"Soldiers dying in Iraq are dying to defend the US against terrorism as a victory in Iraq is a victory in the war on terror. They are dying to defend freedom and democracy in the US and to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq. They are dying for the interests of the US, her allies, and by extension, all Americans (whether they understand it or not). They are not dying for Haliburton, oil, or any other ridiculous shit / slant the anti-war types or conspiracy theorists want to spin. Haliburton is a company (among many others, both US and foreign) that seized a chance to profit in REBUILDING Iraq. There is a big difference between that and war-profiteering. Haliburton did not start the war, terrorists and those that support them did. Putting the chicken before the egg just won’t fly."
"[B]efore you [Europeans] write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso - and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined,
host 25 or 30 of the world's finest universities and five or six of the world's best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world's most vibrant economy, are the world's only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on
the moon and sent our robots to Mars - may I suggest you stop frothing at
the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?"
"Democracy may have been invented in Greece, but cowardess was invented in France where it lives and thrives to this very day."
"I'm referring to the Iraqi terrorist bastard fighters. The ones liberals insist are either not in Iraq, or are there by the thousands, depending on which liberal you listen to."
"How is it that the Left can believe absolute crazy shit, like the Bush-Saudi Arabian money connection, or the even worse and totally false Bush-bin Laden connection (based on 100% lies) and look at you straight and say there was absolutely no way that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had ties?"
I, of course, suspected this all along. Why else wouldn't he release them during the election year. Surely if he were the intellectual and Bush were the moron, his grades would've just reinforced that.
Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.
His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 — his highest grade — in political science as a senior.
"I always told my dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said in a written response to reporters' questions. He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying.
Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade.
In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.
Is it really that hard to find someone with a higher grade average than 77 to run for president against Bush, especially if you're going to paint him as stupid?
Has anyone seen the clips they've shown of this guy on the news? I can't get enough of his accent. I don't know if he's Scottish or what, but everytime he talks I have to listen because it's one of the coolest accents I've ever heard.
Other than that, it's just funny listening to him for what he has to say. Almost everything he said had absolutely nothing to do with the Oil-For-Food charges against him, only America's illegal war in Iraq.
Prior to the hearing, Galloway blasted subcommittee chairman Sen. Norm Coleman (search), R-Minn., and his colleagues as being a "group of Christian fundamentalists and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of neo-con George Bush and the right-wing hawks."
Those silly Jews. I'm glad there's at least someone us white, Christian, males can claim is oppressing us.
For whatever reason I've had a hard time finding the exact quote online, but FNC showed the clip over and over. Galloway addressed one of the senators (I'm going to assume it was D-MI Carl Levin since he's the one who responded) and asked him how he could sit there and lecture him on illegal activities when the Senator himself had voted in favor of the illegal Iraq war.
Here's the thing, the two Senators up there, Norm Coleman and Carl Levin, did not vote for the war in Iraq. Coleman hadn't even been elected yet and Levin voted nay. So Levin put him in his place by saying he hadn't voted for it and that it had nothing to do with the charges against Galloway. I'd say he was thoroughly owned.
WASHINGTON — U.S. employers created a surprisingly large 274,000 new jobs in April and added more workers in each of the two prior months than first thought, the Labor Department (search) said Friday in a report that eased fears about economic growth.
The April jobs total far outstripped Wall Street economists' expectations for 170,000 new jobs.
Further underlining the surge, the government said 93,000 more jobs were created in February and March than it previously reported — 146,000 in March instead of 110,000 and a whopping 300,000 in February instead of 243,000.
The unemployment rate, however, which is calculated from a separate survey, was unchanged at 5.2 percent in April.
How long has this on and off thing been going on? It seems like one month there's strong job growth and the next month there's decent job growth, then the next month it's right back to strong, lather, rinse and repeat.
I just don't get how people can think the economy is worse now than it was a couple years ago.
I have to get my fix somewhere, and this whole fillibuster stuff just isn't doing it for me. Thankfully, the British decided to hold an election on my behalf. I've got the BBC's little desktop shortcut up and watching Labour gain and gain and gain.
At the moment the score is 233 Labour, 48 Conservative, and 25 Liberal Democrats.
As a conservative American, I'm torn between Labour and the Conservatives. On one hand we have the chummy relationship between Bush and Blair which results in great U.S./U.K. relations. On the other hand, we have to remember that Blair is a centre-left candidate. So I have to root for the conservatives in this one. Unfortunately, looking at the seat tally, I don't see how it's possible for the conservatives to pull out a win. But I still just love the prospect of a Britain fighting the EU.
It's great not having much at stake in this election, it makes it more fun.
April 23, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — A fuming John Kerry had "daggers in his eyes" after a fellow Democrat promoted Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — suggesting the 2004 loser is green with envy at a potential rival.
The flap was touched off two weeks ago when Clinton spoke at a Minneapolis Democratic dinner and Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) told the cheering crowd that he was introducing "the next great president of the United States."
Two days later, Kerry came over to Dayton on the Senate floor "with daggers in his eyes and said, 'What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?' . . . He was very serious," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Clinton's office declined comment but a friend tut-tutted: "Boys will be boys, even when they are senators."
Kerry spokesman David Wade tried to make light of the story, claiming "some lines must have gotten crossed in his retelling of this particular conversation" — and insisted they were mostly "joshing" about hockey.
But Dayton's office says the "daggers in his eyes" report was accurate and Dayton has no quarrel with it.
At the April 9 Minnesota dinner, Dayton made it clear that touting Clinton for president was his own idea, saying it was an "unauthorized" introduction — but she did nothing to dispute it.
Dayton was also quoted as offering a blunt explanation — not very flattering to Kerry — about why he favors Clinton for 2008 after backing Kerry last year: "As Winston Churchill once said, I'd rather be right than consistent."
There's nothing I love more than a democratic party divided against itself. Unfortunately Kerry is too much of a loser to garner support from much of the party.
Okay all ye nonbelievers. No, I'm not talking about non-Christians, I'm talking about you St. Malachy's prophecy nonbelievers.
So let me set up the scene for you here. I get to my computer at about 8:00 p.m. EST and as usual I check my sitemeter stats. Ever since I switched over to sitemeter from extremetracker, I've had a steady stream of 15-20 hits a day. Back in the extremetracker day, my record was 373 unique hits on none other than election day. In the past few days I've seen a considerable increase in hits to about 30-80 due to google searches about the pope and Malachy. Soooo, you can imagine my suprise when I get home today to find almost 1,000 hits, probably more by the time you read this. My first instinct is that I've just hit another jackpot like I did with the "Military Hand Signals" post, however, something didn't seem right. Off to foxnews.com I went and sure enough.....
I told myself going into this that I was not going to believe in these prophecies unless the pope took the name Benedict. Sure enough, Benedict it was. As with any prophecy, I'm still skeptical, but it's getting a little creepy.
