The Daydreaming Conservative

For those of you who don't know, there is a website that has been created by conservatives who don't like the facts and researched data that has been presented and routinely edited on Wikipedia. Therefore, "they", (probably the creationist Jesus crowd) have created a website called Conservapedia. Conservapedia, which to me just screams of open minds, was apparently created so "they" can continue to feed their home-schooled children lies and misinformation such as Jesus and all of his pet dinosaurs. I'm not saying that every Wikipedia entry is 100% valid but it has so many hits that it would be hard to perpetrate a great deal of fraud due to the ability of it's users, both conservative and liberal, to edit incorrect content. And for disputed entries and pages without sources, Wikipedia informs the reader of this and will tell you that in may be biased or incorrect.

Although Conservapedia does give the reader the ability to edit some entries, it doesn't allow for edits on the topic of key issues such as homosexuality. This, although conservative, is basically a supression of reality since I am unable to add Jonathan and David's homosexual affair under the "Biblical Statements" section nor does it allow me to add "Famous Homosexuals" such as Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Rosie O'Donnel, etc. Since no educated person would ever use Conservapedia as a source anyway, the references often cited for Conservapedia end up being the Holy Bible or a Rush Limpballs book.

So if you ever wondered what conservatives research and think about, here it is:

Most viewed pages and seaches on Conservapedia:
Homosexuality‎ [1,993,523]
Main Page‎ [1,964,386]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [518,532]
Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [473,828]
Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [443,619]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [422,769]
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [374,619]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [332,331]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [295,059]
Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [294,490]
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics"

Apparently Larry Craig, Mark Foley and now perhaps Trent Lott, have had some free time on their hands.

Sure, a lot of these entries are gay bashers looking for talking points when they are arguing the point that God loves everyone, except for Homo's. But if you ask me, here are all the translations of what these searches actually mean:

Homosexuality‎: My preacher said it was bad but if I just call it a "friendship", like Jonathan and David did in 1st Samuel 18 then God won't get mad.
Main Page‎: Oops, I meant to go to:"How to convince your wife and congregation that you are not gay".
Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎: I heard some drug users and gay men have hepatitis. Since I only smoke meth and don't share needles, what are my chances of getting this disease when I molest altar boys?
Homosexuality and Parasites‎: I hear there are a lot of Gay cruise ship lines but I also hear about a lot of people getting parasites on cruise ships. For the ships sailing to Thailand, how many outbreaks have there been?
Gay Bowel Syndrome‎:I heard this is like irritable bowel syndrome except happier. Gay = Happy.
Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎: Are men really that much easier than women? How much sex can I expect when I call someone such as Jeff Gannon? Are all men as ready and willing as I am?
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎: I heard gay men work out a lot and have big throbbing muscles, will this leave me at a disadvantage if I get into a spat with one since I am fat, bald and over the hill?
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎: Since AIDS was sent from God to kill the unfaithful and non-believers, the only disease I will have to worry about is gonorrhea. Since I don't believe in condoms or birth control, how do I avoid gonorrhea?
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎: I've heard of prostate cancer but my pastor told me about a new one called Anal Cancer; is it the same?
Homosexuality and Mental Health‎: How can you maintain a TV Gospel hour, a seat in the Senate, a wife and family and still make it out to the rest stops and airport bathrooms and not have a mental breakdown when exposed in the media?

Slam Dunk on Why We Shouldn't Trust Exxon When It Comes to Global Warming

This is a very simplified way of approaching the issue of global warming. So simple in fact that perhaps even Republicans who think the Earth is only 10k years old should be able to understand.



For me, there are a few other slam dunks on this argument:

A. No real scientist would disagree that the Earth is getting warmer. Most would not even disagree with the cause and if you say I am wrong, then please point me to one article in a scientific journal claiming otherwise. And no, I'm not talking about articles written by someone who works at the creationist museum.

B. Venus is more than twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury. The average temperature on Mercury is 440 degrees F; the average temperature on Venus is over 800 degrees F. Some people say the Sun is responsible for global warming by either getting bigger or getting hotter but looking at Mercury with a lower average temperature than a planet more than twice the distance from the Sun shows that atmosphere plays just as important role in determining the temperature of a planet. Mercury has virtually no atmosphere or greenhouse gases. Venus, on the other hand, is 96% CO2 which coincidentally is a greenhouse gas also present on Earth and also created when fossil fuels are burned. Over the last 150 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution when we started burning coal and oil/gas, CO2 in our atmosphere went from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. You can ask the Venusians what they think about higher CO2 concentrations creating higher atmospheric and surface temperatures but I am sure the CEO of Exxon has a better explanation.

