http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/18/uk.pope.threat/index.html?hpt=T2
Of course they were released. I highly doubt they had any real evidence against them. Christians are the ones who react to their opponents with violence, if anything atheists put up with too much shit without doing anything about it. They just wanted as much as possible to keep those who would protest the Pope off the street. They obviously can't arrest Hitchens or Dawkins so they targeted the less visible enemies of Ratzinger.
They were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to hold them without charge for 28 days.
This is a really scary sentence. I imagine if Ratzinger had his way they'd have arrested every atheist in England and held them for 28 days.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Pope travels in Britain to stick finger in eye of Anglican Church...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091301631.html?tid=nn_twitter
Why not, he's broken everyone else's rules. Why not break his own?
It's the first time Benedict will celebrate a beatification; under his own rules popes don't beatify, only canonize.
I don't think Benedict cares about the rules. All he cares about is doing what makes him feel good at the time and smiting his enemies.
"His personality and teachings could be a source of inspiration for ecumenism in our times from which all of us can draw,"
Remember, he said it. This is his model for ecumenism. Not common transformation or melding of traditions. Newman converted fully to Catholicism. When the Pope speaks of ecumenism this is what he means. He wants non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. He wants them to abandon their own traditions. Why anyone outside Catholicism would find that positive or attractive is beyond me.
For many Anglicans, the sight of the pope traveling to Britain with the express aim of beatifying a figure who turned his back on their church will be a bitter one.
That was always Benedict's intention, to stick a finger in the eye of the Anglicans and the English. He has always held a special hatred in his heart for England. First off, it's the home of an offshoot religion that was a thorn in the side of past Popes. Second, it's the current home of many of the leading lights in the atheist movement and also those who have tried to fight his dangerous and murderous actions in the world.
"For him, becoming a Catholic was to become a pariah, to give up all his friends, all his jobs, possessions, and do something that was really difficult," said Jack Valero, the spokesman for Newman's beatification cause. "But he did that because he wanted to follow the truth."
The Church has significant resources and he knew that. He knew they'd take care of him since his conversion served as such a public insult to the Anglican Church. He seems to have done pretty well for himself after his conversion.
"Perhaps Benedict is thinking that Newman is the vehicle that he can use to push the evangelization of the old Europe," said Valero.
"Old Europe" has seen the hateful, outdated lies of Christianity. They've already rejected them. They're not going to suddenly resolve themselves to the slavery of the church just because Benedict digs up some old dead idiot.
But the beatification is controversial, not least because Newman's defection still rankles in the Church of England, a betrayal that represents current and centuries-old fears about Rome.
That's the intention. It's nothing less than a shot across the bow of the Anglican Church. A clear statement that "we're coming to destroy you". The Church of England has every reason to be scared of Rome, they will not be happy until they've completely eradicated the Anglican Church and converted every single Anglican to Catholicism. Any hollow claims of ecumenism are pointed towards this goal.
Why not, he's broken everyone else's rules. Why not break his own?
It's the first time Benedict will celebrate a beatification; under his own rules popes don't beatify, only canonize.
I don't think Benedict cares about the rules. All he cares about is doing what makes him feel good at the time and smiting his enemies.
"His personality and teachings could be a source of inspiration for ecumenism in our times from which all of us can draw,"
Remember, he said it. This is his model for ecumenism. Not common transformation or melding of traditions. Newman converted fully to Catholicism. When the Pope speaks of ecumenism this is what he means. He wants non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. He wants them to abandon their own traditions. Why anyone outside Catholicism would find that positive or attractive is beyond me.
For many Anglicans, the sight of the pope traveling to Britain with the express aim of beatifying a figure who turned his back on their church will be a bitter one.
That was always Benedict's intention, to stick a finger in the eye of the Anglicans and the English. He has always held a special hatred in his heart for England. First off, it's the home of an offshoot religion that was a thorn in the side of past Popes. Second, it's the current home of many of the leading lights in the atheist movement and also those who have tried to fight his dangerous and murderous actions in the world.
"For him, becoming a Catholic was to become a pariah, to give up all his friends, all his jobs, possessions, and do something that was really difficult," said Jack Valero, the spokesman for Newman's beatification cause. "But he did that because he wanted to follow the truth."
