Robdog Snoopcat's Blog

2008-04-10T10:18:00.001-05:00

The growing trend of Internet Service Providers either
charging more or planning to charge more for bandwidth
utilization is causing great concern with music/media file sharers
and online gamers.

Basically the ISP's want to move to a tiered pricing structure
so you pay much more for the increased use of network
bandwidth.

Most consumers have become accustomed to an "all you can eat"
bandwidth plan. So, those who are "fortunate" enough to know how
to steal (or in some cases legally download) music/movies or
are "skilled" enough to play online games are not paying their
"fair share" of the cost for bandwidth.

Now, it would stand to reason that a sizeable portion of these
folks who can afford high end computers ought to be able to
easily afford paying their "fair share" of the overall network cost.

My only question then is why are they complaining?

Turnabout is fairplay...

How can it be totally logical to claim "tax fairness" and tax me
at a much higher rate because I am "fortunate" enough to have
the "work ethic" to acquire the "skills" necessary to earn more
money?

I'm not "fortunate" enough to have the free time or "skills"
required to enjoy the fruits of all those downloads and hours
spent gaming.

Why am I forced to incur network interruptions or slow downs at
peek times because these folks are "playing" more but not "paying"
more?

In order to achieve true bandwidth "fairness", I'm going to ask
my congressmen to pass a law that requires these folks
to pay for more their dramatically higher bandwidth utilization.

Plus, they should be required to pay for my training in pirating music,
learning how to play the online games, and the cost I will incur
by hiring someone else to do the "work" I used to do online. This
will level the playing field and permit me to enjoy "their" lifestyle.

Note of interest...

This blog post doesn't seriously advocate "any" action taken
by the ISP's one way or the other. I simply used this situation
to show others what it feels like to get shafted by an organization
you have no reasonable recourse with.

StreamSend Mass Email Provider

2008-01-22T19:53:00.000-05:00

It is rare that I run across a web based tool that is as easy and
intuitive to use as streamsend.com. Their product for managing
membership emails and initiating the mass mail is really, really good.
It is also very reasonably priced.

Not only is the app good, their customer service is one of the
best I've ever experienced.

I gripe about companies that treat me poorly. Thought I
show these goofballs what a great company acts like.

I'd vote for Cheney in 2008

2008-01-05T16:06:00.000-05:00

I would vote for Dick Cheney in 2008 if he were running.

Of course, he isn't running so I can't vote.

Don't I know about Haliburton? Yep, more
than you and definitely more than the nut jobs
in the blogosphere do.

Am I war monger? Nope, the exact opposite.
If you are going to fight, win. Stop pussy footin'
around. Fewer people die that way.

Why would I vote for him?

The alternatives of course...

I'm a conservative. So I have to find someone
that is as close to conservative as possible.

That leaves out everyone in the Democrat party.
I'll never vote for one of those Socialists.

Never, never, never...

Romney... not a conservative and the one
word that seems to sum him all up: fake

Duncan Hunter... reasonably close but zero
chance of winning the nomination and I don't
find his ability to persuade others impressive.

Huckabee...Being pro-life and anti-gay
marriage (I'm not anti-gay by any means) is
fine but he is far too liberal on economic
and tax policy. I just don't believe he can
articulate much less pass legislation regarding
less government spending and lower taxes.
Plus, I think he is unable to properly drawn a
line between communicating what god says
is improper and where it is appropriate for
government to act.

Freddy... He doesn't have the stomach to govern.

McCain... I need a true conservative not a RINO.
This guys craves media attention. He'd sell us out
faster than Dan Rather could bring another fake
new story to 60 minutes.

Rudy... I'm leaning towards Rudy in the absense
of Cheney. I truly believe he'll appoint
non-activist judges who will interpret the
constitution not attempt to rewrite it. That's
enough for me on the social side. I also believe
he'd manage our foreign policy and the war against
Islamic extremism well. He certainly bent the rules
in NYC with the police escorts for his little hunnies
but I can live with that. At least he isn't splitting
hairs about what the definition of "is" is.

Ron Paul... There are a lot of positions of his that
I agree with. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of
his foreign policy platform and definitely don't agree
with his analysis of past and future dealings with Islamic
extremists. He'd make an excellent House or Senate leader
though.

Good ol' Cheney is a conservative unlike Bush.
I could just see him kringe when Bush spent money
like a drunken national guard pilot. I'll bet he was
steaming when W refused to build the border fence
after Congress "finally" funded it. Cheney's nickname
would have been "veto" over all the excess welfare
spending that Bushy was too compassionate to stop.