C. Who stands to gain/loose from global warming? Police always look for a motive in a murder case; who has the most to gain by this person being dead? Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Energy Companies, Coal Mines, Agriculture etc. all sell, process, burn, mine, or need fossil fuels to power their products and all these companies could be either put out of business with a switch from fossil fuels or would incur great expenses to redesign or reinvent in order to stay in business without the use of these fossil fuels. Since they have such a vested interest in debunking global warming, listening to their "scientists" about global warming would be about as advisable as listening to Phillip Morris' doctors who said smoking was good for you. That doesn't necessarily make what they have to say wrong, but they certainly have a vested interest in saying its wrong. On the other side, you have scientists who live in Antarctica or work at a University; they don't sell products that run on hydrogen or some other non-fossil fuel. They don't stand to gain anything from global warming nor do they stand to loose anything by reporting that the Earth is warming due to mankind. So when it comes to smoking, are you going to trust your neutral doctor, who is qualified and only looking out for your best interest or are you going to trust the tobacco companies well paid "doctors"?

Larry Craig Shares the Same Values as the American Family Association

I found this interesting: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53288&type=category&category=31

Vote smart is an organization which tracks politician’s votes and political stances based on bills they support from certain interests groups. For instance, Hilary Clinton would get a 0% support rating for Planned Parenthood Bombers R Us.

On the flip side, a guy who finds his thrills in airport men’s rooms voted favorably 100% of the time on issues supported by the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. Really, these should be the same organization as they both think women should be baby makers and they hate Gays and anyone who isn't white Christians who go to NASCAR races. It's just a little ironic that a guy who likes to get BJs from men while they take a shit would think as they do.

What's that say for the American Family Association and the Family Research Council?

Oh My God, Bush Does Want to Be King

Wow, this is a few months old but how scary is this? Where was the "liberal media" to expose this? Bush really is crazy.



At this point, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush has no intentions of leaving the White House after his term expires. The US Military is all in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush has his own paramilitary group in Blackwater which could keep him in office by force. Does this mean I am going to have to fight along side with Ted Nugent??

Blackwaters Run Deep

The Bush administration, following suite with dictators such as Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, Mussolini and Efrain Rios Montt, has been using a paramilitary group named Blackwater to conduct "security" operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans, etc. Blackwater and it's founder, Eric Prince, a former G.H.W. Bush Whitehouse intern, are linked with and contributors to conservative right wing groups such as Christian Freedom International, The Family Research Council ($670,000), Focus on the Family ($531,000), the Bush Campaign, The Republican National Committee ($168,000), Council for National Policy (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer), Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Kenneth Starr.

Clearly this is a non-biased, well trained, Muslim loving group with no political connections which might lead them to think that they could secure no-bid contracts and bill the US Government what ever they wanted. Furthermore, Blackwater can be fully trusted with matters of their intentions and security in Iraq and abroad, especially in Muslim countries since they are without religious prejudice.

But what I want to know is why the US Government would pay a U.S. soldier 60k dollars per year but would pay a Blackwater $445,000 per year in tax payer’s dollars for each of its soldiers. I agree that our troops are spread thin and there is a push to give the soldiers as much relief as possible (trust) but don't you think that if the Army were to pay 400k per year that maybe they could easily find some willing recruits? Actually, I'll bet they could find more troops for 200k per year and save the tax payers 200k per soldier and then they would actually have a force of soldiers who are accountable to superior officers who are accountable to politicians who are accountable to voters. We could probably even screen for potential mental or physical issues, crime records etc. Not only would they be saving money, but they could probably recruit better, brighter, stronger and even older more experienced soldiers who weren't tied to an ultra right wing Christian paramilitary militia. I'm not saying that all of the Blackwater personnel are bad, I even heard a recent story of how a group of Blackwater soldiers were gunning down a bunch of civilians who got in their way and another Blackwater soldier pointed his gun at them telling them to stop or he would shoot them. But what I worry about are the other guys that were shooting at the family in the first place and how and why this agency is employed by our government. I also think that it's no coincidence that the seige of Fallujah started only a month after 4 Blackwater mercenaries in Fallujah were killed, dragged through the street and hung from a bridge. Why did the administration wait until then to go into Fallujah which had been relatively peaceful and orderly after the fall of Saddam?