The Church has significant resources and he knew that. He knew they'd take care of him since his conversion served as such a public insult to the Anglican Church. He seems to have done pretty well for himself after his conversion.
"Perhaps Benedict is thinking that Newman is the vehicle that he can use to push the evangelization of the old Europe," said Valero.
"Old Europe" has seen the hateful, outdated lies of Christianity. They've already rejected them. They're not going to suddenly resolve themselves to the slavery of the church just because Benedict digs up some old dead idiot.
But the beatification is controversial, not least because Newman's defection still rankles in the Church of England, a betrayal that represents current and centuries-old fears about Rome.
That's the intention. It's nothing less than a shot across the bow of the Anglican Church. A clear statement that "we're coming to destroy you". The Church of England has every reason to be scared of Rome, they will not be happy until they've completely eradicated the Anglican Church and converted every single Anglican to Catholicism. Any hollow claims of ecumenism are pointed towards this goal.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Thank you Tea Party for your help in November...
I wonder if the teabaggers realize that they're handing several states to the Dems in November? They're riding high on their victories last night, ignorant of the fact that primaries are always a contest of who can pander the most to their fringe followers (something the tea party candidates excel at). They don't seem to realize that last night wasn't the general election.
Extremists are always rewarded in party primaries since extremists show up far more for primaries/caucuses. The real test will be in November.
Normally, candidates will run to the fringe for the primary and then immediately run to the center for the general election. This is hard enough for a regular candidate, it's going to be nearly impossible for the teapartiers. If you want an example just ask Sharron Angle. She tried to disown some of her more extreme statements from the primary but there's video and screencaps of her website.
Tea party candidates are not able to run to the center like other Republicans do. They owe their entire existence to those extremists, they can't just disown them now that they're the nominees. I personally think they're going to find November isn't nearly as forgiving as the summer was.
They could very well have handed several seats to the Democrats (Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, NY Governor, etc...) that would have otherwise been easy Republican wins. The Nevada Senate seat was all but ripe for the Republicans to take. Harry Reid is hardly popular among the conservative population of Nevada. He was losing to generic Republican candidate in polls. Now that Angle is there, he's suddenly looking a lot safer for reelection. Same thing in Delaware. Mike Castle would have coasted to victory easily, now the Republicans have all but conceded the seat since O'Donnell has no chance of winning (Delaware isn't Alaska and it's not Alabama). Alaska may still go Republican despite the lunatic they've put forward as their nominee for the Senate (they did elect Palin after all) but it's far less likely than it would have been if the incumbent had won the primary.
Republicans love the tea parties because they think it's a way to excite their base and win elections, they may find that the power displayed in the primaries doesn't hold up when every American gets to vote.
Extremists are always rewarded in party primaries since extremists show up far more for primaries/caucuses. The real test will be in November.
Normally, candidates will run to the fringe for the primary and then immediately run to the center for the general election. This is hard enough for a regular candidate, it's going to be nearly impossible for the teapartiers. If you want an example just ask Sharron Angle. She tried to disown some of her more extreme statements from the primary but there's video and screencaps of her website.
Tea party candidates are not able to run to the center like other Republicans do. They owe their entire existence to those extremists, they can't just disown them now that they're the nominees. I personally think they're going to find November isn't nearly as forgiving as the summer was.
They could very well have handed several seats to the Democrats (Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, NY Governor, etc...) that would have otherwise been easy Republican wins. The Nevada Senate seat was all but ripe for the Republicans to take. Harry Reid is hardly popular among the conservative population of Nevada. He was losing to generic Republican candidate in polls. Now that Angle is there, he's suddenly looking a lot safer for reelection. Same thing in Delaware. Mike Castle would have coasted to victory easily, now the Republicans have all but conceded the seat since O'Donnell has no chance of winning (Delaware isn't Alaska and it's not Alabama). Alaska may still go Republican despite the lunatic they've put forward as their nominee for the Senate (they did elect Palin after all) but it's far less likely than it would have been if the incumbent had won the primary.
