Why are the democrats so cowardly? Why can't they come out and say what they really mean, and what they know to be the truth. Here's CIA Chief Leon Panetta talking about Dick Cheney:
I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
It's not "almost" or "a little bit" anything. But good for him for at least bringing some vague attention to the current Republican-Christian party strategy to get back in power.
It's become abundantly clear that Cheney, Limbaugh, and the rest of the right-wing Republican-Christian Party have realized they can't beat Obama on the merits of any issues, so they've just agreed to keep claiming that Obama and the Democrats are failing to protect America from terrorism, not doing everything necessary to fight terrorism, and are even intentionally doing things that will make foreign terrorist attacks on American soil easier. They keep saying this, over and over, so that when there is the inevitable Islamic terrorist attack on American soil - and it's only a a matter of if, not when - then the Republican-Christians will say "See we told you so! We said Obama could not protect you and your children!" and "See, only we the Republicans are tough enough, and have the experience, to protect America from terrorist attacks."
And then the Republican-Christians will regain power, because the Democrats won't know how to respond. The Democrats won't be smart enough to point out that the worst terrorist attack ever, that 9-11 thing, happened on the Republicans' watch, during the Bush Administration (little known fact!). But the sine qua non of this current Republican-Christian Party strategy of "gallows politics" is for there to be a terrorist attack on American soil.
And of course the Republican-Christians only care about Muslim terrorism. The last thing they want to do is bring attention to their own right-wing terrorism, whether it's shooting abortion doctors or black people at the Holocaust Museum. Christofascist terrorism is perfectly acceptable, nay desirable, to the right-wingers. They don't even consider the murder of an abortion doctor at his church in broad daylight during public services to be terrorism, they see that as Christian Holy Warriors doing the Lord's Work in conducting a Jesus-Jihad (Jeez-had) in the name of Christ. As much as they'd like to, the Republican-Christians simply cannot blame their own terrorist acts on Obama and the Democrats, because that would bring negative attention to those acts, concede they are terrorist acts, and force the government to work harder to prevent similar attacks in the future. The Christofascists don't want any of those things. So, the best they can do is blame Obama for "making them" commit these "crimes" (they won't call it terrorism) by being such a divisive, dark-skinned communist.
Why can't democrats like Panetta grow spines so that they can say what they really mean? You watch, Republican-Christians will go nuts and Panetta will "apologize" for his comments about The Dick Cheney. Watch - it will happen tomorrow. He'll apologize and "clarify" his comments, saying he meant something completely different and he'll come right out and lie, saying "Dick Cheney does not want there to be a terrorist attack on Americans" - just to placate the angry Hannities and Limbaughs who will be yelling and screaming, feigning shock and contempt, over Panetta's comments about Cheney's gallows politics.
Come on Democrats! Grow a pair! |
Sarah,
God has closed the door. It's no longer open for you - not even a crack. You should realize this.
So quit banging on closed doors. You had your chance, and God - in his infinite wisdom - said no way.
Stop fighting the clear will of God, because you're making Baby Jesus cry.
Best regards. |
When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Barry Goldwater
The Washington Post. July 28, 1994, Page C01.
Talk about foresight. Politics are indeed gone now that the former Republican Party is now the Republican-Christian Party - a anti-liberty, anti-tax, anti-minority, faith-based Jesus cult. And if you think Barry Goldwater must be rolling in his grave, think how Jesus must feel (rolling in his grave). |
As the Republican-Christian party scares the Democratic party into believing that bringing the terror suspects detained at Guantanamo to prisons in the US will cause mass terrorism, the truth of the matter is they are relatively harmless - especially as compared to other prisoners safely locked away in American prisons. The spineless Democrats will cower over R-C scaremongering and probably build a new prison right next to Guantanamo, but call it something else so they can say "look we closed down Gitmo and kept the American people safe at the same time!" Idiots.
Either we leave them in Gitmo or we bring them to prisons here in the US mainland. There are plenty of people in our prisons far more dangerous than the average Gitmo detainee (many of whom are nothing more than innocent sheepherders, though many are indeed would-be terrorists). Pick a Gitmo detainee at random, and I'd rather have him walking the streets than spy Robert Hanssen or murderer Charlie Manson. But that's the false choice presented by the Republican-Christians - keep them in Gitmo or let them roam freely around American streets, blowing up schools and Starbucks. Of course they'd be in a high security American prison, and you know what? If you really hate these people you should be all for putting them there.
In fact, I'd bet that if you put them in a regular prison, not only would they not be an escape risk or otherwise pose any danger to the community, but the other prisoners would likely beat the shit out of them and kill most of them rather quickly, the way they beat up and kill child molesters and pedophiles and other people convicted of creepy sex crimes (incest, etc). If you just want to get rid of all these terrorist suspects (some of whom are not guilty of anything, but many of whom are), put them in General Population at a regular, high-security (but not Ad-Seg SuperMax) American prison and they probably wouldn't last a week. I'd suggest someplace like San Quentin or Pelican Bay. There would be a contest between the Aryan Brotherhood, the Bloods and Cryps, and the hispanic gangs to see who can shank and kill the most "9-11 terrorists" first. And there'd be nothing the guards could do to stop it. Half of them would be dead within a month, assuming no lockdowns or protective custody.
So, in the debate about moving the Gitmo terrorist suspects to American prisons, the question is not "What about our children?" but rather "What about the safety of the detainees?" And most people probably don't give a shit. |
Our idiotic governor Rick Perry talks about Texas' cesession from the Union because he suddenly hates federal spending (translated: hate nigger president) and suddenly hates strings being attached to the receipt of federal funds by the states as has been done since, well, forever (translated: hate nigger president) and suddenly hates federal taxes because the money is being spent unwisely (translated: hate nigger president) and suddenly decided to turn town stimulus money to help jobless Texans when he had no problem accepting similar federal funds under Bush (translated: hate nigger president), so this is quite amazing.
AUSTIN, Texas – While Gov. Rick Perry is criticizing Washington bailouts, state lawmakers are planning to use $11 million in federal stimulus money to help rebuild the badly burned Texas Governor's Mansion.
Approximately $10 million in state tax money will also be spent on a renovation, which is expected to cost about $20 million, officials said Thursday.
Members of the state Republican-Christian Party think this is a great use of stimulus money (rather than helping jobless Texans). "If we're going to fix it up we're going to have to use stimulus money," said state Sen. Steve Ogden, RC-Bryan. "We've made a decision to use the stimulus money. This is a good use of it."
I hope this gets more attention because I really want to hear the Republican-Christians justify using $11 million in federal stimulus money on fixing up the Texas Governor's mansion on the theory that it will create construction jobs and thus help stimulate the local/Texas economy (seriously, wait for it, and they'll say it with a straight face, too).
Amazing. It's so hard being a racist bastard these days - there's just no way to do it without either (a) constantly contradicting yourself and being a blatant hypocrite or (b) coming right out and saying "I hate niggers and I'll do whatever I can do bring them down." Back in the days of Jim Crow it was a given that blacks were to be hated and thus seemingly inconsistent statements/actions were understood in their racist context. But nowadays no politician can just come right out and say they hate black people, mexicans, asians, jews, whatever - it's not politically viable, let alone politically correct. So they have to come up with other excuses to oppose certain things when they wouldn't (and didn't) oppose the same thing when it is/was done by a white person. It's impossible to do with any intellectual honesty, and the only question is how many people are cynical enough to see through their actions and realize that they're acting on nothing but pure racism. |
According to the Republican-Christian cult, someone like Nancy Pelosi can "destroy the morale" of the Central Intelligence Agency and everyone who works there by saying (verifiably) negative things about the Agency - the same things Republican-Christians have said during the Bush Administration.
If the CIA and the people who work there are so emotionally fragile, so soft, so sensitive with feelings that can be hurt so easily by nothing more than a politician talking like a politician, then that's the real story - the CIA should be completely disbanded and restaffed. Everyone there should be fired. We can't have emotionally fragile people working at the CIA. Imagine if James Bond started to cry every time Moneypenny took a little verbal jab at him. Give me a break.
The R-C's are also saying it hurts morale at the CIA for them to be told they can be prosecuted for breaking the law. That's just amazing. If the CIA has such a strong believe that it is above the law, then that needs to be corrected no matter how much it hurts their feelings and breaks their fragile little hearts.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Republican-Christians are correct, the CIA is worthless, full of over-emotional pussies with bleeding vaginas, and they should be given Teddy Bears and immediately disbanded. Fortunately for America and the CIA, the Republican-Christian cult is always wrong. Why they are given a voice on the news is something we should be talking about - it's a remnant from the days when they were a legitimate political party. To let the Republican-Christians talk on the news along with the Democrats is like letting Raellian UFO cloning cult partake in the debate. Screw them and their insane beliefs. You have to earn a voice at the table, and you have to continue to justify your place in the discussion. The R-C's have completely failed to do that over the past few years. |
As soon as the Minnesota state supreme court issues its opinion giving the election to Al Franken, Tim Pawlenty, the (Republican-Christian Party) Governor of Minnesota is supposed to certify the election so the state's senate seat can be filled.
Governor Pawlenty wants to do everything he can to either keep Al Franken out of that Senate seat, or delay his certification to keep him out of the Senate as long as possible. Apparently under Minnesota law, the Governor cannot certify the election results until all state court proceedings are complete. That doesn't seem to be in dispute, so Norm Coleman, who lost, has the right to exhaust his appeals in the Minnesota state courts. He's almost done with that (assuming the state supreme court doesn't remand the case back to a lower court, which there's no indication that it will).
Republican-Christian governor Pawlenty keeps insisting he's not delaying, because under state law he "cannot" certify the election results until the court proceedings are finished. Okay. So will he certify them when the state court proceedings are complete and fully exhausted? Because there's no question that Republican-Christian Norm "Sore Loserman" Coleman will go bring a lawsuit in federal court after he loses (and he will) in the Minnesota state supreme court. Pawlenty has no legal duty to not certify the election in that scenario. So Pawlenty keeps getting asked if he will certify the election when the state court proceedings are finished. He won't answer the question! He will not say anything beyond "I will comply with whatever the court says" knowing that he's not a party to the Coleman versus Franken state court proceedings so that the court is in no position to order him, the governor, to do anything.
So when Coleman tries to drag this case out by taking it to federal court, what will Pawlenty do and what will he say? Here's my prediction:
He will refuse to certify the election and let Franken be seated in the Senate. He will say he is doing "not to delay but to make sure all the votes were properly counted and to make sure the election results were fair for everyone" (or some bullshit like that, since that's the last thing he cares about and since those things were already adequately decided). The purpose will be solely to delay the seating of Al Franken, another Democrat senator.
What's funny is that the Democrats are talking like they seem to think Republican-Christian Pawlenty will actually certify the election upon the final ruling of the Minnesota state supreme court. This is how ignorant the Democrats are. I'm not even sure they realize that Norm Coleman will take this to federal court (to delay Franken's seating in the Senate, not because Coleman really thinks he has a viable legal case - he doesn't).
So what will Franken and the Democrats do when the Republican-Christian Party is bringing frivolous federal cases to keep him from being seated in the senate? What will they do when the R-C Party makes it clear they'd rather deny a whole state's population their due representation in the Senate than let a Democrat, who won the election, be a senator? Answer: Nothing (other than whine spinelessly). |
We simply must get past this "it saved american lives" bullshit about torture, which the spineless Democrats have bought into now, too (sold by the Republican-Christian party). It does not matter. First of all, all the evidence is to the contrary - that it produced no actionable information. But even if it did, that doesn't mean there wasn't another non-torturous way of getting the same information. And even if there was no other non-torturous way of getting that same information, it simply does not matter. WE DO NOT TORTURE.
Don't give me the "ticking timebomb" scenario from the show 24 - where a terrorist says "The bomb is set to go off but you'll never find it muahahaha!" because that only happens on stupid TV shows and in dumb Nicholas Cage movies. NEVER (as in not once, ever) in real life.
It is worth the lives of 10,000 dead, bloody, charred, mangled American babies for us to not be a nation that tortures people. Unless you're willing to take that clear moral ground, you are as confused as The Dick Cheney.