The other scenario which disturbs me is that let's say by some miracle the war ends by the next election; laughable, I know but bear with me. Ok so let’s say there is another disputed election between an old Bush cronie and John Edwards and a mass of people take to the streets to demonstrate. With a trained killing force for hire, with no war to fight, which doesn't answer to the people, who do the right-wingers send in to "keep the peace"? After all, 90% of Blackwaters revenue comes from the current, Republican US Government. Whose side do you think they would be on? I know they were in New Orleans after Katrina but what authority do they really have? If I see a guy telling me what to do and he isn't a US soldier or a cop I'm going to tell him to fuck himself. Clearly that guy would have a gun but so do I. How does that scenario play out?

Clearly the funneling of excessive amounts of money to members of you abortion clinic bombing club and letting them run free with guns is concerning. Just as concerning is the morale of the soldiers who do the same job but make 1/6 of what a Blackwater employee does, as is the fact that in the last 2 years, 163 or their 195 shooting incidents were situations in which Blackwater fired first, as well as the reports of their soldiers smuggling weapons to the Kurds but exactly who gets to use this shadow army and why do we need them and what real power do they have? Can I hire them to keep the Minneapolis Airport safe from Republicans?

Clearly I am no gun nut but all I know is that these paramilitary groups are the exact reason why our founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Although I do own a gun, I do not have one in my condo; I'm starting to rethink that position. Remember, these people are merely Marine wannabes, flunkies and has beens; they do not have authority over you.


UPDATE 10/30:

It now looks like the Blackwater employees involved will receive immunity from any of their actions. With a killing machine which is above the law, what will Bush have them do next?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306057,00.html

Republicans no Longer Support Trickle Down Economics

8 States sue Bush over kid insurance:

Eight states are suing the "pro-life, pro-family", Bush administration over his veto of the bill which would have provided health insurance to lower and "middle" income children. The bill would call for an extra 60 billion dollars over the next 5 years; we spend over 100 billion a year in Iraq. The Bush administration is stating that one of the main reasons for the veto is because it would cover people making up to $83,000 per year and that it was too expensive. Apparently those people already have enough money and don't need the governments help.

That's as ironic as it is funny, didn't the Bush tax cuts mainly benefit rich people? When his tax cut plan becomes mature, the richest 1% of the population will receive 52% of the total tax savings? Don't federal oil and gas subsidies go to the most profitable companies in the world? Isn't the elimination of the Estate Tax something that only benefits the people who stand to inherit a net worth of 2 million dollars or more? Since when does Bush have any problems with the government helping "rich" people? Message: Only millionaires and billionaires need the governments help, not the working man; anything else would be socialism.

Isn't cutting expenses and or taxes for well to do people a way that Republicans always said would benefit the poor and the entire economy? Doesn't that supposedly create jobs thus putting money into the economy generating other sources of tax revenue? Didn't Reagan get elected on the concept of trickle down economics?

Apparently poor and middle class children don't have as strong of a lobby as Exxon and ADM.

And by the way, you will notice that besides Hawaii, these are almost all of the states in the US with a higher than average cost of living. For instance, if you live on a salary of $17,000 per year in Durham, NC you would need 39,221 in NYC. A salary of 50,000 in Austin, TX has the same buying power of 76,263 in San Jose, CA. California has the highest cost of living and it is 53% above the national average, Massachusetts is 3rd, and Illinois is 5th, New Jersey 6th, New Hampshire 10th.

I live on over $83,000 per year in Chicago and I am single with no wife and no children and I honestly don't know how much extra income I would have if I had a stay at home wife and 3 kids. Trust me, 83,000 is not a lot in those states and it's certainly less than the 36 Billion in profits that Exxon makes a year yet they still receive government hand outs.

By the way, a recent Washington Post poll showed that 72% of Americans favor an expansion of health coverage to children.

On the flip side, there are several Insurance / HMO lobbyist who will retain their jobs.

Give me a Brake

From CNN:A New York woman is so angry at Apple Inc. for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she's filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.

In 1985, a brand VCR would cost you around $300-$400. If you can find one today, it may cost you $40 and it comes with a remote. If they had only cost $40 in 1986, we would have had one but we didn't and there was a reason we waited. (Not so much savvy as we were poor)

Sony's first CD player was introduced in 1982; the CDP-101 would cost you $900. Today you can get a Sony 5 disc SACD player for $130 and a Discman portable for about $30. (Portable CD's were unheard of, kind of like SACD today)

In 1997 a RCA's first consumer DVD player retailed for $499. Today I can get (but I wouldn't) an RCA Progressive scan DVD player with HD up-conversion for $59 or a portable DVD player with screen for $199.