Republicans love the tea parties because they think it's a way to excite their base and win elections, they may find that the power displayed in the primaries doesn't hold up when every American gets to vote.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Bigotry...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
I can see both sides of this argument. That being said, I absolutely agree with this decision. The school years are a fragile period in any child's life, even more so for a child who is or thinks they might be gay. The last thing a kid who is questioning his sexuality needs is a counselor who is anything but supportive and non-judgmental. Having a counselor tell a kid in this state that he's a sinner and is going to hell could very well lead to serious consequences for the child including suicide.
Not that any of this matters since we all know the Supremes will take up this case and they will overturn the ruling.
I can see both sides of this argument. That being said, I absolutely agree with this decision. The school years are a fragile period in any child's life, even more so for a child who is or thinks they might be gay. The last thing a kid who is questioning his sexuality needs is a counselor who is anything but supportive and non-judgmental. Having a counselor tell a kid in this state that he's a sinner and is going to hell could very well lead to serious consequences for the child including suicide.
Not that any of this matters since we all know the Supremes will take up this case and they will overturn the ruling.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Abortion...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
It's unfortunate that in this country, a country where abortion is supposed to be legal, so many states seem to think they can restrict that right with impunity. I wonder how many women sit in the Oklahoma Legislature, I'd bet not too many. Most of the idiots so adamant about this bill will never have to worry about having an abortion. They'll never have to worry about being raped and then having to sit through a lecture from a male gynecologist telling them about the fetus' legs and arms while their rapist is essentially allowed to abuse them again by proxy. This is nothing but state sponsored abuse of women designed to guilt them into making a decision that is against their own interest. It's disgusting.
The second part is equally bad. Not only is a woman forced to endure a anti-choice lecture from a doctor before exercising her rights, she also can be lied to by her own doctor if that doctor doesn't agree with her rights. This is unimaginable in any other context but somehow anti-choice zealots feel they can do this to women. I would like to think that this law will be easily struck down the second it reaches the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional after all by any measure of precedent, but I know better than that. There are enough right-wingers on the Court, with enough disdain for the Constitution and precedent, that I think it far more likely it'll be upheld.
I guess the moral of this story is that any woman of child bearing age better choose her gynecologist well and make sure that you know exactly how he feels about your rights because otherwise you might find him making decisions for you that you can't live with.
It's unfortunate that in this country, a country where abortion is supposed to be legal, so many states seem to think they can restrict that right with impunity. I wonder how many women sit in the Oklahoma Legislature, I'd bet not too many. Most of the idiots so adamant about this bill will never have to worry about having an abortion. They'll never have to worry about being raped and then having to sit through a lecture from a male gynecologist telling them about the fetus' legs and arms while their rapist is essentially allowed to abuse them again by proxy. This is nothing but state sponsored abuse of women designed to guilt them into making a decision that is against their own interest. It's disgusting.
The second part is equally bad. Not only is a woman forced to endure a anti-choice lecture from a doctor before exercising her rights, she also can be lied to by her own doctor if that doctor doesn't agree with her rights. This is unimaginable in any other context but somehow anti-choice zealots feel they can do this to women. I would like to think that this law will be easily struck down the second it reaches the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional after all by any measure of precedent, but I know better than that. There are enough right-wingers on the Court, with enough disdain for the Constitution and precedent, that I think it far more likely it'll be upheld.
I guess the moral of this story is that any woman of child bearing age better choose her gynecologist well and make sure that you know exactly how he feels about your rights because otherwise you might find him making decisions for you that you can't live with.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Keep Him Busy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/glenn-beck-liberty_n_549723.html
Good, I for one think it's a great idea for him to give the speech there. Anyone who goes to Liberty University is already so far gone that one speech from Glenn Beck isn't going to change their opinions one bit, he's preaching to the choir, they already drank the kool-aid as it were. This provides one less opportunity for him to preach his gospel of hatred to those who are still capable of being saved from right-wing ideology. One less opportunity for him to corrupt someone on the fence. Glenn Beck's speech at Liberty will not change anyone's mind and will not create one more right-wing lunatic teabagger, of that we should be happy.