After writing this, I noticed that Wikipedia (Which, for those of you who don't use it, is probably the best resource for anything you'd ever need to research anywhere) had added a little more to the Prophecy of the Popes section:
The next motto is Gloria Olivae, the glory of the olive. Prior to the papal conclave, this motto led to speculation that the next pontiff would be from the Order of Saint Benedict, whose symbols include the olive branch. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, selected in April 2005, is not a Benedictine, but did pick Benedict XVI as his papal name, which might be regarded as a fulfillment of this prophecy.
Yet there can also be a different meaning. Pope Joseph had his birthday on the 16th April and on that day is celebrated the feast of Saint Benedict Joseph Labre` (26 March 1748 - 16 April 1783), also known as the Holy Pilgrim. His first name was already Joseph and together with Benedict, which he has now assumed, his Christian namesake is now complete. Moreover, the Order of St Benedict is also known as that of the Olivetans.
A part of me wants to believe that he took the name because of Malachy's predictions. He didn't want to screw up the chain. Not being "olive-skinned" or connected to Israel would really hurt the prophecy's case. For those of you wondering whether or not it's a forgery, you can check out LynneKramer's comment.
As Convinced said, we need to be paying close attention to this next pope. This Benedict guy is pretty old. At 75 years he's just about 10 years shy of the late John Paul II. So I'm not really seeing this papacy lasting too long. So when this guy goes, remember Malachy. Any Peter the Roman connection to that last pope and I am officially freaked out.
This isn't political, or at least not entirely. The following people happen to be pissing me off at the moment, and I've just got to let my millions of readers know about it.
Paula Abdul sucks. Yes people, I watch American Idol. I don't know why, because it really is a horrible show, but I can't help it. Unless Bo and Carrie get voted off, I have to keep watching. But back on track, as the 10s of millions of people who watch the show know, Paula Abdul hasn't said anything negative or even constructive in the show's 4 seasons. Every time she says something I feel obligated to yell at the screen "WHY IS THIS WOMAN STILL ON THIS SHOW?!?" Then there's that clap, THAT HORRIBLE HORRIBLE CLAP SHE DOES!! ARGH!! For those of you who haven't seen it, I want you to stretch your arms all the way out in front of you and extend every finger on your hands as far upward as you can. Now bang your palms together. If a retarded penguin could clap, that's how it would do it, which makes me wonder if a retarded penguin would actually make a better judge than Paula Abdul.
[b]The People Running Fox News[/b]
Fox News and probably the rest of the media sucks. I say Fox News because that's usually the only news channel I watch, so I don't really know what CNN and MSNBC are going on about. About 70% of the news I see on FNC is about some trial. Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and I'm sick of it. Even if Michael Jackson molested all those little boys, does he really need hours and hours of television every day dedicated to that? We either need to get a jump start on the 2006 elections or declare war on another country because I don't know how much more of this I can take.
[b]Republicans who voted in favor of the Schiavo Bill[/b]
Okay, they don't suck, but they pissed me off. I didn't want Terri to die but what were you guys thinking? Did you actually think the country would approve of Congress intervening in personal matters? I guess this is what happens when the media (another reason they suck) gets all hyped up about a family's personal life. You know what ended all that talk about the death of the Democratic party? This. It all stopped after this.
[b]Every single current artist on the iTunes top songs list[/b]
Way to kill music. Yes, I like rock. I prefer heavy metal, but hard rock, alternative rock, grunge, and even punk rock will do. I'm watching Headbangers ball as I'm writing this. So maybe I'm out of the mainstream, but it's my list of people who suck, so I could care less. The reason I'm watching Headbangers ball is because there is ONE HOUR A WEEK on cable television that is dedicated to actual rock. It's all hip hop, pop, and this emo crap. I like some rap and some pop, but I don't like this much of it. I guess this is our decade's disco. Somebody please kill it.
Eh, that's enough for now. I'm tired of thinking of people who suck. If you disagree with me, it doesn't really matter. Now I'm off to read LynnKramer's comment.
A 10th Century Irish bishop - St. Malachy - predicted every pope that would preside over the Catholic Church.
Almost ten centuries ago, Malachy predicted this pope would be noted by an eclipse of the sun.
In an eerie coincidence, John Paul II was the only known pope to be born on the day of a solar eclipse.
But the prophetic link doesn't end there. Pope John Paul II will be buried this Friday during another solar eclipse.
Story Continues Below
Astronomers say that on Friday, the day of the Pope's funeral, a partial solar eclipse will blot out most of the sun and darken a wide area of the world, from the South Pacific to the Western Hemisphere.
Solar eclipses are not unusual. But what makes this coming Friday's eclipse notable is the fact that there was a near total eclipse of the sun seen across Europe on May 18, 1920, the very day that John Paul II was born in Poland.
Adding fuel to the arcane speculation about these events is the prophecy of St. Malachy.
Malachy was discovered to have left behind a prophetic list of all future popes beginning with Pope Celestine II, whose papacy began in 1143 A.D., up to and including the 112th. The list includes John Paul and just two more popes who will follow him.
In his list of popes, he uses a single line in Latin identifying a characteristic of each pope.
The description applied to the 110th pope on his list - John Paul II - is "De Labore Solis" (Of the Solar Eclipse), which seems to add great weight to the validity of St. Malachy’s chilling prophecy: that the next two popes chosen to succeed John Paul II will be the last popes.
After the reign of the last pope, "Peter the Roman," St. Malachy wrote, Rome will be destroyed.
So this should be fun. The guy's successfully predicted every Pope up until now. You can give me all that postdiction stuff you want, but just let me believe this for a while.
So I look up the next prediction on wikipedia and get this:
Following John Paul II, only two popes remain in the prophecy. The next motto is Gloria Olivae, the glory of the olive. This motto has led to speculation that the next pontiff will be from the Order of Saint Benedict or will at least choose Benedict as his papal name. Others think that "olive" may mean that the new pope is somehow connected to Israel, because St. Malachy is known to have used the name "Olive" for that region. Also, Our Lady of Guadaloupe is described as being "olive-skinned" as are the peoples of Central America; several papabili currently hail from that area. Alternatively, less specific interpreters have predicted that the next pope will promote world peace. The self-proclaimed Pope Clemente Domínguez y Gómez of the Palmarian Catholic Church claimed that he was the glory of the olive.
It's a little easier to see how these predictions can be interpreted in any number of ways lending less credibility to them. "Promotes peace"? Come on, he's da freakin' pope. Now this olive-skinned thing seem pretty likely. There's all that talk about a South American pope. I don't know if any of the Papal candidates are from the Order of Saint Benedict, but there's gotta be one. As for Israel, I have not heard of a single plausible candidate for Pope from Israel, so I'm wondering how loose the term "connections" is in this case.
