Greetings and God Bless to My Readers,
While I am not surprised, I will keep my promise and not be crude regarding any candidate, for I do not wish to scare politicians away. I will say this, "Mrs. Clinton, you got by FAR the easiest list of questions that I have or WILL send anyone running for President. I gave you a soft pitch, you could have hit it out of the park...and you blew it!" Why do I say this?
This is great - most people I choose really cutting edge questions to give them, questions that really make them come out and not hide behind shadows of speech. With Mrs. Clinton, I did NOT do this because she has a reputation for not wanting to get to nailed down, so I tried something on her. I thought to myself, "Self, let's see if she does not like getting nailed down on issues or if she is just too good to talk to me. I am going to go to her website, read her quotes, and base almost every question on questions that she has already addressed ON HER PAGE." Really, this is what I did! Want to know the questions, then go TO HER SITE! She is either 1) VERY afraid to commit to even her own words on her own site 2) or too good to talk to Mr. Nobody Correct Views. In any event, if you can not answer a series of questions that you have on YOUR OWN PAGE, then you are too week to be president. Readers, you asked me to try, and I did. I made it so easy even Dan Quail could have done it, yet she blew it.
Alex Jones has STILL not replied again, I am thinking now it was all a ploy to get me queit on it. Really, Mr. Jones, if you are going to be passion filled, and if you are going to want to spread "the word", then ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM PEOPLE! I am really disappointed in him thus far. I like his show a lot and now I wonder how much is real?
Ok - so here we go again, but this time with a candidate that I LIKE. YES, this is who I PICK. I will now address some questions to Mr. Ron Paul. Yes, we differ on abortion and yes will differ a bit on Iraq, but NO ONE has any chance of getting my vote that I have heard yet better than Ron Paul. Still....fairness. If he does not reply, I shall not any kinder to him that I have Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Jones. I happen to think Mr. Paul will reply.
Please comment this out....what do you think of the series? Should I go back to commentary, or should I keep this up? You are the reader, let me know.
Samuel Di Gangi
Friday, May 25, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
CORRECTION - Alex Jones HAS CONTACTED ME - UPDATE !
Greetings to YOU the Reader,
As I have said time and time again, The Correct Views is 100% honest. Am I biased? Yes. Is my column biased? No. Well, it seems that I as your author has a correction to make and crow to eat. I had mis-stated the Mr. Alex Jones was not kind enough to even decline the offer to be on the page and just now I recieved an email from his myspace.com contact saying that he had not recieved the questions and that Mr. Jones knows nothing of them. He was very kind, he was not rude, and as it stands I am awaiting his contact to forward him the questions. This means that Mrs. Clinton has MORE TIME to answer her questions (and lets me learn a lesson on being more patient with busy people) while we await Alex Jones and his reply.
Never let it be said that an apology was not given... I was wrong.
Sam
As I have said time and time again, The Correct Views is 100% honest. Am I biased? Yes. Is my column biased? No. Well, it seems that I as your author has a correction to make and crow to eat. I had mis-stated the Mr. Alex Jones was not kind enough to even decline the offer to be on the page and just now I recieved an email from his myspace.com contact saying that he had not recieved the questions and that Mr. Jones knows nothing of them. He was very kind, he was not rude, and as it stands I am awaiting his contact to forward him the questions. This means that Mrs. Clinton has MORE TIME to answer her questions (and lets me learn a lesson on being more patient with busy people) while we await Alex Jones and his reply.
Never let it be said that an apology was not given... I was wrong.
Sam
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Questions Alex Jones Would'nt Answer
Greetings to You, My Loyal (and slowly growing) Readership,
If you have read the blog posted prior to this (please do) then you know that the new idea birthed here is as follows - I am sending public figures, politicians, radio talk show host, etc a small number of questions that I promise to not alter, change, or otherwise decontextualize or slander. In other words, what they get sent is written 100% except for the answers that they are being asked to supply. The first person to get said questions was radio talk show host Alex Jones who did NOT choose to even respond and kindly DECLINE to answer the questions which is surprising because the questions (which I am posting below) were not really very pointed and because while I am a bit more socially liberal than he, we are on the same side much of the time.
Alex Jones is for small government as is this blogs author. He is for freedom of speech which anyone who takes the time to learn even the first thing about this columns perspectives will see is of great importance here as well. We both seem to distrust the government, The NWO (New World Order, the media, and both major parties. We dislike NAFTA, most actions taken in reference to the USA by The United Nations, and we both know that global warming is a massive lie based on mis-information, bad science, political agendas, and a misunderstanding of the nature of the sun.
