Cody O'Connor

Here you have an actor with a horrible disease, making an ad for stem-cell research; a science that can save his life. Then asshat Rush Limbaugh comes along and accuses him of acting, and making it seem worse to help the Democratic party! It's sickening!

Michael J. Fox is not Barbra Striesand. He's done ads for Republicans. He's got no party agenda, he only wants to be healthy, and will support whoever will help him do that. But as soon as Limbaugh here's the word Democrat he goes into attack mode.

First he says he was off his meds when he did the ad. Well, yes. But what he's trying to do is lead us to believe that as long as he's drugged up he never has any problems. That there's no need to find a cure, he's just grandstanding for the Democrats. We already knew the Bible-thumping Conservatives hate science, but to claim he's acting to make it worse because he's a Democrat is just wrong. Michael J Fox is only concerned about one issue, Stem-Cell research, and he will support any politician who is for it. In 2003 he gave $2000 to Arlen Specter, a pro stem-cell research politician, and Republican 1.

Then he tries to make it look like the Democrats are the bad guys by saying they're exploiting him. Yet it's okay for him to flame Fox, apparently.

I just don't get it. Why are these ugly little things (which are disposed of by the millions daily anyways)

more important than suffering adults?

Saving potential lives? Please. What good will come from having more babies living in orphanages? Is having more poor and unhappy children really a good idea? And besides, I don't think cells are going to know if we kill them. But adults with diseases will know if we save them. They're the ones with the priority, the real living people. I don't know when embryos received the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They're neither men, nor citizens of this country, so they get nothing.

Am I being too harsh on these cells? No. They're not itty bitty babies floating around. They don't have feelings. They don't feel pain. Now, it would be great if we could study stem-cells without killing the embryo. That way we could make the embryo into a baby, and save suffering adults. But if we can't, we can't.

Real people come first, not embryos. And health comes first, not Democrat and Republican bickering.

I know I'll probably be impaled with a trident for that title, but man wouldn't things be good if he never existed.

Apparently John Lennon is a sacred cow; you can't say a bad thing about him or you can expect and angry mob of Leninists Lennonists to mow you down.

The other day in History class we were playing this card game where you'd get asked a question and each student answered it in front of the class. My card read "What are the top three problems with teenagers today?"

My response was something like, "One, the worsening relationships between teens and their parents. Two, the rise in teenage Commies. Three, Obesity."

Mistake number one. I said something bad about Communism. One girl responded almost defensively asking for proof.

I said, "How about the shirts they wear? John Lennon. Che Guevara. I'm seeing a lot of those now."

Mistake number two. I said something bad about John Lennon.

One student, angered by the comment (because John Lennon is untouchable apparently) told me John Lennon wasn't a Commie. And went on about some end to Communism in Russia that I had heard nothing about so I completely disregarded as bullcrap.

I said, "Come on, haven't you seen the lyrics for imagine? Imagine no possessions? Imagine no religion? That's Communist."

Another student ticked about my comments said, "Communism isn't bad, it's just so awesome that no one's been able to pull it off."

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to make sure the class of 2008 isn't brainwashed with Marxism. And God forbid I tell the truth about John Lennon, and what he really believed in.

I don't know what this country is coming to. People in this country really think Communism can work! So I've decided to debunk Communism in just a couple of sentences in a way that can't be refuted.

People are motivated by money, not the common good. It's part of our human nature and it cannot be changed. Without motivation no one prospers. Don't believe me? Take a look at North Korea, or Cuba. Full of starving peasants. Even North Korea's nuclear program would have been considered low-tech in the 40's. Why? No motivation. People won't strive to make things better when helping the common good as the only reward. People strive to make things better when they can get money out of it.

And that's the facts. The ideology is fundamentally flawed. So don't give me this BS that it's the dictators fault they couldn't make communism good. The problem starts with the theory. Karl Marx was wrong, and John Lennon was wrong. Plain and simple.

Forget the UN, I think we should send over Ted Kennedy and Mel Gibson as foreign diplomats. I'm sure if they brought over a lifetime supply of alcohol, Kim Jong-Il would be too drunk to ever hit the big red button.

Plus we wouldn't see Ted Kennedy and Mel Gibson for a while. It's a win-win solution.

--story--

Hey guys, I have a secret for you but you have to promise you won't tell. Promise? You sure? Cross your heart and hope to die? Pinky shake? Okay, I'll tell you, but we have to keep this quiet, I'm not supposed to be saying this.

Capitalism works and Socialism doesn't! Yeah, apparantly motivating rich people to spend money helps a lot more than high taxes and welfare.

Shhh, though. I don't want Bill Clinton to know. He might have another baby fit for being wrong. Poor guy.

The facts aren't clear on the Foley case. There are things we know, or think we know, and there are things we don't know. That is why I am staying neutral on this Foley scandal until the FBI investigation is over. I'm tired of commenting on rumors and speculation. Right now this is a non-story. Let's step back and let our system fix itself.

Besides, I'd much rather be talking about Halo 3 right now. Haha. New stuff tomorrow.

Yep, I have the links section finished on the sidebar. I could use a few more Libertarian and Liberal links, so if you want me to blindly advertise your webite, here's your chance. I'm also looking to join a few webrings, so if there's any ringmasters out there who are looking, just drop a comment. I'm really ready to get this site going on the advertising front. Links, webrings, and comments on other peoples blogs.