Actually Cheney isn't confused, he's just concerned that the Obama administration is going to prosecute him the way the Bush administration would be prosecuting Obama and everyone he knows for committing acts of torture if the situation were reversed (and for once, Bush would be in the right). |
I'm always talking about how prosecutors do everything they can to prevent the people they've convicted from getting DNA testing, because they're coldhearted bastards who don't care if an innocent person's life is ruined, languishing away in prison (or on death row), and because if the DNA test shows the person they convicted is actually innocent it makes the prosecutor look bad, and takes away a notch in their "win" column.
Here's a good piece at the New York Times on this subject, quantifying this phenomenon better than I can based on cynicism alone. Definitely worth a read, and it should make you cringe whenever one of these horrible people invokes "the feelings of victim" or "the victim's need for closure" or "the system's need for finality" as a reason to risk keeping an innocent person locked up in prison. All prosecutors should be required by law to get big tattoos on their faces that say "I DO NOT REPRESENT CRIME VICTIMS" (in both forward and backward print so that they can read it when they look themselves in the mirror - assuming they do so). Hopefully this would serve to remind them that they do not, in fact, represent crime victims (they represent the government) and it would let others know that they are being grossly dishonest when they invoke "the victims" as a reason to act irresponsibly with respect to the lives of defendants.
Nothing justifies keeping an innocent person in prison. Not the risk of losing an election, not the risk of having whiny crime victims call your office 20 times a day to bitch about their desire for retribution, not the lazy cops who dont want to have to do any more investigation, not the need to box up a file and move it to offsite storage (also known as "finality"), and surely not a ding on a lawyer's career win-loss record. So prosecutors who use those reasons to deny someone DNA testing should be disbarred, at the very least.
What do they have to lose? If the test comes back and shows that they really are guilty, then that should shut 'em up for good. If it calls a conviction into doubt, then let justice be done. They'll feel good and sleep well at night. And if the "victim" can't handle it, the prosecutors should simply tell them to screw off - they're not their lawyer anyway. I'd like to think most crime victims would accept the fact that DNA evidence shows the person who they thought was guilty was not the one who actually committed the crime. But I do know better than that... they "Know" it was the convicted defendant and it's been reinforced in their minds a million times over, so they're not going to let one little DNA test convince them that they were wrong all this time, and the "real" criminal is someone else. But you know what? That's just too bad. |
In case anyone is wondering what the Republican-Christian Party is doing to regain power, it's pretty clear to me that they've decided they can't win on the merits of any real substantive issues, so they're just biding their time, waiting, hoping, and praying for a terrorist attack on American soil so they can say "We kept America safe for seven and a half years, but Obama has failed in keeping America safe - so elect us if you want your children not to die." Why do they always say "seven and a half" years? Oh yeah, because half a year into Bush's first term, we suffered the worst terrorist attack on American soil EVER.
But that wasn't their fault... no no no... sure Bush had memos entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in United States" and sure Bush is so cozy with the Saudis he lets them into the country no questions asked (if only Mexicans had producing oil wells like the Saudis do, they'd be welcomed into America with open arms). But still, Bush was "picked by God" so nothing bad that happened during Bush's presidency can be his fault - surely the mass suffering and national degradation is just "God working in mysterious ways" (testing our faith, yeah that's it). But Obama was elected by Americans, not God, and not a 5-member majority of the Supreme Court inspired by the hand of God... as such, the Republican-Christian Party will hold Obama personally accountable for any terrorist attack that happens on his watch.
And the Democrats will be too spineless to make any attempt at holding the Republican-Christians accountable for the terrorist attack that happened on their watch. To this day they have not done so.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, the Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the Republican-Christian party is hoping, wishing, praying every day for a serious, deadly, horrendous terrorist attack (by Muslims) to happen while Obama is in charge. Sadly enough, they'll probably get their prayers answered. Statistically speaking, there will be another terrorist attack at some pont.
What scares me is the prospect that since so many people in law enforcement tend to be right-wing fascist pigs who go to Church and vote Republican, some of them might intentioally fail to stop a terrorist attack and let it occur, thinking that it is for the greater good. To a lot of these right-wing wackos, it's worth a few thousand dead Americans (especially if they're gay, black, or mexican) to regain power so rich people can get tax cuts, poor people can get more Jesus sanctioned by government, gays can be discriminated against, and "the nigger president" can get out of office as soon as possible. A lot of them would do the terrorism themselves. It's even easier to just sit quietly and let the Muslims do it. I have no doubt that Bush wouldn't have stopped 9-11 if he had the chance (and he very well may have). It was the best thing that happened to him, politically. Would a right-wing, Obama-hating FBI agent act any differently? I don't know.
All I do know is that when terrorist attacks happen on the Republican's watch, their approval ratings go up. But when a terrorist attack happens on the Democrat's watch, their approval ratings plummet (in no small part due to Republican blame). |
As a publicity stunt and a childish way to make themselves feel better about their status as complete losers, the Republican National Committee wants to pass the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.
It's no news that Republicans have no clue what the words socialist, communist, and fascist actually mean. But I think the Democrats should do the same thing, but they should be more clever about it.
What is called the "Republican Party" or "GOP" today in the year 2009 is nothing like the real Republican Party that supported small government, individual freedom, and personal liberty. That Republican Party is dead. It was suffering for many years, and it finally kicked the bucket last November.
The first mortal wound to the Republican party was selling out to the Southern Dixiecrat racists after Democrat LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. When ignorant right-wing racists are your constituents, you have to cater to them. What was once the "Party of Abe Lincoln" turned into the "Party of Jefferson Davis."
The second death blow to the party was made by Nixon when he initiated the "War on Drugs" - no single policy has increased the power of government while simultaneously decreasing freedom, personal rights, and individual liberty moreso than enforcing drug prohibition.
Once the Christo-fascist Jesusfreaks violently hijacked the Republican party in the mid-1980s, it was on its last legs and its days were numbered. Bush finally killed it. The GOP officially died on election day, 2008, with the election of Obama and the total repudiation of everything the "Republican Party" now supports (e.g. tax cheats, bigotry, torture, and abolishing the First Amendment's Establishment Clause).
Since the Republican Party is dead, it is fundamentally misleading, bording on fraudulent, for the small, fringe group of pro-torture Christians to use the once-proud Republican name to describe themselves. For the past few years, I've been calling this group the "Republican-Christian Party" (among other, more colorful names). The Democratic National Committee should pass a similar "we say you should change your name" resolution. But instead of recommending something like "Republican-Fascist" or some other name that, while accurate, would never be politically viable, I think the Democrats should adopt my name - Republican-Christian Party. They can pass a resolution calling on the "Republicans" to change their name to the Republican-Christian Party, but they should also take it upon themselves to use that moniker in their own discourse. Instead of talking about Republicans, talk about Republican-Christians.
Would the Republican-Christians take offense? I bet a lot of them would be proud of that name and would feel it was complimentary. They're certainly not going to take offense at being called Christian. It will put them in an interesting dilemma - accept a name given by their opponents, or protest a name that they'd never claim does not describe who they are.
I like the name because it shows that religion (Jesus) is their main priority, and because it shows they are a party of exclusion. If you're not a Christian then you're not welcome. Moreover, aside from being in favor of tax fraud and defending tax cheats, everything in their party's platform - everything they stand for - is based solely on theology. |
In the midst of pulling a "Bush" and not release photos of prisoner abuse by American soldiers (using the Dick Cheney argument that releasing them will hurt the troops), Obama has made clear what his promise of an "Open Administration" will be. He hosted a "Poetry Jam" at the WH, where Michelle Obama introduced the event as an example of how the Obama administration will be open. It's worth noting that Laura Bush tried to host a "Poetry Reading" (as we white people call it) but Cheney/Rove made her husband make her cancel it because some of the poets scheduled to read were openly against the Iraq war. A cynic would note that none of the poets invited to Obama's "Poetry Jam" were openly for the Iraq war.
So when Obama said he'd have an open admistration, he didn't mean he'd release information and not abuse the state secrets privilege. He merely meant he'd allow some poets to talk in the East Room of the White House for 45 minutes. Other examples of Obama's "open administration" include:
...the Obamas have played host to bagpipe and mariachi bands, Irish fiddlers and poets, pop stars and jazz singers. Performers have included Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire, Tony Bennett and Fergie, the singer from the Black Eyed Peas. Paul Muldoon, the Pulitzer-Prize winning poet from Northern Ireland, has recited his verses. The rocker Sheryl Crow and the rhythm and blues singer Alicia Keys have entertained cheering crowds in the East Room.
Now, it could be that "open administration" means two different things. The way it's been used by Obama during the presidential campaign was to mean not being unduly secretive; that is, not being like the Bush Administration. Now it's possible that he's using the phrase "open administration" to mean a wide diversity of people will be invited to the White House. It's my understanding only one speaker (Michael Chabon) at the Poetry Jam was white, while everyone else (including Chabon's wife) was "diverse" (do we really need to continue use this lame euphamism now that we have a "diverse" president?). Okay, more minorities will be invited to events at the White House. Whatever... do we really need an affirmative action program to govern White House invitations?
The problem with this dual usage of the phrase "open administration" is the likelihood for equivocation by the Obama Administration. When he's accused of not having an open administration because of refusing to release certain photos, Obama and his supporters will say "not true, we have an open administration - we just had a Poetry Jam!" It sounds like a moronic thing to say, but that's what public discourse is like these days (by way of example, yesterday on MSNBC (on "Hardball") I heard a member of the Republican-Christian Party say "waterboarding is okay because it's done to Navy Seals during their training." He said it with a straight face, too. If you don't see the problem with that statement, you should be dragged out into the street and shot.
As a side note, it's funny that every news report about this story inclues the caveat that it's a "Poetry Jam" and not a "Poetry Slam" - how hip of them. |
A lot of people don't know this, but 9-11 happened on the Republicans' watch, during George W. Bush's administration.
Because it's a terrorist attack, it seems a lot of people assume that it happened while the Democrats held power. But no, as a matter of fact, Bush, Cheney, and all those Republicans were in charge. It was their job to protect America, and they failed. They allowed it to happen. And they have been profiting off of it ever since. I'm convinced that if they had sufficient intelligence to have thwarted the 9-11 attacks, they would have quietly stood back and allowed it to happen. After all, 9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to them. For 8 years they've been blaming it on Democrats and saying that Democrats are the ones who don't know how to keep us safe.
But it happened on their watch. I wish more people knew that. Even Obama seems to have forgotten this fact (or never to have known it in the first place). I admit, it's a trivial fact that most people don't know. After all, it was amost a decade ago. With our average attention span at less than 30 seconds, with American Idol taking up the airwaves, and with one of the worst education system in the developed world, it makes sense that people would assume that Democrats are the ones who allowed 9-11 to take place on their watch. After all, that's what the Republican attack ads say. And when they say that they are the only ones who can keep us safe, then obviously 9-11 must not have happened on their watch, or else they'd be lying! But that's exactly what they are doing.
Don't forget this. And look it up if you don't believe me - George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001. Look it up anyway, don't take my word for it. |
This article talks about a Pew Poll that indicates people who go to church at least once a week are more likely to support torture than those who go only a few times a year or those who do not go. The more frequently people attend church, the more likely they are to support torture.
I'm not going to rehash my negative thoughts about religion here, as they've been spelled out quite clearly on previous posts. But suffice it to say, this is more proof (on an already huge heap of proof) that there is a clear correlation between religiosity and immorality. And while much of the evidence relates to Islam, here's a nice piece of evidence that shows Christianity is no different, and no better. Yet people still dump their kids off at churces by the busload to be raped by the priests and made into little torturemongers. But church is still good, right? |
I'm glad Arlen Specter left the Republicans and joined the Democrats insofar as it hurts the Republican party (and it does), but I don't see how anyone can respect Specter for changing party affiliation solely because he knew he'd lose if he had to face a Republican primary. He openly admitted this - he was quite blunt about his reasons for switching parties, and how it had nothing to do with principles, ideas, or anything beyond his own personal interests. He is becoming a Democrat solely because he likes and wants to keep his job in the Senate. He had no problem taking the Republicans votes and money for the past 5 elections, yet when that party no longer likes him he jumps ship because he wants to keep his job. How can anyone respect that?