So if we get a South American pope who takes the name Benedict who has connections to Israel, remember Saint Malachy.
TOMBSTONE, Ariz. — They call themselves patriots, but critics call them everything from gun-toting rednecks to racists.
Hundreds of people were converging on Arizona's Mexican border Friday to ready for a month-long campaign to urge federal lawmakers to do more to stem illegal immigration (search).
The events have been organized by the Minuteman Project (search), a group that organizes volunteer civilian patrols on the Arizona/Mexico border to report illegal immigrant crossings to the U.S. Border Patrol (search).
Participants on Friday were rallying in Tombstone, Ariz., and taking part in an orientation.
Rallies and protests were planned throughout the weekend to call for stricter border enforcement.
About 1,200 people, mainly from the Southwest, were expected to attend events including stationing people along the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the next 30 days in a type of massive neighborhood-watch program.
I realize that I'm not as well versed in the law as I could be, but I'm pretty sure that sitting on the border shooting Mexicans that try to cross is illegal. Then again, if you shoot a Mexican crossing the border and nobody sees or hears it, who's going to do anything? In Arizona silencers are legal, so in theory, I think the vigilantes could kill as many Mexicans as they wanted with no reprecussion, it's like hunting man can finally be realized without joining the army.
I'm as against illegal immigration as the next guy, but come on.
I'm back from Kitty Hawk, and it's not the most exciting place in the world, but I got to hear plenty of Schiavo talk.
Like I told Red Tigress in one of these comment windows, I never had a firm opinion on this, and have usually been swayed by the POV of the person talking about it. But with nothing else to blog about, I might as well go on about this.
So we have a woman who's in a Persistent Vegitative State, at least according to most doctors, and shows no signs of ever coming out of it. The family wants to keep her alive and the husband wants to kill her.
In general, I think it should be the spouse's choice. You choose the person you marry, you don't choose your family. Some people make stupid decisions by marrying people who might try to kill them if they're ever in a PVS, but that's their own fault. In this case, on a personal level, I think Michael Schiavo should give custody of her to her parents who are apparently willing to give up everything to keep this girl alive. Michael's got a whole new family, and understandably doesn't want the financial burden of a vegetable, but I don't see why he couldn't just give custody to her parents.
I used to know why he wouldn't give up custody, but I can't remember. It probably had something to do with her wishes, but the guy contradicted himself on Larry King Live by saying he didn't know what Terri wanted. Everybody who claims to know that Terri wanted to die is a Schiavo, which rubs me the wrong way off the bat.
So...yeah...I'm not liking the whole case. The courts have probably made the right choice, but I'd much rather they reinsert the feeding tube for at least a little while just to review the case. If Jeb Bush does anything, it's probably political suicide. Doing something because protesters tell you to is almost always a bad idea.
Nader did say something I found interesting, suprisingly. I read an article a couple days ago where Nader was saying they banned anybody from even feeding her food or water through her mouth, which is very different from just pulling out the tube. When you ban people from giving her food orally, that's the court ordering she be starved to death, not just the court ordering she stop being helped. That I find wrong.
I feel I should say that the South Park episode on this was hilarious.
LONDON — Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters marched through central London (search) Saturday, past the American Embassy (search), to mark the second anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Demonstrations were also kicking off in other cities around Europe.
The protests were nowhere near as big as those held in February 2003, just before the war, when millions marched in cities around the world to urge President Bush (search) and his allies not to attack Iraq.
With international forces still facing a violent opposition in Iraq, protesters were divided about what to demand from leaders now. While some wanted a full troop withdrawal, others argued that that would leave Iraqis in a worse position than before the invasion.
"We got the Iraqis into this mess, we need to help them out of it," said Kit MacLean, 29, waiting near Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner before the London march began.
They can't even make up their minds about what they want anymore! The protesters are finally realizing you can't just abandon Iraq and expect everything to be hunky dory, but they keep protesting. Can anyone explain to me why they are still protesting? We already get that you oppoesed the war, so what are you trying to prove?
If it were the Germans, French, Russians, etc. doing it, I could rationalize it with their high unemployment rates and a bunch of people with nothing better to do, but the British?
Using the BMI to measure obesity in this country makes about as much sense as using someone's salary to determine their race.
So I took a stroll on over to the CDC's website to look for their obesity area. Sure enough it's under diseases, along with things like Cancer and Epilepsy. I figured that surely they would acknowledge this huge problem with the BMI, well, I was right. After digging a little, I found this:
Are athletes and other people with a lot of muscle considered to be overweight when their BMI is over 25?
According to the weight categories, any person with a BMI over 25 would be classified as overweight. This may not mean they have excess fat. Such categories are based on scientific findings that the risk for disease increases as BMI increases.
Most studies have examined the relationship between BMI and risk of disease. Therefore we do not know whether two people with the same BMI but different amounts of fat have different risks for disease.
It is important to remember that weight is only one factor related to disease. If you have questions or concerns about the appropriateness of your weight, please discuss them with your health care provider.
Am I reading this right? It's almost as if in their effort to defend the BMI's legitimacy, the CDC is actually insinuating that increased muscle mass is bad for you. I'm not a nutritionist, but that doesn't seem right.
So going back to the obesity section, I ventured into "Contributing Factors". Apart from overeating, working out seems like the next big contributing factor, so I find it curious that the CDC would fail to mention that as a contributing factor.
The FAQ section pisses me off. Nowhere to they mention muscle.
What is the prevalence of overweight and obesity among U.S. adults?
In 1999–2000, an estimated 30% of U.S adults aged 20 years and older — nearly 59 million people — were obese, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more. Source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000.
In 1999–2000, an estimated 64% of U.S adults aged 20 years and older were either overweight or obese, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or more. Source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000.
Walk outside your door and tell me if 2 out of 3 people you see look overweight. This measurement system is insane.
Why are so many people overweight or obese today?
There are a number of factors that influence overweight or obesity, including
Behavior—eating too many calories while not getting enough physical activity.
Environment—home, work, school, or community can provide barriers to or opportunities for an active lifestyle.
Genetics—heredity plays a large role in determining how susceptible people are to overweight and obesity. Genes also influence how the body burns calories for energy or stores fat.
It can't be that hard to add one more category to this:
Muscle Mass - our system is flawed and doesn't take into account a person's muscle mass and has in turn classified physically fit people like Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mel Gibson as obese.
Remember folks, we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic, and the only way out of it is getting rid of the BMI.
WASHINGTON — U.S. employers added more than a quarter-million jobs in February — the most in four months — in a bright sign that the labor market is on the mend. Wall Street rallied on the news, propelling the Dow Jones industrials to a 3 ½-year high.
At the same time, more job-seekers returned to the hunt, pushing the unemployment rate higher.