So, I'm stuck. Newt and Cheney won't run. Rush
won't run because he'd have to take a pay cut.
It is incredibly sad that in a nation of 290 million
people, I can't be thrilled with the person I'm
voting for. Sure hope they have a clothes pin
for my nose at the polling booth in November.

Ron Paul Gets Different Treatment From Sean Hannity After Debates

2007-10-22T08:52:00.001-05:00

I did not get a chance to watch the debates
last night on Fox News but did get to watch
most of the aftermath. I just got to
see the highlights and Hannity and Colmes
interviewing each of the candidates.

As most of you know by now, I enjoy Fox News.
The one exception is Sean Hannity. He has
steadily become less and less of an interesting
political analyst and far more of a political
hack.

This was quite apparent to me with Ron Paul's
interview where Hannity takes a much more
negative and overbearing approach than he does
with any of the other candidates. That constant
interrupting is annoying. Ron Paul isn't a
candidate that typically gives canned answers or
goes on pre-canned diatribes. So, there was
no need to try and control the interview.

Hannity is in danger of becoming the exact thing
he rails on the lib pundits for being...He is
trying to control the story rather than just
report on it.

Ron Paul Conspiracy With Hillary Clinton

2007-10-07T12:03:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul's fundraising got a major boost
recently with a $5 million dollar tally.

Is Ron Paul a poor impersonator of Ross Perot?

The dots are starting to connect...

In '92, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular
vote largely because of Ross Perot's 19% as a third
party candidate.

Is it possible that the Clinton minions are fueling
the Ron Paul rise to stardom in an attempt to repeat
history?

Are all these nasty posts from Ron Paul supports really
just libs hiding behind their computer monitors?

Will Ron Paul attempt an independent run when he fails
to get the GOP nomination?

This all seems a little too neat to me...

This conspiracy theory is, of course, just as
silly as the ones the Ron Paul supporters and
libs put up about Cheney and W. Just felt it
might be fun to give it a try myself.

Ya know what I find fascinating?

If some other candidate who didn't look
so angry all the time, supported our war
on terror, and then said and supported most
everything else than Ron Paul says or supports,
they'd call him another Reagan. Without an
anti-war on terror policy, this guy could
get the nomination.

Very interesting. I wonder if any of
the other candidates are listening?

Military Shafts National Guard

2007-10-07T11:46:00.001-05:00

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741

If the jist of the following story is true, W needs to fix
the B.S. now. This is politically (and morally imho) stupid.
I highly doubt that this was a top down purposeful tactic used
to save money. No matter who or what drove this, W needs
to tac another day on these folk's deployment and give them
what they have coming. From the original story:

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this:
A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should
have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it
was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership
failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again
failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota
guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more,
the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500
to $800 a month," Anderson said.

Hillary Clinto and her $5000 baby bond

2007-09-28T14:25:00.001-05:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RUJEL00&show_article=1

Only a liberal would make a comment like this representative
did:

I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie
Stubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the
event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child
born in the United States today owes $27,000 on
the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000
to grow until their 18?"

Wouldn't this equal oweing $32,000 total but
be allowed to take $5,000 from someone else
today to invest for yourself only to permit
someone else to take it from you again after
you've paid it back in the future?

Geez...

This sounds like that guy in Popeye always
offering to pay for a hamburger on Tuesday
if we gave it to him today.

You can just about bet that $5,000 would have
to stay in a government controlled account
during that 18 years. You can also expect
ammendments to the law allowing early withdraw
if you meet whatever the "flavor of the month"
interest group criteria.

God help us all when she gets elected...

George W. Bush Taking Liberties Away? Really? Name them

2007-09-28T09:31:00.001-05:00

I hear a lot from you Ron Paulites about George W. Bush
crushing or stealing your freedom. Now, I know this will
be hard for you but try anyway. Please list in single
sentences those things you could do prior to George W. Bush
that you no longer can. No diatribes. Just list the specific
freedoms you feel you no longer have one by one.

Ron Paul Is Right On "The War on Drugs" But I Still Won't Vote For Him

2007-09-28T08:00:00.001-05:00

I heard Mr. Paul last night in one of the political
forums with Juan Williams of that villianous (chuckle)
Fox News.

As previously stated,
(http://robbemorris.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-why-i-cant-vote-for-him.ht
ml ), I won't vote for Ron Paul but he is right
on the war on drugs. It was a lost cause from the word
go. As is often also the case with liberalism, good intentions
don't always equal good results.

