Reply to Harper, a Republican.

I entered Blogging as a way to get my voice heard. But, as I have no idea how to actually use the tools in this blog and other tools available, I'm not out there yet. So I do a lot of "Myspace Blogging", which is more of random bulletin posts of interesting things around the web/world. Most of these have been pro-Obama anti McCain ads and articles. I apparently pissed someone off with a link I found from Les's Blog, which is very entertaining, I reccomend you read.

Anyway, here is Harper's reply, and my rebuttal.

"To all of you who read Andrew the atheist/Obama loving idiot's bulletins here is something for you. A few days ago Andrew posted a bulletin about how the terrorists have given there support for John McCain. What he didn't tell you was the fact that it wasn't the terrorists but actually a small radical group that supports Al Qaida's beliefs. Though this is something you still don't want to have under your lists of endorsements it is still better than Baracks list. He currently has the nod of approval from Iran (who wants to blow Israel off the face of this earth) Venezuela who absolutely can't stand America and has become even closer to Russia, straining our ties even more, Fidel Castro is also a big fan of Obama which is need to worry knowing that in Cuba (under Castro) the government told YOU what to do(kind of like what Obama wants to do here). North Korea also would love to see a Obama in the White House, which is need worry knowing that North Korea wants nuclear weapons(and with Obama I am sure they will get them) AND last but not least Hamas known as one of the BIGGEST and most American hating terrorist organization. So if you read these bulletins of the Obama lover, make sure you do your own research after reading it because apparently someone likes to leave some of the facts out." -Harper Jones III

Lol...I will reply to this, and I won't have to resort to calling him an "idiot" or a "Worthless, dispicable piece of shit." Yeah, didn't tell you exactly who said it before, out of respect. But it was Harper.

Well first on the article I quoted and actually linked to, unlike my Obama hating friend on the other end. The Washington Post did pick and choose it's quotes from the website which did may McCain look bad. I looked into it. But Little has been said about Obama on the same site, so you would have to assume they would rather have McCain. Just how it goes.

Starting with Iran.

Sources: Fact Check. My personal friend
Jihad Watch
McCain's Campaign Site


*Sigh*...We honestly can't believe everything we here from the Bush White House. Harper probably thinks Iraq has "WMDs". Nah, He's moved to bringign freedom to the country and getting rid of supposed Terrorists. I will concede: Iran has most likely harbored terrorists. It has most likely tried to create "Nucular - Bush" Weapons. But Putting up a front and saying "We will not negotiate with terrorists" is a horible foriegn policy agenda. Even the Republican hero (and to many Democrats) Reagan, starter of new Republicanism, talked with our arch enemy Russia. The fact is Iran does not support Obama, but would prefer him. Slight difference, but it is a difference. Iran hates Isreal like almost every country in the middle east. That does not mean we should consider them all terrorist states. We have to negotiate with Iran to bring any sort of peace. It will bring more hatred, and more terrorism. On his own site, he lists Iran and North Korea as rogue states who are terrorist threats. Nevermind that Bush has recently looked into removing North Korea from the List of terrorist threats, but negotiations bring peace. (Yeah, I wuoted Fox News. Biggest Joy, Quoting fox News AGAINST a Republican.) Not war.

Venezuela & Cuba
failed Coup in venezuela

A google on "Venezuela Against the US" turns up many results. Almost all the results point to Venezuela Being tied with Cuba and Russia. Looking to the past, the reasoning is obvious. The US publicly supported a coup in the country in 2002. Before that they were also allied with Cuba. A Country that has hated america for years for refusing to support it at first, and then refusing to even open communications with it. Notice how not talking to countries is becomin a re-occuring theme. Negotiations are the future. Not BS wars. These two countries are so small a threat that all they are truly doing is readying themselves against a U.S. invasion, as shown by the search I mentioned earlier. A wise plan if our current foriegn policy is held. As such, I'm not going into them much more than this.


Russia
Russia is not nearly as powerful as it once was. Going to War with them is the start of another Cold War. Which plays well to the republican theme of scare the vote. I don't even feel they are worth mentioning. Except that mccains rash denouncement of the war and love of the Georgian president would have brought another war on had he been in power. A Huffington Post article explains more


Hamas
*slow clap* Way to state the facts there Hypocrite. Fact is, Obama is Pro-Isreal. Hamas, having earlier promoted Obama, promptly dropped him, stating,
“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,”. Of course McCain supporters might tend toward a conspiracy, but that's not supported by facts.


Moving away from Harper's orginal statments, lets get into some domestic terrorism excerts.
McCain on Domestic Terrorism- The jed report
McCain Voted To Protect Domestic Terrorists Who Carry Out Violence At Abortion Clinics - Think Progress


These articles point to the fact that McCain has been very soft on Domestic terrorists, ie the ones most likely to affect you. So there you go. This isn't even counting the number of recent attacks and threats against Obama and his supporters (there have been attacks against McCain supporters. But who knows who you can trust.

