Cannon Blodder

Back again

So it's been quite awhile since I updated as you can see. I thought I would return with a thought on the 08 elections.

Who do I support?

I tell you who I would like to support.

Ron Paul. Former Libertarian Presidential candidate.

Yep, one of the closest representatives in D.C. to our founding fathers ideals. Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, if anything. Domestically, I pretty much agree with just about everything the man says, except for some past discrepancies that seem to paint him as a little racist. But other than that, the man is spot on.

However, sadly, I must withhold my support from Dr. Paul. He is absolutely correct in how we "should have" declared proper war with Iraq, if we were going to go in. At the same time, he is also dead wrong on Iraq not being a threat.

The man refuses to see the looming threat of Islamic extremism. He also seems almost anti-semite, the way he seems to side against Israel.

Therefore, I have to ask myself, "what is more important? Our liberty and constitutional rights at home, or our national security?".

I really do hate having to make this decision, for I am a true believer of "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". However, I am truly certain that if we do not address this extremist threat today, we will face a world wide conflict worse than all the past wars ever combined. I believe the very existence of our nation depends on squashing this threat now.

So, reluctantly, I must concede, for now, to the ever increasing big government, and the socialism that is slowly eating away at our liberty's soul, and vote for someone that will continue to fight this battle we are currently in. Fred Thomson... Please run.

Gig'em Gates!

It's a loss for the best university on the planet, and a gain for the best nation on the planet.

Kerry Gets a Taste of the Medicine

When I first saw the video clip on YouTube this morning, of Kerry making the now infamous statement about getting stuck in Iraq, I immediately knew he meant it as a direct jab at President Bush. Basically saying "if you are an idiot and don't get educated, you will end up like our President Bush and do something stupid like getting stuck in Iraq, which was a mistake and we are losing."

Even though I knew it wasn't aimed at the troops, it still ticked me off, since I support Bush, as far as Iraq is concerned. However, I found it hilarious how the conservative internet media and bloggers, then radio shows all opened up, full blast at John Kerry, claiming he was insulting our troops, calling them uneducated. Even the Whitehouse itself chimed in, demanding that Kerry apologize to the troops.

I couldn't help but see Kerry reaping exactly what the liberal media has sewn. I cannot feel sorry for him, after seeing the way the liberal media has completely ravished Rush Limbaugh for his comments on Michael J. Fox's political ad.

The conservative talk shows, the Whitehouse, the blogosphere, have all took Kerry's statements out of context and misconstrued them to make them say exactly what they believe he thinks anyways. Just as the liberal media did with Rush's statements.

Politics is serious business....

Ode' to Rush

I made this little YTMND site after all the hoopla over Rush's comments on Michael J Fox.

Click on the image to see the site.

I just think it's hilarious how people don't realize how Michael J Fox fully intended to look the way he did in that commercial .

The shows he has been in the past, even if he was shaking that bad, they would edit around it.

If Rush Limbaugh made a political ad attacking Democrats, saying in sign language, that they are trying to criminalize research that could cure deafness, then I would make fun of him too.

Why are we putting up with this madness?

I still see in the media, especially on CNN, that they are constantly focusing on the "Foley Scandal". Polling churches, showing how Republican support has dropped, how people think Denny Hastert should resign.

How can anyone with a brain not see this for the liberal sham it is? I've sat by too long and said nothing. This is just complete B.S., pardon my French.

First, ABC releases emails, the same emails that the Republican leadership were aware of awhile back. These emails contained absolutely no sexual references, there was nothing that could lead anyone to a definite conclusion that Foley sent the email for devious reasons. The biggest flag was asking for a picture after asking the older teen if he was effected by the hurricane.

The only course of action Republican leadership could have taken, was taken. They told Foley to not have any further contact with the page, or any other. Yet, "experts" on CNN and such are claiming that this was a red flag and Foley should have been thrown out that instant.

Can you imagine the fallout? A suspected gay congressman, thrown out of the republican party for "innocent email exchange" with a male page. The homosexuals would have been out protesting that bigoted Republicans were labeling Foley a sexual predator simply because he was gay.

After releasing the emails, ABC releases the sexual IM's that everyone has seen, telling us that these IM's were to a 16 year old male. Now we find that this male was 18 at the time, but the media will not tell you this.

Meanwhile, Democrats are all over TV, condemning Republican leadership for not doing something sooner, even though the only people that knew that there were sexual IM's being exchanged, held the info until elections neared.

Should Mark Foley have resigned in shame? Absolutely. Should Denny Hastert resign in shame for not condemning a suspected homosexual as being a child sexual predator, simply for being homosexual and sending an email to a congressional male page? According to Democrats, sure.

So, if Denny resigns, I want it known, we can now condemn any homosexual who has any type of friendly communication with any child. Fine by me.

Is the World Blind?

I came across a website for cartoon submissions to counter the few cartoons about Mohammed that some dutch cartoonists made awhile back.

On the website www.irancartoon.com I came across many blatantly ignorant cartoons from idiots across the globe. One theme that seemed to be prevalent was antisemitism. Even though the dutch cartoonists weren't jewish, as far as I know.

The prevailing idea seemed to be that Israel was a destroyer of peace.

The cartoons even imply that everyone wants peace but Israel.

