4dollars15cents's Blog

How do you really feel about the comment that Senator Clinton made about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy? 

(a)  Taken Out of Context
(b)  Desperate
(c)  Politically motivated
(d)  Don't know, don't care

How do you think the media treated the comments made by Senator Clinton?

(a)  Fair
(b)  Unfair
(c)  Media frenzy
(d)  Don't know, don't care

How do you think Senator Obama handled the comments made by Senator Clinton?

(a)  Intelligently
(b)  Politically motivatied
(c)  Taken Out of Context
(d)  Don't know, don't care

The comments made by senator Clinton was very unfortunate, at best.  However, this contest has proven that she's not really to take on a general election. 

I was once pulling for senator Clinton because I felt that she was smart and able to handle the business of the federal government.  But now, I'm thinking that she's showing her true spirit.  Or at least, she's becoming so desperate, that she does not know how to handle defeat. 

With that kind of mind, how is senator Clinton going to handle the major issues of a general election?  I think that she should do the right thing and concede.  It's probably the best way to unite the democratic party.  Because of now, she really don't have a chance at the number two spot. 

But hey, it was definitely one of the most exciting competition I've seen.  This should go down as the most unforgettable moments in history. 

Ask yourself a question.  How far do you have to drive to get to work and other places? 

As gas prices continue to soar, the excuse has always been because of the demand for oil.  But who are we kidding here?  Is there really such a high demand? 

So again, ask yourself a serious question.  Has any of your habits of burning fuel changed, in over the last eight years? 

If you're like most U.S. citizens, then you pretty much have done the same thing, the same exact way, for the longest period of time.  The same miles that it took you to drive to work today are the same miles that you took eight years ago and even when you first started your job. 

And the same can be said of a lot of your driving habits, cooking habits and for the amount of gas you use to heat your homes.  So, where is this so-called "high" demand that is driving up the cost of gas? 

There isn't any.  Because you're not doing more today then you did yesterday.  Therefore, the demand of gas even isn't recognized. 

But not so fast.  Wait a minute.  There is still a war going on.  And the U.S. is spending billions of dollars, each week, to continue a situation that appears not to be productive. 

So, why should it cost you more to do the same exact things that you've always done, when the real cost of gas is due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

It is costing you more money to buy orange juice, just because of the effects of gas prices.  Prices that are a direct result of a political fumble.  So, what are we to do?

The only way to really ease the pain at the pump and to get the U.S. economy back on track, is to challenge the White House to fest up and use the oil that we already have in reserve. 

Whether people may know it or not, the U.S. will not run out of fuel for a long time.  We have enough oil to last us at least another decade, even if not another barrel of oil is imported to America.  But since the american people are so use to believing in the fear of its elected officials, we don't dare question what is right in front our face. 

Some of you might disagree. But I ask you one last time.  Consider the question of whether you're doing more to drive up the cost of gas or not.  And then ask yourself where's the demand is actually coming from. 

Let's do the math.  Shall we?

First off, what is "the Black vote"? 

The problem with the United States is that we have seperated between ethnic groups. 

The is a complete juxtapostion of how a democracy works. 

Clinton and Obama shouldn't be fighting over "Black" votes.  They should be embracing the policies that they are campiagning about. 

Black people and White people are no different than each other.  So, why would anyone feel that these ethnic group have totally different issues?

Any comments?

This nut of a president is asking for more money to fund an unjust war, that is obviously and completely out of control.  Yet, at the same time, he vetoed a bill that would help children who can not afford healthcare.

Does anybody, anyone see a problem with this?

I mean, what does he need 46 more billions of dollars for?  Can we itemized the needs of those funds? 

This just goes to show how gullible the president think we are.  Ask and ye shall receive.  And who is going to fund this 46 billion dollars? I mean, where is it coming from? I ain't got it. 

That's right, "ain't". 

About four years ago, when Bush won the last presidential election, a whole lot of people were going around, hollering, "FOUR MORE YEARS". 

Question!  Are you really satisfied and truly believe in what you were screaming?  Because I seriously doubt if you voted for this BLEEP, we call American politics. 

(1).  Should the healthcare of the United States be privatized by drugs companies and their associated doctors?

(2).  Should healthcare "programs" of the United States be governed by the many insurance companies, that also have the right to deny any claims, which it feels are not worthy of being credible? 

(3).  What does healthcare means to you? 

(4).  With all of the different types of drugs offered to the american general public, why isn't there more emphasis placed upon the many different lifestyles of the american public, rather than the side effects of those many different types of drugs?

