Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!
Dance troupe. You got served.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Hiatus, Part II:
Yes, I know. I should have posted this weeks ago. But I don't have time to write blogs or direct anyone to any articles of any sort. No time at all. However, what you have to look forward to in the next few days:
-My excursion to a McCain rally (with pictures)
-A fantastic barrage of anti-Obama and anti-liberal articles
-My own written speech for a class headed by an Obamafan professor: "Obama bin Biden: That's Not the Ticket"
-Pics from the "Trick or Vote March" (I am V, from V for Vendetta)
-And much, much more!
-My excursion to a McCain rally (with pictures)
-A fantastic barrage of anti-Obama and anti-liberal articles
-My own written speech for a class headed by an Obamafan professor: "Obama bin Biden: That's Not the Ticket"
-Pics from the "Trick or Vote March" (I am V, from V for Vendetta)
-And much, much more!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I Meet Megan McCain (Yes, the Real One, Not in Photoshop)
Yesterday I met Megan McCain, a fine lass who came to the Stick-E-Star restaurant to campaign for her dad. I had a bit of a chat with her; told her my explanation of why a lot of kids at DU and college kids in general are supporting Obama (that they're bored with the majority of things being stable; change would be new and exciting, and 4 more years of stable Republican rule would be just plain boring), and she agreed. She's a great person, and I was thankful I got to meet her.
Well, here's how it should have looked:
But it didn't look like this, because I lost my shades.
Or maybe I just made that up to cover for the crags under my eyes...I am sick, after all.
We'll never know.
Well, here's how it should have looked:
But it didn't look like this, because I lost my shades.
Or maybe I just made that up to cover for the crags under my eyes...I am sick, after all.
We'll never know.
Crush All Dissent: Political Incorrectness
So here's something interesting: the "pro-choice" movement is alive and well on the campus. Well, at least the pro-choice movement. Andrew and I decided to do something about it, shake things up with a bit of political incorrectness. We found a "No on Amendment 48" sign (Amendment 48 defines life as starting from conception, but doesn't add anything extra. Infanticide-defenders argue, however, that this would make contraception illegal. I say that's ridiculous, since an "outlawing contraception" act wouldn't even make it to the ballot).
We took this sign to a hidden place (OK, a couple streets down behind a fence) and duct-taped over the bottom, where it says "Just Goes Too Far". Ann Coulter once famously advised us that liberals can indeed sum of their views for bumper sticker slogans. Like "I <3 partial-birth abortion".
So that's what we did. We wrote "I <3 partial-birth abortion" on one side, and "Kill The Inconveniences" on the other side. We put it in a place that it was sure to be seen by all, especially fembots.
It was almost 11:00 PM. When I met Andrew at 7:30 AM, he found out it had been stolen.
We'd tolerated those "No on 48" signs everywhere for a long time. They couldn't stand one of ours for 8.5 hours. They won't tolerate intolerance. Neither will an Obama administration.
PICS!
Nothing like a little dissent of majority opinion to make things interesting.
Except for when that dissent is oppressed. Then it gets really interesting. ;)
We took this sign to a hidden place (OK, a couple streets down behind a fence) and duct-taped over the bottom, where it says "Just Goes Too Far". Ann Coulter once famously advised us that liberals can indeed sum of their views for bumper sticker slogans. Like "I <3 partial-birth abortion".
So that's what we did. We wrote "I <3 partial-birth abortion" on one side, and "Kill The Inconveniences" on the other side. We put it in a place that it was sure to be seen by all, especially fembots.
It was almost 11:00 PM. When I met Andrew at 7:30 AM, he found out it had been stolen.
We'd tolerated those "No on 48" signs everywhere for a long time. They couldn't stand one of ours for 8.5 hours. They won't tolerate intolerance. Neither will an Obama administration.
PICS!
Nothing like a little dissent of majority opinion to make things interesting.
Except for when that dissent is oppressed. Then it gets really interesting. ;)
Friday, October 17, 2008
Oh, You've Got to be Kidding Me
Everyone's heard of Joe, the plumbing company owner-to-be who stood up to Barack Obama and told him that his tax policies would destroy his American Dream. The most stunning thing here is Obama's response. Obama said he didn't want to "punish" Joe, but instead "spread the wealth around...", which totally exposed his Marxism for all the world to see.
Joe was hailed as a hero, a symbol of the everyman who suffers under government. Once Joe was mentioned over 20 times in the last Presidential debate, I could tell that this was an October surprise worthy of George W. Bush.
Now, though, the media has sabotaged everything.
Even though he's not a politician, the media decided to "vet" him anyway, much like they did with Sarah Palin. Heh.
Now you've got hit pieces on Joe like this one, it seems as if things aren't going well for our homegrown hero. Already, prominent Democrat politicians have come out attacking Joe, some more well-known than others.
Let's dissect the posting above. It's written by Bonnie Erbe, "openly-crass liberal", as the American Spectator describes her. She starts by informing us who she is. He's simply "the plumber so often referred to by Sen. John McCain in the third and final debate." Nothing about Obama's response to his question that made him so famous in the first place. Very objective reporting.
Erbe goes into a reckless rant, starting by telling Joe that he "had better learn to shut his mouth. The more he speaks publicly, the more he looks like the GOP plant," awfully harsh criticism toward a citizen who's been rounding the talk shows, lately. There's not anything wrong with what he's saying, by the way, but it's enough to make him look like a "plant" to Erbe. This whole conspiracy theory just isn't possible. Obama descended on Joe's own neighborhood without informing anyone he was going to be there. Joe can't have been planted in his own neighborhood. Besides, there's not any evidence to suggest he's been corroborating with the McCain campaign, anyway. The fact that McCain brought him up in the debates and that GOP ads have used his and Obama's discussion as political ammo simply justifies my point; any connection between McCain and Joe was all post-Obama's-freudian-slip.
It's wishful thinking to claim he was a plant.
She accuses him of being misanthropic when she declares:
Yes, watch him do it, he's such a naive plebian! Hah!
I'm sure that most of America knows the sorry state that social security is in... currently. It hasn't always been a joke; nobody's saying that, not even Joe. FDR advanced the well-being of Americans for years and years with this policy. What Joe (and conservatives) mean when they say that SS is a "joke" is referring to how it's so unprepared to face the gigantic influx of new users in a few years. Not only that, but the system's so fragile it appears that it could collapse at any time. It's not a "funny ha-ha" joke, it's pathetic in its current state.
But by no means has it "single-handedly" done so. Expansion of private investements have done wonders for the retired. You really shouldn't assert like that, Mrs. Erbe.
Erbe goes on to list a couple of liberal-blogger conspiracy theories, which, of course, she doesn't provide essential information to correctly assess these rumors, much like the AP always does when mentioning anything having to do with an Obama rumor, or an accusation that McCain makes against him. The reason is simple: she wants you to believe them, to damage Joe's credibility.
Now, here's the kicker; she ends with,
WHAT!? This is what she's saying. If Joe turns out to be a stereotypical wealthy Republican, then McCain's campaign is uber-corrupt and inept.
1. That doesn't make any logical sense, as he's not even affiliated with the McCain campaign.
2. Corrupt? For what? Bringing him up in a debate? Is that really corrupt at all? Of course not. Then that must mean that the civilian Joe Stanko (or Stanek or whoever) that Biden brought up in the last VP debate is obviously an evil partisan and has corrupted the Obama-Biden campaign, making it the most inept in history.
(of course, further investigation revealed that Stanko is a lobbyist, the type of person that pure reformers like Obama hate...go figure)
3. Inept? How so? The man made Obama give about the most vital Freudian slip that anyone's made yet. That's not ineptitude from Joe or McCain, that was all Obama, baby.
Of course, these pointless, bloviating attacks on Joe are all too prevalent these days. What's more disturbing is how the Obamamedia smeared Joe intensely for embarrassing their messiah. Perhaps in an Obama administration, we'll all get to deal with a thugocracy. The dissent will be silenced, much like they're trying to silence Joe by talking over him with their shrill, leftist voices.
Joe was hailed as a hero, a symbol of the everyman who suffers under government. Once Joe was mentioned over 20 times in the last Presidential debate, I could tell that this was an October surprise worthy of George W. Bush.
Now, though, the media has sabotaged everything.
Even though he's not a politician, the media decided to "vet" him anyway, much like they did with Sarah Palin. Heh.
Now you've got hit pieces on Joe like this one, it seems as if things aren't going well for our homegrown hero. Already, prominent Democrat politicians have come out attacking Joe, some more well-known than others.
Let's dissect the posting above. It's written by Bonnie Erbe, "openly-crass liberal", as the American Spectator describes her. She starts by informing us who she is. He's simply "the plumber so often referred to by Sen. John McCain in the third and final debate." Nothing about Obama's response to his question that made him so famous in the first place. Very objective reporting.
