another thought on gay marriage

let's say you have a white friend who is inspired to be in the baseball hall of fame. Then you find out that this white friend wants to be in the african american baseball hall of fame. Wouldn't you say "humm.....I like you....I support your bid for being in the baseball hall of fame, but there is a problem....you see you are a white person and therefore you canNOT be in the african american baseball hall of fame......not because I discriminate against or hate you....but by common sense, your "dream" won't work and you'll have to "settle" for Caucasian American baseball hall of fame". That's what everyone with a brain would say. How would you feel if that person gets angry and demand we as a society to change the definition of "african americans" to include white people so that he can be in the african american baseball hall of fame? it's stupid and ridiculous. This is exactly what's happening w/ gay marriages.

if you do a survey of all of the people in the world about their definition of marriage you'll see VAST majority of them support marriage being between man and woman. So liberal americans are just plain stupid.

health care and education reform

Liberals complain about Conservative's views and actions on healthcare as non-sense and obstructionist. To some degrees I agree. But I have an interesting point of view here to show that liberals are as non-sense and obstructionists as they accuse republicans to be ... but just on different issues.

Health care reform vs education reform

• health care is broken so is our education system.

• american health care is ranked low in all developed nations and american education system is also ranked bottom in the list.
• Millions of americans have no health care because the system sucks. Millions of americans didn't get good education from public schools because they suck as well.
• People die from lack of good health care. Kids get shot, robbed, raped, beat up in schools.
• People get poor health care and kids get poor education.
• There has not been any serious effort to reform health care until now. There has not been any serious effort to reform our education system until now either.
• Democrats came up with a health care reform with public option as a main point of the health care reform. Republicans came up with charter and voucher system as a main point of the education reform.
• Democrats accused repbulicans on being obstructionist on health care reform; republicans accused democrats on being obstructionist on education reform.
• Republicans wants the same old way of tax credits to "fix" the health care system. Democrats wants the same old way of paying more to the teachers to "fix" the education system.
• Tax credits is just a patch work and does not solve the fundermental issues in our health care system and paying more to the teacher is also a patch work and does not solve the fundermental issues in our education system.
• Democrats say Republicans wants to keep the profit up for insurance and drug companies so they can get campaign contribution from them later. Republicans say Democrats wants to keep the salary up for teachers in teacher unions so they can get campaign contribution from them later.
  
• Republicans are working for the interest of drug and insurance companies and not caring about americans in general and tried to stall health care reform. Democrats are working for the interest of teachers union and gay activist groups and not caring about american children's interest and tried to stall education reform.
• Republicans mobilized their base to fight against public option and democrats mobilized their base to fight voucher and charter schools.
  
• Democrats say republicans shameless invented the rumor of "death panel" and "socialism" to scare the people about health care reform specifically about the public option. Republicans say democrats shameless invented the rumor of "they are turning our children into products and let big corporation make money off our children" and "racism" to scare the people about education reform specifically about the privatizing schools.
• Liberals say most conservatives ignorantly agreed or lead to believe that publictizing health care is a bad idea. and Conservatives say most liberals ignorantly agreed or lead to believe that privatizing schools is a bad idea.
• Liberals say conservatives are stupid rednecks. Conservatives are saying liberals are stupid perverts.
  
• At the end of the days, liberals work for teachers union and gay activists groups and republicans work for insurance and drug companies. And no one is working for America. And most americans are just too stupid to realize that.
  

As you can see both side are doing the EXACTLY the same thing i.e. making up bullshit and lies to protect their special interest groups and not caring about what's really good for america. The saddest thing is that liberals in general have such limited intellectual capacity to realize the party they support are as bad as the party they hate and liberals are no smarter or rather as dumb as conservatives. But liberals in general are too self absorbing and arrogant to reflect on this.

Hate crime bill

Today the house is going to vote on including gays in the hate crime bill. (http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/10/09/1008414/adl1) The argument is that gays should not be made as 2nd class citizen by not being included in the hate crime bill. There are many violent crimes against gays so they should be protected under hate crime bill.