This is laughable on its face. What more can Israel do besides let the blood thirsty extremists from Palestine and Lebanon kill them all?

They pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, they gave back the Gaza Strip, forcing their own citizens from the area. They have bent over backwards for Palestinians, and yet they are still attacked with rockets. Their soldiers are still kidnapped.

Nothing Israel can do, short of marching into the sea is good enough for these Jewish hating cartoon artists.

How bout make a truthful cartoon and show Muslim clerics and imams shooting down doves of peace? Showing the palestinians stepping on olive branches by electing Hamas.

It's quite apparent that all Israel wants is peace. Yet the extremist, propaganda spewing, oppressive muslims (not all muslims, I have to say that because the majority of muslims just sit back and say nothing about their hate spewing brothers) refuse to ever have peace.

And you didn't believe me when I said the U.N. is a comedy.

Hugo (The communist Dictator) Chavez stated that George W. Bush is "The Devil" today at the U.N.

He went on to state:

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

That's mighty kind of you comrade. However, don't you think a country where free speech is protected, and anything can be said of anyone, without fear of retaliation is a better forum?

He stated that Venezuela could be the "voice for the 3rd world." Maybe because Venezuela IS a 3rd world country, because of thugs like Chavez.

I love how these communist dictators claim that the U.S. is the one that wants to control the world. They say that the democracy we promote is a "democracy of the elite". How does that work, exactly? Since our unemployement rate is like, what, 4%? What is your's at Chavez?

Basically all these anti-US leaders are whining idealogues who are pissed that their utopian communist fantasies have done nothing but guaranteed misery for their nations, except for those in power, while the capitalist, free market system has brought endless prosperity and strength to all the nations that have embraced it without a corrupt government that controls it.

Communism is hate. It says "You will believe as I do or I will make you." While capitalism is compassionate, saying "Whatever you want to do, whatever you want to be, you can. Live, prosper and be happy."

The only people who think capitalism is cruel are those that believe that there are some types/races of people on this earth that simply are inferior and must be helped in order to survive. They are racist, bigoted nannies.

For those that listen to polls....

Gallup released a poll today stating that Bush's approval went from 39% back up to 44%. For those of you that actually even believed the 39% figure. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of one little fact about these polls.

The telephone poll of 1,003 people was conducted September 15-17, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Yup. See for yourself.

What's the Point?

I play a popular online game called Counter Strike and one of my favorite maps (levels) in the game is called awp_map. In this level, you are in a large room, with sniper rifles, and you must shoot your opponents.

One of the quirks of this map is that you spawn (start out) directly across the room from your opponent, sometimes with a direct view of them.

This gives an unfair advantage to the players that won the last round, as they spawn with their weapons, and those that died last round must run to pick up a gun off the ground. In game, it is called "spawn killing" to shoot your defenseless opponent at the very second the round starts. This is seen as cheap and is pretty much frowned upon. Usually players agree to give perhaps 3 or 4 seconds for everyone to get a gun and get to cover before they open fire.

This is a mutually beneficial agreement, as it prevents all players from being unfairly spawn killed. However, if you come across a player or players that do not respect this rule, even though it is seen as cheap to do, you must stoop to their level and spawn kill them back, so as to make it unfair for them as well, in hopes that they will see the benefit of waiting.

This same logic applies to the Geneva Convention agreements. Nations of the world saw it as mutually beneficial to refrain from barbaric treatment of enemy soldiers, so as to prevent the same fate from happening to their own.

I challenge someone to tell me how continuing to follow the Geneva Conventions when one's enemies does not is beneficial. All it does is cripple us. Just as if I were to follow the "no spawn killing" rule in Counter Strike, when my opponent did not. All it would bring me is more deaths. So what if I can say "I didn't stoop to his level." What the crap use is saying that if you are dead?

A general rule of war is, "All is fair". That means, anything you have to do to win, you do. Our very own founders did this during the American Revolution. It was uncivilized to wage war with the guerrilla tactics our colonial army used. The British army stayed true to their honorable fighting style, while the colonists hid, ambushed, and brutally slaughtered their soldiers.

The Geneva Conventions was a result of civilized nations coming to civilized agreements that benefited all, and the entire premise of that agreement was "we won't do these things if you don't".

Why cripple ourselves when the enemy uses it to its advantage? Why would the enemy stop from torturing and murdering our soldiers that they have captured, if they know we would never do the same to them, no matter what? We are giving them free licence to torture and kill our boys over there, even if they are captured alive.

Religion of Pieces

Palestinians attacked 5 churches in the area in retaliation for the Pope's statement earlier. What other religion in the world would riot and bomb churches all over the world because another religious leader said something bad about their religion?

It just further goes to prove that what the pope said, seems to be right.

How is it not painfully obvious to you libs that the extremists in this religion, are set on forcing their beliefs on the world with a sword?

Can it get no more apparent that we have no choice but to eradicate the extremists from the face of the planet?

How many times a day do famous people in the U.S. and Europe say horrible things about Christianity? Hell they even have art exhibits like crosses in jars of feces.

Do you see Christian groups out bombing the art museums? Do you see Christians rioting int he streets whenever some notable person insults Christianity? Could you imagine the outrage if they did?

Why is it that we need to "understand" the extremists Muslims? "Respect" their wishes?

Are liberals just too damn scared?