Erbe goes into a reckless rant, starting by telling Joe that he "had better learn to shut his mouth. The more he speaks publicly, the more he looks like the GOP plant," awfully harsh criticism toward a citizen who's been rounding the talk shows, lately. There's not anything wrong with what he's saying, by the way, but it's enough to make him look like a "plant" to Erbe. This whole conspiracy theory just isn't possible. Obama descended on Joe's own neighborhood without informing anyone he was going to be there. Joe can't have been planted in his own neighborhood. Besides, there's not any evidence to suggest he's been corroborating with the McCain campaign, anyway. The fact that McCain brought him up in the debates and that GOP ads have used his and Obama's discussion as political ammo simply justifies my point; any connection between McCain and Joe was all post-Obama's-freudian-slip.
It's wishful thinking to claim he was a plant.
She accuses him of being misanthropic when she declares:
Watch him calling Social Security a "joke" on YouTube:
I'm no fan of tax hikes, but even I recognize Social Security is no "joke." It has single-handedly lifted millions of elderly and disabled Americans out of poverty and turned America's elderly from the most impoverished age demographic to one with an income more in line with that of working families.
Yes, watch him do it, he's such a naive plebian! Hah!
I'm sure that most of America knows the sorry state that social security is in... currently. It hasn't always been a joke; nobody's saying that, not even Joe. FDR advanced the well-being of Americans for years and years with this policy. What Joe (and conservatives) mean when they say that SS is a "joke" is referring to how it's so unprepared to face the gigantic influx of new users in a few years. Not only that, but the system's so fragile it appears that it could collapse at any time. It's not a "funny ha-ha" joke, it's pathetic in its current state.
But by no means has it "single-handedly" done so. Expansion of private investements have done wonders for the retired. You really shouldn't assert like that, Mrs. Erbe.
Erbe goes on to list a couple of liberal-blogger conspiracy theories, which, of course, she doesn't provide essential information to correctly assess these rumors, much like the AP always does when mentioning anything having to do with an Obama rumor, or an accusation that McCain makes against him. The reason is simple: she wants you to believe them, to damage Joe's credibility.
Now, here's the kicker; she ends with,
Keep watching this story because if it proves true that "Joe the Plumber" is the wealthy, Republican regular the liberal blogs are claiming he is, the McCain campaign could go down as the most corrupt and inept in history.
WHAT!? This is what she's saying. If Joe turns out to be a stereotypical wealthy Republican, then McCain's campaign is uber-corrupt and inept.
1. That doesn't make any logical sense, as he's not even affiliated with the McCain campaign.
2. Corrupt? For what? Bringing him up in a debate? Is that really corrupt at all? Of course not. Then that must mean that the civilian Joe Stanko (or Stanek or whoever) that Biden brought up in the last VP debate is obviously an evil partisan and has corrupted the Obama-Biden campaign, making it the most inept in history.
(of course, further investigation revealed that Stanko is a lobbyist, the type of person that pure reformers like Obama hate...go figure)
3. Inept? How so? The man made Obama give about the most vital Freudian slip that anyone's made yet. That's not ineptitude from Joe or McCain, that was all Obama, baby.
Of course, these pointless, bloviating attacks on Joe are all too prevalent these days. What's more disturbing is how the Obamamedia smeared Joe intensely for embarrassing their messiah. Perhaps in an Obama administration, we'll all get to deal with a thugocracy. The dissent will be silenced, much like they're trying to silence Joe by talking over him with their shrill, leftist voices.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Just Words, Just Speeches?
Barack Obama's Supreme Court remains a mystery to most voters. After all, three justices (Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg) might have to retire in the next Presidency. So, would he pick socialists (most likely), moderate liberals (less likely), centrists (an infinitesimal amount of likeliness), or conservatives (when Hell freezes over)?
Well, how about Barack Obama in his own words:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Well, that leaves one very open possibility. Not very sure of her political affiliations, but she sure can empathize. Moreso than a whole host of people, I might add.
I'm officially kicking off the Bristol Palin For Obama Supreme Court Judicial Nomination campaign.
Just look at her credentials; she's a young, unwed teenage mom. She's stood up to intense media scrutiny on these credentials, and has managed to pull through with poise. She's got everything that an Obama SC justice could need, and then some.
I'll have graphics and such later. Maybe even bumper stickers! Things may work out for everyone just yet.
Of course, the Obamedia would probably gouge their brains out at the thought, but to them, I say:
Bristol Palin for OSCJN!
Well, how about Barack Obama in his own words:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Well, that leaves one very open possibility. Not very sure of her political affiliations, but she sure can empathize. Moreso than a whole host of people, I might add.
I'm officially kicking off the Bristol Palin For Obama Supreme Court Judicial Nomination campaign.
Just look at her credentials; she's a young, unwed teenage mom. She's stood up to intense media scrutiny on these credentials, and has managed to pull through with poise. She's got everything that an Obama SC justice could need, and then some.
I'll have graphics and such later. Maybe even bumper stickers! Things may work out for everyone just yet.
Of course, the Obamedia would probably gouge their brains out at the thought, but to them, I say:
Bristol Palin for OSCJN!
New-Partygate, Odinga-gate, Foreign-Donor-gate, Bracelet-gate...
While the mainstream media is infatuated and obsessed with the outcome of the "Troopergate" (Governor Palin's alleged misuse of power to try and fire a trooper who happened to be her brother-in-law), there's a few things I'd like to clear up.
1. Palin was ruled to have abused her power. This part is true. She was also ruled to have not broken any laws in the process, contrary to what CBS News has tried to lead readers to believe.
2. The trooper deserved to be fired. He shot an 11-year-old with a taser as punishment, drank on the job, killed a moose illegally, and (most tellingly of why Palin pressured the Police Comissioner to fire him) threatened to kill Governor Palin's father. Being a trooper with a gun, he surely was capable.
3. The investigation was an effort to tarnish Palin's reputation. The person who pushed the case was a Democratic partisan who refused to let the case go. The many, many people involved in the case didn't respond to their subpoenas simply because the case was that irrelevant.
4. The trooper (Mike Wooten) has endorsed Palin's candidacy.
I personally think this whole case is making a mountain out of a hole, which should in theory be impossible to do, but then again, the way that the press has neglected so many details in an effort to portray Palin in a negative light should, in all counts, also be impossible. But it happened, anyway. The man should have been fired, Palin was right to pressure it. This isn't some story about Hitleresque tyranny.
But that's what they want you to believe.
Meanwhile, "Troopergate" is over, and should dominate the news for at least a few days.
But what about Annenberg-Challenge-gate? Marylin-Katz-gate? Socialism-gate? Odinga-gate? Foreign-Donor-gate? Lying-About-NRLC-gate? Citibank-Lawsuit-gate? Refusal-to-Release-Documents-gate? New-Party-gate? Bracelet-gate? Silence-of-Dissent-gate? Anything? CBS? NYT? They've already shown what they'd do in response to these "gates", even if they haven't sddressed them.
After all, just look at Ayers-gate. They rushed to his defense (quoting official Obama campaign statements as "evidence") while they go on offense against Palin.
It's disgusting.
1. Palin was ruled to have abused her power. This part is true. She was also ruled to have not broken any laws in the process, contrary to what CBS News has tried to lead readers to believe.
2. The trooper deserved to be fired. He shot an 11-year-old with a taser as punishment, drank on the job, killed a moose illegally, and (most tellingly of why Palin pressured the Police Comissioner to fire him) threatened to kill Governor Palin's father. Being a trooper with a gun, he surely was capable.
3. The investigation was an effort to tarnish Palin's reputation. The person who pushed the case was a Democratic partisan who refused to let the case go. The many, many people involved in the case didn't respond to their subpoenas simply because the case was that irrelevant.
4. The trooper (Mike Wooten) has endorsed Palin's candidacy.
I personally think this whole case is making a mountain out of a hole, which should in theory be impossible to do, but then again, the way that the press has neglected so many details in an effort to portray Palin in a negative light should, in all counts, also be impossible. But it happened, anyway. The man should have been fired, Palin was right to pressure it. This isn't some story about Hitleresque tyranny.
But that's what they want you to believe.
Meanwhile, "Troopergate" is over, and should dominate the news for at least a few days.
But what about Annenberg-Challenge-gate? Marylin-Katz-gate? Socialism-gate? Odinga-gate? Foreign-Donor-gate? Lying-About-NRLC-gate? Citibank-Lawsuit-gate? Refusal-to-Release-Documents-gate? New-Party-gate? Bracelet-gate? Silence-of-Dissent-gate? Anything? CBS? NYT? They've already shown what they'd do in response to these "gates", even if they haven't sddressed them.
After all, just look at Ayers-gate. They rushed to his defense (quoting official Obama campaign statements as "evidence") while they go on offense against Palin.
It's disgusting.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
My Latest Unassuming Victim? Greenpeace.
About 10 minutes ago, I finally confronted Greenpeace.
They come around every couple of days or so, but I usually just ignore them.
"How's it goin', buddy?"
"Want to save the world, man?"
"Want to stop global warming, man?"
"Hey, buddy, care about the environment?"
"No. Drill here, drill now. Pay less."
