Friday, September 12, 2008


Personally, I just want to know when the United States is going to come up with a Major Political Party that is MODERATE? For that matter, when is Canada going to come up with one? Oh never mind, the Conservatives are actually quite moderate. Problem is, I'm not moderate in the same way they are. I'm socially quite leftist. And then I guess you could accuse me of being part of the extremist right too. But you'd be wrong about that. You'd only make that assessment based on the fact that I am pro-life, and against gay-marriage. But it doesn't matter how open* on other things I am, people like Gilles Duceppe would still call me stubborn and ignorant because I don't think exactly like him on these two issues. You know, I used to happily vote Bloc Québecois once... before they started insulting my intelligence... and getting all dictatorial about not letting their party members choose how to vote on important issues. At least Stephen Harper lets his MPs vote freely.

My two-cents worth in pink: (okay in some cases, it's more like $2, but whatever)

Favors new drilling offshore US
How much drilling and in what way? How will this impact the environment? Nobody brings any of this up, it's just a yes or a no. So really, how can I agree with either of them on this one?

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Well this is a no-brainer. You elect people to govern, that's how it works in a democracy. On the other hand, this is of course, a conservative interpretation of what is happening in courts where judges were appointed by the democrats. It is not officially what is supposed to be happening, even under Mr. Obama, however, if he intends on appointing judges that have a tendancy to do things their own way in court, then there is some truth to the matter.

Served in the US Armed Forces
Quite frankly, I do not give a d%&* if either of them served in the US Armed Forces. This does not automatically make you a better President. It might make you a DIFFERENT kind of President, but it does not necessarily make you a better one. What is it with american conservatives and their army anyway? We have an army here in Canada, I am proud of the job they do, mostly. I appreciate what they do, I would not be able to do it myself, but I am glad someone is there for our protection. However, I don't believe that makes them better than me. Just different.

Amount of time served in the US Senate
Again, SO WHAT. Weren't democrats bashing Palin for HER lack of experience too? SO WHAT!!!

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
Umm, coming from Canada, I don't actually think this is such a BAD thing. On the other hand, I suppose there are ways you could eventually work up to this... or do something similar, not the same as Canada. Don't they have some kind of second-rate, government-funded health-service over there for people who can't pay? Is it all that second-rate? Why not just make that better? Or why not have people pay insurance to a State health plan instead of private insurance and then subsidize it. Poorer people would pay less insurance. I mean, if you are paying some kind of health plan anyway, all this does is change where the money goes.

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
Yep, I guess I'm all McWhat'shisname/Palin on this issue. And so totally NOT Obama, who is the only one to have voted to kill babies born alive despite an abortion intended to kill them, and who are old enough to survive in units for pre-mature babies.

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
Ummm, I didn't want troops in Iraq in the first place, didn't think it was necessary, didn't agree with the reasons to be there, but you know what? They went, they pretty much destroyed the infrastructure, decimated the government, (decimating that particular government was actually a good thing) pretty much won the war, and now they have a responsibility to help re-build things. Pulling the troops out of Iraq at this point is NOT in my opinion, a good idea. Having a plan for eventual and progressive eliminition of the US army on Iraquis soil IS.

Supports gun ownership rights
I grew up in Northern Canada eh. My whole community is a hunting community. My husband, who grew up in Southern Québec, also likes to hunt. He owns guns. They are registered. They are in a locked cabinet. He is not a criminal. Criminals will have guns, and NOT register them even if noone is allowed to have guns. That's what a criminal does... he DISOBEYS the law. So what would taking away the right to own guns change? Absolutely N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Criminality is increasing because family units are breaking down. Single parents, divorced parents, kids in daycare because one income is not enough, people just not knowing what to do about their kids anymore... parents who leave their kids to pretty much bring themselves up... extreme violence on TV, in games, in movies, in music... these factors do not of course absolutely mean that your kids will be criminals, but it doesn't help. Taking guns away from non-criminals will not make the population safer, because criminals are not going to voluntarily give up their guns. That's just common sense.