(5). How important is it for politicians to lose their constituency, in order to remain loyal to pharmaceutical companies, who "donate"  (tax deductable) huge amounts of  money towards their campaigns?

The thing that americans don't know about drugs companies is that they are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth.  They push more poison than your average street level crack dealer. 

If you eat too much food and feel as if you're getting heartburns, then all you have to do is take this pill and go back eating. If you feel as though you're not getting enough energy and you need a boost, all you have to do is take this pill or drink this concoction and it will pick you right back up.  Speaking of pick me ups, if you're having sexual problems and you really want to rise to the occasion, all you have to do is take this pill and try not to be too excited for an extended period of time.  And last but not least, if you want to lose weight, really quick, all you have to do is take this pill and let it slim you down to a "normal size".  What's a normal size?

Let's face it.  America is drugged up and vastly overweight.  We have become the land of convenient medicine, foods and even lifestyles.  What ever happened to just taking a walk and eating sensibly?  Why are we in such of a rush?  Because the thing that most drug companies don't want you to know is that they cater to your every ill, as long as you have the desire to maintain an unbalanced lifestyle.  However, at the same time, the insurance companies do not pay for the lifestyle choices that you make. 

So, if you like to eat a lot of foods and have heart problems, the drug companies have the right kinds of drugs to help you get back on track.  But the insurance companies or HMO's, whom you're paying to help keep you healthy, will not pay for your treatments.  Or at least, will take you through a bunch of "red tape" just to get a claim paid. 

All of this is going on because of privatized medicine.  Meaning, this is a system which americans buy into but can not benefit from.  Yet, many of the politicians who vote to keep medicine and healthcare privatized, including the president of the U.S., have the best healthcare there is.  Why can't all americans have the same kinds of healthcare? 

I like to think of myself as being a straight forward and level headed kind of guy.  And I tend to add things up and try to make some clear sense out of it.  However, I can't, for the life of me, figure out this war in Iraq. 

This campaign started in 2002, right?  Well, some people might say 2001.  But let's focus on the real war and not necessarily on 9/11.  Because 9/11 was a terrorist attack on the U.S.  And it has not been proven that Iraq had anything to do with it.  So, I can't really factor that in. 

What I can factor, however, is the growing price tag that the U.S. is spending on an unjust war.  How much is it, now? 

Since 2002, how much has the U.S. spent on the war in Iraq?  In that same regard, what has the U.S. accomplished or have shown or can give an account for all of the activities and time spent in Iraq? 

With the U.S. presents in Iraq, are we meddlers of peace or inventors of destruction?  How can we stablized a war torn country, a war mind you, that the U.S. started, when the infrastructure of our own country is fractured and weaken?

It doesn't add up, even for history.  This war was a grave mistake.  And I think that the Bush Administration has betrayed the trust and courage of this country.  And has placed our future at a point of no return.  This should be the grounds for impeachment.   

Made you look.  You dirty crook.

But seriously though; why isn't vice president Cheney running for president?  Throughout history, most vice presidents have always ran for the top office, after the term of presidency.  But nothing has been said about Cheney running for office.  

And I know the question is, "Are you serious?"  Not really that serious, but mostly curious.  Because it really does surprises me at how the republican party is scrammbling around, trying to restore their party's influences.  And right now, they really don't have a good representation.  Which only sparked my curiosity as to why isn't vice president Cheney speaking up for his party or at least showing some interest at who would be a good successor to the office of president.  I mean, that would make sense to me.  May not be that big of a deal, but at least it will show that the current presidency is involved at restoring its political party in the White House.  Maybe it's still too soon to say.  

I, personally, think that the next president of the United States should be Senator Biden.  The only thing that I'm stuck on is who could be a good running mate.  Eventhough Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are the more popular choices right now, I don't feel that I want to vote for a popular president.  Being popular isn't always the best choice.  Ask the current president.  Because of the situation and circumstances the U.S. is in right now, we really "need" a president with a sharp eye and focus, that can bring the state of our union to a more peaceful setting.  

As of now, the Democrats have a good choice with Senator Biden.  The republican have a good choice, if they choose to have Ron Paul, as their candidate. Both of these guys have a good idea, as to how to handle the invasion of Iraq and the international quagmire that the U.S. is so muddling  into.  But not only that, they also have a good plan on how to help stimulate the U.S. economy and set policies that will bring Americans together.  So, why isn't these two running on the same ticket?  

Could it happen?  I don't think so either.