Here's what I really don't understand:
First, why should the Democrats have to deal with a right-wing Democrat, who won't vote with them much of the time, when they could run a real 100% Democrat against a right-wing nutjob Republican come the next election, and win a big victory? Specter, a moderate republican, would certainly have lost in the primaries as the Republican party has become so right-wing that they only run fringe candidates. Moderates don't stand a chance anymore. But these fringe candidates don't stand a chance either, come time for the general election.
Second, the Democrats say they are "thrilled to have Specter" and they've given him amazing concessions - like letting him have the chairs of any committe he'd be entitled to had be been a Democrat ALL THIS TIME (the past 30 or so years). Unbelievable. The Democrats shouldn't have given him ANYTHING. Nothing. If he wants to join the democrats to keep his job, then he should start at the very bottom. Someone is desperate to keep their job, so he switches political parties (as his own party won't vote for him). He should have to deal with the party he associated himself with for the past 30 years. If they don't want him anymore, then why does he feel he's entitled to stay in office? Why should the other party help him out after 30 years of opposition (true he voted with the Dems occasionally but not as much as a true Democrat). It's like the Democrats need him and should be happy to have him. That's bullshit and couldn't be more untrue.
Specter is clearly not a loyal person, and will put his own interests above principles and the greater good. So whose to say he won't betray the Democrats now? If he left the Republicans because of ideological differences, then I could respect that - particularly since the Republican party has changed so much that it's really nothing more than a fringe Christian cult these days. Ronald Reagan wouldn't recognize today's GOP. But that's clearly not why Specter defected, by his own admission. He just didn't want to lose his senate seat. So he betrays the party that supported him for 30 years and now he expects the democrats to support him.
And the Democrats are "thrilled" to oblige him with full support, with both money and Obama.
Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. Specter needed the Democrats far more than they needed him. It's my understanding that Pennsylvania law would not permit him to run as an "independent" like Joe Leiberman did when he faced the same problem. So why did the Democrats give him anything? He should be happy that they are letting him call himself a Democrat. That alone is more than he deserves, especially since it's basically untrue. A Democrat doesn't vote Republican 75% of the time.
Until the Democrats learn to work the system like the Republicans they will never accomplish any of their goals. That's unfortunate because unlike the Republicans, the Democrats' goals are well-intentioned (if not sometimes misplaced). |
Fox News has ratings higher than the other news outlets. Fine, but I think it's horribly unfair to compare the ratings of Fox News to other news channels. First of all, Fox news is not really news, it's propaganda entertainment for white christians who like torture and hate gays and black people.
The few million people who fall into that group watch Fox News all day long - it makes them feel good to hear other people attempt to justify their own opinions about the world. Everyone else tunes into the news for an hour or so each night. Whether it's Keith Olbermann or any other broadcaster, they just tune in for updates on what's going on. I've seen Keith Olbermann and while he was certainly critical of Bush, he's not a liberal guy. Of course most right-wingers see being critical of Bush and being liberal as one in the same.
But I digress. People watch Fox News for different reasons than everyone else watches every other news channel. Having your world view affirmed gets people to tune in for several hours a day, and they'll watch nothing else. Meanwhile, all the other news channels have to share all the other, sane-minded viewers.
Comparing propaganda to news is quite unfair. Well, it's apples to oranges, at the very least. Like comparing the viewership of American Idol to a saturday morning cartoon. Fox News Channel is nothing but propaganda for the Republican-Christian Party. I have not watched FNC today, but I'll bet anything that the #1 "story" was bashing the hell out of Arlen Specter for being a left-wing communist traitor to America.
As the Republican party becomes less and less popular, and more and more of a theocratic, right-wing fundamentalist religious cult, its members will watch more and more hours of Fox News per day to feel better about themselves. In the meantime Fox News will continue to get the highest ratings. As more and more people flee the Republican party, those who remain will watch more and more Fox News. Fox News offers them something they cannot get anywhere else - it gives them a pat on the back and lets them feel good about being bigoted, racist, pro-torture fascists. Where else can they get that?
Look at it this way. Say it's 1945 and you are a Nazi, and the allied forces just won WWII - Germany just gave its unconditional surrender and you're feeling pretty down about yourself. You still hate jews, you have no apologies for the torture and murder your party committed over the past few years, and you "Know" with a capital "K" that your ideology is correct. You Know that "god" is on your side, and you on his, and the wrong people have won.
Now imagine that there is one channel you can watch that still offers Goebbels' Nazi propaganda 24/7. There's still one place you can listen to to hear about how all your problems are caused by the Jews - i.e. the victory of the allied forces was caused by the Jews; the surrender of Germany and the death of your Fuhrer was caused by the Jews.
You'd watch that channel day in and day out. It would be the only solace you had. It would be the only way you could still feel good about yourself. Without that, you'd feel like a big loser. You'd feel like the hounded war-criminal you really are. You'd be all sad and depressed. But you have O'Reilly! You have Hannity! You have Beck! They're no Goebbels, but they're better than all the other anti-German "news" spewed out by all the other news channels, right? Of course... you "Know" that's true. And you can jerk yourself off tonight while feeling good about yourself. Because you're not a jew, you're not black, and you're not gay (you're really, really not! Really! REALLY! NOT GAY! NOOO!). And that's all that matters. |
Obama is clueless - he wants to be "bipartisan" which means not attacking Republicans the same way they attack (or would attack) him and the Democrats. But he promised that his administration would be transparent and adhere to the rule of law. That means Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other high-ups in the Bush Administration must be criminally prosecuted. Why not appoint an independent prosecutor? I'd easily accept Pat Fitzgerald, a Republican. But that would mean he'd have to give up his horribly lame "look forward not backwards" Republican appeasement excuse. Meanwhile Democrats and sane people are demanding prosecution.
I said this would happen. We know Democrats don't have the balls to prosecute Bush Administration officials the way Republicans would prosecute Democrats were the situation reversed. It's the constant double-standard where Republicans are allowed to get away with certain things while Democrats are not. If Bill Clinton had sold weapons to Iran, he would have been impeached and we'd never have another Democrat in the white house again... But Reagan was allowed to sell weapons to Iran without question. If John Kerry had been tortured by the Vietnamese and had caved in and given a public radio address condemning America, he would never have been allowed in Congress, let alone have been a presidential candidate. But John McCain is a hero for being tortured, even though he was one of the only ones to pussy-out, give up, and give in to the commies who were torturing him. Other U.S. soldiers told the torturers to fuck off, and just took the pain. But no, no... John McCain, son of the admiral, caved in and said what they wanted him to say. It was "his lowest moment" but he did it. And he's a hero. If he were a Democrat he'd be a traitor, per the Republican's own standards. Obama is a trator merely for shaking Hugo Chavez's hand in response to Chavez, while Republicans were allowed to give Brezhnev a car (Nixon), and be photographed shaking both Saddam Hussein's hand (Rumsfeld) and kissing and holding hands with the Saudi prince (Bush). Bill Clinton was impeached for violating the rule of law - he misspoke about a blowjob. But George W. Bush violated hundreds of laws each week of his administration, we know about it, Obama now has proof of the worst of it, and he just doesn't have the balls to treat Republicans how they'd treat him. He wants to be their friend, and they're more than happy to take advantage of his weakness.
I said Obama should simply PARDON the Bush people when he took office. That would stop this problem and forever label them as criminals. But no, he was too weak and indecisive and pining for opposition love to even do that. |
It's great that Obama released the Bush Administration's DOJ torture memos. First of all - what horrible lawyering. As a lawyer I'd be ashamed over the quality of this work. And one of the lawyers who wrote them, Bybee, was given a commission as a federal judge as a reward.
Now these same ideological morons are saying that by releasing these memos, the terrorists now know how we torture and as such, they will train against it. Jesus fucking Christ... it just amazes me how people can make such arguments with a straight face. How about asking whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" ever work in the first place? They try to avoid that issue because every study ever done shows that it does not.
But there is one rare circumstance where I think torture (of any kind) is perfectly warranted. This situation, however, never actually occurs in real life. But since it happens every week on dumbass TV shows like "24" (where we've been show a "fly on the wall" scene that proves the terrorist suspect is the evil terrorist - we were shown it firsthand so there is zero doubt, something that never happens in real life), those who support torture always cite this scenario as why we should torture willy-nilly. They often call it the "ticking timebomb" situation but that's too broad. It's the "I did it but I'll never tell muahahaha!" situation, with corroboration where torture, I think, is okay. It requires three things: (1) A suspect who admits to having information which would save many American lives that are in imminent danger but (2) refuses to give the information to us and (3) there is some form of independent corroboration that the suspect could actually have the information he claims to have.
So, we invade a terrorist bomb-making facility and catch a guy working on a bomb, and he admits that a bomb is planted somewhere, it's ticking away but he won't tell us where it is, followed by an evil "Muahaha!" In that extremely limited scenario, I think we can do whatever we want to the guy to get the information he is refusing to turn over.
Unless they say "I know but I ain't telling" torture is absolutely improper. But just torturing people because they could have information - information they deny having - is absolutely unwarranted. And this is the situation for every single person down at Guantanamo. Even if we caught Bin Laden himself, there's nothing to be gained from torturing him. Just put him on trial and then, assuming he's found guilty, execute him. Hopefully our government is not so incompetent that they couldn't convict Osama Bin Laden in an American court.
I find it amusing that we're still debating "enhanced interrogation techniques" without being given so much as one example of it ever producing information that proved to be valuable. Even if it did produce such information - and we all know it does not and has not - it would not justify its practice by American agents. |
You don't get to blindly support an expansive and expanding federal government (Patriot Act, etc) for 8 years under a white president and suddenly decide that you oppose a big federal government the second a black man becomes president without revealing your true motivation. Nothing but racist bastards. To be sure, many of the signs being waved at the Teabagging events leave no doubt that hatred of "nigger president" is their true motivation.
Now the moronic governor of Texas, Rick Perry (who they said would make Bush look good when he took over as Texas' governor, and has not disappointed in that regard), is talking secession. Yes, Texas wants to leave the union - again. The first time was because Texans wanted the power over black people. Now they want to secede a second time because they don't want a black person to have power over them as U.S. president.
I say let Texas leave. Let Florida leave too. America will be far stronger and suffer less with those two states out of the union.
Of course some conservative idiots like Perry and Tom Delay are talking about an old urban legend that says Texas has the right to decide itself to split up into up to four separate states. While there is some language in the Texas Annexation Bill that on the surface makes this sound plausible (though it doesn't specifically say that Texas gets to decide to split on its own), Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution clearly states that in order for a state to be split up into more than one state, it requires both the approval of that state's legislature AND the approval of Congress. An Annexation Bill (a law passed by Congress that brings a state into the union... which is normally done via treaty but was not with Texas), like any other law, cannot provide for something inconsistent with the Constitution. It's funny that these people talking about secession are also claiming "the muslim nigger president" they all hate is violating "state's rights" under the same Constitution. But they want to take unconstitutional action by unilaterally leaving the union or splitting into multiple states without the approval of Congress in violation of Article IV of the Constitution. Duhhhhhhhhh.
But I say let 'em go.
My only concern is that the Secret Service won't be able to protect Obama and his family from these crazy racist bastards. One of them is most likely going to make some attempt on Obama's life over the next 4-8 years, as they get even more rabidly anti-black under the Obama Administration. We've already seen one of these wackos shoot and kill some police officers over the purported "fear of Obama taking his guns." As I have said before, I question that motivation, but let's take it at face value for the moment. It would be very easy for these racist facists to want to martyr themselves "to save America from Nigger Communism" ... and I worry that because so many in law enforcement tend to lean towards the right wing, that some Secret Service agents won't protect Obama as vigorously as they protected Bush. Is there any validity to this concern? I'd conservatively hope that 98-99% of Secret Service agents are extremely dedicated, competent professionals who can put their duty before their own ideology. But what about the other 1 to 2 percent? Also, what if they see their "duty" as "protecting America" over protecting the President, such that they would believe their "duty" requires them to not protect Obama? I'm sure all Secret Service agents take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. What if they convince themselves that doing so requires the death of President Obama? I wouldn't put it past anyone who sees himself as a patriot to think it's worth a death to protect the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Surely, it is worth an American life to protect the country - that can't reasonably be debated. All it would take is for one Secret Service agent to be unable to tolerate a black man as president. I really hope that such people have been adequately weeded out.