I am ok with that. But then there is another question, what about fat and ugly people? there are also many violent crimes against them. I personally know kids in school get beat up because they are fat. By not including fat and ugly people then are we saying they are 2nd class citizen? Then what about alcoholics who argue they have a proven genes that contribute to their alcoholism. Should they not be protected under hate crime bill if they get beat up because a drunk? As you can see, the problem is very apparent that if you protect a few special groups under hate crime bill, then other groups can argue they need to be protected as well otherwise it constitutes discrimination.

for example, 2 friends are walking down the street. one is fat and one is gay. 2 gangsters came and said to one "we are going to beat you up because you are fat" and to the other "we are going to beat you up because you are gay" so one gangster punched the gay person and the other punched the fat person. Then the gangsters are arrested and prosecuted. Even though they both committed exactly the same violent crime originated from hatred, one who beat up the gay person gets 10 yrs and the one who beat up the fat person gets 5 years. How f*cked up is this? Either both should get 10 yrs or both should get 5 yrs. How can we live in a society where there are specially protected groups? How would you feel if we live in a society that punishes criminals more if they victimized a wealthy white person vs a poor black person? wouldn't you say that we should punish crimes equally regardless who the victim is?

The current way of hate bill basically said "hey if you want to earn the privilege of being specially protected, you must pay a lot of money to democrats in the form of campaign contribution just like gays did. BUT if you don't, then your group of people will be 2nd class citizen and won't be protected even though you suffer as much or more hate than gays do, just like, for example, fat or ugly people." This is black mail.

so what's the solution? well, it's either abolish the hate crime bill and punish criminals equals so we don't have "superior" groups of people to protect OR expand the hate crime bill to say if anyone commits a crime against another person(s) based on any attributes of that person (race, sex, immigration status, fatness, ugliness, orientation, political views, etc.) then that constitutes hate crime. I am in favor of 2nd option because hate crime is hate crime regardless what that person is hating. Hate against gays is the same as hate against blacks and same as hate against fat people and so on so forth. Hate is hate. why should we make some hate more criminal than others. If we as a society truly believes in stamping out hate crimes then let's stamp out all hate crimes as oppose to only stamping out hate crimes against groups that paid a lot of money to democrats in the form of campaign contribution.

Hate from Liberals

I will start using this particular blog entry to start keep track of all the hate crimes and anti democracy actions committed by liberals.

1) Some liberal crack head shot and killed an abortion activist who was protesting legally and peacefully. This kinda of liberal hatred is unacceptable.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html

2) One of the biggest liberal grassroot organization ACORN is caught telling people how to start a prostitution ring involve underage illegal immigrants without getting caught and how to get tax credit for the prostitution ring. Shameless.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/09/16/am.acorn.video.reaction.cnn

ACORN is also caught in voter registration fraud.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-13-2004/0002275937&EDATE

3) One of the biggest liberal abortion operation "planned parenthood" has been revealed to have help to conceal statutory rapes, sexual abuses, or even outright racial genocide.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022802.html

4) Liberals say they are open minded but in practice they'll attack anyone who disagree with their agenda even on things that are not related. In this case they attacked liberman for not supporting public option and now they are targeting his wife all because her husband decide not to sleep with liberal agenda.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/14/hadassah-lieberman-under-attack-over-industry-ties/

And they harrass him whenever they can. Democrats are hateful towards different ideas

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

why gay movement is hateful and discriminatory

Here is an interesting thought. Let's say you live in 1900s where women in united states cannot vote and there is a movement called "let's allow white women to vote". This movement explicitly did NOT include minority women. Anyone other than white supremacists would ask why this movement only covers white women? what about black, asian, hispanic, and native american women? The answer from "let's allow white women to vote" activists is that there are more white women and white women are the major so let's worry about the majority first and maybe we'll revisit later about minority women's rights to vote. For now, let's worry about the "important" group i.e. white women." Wouldn't you say this movement is a hateful, discriminatory, racist movement that reaffirms white society's degrading views on minorities. what do you mean by "let's worry about the majority white women?" huh? why can't the movement include all women? wouldn't you fervently against this movement because it's so called discrimination in mask?

well, same exact thing with gay movement. There are many other groups than gays who currently cannot get benefits as married couples. For example, an 80 year old lady and her 60 year old daughter who where never married. The mother and the daughter live together in the same apartment, contributing money to sustain themselves. They depend on each other in a partnership, and they love each other in the mother-daughter way. How they depend on each other and support each other are exactly the same as heterosexual or some gay couples do. But currently they do not get any benefits married couples or civil unioned gays get. Nothing. I.e. they are treated worse than gays if you take gay's argument. Another example are 2 old sisters living together. They are never married to anyone else, and they are not incestuous lesbians i.e. they are just living together as 2 sister would. Supporting and depending on each other. They don't have any of the rights traditionally married couples or civil unioned gay couples do. In other words, there are many other groups who have the same plight and have met with same or worse discrimination than gays do. Yet the gay movement deliberately ignored them just like in my example the "let's allow white women to vote" movement deliberately ignored minority women. By forcing majority of americans to accept gays' definition of marriage, it still does not at ALL address the need of other discriminated groups. The mother and daughter and the 2 sisters obviously cannot get married and they don't want to. Why should they suffer because they are in a non-sexual partnership? By not including them in the solution gay movement offers in essence is discriminating them the same way the "let's allow white women to vote" movement is discriminating against minorities. And that make gay movement hateful and biased.