The latest picture of the country's employment climate, released by the Labor Department yesterday, showed that the nation's payrolls expanded by 262,000 last month. Gains were broad-based: Manufacturing, construction, retail, health care and business services were among the sectors seeing increases.
Check out the graph they give you. A consistent job gain would probably be better, but I kind of like not knowing what next month is going to bring. Will we gain 50,000 jobs or 500,000? You never know, which makes it so much more exciting.
On another note, I found this cool little tracker thing from Pourquoi Pas, you can see it to the right there. It was a little difficult maneuvering through the French website, but I did it.
I would visit democrats.com more often, but their page really doesn't offer a lot. So I decided to check the blog out as I'm sure I've done before, and only one thing about it catches my eye, the title.
Is it really appropriate for them to even use the word "ass"? I don't care if they do, but I thought ass was on the "List of Words Politicians Shouldn't Use". So you'd think they wouldn't use the word as a title for what I guess is the official democratic blog.
But to the main issue, I'm assuming they're using ass to mean donkey, the symbol of the Democratic Party. I had to google that to make sure they really were the donkey and I wasn't losing my mind. So why would they be kicking it? Shouldn't the republican slogan be "Kicking Ass"? If the blog were titled "Giving Republicans an Ass Kicking" that would make more sense. If you're kicking the ass, then it sounds like the donkey is on the bad end of the deal there.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong and as soon as I post this it will come to me, but that just seems all wrong.
WASHINGTON — President Bush's push to transform Social Security is in trouble, despite intense salesmanship designed to build support in Congress and with the public.
Democrats are united against the president on the issue. A new national poll shows the idea is losing ground with taxpayers. Many Republicans in Congress remain hesitant to promote letting workers under 55 privately invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes.
And Thursday, Bush's political challenge became more daunting as one of his key constituencies — economic conservatives — fumed at his new willingness to consider a tax increase to pay for the changes.
The president has called for a broad overhaul of Social Security, contending it will be bankrupt by mid-century. But the private accounts at the center of the overhaul come with a high transition cost — estimated at $1 trillion or more.
During the transition, less money would be paid into the system even as it paid out at current benefit levels. Bush said earlier this week that he would not rule out paying those transition costs by raising the current wage cap of $90,000 that can be taxed for retirement.
On Thursday, a number of conservatives said that directly contradicts Bush's earlier promise that he would refuse to raise taxes.
So I leave for a few days and Bush goes and starts "Kerrying" it up. I realize he's just putting it on the table, but that's bad enough. Everything was looking up. Conservatives were on top of the world, but Bush is thinking about sacrificing all that. Of course our little democrat friends are on board, which is hardly ever a good sign, so to quote Family Guy: "Come on, come on."
I'd complain more, but the Simpsons is on, the more political than ever Simpsons.
When you think about it, all the Deaniacs that were pissed off about Dean losing to Kerry got the last laugh. Did Dean have a shot against Bush? Of course not, but he got his name out there and is now in control of the democratic party. What did the democratic nominee for president get? Half a year of rigorous campaigning followed by a couple months of akward public appearances.
I guess this means I can start posting pictures like this one again:
WASHINGTON — New Democratic National Committee (search) Chairman Howard Dean (search) promised Saturday to rebuild the party in the most conservative regions of the country, help develop state and local organizations and let congressional Democrats set the tone on policy.
I can't say I think that's the smartest thing in the world. It wouldn't be that stupid if the most conservative regions of the country didn't happen to go to Bush by often 20+ percentage points or if the most conservative regions of the country didn't constitute 70% of the land area of the U.S. (rough estimate, don't hold me to it). I have a little Bush Country map to the right there.
Oh well, he's probably got something up his sleeve.
When I see Dean I think democrat. When I saw McAullife, I thought Tony Blair's evil twin. I can't quite put my finger on why I like Dean more than McAullife, but I do. Maybe it's just the way the two present themselves. Everything McAullife said pissed me off, not just because of the message but how he said it. Moore doesn't even do that to me.
Lets just hope Dean doesn't actually know what he's doing.
I haven't blogged in a while, so what better way to start off than with the Superbowl.
Every single team I rooted for lost. I'm a Broncos fan. For whatever reason, I wasn't paying attention for the first few games of the season, probably because they rarely air Broncos games here. Sure enough, the Broncos started off great. The second they started airing their games and I started watching, they went down in a blazing glory. Just when I had given up hope and stopped paying attention again, they somehow pull off a wildcard spot.
So I am sitting on the edge of my seat the entire game hoping the Broncos can pull it off against the Colts. Sure enough they lose by like 28 points or something. After seeing that beating, Manning seemed like a god. There was no way he was losing to the Patriots, and I didn't want him to. Anyone that beat my Broncos better go on to win the Superbowl. Along with the Colts I picked the Rams over Falcons, Vikings over the Eagles, and I never really chose between the Steelers and Jets (and it went into overtime, imagine that).
Everyone of my picks lost. So who did I choose the next round? Falcons over Eagles and Steelers over Patriots. Once again, all my picks lost. Who did I pick in the Superbowl? Eagles over Patriots, and ya'll know who won that one.
The football gods officially hate me.
Now, to the actual game.
I had always assumed McNabb was a good quarterback, although I never really watched many of the Eagles' games. I come into the game assuming he'd put up a good amount of rushing yards, and sure enough, my predictions were way off. I can give him credit for avoiding the sack, he's a big, agile guy and capable of throwing a guy off his back, but I didn't see him break out for more than a couple yards once. Then his throws, and what throws they were. High, low, straight into the hands of defenders, it was horrible. I'm a Jake Plummer fan, so I'm not usually one to talk when it comes to stupid throws, but these were STUPID throws! Even that second touchdown pass should've been knocked down, and it was an excellent catch by whats-his-name.
Last but certainly not least, the thing that had every single Eagles fan across America screaming at their TV, HIS CLOCK MANAGEMENT!!! I'm no quarterback, but something tells me that when you have 30 something seconds left on the clock and you're 3 points away from tying the game, YOU GO INTO A HURRY-UP OFFENSE!! What was that huddle and then walking to the line crap?!? Even when it was 2 minutes something, they were taking their time. No rush, it's only the Superbowl. Then when they finally do get a play off, he throws it straight down the middle of the field! TWICE!! You've got a better shot at winning by throwing it straight to a defender than you do up the middle of the field with no time outs.
At least TO came through. That superbowl loss rests squarely on the shoulders of Donnovan McNabb. The pathetic running game hurt the Eagles, but in the end, there is no doubt in my mind that any other quarterback that made it to the post season would've done a better job than McNabb.
Then the commercials. The eagerly awaited Superbowl commercials. I didn't really like em. The cat one was pretty funny, and the one where the guy throws the beer out of the plane and the pilot jumps after it was funny. Those were the only 2 I liked.