However, Mr. Jones believes that 911 was a government sponsored act of violence against it's own people. What is The Correct Views outlook on this opinion? The opinion is that I must admit I am not really sure yet, I have not done the study nor the research yet to form and educated opinion on this theory, and I also admit to buying into it more at first than I do now - though I never felt that everything was as the government claimed on this or much of anything else. I know that our government has used nuclear weapons upon the state of Nevada (not just in The Hills Have Eyes, just look it up), I know that the government distrusted Agent Orange and used it anyway, and I think that if JFK died according to the official story, then Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the most cunning people who ever lived. I would be saddened and greatly depressed if the thoughts of Alex Jones and a steadily growing number of others proves correct, but I would not be surprised in the least, I simply distrust the government that much. Of course they would do something like that do us, I just don't know yet if I think that they did.
I do think if so, then there is a good chance that The Clinton's were also at least aware that it was being cooked up or in a true act of GENIUS The Bush Administration planned ALL OF IT in less that two years, and to find Mr. Bush that smart is simply too much to accept, is it not? That means that if Alex Jones is correct, then both parties are in on it and that is even sadder and for more terrifying. I for one am not ready to call him a nutcase, but I do think I find him somewhat inconsiderate and even rude that he did not at least decline to participate. If it proves that it was just a case of his being too busy, then I will recant my words and put his answers up. In the meantime, below are question that Alex Jones did not answer.
1) Pretend for a moment that the reader of this blog were BRAND NEW to politics. Pretend also that the person was a typical "brain dead" American, and now if growing interested. Alex, in your own words and in whatever order you choose to tell them - what is happening in America, who is causing it, and what can they do?
2) In your own words, what is the NWO?
3) As you may know, I am in a band that has many "goth" or "industrial music" fans besides being a political writer, and while I myself am NOT wiccan, occultic, or otherwise "un-christian" - many of my readers and fans are. With that in mind, what is your advice politically to such a reader wants to remain wiccan or whatever, yet want o stop the NWO?
4) If you woke up tomorrow and were President, what would be the first thing you would do and HOW WOULD YOU ATTEMPT TO DO IT WITH THE CONGRESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE?
5) In a perfect world, others would know what a Libertarian, a Unionist, and a Green were - but in reality most do not and will NOT vote for a third party. So if you were to advice a person who was a) GOING TO VOTE FOR EITHER Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Gulliani b) was NOT GOING TO SKIP the vote and c)was NOT going to vote third party as we may - which of the two would tell to vote for and why?
6) After that last question, I will be give you the mic....who would Alex Jones choose for President if he could choose ANY ONE ALIVE?
7) Last question....I hand you a mic....I tell you to end this interview with ANYTHING you want the reader of this to hear or know, what would you say. The floor is yours.
If you have read the blog posted prior to this (please do) then you know that the new idea birthed here is as follows - I am sending public figures, politicians, radio talk show host, etc a small number of questions that I promise to not alter, change, or otherwise decontextualize or slander. In other words, what they get sent is written 100% except for the answers that they are being asked to supply. The first person to get said questions was radio talk show host Alex Jones who did NOT choose to even respond and kindly DECLINE to answer the questions which is surprising because the questions (which I am posting below) were not really very pointed and because while I am a bit more socially liberal than he, we are on the same side much of the time.
Alex Jones is for small government as is this blogs author. He is for freedom of speech which anyone who takes the time to learn even the first thing about this columns perspectives will see is of great importance here as well. We both seem to distrust the government, The NWO (New World Order, the media, and both major parties. We dislike NAFTA, most actions taken in reference to the USA by The United Nations, and we both know that global warming is a massive lie based on mis-information, bad science, political agendas, and a misunderstanding of the nature of the sun.
However, Mr. Jones believes that 911 was a government sponsored act of violence against it's own people. What is The Correct Views outlook on this opinion? The opinion is that I must admit I am not really sure yet, I have not done the study nor the research yet to form and educated opinion on this theory, and I also admit to buying into it more at first than I do now - though I never felt that everything was as the government claimed on this or much of anything else. I know that our government has used nuclear weapons upon the state of Nevada (not just in The Hills Have Eyes, just look it up), I know that the government distrusted Agent Orange and used it anyway, and I think that if JFK died according to the official story, then Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the most cunning people who ever lived. I would be saddened and greatly depressed if the thoughts of Alex Jones and a steadily growing number of others proves correct, but I would not be surprised in the least, I simply distrust the government that much. Of course they would do something like that do us, I just don't know yet if I think that they did.
I do think if so, then there is a good chance that The Clinton's were also at least aware that it was being cooked up or in a true act of GENIUS The Bush Administration planned ALL OF IT in less that two years, and to find Mr. Bush that smart is simply too much to accept, is it not? That means that if Alex Jones is correct, then both parties are in on it and that is even sadder and for more terrifying. I for one am not ready to call him a nutcase, but I do think I find him somewhat inconsiderate and even rude that he did not at least decline to participate. If it proves that it was just a case of his being too busy, then I will recant my words and put his answers up. In the meantime, below are question that Alex Jones did not answer.
