|
armanius
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Armanius
Gender: Male
Interests: Hanging out with friends at Starbucks; developing closer relationships with people based on trust, honesty, God's love and His grace; playing golf, basketball, tennis, softball, Socom 2; cooking; eating; e-mailing; messaging; God; reading; listening; musicals; operas
Expertise: Hahahaha. Sorry, no expertise whatsoever! Well, I guess I could always sue someone!
Occupation: Legal
Industry: Legal
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
2/24/2004
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I early voted over the weekend, and no, I did not vote for Obama. While I believe that McCain is far from being the perfect candidate, voting for Obama would have been a vote against almost every single belief and value that I hold. At the end of the day, the most important factor to me was the character of the candidates. I believe that a man's character will drive the person and his decision making process, regardless of that person's abundance or lack of experience. In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest individual. Some people may believe that he has better economic policies. Some may believe he has better social or foreign policies. But to me, I believe that whatever he says is based on what he believes will get him elected, and not based on whatever he believes is truly beneficial to the American people. Or perhaps not even based on what he believes is right or wrong. I say that because his record simply does not match his rhetoric. He professes to be a Christian and has said that he thinks abortion is wrong (as does Biden), yet he champions abortion rights. He says that believing in Jesus redeemed him from his sins, yet he thinks that different religions will also lead to salvation. He was adamantly against offshore drilling, and then said his position has always been that he will "consider" it. He was against coal as reflected by his record and remarks while speaking to liberals in San Francisco, until all of a sudden he became for coal while pandering to voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. He was for the DC gun ban law as reflected by his comments and questionnaires that he completed, until it became obvious to him that there is a huge voter base to be appeased by saying that he is against the DC law. He says he will cut taxes for 95% of America, but he has rarely if EVER voted for tax cuts for anybody in the past. And note how this tax cut policy only came to fruition after he secured the Dem nomination. Did we hear this policy being championed by him during the primaries? Or ever in the past? Obama constantly condemns anytime anyone brings up his various associations with questionable characters. Instead of combatting these questions about his associations with full disclosure to make the truth known, he resorts to calling people smear merchants. Or he claims "guilt by association." But what about the greatest "guilt by association" card played so far -- Obama constantly saying that McCain is Bush. And then Obama whines about "guilt by association." He only has himself to blame. He chose to associate himself with some of the most radical people in America for some reason that he and his campaign refuse to even address. Now that these radicals are a liability to his campaign, they are just someone who "live down the street" from him. And anyone that asks Obama to address these radical associations is a bigot, racist, or smear merchant. Obama and other liberals call themselves champions of civil rights. They fight for the rights of illegal aliens and enemy combatants. Yet, when it comes to voices of fellow Americans that oppose their views, civil rights and freedom of speech cease to exist. Just ask the Chicago radio station that interviewed people who wrote books or did research on Obama that were not so favorable to him. Obama told his followers to spam the radio station with email and calls. Another case in point, Obama's "truth squads" made up of Democrat sheriffs and district attorneys who are criminally prosecuting anyone that says things against Obama that they deem to be untrue. To me, Obama is not who he is pretending to be. I may not like everything that McCain stands for. But at least, McCain is not pretending that he is someone else. | | |
| I really was trying to stay away from politics. But I couldn't resist but to wish everyone a happy halloween, and share this funny strip with you! You better hope you are not in the top 5% or get more than 250 pieces of candy! 
| | |
| ![hero20081004[1]](http://x0e.xanga.com/09cf0603d2133214942464/s166302788.jpg) It was mid-July 2008. I was counting the days to September 6, 2008. That was the day that I would become eligible, as a current AT&T customer, to purchase the iPhone 3G at the "discounted" price of $200 (8 gig) or $300 (16 gig). When "the day" started getting closer, I actually convinced myself that "the day" was September 4, and ended up going to my local AT&T store two days early. The salesperson bluntly said that I would have to wait two more days.