if gays are not a bunch of hateful and discriminatory bigots, they, instead of proposing to change the definition of marriage which does NOT help the mother/daugher and 2 old sisters groups, would and should push for a more balanced solution by revisiting why our nation is distributing benefits and rights based on marriage or even civil unions. Even if gay marriages or civil unions are fully allowed, 2 people will still have to in essence f*ck each other in order to get benefits/rights. Why do 2 people have to f*ck (whether heteralsexually or homosexually) in order to get beneifts and rights? why can't gays push for giving benefits based on any partnerships even non sexual ones? In french domestic partnership is granted to people like mother/daughter and 2 old sisters. Just like people asked in my example why can't we have a movement that allow all women to vote which address the suffrage issue for all women I ask why can't gays come up with a solution that addresses the inequality of all groups? If the "let's allow white women to vote" activists insist there is no way to include minority groups in their movement I must say they are either stupid or hateful. And this is what I say about gay activists because their solution only caters to their need while ignoring and discriminating the others just like "let's allow white women to vote" solution.

this is why people hate democrats

As a part of budget cut in California, democrats included a 4 billion cut on correctional facilities (jails) You would think that saving would come from cutting back on the money spent on prisoners by cutting down some of the ridiculous treatment prisoners gets and cut back on the frivolous pay prison unions get. WRONG. They are proposing to release 40,000 prisoners. While they claim these 40,000 criminals are going to be non-violent ones but there are some significant issues they conveniently "forgot" to mention to Californians.

1. The reason why we spent so much money on prisons was because we have many crimes committed. Democrats passed laws that made california very attractive to illegal immigrants and many of the crimes are commited by illegal immigrants. Democrats also dominate the school board and california schools are the WORST in the country. 30% drop out rate, 40% of students can't meet basic math and reading requirement. Yet california public schools spend twice as much as california private schools per student and achieve a fraction of the results that private schools deliver. Democrats controlled public school system produced MOST of the new crimes. What do you think those disrespectful highschool drop out do? Many commit crimes! And there are many more examples. Democrats created the crime situation in California and failed to stop it. There are no one else to blame than democrats since they overwhelmingly dominate the state government.

2. The reason why prison system here in california costs almost double as neighboring state such as nevanda per prisoner is because Democrats gave almost unrestricted benefits to prison unions. The previous CA governor gray davis gave unions a 30% raise. Have you ever gotten a 30% pay raise? and relaxed the rules on overtime as a result the cost per prisoner skyrocketed and money paid to overtime went thru the roof and unchecked. The bottom line is californians give money/tax to the government to have the government do service for them but instead democrats stole the money by giving it to labor unions who then later paid democrats back in the form of campaign contributions. Since they stole so much money, we are now running out of money to do service for californians such as locking up criminals. But instead of stop stealing, democrats continue to give labor union high benefit and are planning to release criminals to terrorize law abiding citizens. The plan is obvious, when enough californians are victimized by the criminals that democrats released califnornians will be forced to raise taxes i.e. put more money in the pot for democrats to steal more and give to labor unions so they can get kickbacks later during election times. this is so evil and devious. Californians have voted to say no to new taxes thru the recent initiatives. But democrats are so devious they are deliberately releasing criminals to force us to pay.

3. There are many other ways to reduce prison cost than releasing criminials on the street. How about make criminals work? IF they have so much energy to fight in prisons all the time, then they should spend the energy to work! How about having prisoners doing 3 shifts? i.e. mid night to 8am, group1 sleeps, from 8am to 4pm group 2 sleeps, from 4pm to midnight group 3 sleeps. This will increase the prison capacity by 300%. And doing shifts is ok because millions of Americans are working on midnight and graveyard shifts. If law abiding Americans can do shifts, why can't criminals?