"What!? Aw, come on, man."
"I'd totally debate you on this, but I'm going somewhere right now. Later."
"Whatever, man."
"Stupid hippie."
(that last one is always muttered under the breath, don't worry)
Today was different, though. I wasn't going anywhere, I was coming back. And this time, I had time to spare.
"Hey, bro, you wanna save a polar bear?"
"What?"
"Yeah, you know. Hey, I'm from Greenpeace."
"Right."
It was at that moment that I decided to have some fun. He asked me if I'd heard about Greenpeace before, and I unassumingly replied
"Yeah, I have. I've heard a lot of things about you guys."
So he started to tell me about Greenpeace. I was getting bored. I knew something had to be done, and quick. He then mentioned their fight against "climate change."
"Oh," I said, ever so cleverly, "you mean anthropogenic global warming?"
He was taken aback.
"Anth...what? What do you mean?"
I was taken aback myself. How could he have not heard the term "anthropogenic" (man-made) even while working at a freakin' environmental special interest group? The ignorance was unbelievable. So, I put on a slightly annoyed face and explained the concept to him.
"Oh, yeah, you mean global warming," he stuttered.
"Not just climate change. You guys advocate against man-made global warming," I said, "but I'm so glad you're an expert on anthropogenic causes of global warming. I've been looking for one of you to clarify a couple things."
He looked at me warily, and said, "Go ahead."
I asked, "Last year, your anthropogenic global warming models anticipated that there would be no Arctic ice this summer. In fact, the mainstream media had also bought into it. When the results came back from satellite imaging research, however, it turned out that the ice hadn't decreased, nor stayed at the same level as last year. It in fact increased by a great level. How do you explain this?"
Obviously agitated that I knew so much for what looked like a naive student, he started to answer. Then I matter-of-factly interrupted him;
"Not only that, but it turns out that Antarctic ice has increased from last year, as well. So the ice increase isn't in just one localized location. Go ahead, explain anthropogenic global warming for me."
He stared at me, and then laughed and looked at his friend. He said to me,
"You like using big words a lot, don't you?"
I was not amused. I gave him a condescending glare and said, "It's not my fault if you don't know what I'm talking about, much less what you're talking about."
The only response he could come up with was questioning my sources. I explained to him that these sources were just done by satellites, unmodified and anything but tampered with. The scientists who did the research clearly did not have a motive. In what could have been the most idiotic thing I've heard since Barack Obama's last debate performance, he told me to go to a site called ExxonSecrets.com, or .org, or something like that.
"Oh, yeah," I scathingly responded, "they surely don't have a motive. I can tell by the site name. This research wasn't done by oil barons, it was purely uncompromised."
He brought up how we haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol (well, he actually couldn't remember the name. I was glad to inform him). I told him in response that the US economy doesn't work the same way as the other nations who have signed it. If we start cap-and-trade policies now, especially right now in an economic crisis, we'd be trashing our economy because of lack of resources.
In response, he exclaimed,
"The economy? The economy's already been trashed thanks to the last 8 years."
I knew that if he didn't even know his environmental science that well, then he really wouldn't stand a chance against me on domestic affairs. I explained to him that the crisis wasn't caused by deregulation, and that the economy is still fundamentally strong after years of growth. He dismissed that because the DOW had gone down earlier today. I was tempted to backhand him for stupidity, but instead I replied that the DOW doesn't affirm the state of the economy. To that, he could only say,
"I think we're talking about different things here."
I sighed, and said,
"You know, you couldn't be more right."
So he brought up that all it would require is for us to stop producing carbon dioxide for global warming to stop. Being a science major, I corrected him:
"Actually, CO2 only contributes a tiny amount of effect to the atmosphere. Methane, on the other hand, has more than twice as much effect. The oceans release huge amounts of metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. Same with cows. What do you propose?"
Getting angry, he dissed the US and said, "Scandinavia has balanced their carbon emissions. They're perfect."
I simply said, "We make up 25% of the world's economy. We take in and also produce more than any other nation. Can any Scandinavian countries say they're anywhere close to doing that? Absolutely, 100%, categorically no."
He was confused and frustrated. I smirked. Finally he just said,
"Well, man, I have a job to do. Have a nice day."
Yeah, I will. I surely will.
Heck, I bet he's voting for Obama. Who'd a thunk it?
They come around every couple of days or so, but I usually just ignore them.
"How's it goin', buddy?"
"Want to save the world, man?"
"Want to stop global warming, man?"
"Hey, buddy, care about the environment?"
"No. Drill here, drill now. Pay less."
"What!? Aw, come on, man."
"I'd totally debate you on this, but I'm going somewhere right now. Later."
"Whatever, man."
"Stupid hippie."
(that last one is always muttered under the breath, don't worry)
Today was different, though. I wasn't going anywhere, I was coming back. And this time, I had time to spare.
"Hey, bro, you wanna save a polar bear?"
"What?"
"Yeah, you know. Hey, I'm from Greenpeace."
"Right."
It was at that moment that I decided to have some fun. He asked me if I'd heard about Greenpeace before, and I unassumingly replied
"Yeah, I have. I've heard a lot of things about you guys."
So he started to tell me about Greenpeace. I was getting bored. I knew something had to be done, and quick. He then mentioned their fight against "climate change."
"Oh," I said, ever so cleverly, "you mean anthropogenic global warming?"
He was taken aback.
"Anth...what? What do you mean?"
I was taken aback myself. How could he have not heard the term "anthropogenic" (man-made) even while working at a freakin' environmental special interest group? The ignorance was unbelievable. So, I put on a slightly annoyed face and explained the concept to him.
"Oh, yeah, you mean global warming," he stuttered.
"Not just climate change. You guys advocate against man-made global warming," I said, "but I'm so glad you're an expert on anthropogenic causes of global warming. I've been looking for one of you to clarify a couple things."
He looked at me warily, and said, "Go ahead."
I asked, "Last year, your anthropogenic global warming models anticipated that there would be no Arctic ice this summer. In fact, the mainstream media had also bought into it. When the results came back from satellite imaging research, however, it turned out that the ice hadn't decreased, nor stayed at the same level as last year. It in fact increased by a great level. How do you explain this?"
Obviously agitated that I knew so much for what looked like a naive student, he started to answer. Then I matter-of-factly interrupted him;
"Not only that, but it turns out that Antarctic ice has increased from last year, as well. So the ice increase isn't in just one localized location. Go ahead, explain anthropogenic global warming for me."
He stared at me, and then laughed and looked at his friend. He said to me,
"You like using big words a lot, don't you?"
I was not amused. I gave him a condescending glare and said, "It's not my fault if you don't know what I'm talking about, much less what you're talking about."
The only response he could come up with was questioning my sources. I explained to him that these sources were just done by satellites, unmodified and anything but tampered with. The scientists who did the research clearly did not have a motive. In what could have been the most idiotic thing I've heard since Barack Obama's last debate performance, he told me to go to a site called ExxonSecrets.com, or .org, or something like that.
"Oh, yeah," I scathingly responded, "they surely don't have a motive. I can tell by the site name. This research wasn't done by oil barons, it was purely uncompromised."
He brought up how we haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol (well, he actually couldn't remember the name. I was glad to inform him). I told him in response that the US economy doesn't work the same way as the other nations who have signed it. If we start cap-and-trade policies now, especially right now in an economic crisis, we'd be trashing our economy because of lack of resources.
In response, he exclaimed,
"The economy? The economy's already been trashed thanks to the last 8 years."
I knew that if he didn't even know his environmental science that well, then he really wouldn't stand a chance against me on domestic affairs. I explained to him that the crisis wasn't caused by deregulation, and that the economy is still fundamentally strong after years of growth. He dismissed that because the DOW had gone down earlier today. I was tempted to backhand him for stupidity, but instead I replied that the DOW doesn't affirm the state of the economy. To that, he could only say,
"I think we're talking about different things here."
I sighed, and said,
"You know, you couldn't be more right."
So he brought up that all it would require is for us to stop producing carbon dioxide for global warming to stop. Being a science major, I corrected him:
"Actually, CO2 only contributes a tiny amount of effect to the atmosphere. Methane, on the other hand, has more than twice as much effect. The oceans release huge amounts of metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. Same with cows. What do you propose?"
Getting angry, he dissed the US and said, "Scandinavia has balanced their carbon emissions. They're perfect."
I simply said, "We make up 25% of the world's economy. We take in and also produce more than any other nation. Can any Scandinavian countries say they're anywhere close to doing that? Absolutely, 100%, categorically no."
He was confused and frustrated. I smirked. Finally he just said,
"Well, man, I have a job to do. Have a nice day."
Yeah, I will. I surely will.
Heck, I bet he's voting for Obama. Who'd a thunk it?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Another Blowhard Gets Annihilated
So, while I was taking a break from practicing "Por Ti Volare", I stumbled upon an article. Well, editorial, I should hope. But those dang Canadians, man, you never know what they're gonna do next.
