"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."
-polymath
"[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?"
- LynnKramer
"Democracy may have been invented in Greece, but cowardess was invented in France where it lives and thrives to this very day."
- RedTigress
"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."
- noguru
"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?"
- reducto
The show is awesome. I'm not sure if This Just In went off the air or what, but this is my new favorite political show. It makes fun of both sides of the political spectrum, so don't think I'm reccommending republican propoganda to you. Last episode they made fun of Bush's intelligence, of course, and Kerry's snowboarding, which I thought was hilarious. The jokes were great, like one about Donald Rumsfeld's new fragrance Balls cologne. "Be sure to try our other brands Dick, Bush, and Colin."
It comes on Friday nights at 11:30 EST but I'm not sure when they show reruns. Now I'm off on vacation for the next 2 weeks.
I'm looking forward to getting back and seeing how the liberals here manage to make the June 30th handover into a bad thing.
Edit: I've got access to a really slow computer, so maybe I'll spend some time browsing, but I won't be posting until I'm back at my computer.
Apparently the comment screen wouldn't open on my blog for a few days there. The same problem I had with therealspartacus' blog, but it's fixed now. Thanks to noguru for letting me know.
I was listening to Sean Hannity earlier today, and he kept playing these sound files of Al Gore screaming about this and that, and it hit me that Al Gore sounds like all the footage of Klansmen preaching white supremacy.
Once again, it starts out slow, a lot like Hitler's speeches, but when he gets up to Rumsfeld (about 1:17 into it), you can picture him saying "And we need to get them Jews, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, out of the Whitehouse! And drive the black Condoleeza back to Africa!!" Because he uses that same tone. The same hateful tone that only exists in the darkest of hearts. He even has the stereotypical white supremacist look:
To be fair, a lot of politicians have the stereotipical white supremacist look, but a lot of politicians aren't out making hateful speeches.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Al Gore is a white supremacist, although technically I did, I'm just saying he reminds me of one with his hateful speeches. The old Al Gore bored me, this one scares me.
It's pretty much common knowledge people all over the country aren't happy with the choices they have for candidates, but what is the democrat approach to this problem? Well, it aint very Democratic. Their solution is to start eliminating what few choices we already have. Taking Nader off the ballot just makes the election less legitimate.
Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the national party, said Democrats would start in Arizona with a challenge to the validity of thousands of signatures that landed Nader on the ballot.
Cabrera made it clear that the orchestrated attack was payback for Nader's contribution to Al Gore's defeat in 2000 and a pre-emptive strike to keep him from undermining John Kerry in November.
"We have never been moved by Nader's repeated assertions that it was Al Gore and not he who was at fault for the outcome of the 2000 election, and apparently the Arizona Democrats seems unconvinced by his explanation as well," Cabrera admitted to the Associated Press.
Stu Rothenberg, editor of Rothenberg Political Report, told the Christian Science Monitor: "I think Nader is scaring the bejeebies out of the Democrats. They have nightmares of 2000 all over again."
Nader noted that the attacks against him had "a lot of mischief potential" because "there are very partisan Democrats" in the Arizona secretary of state's office.
"If this becomes a pattern of harassment in other states, we will ask John Kerry to disown and disapprove of these anti-democratic tactics," said Nader, who still hasn't learned that "democratic" is all too often an antonym for "Democratic."
'Exciting'
Meanwhile, black Democrats in Congress had a nasty row Tuesday with Nader when he rejected their demands that he quit the race.
"Shouts could be heard from inside the meeting in the basement of the U.S. Capitol with more than a dozen Congressional Black Caucus members, including Nader's voice, in what proved to be a rancorous session. One female shouted, 'You can't win,' to which Nader shot back an inaudible response," AP reported today.
Caucus chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., fumed: "It became abundantly clear to us that this was about Ralph Nader and we were sorely disappointed."
Democratic officials on Sunday claimed that Nader has promised not criticize the Democratic nominee but, rather, focus his ammunition on the Bush administration. Nader acknowledged the pledge but said it does not mean he will refrain from criticizing Democrats if they attack him. "I'm not going to avoid responding," he told The AP.
Click the little button on the left side of this page that's like a blue ball with a ring going around it. Go to referrer tracking 1. Ignore all the piss boy hits, although those have been paying off, but I have been getting nonstop military hand signals hits for the past few days. It's insane!!