I might as well keep going. The Simpsons episode sucked. I like the Simpsons, but lately it seems to be getting less and less funny. Coincidentally it's happening in proportion to the amount of liberal messages being worked into them.
Fortunately I stayed up to watch the premier of American Dad. It started off slow but ended with the classic Family Guy humor that I can't get enough of.
Overall I'd rate this Superbowl Sunday a C- for lack of teams I liked, the loss of the team I was rooting for, no awe-inspiring plays, mediocre commercials, decent half-time show, although I'll take McCartney's Live and Let Die to Jackson's wardrobe malfunctions anyday, poor Simpsons performance, but a good episode of American Dad to save it from a D. It was still a good season, thanks to Roethlisberger's super-rookie year, Manning's record breaking, and the Patriots' annihilation of anyone who dared threaten their dynasty.
I have to say, I expected a lot more from the insurgents. 8 million people voted. 8 million! That's 8 million people standing there in lines vulnerable to attack, yet the terrorists could only manage to kill 44 (which I believe includes the terrorists themselves). So that means the insurgents still have 99.999995% of their job to complete.
Of course, we know what that means. The insurgency is disorganized. The insurgency doesn't have enough support to accomplish any large scale attacks. The Iraqi and coalition troops are doing a great job of cracking down on these guys. Then again, it could just be the whole shutting down traffic thing.
Okay, so I was watching FNC all yesterday and really late the night before, and I am sick and tired of Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo has always rubbed me the wrong way, but I don't know why. He did nothing but talk about how great the election was, how proud we should be of the Iraqis, how good a job our troops are doing, but I couldn't help but be sick of him. I feel guilty attacking the guy because he was being so nice, but it was just so so annoying.
Geraldo: "Today is just a historic day in Iraq. You can't help but feel so incredibly proud of the Iraqis who are finally electing representatives who will be held accountable by the people. The coalition troops and the Iraqi security force are just doing such an outstanding job at protecting the polling places. Cut to the footage of the polling places for a second. You see Iraqis cheering as they enter and it's just an amazing sight to behold. I am overcome with this amazing sense of pride in what is going on here. Against constant death threats they are making the long walk to the polling stations where coalition troops and Iraqi security forces are doing an incredible job. I'm here with [insert soldier's rank and name here] and I can't thank you enough for your service and the job your doing. The entire country appreciates what you're doing as do the Iraqi people. What do you think about the Iraqis finally being able to vote after years of political oppression?"
Soldier: "Well Geraldo, we're really glad that this day has finally come and we hope that it all goes over smoothly and there's a new Iraqi government up and running."
Geraldo: "It definitely looks like that will happen, and again, I can't thank you enough for all you're doing. Now if we can cut to the streets where Iraqis are walking to the polling stations. I can't express how proud I am of these Iraqis who are putting it all on the line to come out and vote today. It's really an amazing sight to behold. I just want to thank our troops for the amazing job they're doing......"
And on and on and on for hours. I wanted to watch the election, but I couldn't stand Geraldo. I agree with what he's saying, but he just wouldn't stop. What's he even doing in Iraq? Didn't they kick him out after his little sand incident?
Secondly, it is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But no one in the United States or in the world -- and I'm confident of what the world response will be -- no one in the United States should try to overhype this election.
....Because there are no WMDs in Iraq.
A kind of legitimacy. I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.
Remember the Bush ad that said "Pessimism has never created a job"? I guess that pessimism wasn't just some election thing, it's actually part of his personality....
RUSSERT: Will you run for re-election in the Senate in 2008?
KERRY: Tim, I'm not thinking about 2008 right now. I'm really focused on what we're doing now. I'm excited about what I'm doing now. There are any number of potential things that I may wind up doing, and I'm going to keep all my options open.
RUSSERT: Including running for president?
KERRY: I'll keep all my options open.
....then again, maybe this is just year 1 of his second campaign for president.
I usually respond to these things in the comment window, but I figured why waste precious time writing so much that nobody else would see.
Now, I thought maybe I was going crazy, because I have never met anyone to come to the conclusion that I am a narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist simply because I believe in God and believe that my god is the real god.
For everyone out there who believes in a god, any god or gods, do you believe that your god is the real one? Of course you do, you wouldn't be believing in that god otherwise, but please comment and tell Mr. Kurt here.
Check the comment section of this blog to see what I'm talking about:
Let me just catch ya'll up. I say "Considering muslims are a small minority, I like that the only god's name invoked by liberals was Allah." Fair enough right? I mean it's a factual statement, there's nothing wrong with that. So how could saying that make me a " narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist"? There is one more question I answered to get me there.
Kurt: "i'm assuming from your comments about "allah" that you're god is the true god and that is why you were glad that a liberal mentioned allah in his post."
Me: "I do believe my god is the true god, but I don't care if other people don't."
Can anyone else out there make this connection? Come on dude, this is all you're running off of. You're jumping the gun a little don't you think?
Now lets get right back in this thing.
Kurt: "You must just be ill-informed. There are gads of leftist Christians both in the U.S. and even more abroad -- particularly in Central America and South America. There are many, many, many more Christian leftists in Amerca than there are Muslims. I would research the statistics if I had time but this is just so well-known that it shouldn't be neccessary to do that legwork. I've heard this line before that the American press is more friendly to Muslim extremist than to Christianity. You are the one making the assertion so you are the one who needs to provide your evidence. You won't be able to do that because it simply isn't true..."
Yes there are gads of leftist Christians in the U.S., mostly because gads is such a vague term. I could care less if there are gads of anybody outside the U.S. because if they participated in the "Not One Red Cent" protest, they'd be hurting their own country. Now I'm not putting it past leftists to do something stupid like that, but they probably wouldn't.
The truth is, the people posting in favor of the "Not One Red Cent" protest are hardcore leftists. None of them mentioned God. One of them mentioned Allah. Say all you want about leftists being Christian but you can't change that.
The radical left is not Christian-friendly. Do I have to point you to our fellow tbloggers? Yes there are radical Christian leftists, just like there are republicans in the ACLU or black professional golfers. Only a fool would suggest that Christians are not significantly underrepresented among the radical leftists. Because Christians so vastly outnumber muslims in this country, you can't point to raw numbers to prove your point, because we're talking about proportions here.
Me: "I made one little remark about Allah"
Kurt: "Yes, and a very telling remark. It is these little remarks that are markers of your mindset and reveal more about your perspective than you would like it to reveal or that you are comfortable accepting yourself or just plain blind toward."
No, you just don't get it. It means exactly what it says. You can claim there is a hidden meaning there, but there isn't. It was just an observation. I have made plenty of them throughout my blogging.
Kurt: "Why bother so much with .001% of political views? Hitler is now used by the left in exact same way that conservatives have used the "communist" charge against liberals for decades..."