1) Pretend for a moment that the reader of this blog were BRAND NEW to politics. Pretend also that the person was a typical "brain dead" American, and now if growing interested. Alex, in your own words and in whatever order you choose to tell them - what is happening in America, who is causing it, and what can they do?
2) In your own words, what is the NWO?
3) As you may know, I am in a band that has many "goth" or "industrial music" fans besides being a political writer, and while I myself am NOT wiccan, occultic, or otherwise "un-christian" - many of my readers and fans are. With that in mind, what is your advice politically to such a reader wants to remain wiccan or whatever, yet want o stop the NWO?
4) If you woke up tomorrow and were President, what would be the first thing you would do and HOW WOULD YOU ATTEMPT TO DO IT WITH THE CONGRESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE?
5) In a perfect world, others would know what a Libertarian, a Unionist, and a Green were - but in reality most do not and will NOT vote for a third party. So if you were to advice a person who was a) GOING TO VOTE FOR EITHER Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Gulliani b) was NOT GOING TO SKIP the vote and c)was NOT going to vote third party as we may - which of the two would tell to vote for and why?
6) After that last question, I will be give you the mic....who would Alex Jones choose for President if he could choose ANY ONE ALIVE?
7) Last question....I hand you a mic....I tell you to end this interview with ANYTHING you want the reader of this to hear or know, what would you say. The floor is yours.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Something New at THE CORRECT VIEWS
Greetings to You The Faithful Reader,
After giving to you my idea for the solving (at least in greater detail than I have heard anyone else offer) the Iraq issue, it has been decided that this column should now SEEK the ideas and details of others in the political world. So to do just that, The Correct Views will spend the next few weeks seeing just what questions and views are in the heads of our politicians, radio hosts, and bloggers from the questions that The Correct Views will send to them.
It is simple. The Correct Views sends a small number of questions to any given person of interest and a fair amount of time is given for a response or reply. When the reply is given, The Correct Views will post the answers AS GIVEN with NO CHANGE to so much as a single TYPO! NOTHING WILL BE ALTERED, EDITED, or CHANGED...of this you have my word as my reader. For proof of my honesty, you may read my music related interviews at http://passingtime.ods.org where I have interviewed both in person and via the net some the most cutting edge musicians who have ever lived, and they all found me fair and easy to work with.
There are currently seven questions that have just been sent to radio talk show host Alex Jones. Look for a list of either a) his answers in his OWN WORDS or b) a list of the questions that he refused to answer. In any event, after that, The Correct Views will choose another person. Yes, I would like to know who you would like to see asked what questions, so let me know.
Thanks for reading.
After giving to you my idea for the solving (at least in greater detail than I have heard anyone else offer) the Iraq issue, it has been decided that this column should now SEEK the ideas and details of others in the political world. So to do just that, The Correct Views will spend the next few weeks seeing just what questions and views are in the heads of our politicians, radio hosts, and bloggers from the questions that The Correct Views will send to them.
It is simple. The Correct Views sends a small number of questions to any given person of interest and a fair amount of time is given for a response or reply. When the reply is given, The Correct Views will post the answers AS GIVEN with NO CHANGE to so much as a single TYPO! NOTHING WILL BE ALTERED, EDITED, or CHANGED...of this you have my word as my reader. For proof of my honesty, you may read my music related interviews at http://passingtime.ods.org where I have interviewed both in person and via the net some the most cutting edge musicians who have ever lived, and they all found me fair and easy to work with.
There are currently seven questions that have just been sent to radio talk show host Alex Jones. Look for a list of either a) his answers in his OWN WORDS or b) a list of the questions that he refused to answer. In any event, after that, The Correct Views will choose another person. Yes, I would like to know who you would like to see asked what questions, so let me know.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
A SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ WAR
A SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ WAR.
Greetings Readers, and as always, God Bless.
I have told a few people that this blog is up, and already people have asked me “Ok Mr. Correct Views, you are President of The Grand US of A….how do you handle Iraq?”
Plans to address that were on the table, after all this is the major issue of our time, still the readership is so very small that until it grows in this regard it seemed like a waste and that perhaps it was better to wait a bit until The Correct Views has grown some. After careful debate I have decided that there is no law saying that it can not be reposted yet (Congress will make one perhaps, so check before you take my word for it), so why not just address it. Fine, but there had better be some comments on it, I am playing my ace card a bit early….
but every deck has four aces, six if you play the jokers right.