A la Robert Remington, from the Calgary Herald, comes this gem. "Sarah Palin's Candidacy is Insultin', Dontcha Know?"
Well, that's quite a mouthful, Remington. Obviously, this slack-jawed Canuck doesn't like Palin's "folksy demeanor", as it must remind him of another President who pronounces "nu-clear" as "noo-kyoo-lur". Well, once he pulls his head out of his ass, he'll realize what's really happeneing around here.
In reality, that's all she had to do to win, was hold her own. And hold her own she did, even referencing how much of a crap job Biden was doing keeping up with her when she said "I've only been at this [campaigning], what, five weeks", when Biden's campaigned at least twice for President and failed, having been in far more debates than Palin.
And how does Remington evidence his claim that she "just doesn't have what it takes"?
Well, I've searched through the entire article for that, for anything, for a quote, but came up with nada. Unless you count his disparaging of the "the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews" as qualification. Hmm.
So, we press on, and he says:
His objectivity is just oozing through those words, isn't it?
So, he's praising her for not imploding. Like anyone was really expecting that. But comparing her performance to a high-school senior? Buddy, I just graduated from high school. The only high school seniors able to connect that well with the American people and display intelligence at the same time were almost nonexistent. All subtle humor aside, I find it quite ironic of the writer to say anything condescending like this to Palin, when he makes such a fool of himself later.
Oh, that's coming up soon. Don't worry.
And how can he be so sure that only after "weeks of tutelage" Palin knew the issues? It's an absolute unsubstantiated rumor that has no merit at all. In fact, those "weeks of tutelage" might have just reinforced what she knew coming into the campaign.
So, if she was able to "overcome the embarrassing Katie Couric interviews," then what's the problem? As far as I can tell, that's the only reason the author called Palin out on "not having what it takes." As if doing well in interviews matters when being a great leader. Just ask Dwight D. Eisenhower, world-class mumbler, world-class President.
As for Redstates (sic), I have to disagree. On the other monolithic conservative forum, FreeRepublic, reviewers were ecstatic and piling heaps of praise on her performance. I think what Remington's done here is look for a tepid review amongst excellent reviews, and then post it to claim that Redstate thought it was "just OK." I'd have to call that complete dishonesty.
So, then we have:
So the majority of reviewers have to have "drunk the party Kool-Aid" to actually like her performance. Well, in Remington's opinion anyway. Do me a favor, and visit TownHall or National Review Online. Those are aggregated conglomerates of leading conervative columnists. And they were all over Palin's performance, whether you want to mislead us or not.
Once again, I really don't know where Remington's getting his info. I spend loads of time on these conservative papers and blogs, and I've only tallied an extremely small minority of columnists and writers who'd have that same opinion. Yet Remington has led himself to believe (and tries to lead you all to believe) that the average Republican supporter is "demoralized...seeing it differently." Which is, of course, absolute BS.
So now that I feel like I've repeated myself needlessly, we press onward:
Heh, heh. I told you it was coming. This is where Remington makes himself out to be a total idiot, and I'll explain why.
Biden is, indeed, a smooth liar. Want an example? OK, there's 24 and counting out of the VP debate. Want more? Clarence Thomas hearings, Presidential run plagiarism, law school plagiarism, history of pandering, and more recently, lying to the face of a supporter who hated coal, saying Barack's plan was "no coal plants in America," laughing and grabbing the supporter by the shoulders, telling her not to worry about a thing.
Smooth.
As for the idiocy about conservatives' "hypocrisy", well, that's not exactly hypocrisy. For one, that's what actually happened, you moron. The original Community Re-investment Act under Carter, Reagan, and Bush (which is what Remington refers to) actually increased home ownership by an infinitesimal amount. But then, under the Clinton administration, Democrats added huge amendments to it that led to the crisis today, and President Clinton gladly put it through. Funny how Remington just dismisses that and doesn't go in deeper.
But hey, we're conservatives. We just blame immigrants and black people. Boo-hoo, we're racist fascist fear-mongers.
In what you may percieve to be a "strained attempt to misdirect," Mr. Remington, you are misdirecting yourself. I'd advise you to actually look into the facts next time, instead of ignoring them to help out the US political party you like the best. Stay out of our politics unless you actually have something to contribute. Until then, keep covering your Canadian leaders, like you're supposed to.
The bailout bill was to SAVE his campaign? Remington, are you INSANE!? Conservatives and liberals alike hate the bailout bill. It's not good publicity that McCain supports it, especially since polls show opposition to the bill. It's not some political opportunity bill. It's a bill to stabilize (or attempt to stabilize) the economy.
It's not the Bush administration's fault. If the myth of "too much deregulation" would finally pass, the "incumbent party" would be looked to as heroes for trying to stop the real culprits like Barney Frank and other Democrats who blocked the "good regulation" that the Republicans like Chuck Hagel and John McCain tried to enforce.
But what do you know, you're not exactly objective.
And what's this? Sarah Palin isn't saying anything stupid like "she'll save us all." No, things like that are actually said by the top of the Democratic ticket. Using the "old" argument, well, isn't that "fear-mongering"? I thought that's just what we racist conservatives do. Stupidity. It's what's for lunch.
And what may be the most laughable part of the article:
So, now we've got a truly great representation of the average American. A fanatical Obama supporter who is so mentally unstable he throws his furniture into expensive electrical appliances. Well, Remington. I feel insulted by this. I feel insulted that a hack such as you can attain a job at a respectable Canadian newspaper. What is the world coming to?
EDIT: It has come to my attention that this Robert Remington fellow is unmistakeably ugly. See for yourself. Remarkable.
A la Robert Remington, from the Calgary Herald, comes this gem. "Sarah Palin's Candidacy is Insultin', Dontcha Know?"
Well, gosh darn it anyway. Geez, that there Sarah Palin sure can charm them Republicans. They're so gol-dang happy she didn't screw up Thursday night they actually think she won the debate against Joe Biden.
Trouble is, this ain't the Miss Alaska competition. Gee willikers, folks, this is a contest to see who's best suited to lead the U.S. in the event the president becomes incapacitated or dead. And Palin -- who prefaced one of her answers by saying "I've only been at this, what, five weeks" -- just doesn't have what it takes.
Well, that's quite a mouthful, Remington. Obviously, this slack-jawed Canuck doesn't like Palin's "folksy demeanor", as it must remind him of another President who pronounces "nu-clear" as "noo-kyoo-lur". Well, once he pulls his head out of his ass, he'll realize what's really happeneing around here.
In reality, that's all she had to do to win, was hold her own. And hold her own she did, even referencing how much of a crap job Biden was doing keeping up with her when she said "I've only been at this [campaigning], what, five weeks", when Biden's campaigned at least twice for President and failed, having been in far more debates than Palin.
And how does Remington evidence his claim that she "just doesn't have what it takes"?
Well, I've searched through the entire article for that, for anything, for a quote, but came up with nada. Unless you count his disparaging of the "the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews" as qualification. Hmm.
So, we press on, and he says:
Like many American expats, I opted to forgo the Canadian leaders debate Thursday night for a front-row seat at a car crash that never happened.
His objectivity is just oozing through those words, isn't it?
Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, did not implode in her TV debate with Democrat opponent Joe Biden. Instead she proved, after weeks of tutelage, she can perform just as well as any bright high school senior, which was good enough for the idealogues at Fox News to declare her the victor.
So, he's praising her for not imploding. Like anyone was really expecting that. But comparing her performance to a high-school senior? Buddy, I just graduated from high school. The only high school seniors able to connect that well with the American people and display intelligence at the same time were almost nonexistent. All subtle humor aside, I find it quite ironic of the writer to say anything condescending like this to Palin, when he makes such a fool of himself later.
Oh, that's coming up soon. Don't worry.
And how can he be so sure that only after "weeks of tutelage" Palin knew the issues? It's an absolute unsubstantiated rumor that has no merit at all. In fact, those "weeks of tutelage" might have just reinforced what she knew coming into the campaign.
After the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews, Republicans were so relieved Palin was able to string her answers together in coherent sentences they've started to actually believe John McCain didn't make a colossal blunder in choosing her. Well, sort of.
The reviews on Redstates.com are surprisingly tepid. "I honestly don't think she did that bad," read one.
So, if she was able to "overcome the embarrassing Katie Couric interviews," then what's the problem? As far as I can tell, that's the only reason the author called Palin out on "not having what it takes." As if doing well in interviews matters when being a great leader. Just ask Dwight D. Eisenhower, world-class mumbler, world-class President.
As for Redstates (sic), I have to disagree. On the other monolithic conservative forum, FreeRepublic, reviewers were ecstatic and piling heaps of praise on her performance. I think what Remington's done here is look for a tepid review amongst excellent reviews, and then post it to claim that Redstate thought it was "just OK." I'd have to call that complete dishonesty.
So, then we have:
The spinners in the Grand Ol' Party, the ones who drink most deeply of the party Kool Aid, were more delirious, praising Palin for rediscovering her "inner barracuda." Declared Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "She killed. It was her evening. She was the star."