Me: "Conservatives use communist to mean anti-American and liberals use Hitler to mean genocidal maniac. There's a little bit of a difference. Not to mention liberals, or at least the vocal ones getting all the attention, often are communists. It's impossible for a conservative to be Hitler. That's why being called fascist doesn't bug me too much."
Kurt: "Impossible? Why is that? It is no more impossible for a conservative to become like Hitler than it is for a liberal to become like Stalin! That is just ridiculous statement. It should be impossible for either Hitler of Stalin to ever exists in America. I believe it is, in fact, impossible for this to happen."
It's impossible unless you believe Hitler can come back to life in the body of an American, or that he is still alive and has become an American citizen. I for one think that is for all practical purposes, impossible, maybe you don't. I have never called a liberal Stalin. I've never even heard a liberal called Stalin. I have never heard Clinton or Carter called Stalin. Maybe you have, but it's definitely not common, whereas I can't visit a liberal blog without seeing Bush compared to Hitler.
Me: "Conservatives use communist to mean anti-American and liberals use Hitler to mean genocidal maniac. There's a little bit of a difference. Not to mention liberals, or at least the vocal ones getting all the attention, often are communists."
Kurt: "What a self-serving and just plain inaccurate declaration! Liberals use Hitler to mean excessive Nationalism and an inclination toward the use of the military complex for political reasons. Conservatives use the charge of "communist" as a fail-safe attack on anyone seeking to regulate the excesses of corporatism that unchecked due to their protection from true market forces via government favor and, sometimes, via outright government protection from market forces."
I could easily go to the DU, but here's some quotes from fellow tbloggers: (quotes may not be theirs but from articles they reposted, but for our purposes it doesn't matter.)
"Whereas hitler's evil was more overt in its cruelty and sadism, Bush’s dark side is much more hidden and disguised, which makes it particularly dangerous." - CheckItOut
"It looks like current administration has studied Saddam, Hitler, and Stalins methods of judicial administration." - DianneMaire
"TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 was Adolf Hitler [link] ... In 2004, Herr Fuhrer Bushy-boy, the Mass-Murderer is given this distinction for he is truly a Fascist War Criminal of enormous proportions ..." - PatriotActs
Not to mention you got our definition of communist wrong. When calling liberals communist, it's more often than not about being enemies of the state rather than them being actual communists.
Me: " Saddam was a threat. Imminent threat, not really, even though he was planning attacks on the U.S. However, the only important people to really call the threat imminent were McLellan, who's just a press secretary, and Cheney, who's crazy. We may have been wrong about Iraq if by we you mean Americans and many foreign leaders both for and against the war, not just republicans. We did hold people accountable for intelligence failures, and liberals went crazy because we were blaming the intelligence community for intelligence failures rather than Bush."
Kurt: "You must not have read my statement very closely. I'm fine with our actions in Iraq. Having said that -- your facts are just wrong. Colin Powell and George Bush and Condi Rice made the specific and explicit argument that Sadaam was an "imminent" security threat to the U.S. Why would say otherwise? Heck, you can look up their pre-war speeches easily on-line. Taking out Sadaam and installing a democrocy in Iraq is the centerpiece of the neoconservative agenda. This has been the case since before 9/11. 9/11 gave them just enough opening to fit their plan into the mix under the guise of responding to terrorism. "
I know you're okay with Iraq, but, for the other stuff, link me. I'd like to know when Bush has ever called Saddam an "imminent" threat. I know he's called him a bunch of other kinds of threats, but I'd like to see that quote. As for Condi and Powell, I haven't been following what they've said too closely, but I have never heard them use the words "imminent threat" either.
I always thought killing gays, lynching blacks, or an M-16 in every home were the centerpieces of the neo-conservative agenda? Nobody wanted Saddam in power. Everybody wants, or I should say wanted, democracy in Iraq. So I wouldn't say that was a neo-con thing. Iraq was about WMDs. Yes, we didn't find them, I know. We would not have gone into Iraq, yet, had we not suspected him of having WMDs. It was WMDs that justified going in, not terrorism. Getting rid of terrorist training camps or a terror supporting dictator may have justified having gone in, but it was not our justification for going into Iraq in the first place. So it wasn't under the guise of responding to terrorism.
Me: "I like your view that people who believe in a god are narrow minded religious elitists. Please, explain how you arrived at this conclusion. But remember, you can only go off what I have said. Absolutely no assuming anything."
Kurt: " I didn't say that people who "believe in God" are "narrow-minded elitists". I said the people who believe in an special and exclusive truth about God are narrow-minded elitists. This shouldn't offend a believer because my accusation is just an extension of the logic of their beliefs. It isn't whether or not you "believe in God" that is relevant to my statements but it is *what you believe about God* that is relevant. Why aren't you more willing to say more about what you believe about God than just continuing to declare the you "believe in God"? You leave me to make assumptions because of your lack of being forthright and detailed about your beliefs. So, I'll ask again another way --
What do you believe about God and why? If you are not a Christian who adheres to the belief the the only path to salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, as the Lord and Saviour of the Universe, then just say so. If you are, just say so! I'm not the one being intentionally arcane about my beliefs -- you are. Most everyone I know believes Jesus Christ is the Saviour and worships, when they actually get to church, at a Christian church of some denomination. Interestingly, however, when I speak with them individually about the logical implications of their stated beliefs -- most of them are uncomfortable with the clear facts about their own religion. My agenda isn't to "out" you as a Christian. Of course, I can't imagine why a Christian would mind being "outed" for their beliefs. My agenda is to "out" exclusivity and the divisive influence of exclusive religion on society."
Where did this exclusive truth thing come from? I never said God came to me and told me to worship him or anything, but apparently you think I did. I don't know why you're thinking that.
I could tell you what else I believe, but I don't see why it matters. All that matters is I worship a god and believe that god to be the real god, like most of the world. I have never even said I was Christian. I haven't said the word Jesus to you at all. Will you reflect on that and see how many assumptions you have made? If I am not forthright about what I believe, that is not a "assume all you want about me for free" card.
How can I be a "narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist" if all you know about me is that I believe a god to be real. How is that narrow minded? How is that self-righteous? Sure, it's religious. How is that elitist? Maybe if I were saying, "Listen not to this 'science', ye peasants, for I the great Defensor know that it can all be explained away by Trangor the Almighty god!" Then you might have something.
I'm getting bored and it's getting late, so I'll end there.
Ya'll remember that whole thing about the 100 GOP vehicles that had their tires slashed on election day? I was thinking it could've been the GOP slashing their own tires to gain some sympathy points, but sure enough, it was just disobedient liberals.
MILWAUKEE -- The sons of a first-term congresswoman and Milwaukee's former acting mayor were among five Democratic activists charged Monday with slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans to drive voters and monitors to the polls on Election Day.