Ok – Iraq. Let us forget before we begin “This war was right” and “This war was utter rubbish” and pretend that Mr. Samuel Di Gangi was elected today - as is- into the house of the blue dress and that now Iraq was up to “Mr. Correct Views” as I was called.
First of all, Iraq is split in threes: Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Secondly, we take every healthy solider and place an equal (?) number in all three countries. If the solider is supposed to be sent home, he will be offered double pay for staying. If the solider chooses to not stay and is up to go home, he goes home. Again, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Point three would address the time table, and this is where I must confess that I am not solid on this, for I am not a general, so I do not pretend to be one. I would however surround myself with the best, brightest, most diverse minds in modern warfare and military know how (not just a handful of “yes-men”) to guide me in that decision. That is the best that I can say.
The fourth issue would involve civil war because I am not going to assume as President that they will all like the new sandbox and play nicely with one another. The troops are split into all three counties according to the layout of above mentioned military minds and myself, and then we begin “testing”. It would not be called “testing”, but whatever fancy title my spinsters gave to it, in the end it would boil down to testing. Issue four is handled as follows: Each country would have all of the forces that the USA and whatever poor allies we still have can offer, and they MUST build a force of police and military for themselves, and they must do it YESTERDAY! If they are building their forces, our help stays and helps. If on the other hand, a country falls into violence and chaos, then we will in fact LEAVE. Yes, we will LEAVE THEM because the people are NOT able or willing to police and defend themselves, they are not showing signs of unity, and we are not their country. We leave, for how often have we all heard the mantra that most of the Muslim faith is peaceful and able? Fine, that country will either unite and be so able or they can deal with the lack of unity. The innocents will have to rise up and not be bullied by the government that they elect. If they squander our help, they will loose it. What more can we give them?
To the government that did build, again, we help them defend any attacks from the other two, but not forever. Much of this will do with size and population.
Five is terrible. Five is why a lot of people may leave nasty messages for me in The Correct Views comment section because in the event that say the new Sunni country builds to such a degree that they are attacking the Kurds, the Shiite, and threatening the USA and Israel, then we act fast, with great force, and we leave. Gone.
Then we call the Air Force because the aggressor country must be attacking from somewhere. Let’s assume that the aggressive country had a handful of long or semi-long range weapons that we have picked up on satellite images, but other than that it seemed to be centered on the border of the people they are attacking with more conventional short range weapons. As President, I would order our jets to level the entire area that is attacking its neighbor. Any site that had larger weapons would have nothing but a pile of ash when the attack was done, not a missile tower any longer. I would order the whole section blasted to the point to where the other countries could then defend themselves proper from a future attack and they would be able to do it because of us.
Now…
All I ask is that if you, the faithful reader decide to send angry comments, I ask that you lay out where The Correct View is wrong. (or just rip me a new one, I don’t mind really).
Greetings Readers, and as always, God Bless.
I have told a few people that this blog is up, and already people have asked me “Ok Mr. Correct Views, you are President of The Grand US of A….how do you handle Iraq?”
Plans to address that were on the table, after all this is the major issue of our time, still the readership is so very small that until it grows in this regard it seemed like a waste and that perhaps it was better to wait a bit until The Correct Views has grown some. After careful debate I have decided that there is no law saying that it can not be reposted yet (Congress will make one perhaps, so check before you take my word for it), so why not just address it. Fine, but there had better be some comments on it, I am playing my ace card a bit early….
but every deck has four aces, six if you play the jokers right.
Ok – Iraq. Let us forget before we begin “This war was right” and “This war was utter rubbish” and pretend that Mr. Samuel Di Gangi was elected today - as is- into the house of the blue dress and that now Iraq was up to “Mr. Correct Views” as I was called.
First of all, Iraq is split in threes: Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Secondly, we take every healthy solider and place an equal (?) number in all three countries. If the solider is supposed to be sent home, he will be offered double pay for staying. If the solider chooses to not stay and is up to go home, he goes home. Again, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Point three would address the time table, and this is where I must confess that I am not solid on this, for I am not a general, so I do not pretend to be one. I would however surround myself with the best, brightest, most diverse minds in modern warfare and military know how (not just a handful of “yes-men”) to guide me in that decision. That is the best that I can say.
The fourth issue would involve civil war because I am not going to assume as President that they will all like the new sandbox and play nicely with one another. The troops are split into all three counties according to the layout of above mentioned military minds and myself, and then we begin “testing”. It would not be called “testing”, but whatever fancy title my spinsters gave to it, in the end it would boil down to testing. Issue four is handled as follows: Each country would have all of the forces that the USA and whatever poor allies we still have can offer, and they MUST build a force of police and military for themselves, and they must do it YESTERDAY! If they are building their forces, our help stays and helps. If on the other hand, a country falls into violence and chaos, then we will in fact LEAVE. Yes, we will LEAVE THEM because the people are NOT able or willing to police and defend themselves, they are not showing signs of unity, and we are not their country. We leave, for how often have we all heard the mantra that most of the Muslim faith is peaceful and able? Fine, that country will either unite and be so able or they can deal with the lack of unity. The innocents will have to rise up and not be bullied by the government that they elect. If they squander our help, they will loose it. What more can we give them?