I'd like to see a different set of disincentives for drug
use. Imprisonment has too high a direct and indirect cost
to those in society that don't abuse drugs. Perhaps
taxing drugs (ala make them legal) or possibly alter the
punishment to include forced rehab and community service.
Perhaps loss of social security or medicare benefits if
convicted x number of times? Maybe a lost of right to vote?
A national registry of drug offenders?

Are their actions we could take that would make drug
abuse be viewed with the same disdain as a sexual predator?

Don't know...

I'm sure all sorts of creative punishments could be derived.
Will it stop drug use? For some yes for others no. I'm not
sure that should be the mandate. Lowering the cost to society
for tolerating their drug use should be.

There is a case to be made for protecting society against
the "likely" actions of some drug users while under the
influence. It is similar in some ways to that Tom Cruise
movie called Minority Report. At the end of the day, do
we criminalize the behavior or the cause of the criminal
behavior. Criminalizing both hasn't been terribly successful
to date.

I've often wondered about the geo political affects of
reduced cost and risk for producing these types of drugs. One
could assume fewer revenues to groups and governments
unfriendly to capitalist societies. Poppy crops in
Afghanistan come to mind. Those farmers don't harm me.

One word of advice to Mr. Paul. He comes across as
angry and bitter every time I see him. I know he is
passionate but it doesn't translate into calm and confidence
in his ability to solve problems or at least get things
going in the right direction. Newt Gingrich is a good
example to follow in this area.

Fucking Bastards!

2007-09-11T08:00:00.001-05:00

You know who and you know why...

Ron Paul - Why I Can't Vote For Him

2007-09-06T16:03:00.001-05:00

I've listened to Ron Paul speak via video
on the web and in the debates. He has
a passion for returning the country to
the ideals it was founded on.

True freedom from government.

I fully support this ideal and am impressed
with his consistency. It isn't his overall
goal that I have serious concerns with, it is
a few specific ideas and mindsets he has that
just aren't realistic.

I heard his opinions on the Iraq war.
It was an illegal war fought on false pretenses.

While you may disagree with going to war in Iraq,
it was neither illegal nor fought on false
pretenses. It was approved by Congress and U.N
resolutions. It might not be a formal declaration
of war but the weight of the Congressional act is
equal.

In light of 3,000 citizens being murdered
by a small group of nut jobs, I can certainly see
how Bush would always view intelligence from
an aggressive view point. We still don't know if
the WMDs were moved prior to our invasion in order
to embarrass us. Russia, China, Syria, etc... All
would have the ability and motive. Iran did as
well although their participation is far less likely.

Vials of chemical agents from Iraq were just lying
around the U.N. office until discovered last week.

I saw pictures of fighter jets buried in the Iraqi
desert. The notion that the WMD's existed and have
yet to be found is not a huge stretch for me.

I heard Ron Paul's opinions on why Islamic radicals
killed 3,000 U.S. citizens. Our military bases
in the middle east that do nothing but make sure
we can pay enormous prices for oil? Perhaps
our support of regimes they don't like? That's justification
for the mayhem these thugs inflict on the West and
even worse on their so-called Muslim brothers?

Ron Paul has a limited and naive view of world affairs
and specifically radical Islam.

I heard Ron Paul mention his desire to eliminate the
FBI and CIA because they aren't functioning as well
as he'd like.

In today's world, can a nation of 300 million people
really maintain law and order and some semblance of
security from outside military intervention from
rogue states or groups?

I hear about all the things Ron Paul doesn't like but
you rarely hear an effective solution from him other
than a theme about freedom from government.

His apparent strategy for defeating Islamic radicalism
is to simply take our ball and go home. Hopefully,
they won't follow us to our own shores?

Ron Paul talks a lot about the U.S. getting involved
in too many places it shouldn't. He often quotes
the founding fathers on this topic. On the surface,
this sounds like a reasonable approach. Just 50 years
ago, the danger was minimal. Today, allowing
situations to fester breeds hatred that builds.

In an age of force multipliers, WMD's, the internet,
and the acceptance of suicide terrorism (all things the
founding fathers could never have contemplated),
allowing small situations to quickly get out of
hand poses a serious threat to America.

From my perspective, Ron Paul has allowed his
commitment to his ideals to cloud his judgement
regarding the defense of American interests.

It is for this reason, I just can't support him
with my vote. My hope is that he can direct
his energy to other domestic agendas and be
a positive force there.