Clearly being the geek that I am, I have none of these cheap components but nor was I the first to run out and buy the new hot thing. (This is where I point out my superior logic and wisdom)

What I am getting at is that if you are the first idiot to buy a new technology, you are going to pay extra for it. Who doesn't know that? So would it have been ok if they waited 8 months to raise the price, what about 9 months, how about 50 years? What invisible law did Apple break, what was the statute of limitations of dropping the price of their own product? Maybe Apple should have raised the price of the Iphone instead, that would have been great for business. Supply and demand morons; at first there was a big demand, and then not so much. They were left with abundance of product and in order to move it they had to drop the price. It's not rocket science.

If what you paid for it wasn't worth it to you, why did you buy it?

I hope the judge confiscates her Iphone and sentences her to the electric chair just for being an ass.

Values Voters and their Republican Politicians

I recently read somewhere that Democrats just don't have any family values and that people who call themselves "values voters" have only one option but to vote for Republicans. That's almost as laughable as saying that Republican's are the only ones who can keep us safe. We all know that 9/11 happened on Bush's and Giuliani's watch, that Giuliani has no experience in fighting terrorism, only cleaning up the aftermath of terrorist attacks. Bush has created more terrorists than he has killed by invading Iraq and since Bush has taken office, terrorism and terrorist activity is at an all time high. This means that the affect of the Rove spin machine is still relevant and or people who often vote Republican are either uninformed or stupid.

So, for all you values voters out there, here is a Republican/Democrat family values break down. I will say that if by "family values" you mean teaching your children to fear and hate anyone who is different and disagrees with them, then sure, the Republicans still have the edge on that one.

Rudy Giuliani: Married 3 Times. One marriage was to his 2nd cousin whom he cheated on with his 2nd wife. He then cheated on his 2nd wife with his third wife which then estranged him from his children.

Fred Thompson (TN): Divorced his first wife whom he married when he was 17 and she was 2 months pregnant. The first time she filed for divorce, his wife stated she was seeking the separation due to ""cruel and inhuman treatment,". He has since remarried.

John McCain (AZ): Divorced his wife when he met someone richer and hotter. Contrary to what Bush and Rove said, he did not have an illegitimate black child.

Newt Gingrich (GA): Married 3 Times, Dumped his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed suffering from cancer, Cheated on current wife while prosecuting Clinton for getting a BJ from Monica Lewinsky.

David Vitter (LA): A proponent of abstinence only sex education and stating that marriage was a sacred union between a man and a woman, he had become a regular client of the “DC Madam”, who ran a ring of prostitutes. Vitter once stated: “by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness.” Apparently he never took an abstinence pledge.

Rush Limbaugh: Cheated on 2 of his 3 wives, made his maid score his synthetic heroin for him. Rush on the gay marriage issue: "Marriage is about raising children. That's the purpose of the institution." (July 31, 2003) His three marriages have produced 0 children. So what does he really know about "family values" if he has no real family?

Strom Thurmond (SC): When he was 22, he had sex with his 16 year old black maid who later had his daughter. He married his second wife when he was 66 years old after she, at age 23, won Miss South Carolina. Supposedly cheated on his fourth wife at the age of 88.

Mark Foley (FL): Tried to get with underage boys.

Larry Craig (ID): Tried to bone dudes in public shitters.

Ted Haggard: Anti gay Bush advisor / Televangelist and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, smokes meth with and has anal sex with gay prostitutes.

Tom Delay (TX): Doesn't talk to his own mother, Cheated on his wife.

Jeff Gannon AKA James Guckert: Planted Whitehouse press reporter with a fake name, from a fake Bush administration "newspaper", who made false statements about Democrats when he asked Bush a staged question, who also had his nude pictures posted on numerous gay prostitution web-sites offering his services for $200 per hour.

Dan Burton (IN): Fathered Son with a different woman while he was married. After his wife died of cancer, he married her former nurse. Was also known as the biggest poon hound in the Indiana legislature.

Ironically, the loan Morman is the only one who has had just one wife.

Now let’s look at the family values of the top Democratic candidates:

Hilary Clinton (NY): Married once, one child, stuck by her husband and worked out their differences after his infidelity.

John Edwards (NC): Married once, has Children. Maintained support of his candidacy from his wife even after she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Barrack Obama (IL): Married once, has children.

Joe Biden (DE): First wife and daughter died in a car accident where his two sons were also injured. Biden was sworn into office by their bed side. In order to care for them while in the Senate, Biden took and hour and a half train ride home each day from D.C. to Delaware. In 1977 Biden got remarried.


So, what was that about Family Values?

The Ad Congress Should be Condemning

No, strike that. No one in Congress should be wasting their time waving their finger at someone who said something they didn't like. With a housing bust, thousands dead in Iraq, multi-billion dollar deficit, impending race riots, immigration, etc., anyone who chose to waste time and tax payer money by crying like babies about someone exercising their right to free speech and press should be fired. You can thank conservative Republican John Cornyn of Texas, for this valuable lesson in Democracy in action.