I either hit the jackpot with that title or somebody out there is searching for military hand signals every 20 minutes and clicking on my site just to screw with me.
America is Fat Because of People Like Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson!!
This is old news, but it's new to me, so I'm posting it. I was just taking the BMI calculator down at consumerfreedom, and fortunately, I'm government approved. So I, of course, started playing with the numbers to find out what it said for the other categories, and now I'm not so pleased with my government approved rating.
A BMI of 30 or over makes you obese. Not just overweight, obese! Guess who has a BMI of over 30? Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Many of you may have forgotten what these little-known celebrities look like, so I'll give you some pictures.
All obese. Now you can imagine who fits into the overweight category.
Now, on top of the fact that these people are considered obese, the CDC is debating whether to classify obesity as a disease! McDonalds isn't supersizing meals, there's talk about fat taxes and warning labels for junk food, and it's all because of this hype surrounding the obesity epidemic.
Years ago, I had a gym teacher that was going on about how we were the fattest country in the world, so I raised my hand. The conversation went something like this.
Me: "Is that based on the Body Mass Index?" Teacher: "Yes" Me: "But with the Body Mass Index, if someone is simply muscular, they could be classified as overweight. Could it be that America is just getting stronger?" Teacher: "No"
After a quick no and looking frustrated, he took another question related to like bananas or something. Since then, I've always thought there was some secret formula for calculating how fat you were, and that the people conducting these surveys actually knew what they were talking about. I guess I was wrong.
The Coming of the Bush Landslide President Bush is going to win this November. Not only is he going to win, he’s going to win by a big margin. At least as big a margin as President Clinton won by in 1996 or his father won by in 1988. We might even be on the way to an LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan-style landslide for the President. I know that some will find this prediction absurd but remember: six months ago many of you were taunting me about the inevitable election of President Howard Brush Dean III.
Think about it for a second. Really think about it. The economy is booming: even the media can no longer deny it. By November the economy looks like it will be stronger than it was in either 1996 or 1984. Remember, there’s a great deal of lag time in the economy. The recession which began in October of 2000 wasn’t felt until a few months into 2001. In 1992 the recession was over by the time Election Day arrived, but the people didn’t know it. Nothing short of a Stock Market Crash or other, similar, calamity will cause enough damage to the economy so that the people will feel it before Christmas. And, in any case, the economy shows few signs of serious trouble. Increases in interest rates will eventually slow growth a bit, but not until long after we’re into President Bush’s second term.
John Kerry’s stopped talking about “Benedict Arnold CEO’s”, one of the more popular applause lines of his primary campaign. Now he blames his speechwriters for it. When he talks about the terrible economy now he just sounds silly, a lot like the California Democrats last year marching under their “No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante” banner. Most of modern politics, of course, is simply a form of artful lying. However, for those lies to be successful, they at least have to have the feeling of plausibility.
Last December the Democrats were all explaining how the election would have nothing to do with the war- it would all come down to the economy. Now they’re claiming that it’s going to be all about Iraq. But Iraq is fading as an issue as well. While much of the media and left-wing political establishment would like for it to be the new Vietnam, it simply isn’t. The people don’t feel that way. There are no mass demonstrations. No angry rioting. The anti-war movement, such as it is, consists of a mob of second-tier movie stars, angry hunch-backed communists handing out newspapers in flannel jackets, and drug-addled college students.
In the end, I think, the Abu Ghraib “torture scandal” will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. While, in the short term, some were so repulsed by the pictures as to begin to question their support for the war (and therefore their support for Bush) the contrast in reactions between that of the President and his opponents provided a helpful distinction that will stick in the minds of many voters. The President responded with indignation, yes, but also with steady leadership. The offenders were prosecuted and things went on. Everything was kept in perspective.
Compare this with the reaction of hysterical Democrats who tried to lynch the man who is widely-regarded as the best Defense Secretary in memory and who then compared the “torture” pictures to the September 11th attacks. While most Americans don’t exactly approve of torture, they didn’t feel too badly for the “tortured” terrorists either. The overreaction of the Democrats made them look weak and it made them look incapable of providing the sort of resolute leadership needed to win the war. By November no one but the sort of ultra-partisan Democrats who ramble on about their “MIHOP” and “LIHOP” scenarios will give a damn about Abu Ghraib, but they will retain their doubts about Democratic leadership in wartime.
Four other factors mitigate the potential political downsides of Iraq.