Ginsburg shows how dangerous activist judges can be

2007-05-30T14:33:00.000-05:00

Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900740_pf.html

Judges are supposed to interpret the law and make judgements based
on whether the law was violated. It is the legislative branch
that is supposed to create and pass laws.

Ginsburg decides that "she" doesn't like the law and felt
it appropriate to attempt to write her own version of the
law. This mentality puts judges above the law and thus
violates the core principles of our constitution.

Fortunately, we have at least 5 relatively decent
judges who can offset the dangerous idealogy Ginsburg
represents.

George W. Bush slams robdog on immigration

2007-05-30T10:29:00.001-05:00

Taken from this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us/29cnd-immig.html?ei=5065&en=14d081ab7d03c8a7&ex=1181102400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

"If you want to scare the American people,
what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill,"
Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center
for border enforcement agents located in this town
in Georgia's southeastern corner. "That's empty political
rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens."

No Mr. President, it isn't empty rhetoric it is an accurate
description of the bill you support. And you are right,
amnesty scares the daylights out of me. I voted for you
because I thought you were a conservative and would do
everything in your power to enforce the law. You
aren't and you don't...

"People in Congress need the courage to go back
to their districts and explain exactly what this
bill is all about," Mr. Bush said. "The fundamental
question is, will elected officials have the courage
necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan
in place that makes it more likely we can enforce
our border and, at the same time, uphold the great
traditions of —— immigrant traditions of the United
States of America."

That's just it Mr. President. We know what is in
the bill and are raising hell about it. You are
dead wrong on this issue and virtually every true
conservative knows it. The phones ringing off the
wall aren't giving you a clue?

More likely we can enforce our border? Are you
f'ing kidding me? "You" can enforce the border but
"you" choose not to. Since when is breaking the law
an "immigrant tradition" in the United States?

With every word that comes out of your mouth,
the less I trust you. The irony is that I was
furious with the left wing nut jobs for wanting to impeach
you. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe they had the
right idea for the wrong reason.

A President of the United States refusing to
protect our borders. This is stunning...

Illegal Aliens

2007-05-22T21:31:00.001-05:00

When you start to form an opinion about
whether you favor amnesty and open borders,
consider the following:

1. Entering the country without our permission
"is" breaking the law. If someone feels comfortable
breaking one law, are they likely to feel comfortable
breaking other laws?

2. Homeland security confirms that one in twelve illegal
aliens has a criminal record. With over 12 million
illegal aliens, that amounts to more criminals than
existed in the entire Iraqi army walking the streets
of America.

3. Virtually all of these illegal aliens have grown
up in Socialist nations of one degree or another.
They have no concept of how to make the most of
Capitalism. Most don't speak English. Most don't
trust the governments they came from or the rule
of law. Most see protests, both peaceful and violent,
as the only means of forcing their governments to
give them what they want.

Little to no education + socialist upbringing +
no english + lack of understanding of our political
process = permanent underclass of angry individuals

This formula can only lead to the break down of
our Capitalist and free society to the same Socialist
failure they ran from.

The United States is a special place and one that was
highly dependent upon immigrants. The big difference
that shows itself today is the unwillingness or inability
of many illegal aliens to fully assimilate to our way
of life because they see it as an afront to their own
culture.

As Americans, we must insist that people adapt to
our Caplitalist society and reliance on rule of law
if they want to come into the country. They "must"
learn to speak the language of prosperity (English).

The odd thing is that many Americans would be far more
concerned if a neighbor's dog crapped in their yard versus someone
entering the country and sapping our resources and endangering
our way of life. Sad...

My desire to have our borders sealed doesn't make me
the bad guy. The real bad guy(s) are the corrupt governments
of Mexico and other Latin American countries. If they
did their job, people from America would be crossing "their"
borders to get away from the Liberal nut jobs like Harry
Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.

Pizza Patron to accept Pesos as payment in Dallas, TX

2007-01-10T23:10:00.001-05:00

Yep, you read the title correctly. Pizza Patron,
a pizza place based in Dallas, TX, is
going to accept pesos as currency.

Naturally, the restaurant caters to the
latin folks. Some of the anti-immigrant
radio and tv show hosts have been
ranting about this for a couple of days.

I, myself, also have a hot button
on this whole illegal immigration thing.
However, my take of this business
of accepting pesos is a little different
from my brethren.

To me, this is just a capitalist
enterprise trying to meet a consumer
need. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I only have one real concern with
this whole idea. Counterfeiting...