So the majority of reviewers have to have "drunk the party Kool-Aid" to actually like her performance. Well, in Remington's opinion anyway. Do me a favor, and visit TownHall or National Review Online. Those are aggregated conglomerates of leading conervative columnists. And they were all over Palin's performance, whether you want to mislead us or not.
Many average, demoralized Republican supporters saw it differently. Their attack dog in designer glasses was more like a well-trained puppy. Said one Republican blogger from the Midwest: "She won on style, he won on substance."
Once again, I really don't know where Remington's getting his info. I spend loads of time on these conservative papers and blogs, and I've only tallied an extremely small minority of columnists and writers who'd have that same opinion. Yet Remington has led himself to believe (and tries to lead you all to believe) that the average Republican supporter is "demoralized...seeing it differently." Which is, of course, absolute BS.
So now that I feel like I've repeated myself needlessly, we press onward:
Republican strategists were quick to paint Biden as the ultimate slick politician and Palin as the candidate of the people. They, and Palin, accused Biden of dwelling in the past by focusing on the record of George W. Bush and linking McCain to it.
These are the same people who look back decades to the the administrations of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as the root of America's current economic mess. The hypocrisy is stunning.
In a strained attempt to misdirect blame for the current financial mess, they cite the Community Reinvestment Act -- a law passed in 1977 to eradicate discrimination in lending in poor neighbourhoods -- as the culprit. This is laughable. The CRA covered commercial banks and savings and loans institutions, not the loosely regulated non-bank mortgage companies that are largely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. But, then, blaming poor blacks and immigrants has always been a favoured tactic of cold-hearted, fear-mongering U.S. conservative idealogues.
Heh, heh. I told you it was coming. This is where Remington makes himself out to be a total idiot, and I'll explain why.
Biden is, indeed, a smooth liar. Want an example? OK, there's 24 and counting out of the VP debate. Want more? Clarence Thomas hearings, Presidential run plagiarism, law school plagiarism, history of pandering, and more recently, lying to the face of a supporter who hated coal, saying Barack's plan was "no coal plants in America," laughing and grabbing the supporter by the shoulders, telling her not to worry about a thing.
Smooth.
As for the idiocy about conservatives' "hypocrisy", well, that's not exactly hypocrisy. For one, that's what actually happened, you moron. The original Community Re-investment Act under Carter, Reagan, and Bush (which is what Remington refers to) actually increased home ownership by an infinitesimal amount. But then, under the Clinton administration, Democrats added huge amendments to it that led to the crisis today, and President Clinton gladly put it through. Funny how Remington just dismisses that and doesn't go in deeper.
But hey, we're conservatives. We just blame immigrants and black people. Boo-hoo, we're racist fascist fear-mongers.
In what you may percieve to be a "strained attempt to misdirect," Mr. Remington, you are misdirecting yourself. I'd advise you to actually look into the facts next time, instead of ignoring them to help out the US political party you like the best. Stay out of our politics unless you actually have something to contribute. Until then, keep covering your Canadian leaders, like you're supposed to.
Expectations of Palin were so low all she had to do was show up and run out the clock without fumbling the ball. That she did, buying some time for McCain. He needed the U.S. Congress to pass a $700 billion economic rescue plan, which it did on Friday, to salvage his sputtering campaign. But the good news didn't last long for the Vietnam war hero.
The bailout bill was to SAVE his campaign? Remington, are you INSANE!? Conservatives and liberals alike hate the bailout bill. It's not good publicity that McCain supports it, especially since polls show opposition to the bill. It's not some political opportunity bill. It's a bill to stabilize (or attempt to stabilize) the economy.
U.S. employment figures released Friday showed a loss of 159,000 jobs for September, the largest single month drop since the current period of job loss began. For 2008, the U.S. economy has now lost 760,000 jobs, a grim statistic for the incumbent party that is increasingly spiraling back to the era of Herbert Hoover, dragging the rest of us with them.
But, gee golly, Sarah will save us all, dontcha know. If the Republicans win and the old McCain ticker gives out, the GOP thinks she'll be just dandy.
It's not the Bush administration's fault. If the myth of "too much deregulation" would finally pass, the "incumbent party" would be looked to as heroes for trying to stop the real culprits like Barney Frank and other Democrats who blocked the "good regulation" that the Republicans like Chuck Hagel and John McCain tried to enforce.
But what do you know, you're not exactly objective.
And what's this? Sarah Palin isn't saying anything stupid like "she'll save us all." No, things like that are actually said by the top of the Democratic ticket. Using the "old" argument, well, isn't that "fear-mongering"? I thought that's just what we racist conservatives do. Stupidity. It's what's for lunch.
And what may be the most laughable part of the article:
Jeff Fischer, a Phoenix cafe owner and Obama supporter, begs to differ. He was so upset during Thursday's debate, he threw his chair at the television. "I felt I was being insulted as a citizen of the United States -- the potential for Sarah Palin to represent us," said Fischer.
So, now we've got a truly great representation of the average American. A fanatical Obama supporter who is so mentally unstable he throws his furniture into expensive electrical appliances. Well, Remington. I feel insulted by this. I feel insulted that a hack such as you can attain a job at a respectable Canadian newspaper. What is the world coming to?
EDIT: It has come to my attention that this Robert Remington fellow is unmistakeably ugly. See for yourself. Remarkable.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Obama's Children Supporters Sing for Change!
This is fantastic. I'm sure everyone's heard about the creepy Obama camp singing to their Dear Leader? Well, we've got some new footage here. Turns out the choir was a bit bigger than the Hollywood-produced video intended to show.
But in the USA under the wise leadership of Dear Leader Barack Obama, the peerlessly great brilliant commander of socialist revolution, has made the socialist Motherland into the country where every comrade has a job, thus living the happy life of a song and joy of contributing to the building of the great socialist prosperous powerful independent country!
But in the USA under the wise leadership of Dear Leader Barack Obama, the peerlessly great brilliant commander of socialist revolution, has made the socialist Motherland into the country where every comrade has a job, thus living the happy life of a song and joy of contributing to the building of the great socialist prosperous powerful independent country!
Friday, October 3, 2008
Biden's Latest Broken Record
Many say "Bush lied, people died," as if it were verifiable fact. It's not. What we do know, however, is that the phrase "Biden lied, Obama's campaign died," could very well be true for the next month. That's right, I'm referring to the VP debate on Thursday. Perhaps I'll share my feelings on it another time; however, the groundbreaker here is much more, shall we say, important?
From National Review Online, we've got the tally of lies/misstatements/hallucinations that Biden produced in his debate with Sarah Palin. Many of these lies he pushed over and over, driving them to the point that Palin would have to shy away from her intended answer to a question, to refute them.
Biden's total? Well, the Obama camp says McCain's lying is the worst they've ever seen in a Presidential debate, counting 14 different times that he was inaccurate.
Biden's total is 22. That's right, 22 times! And counting. This has to be a record for a VP debate, if not a Presidential debate as well.
It's crazy to think that this is "change we can believe in" when we're this hesitant to believe in anything that Biden's saying anymore.
EDIT: They've actually updated it to 24. FactCheck.org apparently provided some they didn't figure out before.
From National Review Online, we've got the tally of lies/misstatements/hallucinations that Biden produced in his debate with Sarah Palin. Many of these lies he pushed over and over, driving them to the point that Palin would have to shy away from her intended answer to a question, to refute them.
Biden's total? Well, the Obama camp says McCain's lying is the worst they've ever seen in a Presidential debate, counting 14 different times that he was inaccurate.
Biden's total is 22. That's right, 22 times! And counting. This has to be a record for a VP debate, if not a Presidential debate as well.
It's crazy to think that this is "change we can believe in" when we're this hesitant to believe in anything that Biden's saying anymore.
EDIT: They've actually updated it to 24. FactCheck.org apparently provided some they didn't figure out before.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Burning Down The Democrats
This video effectively exposes the Democrats as lying that this whole crisis is "Bush's fault" (via Nancy Pelosi).
To me, the way it's made makes it look rather incredible. After further investigation, however, I've found it to be credibly sound. This is a must-watch for anyone wanting to know what the heck caused all this trouble we're in.
Enjoy.
To me, the way it's made makes it look rather incredible. After further investigation, however, I've found it to be credibly sound. This is a must-watch for anyone wanting to know what the heck caused all this trouble we're in.
Enjoy.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Frank Rich Needs To STFU
Frank Rich, or Conrad, or whatever he's called. I just call him an idiot.
That's it. I've had it with this guy; I'm angrier than Michael Savage in 100-degree weather. Frank Rich. Some snotty NYT editorialist, he's the worst kind of media man. I want to take some time to refute his article, "McCain's Suspension Bridge To Nowhere". It's just garbage.
For instance, his introduction:
WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.
This is BS. Why? Find out after more BS.
When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.