To the government that did build, again, we help them defend any attacks from the other two, but not forever. Much of this will do with size and population.
Five is terrible. Five is why a lot of people may leave nasty messages for me in The Correct Views comment section because in the event that say the new Sunni country builds to such a degree that they are attacking the Kurds, the Shiite, and threatening the USA and Israel, then we act fast, with great force, and we leave. Gone.
Then we call the Air Force because the aggressor country must be attacking from somewhere. Let’s assume that the aggressive country had a handful of long or semi-long range weapons that we have picked up on satellite images, but other than that it seemed to be centered on the border of the people they are attacking with more conventional short range weapons. As President, I would order our jets to level the entire area that is attacking its neighbor. Any site that had larger weapons would have nothing but a pile of ash when the attack was done, not a missile tower any longer. I would order the whole section blasted to the point to where the other countries could then defend themselves proper from a future attack and they would be able to do it because of us.
Now…
All I ask is that if you, the faithful reader decide to send angry comments, I ask that you lay out where The Correct View is wrong. (or just rip me a new one, I don’t mind really).
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Scooter Libby, Pardongate 2?
Greetings and Blessings to You The Reader,
The buzz pertaining to the second guessing game of George W. Bush in regards to the Scooter Libby pardoning question is growing in decibals daily. Was Mrs. P covert? Did Scooter really have that bad of a memory, is that possible?
The Correct View here seems to point to what we shall for the sake of argument address as "the conscience issue", or CU. Basically it is this: does your conscience or "gut" tell you the faithful reader that a) said reader or ANYONE that said reader knows, if on the stand with the same set of memory blank spots in a case even half of this important, would the averege person in America get convicted or not, and b) do the original charges seem like a ligitement charge or an attack upon the already lackluster view of The Bush Administration?
Let us look at "a)", this is the easy part, is it not? After all there is no way, under even the most drug induced influence, even with a magic lamp and a Genni full of wishes, NO WAY that anyone reading this can assume that the averege man would be found anything but 100% guilty. The prisons are full of people who are only half as guilty sounding as Scooter Libby is.
Now, for question "b)", well - things get foggier here. To start with, the question has not really been addressed as to how the charges went from outing a covert agent to what they have since morphed into. Then add to that the fact that it is not even noted as certain that the agent was covert at all, and if it was then how did Dick Chenney not also get called to the stand?
Now that we have worded ourselves into a terrible mess at this point, let us go back to point one and remember the fate of the poor, averege man. To prison with the averege should mean to prison for rich attourneys as well, to this we shall concede. However...
If we are in fact throwing away the key on Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush decides to pardon him, where are we left then? Yes, cries of "cronnieism" could not be scoffed at, for such a move would bolster such attacks, but here is another question to ponder - are we then ready to also condemn and also use our "cronnieism" mantra towards Mr. William Jefferson Clinton who while leaving office pardoned some of the most offensive individuals within the prison system himself? Drugs Lords, Drug Runners, Tax Cheats, and listen - The Correct View is not saying that the drug laws are not too strict or that the IRS is honest - NEVER! Rather, The Correct View is asking why were not very many Democrats were up in arms with Mr. Libby when he along with Mr. Clinton was part of a deal to pardon Marc Rich, a deal that went down with a handshake, a wink, and a crisp $100,000 bill?
Here is The Correct View: what one administration is ok with, future administrations will be ok with. Ford pardoned Nixon in a move that many still question. Ever since then Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton have made some rather questionable moves in terms of who they chose to pardon. After such a deal, the kingdom (and with all this Bush and Clinton talk, and with Mrs. Clinton looming at the White House door like a horrible gargoyle from a Vincient Price movie is what we have - A KINGDOM) always reeks of money, brandy, and yes, cronnieism. What is needed is not a decision to pardon Scooter Libby, but a decision to not allow every administration to worsen the office that they leave behind by uppeing the ante with every possible move.
The buzz pertaining to the second guessing game of George W. Bush in regards to the Scooter Libby pardoning question is growing in decibals daily. Was Mrs. P covert? Did Scooter really have that bad of a memory, is that possible?