First, the transition to a new civilian government appears likely to go off in a relatively smooth fashion. While it is certainly likely that bombings and other attacks will continue, the swift action taken by US forces in April and May against both the terrorists in Fallujah and the militias of Moqtada al-Sadr seem to have forestalled any general uprising against the new government.
Second, the United States has lined up substantial international support behind the end of the occupation effort. The US mission in Iraq is now UN-sanctioned. This defuses the complaints of many moderate Democrats who focused almost their entire opposition to the war on this single point. With the French and everyone else onboard for the continuing mission the “we-should-have-done-th is-with-the-international -community” crowd will either have to shut up, line up, or sign up with the “no-blood-for-oil” folks. Since virtually all of John Kerry’s plan for Iraq has been to “internationalize” the mission, this renders many of his complaints moot.
Third, there’s a real sense of Iraq fatigue out there. People are interested in what’s going to happen in the future, but they’re not so interested in what happened in the past. The Democrats have already shot their wad on the “no WMD” and “no al-Qaeda links” departments. Any developments in these areas, therefore, are likely to favor the President (IE, any development likely to get wide play now would be the discovery of additional WMD or a public airing of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda).
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, John Kerry has nowhere left to move on Iraq. His single big idea (to “rejoin” the international community) has already been co-opted. He can’t move to the right of Bush, because he’ll lose his base. He can’t run too far to the left, because he’ll drive moderate Democrats into the Bush camp. He can’t run too close to Bush either, since he’ll anger his moody and unpredictable base by doing that as well. The best he can do is what Al Gore called for in his recent MoveOn.org speech: refuse to give specifics on the grounds that “the situation is too fluid” and intimate that he has some Nixonian “secret plan.”
To add to all of this, John Kerry’s got the additional headache caused by his remaining in the Senate. If he resigns his seat now, after the Republican Governor has called for him to do so, the story will be that he was “pressured” into resigning due to his failure to represent the state he was elected to represent. If he doesn’t, the Republican Senate Leadership is going to schedule votes on every issue of importance, forcing Senator Kerry to either put himself on the record or to remain AWOL from the Senate.
Senator Kerry is having Vice Presidential problems as well. This is very well demonstrated by his extended effort to woo John McCain. After the very public speculation that he’d choose the Senator (the media’s favourite American politicians), anyone short of Hillary Clinton (and she’s not going to accept) is going to be a let-down. While the conventional wisdom holds that he’s going to take one of his primary opponents- someone like Gephardt, Clark, or Edwards, I expect he’ll roll the dice and go for something a little out of the box. My guess? He’ll either opt for former Senator Max Cleland (the war hero whose “patriotism was questioned” by evil Republicans) or Georgia Congressman John Lewis who would, of course, be the first black Vice Presidential nominee. Of course, remember the fate of the last Presidential candidate who made a truly wild pick and choose the first woman for Vice President and, as for Cleland, I truly doubt that his newfound Ron Kovic act would play very well outside of partisan Democratic circles.
Kerry has a final problem, one that can turn a possible defeat into an utter humiliation: Ralph Nader. Think about this scenario. Kerry stumbles through the Summer, falling steadily behind the President after the end of the Democratic convention. President Bush comes out of New York in September with a ten point lead in the polls (say 52% to 42% with 5% for Nader). John Kerry’s fall campaign can’t seem to close that gap. Despite the repeated urging of partisan Democrats, he doesn’t move further to the left on Iraq. What happens next?
It’s obvious to me that if a Kerry who’s playing for the centre in October and behind by a fairly large margin will be defeated by an even larger margin. Why? Because the ultra-leftist wing of the Democratic Party will begin shrieking that Kerry is losing because he hasn’t moved too far to the left and then will switch to Nader in an attempt to “teach Democrats as lesson.” Such a scenario would be self-reinforcing. Leftist Democrats move to Nader, which causes Kerry’s numbers to drop, which leads more Democrats to shift to Nader on the grounds that Kerry’s numbers are dropping. Such a scenario might result in a final result with Bush scoring 55% of the vote to 35% for Kerry with 10% or more for Nader. A best-case scenario, to be sure, but not an impossible one. I expect to see something more like 48% for Bush, 42% for Kerry, and 5% for Nader.