Supports homosexual marriage
You know, I believe in the right of all people to not be discriminated against. You don't refuse a person medical care, or a job or whatever, based on homosexuality. Unless it is a job that requires certain conditions. I do believe in the right of a Catholic school to refuse the candidature of an openly active homosexual. I couldn't care less if said homosexual got a job as a secretary somewhere, a hairdresser, a doctor, a newspaper reporter, a fireman, a mechanic, whatever job where it is obvious that his homosexuality is not in conflict with his work. On the other hand, if a catholic homosexual, who was open about his homosexual tendancies but also openly striving to remain single, or even undergoing therapy (and yes, therapy does exist, and yes people have reverted to heterosexuality, despite claims of the opposite by extreme leftists) then I think the Catholic school would do well to hire the homosexual, he'd actually make an outstanding example. Yes it is hard to live that way. Yes it can be sad. But also, yes it is possible. I won't force that option on a homosexual, I think you have to get to that point on your own. I understand if you don't want to go there. But gosh, could the minority rampant extremist ones please stay out of our schools? I do not want my kids brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is a normal, natural and equal form of sex. It is not. It has also been proven that most homosexuals have more health problems than heterosexuals. And even in very pro-homosexual countries like Denmark, homosexuals STILL suffer from more mental health problems and depression too. But I digress. The point I wanted to make is that marriage has always been an OFFICIAL union, because it was created in order to better protect the children born of a union between a man and a woman. If children did not need both their fathers and their mothers growing up, if they could just be brought up by the tribe as a whole, or by one parent only, there would never have been such a thing as marriage. Children need a stable home, a mother and a father. End of story. Now I understand that homosexual couples might want (need) the same type of rights as any other childless (or not) couple in case of a break-up, in order to fairly separate common wealth or for other issues. So I support laws that would recognize homosexuals as a couple. I do not support calling them a family, or turning what they have into marriage.

What about sterile couples or couples that don't WANT kids, you say? If homosexuals can't be married because they can't biologically have kids, then why should these couples be married?

If they don't WANT kids, then that's their problem, they still have the OPTION and the capacity. Sterile couples still have the option of adoption. They can still be one MOTHER and one FATHER with one or more adopted children. In fact, if we could pair up some of those unwanted children that get aborted all the time, with some of those sterile couples who WANT children... that would be nice too.

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase

Voted against making English the official language
Huh? And what other language did Obama propose we make an official language in the USA. Not spanish!? No! That would be so insulting... to all those who hate illegal immigrants. No but seriously, why would did he even want to make another language official anyway? It's not like the US has quite the same history as Canada.

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
Ahhh, yes... illegal immigrants. Somehow, I do not believe that the problem with illegal immigrants will be resolved either by giving them better benefits in the US or by making tougher laws and inventing tougher penalties for them. People, you need to look at WHY there are illegal immigrants in the first place, and start doing something about making them WANT TO STAY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. If you lived in a place where you were always on the brink of starving to death, because your idiot government won't make people pay a decent minimum wage, won't defend your rights as a worker, and worse, treats you as a criminal and/or a communist if you get together with other people in your situation to either try to fight for your rights, or to do something as innocuous as starting up a simple co-op. So here are your options: You starve to death, or worse you watch your children starve to death or you risk assassination/disappearing/jail/whatever in order to survive. Great options. Now, I ask you... WHAT THE HELL ARE EITHER OBAMA OR McCAIN PLANNING ON DOING ABOUT THAT? Lets not be silly here folks, the US and Canada, and other First World countries have a lot of influence. We could be doing something here...

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

15% (no change)
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

Don't they have married people who make only 30K over there? Why bother indicating that these people are single or married if you are not going to give the equivalent of the other option? So would a married person making 30K pay less taxes or what? Or do you automatically get twice the salary in the US for the same job, from the same employer just because you have a marriage certificate? Gosh people... when you compare things, do it properly. Or at least indicate that the married person who makes 30K doesn't pay income tax if that is the case. Then again, I suppose this was written for Americans, and would be considered common knowledge if it were the case.

- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

Yeah, well this tax just sounds stupid. Especially for poor people.

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Ummm people, the money you will pay for taxes on socialized medicine, you will SAVE on not having to pay medical insurance. Did you think of that? Why not just have a government health insurance plan that everyone pays into, that is subsidized by government, so people can pay less out of their pockets, especially poor people. Sounds logical to me.

You can verify the above at the following web sites:

* Where "open" means I have the same opinion as you