So, to the Secret Service agents who are bound to read this blog entry because of the keywords it contains (assuming they're doing their job), please do your very best to protect President Obama from all these right-wing racist jackfucks. They don't have the balls to actually say why they are whining and protesting and holding up signs (well a few of them do, but most will say it's about "taxes" or "big government". They were happy with the white president expanding government's size a few months ago - never said a word about it - and most will get tax cuts under Obama since most are in the lower to middle classes, at best. So it's not really about taxes or big government. It's about black skin and not a thing more. And they'd lynch Obama from a tree given the opportunity. Please do your job and don't let this happen. These guys are a much bigger threat to Obama than foreign terrorists (who are still a threat, of course). |
The 8 years of Bush's disingenuous, two-faced policies and consistent lies has resulted in a destroyed country. I don't think Obama could fix it in 20 years, let alone 4 or 8, and he's certainly going to have to do the same type of lying and two-faced, disingenuous form of political communication that Bush did to even come close to making a dent on the Bush damage. In an ideal world, politicians could be honest and effective at the same time. But democracy presumes an informed and intelligent citizenry. We don't have that - and we probably never will ever again. As such, the only way to be an effective communicator and to get anything done in Washington is to lie about it. The problems and issues facing the nation and the world are far too complex and sophisticated to be solved by open and honest communication. This is particularly true when the opposition Republicans are still the lying, two-faced, disingenuous bastards they were when they controlled the country, if not moreso now that they do not.
Just a quick example - Obama reversed the Bush policy of prohibiting U.S. funds to be given to any foreign entity that supports, and does not actively discourage abortion. By the following day, the uneducated, brain-damaged, idiotic people who listen to Republican radio/talk shows were yelling and screaming about how Obama is using American taxpayer money "to pay for foreign abortions." That's not what the policy reversal was at all, yet it's too complicated to explain, and they wouldn't want to understand it even if you could explain it to them. They have a vested interest in being wrong.
The bottom line is that when everything is too complicated for people to understand, and when everyone against you is lying about the problems, your solutions, and your actions, the only option is to lie right back. Complex truth cannot compete with simple, pithy lies.
One of the most common ways the Republicans spew misstatements is with tax policy. They love to confuse people by conflating overall tax rates with changes in the marginal tax rate. For example, if a tax rate is currently 2% and Obama proposes raising it to 3%, the Republicans will yell and whine in total disdain about a "50% tax increase" - 3 is 50% more than 2 - but people are confused and think that Obama wants to take 50% - half - of their money. Seriously - pay attention because it's really amazing how often the Republicans get away with this. Before you know it, a 1% proposed tax increase is "the Obama 50% tax hike" when in reality he's only proposing raising a 2% tax rate to 3% - a one point increase! You'd pay 3 cents on the dollar instead of 2 cents on the dollar, yet 99% of the brain-dead Republican dittohead Limbaugh sheep (including ones who wouldn't qualify for whatever the tax is for to begin with) are outraged that the Democrats want to "steal half their income" (to give to poor mexican terrorists, of course).
Ideally I'd like to see Obama point out all the hypocrisy and lies and disingenuous two-faced statemens and actions on the part of his opponents, but there seems to be an understanding in Washington that you just don't do that (I guess because you know that you're just as much of a hypocrite as they are, regardless of your party). And even if Obama could have a fresh, completely non-hypocritical start, he couldn't say the same for all the Democrats in Congress. For every Republican hypocrisy, a Democrat has done the equivalent thing. So Obama has no real choice but to keep on being a two-faced liar. |
So the 24-hour news outlets are all wet over the story about this guy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who shot and killed three cops with various firearms before being captured, arrested, and charged with murder.
Richard Poplawski had feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.
So he becomes a prime example and blatant symbol for those who want to impose gun control laws on Americans. Obviously Obama has not signed a single law or executive order that mentions, let alone increases gun control. But crazyness aside, I have a hard time believing that this guy is really a gun-rights nut. I think it's the total opposite. I think he's a crazy advocate in favor of gun control. If "pro life" advocates are willing to kill an abortion doctor "for the greater good" (where the ends always justify the means), why would a gun control advocate not be willing to shoot a few cops "for the greater good" to get gun control laws passed? Surely they think comprehensive laws banning private gun ownership are worth the death of a few cops, after all, they think by making guns illegal tens of thousands of Americans' lives (including many cops) will be saved each year.
I'm not going to debate the merits of gun control, because I don't think there are any merits. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. It's as simple as that. If criminals don't care about laws on the books prohibiting murder and theft, why on earth would they care about laws prohibiting gun possession? Anyone who thinks there would be less guns and it would be harder for those willing to break the law to acquire guns if gun possession were illegal is either deluded or just plain stupid. But we've seen how far crazy people in fringe groups are willing to go in terms of killing innocent people for their cause.
Richard Poplawski will become a potent symbol for the anti-gun lobby and all those who favor gun control. Regardless of his position on gun control, we can all agree that the guy is mentally unstable, to say the least. But even crazy people tend to act rationally. Maybe not smart, maybe not prudent, and maybe not realistic or even based on reality... but whatever their reality is, they tend to act with an internal logic. So which is more likely, a guy willing to murder a few police officers with a gun is trying to preserve and defend gun ownership rights, or he's trying to destroy them? "I was afraid obama would take my guns, so I shot and killed some cops." Yeah right. This guy is a left-wing wacko who thinks every gun on the planet should be confiscated and melted down into peace-sticks.
Note that Poplawski didn't commit suicide, nor suicide-by-cop. In fact, he was wearing a bulletproof vest. He wanted to kill a few cops, survive to be arrested, and make all sorts of wacky pro-gun, anti-gun control statements - all to give gun control advocates a potent example of why we need gun control laws - to stop people like Poplawski.
Evil and unfair. |
Yet another reason why the U.S. should withdraw from the United Nations and kick it out of the country - the UN passed a resolution that urges members to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions.
The "defamation of religions" resolution, introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), passed today by a vote of 23-11, with 13 abstentions. Muslim nations have been introducing similar resolutions since 1999, arguing that Islam-the only religion specifically cited in the text-must be shielded from unfair associations with terrorism and human rights abuses.
Of course Muslims and their countries (the "OIC") are behind this idiocy. All religious people feel their own Great and Wonderful religions are above any and all criticism, yet in the 21st century only Muslims go around rioting and killing when someone even slightly disrespects their religion (i.e. merely drawing a picture of Mohammad). Pointing out that allah is a false god and that Mohammad was a dirty, smelly faggot who enjoyed taking it up the ass by his follower's small clit-cocks should be equally protected speech, and religious people - particularly Muslims - simply need to accept the fact that their asinine beliefs are not above criticism and ridicule. The irony is that Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims spend plenty of time insulting each other's version of Islam (when they're not busy bombing, raping, kidnapping and murdering each other and everyone else). Christians whine about their religious beliefs being insulted, but few of them would go so far as to truly advocate amending the First Amendment to ban speech that is 'insensitive' to their beliefs. I'm sure assholes like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is one of a very small minority of Christians who would actually support such an unamerican, idiotic law (and he'd only support it insofar as it protects his own Catholic religion from dissenting speech... to bring back the glory days of the Inquisition).
The UN serves no purpose other than funneling American and European money to the hands of islamic terrorists, and while it was a great idea at the time, it's severely outdated. Countries are not the problem. Religions are the problem. A warmongering Germany is of no concern these days. Warmongering muslims, on the other hand, are. Not only can the UN do nothing to ameliorate faith-based violence, it serves to empower it and give it a voice.
I'm not one of those people who fear the UN becoming a one-world government to impose a New World Order lead by secret societies like the Freemasons and Illuminati. No, I just don't see any constructive purpose for the UN, and for the past 10-15 years (maybe longer, in fact) the UN has been nothing but counterproductive to world peace. The world would be a better place without the UN. Move it to The Hague. Let the Dutch deal with a thousand smelly assholes yelling "deeeeplomahtic ahhmoooonutee!" as they tear up parking tickets they get for parking in the middle of the street because they're too lazy to find a parking spot. Of course, the Dutch are facing their own serious Muslim problems, so I'm sure they wouldn't want the UN there, either.
There is only one religious group whose members leave their native sandy shit-hole countries to take advantage of the freedoms of other countries, and then refuse to assimilate, and demand that they are "free from freedom" - only Muslims do this. Only Muslims come to America or Holland or France or England and demand the rules be changed to accomodate their beliefs. If a Jew went to Iran and demanded that all stores be closed to honor the Sabbath and that everyone eat Matzoh during Passover and that laws be passed making it a crime to insult Jews or Judaism, how long do you think that Jew would stay alive? Anyone think he'd live more than 5 minutes? I give it 3 minutes, tops.
Fuck Islam, and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.
I often say religion is like pubic hair - keep it to yourself. You have no right to toss your pubic hair all over the city streets, and if you die your pubic hair green and insist on showing it to others, you have no right not to be insulted (at the very least). At the end of the day, though, all religious people are the same. They know they can't debate the validity of their religious beliefs on the merits, so they try to get laws passed to punish anyone who questions those beliefs in an attempt to prevent the debate from ever taking place. Every religion has tried this at one point in history - punishing heretics - yet in the year 2009 all the world's religions, except one, have outgrown such immature and unlightened behavior. Only Muslims think their religion is so special that it deserves the right not to be insulted.
How about this - when Muslims start saying nice things about Jews, maybe the rest of the world will think of a few nice things to say about Muslims. It doesn't matter who started what or who did what first, blah blah blah... I don't give a crap. If it were up to me the entire Middle East (Israel included) would be a radioactive toxic dump. Nuke it - every holy rock and holy brick and holy wall and holy temple and holy house and holy tree - and drill through the newly formed glass to get the oil. Problem solved. |
Obama is having this online town hall, where the questions asked were voted on by people online. He pointed out that one of the most highly-voted question was whether legalizing marijuana would help improve the economy. I was thrilled - it's a great question and for a moment I thought he'd actually take it seriously and say we should decriminalize marijuana.
Nope. Not only did he laugh it off and say no, he actually insulted the 3+ million voters who thought it was a good question by saying that the high vote count for that question "might say something about the quality of the online audience we have here" (or something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing). Asshole. I changed the channel.
Of course making a highly-desired new product available would improve the economy. I'm not saying it would be a solution to all our economic woes, but that wasn't the question. New high-value (though lesser-value when legal) crops could be grown; new pot stores could be built, staffed and operated; new salespeople could be employed; and many new customers would be buying a product they're currently not buying, or buying on the black market for an extremely high price. In other words, it would pump money into the economy while saving some people money at the same time. Meanwhile, it would be taxed so the state and federal governments could get additional tax income to solve other problems or build new infrastructure. And the psychological effects of the drug would probably be good for people who are in a perpetually worried state. It's better than drinking alcohol, and better for you.
But no, that would just be silly.
Screw you, Obama. Especially since you said you were against locking up millions of Americans over marijuana. And of course the audience clapped as he insulted them. We get the government we deserve. I used to think Obama was too good for us, but now I'm beginning to think he's just a Bush who can actually talk in front of people. |
I know Obama would like to "change" the way Washington works. Every president comes into office saying the same thing - Bush included (he called himself a "Washington outsider").
Now that the Democrats are in power, and the Republicans are out of power, there are only two (2) things that Republicans want. ONE: Continuing and worsening economic problems, and TWO: a terrorist attack on American soil.
Of course the Republicans will never admit this in public. Even in private only the most bold of them will admit that a terrorist attack would be good for them politically (the humanitarians among them will hope for a terrorist attack that only results in severe property destruction rather than lost lives, e.g. a 9/11 with empty buildings). The economic downturn began on the Republican's watch - why would they help Obama get the credit for fixing it? They're in a horrible position, politically - help Obama's approval rating ("make the magic negro look good" as the Limbaughs would say") or obstruct his efforts to help the country while hoping he fails. Limbaugh is the only Republican with the balls thus far to actually admit he hopes that Obama fails. Fails at fixing the economy, fails at preventing terrorist attacks.