Good, I for one think it's a great idea for him to give the speech there. Anyone who goes to Liberty University is already so far gone that one speech from Glenn Beck isn't going to change their opinions one bit, he's preaching to the choir, they already drank the kool-aid as it were. This provides one less opportunity for him to preach his gospel of hatred to those who are still capable of being saved from right-wing ideology. One less opportunity for him to corrupt someone on the fence. Glenn Beck's speech at Liberty will not change anyone's mind and will not create one more right-wing lunatic teabagger, of that we should be happy.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Crocodile Tears...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8628244.stm
Evidently Ratzinger thinks he can get out of this with a few fake tears for the victims and some pretend empathy. I really hope he's wrong but he's gotten out of scandals before.
Evidently Ratzinger thinks he can get out of this with a few fake tears for the victims and some pretend empathy. I really hope he's wrong but he's gotten out of scandals before.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Playing with fire...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/62/2010/april/12/okla-tea-parties-and-lawmakers-envision-militia.html
Yeah, this sounds like a great idea. Get a bunch of teabaggers together and act like they're a real military unit with the authority to challenge the government, nothing bad could come of that.
Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
Anybody else starting to notice that this country is looking less and less like America? This kind of shit, starting an armed group and committing violent acts because a democratic election didn't go your way, is what happens in other parts of the world. It's not supposed to happen in America.
Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.
Yes, that would appear to be a flaw in their plans...unless of course they actually intend to shoot federal agents.
"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."
But it is a "far-right crazy plan", it's just that the Legislature of Oklahoma is full of far-right crazies.
State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized,
Yeah, and every state has one, it's called the National Guard.
said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment.
And a far-right wing crazy. And an extremely anti-Obama conservative blogger. You forgot to mention that.
Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.
Yes, but what you don't realize is that they don't want a group to "handle state emergencies and security." They want a group to shoot US soldiers and federal agents in cold blood when they try to enforce federal laws. They're afraid they wouldn't be able to get the Nat'l Guard to do that. It's much easier to raise a group of whackos with no honor and no brains than it is to convince professional soldiers with honor and loyalty to their country to go against their oaths.
Yeah, this sounds like a great idea. Get a bunch of teabaggers together and act like they're a real military unit with the authority to challenge the government, nothing bad could come of that.
Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
Anybody else starting to notice that this country is looking less and less like America? This kind of shit, starting an armed group and committing violent acts because a democratic election didn't go your way, is what happens in other parts of the world. It's not supposed to happen in America.
Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.
Yes, that would appear to be a flaw in their plans...unless of course they actually intend to shoot federal agents.
"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."
But it is a "far-right crazy plan", it's just that the Legislature of Oklahoma is full of far-right crazies.
State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized,
Yeah, and every state has one, it's called the National Guard.
said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment.
And a far-right wing crazy. And an extremely anti-Obama conservative blogger. You forgot to mention that.
Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.
Yes, but what you don't realize is that they don't want a group to "handle state emergencies and security." They want a group to shoot US soldiers and federal agents in cold blood when they try to enforce federal laws. They're afraid they wouldn't be able to get the Nat'l Guard to do that. It's much easier to raise a group of whackos with no honor and no brains than it is to convince professional soldiers with honor and loyalty to their country to go against their oaths.
Friday, January 29, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten30-2010jan30,0,2358302.column
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2
So an ad about a dating service is too controversial because it's involves gay men but an ad that suggests that women who have abortions are horrible murderers whose children would have all grown up to be super star football players is just fine? This is a fucked up country.
Right-wingers are all up in arms with false indignation because they claim that pro-choice people are attacking this ad for no reason. Nobody cares that this woman took considerable risk upon herself, with very little chance of success or survival for her or her son. That was her choice, we're all pro-choice. The problem comes when you air an ad designed to suggest that all women should take that same risk upon themselves. She got lucky but what they don't acknowledge is that millions of women would die (along with their fetuses) if abortion wasn't an option. No doubt many women have died because they were convinced that God wanted them to go through with the hopeless pregnancy. They can dress it up whatever way they want, this isn't some feel good ad about a happy family, it's an attack on every women who has made that difficult choice.