The Correct View here seems to point to what we shall for the sake of argument address as "the conscience issue", or CU. Basically it is this: does your conscience or "gut" tell you the faithful reader that a) said reader or ANYONE that said reader knows, if on the stand with the same set of memory blank spots in a case even half of this important, would the averege person in America get convicted or not, and b) do the original charges seem like a ligitement charge or an attack upon the already lackluster view of The Bush Administration?
Let us look at "a)", this is the easy part, is it not? After all there is no way, under even the most drug induced influence, even with a magic lamp and a Genni full of wishes, NO WAY that anyone reading this can assume that the averege man would be found anything but 100% guilty. The prisons are full of people who are only half as guilty sounding as Scooter Libby is.
Now, for question "b)", well - things get foggier here. To start with, the question has not really been addressed as to how the charges went from outing a covert agent to what they have since morphed into. Then add to that the fact that it is not even noted as certain that the agent was covert at all, and if it was then how did Dick Chenney not also get called to the stand?
Now that we have worded ourselves into a terrible mess at this point, let us go back to point one and remember the fate of the poor, averege man. To prison with the averege should mean to prison for rich attourneys as well, to this we shall concede. However...
If we are in fact throwing away the key on Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush decides to pardon him, where are we left then? Yes, cries of "cronnieism" could not be scoffed at, for such a move would bolster such attacks, but here is another question to ponder - are we then ready to also condemn and also use our "cronnieism" mantra towards Mr. William Jefferson Clinton who while leaving office pardoned some of the most offensive individuals within the prison system himself? Drugs Lords, Drug Runners, Tax Cheats, and listen - The Correct View is not saying that the drug laws are not too strict or that the IRS is honest - NEVER! Rather, The Correct View is asking why were not very many Democrats were up in arms with Mr. Libby when he along with Mr. Clinton was part of a deal to pardon Marc Rich, a deal that went down with a handshake, a wink, and a crisp $100,000 bill?
Here is The Correct View: what one administration is ok with, future administrations will be ok with. Ford pardoned Nixon in a move that many still question. Ever since then Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton have made some rather questionable moves in terms of who they chose to pardon. After such a deal, the kingdom (and with all this Bush and Clinton talk, and with Mrs. Clinton looming at the White House door like a horrible gargoyle from a Vincient Price movie is what we have - A KINGDOM) always reeks of money, brandy, and yes, cronnieism. What is needed is not a decision to pardon Scooter Libby, but a decision to not allow every administration to worsen the office that they leave behind by uppeing the ante with every possible move.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Introduction To: The Correct Views
Greetings One and All,
I bid thee welcome my new blog, The Correct Views. My name is Samuel E. Di Gangi, and most people know me from my music (Bobby and The Men, Jaws of Victory, and currently Passing Time) with various bands and from live stand in's at various clubs, colleges, andyes - I also own Sam R I Web Design, Writing, Graphics, and Music Services. I have a degree in Graphic Design and a degree soon in Web Design and Music Theory, MIDI, and Production.
Those who know my work also know that I have ALWAYS been political. My music, my art, and my speech have always danced about with declarations of what I have come to know as The Correct Views.
The blogs posted here will not be music related to the degree that they will be political. I have and will still write a plethora of music related material, but little of it will be posted here UNLESS it is somehow political as well. Now, rather than introduce myself further, I shall let myself simply post a blog outlining my view of the main political parties in this country at this time. If I get a ready, strong response to these blogs, I shall post them with great frequency. If I get a slow, tired response, this may be one of the only posts I give.
Now let me begin, and thank you for reading....
REPUBLICANS: The war in Afghanastan was needed. It is obvious to the strongest of degrees that George Bush Sr. had no business trying to beat Bill Clinton to the pink flag so quickly that he left the war and job undone in Gulf War One. He needed to rid Saddam when he had the whole world on our side and he chose to race instead.
Likewise, Bill Clinton allowed not one attack, but TWO ATTACKS upon the US (World Trade Center attack one and The SS Cole) and did nothing to defend the country. What other president in American History would have allowed that? This empowered the mouse to emerge from it's hole and it hurt the United States.
Iraq....The Correct View is a bit more complicated in this regard, but here it is. Saddam allowed Al Zaquari safe haven in Iraq, and Al Zarquari was the sworn enemy of the US. He planned attacks upon the USA and he did so from Iraq. However, while the correct view is that Saddam needed to be removed for this (should have long been removed), George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have done a dreadful, mind blowingly bad job of it! As someone who supported Bush over Kerry (Bush was honest about his ideas that we all hated, Kerry lied about everthing...what a choice, no?), it can not be overstated that Geroge Bush may just have made the most dreadful decision to go into this war with Donald Rumsfeld.