Sowande Omokunde, son of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Michael Pratt, the son of former Milwaukee acting mayor Marvin Pratt, were charged with criminal damage to property, a felony that carries a maximum punishment of 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The activists - all employees of the John Kerry campaign - are accused of flattening the tires on 25 vehicles rented by the state Republican Party to get out the vote and deliver poll watchers Nov. 2.
The GOP rented more than 100 vehicles that were parked in a lot adjacent to a Bush campaign office. The party planned to drive poll watchers to polling places by 7 a.m. and deliver any voters who didn't have a ride.
A criminal complaint said the defendants originally planned to put up Democratic yard signs, placards and bumper stickers at the Republican office in a scheme they called "Operation Elephant Takeover." But the plan was dropped when they learned a security guard was posted at the GOP office, the complaint said.
One witness told investigators the five defendants, dressed in "Mission Impossible" type gear, black outfits and knit caps, left the Democratic Party headquarters at about 3 a.m. on Nov. 2, and returned about 20 minutes later, extremely excited and talking about how they had slashed the tires.
Democratic Party of Wisconsin spokesman Seth Boffeli said the five were paid employees of Kerry's campaign, but were not acting on behalf of the campaign or party.
"This is not something we engage in, or encourage. We had to make it clear that this is something these individuals were doing on their own," Boffeli said.
Rick Wiley, state GOP executive director, discovered the vandalism on the morning of Election Day.
"It was unbelievable that people could stoop this low in a political campaign," he said. "I figured it had to be someone from the opposition. But I didn't think someone on the paid Kerry campaign would do this."
Wiley didn't say whether the vandalism prevented anyone from voting, but said poll watchers were about two hours late.
Moore attended the court appearance for her son, but declined to address the felony charge after the proceeding, saying only that she had to catch a plane. A message left on Marvin Pratt's cell phone was not immediately returned.
The judge denied a motion made by Omokunde's attorney, James Shellow, to dismiss the charges based on a flawed criminal complaint.
Also charged were Lewis Caldwell, Lavelle Mohammad, and Justin Howell.
As if keeping Nader off the ballot wasn't undemocratic enough. I want to know what those guys were thinking in the first place.
Liberal #1: "Satan be praised guys!! We should so totally slash some tires."
Liberal #2: "Dude, isn't that like....wrong?"
Liberal #1: "Wrong? Life is freakin' wrong man!"
Liberal #2: "But if people like...you know....see tires slashed, wouldn't they be all, 'we should vote for those dudes?'"
Liberal #1: "What are you turning fascist of something?!? Don't you know where those cars are going? The neo-con stormtroopers will load into 'em and go lynch black voters before they get to the polls!"
Liberal #2: "Dude, you are so like...smart and stuff."
I don't think they deserve 3 1/2 years in prison. I'd prefer just letting them off with a fine and forcing them to keep a huge Bush/Cheney sticker unaltered on the back of their car for the next year.
CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001 Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005
CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.
Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.
In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)
It's a new dawn for fair and balanced media. News stations like CNN and CBS will never be able to get rid of that liberal stigma, ever. Nothing short of making Rush and Coulter news anchors will help them, which is why they are doomed.
Air America is a failure and NPR is astonishingly boring, so the right controls the radio. We've even got the rock stations. I can't turn one on without hearing that we need to support the troops, which not directly an endorsement of either side is definitely helping the right.
The only place the left still controls is the internet, probably due to the rather large english-speaking international community. Or at least that's what I used to think. It seems throughout this past election year I kept hearing all these liberals complaining about the blogosphere. I don't remember hearing any conservatives complaining about it. So maybe, although that is the extent of my proof, we dominate the blogosphere. If that's the case, sweet.
Remind anybody of a certain Simpsons episode? Speaking of the Simpsons, what's with all the liberal propaganda they've been inserting into their shows?
WASHINGTON Even as plans to celebrate President George W. Bush's inauguration were taking final shape, the capital on Tuesday appeared more like a city under siege.
Hour by hour, the city of grand buildings and marble statues seemed to disappear behind curtains of steel security fences and concrete barriers.
Piece by piece, the massive security plan that officials promised would be the tightest ever in post-9/11 America began taking final shape despite the absence of any specific threat and seemingly without regard to the temporary inconveniences to local residents and visitors.
Utility crews with acetylene torches snarled traffic as they welded shut manhole covers along the route of the inaugural parade.
Fighter jets screamed across the skies, practicing for the pre-inaugural fly-by on Wednesday. Drivers found no-parking signs, temporary street closures and public warnings that 100 blocks of city streets near inaugural events would be restricted.
Pedestrians had it no better. Officials tightened the broad perimeter surrounding the Capitol, the parade route and the presidential reviewing stand near the White House as construction teams added more security fencing that put more of the city's public spaces off limits.
Elsewhere, security teams swept dozens of hotels and office buildings overlooking the parade route. Uniformed officers in cruisers from more than a dozen law enforcement agencies seemed to be everywhere at once.
Standing outside a security fence surrounding Lafayette Park, near the White House, Bonnie McKinney, an advocate for veterans benefits, was clearly annoyed. "We obviously have had a security issue in our country, but this is a bit ridiculous," she said. "As a veteran and the daughter of a veteran who died in service, I don't appreciate being disenfranchised from what I always considered my rights and freedoms."
She was hardly alone among residents asked to alter their routines to accommodate security plans and a long schedule of inaugural events, which began Tuesday afternoon with a program to honor American military forces.
Some tourists ignored the forbidding preparations around them. David Chater, a visitor from London, seemed unfazed. "The physical presence is noticeable," he said, "but it's not unexpected."
Government workers, who already had the day off Thursday, were being encouraged to work from home on Wednesday, a day before the inauguration. Local law enforcement officials warned motorists that many streets in the downtown area would be off-limits to vehicular traffic. Local officials said some bus routes would change and some subway stations would be closed.
"Given the hassle factor and the uncertainties, I'm going to work from home on Thursday," said Mit Spears, a lawyer and Republican whose office is on the fringe of areas restricted to traffic. "Driving in is just not worth it."
Federal aviation authorities prepared to impose a no-fly zone that will be in force for private aircraft from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday. Commercial flights will operate as usual, but the authorities are widening the no-fly zone for smaller planes, banning many flights from a radius of about 40 kilometers, or 25 miles, around the region's three airports: Reagan National, Dulles and Baltimore Washington International.
Thousands of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel from around the country poured into Washington all day Tuesday, reporting to command posts responsible for coordinated security, the authorities said.
And as final plans proceeded, meteorologists had bad news. At noon, when Bush raises his hand to take the oath of office, forecasters said, the temperature would be 34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1 degree Celsius, and snow may be falling.