People living in tent-cities (which I call Bushvilles, a la the Hoovervilles of the past) and exploding buildings are all the Republicans desire. It's the only way for them to get back in power, where they can continue what they started - allowing the economy to collapse and letting terrorists attack on American soil. Why doesn't Bush get blamed for 9/11? The WORST terrorist attack in American history happened on a Republican's watch. Had that been Al Gore or John Kerry, you can bet it would be 50 years before another Democrat got within 100 yards of the Oval Office. Why the double standard? I have my theories.
Anyway, I want Obama to QUIT wasting time trying to include Republicans in his process. The Bush administration was the most partisan in history, and I'm a firm believer in ideological estoppel. You don't get to be ultra-partisan for 8 years then seek bipartisanship. Meanwhile, "bipartisanship" is a means, not an end. And just like you don't negotiate with terrorists, you don't negotiate with people praying for imminent terrorist attacks. Anyway, for the purposes of a President whose party controlls both houses of Congress, being "bipartisan" means telling the members of the minority Republican party that they can vote with the Democrats on the Democrats' legislation. Or not. They can join in if they want to. It does not mean they get a say - they lost that right when they lost the last election. Democrats didn't get a say in any of the bullshit Bush or the Bush Congress did over the past 8 years, and Bush didn't even win the popular vote. Obama defeated McCain handily - a "mandate" if there ever was one.
So leave the Republicans alone. Quit inviting them over for lunch and don't let them stick their crap in your legislation. That's not why we elected you. Meanwhile, Fox News and the Limbaugh Party already have pre-produced videos ready to air blaming you for the next terrorist attack, claiming "Bush was able to protect America (NO HE WASN'T) yet Obama has been too weak on terrorism, now resulting in X number of deaths." Shephard Smith will fill in the X, with a huge smile on his face. |
There are only two things on which Republicans agree: (1) they love America the most, and (2) they want tax cuts, dammit!
If you really love America, if you really get off on wearing that American flag lapel pin, if you really think America can do no wrong, if you really think America is the greatest country in the world - the beacon of freedom and liberty and democracy and happiness for all humanity, then you should LOVE paying your federal income taxes! April 15th should be your favorite day of the year. You should smile as you write your check to Uncle Sam, and you should include an extra 15% "Freedom Tithing" just because you have the privilege of doing so. Paying LESS taxes to fund the greatest country in the world should be the last thing on your mind if you are, in fact, a "real" American. This is particularly true when you have supported, and continue to support, the largest expendatures of taxpayer dollars. If you support the war in Iraq, if you support drug prohibition, if you support mandatory minimum sentences and no parole, then you should be not only willing to pay for it, but you should be happy to pay for it.
You can't love something and want to stiff it at the same time. Why is there a direct correlation between the unquestioning love Republicans claim they have for America and their insistence on paying less taxes to America? People who are to greedy to share their wealth with America clearly hate America. They also hate freedom and democracy, otherwise they'd do everything they could to fund it with as much of their money as possible. Republicans should be begging to have tax rates at 80% or higher... if they really love America the way they claim they do. It should be an HONOR to pay 80% of your hard earned money to the greatest country, under God, to ensure liberty and justice for all. The Rush Limbaughs of the world should be paying ALL their money in taxes - they should take a vow of poverty and, with a huge freedom-smile, give all of their money to the U.S. Treasury - what is more patriotic than paying a 100% tax rate?
Is there any greater way to show you love America? Anyone can wear a ten-cent american flag lapel pin. But only a true patriot, only a truly great American hero would volunteer 100% of his earnings to support "God's country."
But no, Republicans bitch about being overtaxed, come up with every possible excuse for tax cuts, no matter how inane, illogical, or financially irresponsible... and then they accuse the Democrats of hating America. Assholes. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to be a hypocrite. The First Amendment does not go that far. Nor should it. |
Republicans do not get to complain about Obama and the democrats spending money. Over the past 8 years, Bush and the Republicans presided over the largest increase in federal spending since the New Deal - but not to create jobs and build infrastructure to improve the country. No, their spending was to start needless wars, buy waterboards, print torture training manuals, violate the Constitution, and help increase the size of churches across the country.
If Obama wants to spend a few million dollars on contraception (or lip balm, roach spray, rubberbands, or duct tape) to improve the economy, the one group that has NO RIGHT to complain about such spending - no matter how illogical or seemingly wasteful - is Republicans. They are completely estopped from complaining about government spending increases. Their voices shall not be heard. As Obama succinctly put it, he won. They lost. So shut the fuck up and quit complaining.
And for what it's worth, federal spending on contraception does help the economy. It provides jobs for workers in the contraception industry, and when the product is used, it prevents unnecessary, unwanted children which are a drain on society - the government has to spend more taxpayer dollars supporting those children.
I don't believe government has a duty to help improve the economy, but that philosophy went out with Herbert Hoover. Now everyone sees it as the duty of the federal government to provide jobs and wages for every American citizen willing to work. Read the Constitution - that's not listed in there. But as long as we're going to have the federal government spending to bail us out of an economic collapse, the Republicans do not get to voice their opinions, and if they had any decency they'd keep their god damn mouths shut. But they'll keep on whining since they hate America and want the "magic nigger president" to fail. |
Remember, dear Republicans, that it was not too long ago that you insisted with the pride and unwavering certitude of true fascists, that it is unamerican and unpatriotic to not support - or even question - the President during a time of war. And to do so, you said, is tantamount to "treason" and given comfort and support to terrorists.
According to you Republicans, we're still "at war" (one that by definition is perpetual) and as such, your own statements and ideology require that you fully support, and never question, President Obama. You wouldn't want to be an anti-American, terrorist-supporting traitor, would you?
Rush Limbaugh's statement yesterday that he "hopes our new president fails" is absolute proof that, by his own standard, Limbaugh hates America, supports the terrorist enemy, and is patently unpatriotic. All reasonable people have known this for years, but now Rush Limbaugh has basically conceded that it's true - he does hate America and he does support the terrorists and he does hope our economy crumbles.
Please don't try to defend Rush "al Queda" Limbaugh by trying to quibble over what, precisely, he said/meant he "hopes Obama fails" at. If Democrats were not allowed to say they "don't support the war but do support the troops" then Republicans don't get to say they "hope the President fails but support the Country" (I'm not saying those statements are equally logical, just to be clear).
Rush Limbaugh has shown he is a danger to America, and ne needs to be locked up without due process and tried before some form of military tribunal - given the same rights (or lack thereof) and procedure he has advocated for giving accused terrorists/enemy combatants. Limbaugh is clearly a traitor to this country - just ask Ann Coulter, if she's ideologically consistent and not a hypocrite, she'll readily agree that an American who hopes his president fails is a "traitor" - she wrote a whole book on how liberals who didn't support Bush are traitors (and none of them openly stated they "hoped president Bush failed."
Lock him up and don't give him any semblance of a fair trial. You thought I believed in fair trials? Yes I do, but not for those who do not - not for those who argue against giving fair trials to others. I support ideological estoppel above all else. There's no right to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy cancels out the most basic and fundamental guaranteed human rights - you waive your rights when you argue that other people should not have them. |
I'm glad Obama decided to have Roberts re-do the oath of office, this time in private in the Map Room of the White House. The best part - no Bible was used! Truly impressive - between Obama acknowledging non-believers in his inauguration speech to not using a Bible at his "proper" oath of office, I'm extremely proud that he's my President.
Better yet, it seems, though I'm not certain, that just the 35-word Oath of Office, as stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, was used, without the four addition words "so help me god" placating religious people. If you're going to do it right, do it right... to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Say the words in the proper order, and don't add anything to it... especially unnecessary concessions to imaginary dieties. |
It came as a surprise to me Bush didn't pardon any of the torturous war criminals in his administration. But he didn't because he knows with absolute certainty and unwavering faith that the Democrats do not have the balls to actually prosecute any of them.
Ironically, for the first time ever, Bush is actually correct.
As I said in a previous post, I'm hoping Obama will take it upon himself to grant Bush and his cronies pardons, so as to forever label them criminals while taking the high road and being able to say he's "putting our 8 year long national nightmare behind us so we can move forward and focus on the fixing our future rather than dwelling on the misdeeds of the past."
Yes, I'd love to see Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Gonzales indicted for their crimes, handcuffed and frogmarched off to the nearest federal detention center, held without bail until trial, and then tried and convicted for all the crimes they've committed against this country and the people of the world. But that just isn't going to happen. The Democrats don't have the balls to do it, and half the country would see it as a political vendetta, the same politicizing of the Department of Justice that Democrats complained about when done by Bush/Gonzales (i.e. hypocrisy). And of course, in american politics there is always the logical fallacy that government can only address one problem at a time - so by prosecuting the Bush criminals, Obama's administration would ipso facto be neglecting the economy and "war on terror." Of course all those things can be done at the same time, but people don't believe that, and they're too easily distracted by "we should be doing X instead of Y because X is more important" arguments. |
"The safety of the people is the highest law." -- said by Pat Buchanan on MSNBC this morning to Chris Matthews.
Boy that sounds nice and fluffy. But no, general notions of keeping people (e.g. "our precious children") safe does not trump the Bill of Rights. We could make America far safer for everyone by repealing the Bill of Rights. But procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, no unreasonable searches and seizures, privacy, freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial, the right to confront one's accuser, the right of to counsel of the accused, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and the right to bear arms are all higher laws than the duty of the government to keep us safe.
To put this statement in context, the discussion was about Obama's plan to close Gitmo, and what to do with the several hundred detainees currently being held there. Of course, the logical and proper answer is either charge them with a crime, or let them go free (return them to their home country if applicable). But Pat Buchanan says the Gitmo detainees are dangerous, their countries may not take them back, so we may have to let them stay here. In that case, Pat says the government has a duty to keep them locked up perpetually, without a trial, without any evidence against them, because they are "dangerous" and "the safety of the people is the highest law." In other words, vague fears of certain individuals trumps the fundamental limits on government power set forth by the U.S. Constitution.
Pat Buchanan is a true moron. He should be forced to repeat a first-grade civics class, assuming he ever took one in the first place. It doesn't amaze me that people say such stupid things. What amazes me is we put them on TV, let them talk, and give them an audience. Even if there is a huge market for stupid, uneducated, unreasonable, uninformed TV commentators - and there most certianly is - don't the networks have the basic responsibility not to misinform their viewers, particularly at the cost of the very basic ideals for which America stands? The airwaves are a public resource, and it's long been established that they have to use them in a responsible manner. I could care less about bad words being said on TV. I do care about Our Precious Children hearing people - people given an aura of respectability and authority merely by being invited to appear and speak on TV - say things like "the government keeping us safe is more important than the government respecting the Bill of Rights" (which is exactly what Pat Buchanan meant). And shame on Chris Matthews for not jabbing Pat Buchanan in the eye with his pen, and twisting it around - it's the least he culd have done as a responsible American citizen. |
|
Good riddance, Dubya. Here's a great article at The Economist that sums up the Bush presidency as well as anyone possibly could. |
Congrats to our 44th President, Barack Obama. I noticed that there was some confusion during the reading and recital of the Oath of Office, and upon further viewing, it was Chief Justice Roberts who caused the confusion by flubbing the placement of the word "faithfully" - the proper oath, as set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. But Roberts moved around the worth "faithfully" to later in the initial clause.
My prediction: Crazy, right-wing nutjob idiot asshole jackfuck retard racist religious idiot morons will seriously argue that Obama is not legally president because he said the word "faithfully" in a different place than it appears in the oath of office as set forth in the Constitution. Seriously, I really think the Michelle Malkins and Rush Limbaughs of the world will try to make this argument (ignoring that it was Roberts' fault).
Meanwhile, these self-professed constitutional "originalists" and "textualists" who claim to believe the Constitution should be interpreted as it's written and as it was understood by the framers (unless doing so produces a result contrary to the GOP platform) insist on adding the phrase "so help me god" to the Oath, even though it appears nowhere in the Constitution. Not only did Roberts modify the Constitution's Oath of Office, but Roberts had the nerve to say "So help you God?" (actually asking Obama this as a question!) instead of saying "So help me God" for Obama to merely repeat as with the rest of the delivery of the Oath of Office.
Only a religious nut would have the gall to add unnecessary, uncalled for god-babble to the Constitution's oath of office. Talk about "Judicial Activism"!