I may well be wrong. We’ll see. But I don’t think so. If January 20th, 2005 isn’t the day of George Bush’s second inaugural, I’ll give $50 to Greenpeace in John Kerry’s name. That’s how confident I am.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey argued that Kerry, the state's four-term senator, has missed too many roll-call votes and has done a poor job of representing his constituents. Of the 112 Senate votes this year, Kerry has voted just 14 times, according to an Associated Press tally.
Am I really asking that much? I mean, shouldn't a man elected to vote actually vote? You can't get away with this in any other career. I mean, could you actually go up to your boss and say "You know, I'm thinking of taking the next year off to compete with this other applicant for a job at another company. Don't worry, I might stop in every now and then."
Remember when Dole gave up his seat as a Kansas senator? Lets be fair and see what Kerry has to say, though.
Asked about the GOP calls, Kerry dismissed the suggestions, telling reporters as his plane landed in Kentucky, "I'm running for president because we have to put this country back into a place of responsible leadership. And I believe that I'm serving the citizens of Massachusetts and the country in the proposals that I've laid out."
Well that makes sense. A man who doesn't show up to vote gets to lecture us on responsible leadership. If John Kerry really cared about making the country a better place, he'd give up his seat in the Senate, instead of leaving it empty while he tours the country. I've already pointed out before how his vacancy is hurting the people of Massechussetts who he so claims to be looking out for. It's not like he needs his senator income, his wife is filthy rich. Still the International Man of Mystery.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman who claims she was told that she had to remove her religious garb to accompany her children through the gate of an Omaha swimming pool.
Twice last summer, Lubna Hussein says she was turned away from Deer Ridge pool, her children in tears, because the city said she had to wear a swimsuit.
Lubna says, "I'm a Muslim and I must wear a scarf and long sleeves. No dress. I have to wear like a nun.
Her daughter Basma Hussein says, "The pool we were going to had slides and it looked very fun. And they wouldn't let my mom in because she had the scarf on. I felt sad and I felt that wasn't fair for my mom and me."
Lubna Hussein says she tried to explain she didn't intend to swim, just watch her children inside the fence.
She says, "They told me I can watch the kids outside the fence. I felt humiliated."
Hussein's attorney and the Nebraska chapter of the ACLU contend that Hussein's rights were violated.
City officials say they hope the lawsuit will be dropped because exceptions have since been made to the swimsuit only policy.
City Attorney Paul Kratz says those changes are, "to allow people, for religious or medical reasons, to be able to enter a pool without a swimsuit."
Asked if that meant Mrs. Hussein would be allowed inside the pool fence in full Muslim dress Kratz said, "She would likely be allowed to see her kids swim, yes."
In spite of that policy change that would now allow Mrs. Hussein on the pool grounds, her attorney says this isn't about getting money. They are, nevertheless, still seeking damages for the alleged embarrassment and humiliation they claim that Mrs. Hussein and her children suffered.
Now, I don't really have a problem with this, but I'll get to that later. I feel it is my patriotic duty to disagree with about everything the ACLU does.
I haven't been to a pool in the U.S. in like 6 years. But in France, I remember one of their pools having a rule that you couldn't go in unless you were wearing a speedo. Now, I don't do speedos, and I bet I could find a line in the Bible somewhere that said I shouldn't be walking around in speedos. And I didn't feel the need to call the FCLA (if it exists).
But I don't really care. What caught my attention in the article is this part:
Her daughter Basma Hussein says, "The pool we were going to had slides and it looked very fun. And they wouldn't let my mom in because she had the scarf on. I felt sad and I felt that wasn't fair for my mom and me."
Lubna Hussein says she tried to explain she didn't intend to swim, just watch her children inside the fence.
So her daughter can go swimming in a bathing suit? I'm not an expert in muslim customs, but if it's wrong for the mother to wear the swim suit, wouldn't it also be wrong for the daughter to do so?
On a slightly different not, the ACLU still hasn't done anything about the judge ruling to force kids to perform muslim prayers in school. I've given them over a week to act, and I think they've decided to ignore it.
One last thing. I've recently been told that muslim isn't supposed to be capitalized. Is this true?
The Reagan Tribute Song, Written and Performed by Greg Wall
Yup, they made a song about him. I expected it to be corny, but it's actually not bad. That is, if the only music you listen to doesn't fall along the lines of Incense And Peppermints.
Now, on another note, this has got to be one of the least flattering photos I've ever seen of Kerry, and that's saying something.