I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the ad if they hadn't denied the dating site ad, or if there weren't a long history of rejecting "controversial" Super Bowl ads (only, it seems, when they're liberal ads). The fact that they're essentially saying that Focus on the Family's hate group money is greener than the dating site's money is the major problem. The anti-gay bias involved in this decision becomes even clearer when you look at the Snicker's ad from last year with the two men inadvertently kissing because of a Snicker's bar and then going to elaborate ends to beat the shit out of each other. I guess it's ok to show two men getting close as long as there's some sort of violence involved so the kids don't forget that being gay is a horrible, horrible thing. We'd hate for them to learn tolerance after all.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/co
So an ad about a dating service is too controversial because it's involves gay men but an ad that suggests that women who have abortions are horrible murderers whose children would have all grown up to be super star football players is just fine? This is a fucked up country.
Right-wingers are all up in arms with false indignation because they claim that pro-choice people are attacking this ad for no reason. Nobody cares that this woman took considerable risk upon herself, with very little chance of success or survival for her or her son. That was her choice, we're all pro-choice. The problem comes when you air an ad designed to suggest that all women should take that same risk upon themselves. She got lucky but what they don't acknowledge is that millions of women would die (along with their fetuses) if abortion wasn't an option. No doubt many women have died because they were convinced that God wanted them to go through with the hopeless pregnancy. They can dress it up whatever way they want, this isn't some feel good ad about a happy family, it's an attack on every women who has made that difficult choice.
I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the ad if they hadn't denied the dating site ad, or if there weren't a long history of rejecting "controversial" Super Bowl ads (only, it seems, when they're liberal ads). The fact that they're essentially saying that Focus on the Family's hate group money is greener than the dating site's money is the major problem. The anti-gay bias involved in this decision becomes even clearer when you look at the Snicker's ad from last year with the two men inadvertently kissing because of a Snicker's bar and then going to elaborate ends to beat the shit out of each other. I guess it's ok to show two men getting close as long as there's some sort of violence involved so the kids don't forget that being gay is a horrible, horrible thing. We'd hate for them to learn tolerance after all.
I hope he never sees freedom again...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/28/830334/-Roeder-Trial:-Jury-Will-Not-Be-Allowed-to-Consider-Voluntary-Manslaughter?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29&utm_content=Twitter
I don't see what differences witnesses would make to his defense. He's admitted killing the guy. His defense is that Tiller deserved it. Since Tiller was performing a completely legal, highly needed, service that argument falls flat on its face regardless of how many loonie radical anti-choicers you bring in to whine about the "babies".
Scott Roeder, admitted killer of Dr. George Tiller, took the stand today, the only witness for the defense after the judge refused to allow former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to testify on Roeder's behalf. Kline was expected to testify that he had gathered evidence that Dr. Tiller was performing illegal abortions, even though Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted of all such charges.
Figures that that ass would try to get Roeder off for murder. All he cares about is his ideological hatred. He tried, and failed, for years to make any charge stick to Tiller. I'm sure he danced a merry jig when he found out Tiller was dead. It disgusts me that there are people like this out there, who are supposed to be enforcing the laws and taking care of the people, who instead try to enforce their hateful "morals" on an unwilling populace.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html?hpt=Sbin
It's not surprising that this was the verdict, or that it came down so quickly. Roeder's absurd defense couldn't even gain traction in Kansas.
I don't see what differences witnesses would make to his defense. He's admitted killing the guy. His defense is that Tiller deserved it. Since Tiller was performing a completely legal, highly needed, service that argument falls flat on its face regardless of how many loonie radical anti-choicers you bring in to whine about the "babies".
Scott Roeder, admitted killer of Dr. George Tiller, took the stand today, the only witness for the defense after the judge refused to allow former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to testify on Roeder's behalf. Kline was expected to testify that he had gathered evidence that Dr. Tiller was performing illegal abortions, even though Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted of all such charges.