I suspect that if the "pesos
for my pizza" craze takes hold, these
businesses take on a greater risk
of loosing money when their exchange
is denied because some exchange company
determines x number of pesos are counterfeit.

Most of these businesses are small enough
that this could become a real problem for them.

That said, if the illegals want to spend their
pesos here versus Mexico, fine by me...

Republicans Lose Majority - If you don't lead, they won't follow

2006-11-08T11:01:00.000-05:00

It wasn't the liberal media's fault.

It wasn't the liberal democrat's fault.

It wasn't even the morons that voted for the
liberal democrats fault. And yes, you
are morons.

The blame lies solely with the Republican
leadership and President Bush.

If you don't lead, they won't follow.

And... They didn't.

How many times can you pledge to cut
spending and don't?

How many times can you pledge to reform
Congress and don't?

How many times can you pledge serious
tax cuts and changes in tax law and
not get it done?

How many speaches on winning the war
on terror can you give and we still
haven't contained the situation in Iraq?

How many speaches on reforming social
security can you give and yet in 2006
the program is unchanged.

The country needed more than speeches
and promises that were only partially
kept. The country doesn't need you
to "fight" for progress, we needed them
to "make" progress.

The country needs leaders.

We didn't have any on Monday and we
still don't have any on Wednesday.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser
of two evils...

2006 November Elections

2006-11-02T13:32:00.000-05:00

I really just have one question before I summarize
what has been accomplished under Republican
governance:

What is the liberal democratic plan for bringing
a lasting peace to Iraq?

I've heard how they are going to be smarter.

Do they mean smarter in the same way Clinton
got snuckered with the North Koreans?

I've heard how they are going to talk to our
"allies".

What exactly would they say or offer that hasn't
already been said or offered? Is it just their
charm that will suddenly cause them to change
their minds?

Aside from Iraq. Here's what has
transpired:

1. Economy booming for 3 straight years
after the Bush tax cuts

2. No additional terrorist attacks
on American soil.

3. Stock market booming. Have
you looked at your 401k lately?

4. The seniors have a popular
welfare benefit in the form
of prescription drugs

5. Housing market boom due to a
fantastic economy. Just
how much cash did you pocket
over the last couple years?

6. Treasury receipts are way up
because of the booming economy.

7. Illegal Immigration. You
forced Congress and the President
to build the fence. It is only
a start but it is definitely
in the right direction.

8. Judge Alito and Roberts. Need
I say more.

Think long and hard about the prospect of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running Congress. I know the Vietnam vets remember what it was like not to have Congress stand behind you while the slugs are wissing by your ears on the battlefield.

Moran: Democratic Majority Means More Money for 8th District

2006-06-12T11:59:00.000-05:00

This single link does more to accurately describe
the Liberal Democratic party than just about anything
any Republican could ever say. Just run ads with
nothing but this guy talking and we'll win 20 more
seats in the House...

If Democrats win back control of the U.S. House of
Representatives in November, U.S. Rep. Jim Moran
said he would use his position in the majority to
help funnel more funds to his Northern Virginia district.

Moran, D-8th, told those attending the Arlington
County Democratic Committee's annual Jefferson-Jackson
Day dinner on June 9 that while he in theory might
oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of "earmarks" -
funneling money to projects in a member of Congress's
district - he understands the value they have to
constituents.

When I become chairman [of a House appropriations
subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the shit out
of it," Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450
attending the event.

Sungazette Story

Florida Chad Challenged Voters No Longer The Dumbest in Ameria

2006-05-21T06:58:00.000-05:00

Every single person in New Orleans that voted
for Nagin is an absolute moron. The Louisiana
politicans are grossly incompetent. You had
a chance to change that.

Perhaps you aren't as color blind as you'd
like to think you are.

Let's just be honest about this for once...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEW_ORLEANS_MAYOR?SITE=7219&SECTION=H
OME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-05-20-16-43-55

President Bush's Border Security Plan Is Weak

2006-05-16T14:04:00.000-05:00

Listened to his speech last night on Fox News.

While I'm incredibly disappointed with his lack
of desire to secure our borders, I'm not surprised.

His plan for adding a few thousand national guardsmen
temporarily while a match of that number comes online
is nowhere near enough resources to effectively secure
the border. I know that, you know that, and so does
George W. Bush.

Just how stupid does he think we are?

What, do we owe him and the party allegiance
just because they'd got a little (R) next to their
name on the ballot?