But speaking of traffic, I must say I'm quite surprised how well I've done in the first week or so. I'm already up to around 25 hits a day, and rising. My new blog has been doing quite well.

So that's just an update on that. More posts coming soon...

From the Drudge Report:

"According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

Developing..."

I'm getting a headache. Every day something huge comes out and it turns the whole Foley story around. I'll tell you what, maybe we should all wait a few days before we discuss this Foley thing because it's clear that not all of the facts are straight yet. Any of us could go either way in a matter of days.

So who is the real lawbreaker now? The person who set this trap? It's getting quite confusing, lets sit and let things unfold.

From the Drudge Report:

"ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Developing..."

ABCnews is really ticking me off. First they Leak this Foley case and have most of us under the impression that it was internet sex with an underage boy. And now, Oops, they find out the kid was in fact 18 during the chats. So that destroys all legal arguments in this story. But even worse, by accident ABCnews released the name of the kid! Now they've ruined two lives and gave us false presumptions on a story without all of the facts!

I know my last post was quite controversial, but after this, it all must make sense to you. What this website has done is just despicable.

Go back and read through my last article with this news in mind.

This is an intrusion on privacy. It would be one thing if the kid was 16 and unwilling, but that's not the case. The transcript proves that the discussion was consensual, and now we know he was 18 when he had it. So the whole thing is completely legal, and therefore none of our business.

Let me start out by saying, I think mostly everyone is missing the point when it comes to this Foley scandal.

Everybody is angry at Foley for what he did. They've called him this and called him that. He's a pervert, he's a weirdo, he's gay. Yada, yada yada. Probably, but that's not the point.

Others are making this a Republican and Democrat issue. Foley was bad, but Clinton was worse! Probably, but again, not the point.

The point is simply, why do we know this? Why do we know about a congressman's IM conversation?

Let's look at the facts. First, the kid is 18 and of age. Second, there was no sign of the kid objecting to anything the congressman says. Read the transcript on ABCnews.com, There's more LOLing in the conversation than there are Black Rhinoceros' in Africa. Third, I don't care what you say, discussing how you masturbate isn't "cyber sex". Therefore, I believe he did not break any internet law. Not one.

So if that's true, then why the hell do we know about this private conversation? Yes, I agree he's a weirdo, yes, I agree what he did was wrong, but he broke no law. And because he broke no law, I find it disgusting that this man's personal business can just be leaked like this.

Is privacy no longer important to you people?! This isn't some NSA terrorist wiretap. This is a guy having a legal and private conversation that is being intruded on. He broke no law, he posed no threat, and there was no victim. What is happening with this country?!

Of course this is a new story and not all of the details are set straight, but as I see it now someone working with him found out about this and told ABCnews. Though I could be wrong. But if that's how it happened, I don't believe it was necessary for ABCnews to cover this story, it looks like smearing and intruding to me. Instead I would like to see the congressmen who knew, sit down for a private conversation about what's going one and try and get Foley to clean up his act, step down, or just do it somewhere else. But the whole country didn't need to know, it's not our business. You must understand that Foley's personal life and his political life are two different things.

Now if your response to my opinion here is that "He's just standing up for him because he's a Republican." Just shut up. Please. If you know the first thing about me you know that I believe both parties are bad. They take illegal money, smear, and successfully waste taxpayer money in attempt to keep their job. They don't care about America. They don't care if privacy and freedom is at stake. They want to be powerful, that's all.

That is why this is not political to me. I could give a rats about what happens to either party in result of this. If these were average citizens, I'd be just as outraged because unlike politicians I actually care about this country.

Al Gore is just getting worse by the day. At first he was just a concerned environmentalist. You know, he wanted more hybrids and alternative energy. Surely some of the crap he spewed out of his mouth was a contributor to global warming in it self then too (steamy crap is death to the ozone layer), but it was just a dream. If he was president nowadays, it would be the law. As I put it, Eco-Fascism.

And he really is acting like a fascist, people, I'm not just mudslinging here. Lets do some comparing and contrasting.

How does Fascism always start? By scaring the people enough so they are willing to give up their liberties for safety. If anybody is manipulating our fears, it's Al Gore. This guy thinks global warming is an eminent threat, more dangerous than any terrorist organization. He thinks the end is near and if we don't give up our liberties we'll all die soon. And it's not just about cars anymore. This guy thinks that every time you light up a stogey you're melting an iceberg. So how does he get the people to allow him to take freedoms like these away by force? By scaring the hell out of them. Propaganda anyone?

Then what happens when he gets elected? He takes more power. He'll start regulating the economy, increasing the size of government, and making new laws every day. We'll all be forced to drive Clooneymobiles (see below post), and it will look like a frickin Dr. Seuss book. And every day he'll justify it all by saying it's for the environment. And do you really think he'll stop at the environment? No. What do people with power want? More power. He will always find new things to regulate or ban.

Now I realize this form of Fascism isn't based on hate, though it is based strongly on fear, which is also a great aspect of Fascism. It's simple Hobbesian theory. People give you power out of fear. And the more afraid you make the people, the more power they will grant you. Even the power of being a Fascist dictator.

Me, I don't fear global warming. The only thing I fear is Al Gore becoming president. And in the name of freedom I will monger it.