Figures that that ass would try to get Roeder off for murder. All he cares about is his ideological hatred. He tried, and failed, for years to make any charge stick to Tiller. I'm sure he danced a merry jig when he found out Tiller was dead. It disgusts me that there are people like this out there, who are supposed to be enforcing the laws and taking care of the people, who instead try to enforce their hateful "morals" on an unwilling populace.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kan
It's not surprising that this was the verdict, or that it came down so quickly. Roeder's absurd defense couldn't even gain traction in Kansas.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Crusaders...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php
And we wonder why they hate us...
And we wonder why they hate us...
Trojan Horse...
http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/14194/tornoes-take-on-christie-schundler-and-the-signal-sent-to-teachers-unions
Putting Schundler in the Education Commissioner position is akin to Bush putting John Bolton in the UN Ambassador position. Schundler will gut the department, he will interfere with the schooling of children, and at the end of the day he'll destroy what makes NJ's education system one of the best in the nation. I weep for the children in schools right now with this parasite set to have so much power over their futures.
Putting Schundler in the Education Commissioner position is akin to Bush putting John Bolton in the UN Ambassador position. Schundler will gut the department, he will interfere with the schooling of children, and at the end of the day he'll destroy what makes NJ's education system one of the best in the nation. I weep for the children in schools right now with this parasite set to have so much power over their futures.
Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day...
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. –Martin Luther King Jr. Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Dec. 10, 1964
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it. -MLK Jr.
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it. -MLK Jr.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sad...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/12/world/AP-CB-Haiti-Earthquake.html?_r=2&hp
I hope they're wrong about how many people died, they're saying "thousands of people", that's a lot on such a small island.
I hope they're wrong about how many people died, they're saying "thousands of people", that's a lot on such a small island.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Concern trolling...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/31/new-years-resolutions-for-obama-from-karl-rove/
I'm sure Karl Rove really has the best interests of Barack Obama in mind in making these suggestions. More likely he just wants Obama to do everything the Republicans want for the next 3 years. He'll still run attack ads against him in 2012 though saying he's to the left of Pol Pot.
I'm sure Karl Rove really has the best interests of Barack Obama in mind in making these suggestions. More likely he just wants Obama to do everything the Republicans want for the next 3 years. He'll still run attack ads against him in 2012 though saying he's to the left of Pol Pot.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/03/kean-unsuccessful-bomber-probably-did-us-a-favor/#more-83784
Kean is such a Republican shill. Why does anyone still act like he's some sort of moderate. His opinion on Obama shouldn't matter any more than any other Republican.
Kean said Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian who failed in his attempt to set off an explosive on an airplane about to land in Detroit, “probably did us a favor.”
Why is it that Republicans always seem to think terrorism is a good thing? Can you imagine if Joe Biden had said this?
“We had an administration which was not focused, as it should be, on terrorism and that’s understandable,” Kean said. “They were focused on health care and global warming and the economy. That’s very understandable. Secondly, we weren’t really focused on Yemen and the terrible things that are happening there. Now we are and that’s a good thing. And, thirdly, there were holes obviously and the [intelligence gathering] system wasn’t working well. We found out it wasn’t working well and the president understands it’s not working well and now we’re focused on fixing it.”
Unlike Bush, Obama is perfectly able to multi-task. Obama wasn't ignoring terrorism but you're never going to catch every terrorist no matter how hard you try.
Kean is such a Republican shill. Why does anyone still act like he's some sort of moderate. His opinion on Obama shouldn't matter any more than any other Republican.
Kean said Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian who failed in his attempt to set off an explosive on an airplane about to land in Detroit, “probably did us a favor.”
Why is it that Republicans always seem to think terrorism is a good thing? Can you imagine if Joe Biden had said this?
“We had an administration which was not focused, as it should be, on terrorism and that’s understandable,” Kean said. “They were focused on health care and global warming and the economy. That’s very understandable. Secondly, we weren’t really focused on Yemen and the terrible things that are happening there. Now we are and that’s a good thing. And, thirdly, there were holes obviously and the [intelligence gathering] system wasn’t working well. We found out it wasn’t working well and the president understands it’s not working well and now we’re focused on fixing it.”
Unlike Bush, Obama is perfectly able to multi-task. Obama wasn't ignoring terrorism but you're never going to catch every terrorist no matter how hard you try.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)