4. Criminals are in jail for a reason whether big or small crimes or nonvilent or violent crimes. The bottom line is that they have victimize others and that's why they are in jail. If you let them get off easier you are in essense training them to commit more crime. This is much like if a child misbehaves you need correct him right away otherwise the child will misbehave more and more. If a child pushes another child, a bad parent will say "whatever, I have no energy to correct him, as long as he does hit and injure another child", well guess what? by doing nothing or little you are actually encouraging bad behaviors and eventually the child will hit and injure another child. And we call this irresponsible parenting. what democrats are doing is irresponsible governing. Can we say "gee health care cost is so high so people are not allowed to see doctors unless they have a severe health issues. so if you have an infection, you can't see a doctor" well, by doing this you are actually making sure there are going to be an endless cases of severe health issues by not treating the problem when they are still treatable. If you have an infection, it's best to treat it early on than to wait until your arm needs to be amputated. Same thing with crime, when a criminal breaks into cars and you do little to punish him, he will commit more crimes, then he realizes if he gets caught all he gets is 10 hours of community service, a few counseling session, and 1 day of house arrest (gee I have to stay home and watch tv) then he will go up the crime ladder by committing burglery. And then he will move on to commit assault, then robbery, and then and only then you are arresting him. This will actually produce a endless stream of serious and violent criminals because your lax punishment are making car theives into violent criminals over time. If you look at the profile of criminals most of them started small then go up the crime ladder because they think they are above the law. By having lax punishment for small time criminals you are actually helping more of them go up the crime ladder and in the process millions of americans will suffer as a result of democrats irresponsible actions.

The sad thing is that liberal in general are so stupid and arrogant and incapable of thinking that they are going along with democrats on this issue with out even asking basic questions. And when liberals get mugged, robbed, and having their cars vandalized they still are so stupid to not realize who the real culprit is and blame republicans by not taxing more. Our country is in trouble as long as we have selfing absorbing and arrogant liberal crack heads thinking they know what they are talking about.

what's difference between homosexuality and race?

one of the most important argument gay activists use to support gay movement is that homosexuality is no different from race issue. i.e. if interracial marriage is ok then why is homosexual marriage not ok? When I say "you can't compare homosexuality with race, they are different" gay activists often counter by asking sarcastically "but what's the difference?" Here is a difference for one.

Interracial marriages are PROVEN success by history! There were extensive interracial marriages between major population centers. for example, between china and middle east people in counties like turmenistan, afghanistan, kazakhstan, etc. are decendents of interracial marriages between arabs, russians, and chinese. if you study the lineage, genetics, or just facial features, it is very apparent that they are mixed. Throughout history, during conquering quests by empires (greek, romans, Genghis Khan, ottaman, persian, etc.) their armies often marry locally and have EXTENSIVE interracial marriages and that produced many of today's population in those areas. Between Europe(white) China (asian) Africa (black) there are many population that can be scientically traced to be mixed (turks, asian minors, even arab, iranians, kurds, etc.) and the same holds in asian pacific islands and south america. There are even more extensive inter-ethnic marriages such marriage between Han and Xi ethnic chinese groups. In short, human history has extensive interracial marriages. Don't believe me? try to go to library and find out yourself. This is a well known scientific, historic, and social fact. As a matter of fact it is next to impossible to find a "pure bred" person who is from a lineage of a family that never married someone outside of their tribe, region, country, ethnic groups, or sometimes race.

Interracial marriages over history has proven as good if not better than intra-racial marriages. Socially it's proven to be sustainable i.e. families and large population of interracial marriages can form strong countries, flourishing economy, and social functions for hundreds of years. Look at Iran, Turkey, etc. Culturally it's proven "arguably superior" since it allowed people to bring out the best from each culture involved in interracial marriages and improve them. Genetically interracial marriages is KNOWN to significantly reduce genetic diseases and improve human gene pool. Don't believe me? go read scientific journals and everyone of them you read will support the fact that interracial marriages are advantageous as far as evolution and genetics are concerned. (of course, Nazi, KKK, and some white liberals will disagree)

So history has proven the extensive practice of interracial marriages and has proven the sustainability and advantages of interracial marriages. Can you say the same for homosexual marriages? NO. There has NEVER EVER been a culture of any significance or duration that practiced extensive homosexual marriages. NEVER. The closest example is during the very end of roman empire they allowed gay marriages but then the empire prompted crumbled and ended. There has NEVER been any scientific support that says a society with extensive and prolonged gay marriages can be sustainable past 1 generation. Nor any historic proof that shows extensive and prolonged gay marriages are as good as interracial marriages socially and culturally. NEVER. And NO ONE EVER can prove that gay marriages help human evolution and gene pool.

Interracial marries have proven and undeniable positive historic track record and gay marries don't! That's the difference! It's important to liberals readers that the purpose in this specific blog entry is not about whether gay marriage is good or bad but rather to show that there are significant differences between interracial and gay marriages contrary to what ignorant and uneducated white liberals claim. And gay activists are IGNORANT to make any comparison between those 2 types of marries. Gay artists' claim of sameness between interracial and gay marriages only shows their stupidity, lack of understanding of world history and racist hateful intention. I urge all readers to pass my blog site to your friends so we can stand up to refute liberals' stupid arguments.