I've grown weary of having my vote taken for granted
by Republicans. After last night's speech, you
can bet the RNC will "never" receive another dime
from me. In fact, I'm borderline ready to switch
over to the Libertarian party permanently and leave
these "conservatives in name only" for good.

Up until now, I never understood how a good conservative
just stay home and not vote at all. I can't believe
I'm saying this but I may do just that in November.

I've had it...

Ever wonder why the Republican party does bend over
backwards fighting for what the base wants like those
liberal nutcases do on the Democratic side?

Spring Unveils Mobile Child Locator Service

2006-04-14T12:39:00.000-05:00

It is about damn time. I've been inquiring
about buying products like this from various
companies or writing my own in .NET if the
device supported it for 5 years now. In
the form of a wrist watch or a necklace
would be great.

Not only do I want devices like this to tell
me where my kid is, I want them to have a panic
button. This included with a way for me to
view the map "quickly" on my spring pda phone
would be priceless.

The way things ought to be...

Kid gets scared or is in trouble, kid hits
the button, dad gets an alert and simultaneously
the device displays the map with dad and
kid's location highlighted, dad grabs the gun,
dad hits the road, dad finds the kid, and dad
solves/kills the problem.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1949258,00.asp

Immigration Rights Advocates Protest Proposed Laws

2006-03-25T20:38:00.000-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189110,00.html

Let's get a few things straight.

1. You do not have the "right" to immigrate to the
United States anymore than I have the "right"
to set up camp in your front lawn in Mexico City.

2. Illegal immigrants are by definition criminals.
They have broken our immigration laws. If they
can't abide by immigration laws, why should they be
expected to abide by any other law?

3. They want to work hard and pay taxes to support
"their" country. Until you are a citizen, this
country is no more yours than Puerto Rico is mine.

The United States is a nation of laws. Follow law
or stay out. Your understandable desire for a better
life does not trump our laws. In the U.S., you
don't get to pick and choose which laws you want
to follow when it is convenient for you.

All of this said, immigrants who follow our immigration
laws and become legal citizens are welcome in my
book. I'd certainly share a seat with ya at
my local pub.

Iraq, WMD, Saddam, and the media

2006-03-21T08:57:00.000-05:00

Read this story on msnbc and then ask yourself:

"What makes this guy's story any more believable
than anybody's elses prior to the Iraq war?"

"Why does the media now characterize this as
the truth and is somehow the smoking gun that
Bush lied?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

Imagine yourself in the oval office. You've
been reviewing all sorts of reports regarding
WMD from your own intelligence agency, the Israelis,
the Russians, and Europe. Then, some high ranking
diplomat from Iraq with no direct ties to the
Iraqi military makes these sorts of claims.

Would you really believe him if you were
Bush.

I just love the liberal media...

Republicans Happier Than Democrats

2006-03-15T16:18:00.000-05:00

Here's the story from the Pew Research Center...

"The Pew Research Center recently updated a question about
happiness that the National Opinion Research Center at
the University of Chicago has been asking since 1972.

In every asking of the question, ROLL CALL reports,
Republicans have been happier than Democrats.

Republicans tend to be better off than Democrats,
and that is one explanation for the happiness gap.
But when the researchers controlled for household
income, Republicans at all income levels were happier
than Democrats at those same income levels.

As for ideology, conservative Republicans were happier
than conservative Democrats, and moderate to liberal
Republicans were happier than comparable Democrats."

This is a no brainer.

The natural tendency of a Liberal is to look for
someone to solve their problems for them.

Republicans tend to view the opportunity to
solve their own problems in a positive light.

Big government rarely "solves" anything.
Thus, Liberals always wind up disappointed
while Republicans always feel they are
making progress on a long journey
to success.

They could have just sent the check to me
instead of spending all that money to
discover common knowledge.

George W. Bush's 36% approval rating is right on

2006-03-14T22:08:00.000-05:00

Check out my Bill Schneider (CNN) impersonation of
anaylzing W's poor poll numbers:

((Robbe's time + $100's donated) / (W's part-time conservatism
+ administration's media incompetence) * liberal media^10)
= 36% approval rating.

When the pollsters called, I answered
"You bet I disapprove".

Don't get me wrong, my W '04 sticker is still
up in the old SUV. It reminds me a little bit of
dealing with my 3 year old. Even though W doesn't
always behave, I still love the guy. My son Caeden
thought that W spending a little time in the
"thinking chair" at the Morris residence would do
him some good.

My boy sure straightens up after a few minutes.