Damn I really hate religious people. After having to suffer through the insane religious babblings of that nutjob preacher Obama picked to give the invocation, I was comforted to hear Obama, in his inauguration speech, say "We are a country of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers...." Thank you - that actually put a smile on my face. Obama's father was one of the half-dozen or so black atheists to ever live on planet earth, so he is likely more cognizant of the fact that a small but significant number of Americans are not infected with the mental disorder of religion.
Anyway, someone do a Google search and find the first right-wing website to claim that Obama's "flubbed" Oath of Office means his presidency is unconstitutional, he's not actually president, he is acting without any authority, etc. If they do make that argument, I will counter with the argument that Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican Bush appointee, intentionally messed up his reading of the Oath of Office to Obama so as to interfere with the inauguration and proper swearing-in of the new president, a Democrat (because Roberts hates black people, of course).
UPDATE:
My prediction is shared by the first website I looked at - http://wonkette.com/405609/did-john-roberts-screw-up-the-oath-on-purpose#more-405609 --
Oh, this is sweet: Chief Justice John Roberts intentionally (allegedly!) fucked up the Presidential Oath, so the wingnuts could claim Obama really isn’t president, because he said the words in the wrong order. See, not only is Roberts a Republican hack, but Obama voted against his confirmation. But Roberts’ evil plan sort of fell apart, because he was dealing with Barack Obama the famous Constitutional Law Professor.
[Video of Roberts giving the Oath of Office to Obama]
See how Roberts put “faithfully” at the end? Obama starts to repeat it, then stops, and makes Roberts read it again, correctly this time. And then Obama grins and becomes the president of wingnuts on Free Republic, too …. or he would be, if he hadn’t put the “faithfully” part in the wrong place himself.
UPDATE 2:
January 21, 2009 - Sure enough, Chris Wallace of Fox News (where else) has said Obama is not really the President because of the flubbed Oath of Office (flubbed because of Bush's Chief Justice John Roberts), "not saying the 35 words of the Oath in the proper order." He said it half-jokingly, half-seriously, and of course had no issue with the addition of the four words "so help me god" to the oath, which of course do not appear in the Constitution. But it seems that, out of an abundance of caution and to shut up people like Wallace, Obama has retaken the Oath of Office today in the White House. |
It's the Cannabis Candle ... a scented candle that smells like pot.
"Light it up" and infuse your apartment with the illegal scent of smoking marijuana. Any nosy neighbors or cops sniffing around the vacinity of your abode will have probable cause to get a search warrant - all because you blew $48.00 on a stupid scented candle. And if you actually do have pot in your possession when the cops come through the door, don't expect to keep it by using the "it was just my candle" excuse -- that won't fly.
If there is one smell that you don't want emanating from your home, it's the smell of a Schedule I controlled substance. How dumb. Of course, anyone who'd spend fifty bucks on a scented candle (with an estimated burn time of only 60 hours, no less) deserves to be locked up. |
Bush has been the most stingy president when it comes to granting pardons. But in the final hours of his presidency, how many of the criminals in his administration will he pardon? I think he will surely give Scooter Libby a full pardon (the commutation of his sentence wasn't enough of an injustice - Scooter needs to have a clean record so he can get his law license reinstated).
I would not be surprised if Bush gives last-minute preemptive, all-inclusive pardons to all the major players in his administration - Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, etc. You know, to "stop the vindictive, bitter democrats from having a political witch-hunt against these honest public servants merely because they used all the necessary 'tools' [Republican speak for torture] to fight the war on terror and protect the American people at home and abroad."
There will be controversial last-minute pardons, you can bet on it. The Republicans will uniformly support them, while contemporaneously whining about Eric Holder's at his Senate confirmation hearing because President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich... which is somehow Holder's fault.
Of course, I've said that I support Obama granting pardons to Bush and his fellow criminal conspirators. But there's a big difference in Obama doing it, labeling Bush et al. as criminals, and Bush doing it, labeling it as a preemptive protection from democrats who want to victimize them with wrongful prosecutions. |
They shouldn't. Just ignore them. The Republicans have ruled this country for 8 years and they've practically destroyed it. They've ruined our reputation, they've ruined our economy, and they've made those who hate us not only hate us even more, but with more concrete, articulable reasons for such hatred.
Republicans do not get to talk now. They've had their chance, they blew it, their opinions mean absolutely nothing. They should shut up, and stay shut up. They should crawl into their closets and pray to their imaginary gods. QUIETLY, and by themselves.
Meanwhile, the press should not be giving them any attention. "Republicans Question Obama Plan" is a headline we should not see for the next 4 years. They don't deserve the ink, and their opinions are worth less than nothing. If you're going to report what Republicans think, then you may as well report on what the Raelian Cloning Cult thinks, too, because they're both on the same level of relevancy. Actually, the Raelians have not run America into the sewer for the past 8 years, so their opinion is less meaningless than that of the Republicans. But both are irrelevant religious cults, neither of which deserves a voice in modern 21st century policy-making.
Fox News is the Ministry of Propaganda for the Republican Party, so we can expect them to keep spouting Republican spin and lies. But CNN should know better. I see CNN has this commentary piece about "Big Risk in Obama's Stimulus Plan" written by the Republican Whip. CNN should know better than to give the same crazy, idiot, religious nutcase terrorists that destroyed our Constitution, economy, and worldwide reputation space on its website for their "opinions." Republicans have no right to have their opinions displayed on any legitimate news source. They have their own right-wing Christian forums for this sort of thing.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to run the country into the ground for 8 years leaving it in utter shambles, get voted out of power in a landslide, and then get your negative and baseless opinions about the new administration shown on equal terms as though they carry equal weight. Republicans should be seen, and not heard. And that's only because we can't make them disappear. But if they have any self-dignity, if they have any respect for the American people who voted them out of office, if they have any respect for the people whose lives they ruined, if they have any love for this country, they will SHUT THE FUCK UP and let Obama try to fix their mess completely unobstructed. Republicans can talk, sure... but they have no right to have their words printed/broadcast on the mainstream media. And quite frankly, I think you lose your First Amendment right to speak when you've done nothing but destroy America. It's the same argument Republicans use for anti-flagburning laws. If you hate America then you should not get to enjoy its freedoms. Of course I don't agree with that argument, but I do agree with ideological estoppel. You should be bound by the terms of your own ideology. In other words, there is no constitutional right to be a big fat hypocrite.
News reporting does not mean "both sides" get to speak. When you interview a civil rights leader, that doesn't mean you also have to interview a Nazi. When you interview a Democrat, that doesn't mean you also have to interview a Republican. That's not reporting, that's polemics. The news should not be reporting any Republican positions until the Democrats have shown their own positions are a failure. Then the Republicans may earn the right to be heard from again. But that's at least 10 years down the line. |
I keep hearing that the government needs to bail out certain companies (AIG, Bank of America, etc.) because they are "too big to fail." How does one guage the threshold of when a company reaches the point where the government should step in and keep it afloat because we as a society simply cannot afford to let said company fail? Do we not want it to fail because it means a huge loss of jobs, or because it is so intertwined with other companies, as well as whole markets, that its failure would infect, if not destroy, a large number of of businesses in the near term? Or some combination of both?
The way I see it, it is not the responsibility of government to save (e.g. bail out) companies that are "too big to fail." That's not a legitimate function of government, no matter how loud the whining, crying, and complaining may be of those who would be negatively affected by the big company's failure. But it is a legitimate function of government to make sure no company gets to be so massive that it is "too big to fail."
In my opinion, a company that reaches the critical mass of being "too big to (be allowed to) fail" is an impermissible monopoly and should have been broken apart by the government pursuant to our antitrust laws.
I do like the implicit concession that corporations are more important than the lives of individual people (and they are). Nobody is saying the government should step in because a person is "too young to die from X" where X is a treatable disease. We'll spend $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to keep certain financial services businesses afloat, but we wouldn't spend a measley one million of taxpayer dollars to give a 18 year old a heart transplant (assuming the status quo, i.e. no national healthcare system is in place).
We shouldn't be doing either. Corporations that fail should declare bankruptcy, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, and while I believe we should legalize drugs and tax them in order to pay for an all-inclusive national healthcare system, until we do so, we should not be using taxpayer dollars to pay for one-off medical treatments for people who need them (and we don't). But we are bailing out dying companies that could not succeed in the market for whatever reason (incompetence, corruption) because those companies grew to be so large that letting them fail will cause a lot of dumb investors who are not properly diversified to lose their nest eggs.
Which companies are to big to fail? WalMart? IBM? Microsoft? Apple? If so, the government should step in and split them up into smaller companies - they are illegal, impermissible monopolies that are anticompetive but even more importantly, their existence is a financial danger because it amounts to having all our eggs in one basket - a basket "too big to fail."
I don't believe any company is too big to be allowed to fail, but I am unemotional about it and I stay out of the stock market. So I don't care if the downfall of company X causes the DOW to drop 30% and 400,000 lost jobs overnight. Tough shit. Of course, big monopolistic companies that large don't fail because of tough competition. They fail due to the corruption and/or gross negligence of management (usually both - on that level you don't get one without the other). So not only are we deeming certain companies too important to let them fall apart, but we're looking away to ignore the fact that the only reason these companies are falling apart is due to the high levels of corruption and incompetence of those running them.
And we're telling them that it's okay - you can steal from the company, you can fuck the consumer, you can be irresponsible - because your company is so big that we can't handle it failing so we'll use taxpayer money to protect it. So steal from it, pocket what you want, run it into the ground... when things get really bad the government will come in and bail out the company.
Why are so many people so stupid? |
May Bush rot in hell for interrupting new episodes of Bones and Ugly Betty. Yes, stupid TV shows are unquestionably more important than ANYTHING this lame dick president could possibly say. Unless, of course, you're a psychiatrist doing a study on self delusion. Calling Iraq a beacon of democracy and friend of America, calling 7 years without a foreign terrorist attack a resounding success (we had several hundred years without a foreign terrorist attack until the worst one in history happened on Bush's watch), and saying he has saved our economy are some of the most incredulous examples of self delusion the world will ever see. I expect psychologists and mental health experts will be studying this speech for decades.
Now, it could be that Bush realizes he's not telling the truth and he's just trying to lie for propaganda purposes in a pathetic attempt to protect his "legacy." But I think he truly believes what he was saying. For example, he really believes that Iraq was a success which history will bear out in the end.
His "legacy" is that of the worst, most incompetent, most corrupt president this country will hopefully ever have, as well as a jackass who interrupts primetime TV shows for his own selfish, psychotic rant. |
|
It should be illegal - a per se deceptive trade practice - for the word "free" to have an asterisk leading to small print indicating that payment is required. "Just pay..." is mutually exclusive with "free" by definition. |
Sex offender wins $500,000 Alaska lottery
An Alaska lottery held to raise money for a group that helps sexual abuse victims had a surprise winner: a convicted sex offender.
Alec Ahsoak, who according to the state sex offender registry was convicted in 1993 and 2000 for sexual abuse of a minor, came forward Saturday with the winning ticket for the $500,000 Lucky Time Pull Tabs jackpot.
Proceeds of the lottery help Standing Together Against Rape in Anchorage, a nonprofit group that offers support to sexual assault victims among other services.
"It's not how we had envisioned the story going," Nancy Haag, the group's executive director, told CNN Radio.
Alaska has the highest per capita number of rape cases in the United States, according to FBI statistics.
"With a ranking that high, it's ironic that the person who wins is a convicted sex offender," Haag added.
I have two predictions:
1) Public outrage over the sex offender winning the $500,000 lotto jackpot will cause the state to refuse to pay him his winnings, with the logic that the $500,000 lottery winnings (all "proceeds of the lottery") should instead go to the nonprofit group to help rape victims. This ignores the fact that by playing the lottery, the sex offender/lotto winner helped fund this nonprofit group, and that he legitimately played and won the $500k.
2) Public outrage will cause the Alaska legislature to pass, and Sarah Palin to sign, a law that says sex offenders are ineligible to receive state lottery winnings and/or are not allowed to buy lottery tickets (sending them back to prison if they do). "We should not be paying sex offenders prizes taken from money collected to help the victims of their crimes!" Yeah that sounds right! Who could be against that? You betcha!