Lets also get into judgement. McCain's VP pick should worry everyone.

So there's a real article for you Harper. I cited all my sources, and gave links to them. So how about a real reply. A real one, With full sentences and paragraphs. One where you cite articles and not just ones from Conservapedia.

Why do I care enough to right out a long as bulletin like this? Because I want a country of freedom and Happiness. Not one of fear and resentment. Obama represents the Former, Palin/McCain the Latter. A vote for obama is one for a better brighter future. McCain represents the past. A past that has brought us war, death and economic pain. Of our two choices, I vote Obama. Change You can Actually Believe in.

And here is a fun fact for you Harper.

There are a ton of errors in there and the Iran paragraphs a little long but whatever. I've covered most of the main points slightly and most of my sources link to other sources. So if you don't agree do some link trolling, you'll see the evidence.





Whew. That was a long one. I admit to huge reliance of faith of negotiations in peace talks, and in not giving each "threat" equal or even all out fair treatment. But I figured almost a thousand words was a bit much for some wackjob Republican.

And on a lighter side.

I also happen to be a complete geek and will probably post a few posts about that. Nerd and Geek wouldn't fit a cool acronym like d.a.f.t. so it'll just have to stay the same.

D.A.F.T.

Merriam-Webster online defines daft as the following:

1 a: Silly, Foolish b: Mad, Insane
2 Scottish :Frivolously merry

I go into this blog with a belief that the word is generally interpreted as the first set of definitions. I of course do not see myself as either of those, but others may not agree. I also do not see myself as the second. Merry I may rarely be, but frivolously even rarer still.

So why name my blog D.A.F.T? Why be the DAFT blogger? Why assign a name that does not credit the writer with an initially good feeling?

The idea of my being daft came about while trying to explain myself in as few words possible to people who do not know me. Of course the less words you use the less nuanced you become in your assessment of anyone, but I wanted to try anyway. DAFT came to me why listing several things I generally speak of with passion.

Democrat. I am a formally registered Democrat in my home state of Oregon. I have not been of voting age long, but I do believe that I am far more able to take in information and use it to vote than many others in this country. While I vote along democratic lines, I only do so because their opinions generally follow what I myself believe. I would willingly vote against them on that which I do not agree on.

An example might be gun control, which is different in a rural area than more urban areas. Criminals are a minority when guns are involved. Most people use guns for hunting in this area. Controlling the guns of hunters should never be allowed. I do however agree that certain gun bans, such as those on felons, for overpowered/heavily automatic guns, and for concealed weapons permits, are necessary to prevent crimes. I over simplify here of course, but as this is not the topic of this post, it will have to do.

Atheist. I am an atheist. Instantly your respect for me may have diminished, but that's too bad. Atheism is the only route that makes sense to me after reviewing the information available. The facts are plain: No holy book is one hundred percent correct. Since they claim to be infallible in most cases, most religions are wrong. Any god that created everything raises the question of who created said god. Why would I take the stand of atheism then, as opposed to agnostic? Because religion is the only thing we believe in as humans we're suppose to belief in without proof. Should I believe that faeries might exist, because no one can prove that they do not conclusively, because they "work in mysterious ways" and only showed themselves to people centuries ago? My last note on the subject has to be that I misspell the word on a regular basis. That i before e thing was a joke before and doubly so today. (Quote that BS extra "except" clause that goes on forever to make up for the problems and I'll smack you. Grammar fundamentalists...)

Free-Thinker. I tend to come to my own conclusions. I may come to the same conclusion as someone else, but I doubt I came there the same way. As a free-thinker I am also more willing to change my opinion, if given significant, fact-based evidence. I generally believe that most people rarely think a genuinely unique thought. But I also submit the idea that while someones reaction to a situation may mimic that of another, the cause effect relation makes the thought unique. An astronomer seeing a new star may exclaim that it is "beautiful", mimicking many years of use for that words, and maybe even another astronomer on a star they discovered. But no astronomer has ever said that about this particular star. This of course would allow for people to claim to be original by quoting another person on a new subject, or re-working words. But I would assert that an original thought can really only be created by those not really trying to be original.

So I am Daft. Democrat. Atheist. Free-Thinker. I am starting this blog in response to the daft people I see all around me. I can't help but feel sorry for those people of the world and especially my country chained by artificial bonds put on mostly by their family and self. I hope to enlighten a few, but realize I will probably only preach to the choir. One can only do so much about religion, politics and bigotry.

And so this is personal, a way to vent. To let out the anger, sadness and fear at the world around. And hopefully to exult in small victories that show that certain factors of human thinking are slowly headed out the door.

The Daft blogger.