Not a bit true. What Frankie is saying here is that McCain went to Washington for his own selfish reasons to try and sabotage any progress being made on a bailout in order to "save his campaign". This is a 100%, absolute, categorical, you-are-pants and it's no. Henry Paulson, commander of the bailout plan, wanted the House Republicans' support on the deal, which they were refusing to give. Lindsey Graham, a moderate like McCain and someone close to Paulson, was contacted by none other than Paulson himself, who said (and I suppose I'm paraphrasing), "You have to get McCain. He's the only one who can do it." Doing it, in this case, means using his political clout in the House to get enought support from the Republicans on the fence. So, McCain reluctantly suspended his campaign to go to Washington. What, do you think he could have convinced them on the phone!? E-mail (which, by the way, McCain doesn't do, thanks Obama)!? Frank is totally misguided, but hey, he's just parroting the typical liberal talking point, that's it's just some conspiracy to save his poll numbers.
Oh yeah, about that. Right when McCain went to Washington, a Gallup poll and Zogby poll were released. The former had him exactly tied, and the latter had him ahead. What bollocks. Also, Frank mentions a "bipartisan agreement", essentially a deal. There never was one, as the Weekly Standard points out.
So, Frankie goes on:
The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year.
Yes, that's right. He actually suggested that McCain's dementia is playing a part in a decision that his campaign allowed him to make. He's not president yet, folks; he's got that little ball-and-chain called a campaign staff. Anyway, I saw a poster the other day, an anti-Reagan poster. Used in the '84 campaign, I think. It just said "Reagan: Too Old." Well, we all know how that turned out. Just the largest economic growth this country's seen.
You must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
Yeah, he's said he doesn't know much about the economy. Neither does Barry, but Barry's not honest enough to admit it. His policies do that for him. And yes; McCain has expressed concern over this. He did all the way back in 2005/2006, his housing regulatory bill, which (ironically) put him at odds with everyone, and didn't pass. The bill would have enforced regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but he's a Republican, so who cares? I haven't seen anything like that from Obama. Come on, Frankie, where is it? Where's Obama's accomplishments in this realm? Oh, yeah, he doesn't have any. He could be considered an accomplice in this meltdown.
One more point-- when McCain talks about the fundamentals of the economy, he's not talking about banks, government policies, or housing monsters. He's talking about the American people; the ones who keep the country running. That's not the government, liberals. That's the taxpaying, working Americans. And yeah, they're fundamentally strong, as evidenced how we've had nothing but positive growth so far this year. Sorry, no recession for you.
Then, Frank says this:
As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)
As American Spectator points out, Obama didn't know either. In fact, when he came to the WH meeting, he trashed the Republican position on it without even knowing what the Republican position was.
That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.
But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.
Yeah, the Sarah Palin interview wasn't even bad. In fact, there was bias against Palin in the interview itself; American Spectator pointed out that Couric and Co. denied to call her Governor, and did everything she could to minimize her position. But that's not the point. The "seamless synergy between his campaign and FM&FM" refers to the Times' reporting on how campaign manager Rick Davis' former lobbying firm has been receiving contributions from FM&FM. Forget that Davis hasn't hasn't seen a penny from that firm since 2006, or that Barack Obama has been given, as American Thinker points out, $120,349 in political contributions from FM&FM. This, despite being in the Senate for just 3 years. Sound strange? It sure sounds fishy. The only person receiving more is Sen. Chris Dodd, who has been in Congress for 33 years. But nothing about this from the Times. It's all about McCain's campaign manager's firm!
Aargh. So, then this:
It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.)
Notice how he says "currently". Johnson had incredible associations with FM&FM, and we Republicans attacked him for it. So then Obama threw him under the bus. Big double standard for Davis' firm. In comparison, Raines had been advising Obama's advisors on the economy (reported by the Washington Post) as early as February. He wasn't formally associated with the campaign, though. Lucky break?
By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.
So...four people in all? That's not much of an iceberg. Considering that you didn't even list McCain, the candidate for the Presidency. Obama can't say that.
It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.
Aren't you clever, bringing in Bristol Palin like that? No doubt you have to wag another finger at that suffering girl in order to villify McCain's effort. For shame. As for the "contradiction", look at the context of those quotes. McCain is obviously referring to the economic state we were at, entering WWII. On the other hand, he calls the other one "an international crisis". Not exactly a genius stroke, Frank. And how in the heck would Joe Lieberman help consolidate support among House Republicans? That's either a statement of remarkable ignorance or a terrible joke.
Most of the rest of the article is just a rant about the McCain and Letterman fiasco. Undoubtedly he didn't want to bring the WH meeting up; the meeting where Bush would defer to Democrats to try and get their opinions on the bailout proposal, and then those Dems would defer to Obama in attempts to prove he's a leader and give credibility to his so-called "presidential aura". Rather, Obama didn't pull through, and the meeting fell apart. As Rush put it, "it was essentially a meeting chaired by Obama, and then it fell apart."
Meanwhile, we've got the Governor of Missouri saying that that Barack Obama conspired to misuse his state's law enforcement resources to "threaten and intimidate his critics."
Where's Frank Rich on this? Maybe he's been traveling on "McCain's Suspension Bridge To Nowhere" for far too long.
Some sources:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_dollars.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/608daafj.asp
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238645982877051.html
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13947
http://www.spectator.org/blogger_jump.asp?BlogID=14879
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWU2ODgzNzg2MmIyN2Y3ZWFjY2ZlODVmMTgzYjMwMjY=
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/mccain_kept_head_down_in_meeti.php
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092608/content/01125107.guest.html
Friday, September 26, 2008
Theater Has Ruined My Life
I'm steaming mad. I've had it up to here with theater and the dimwitted dolts who make the call schedules.
I was going to do a great live-blog of the debate tonight, but then I found out that there was going to be a huge gathering to watch the debate in Davis Auditorium with free pizza and drinks.
So then I was ecstatic, and now the call schedule for today has arrived via e-mail.
I have a full shift tonight, 7-10, uninterrupted. The debate starts at 6:30, and ends before I get out.
WHY, GOD, WHY?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Ron Paul Speaks; Congress Ignores Him, To Their Peril
So, for the past few days with this $700 billion bailout plan up in the air, I've wondered how capitalist, free-market economic genius (100% serious) Ron Paul would take it. Would he implode at the sight of such a monstrous government intervention into the private sector?
Well, here's his words on the bailout:
Strong words. From someone who knows what they're talking about, no less (see: Barack Obama).
Now, by no means am I impressed with how McCain has handled this crisis. In fact, I'm still looking into what caused it. But for now, let us ponder these wise, wise words from the one, the only Dr. Ron Paul.
Well, here's his words on the bailout:
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing. We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling. Instead of allowing overvalued financial assets to take a hit and trade on the market at a more realistic value, the government seeks to purchase overvalued or worthless assets and hold them in the unrealistic hope that at some point in the next few decades, someone might be willing to purchase them.
One of the perverse effects of this bailout proposal is that the worst-performing firms, and those who interjected themselves most deeply into mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and special investment vehicles will be those who benefit the most from this bailout. As with the bailout of airlines in the aftermath of 9/11, those businesses who were the least efficient, least productive, and least concerned with serving consumers are those who will be rewarded for their mismanagement with a government handout, rather than the failure of their company that is proper to the market. This creates a dangerous moral hazard, as the precedent of bailing out reckless lending will lead to even more reckless lending and irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms in the future.
This bailout is a slipshod proposal, slapped together haphazardly and forced on an unwilling Congress with the threat that not passing it will lead to the collapse of the financial system. Some of the proposed alternatives are no better, for instance those which propose a government equity share in bailed-out companies. That we have come to a point where outright purchases of private sector companies is not only proposed but accepted by many who claim to be defenders of free markets bodes ill for the future of American society.
As with many other government proposals, the opportunity cost of this bailout goes unmentioned. $700 billion tied up in illiquid assets is $700 billion that is not put to productive use. That amount of money in the private sector could be used to research new technologies, start small business that create thousands of jobs, or upgrade vital infrastructure. Instead, that money will be siphoned off into unproductive assets which may burden the government for years to come. The great French economist Frederic Bastiat is famous for explaining the difference between what is seen and what is unseen. In this case the bailout’s proponents see the alleged benefits, while they fail to see the jobs, businesses, and technologies not created due to this utter waste of money.
The housing bubble has burst, unemployment is on the rise, and the dollar weakens every day. Unfortunately our leaders have failed to learn from the mistakes of previous generations and continue to lead us down the road toward economic ruin.
Strong words. From someone who knows what they're talking about, no less (see: Barack Obama).
Now, by no means am I impressed with how McCain has handled this crisis. In fact, I'm still looking into what caused it. But for now, let us ponder these wise, wise words from the one, the only Dr. Ron Paul.
Want To Know Why Joe Biden Is Obama's VP?
Because, apparently, he's the only one who knows less about history than the party's nominee. Obama a few months ago:
He forgot to mention that this took place in 1965. He was born in 1961.
But now Biden has gone out of his way to upstage that minorly reported-on gaffe.