Of course that would mean sex offenders will no longer buy Alaska lottery tickets, causing an overall drop in Alaska's lotto revenue, and thus less funding for the nonprofit group that helps rape victims.
You know, for the precious children.... |
|
Wow
|
Dec. 28th, 2008 @ 04:05 pm
|
|---|
This is just unbelievable. It speaks for itself... I don't have anything to say other than... (1) wow and (2) this can't be legal - isn't anyone filing FOIA requests for this stuff? At least there they have to give some plausible reason why they redact something, and there is a remedy in federal court.
Hopefully the crooks and thieves that are running this country will be replaced with less blatant, less corrupt crooks and thieves (with a significantly less chutzpah) once Obama takes over the reigns. But what if there's nothing left for the new administration to steal? It's starting to look that way - if you can read beneath the black Sharpee. |
"Man Shoots Talker at Movie Theater"
A man angry that a family was talking during a movie threw popcorn at the son and then shot the father in the arm, according to police in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
He was charged with attempted murder, agg assault, and various weapons charges. The annoying talker was shot in the arm and unfortunately, it looks like he'll be fine. This is why I don't go to the movies - because it's illegal to shoot people who won't shut up during the film. Talking during a movie is in effect stealing - it's depriving the people who purchased tickets to see the movie the full value of their purchase price. A $10 ticket to see a movie includes being able to hear the movie - you're paying for an audiovisual experience. Typically deadly force is not justified to prevent mere theft. But I think there should be an exception for people who won't shut up during a movie at a theater - they are stealing from everyone else in the theater. They should at least be arrested for the theft.
A wiseass would point out that shooting the talker makes a louder noise than the talker's voice. But that's one of those arguments based on a foolish consistency. It's worth one very loud bang to stop 2 hours of moderately loud talking. I hope this guy gets off with probation. Nobody died, and if the talker ever goes to a movie theater again, you can bet your ass he's gonna sit quietly and not say a damn word.
Cost of bullet - 50 cents. Marginal benefit to society - priceless. |
Anyone with half a brain knows that the main reason behind drug prohibition is putting money into the pockets of those in power. They could do the same thing by legalizing drugs and taxing them, but then how that tax revenue would be spent would be open for public debate.
I've consistently complained about how paying cops "overtime" to testify at the trials of the defendants they arrest is against public policy because it gives police the perverse incentives to (a) make as many arrests as possible and (b) arrest innocent people over blatantly guilty people because the latter are statistically more likely to plead guilty and avoid trial, thus negating the need for the officer to testify at trial (so no overtime pay).
This behavior is most common in DWI arrests, for the sole reason that DWI is such a subjective crime. It requires no evidence other than the officer's opinion "based on his training and experience" that the defendant was legally intoxicated at the time he was driving. Here in Houston, all the cops on the HPD "DWI Task Force" make a freakin' fortune in overtime pay, well over $100,000 per year on top of their base salary of approximately $50,000. Innocent people are more likely to invoke their right to trial than guilty people (on average) so it begs the question - why do these DWI Task Force cops end up testifying at many trials?
Anyway, I found this article interesting due to what is either blunt honesty or gross naiveté on the part of the 20-year-old son of a cop, whose college tuition is being paid for by drug prohibition and all the lives ruined by the drug laws.
Ed Finch, a 20-year-old sophomore from Franklin, voted against decriminalization for a couple of reasons. One was "purely financial," he said. His father is a Boston police officer who gets a lot of overtime when he has to go to court after a marijuana arrest, Finch said.
Can someone explain to me how cops ever started to get "overtime pay" for going to court to testify? They are fact witnesses to a crime. They are subpoenaed and have no choice but to be there. No other fact witnesses get paid to testify at criminal trials (in fact it's usually illegal to pay a fact witness for his/her testimony). The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires the arresting officer be available for cross-examination by the defendant.
It's one thing if cops who have to attend court proceedings are paid their normal salary as court attendance is a normal and expected aspect of their job duties. That, I suppose, is less egregious, though I have a feeling most cops would rather spend their day sitting in court as opposed to driving around and confronting criminals, where they are putting themselves in danger. But court attendance should never, under any circumstance, be a financial windfall for a police officer. Moreover, they call it "overtime" pay but we all know the cops are not working extra hours. If a cop has an 8-hour shift, say from 9 to 5, but the cop has to spend that time in court, does anyone really think the cop will have to make up that time working the next night shift? Of course not. It's a paid vacation. Paid extra - overtime paid vacation. Does your boss pay you overtime when you have jury duty? Chances are you don't get paid anything at all.
Aside from having the balls to tell police officers' unions to go fuck themselves, this is an easy problem to fix. Not paying cops to testify at the trials of the suspects they arrest will save millions of taxpayer dollars while increasing the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system. The only thing more perverse than giving cops a financial incentive to make arrests is giving them an bonus incentive to arrest innocent people. That's precisely what's going on here. It's most egregious with DWI cases, because unless there is a breath or blood test done, or a videotape of the arrestee doing field sobriety tests, the only evidence is the cop's "testilying" in open court that the defendant "had the odor of alcohol on his/her breath, had slurred speach, and had 'glassy' eyes."
Cops should have to testify in court for free... just like everyone else. They should lose money (not get paid even though they legally have to be there). Even if they are paid their normal pay rate insofar as court testimony is considered a normal job duty, they should not be paid extra so that testifying in criminal trials is a lucrative way of increasing their salary.
And since everyone else plays the "protect the children" card, I'll do it too - cops getting paid overtime to hang around at the courthouse are not out on the streets keeping the neighborhoods safe for the precious children. How many children have been kidnapped, raped, and murdered because the cop on that beat was in court getting paid extra to lie about the smell of some drivers' breath and the glossy patina of their eyeballs?
Talk about an easy way to both save taxpayer dollars, keep cops honest, make our streets safer, and prevent innocent people from being arrested. How we managed to come to this "overtime pay for testilying cops" system is simply beyond me. If anyone can explain it to me, I'm all ears. |
Okay so some stupid kid, Caylee Anthony, was reported missing, and a meter reader found the body of a dead child close to the home of the missing child. The mother has been arrested (it's always the mother who kills her annoying children) and the remains have been positively identified as those of Caylee, who is no now longer missing and confirmed dead.
Because Caylee Anthony is a white, presumably cute child with a hick southern trash name, the media is all over this story like flies on shit. You can't watch 10 minutes of news without hearing about it. But what I don't understand is how not one person has so much as suggested the possibility that it was the meter reader (who found the body and notified the authorities) that actually snatched and killed poor little cute white blond haired blue eyed Caylee Anthony. Why is that not a plausible possibility? Is it that the story is sexier when it's the mother who killed the child, rather than a lowely meter reader?
Seems convenient that the meter reader found the body (wasn't the body found in a trash can? what's a meter reader doing rummaging through people's trash cans?), and the meter reader sounded quite calm on the 911 tape they keep playing ad nauseum.
This is why people can't get fair trials in this country, and why it's so damn easy to frame someone - once a crime occurs, the first person to be a suspect is presumed guilty and all attention is focused on that person's guilt, with no time or extraneous attention remaining to consider additional suspects. It's why the police and "victims" just want to find someone who can be convicted, though they could care less whether it's the right person. As long as someone is punished (especially when a child is harmed) that's all the cops care about - crime solved. And it's all the "victims" care about - they can finger themselves up the ass while chanting their "closure" mantra. Better an innocent person be arrested, charged, convicted, and locked up than the case go unsolved. That's what justice in America has come to.
Is ANYONE going to investigate the meter reader? At least tell me why the mother is a better suspect than the meter reader who discovered the body? I know "mom kills child" sells more newspapers than "meter reader kills child" but at the same time, normally the mother of a murdered child would be a "victim" while a neighborhood meter reader would not. So why do the police and the DA's office not want to lick the delicious victim-scented assholes of both of Caylee's parents?
Speaking of that... everyone should be aware that if they find a dead body, they are automatically a murder suspect. If I came across a dead body, I'd be very hesitant to call the police. If they can't find a better suspect, it will be the one who found the body who goes to prison (remember, someone is going to be held responsible, though it doesn't matter who). You found the body, so you must have killed the person - how else would you have known where the body was? Aha! Gotcha!
Ugh.... |
I see some Russian analyst agrees with me in predicting the imminent collapse of the United States.
A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.
Of course, I have not been saying this for ten years, and the fact that a Russian has been saying a capitalist power will collapse for over a decade is unsurprising and quite meaningless. He's been crying wolf for ten years and only in the last few months does the prediction carry any weight whatsoever. It's not as though he gave a ten-year time horizon back when he made his prediction ten years ago (that would have been impressive). Moreover, I'm not sure what a "political analyst" is, but if he were an economist or economics professor, the article probably would have said that. A little communist chicken screaming about how the American sky will be falling any time now, over and over again for ten years, is unworthy of being praised for his foresight when the American sky actually does fall.
The fact that he's not an economist is abundantly clear - he's flat wrong about the dollar being secured by nothing. The dollar is secured by the U.S. economy. It's called fiat money, and the dollar is not unique in that respect. The dollar can, by law, be exchanged for any good or service the American economy has to offer. If a new good or service enters the American market tomorrow, the dollar will be marginally more valuable than it is today. Anyone with a working brain can figure that out. If we went back to the gold standard, and backed ("secured") each dollar with a set quantity of gold, or some other precious metal, there would be a limit to how many dollars could exist at one time, and a limit on how much the overall economy could be worth. We used to do that, and while there are a few people yelling about how we should go back to the gold standard, if you look closely they all have a copy of the Book of Revelantion glued to their faces. That's why all those charlatians selling "original replicas of rare gold coins" show their commercials on Fox News and the Christian channels - people who think the rapture is near will need gold in order to buy twinkies, and they'll pay $49.95 for the "exclusive numismatic opportunity" to own a gold-plated metal slug worth $2. They will also buy a few 100% pure aluminum "Heroes of 9-11 commemorative World Trade Center tribute coins" if they're told doing so is patriotic. But I digress... America is certainly doomed, but not because of our use of fiat money.
I've never predicted the downfall of America until recently - the past year or so. It took Bush over 7 years to bring about the final destruction of America. We still have about two years left before the country completely collapses, splintering into several groups (I predict three - north, south, and west).
The really, horrendously unfair thing about this is that America will collapse during the Obama administration, and there's NOTHING he can do about it. Bush destroyed the country and it will be perceived as being Obama's fault. "America was fine until we let a nigger run it" they'll snidely say in their happy hick voices, with a bible in one hand and a box of twinkies in the other.
Ten years from now, America will look like the middle east. You will no longer be able to see the American-Mexican border from the sky, as it will no longer be delineated by a separation of green and brown - it will all be brown. America will have nothing but junky double-wide pre-fab houses with churches everywhere. There will be over a thousand times the number of churches in American in the year 2019 than there will be in 2009. Homosexuals, atheists, and jews will be routinely shot, hanged, and slaughtered in the streets, and most will have moved to Canada. The number of American Muslims will have increaesed as well, and there will be 1 mosque for ever 100 churches. Christians and Muslims will be fighting over whose religion the law will most recognize, and America will look like the West Bank. Constant suicide bombings, retribution shootings - a neverneding cycle. Due in part to legal precedent and in part to mitigation of violence, the majority of people will settle on the middle ground of teaching both Christianity and Islam in our public schools - the parents will get to decide with which religion their kids are to be brainwashed. Most contracts will require legal disputes to be settled according to principles of Christian or Islamic law, and instead of going to court, people will be contractually bound to go to church, where the priest/imam will decide the victor, the damages, and the remedy.
You can be an economic superpower or you can be a religion-based country, but you can't have both. Some countries never get the opportunity to be economic powers, so it's no surprise they resort to religion. But America actually was a financial superpower, and the people decided they're rather be a third world country "under Christ" ... so that's exactly what they'll get. Meanwhile, China will be the world's only remaining superpower. China's definitely got it right - they're more capitalist than we are, and they watch over and regulate religion. People should be free to do business, not to practice religion. |
This story makes me happy and pisses me off at the same time. Happy over the fact reported, pissed over the fact that it's been reported in the first place, as well as the tone and implications conveyed by the reporter.
President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.
On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.