Ruddy offers some hope, he is pretty much a JFK liberal and that is not all bad. There is a concern here about his strong arm tactics in NYC that did clean up that city well, but if attempted nationally it could lead to police strong arming your teenager with a joint in their pocket to a degree that ruins their life forever with mandatory minimums. I do fear he would be that strict, and other than that, he seems to be a decent enough option, though not perect.
McCain would sink the party. His "if I gave $50 an hour to anyone in this room to pick lettuce" comment was rooted firmly on nothing , andyet he still managed to hang himself from it. He would be a travisty.
Mitt who? He needs to run to get his name out, but never. Maybe next time.
DEMOCRATS: When did someone decide that todays liberals were....um...liberal? This is the new party spread from the censorship left of the late 80's (remember The PMRC were so strict as to ban a wet t-shirt on the Bon Jovi CD "Slippery When Wet" as obscene. Bon Jovi....obscene???) lead by Tipper Gore...aka Mrs. Al Gore. This is the roots of this party right now. The want to ban guns, cars, energy....everything the country runs on.
Hillary is a tax maniac and this glossing over of what her and her husband did is nauseating, and I am not speaking of the sex act.
It was Bill Clinton who allowed nuclear tade secrets to leak to the countries that now want to show us how well they all work, just to say thanks and all. He should have faced a hangman's noose for that act. Millions of people may perish due to that one act, so no: no Clintons.
Ubama. He is new, fresh faced, and while he has perhaps an election to run before he may win, he is showing strong with Democrats (39% up from 34% last year) who would "never vote for Mrs. Clinton." He seems strong on a lot of issues, and if he chooses to be himself and not act black or act white, he will show strong in the polls not only amoung African Americans, but also among the "Colin Powell" right as well.
Lastly....GIVE UP THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE! For one, the science is NOT in, and while it is obvious that world is warming up, many (myself thus far included) does NOT find any evidence that man is causing increase in tempature. This seems to be an attempt upon the far left to levy a new tax (perhaps global) on everything that uses any energy. Now, if they were to say "we need to limit the amount of toxins in our air" and not fingered the SUV as a problem (which it is NOT at all in terms of warming), then perhaps it would or will work for them. People know a lie when they see it, this WILL COST YOU THE ELECTION no matter how many times Al Gore shines his trophy. As a health risk (lung cancer for instance) people will perhaps limit and work with "The Establishment", but if taxed or lied to about global warming....well - say hello to President Ruddy.
LIBERTARIAN: What has happened to my party? As God alive see's, so proud was I to be a Libertarian! Now what do you believe? Well, Mr Badnarick as his platform desired to pull all troops from Iraq in 6 months if he were to elected President. Even if oneare hates the war, even if one has hated the war from the first time a talking head told of it, one has to see that this would be a bloodbath. It does not matter if one feels that Bush made the worst blunder in recorded history even, one must also see that a pull out like that would kill thousands. That has to be one of the worst ideas in recorded history right there.
And health care. This is where The Correct View and the Libertarian Party part company. The correct view is that while the private sector does 99.9% of things better than any government can do, it is true that greed kills. The market can price the cheese, for if it goes up too high the sales stop. This does NOT work for healthcare because one can not choose to NOT be sick if it is so ordained. Cancer comes no matter how much money you have or do not have.
A sick society, an ill society is not a safe nor productive society. Sick people equeal a sick nation at some point. A sick populace can breed an epidemic as well, and this can stop and econmy cold (think SARS). The government must insure the populace so that big business does not stifle the health of the nation. The government must oversee very few things, but again The Correct View states clearly that the health of the nation does fall under "Protecting the nation" as outlined in the Constitution.
Now that you have seen my views, I hope to hear from you, the reader.
I bid thee welcome my new blog, The Correct Views. My name is Samuel E. Di Gangi, and most people know me from my music (Bobby and The Men, Jaws of Victory, and currently Passing Time) with various bands and from live stand in's at various clubs, colleges, andyes - I also own Sam R I Web Design, Writing, Graphics, and Music Services. I have a degree in Graphic Design and a degree soon in Web Design and Music Theory, MIDI, and Production.
Those who know my work also know that I have ALWAYS been political. My music, my art, and my speech have always danced about with declarations of what I have come to know as The Correct Views.
The blogs posted here will not be music related to the degree that they will be political. I have and will still write a plethora of music related material, but little of it will be posted here UNLESS it is somehow political as well. Now, rather than introduce myself further, I shall let myself simply post a blog outlining my view of the main political parties in this country at this time. If I get a ready, strong response to these blogs, I shall post them with great frequency. If I get a slow, tired response, this may be one of the only posts I give.
Now let me begin, and thank you for reading....
REPUBLICANS: The war in Afghanastan was needed. It is obvious to the strongest of degrees that George Bush Sr. had no business trying to beat Bill Clinton to the pink flag so quickly that he left the war and job undone in Gulf War One. He needed to rid Saddam when he had the whole world on our side and he chose to race instead.