That's right. Hoover was President when the stock market crashed, and television was still experimental. Obviously he was trying to tie Obambi to FDR, but no such luck. In fact, terrible luck, with the gaffe streak Biden's had lately:
- He's also said that Hilldog would have made a better VP than he.
- He asked, at a rally, a state legislator to "stand up...let 'em see you." Unfortunately, he didn't actually know who in the heck he was talking about. The legislator was in a wheelchair. This was promptly followed with, "Ohhh, my God."
- When a reporter asked him about that terrible "McCain can't e-mail" ad, Biden said it was terrible. Later, after actually seeing the ad, he called it "OK", and once again called the McCain campaign a bunch of invidious liars.
Oh, Joe Biden. What a crack-up. No wonder the internets are buzzing with rumors that Obama's going to drop him on or around October 5th, due to a manufactured alibi that Biden has "health problems". Then they'll go with Hillary.
Of course, there's so much more that I could write about Joe Biden.
That the President of Iraq said that Biden's "plan for Iraq" drafted a while ago would have been a terrible foreign policy disaster, that it would have been impossible to execute and it could have resulted in ethnic cleansing.
That SC Justice Clarence Thomas brings up Biden in his memoir (read this, very telling):
So, besides having hair plugs, what's so special about this big-mouthed, smooth-faced, typical, "old-politics", lying politician?
Well, he's supposed to be "the" aggressive guy for Democrats. But surely he has shot himself in the foot so many times, what with his past racist Indian remarks and his comments about the Presidency not for "on-the-job training," that we'll put this so-called "attack dog" on a leash.
"What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation...This young man named Barack Obama...came over to this country. He met this woman...(who) had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided...it might...be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."
He forgot to mention that this took place in 1965. He was born in 1961.
"Just words, just speeches..."
But now Biden has gone out of his way to upstage that minorly reported-on gaffe.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'"
That's right. Hoover was President when the stock market crashed, and television was still experimental. Obviously he was trying to tie Obambi to FDR, but no such luck. In fact, terrible luck, with the gaffe streak Biden's had lately:
- He's also said that Hilldog would have made a better VP than he.
- He asked, at a rally, a state legislator to "stand up...let 'em see you." Unfortunately, he didn't actually know who in the heck he was talking about. The legislator was in a wheelchair. This was promptly followed with, "Ohhh, my God."
- When a reporter asked him about that terrible "McCain can't e-mail" ad, Biden said it was terrible. Later, after actually seeing the ad, he called it "OK", and once again called the McCain campaign a bunch of invidious liars.
Oh, Joe Biden. What a crack-up. No wonder the internets are buzzing with rumors that Obama's going to drop him on or around October 5th, due to a manufactured alibi that Biden has "health problems". Then they'll go with Hillary.
Of course, there's so much more that I could write about Joe Biden.
That the President of Iraq said that Biden's "plan for Iraq" drafted a while ago would have been a terrible foreign policy disaster, that it would have been impossible to execute and it could have resulted in ethnic cleansing.
That SC Justice Clarence Thomas brings up Biden in his memoir (read this, very telling):
Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “ ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would . . . strike down laws restricting property right.’ ” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”
Since I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “it has been quite some time since I have read Professor Macedo. . . . But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court or that we should have any form of activism on the Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer. Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearings had loaded all of my speeches into a computer, and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.
Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “Smiling Faces Sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing, I’d have to keep my guard up.
Ken Duberstein, a Washington lobbyist who had volunteered to help steer me through the confirmation process, called the next morning to say that Joe Biden wanted to talk to me before the vote. I called the Judiciary Committee cloakroom, and after a brief wait, Senator Biden came on the line. I held the receiver sideways so that Virginia could hear him speak as we stood together in the kitchen. The senator said that he was torn over his decision and had actually brought two statements with him to the committee meeting that day, one for me and the other against. He had decided to oppose me. He’d voted to confirm Justice Scalia, he explained, and now regretted it; he thought it was possible that I might turn out like Justice Scalia, so he couldn’t vote for me.
“That’s fine,” I said. “It doesn’t matter to me whether I’m confirmed or not. But I entered this process with a good name, and I want to have it at the end.”
“Judge, I know you don’t believe me,” he replied, “but if any of these last two matters come up, I will be your biggest defender.” (The other matter to which he was referring was the leak of my draft opinion.)
He was right about one thing: I didn’t believe him.
So, besides having hair plugs, what's so special about this big-mouthed, smooth-faced, typical, "old-politics", lying politician?
Well, he's supposed to be "the" aggressive guy for Democrats. But surely he has shot himself in the foot so many times, what with his past racist Indian remarks and his comments about the Presidency not for "on-the-job training," that we'll put this so-called "attack dog" on a leash.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Splendid Little Revolution
Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked.
At first, people thought "Anonymous" did it. Yeah, the same Anonymous whose campaign against Scientology I supported. And in some ways, still do.
But it wasn't Anonymous. It was one guy, pretending to speak for Anon. Hello: Anonymous is not your personal army. And it's especially not a cover you can blame your treachery on.
David Kernell is his name, son of a Democrat legislator in Tenn. Apparently, from what we can gather, he's an Obama supporter. Now, why on Earth would he do something like this?
"I didn't find anything that I could use to incriminate her or derail her candidacy, like I had hoped," paraphrasing the alleged individual. The latest evidence shows that he tried to get into Palin's associates' e-mail accounts as well.
Now, the liberals can go on all day about how "Oh, it's Palin's fault, she had a secret Yahoo e-mail address. For a public official, that's illegal. Is it illegal? I hope so." We can sidestep those charges for now. For a disturbing trend has arisen.
At least 3 different times, now, Obama supporters have turned thuggish, as Ace's blog implies. Twice, WGN has given interviews to anti-Obama book authors. Twice, the WGN station has been flooded with Obama supporters directed by his campaign to "fight the 'smears'", by complaining and harassing, perhaps even threatening the station and the interviewee. And now this.
Where could this have come from? Well, one must not look to far to find the influences the Obama campaign and Obama himself dote upon. Namely, Obambi's chief influence, Saul Alinsky.
Yeah, the socialist Saul Alinsky who dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to Satan. Obama was trained in the Alinsky front by Alinsky's own footsoldiers, who learned from the master himself, all in his community organizing days. Tactics for "community agitating", tactics for revolution.
Now, if the trend continues (and Obama has done nothing but encourage it, in fact he's told his supporters to get in Republicans' faces), and it more than likely shall, we may have a splendid little revolution on our hands. And to the hacker of Governor Palin's e-mail:
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
PS: Today was a large voting drive on the campus green. I wanted to get some pictures with a cardboard Obama, but the jerk who monitored me wouldn't let me pretend to punch it in the face, strangle it, or hold a sign next to it with an arrow, saying "ask me about my socialism." Also, I had a lively discussion with the Green party senatorial candidate, Bob Kinsey. I personally think he's a nice, guy, just a little disconnected from reality and it bit over-the-edge.
There was a soapbox there, too, with a free megaphone. I heard some idiots rant about "all the parties being the same," and "don't you f*cking care about this election?" (to the latter, I shot back "Yeah, that's why I'm voting for McCain.") I wanted to get up there, but I had lunch with Andrew and his roommate, and we came back too late to sign up. Bollocks.
PSS: The production's going great, as well. Theatre kids can get pretty annoying, I'll admit, but they're pretty nice people. At least, so far.
At first, people thought "Anonymous" did it. Yeah, the same Anonymous whose campaign against Scientology I supported. And in some ways, still do.
But it wasn't Anonymous. It was one guy, pretending to speak for Anon. Hello: Anonymous is not your personal army. And it's especially not a cover you can blame your treachery on.
David Kernell is his name, son of a Democrat legislator in Tenn. Apparently, from what we can gather, he's an Obama supporter. Now, why on Earth would he do something like this?
"I didn't find anything that I could use to incriminate her or derail her candidacy, like I had hoped," paraphrasing the alleged individual. The latest evidence shows that he tried to get into Palin's associates' e-mail accounts as well.
Now, the liberals can go on all day about how "Oh, it's Palin's fault, she had a secret Yahoo e-mail address. For a public official, that's illegal. Is it illegal? I hope so." We can sidestep those charges for now. For a disturbing trend has arisen.
At least 3 different times, now, Obama supporters have turned thuggish, as Ace's blog implies. Twice, WGN has given interviews to anti-Obama book authors. Twice, the WGN station has been flooded with Obama supporters directed by his campaign to "fight the 'smears'", by complaining and harassing, perhaps even threatening the station and the interviewee. And now this.
Where could this have come from? Well, one must not look to far to find the influences the Obama campaign and Obama himself dote upon. Namely, Obambi's chief influence, Saul Alinsky.
Yeah, the socialist Saul Alinsky who dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to Satan. Obama was trained in the Alinsky front by Alinsky's own footsoldiers, who learned from the master himself, all in his community organizing days. Tactics for "community agitating", tactics for revolution.