After an additional agonizing 48 hours, on September 6, 2008, I finally joined the iPhone bandwagon. Having used Windows Mobile devices for the last three or so years, the iPhone's ease of use was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, as the days progressed, I began encountering some if the iPhone quirks that some users had already discussed in various message boards: the virtual keyboard is not a good replacement to a real keyboard, the Exchange integration is too basic for a business user, some applications lock up from time to time, and the battery life is attrociously bad. I really wanted to keep the iPhone, but on the 29th day of ownership, I returned the iPhone. I was inspired though to have a new "smartphone" with the user friendliness of the iPhone. Consequently, on the same day, I got a Nokia E71. Although it looked preettier than my Blackjack or any Blackberry currently out in the market, it didn't have the flair of the iPhone, and had a very spartan user interface. Two days later, I got the HTC Touch Diamond, the alleged iPhone-killer. Well, iPhone-killer, the Touch Diamond was not. So less than a week after returning the iPhone, I am yearning to go back to the AT&T store, sign that two year contract (again), and jump right back on the iPhone bandwagon. Obviously, not much has changed about the iPhone since last Saturday. The virtual keyboard is still not as usable as a real keyboard. The Exchange integration is still very basic. And the battery life is still bad. But after experiencing the $450 Nokia E71 and the $700 HTC Touch Diamond, the virtues of the iPhone have become all that much clearer to me. I am feeling the need to go back to the AT&T store right now, and admit to the salesperson that I made a mistake (which cost me $30 because of the 10% restocking fee on the iPhone). I hate to admit my mistakes, but I think I might be addicted to the iPhone now ... I must ... have ... it ... must not ... give in ... | | |
| Ike has come and gone, and left much of Houston without electricity. It's been almost a week since the arrival and departure of Ike, and I'm still without electricity. BUT, heck, I am alive, I got a roof over my head, comfortable bed, no water damage to the house, lost only three tiles on the balcony, still have running (but cold) water, pleasant weather for a whole week, and a car with a full tank of gas. So no complaints from me. Ike sure made me appreciate those little things in life a whole lot more. Like a glass of iced water. Or a hot shower. Or being able to shave w/o using a flashlight on my face. It's actually hard to shave w/ a flashlight in front of a mirror, because you get a lot of reflection! And of course, air conditioner!! Ike also had other positives. I cleared out all this expired stuff from my fridge and freezer. The whole fridge/freezer is clean, and it looks great! No more two year old spills! LOL! Unfortunately, Ike did leave much of the Southeast Texas coast in pretty bad shape. One of my favorite places for daytrip is Galveston, and taking the ferry across to the Bolivar Peninsula. Crystal Beach (in Bolivar) is literally gone. I feel horrible for the people who live there. Let's hope and pray that they will be able to rebuild their homes and lives. | | |
| I was watching CNN's coverage of the RNC when the RNC started showing a video about remembering 9/11. The CNN crew, not only their liberal commentators but even their anchors started making comments about how "some people" will say that a video about 9/11 with "powerful images" has no place in a political convention. Blitzer said that "some" say that there is no need to bring these images into this hall. John King noted that "some" will say that a video about 9/11 is "playing politics out of a tragedy." Brown added that the message from the RNC is "fear" and made a rhetorical question that "is that what Republicans want?" That same day, Keith Olbermann, the liberal host of MSNBC's "Countdown," said that Republicans were using the images of 9/11 as political propaganda, and feinted indignation for the "pain" that Republicans were causing to him and "others." Olbermann was of course wearing the the hat of an "impartial" anchor covering the RNC at this time, and not the hat of a commentator. Obviously, these types of comments and criticisms against Republicans are nothing new. That's what the liberals said in 2004, and now they are saying again in 2008. Liberals want to pretend that 9/11 never occurred. But they do so not because they want to be "sensitive" to the victims of 9/11. Rather, they want 9/11 to disappear from the memories of the American people, because the American people have typically perceived the liberals that make up the Democratic Party as "weak" on defense/foreign policy since the Jimmy Carter days. So these liberals and their media lackeys (i.e. CNN and MSNBC) cry out foul every time someone talks about the war on terror, or 9/11, or how no more attacks on American soil have occurred since President Bush took the war on terror onto foreign soil. Liberals can so easily diffuse the perception of being "weak" by adopting a tougher policy. Instead, liberals choose to chant their usual mantra of moral relativism while singing kumbaya with people who don't particularly like America. Instead of adopting a tougher policy against the "bad guys," liberals want to say that America needs to have "clean hands" before telling those Russian invaders that they are "bad." And ultimately, instead of telling the American people that they, the liberals of the Democratic Party, will lead America to victory over terrorism and others that threaten the freedom Americans enjoy, liberals would rather pretend that there is no war against terror, and that America should just leave 9/11 alone in Vol. III, page 439 of Encyclopedia Brittanica. One of the ironies of the liberal ideology in America is that the word liberal relates to freedom. Throughout the history of the United States, the American people have fought and died in battlefields all over the world for not only our own freedom but the freedom of others. But for some reason that is totally foreign to me, liberals in America want to pretend that the freedom that Americans enjoy exists as a matter of course just like the air that we breathe. Perhaps it's time that liberals stand up for freedom. | | |
|
![hero20081004[1]](http://x0e.xanga.com/09cf0603d2133214942464/b166302788.jpg)