Good. I'm happy to hear Obama has not gone to church - he certainly has more important things to be doing during this transition period. There is no greater way to waste time than to spend time spent at church. Anything Obama can possibly do with his time is more productive than flocking to religious services with the faith-sheep. Going to the gym to exercise is without a doubt more productive than attending church. I take comfort in knowing that my president is spending his time exercising to better his health, as compared to the fat dumb slobs who slithered to church where they will beg their invisible friend to give them good health. Teach a man to fish and he'll be able to feed himself; teach a man to pray for fish and he'll starve to death praying for a fish. What's obvious to me is unthinkable to most people. And let us not forget that for the past 8 years, we've had a president who not only believed God put him in the White House, but prayed for wisdom rather than having sought it out. That didn't work out too well... but it seems we have not learned our lesson.
That's what pisses me off about this "news story." First of all, it's written in an accusatory fasion, as though Obama has done something wrong by not yet going to church - it's implied that should apologize and better start attending (i.e. stop skipping) church. The title of the article - "Obama Skips Church, Heads to Gym" clearly gives the impression that there was an obligation to go to church in the first place. The word "skips" puts spin on Obama's decision not to go to church, and implies that Obama did something wrong by not going to church. Moreover, going to church and going to the gym are being compared, and the implication I get is that going to church is somehow noble and selfless, while going to exercise is ignoble and vain. Am I reading too much into this? The mere fact that this is taking up space in some newspaper infuriates me, but one must always look at the news as news itself. Why is something being reported?
Obama's "skipping" church was apparently so newsworthy it was worth throwing in Obama's face - "Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners." In other words, Obama didn't want to cause a big disruption by attending a new church in Washington. Good answer, I suppose. And "decision not to attend" is a more straightforward way of stating the facts without commenting or offering an opinion, which is what the news media are supposed to do. Of course, I'd love to have heard "the president-elect has more important things to do." Regardless, the question should never have been posed to Obama in the first place. Even if going to church were not a complete and pathetic waste of time, a person's religion - and how they go about practicing that religion - are personal matters. Nobody's asking the president-elect how many times he's fucked his wife since election day. Why is that any different?
It's also worth noting that the last time president-elect Obama decided to attend church, he got attacked for his choich of church and his decision to attend, and every word of asinine, crazy, moronic, nonsensical, insipid bullshit said by that church's preacher were imputed to Obama by his political enemies (the jesus-fucking Republicans). Since it's a 100% certainty that any religious leader is going to make stupid, nonsensical, illogical, moronic, baseless, asinine, crazy statements, why should Obama go to a new church and leave himself open to new attacks? Apparently he'll get bashed either way... He's damned if he goes to church and damned if he doesn't. That negates the entire purpose of going to church in the first place.
Finally, if you read between the lines here, I think there is an implicit sense of outrage over the fact that Obama has not been to church "since winning the White House earlier this month." We are constantly bombarded by "winners" thanking god for their victories, whether it be the Superbowl, an Emmy award, or first place in a spelling bee. By starting the timeframe of Obama's "skipping" church from his presidential victory, the "news" story here is not so much that Obama didn't go to church last sunday; rather, the story they're trying to convey is that Obama has not properly thanked God for letting him win the election and become the first black president of the United States. In other words, Obama is vain and ungrateful.
What bullshit. |
I have a great idea. As Obama takes office, the Democrats should begin to demand the Obama Administration investigate all aspects of Bush and his corrupt administration for all sorts of potential criminal violations. They should conduct a few hearings on topics such as torture, no-bid Halliburton contracts, kickbacks and war profiteering, and illegal spying on American citizens.
As the Republicans get all whiny and embarrassed, Obama should "do the right thing" and officially pardon Bush (and Cheney) in a primetime speech to the nation, a la Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon. There's no rule that says someone must be indicted before the President can pardon him. Obama should pardon Bush for all (federal) crimes, known and unknown, which Bush committed against the United States of America during his 8 years in office. This will accomplish three things. First, forever brand Bush as a criminal. Second, it will do this without actually having to investigate the Bush Administration - something we all know the Democrats lack the balls to do. Third, it will make Obama look like a mature, resonable man who sincerely wants to move forward and put partisanship and Bush-hatred behind us. Could there possibly be a greater, more effective political ploy than Obama taking the initiative to pardon Bush? I did a quick Google search and it seems a few others have had this idea cross their minds, too.
Best of all, what could Bush and the Republicans possibly say other than "thank you, President Obama"? They'd be accused and forgiven at the same time, with one stroke of a pen. And it's not like Bush is ever actually going to be prosecuted anyway. Ditto for Cheney. So why not officially put the lawlessness of the Bush years behind us with Obama giving Bush a universal Presidentail Pardon? Help the country move on, but the Bush nightmare in our past, and what could be more "Jesus-like" than forgiving your enemy of the crimes he committed? Seriously, how could the right-wing Christians possibly complain with a straight face? Yeah they'd find a way, but still, most people would see Obama as the one doing the right thing, a kind, compassionate act. It should be one of the first things he does when he takes office. Checkmate! |
Once upon a time black-skinned people were forcibly taken from Africa, brought to America and made to be slaves for white people. They were worked to death, had no rights and were nothing more than chattel, and were universally considered a lower life form. Their native religions were forgotten and the black slaves, while not allowed to read, learned about their masters' white god Jesus, and they readily and enthusiastically adopted the white slaveowner's religion.
The black slaves loved praying to the White God, and they sang and danced to the songs and hymns of the White God. Of course the slaveowner's god fully endorsed slavery and taught that slaves should obey their masters. Yet the black slaves loved it. They passed this new religion of the White God down to their children. Over time, some white people recognized slavery was simply immoral, regardless of their own God's endorsement of it. Ultimately slavery was abolished and the black slaves were freed. Yet they were still considered inferior and were far from being treated equal under the law. They could not vote, they could not serve on juries, and they were kept separate from the white people. Yet they still prayed to the White God Jesus. The freed slaves loved their new white god without question, and not for a second did they consider reverting to their native African religions. They flocked to their own black churches and prayed to a statue of the White God hanging from a cross. Just like when they were kept in slavery, it was a white man who they followed. They passed the religion of the White God down to their children, who also enthusiastically adopted it. Generation after generation of former African slave loved the White God and never questioned it. In fact, the blacks were for the most part more enthusiastic about the White God than the white people were!
Over time, the blacks fought for their civil rights and against institutional racism. They demanded equality, and leaders like Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall dreampt of a society where blacks and white could hold hands and worship the White God together in equality. Half a century later, a black man who openly worships the White God has become the first black president. The battle over civil rights has been won and no longer does skin color determine a person's rights under the law. The dream has come true - Blacks and Whites go to churches and pray to the White God together.
However, the White God, in addition to sanctioning slavery, also says homosexuality is an abomination. Like the African slaves of years past, today it is homosexuals who are considered less than human, lack equality under the law, and are universally disliked. While voting for the first black president, over 90% of blacks - still slaves to the White God of their former slavemasters - voted to take away and legally deny civil rights to homosexuals based solely on the teachings of their slavemasters' White God. They put aside the teachings of the White God when it came to seeking their own civil rights, but they shamefully invoked the White God to deny civil rights to others. Not only to deny rights, but to legally withdraw rights that already existed. Homosexuals in California who could legally marry before Election Day have had that civil right taken away due to former slaves who voted en masse for Proposition 8. Why would former slaves, who spent over a century being treated as second class citizens based on the color of their skin, vote to deny a civil right to another suspect class? Because the White God forced upon them by their slavemasters two centuries ago - the same White God whose words supported the institution of slavery - says queers are icky.
Now that blacks are officially equal and inequality based upon skin color is a relic of the past, blacks have decided to do what white people have done for years; that is, use religion to support the denial of civil rights to groups of people we don't like. But when white people cite the Bible, they are citing their own religion and a god in whose image they believe they are made. When black people cite the Bible, they are citing the religion of their slavemasters, and they are confirming their belief that they are, in fact, inferior to whites insofar as they concede that God is white and they are not. Christianity is the last remaining scar of slavery - one that will never go away. As long as blacks are and remain Christians, and sing and dance to the White God of their slavemasters, they should be glad their ancestors were kidnapped and forced into slavery. They'd never have found White Jesus and would be unsaved in Africa, damned to hell for all eternity. Reparations? They should thank the White Man for beating them into submission and taming them with the Bible.
What could be more surreal than black slaves, oppressed and unequal for centuries, using their adopted slavemasters' religion to support their decision to deny civil rights to others the second their own civil rights are wholly confirmed? It would be funny if it were not so pathetic and harmful. Anyone who voted to deny homosexuals the right to marry should be ashamed of themselves, but especially african americans. Any african american who ever votes to deny any right to any group makes a mockery of the civil rights movement and should be instantly disenfranchised, never to vote again. |
I've never been happier to have been wrong. Obama won, despite my predictions that racism would rule the day and lead to a McCain victory. Not only did Obama win, but he won BIG, and it appears race was no factor whatsoever. I've never been more proud to be an American, though it could just be the fact that I've been so embarassed to have been an American for the past 8 years. The long, national Bush nightmare is finally over, and there won't be a "Part II: The McCain Years."
I'm so glad I was wrong. The best part is we had a clear winner before 11pm tonight - no Florida bullshit, no lawsuits, no recounts, no allegations of vote fraud. McCain conceded, Obama accepted - both did so gratiously (I was particularly impressed with McCain's concession speech). I can't say the same for McCain's crowd, which booed at the mention of Obama's name, while Obama's crowd did not boo at the mention of McCain's name. Of course, losing sucks, and winning does not.
I wonder if Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be retiring once Obama takes office. Maybe Stevens and Souter, too.
The rule of the theo-fascists is officially over, with the voice of reason receiving a huge mandate. What a great day. |
Barack Obama's grandmother raised him, and he's always spoken of her as the cornerstone of his family, the one person who inspired him and supported him and made him the man he is today.
Well, she just died the day before the election. Assuming Obama wins the election (as everyone other than myself seems to be doing), this means his grandmother died one day before getting to see her grandson become the first black president of the United States.
God couldn't have waited another day? Talk about cruel. Even if Obama loses the election (as I so sadly predict), to cause his grandmother to die the monday before election day, so she'll never know the results, after all this time, is so horrendously sad and unfair and cruel and unwarranted... how anyone can believe in a benevolent, loving god is simply beyond me. Of course Obama and other religious people won't see it this way... they'll just spout off the usual "god works in mysterious ways" excuse. Two football teams pray to god before a game - one team wins and its prayers were answered. The other team loses and "god works in mysterious ways." Is there anything more disingenous and intellectually bankrupt? No.
Anyway, my condolences to Barack Obama and his family. If there were a god, his grandmother would have lived for one more day. Even if he loses the election, she should have been able to live long enough have known what the presidential election result was. |
I don't care what these polls say. People lie. People really lie when lying makes them feel good. Mark my words - regardless of how big a lead Obama supposedly has, come election day John McCain will win the presidency. I stand by my sad, unfortunate prediction. I hope I'm wrong. I'd never be more happy to have been wrong. But I don't see Obama winning. He did not run as nasty a campaign as McCain, he did not lie like McCain, he did not personally attack McCain/Palin. McCain gave money to an islamic terrorist and Sarah Palin's husband belongs to a group that believes Alaska should seceed from the union because they hate America - and Palin said she agrees with them! Yet not a word of any of this from the Obama campaign, as McCain and Palin accuse Obama of supporting terrorists and receiving campaign funds from terrorists.
Oh, and Obama is black while McCain is white. As I've said before, in the privacy of a voting booth, tolerance goes out the window - "I ain't gonna vote for no nigger president!" (even though the same jackfucks told people they would and did vote for Obama). The fear that Obama will rape a white child is simply too strong to overcome the desire to appear progressive, tolerant, and accepting of other races.
People get the government they deserve. Americans get the president they deserve. Obama is too good for us. I don't trust polls and I don't care what the polsters say. Obama is not going to win. American's will vote for the old, crusty, mean white guy. Get ready for 8 years of McCain/Palin, in other words, 8 more years of Bush/Cheney... the only difference being McCain can say "nuclear" properly.
And get ready for a massive complaints of election fraud when Obama loses despite exit polls that indicate the majority of voters say they voted for him (they're lying). |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
brucem's journal