Now, if the trend continues (and Obama has done nothing but encourage it, in fact he's told his supporters to get in Republicans' faces), and it more than likely shall, we may have a splendid little revolution on our hands. And to the hacker of Governor Palin's e-mail:
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
PS: Today was a large voting drive on the campus green. I wanted to get some pictures with a cardboard Obama, but the jerk who monitored me wouldn't let me pretend to punch it in the face, strangle it, or hold a sign next to it with an arrow, saying "ask me about my socialism." Also, I had a lively discussion with the Green party senatorial candidate, Bob Kinsey. I personally think he's a nice, guy, just a little disconnected from reality and it bit over-the-edge.
There was a soapbox there, too, with a free megaphone. I heard some idiots rant about "all the parties being the same," and "don't you f*cking care about this election?" (to the latter, I shot back "Yeah, that's why I'm voting for McCain.") I wanted to get up there, but I had lunch with Andrew and his roommate, and we came back too late to sign up. Bollocks.
PSS: The production's going great, as well. Theatre kids can get pretty annoying, I'll admit, but they're pretty nice people. At least, so far.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
A Primer For The Week
The campaign "silly season" (as Barack Obama so eloquently put it) has indeed begun.
How incredulous it seems, then, that Barry Soetoro would hit it off with such a bang? After railing against "campaigns of cynicism"?
Let's talk a bit about hypocrisy.
For starters, refer to Obama's latest accusations to a John McCain ad. The ad, well-constructed and factually accurate, points to Obama as having almost no record on education, whether reform or legislature-wise, except the paper trail of pushing a bill that would have taught kindergarteners and grade schoolers non-abstinence sex education. Not the brightest idea in the world.
So what does Obama do? Well, he continues his trend of calling McCain a "liar". Yes, that's right. Annenberg's Factcheck.org (which describes itself as nonpartisan but is so obviously in the tank for Obama that it's disgusting) attempts to refute the McCain campaign's ad. In doing so, this infuriated the National Review Online, which has posted the most concise account of the fiasco so far, advantage McCain.
But this isn't anything new. Obama called the NRLC "liars" when they pointed out that Obama himself lied when he said that he would have voted for a "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" that had the same language as the federal version. He voted against a second version of the bill, which has been shown to be the same as the federal version. In other words, he was for the execution of abortion-surviving babies, no matter what.
The buck doesn't stop there. Obama's campaign, after its announcement that it would "plan sharper attacks for the issues that matter, to paint McCain as 'out of touch'", immediately put out an ad chiding McCain's lack of experience with...sending e-mail. That's right, he can't run the country if he doesn't send e-mail. Wait, I think there's a list of presidents somewhere who weren't adept at sending e-mail, either. Here it is.
George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
So, the only president who did send e-mail was...George W. Bush? How does that figure?
That's beside the point. Recently, Jonah Goldberg unearthed a 2002 Boston Globe article that explains how McCain's war injuries make it difficult for him to comb his hair, dress himself, and yes, use a keyboard. Now we know that Barack's making fun of disabled people? I take offense. This really sticks to the issues, guys.
Now, Obama's been going on about issues a lot, lately. Like the issues of how many houses McCain owns, how McCain shares a lot of personal attributes with Bush, and what "lipstick on a pig" really means. Issues that really matter to the American people. Issues...that we care about deeply.
Of course, the Obama campaign has harems of reasons to be scared. Anyone seen the polls, recently? McCain is leading the national average. He's winning in Ohio and Wisconson. He's winning Colorado by 2 points, and is in a dead heat in the always-Dem Minnesota. In New York, he increased his standing by 18 percentage points, now within the 5-point range of Barack Obama. In California, he's also within a 9-point margin, unprecedented for a Republican. And perhaps best of all, he's got a very comfortable lead in Florida. So comfortable that Obama's campaign has packed their bags and moved.
So while we're in an Era of Good Feelings for now, take a look at these articles. I found them quite interesting, some required reading.
Obama's Stealth Socialism- Pointedly reveals Obama's socialist leanings from youth to present.
Reaganomics (supply-side economics)- Describes why conservative economic policies of the Reagan era work, and still work, and need to be reformed back to the original supply-side method (today's economic policy is very different, with the enormous government spending combined with unnecessary tax cuts).
It's Over For Obama- Written by "The Architect" himself, Karl Rove, explaining why Obama's chances are severely waning.
American Thinker A source for debunking any and all Palin myths, lies and distortions about herself, her family, and her record. Also great on the Obama-Rezko links.
Who Lied About Iraq?- Destroys the popular notion that Bush lied, people died.
Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts- A very hefty read, but one to use against liberals that suggest the Bush tax cuts screwed us all over and pandered to the wealthy.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of all the good stuff that's out there at present; as for me, this post is done. Good night, and good luck.
How incredulous it seems, then, that Barry Soetoro would hit it off with such a bang? After railing against "campaigns of cynicism"?
Let's talk a bit about hypocrisy.
For starters, refer to Obama's latest accusations to a John McCain ad. The ad, well-constructed and factually accurate, points to Obama as having almost no record on education, whether reform or legislature-wise, except the paper trail of pushing a bill that would have taught kindergarteners and grade schoolers non-abstinence sex education. Not the brightest idea in the world.
So what does Obama do? Well, he continues his trend of calling McCain a "liar". Yes, that's right. Annenberg's Factcheck.org (which describes itself as nonpartisan but is so obviously in the tank for Obama that it's disgusting) attempts to refute the McCain campaign's ad. In doing so, this infuriated the National Review Online, which has posted the most concise account of the fiasco so far, advantage McCain.
But this isn't anything new. Obama called the NRLC "liars" when they pointed out that Obama himself lied when he said that he would have voted for a "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" that had the same language as the federal version. He voted against a second version of the bill, which has been shown to be the same as the federal version. In other words, he was for the execution of abortion-surviving babies, no matter what.
The buck doesn't stop there. Obama's campaign, after its announcement that it would "plan sharper attacks for the issues that matter, to paint McCain as 'out of touch'", immediately put out an ad chiding McCain's lack of experience with...sending e-mail. That's right, he can't run the country if he doesn't send e-mail. Wait, I think there's a list of presidents somewhere who weren't adept at sending e-mail, either. Here it is.
George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
So, the only president who did send e-mail was...George W. Bush? How does that figure?
That's beside the point. Recently, Jonah Goldberg unearthed a 2002 Boston Globe article that explains how McCain's war injuries make it difficult for him to comb his hair, dress himself, and yes, use a keyboard. Now we know that Barack's making fun of disabled people? I take offense. This really sticks to the issues, guys.
Now, Obama's been going on about issues a lot, lately. Like the issues of how many houses McCain owns, how McCain shares a lot of personal attributes with Bush, and what "lipstick on a pig" really means. Issues that really matter to the American people. Issues...that we care about deeply.
Of course, the Obama campaign has harems of reasons to be scared. Anyone seen the polls, recently? McCain is leading the national average. He's winning in Ohio and Wisconson. He's winning Colorado by 2 points, and is in a dead heat in the always-Dem Minnesota. In New York, he increased his standing by 18 percentage points, now within the 5-point range of Barack Obama. In California, he's also within a 9-point margin, unprecedented for a Republican. And perhaps best of all, he's got a very comfortable lead in Florida. So comfortable that Obama's campaign has packed their bags and moved.
So while we're in an Era of Good Feelings for now, take a look at these articles. I found them quite interesting, some required reading.
Obama's Stealth Socialism- Pointedly reveals Obama's socialist leanings from youth to present.
Reaganomics (supply-side economics)- Describes why conservative economic policies of the Reagan era work, and still work, and need to be reformed back to the original supply-side method (today's economic policy is very different, with the enormous government spending combined with unnecessary tax cuts).
It's Over For Obama- Written by "The Architect" himself, Karl Rove, explaining why Obama's chances are severely waning.
American Thinker A source for debunking any and all Palin myths, lies and distortions about herself, her family, and her record. Also great on the Obama-Rezko links.
Who Lied About Iraq?- Destroys the popular notion that Bush lied, people died.
Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts- A very hefty read, but one to use against liberals that suggest the Bush tax cuts screwed us all over and pandered to the wealthy.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of all the good stuff that's out there at present; as for me, this post is done. Good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
I just RickRolled all of Denver
OK, I'm a bit ecstatic right now. I'm watching this really crappy public access TV show where this dude is trying to play any song that the audience tells him to. I texted "Play Never Gonna Give You Up by Rick Astley", and he went to Youtube, apparently since he didn't know what the song was. All of a sudden, on the screen--
"Doo doo, doo doooo, we're no strangers to love..."
Granted, it's not really a Rick Roll to the host, anyway. But I think it's the closest anyone's come to doing it to a city.
Now he's playing the song by himself, albeit crappily. Though it's his best performance of the night.
"Doo doo, doo doooo, we're no strangers to love..."
Granted, it's not really a Rick Roll to the host, anyway. But I think it's the closest anyone's come to doing it to a city.
Now he's playing the song by himself, albeit crappily. Though it's his best performance of the night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
