strongly that they would wish death on someone really saddens me.  If I ever get this way, I would hope that my loved ones would bring this to my attention so I can wake up.

It is sad how people have become so loyal to their party that we never get anyone in office with integrity.  People will vote for their party just to keep the other side out of office and before you know it, both parties are exactly the same.  That is what is happening and has been happening for some time.  The media will portray the Republicans in a way that is completely false.  If they portrayed them accurately, then they would show you that the Republicans and Democrats are exactly alike.

So the answer is no I am not upset but rather I expect everything I get out of Washington.  The Republicans, I mean Democrats nominated the left wing John McCain, assuring that Obama would win the presidency.  Until both parties close the door on the opposing party being allowed to vote in their primary elections, then this sort of thing will continue.  You have the liberal people on the coasts voting in the Republican primary picking the candidate that no conservative would ever vote for.  They not only need to close the primaries to only the party being voted for but they need to make it where once you vote in a primary, you cannot change your party affiliation on the general election once you have voted in the primary.  In other words, if you are a Democrat trying to subvert the election by voting in the Republican party primary then you must vote Republican in the general election.

That is how John McCain was elected in the first place.  No conservative in his or her right mind would ever vote for John McCain.  When you add to this that the American people are ignorant and do not have a clue what their candidate stands for, you pretty much expect to have corruption. The very people that cry voter fraud when they lose an election are the ones that cry foul when an attempt is made to enforce that a photo identification be required to vote.  I would suggest it go even further.  I think that if you cannot pass a basic Constitution test you should not be allowed to vote.  If the people do not have enough initiative to learn the basics of what our country was founded upon then I think they should forfeit their opportunity to vote.  The ignorant Americans will listen to the national media and allow felons to vote because they have so much integrity.

Don’t ask my opinion on healthcare because I have no respect for either of the parties.  Ultimately I place the blame on a lazy population that will not educate themselves and will take opinion of a non objective media.  The way I see it, you can have healthcare because you voted for them.