Likewise, Bill Clinton allowed not one attack, but TWO ATTACKS upon the US (World Trade Center attack one and The SS Cole) and did nothing to defend the country. What other president in American History would have allowed that? This empowered the mouse to emerge from it's hole and it hurt the United States.
Iraq....The Correct View is a bit more complicated in this regard, but here it is. Saddam allowed Al Zaquari safe haven in Iraq, and Al Zarquari was the sworn enemy of the US. He planned attacks upon the USA and he did so from Iraq. However, while the correct view is that Saddam needed to be removed for this (should have long been removed), George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have done a dreadful, mind blowingly bad job of it! As someone who supported Bush over Kerry (Bush was honest about his ideas that we all hated, Kerry lied about everthing...what a choice, no?), it can not be overstated that Geroge Bush may just have made the most dreadful decision to go into this war with Donald Rumsfeld.
Ruddy offers some hope, he is pretty much a JFK liberal and that is not all bad. There is a concern here about his strong arm tactics in NYC that did clean up that city well, but if attempted nationally it could lead to police strong arming your teenager with a joint in their pocket to a degree that ruins their life forever with mandatory minimums. I do fear he would be that strict, and other than that, he seems to be a decent enough option, though not perect.
McCain would sink the party. His "if I gave $50 an hour to anyone in this room to pick lettuce" comment was rooted firmly on nothing , andyet he still managed to hang himself from it. He would be a travisty.
Mitt who? He needs to run to get his name out, but never. Maybe next time.
DEMOCRATS: When did someone decide that todays liberals were....um...liberal? This is the new party spread from the censorship left of the late 80's (remember The PMRC were so strict as to ban a wet t-shirt on the Bon Jovi CD "Slippery When Wet" as obscene. Bon Jovi....obscene???) lead by Tipper Gore...aka Mrs. Al Gore. This is the roots of this party right now. The want to ban guns, cars, energy....everything the country runs on.
Hillary is a tax maniac and this glossing over of what her and her husband did is nauseating, and I am not speaking of the sex act.
It was Bill Clinton who allowed nuclear tade secrets to leak to the countries that now want to show us how well they all work, just to say thanks and all. He should have faced a hangman's noose for that act. Millions of people may perish due to that one act, so no: no Clintons.
Ubama. He is new, fresh faced, and while he has perhaps an election to run before he may win, he is showing strong with Democrats (39% up from 34% last year) who would "never vote for Mrs. Clinton." He seems strong on a lot of issues, and if he chooses to be himself and not act black or act white, he will show strong in the polls not only amoung African Americans, but also among the "Colin Powell" right as well.
Lastly....GIVE UP THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE! For one, the science is NOT in, and while it is obvious that world is warming up, many (myself thus far included) does NOT find any evidence that man is causing increase in tempature. This seems to be an attempt upon the far left to levy a new tax (perhaps global) on everything that uses any energy. Now, if they were to say "we need to limit the amount of toxins in our air" and not fingered the SUV as a problem (which it is NOT at all in terms of warming), then perhaps it would or will work for them. People know a lie when they see it, this WILL COST YOU THE ELECTION no matter how many times Al Gore shines his trophy. As a health risk (lung cancer for instance) people will perhaps limit and work with "The Establishment", but if taxed or lied to about global warming....well - say hello to President Ruddy.
LIBERTARIAN: What has happened to my party? As God alive see's, so proud was I to be a Libertarian! Now what do you believe? Well, Mr Badnarick as his platform desired to pull all troops from Iraq in 6 months if he were to elected President. Even if oneare hates the war, even if one has hated the war from the first time a talking head told of it, one has to see that this would be a bloodbath. It does not matter if one feels that Bush made the worst blunder in recorded history even, one must also see that a pull out like that would kill thousands. That has to be one of the worst ideas in recorded history right there.
And health care. This is where The Correct View and the Libertarian Party part company. The correct view is that while the private sector does 99.9% of things better than any government can do, it is true that greed kills. The market can price the cheese, for if it goes up too high the sales stop. This does NOT work for healthcare because one can not choose to NOT be sick if it is so ordained. Cancer comes no matter how much money you have or do not have.
A sick society, an ill society is not a safe nor productive society. Sick people equeal a sick nation at some point. A sick populace can breed an epidemic as well, and this can stop and econmy cold (think SARS). The government must insure the populace so that big business does not stifle the health of the nation. The government must oversee very few things, but again The Correct View states clearly that the health of the nation does fall under "Protecting the nation" as outlined in the Constitution.
Now that you have seen my views, I hope to hear from you, the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)