Maybe the only reason I find this interesting is because I'm a republican and obsessed with firepower and order, or maybe it's because of all these kill bush hits I've been getting lately. I want to be sure this thing is safe. Here's some of the google hits I've gotten:
"i want to kill the president" (U.S.)
"i want to kill president bush" (Canada)
"kill bush" (se, sweden?)
"kill bush" (no, norway?)
"I want to kill the president" (Canada again)
Silly foreigners. I'm suprised Bush has really had that much of an impact on their lives. I've been getting a steady stream of these for a couple weeks, so lets just hope this thing goes off without a hitch.
Since our leaders don't have the moral courage to speak out against the war in Iraq, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Red Cent Day" in America.
Really? I seem to remember a certain election year in which half of our leaders did nothing but speak out against the war in Iraq. But then again, what do I know, I've only been blogging about it for an entire year.
On "Not One Red Cent Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.
So, does this include utilities? Last time I checked the large utility companies were not liberal powerhouses.
During "Not One Red Cent Day" please don't spend money, and don't use your credit card. Not one red cent for gasoline. Not one red cent for necessities or for impulse purchases. Nor toll/cab/bus or train ride money exchanges. Not one red cent for anything for 24 hours.
But without buying gasoline, the number of people attending protests will take a hit.
On "Not One Red Cent Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).
Am I the only one that expects people to just buy more the next day because they've exhausted even more of what they currently have? Won't that offset any damage done?
For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.
Why retail industry?!? Why did you lead us into an illegal and immoral war?!?
"Not One Red Cent Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.
I like how international corporations was stuck in there. Why would we want to hurt the international community as well? I thought they were against the war?
"Not One Red Cent Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.
I wonder if a protest like this took place during WW2 when politicians put troops in harms way. Some estimate? I like how they didn't even cite a source, just told us that "some" estimate it to be that high. For all we know 80,000 of those have died of natural causes.
There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Red Cent Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.
Finally, a protest for liberals too fat to attend protests....I know you guys are expecting me to say it, but I won't!
For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one red cent, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.
All this end the war crap I could understand, but give America back to the people? What does that have to do with anything? What does that even mean?
I filled out the survey wishing them luck, and then I stumbled upon other peoples' comments (half of which seem to be republicans). I need a laugh, so lets take a look:
Our country is turning into a 3rd world country. Where will the disaster relied money come from when we see more and more need for it in the US? Hopefully not to wealthy or from the Social Security money for retired people.(Seeing as how we are now considered a 3rd world country, I don't think we should be giving any more money)
Not only am I Not spending One Damn Dime on the 20th I have had my cable service removed, I will not PAY to support a news mis-information system (cable news). I also encourage everyone to Drop Public Television and Radio and join with the hundreds of thousands now enjoying Sirius Radio.(looks like someone from Sirius found a place to advertise)
In The Name of Allah Peace and Greetings, This makes more sense that ANYTHING I've seen so far! I'm on board 1000% I will be putting the info about this on my websites and yahoo groups! I really hope this catches fire with the people! Success to you in your efforts. Peace, Minister Salaam W. Allah(Considering muslims are a small minority, I like that the only god's name invoked by liberals was Allah)
I wasn't able to vote because im only 16 but i would have voted against george w. bush. hes a fucking asshole. This kind of boycotting is a good idea. (I'm convinced)
So we'll probably end up with a couple thousand people max not spending anything on consumer goods that they'll probably just buy more of the next day. There's nothing to worry about, but at least it'll be funny to watch.
As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark. Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business. But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government) — those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees. These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income. (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end — restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)
(CNSNews.com) - California could cut taxes, fully fund education and balance its budget by seceding from the United States, a newly organized group says.
The Committee to Explore California Secession, also known as Move On California, says it hopes to bring people together to consider the merits of an autonomous and independent California.
Those benefits would be both financial and political: "For every dollar Californians give to the federal government we see only 78-cents come back," the group's website says. It also expresses concern about "the diminishing voice of Californians in national politics" and "national trends that are tipping the balance in the direction of the religious conservative agenda."
[Contrary to what Move On California claims, California Republicans now chair six U.S. House committees, giving California more congressional clout than any other state, Fox News reported.]
Jeff Morrissette, the founder of Move On California, says the secession buzz began shortly after the November 2004 re-election of President Bush. But, he says, politicians from both parties object to subsidizing other states at a time "when those California tax dollars could be better spent at home to shore up our own fiscal problems."
According to Morrissette, if Californians could control the $40 billion that goes to pork barrel spending projects in other states every year, they could give state taxpayers a $20-billion tax cut and still have enough money to fully fund California spending priorities, specifically education, and balance the budget at the same time.
Morrissette says momentum is building for the California secession movement. "While secession may be a long-shot," he says, "it will succeed in bringing awareness to many of the grievances California has politically, socially and fiscally."
"Californians are getting pushed around and it's time we pushed back," he said.
Now I know there are a lot of people out there who will just say stupid things like this, but how many will form their own organization to carry it out?
Is it even legal to plot secession? Eh, it would be entertaining to say the least.
Let me just reiterate what I’ve stated elsewhere. This isn’t about starting a civil war. We are talking about peaceful secession and the creation of an independent California. Time will judge if a majority of Californians agree that independence is the best way. If and when that happens it is our desire that cooler heads prevail and a diplomatic, peaceful, political resolution comes about.
Maybe Mr. Morrissette is a little rusty in the history department, but last time somebody tried a peaceful secession and the creation of an independent nation, hundreds of thousands of people died.
You should read the rest of that first article, it's pretty funny. I want to see Californians try to secede, especially with Arnold as governor. That would be awesome. Especially watching the liberal pacifists faced with the choice of fighting for their "independence" or remaining true to their nonviolent nature.
A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender.
Story Continues Below
Austin Aitken told The Associated Press he watches "Fear Factor" often and had no problem with past installments where the reality show's participants ate worms and insects in pursuit of a $50,000 prize — but eating rats went "too far."
"It's barbaric, some of the things they ask these individuals to do," Aitken said Thursday.
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, resulting in being dizzy and lightheaded — and vomiting. Because he was disoriented he ran into a doorway, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."
Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.
Fear Factor has been on for years now. I've seen them eat everything from coagulated blood paste mixed with bile and worms, penises from every animal you can imagine, to live African cave-dwelling spiders, so this guy has no right to start complaining now.
What I love his how he described his experience. His blood pressure rises, and he's leaving the channel on. He starts getting dizzy, and he's leaving the channel on. He starts puking, and he's leaving the channel on. Disoriented, he runs into a doorway in his own house, never bothering to either change the channel or, heaven forbid, look away from the TV screen. Running into the doorway caused him great pain, which I'm sure it will when you sprint into a doorway in the middle of your unfamiliar home.
Maybe I should sue CBS over graphic images of things exploding.