I have become a bigger fan of Obama today for not pandering to these tattle tells.

At least the Moveon ad is something that may have some truth and validity to it. Of course no one can prove that Betrayus is a puppet for the Bush regime but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

The deceitful ad below was sponsored by the group Freedom Watch, who I can assure you, has no interest in protecting our freedoms and should probably change their name to something like "We Watch as You are Deprived of Your Freedoms and Jesus Used to ride the Fag Hating Dinosaur". That would probably be a more appropriate name for their organization. The funny thing about them is that on the front page of their website, obviously a bit outdated (Computers are too scientific for Republicans) says that they are currently awaiting the Petraeus report but that no matter what he says, they are going to make sure we never pull out of Iraq. If you already know you don't want to pull out of Iraq, what does it matter what Petraeus says?? I guess its possible they already know what he is going to say because he is the Presidents bitch-boy, in that case, the Betrayus ad was right.

Moving on, here is the Freedom Watch ad linking Saddam to 9/11 which everyone except for Ari Fleischer and the 4 other guys who make up Freedom Watch (Bush included)knows is a lie. How dare they exploit a wounded American vet for their own politcal cause.



It's obvious the Republican's don't like being Swiftboated.

A Day in the Life Of a Republican

I didn't write this but it sounds like something I would have written so here it is:


Norman gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Norman gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Norman's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Norman takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Norman dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Norman begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay,medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Norman's employer pays these standards because Norman's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If he is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Normie needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Norman's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect his money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Norma has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Normie and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Norman is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The
house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Normie wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, where Hannity keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Norm that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit he enjoys throughout his day) Dumbass Norman agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

9/11

Republican Family Values

I guess Clinton's problem was that he had legal sex with a single woman, in private. Apparently if he would have followed Mark Foley's, Ted Haggard's, Larry Craigs's, Jack Ryan's, David Vitter's, Bob Allen's and Jeff Gannon's leads, he would have been ok.

When all you "values voters" go to the voting booth next year remember, you are a pawn and you are being lied to.

For a good time call: 202-224-2752, ask for Larry Boy.

Why You Need Poisoned Products From China

Wow, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. This lady actually said that poisoned products from China are a good thing.

Here is where she is wrong:

A. No, I don't think anyone is willing to pay any price for poisoned dog food or toys
B. Nobody needs Walmart. I have only been to a Walmart like 3 times in my entire life and I get by. Man kind has existed for thousands of years without Walmart.
C. If costs in China were higher it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Higher costs in China means US manufacturers (who don't sell poison and are subject to FDA standards) will be able to stay in business and hire employees who make a fair wage and aren't exploited children.
D. Poison products from China don't affect mortgages in the US and I would bet it's a hard sell to say that their devalued currency has any relevance to our mortgage situation in the US. Providing interest only loans to homeless people affect the mortgage crisis in the US, not what happens in China.

Flip Flopper

Cheney discussing why going into Baghdad and overthrowing Iraq would be a bad idea:

Republicans Afraid to Answer Tough Questions Not Already Approved By Their Campaigns

Washington Post

All major Democratic candidates for President recently appeared on a CNN "You Tube Debate" where common citizens could ask candidates questions which they had to answer. The Republican version of this debate is scheduled for September 17th and there are already many questions for the candidates posted on You Tube. Apparently, upon seeing these questions, Mitt Romney and Guiliani have yet to commit. In fact, the only two who have committed is John McCain and Ron Paul. Are they the only ones with real views on the issues and nothing to hide?? I mean how many times can you say "9/11" before someone wants to actually hear how you are going to make things better and where you stand on the issues.

Here are a couple of tough question's the Republicans would like to avoid:

Erin Neaves, 25-year-old mother of three, uploaded this question: "You hear a lot about supporting the troops from the Republicans, and we're not getting any kind of support from the government ..... We are getting more than 15-month deployments. We are getting cut out of our bonuses. ..... How will you support the troops?" She's a Democract and her husband serves in the U.S. military.

John King, a paramedic student at Cincinnati State, has a direct question for Giuliani about his business, Giuliani Partners. "I'm not saying that's wrong to make money off your image, but why are you keeping it such a secret -- the clients, how much they paid you, what kind of work you did for them?" asks the 24-year-old Republican.Patrick Ruffini, former eCampaign director at the Republican National Committee who served as online adviser to Giuliani for a few months earlier this year, said it would "very problematic" if the Republican candidates declined.