Bush looks like a statue, and Kerry seems to be missing a chin. I know Fox could find better pictures than that, which makes me wonder what they're up to...
I'll start off by saying that not all of you liberals are guilty of this. I've seen jimmytherighteous' blog and a few other lefty blogs talking about Reagan's death, and they manage to sidestep insulting the guy. But what about all the others? Have we no respect for the dead?
First, Reagan rode to power on a wave of reaction to the Civil Rights struggle. California, a state with a deep well of racial resentment, supported Reagan, who would protect the establishment and call for students to be murdered on their campuses.
Democratic Underground Yes, I know, it's DU, but Kerry's blog links to it, and as long as he does, I'm going to keep quoting them.
The hysteric media outburst has already begun, his crimes against humanity notwithstanding. The blunt idiocy of that national self-deprecating spectacle makes me sick to my stomach.
Other than that, I'll proceed to celebrate the news in private.
an evil force has been removed from the continuum.
what a goddaman beautiful fucking day- i think i may just burst into song at any moment...
Ding-Dong! Ding-Dong!...the evil fuck is Dead!
It goes on. Now Reagan was a good person, whether you agree with his politics or not. His politics hasn't mattered for almost 2 decades now, so all you're doing is celebrating the death of a good human being.
If Jimmy Carter died yesterday, do you think I'd be on here celebrating his death? No. Do you think any of us would be on here celebrating his death? No, and don't say noguru or reducto would, because as much as you may think they're neo-con fascists, they wouldn't stoop that low.
Is this what your hatred of Bush has turned you into, or are you so calloused that you would celebrate the death of an American president? Are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that it's rubbing off on Reagan? Now if this is what happens when Reagan dies, I can only imagine what would happen if Bush died anytime soon. I can't even begin to express how sickened I am, so I'll stop here.
God bless you Ronald Reagan, and rest in peace.
Children Forced to Pray to Allah in School, Yet the ACLU is Nowhere to be Found
Here you go RedTigress. When I mentioned it earlier, I assumed it was a pretty old story, so there was no need getting into it, but apparently I was wrong.
US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California thinks kids should be forced to perform muslim prayers in school.
In December, she declared as constitutional the role-playing of Islam forced on a class of seventh-graders at a California middle school. The students were required to take a Muslim name, give up candy for a day to demonstrate the daytime fast of Ramadan and even recite a Muslim prayer. In ruling on the subsequent lawsuit, Judge Hamilton breezily asserted that the students "cannot be considered to have performed any actual religious activities." Any teacher caught trying to do the same with Christianity would be crucified.
This has got to be one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard! Where is the ACLU, who, if you read my last blog, is up in arms about a little cross on a seal? The ACLU turning a blind eye to this has to be one of the single largest act of hypocrisy I've ever seen.
Now see the cross in the middle white picture to the right? The ACLU has a problem with that little picture. They sued and got it removed. Nevermind the pagan goddess in there, nevermind that nearby Christian children were forced to do Muslim prayers in school for the sake of history.
The city was founded by Spanish missionaries, and it represents a historical significance to the area. So I guess it's fine for kids to be forced to pray for the sake of history, but you can't respect history on a little portion of the seal if it happens to contain a Christian symbol. LOOK AT THE PAGAN GODDESS!!! IT'S HUGE!! But are they removing it? No. God help us all.
KERRY: "COULD YOU THROW MY MEDALS BACK OVER?" VS BUSH: "AMERICA DOESN'T NEED A PERMISSION SLIP"
"Kerry wrote that the Swift boats "were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war." -- A John kerry quote from a Boston Globe biography of the candidate. You won't find it posted anywhere on John Kerry's website http://www.johnkerry.com .
John Kerry must not have been too proud of serving, or he wouldn't have thrown "his own"/someone else's medals over the fence at the Capitol http://www.kron4.com/Global/s... .
VERSUS
"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." -- A line in the 2004 State of the Union Address. http://www.whitehouse.gov/new... given in January 2004, now probably posted on the Bush website http://www.georgewbush.com .
So while the news networks have been blowing this AWOL thing out of proportion for quite a while now, it isn't at all well documented that George W. Bush didn't show up for National Guard duty for that period of one year, in 1972-1973. Despite all the talk about "dishonor and deserting," The left seems to have a problem deciding whether serving in Vietnam, even though their candidate opposed it, is a good thing or a bad thing. - http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonl...
