I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Ticking Time-Bomb...
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/236110280/2008_02_10_archive.html
I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.
I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.
The Cover-Up is Worse Than the Crime...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-02152008-1488482.html
Man, this whole thing just keeps getting deeper and deeper. What a dysfunctional group of people.
I can only imagine the hurt that would have been prevented for all involved if the Church had just dealt with this problem years ago when it was starting instead of waiting until they were caught.
Man, this whole thing just keeps getting deeper and deeper. What a dysfunctional group of people.
I can only imagine the hurt that would have been prevented for all involved if the Church had just dealt with this problem years ago when it was starting instead of waiting until they were caught.
When the Media Becomes Just Another Party Organ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713490,00.html
This shit could have been written by a McCain campaign flunky. This has been the preferred media narrative from the beginning. That McCain is some sort of superman beholden to the Republican Party but somehow warm and fuzzy and comfortable to Democrats. That even though they can't find a single bill of consequence where he voted against the Republicans, he's still a maverick who goes against his party. It's all a crock of bull.
McCain is as partisan as they come. In 2000 people felt sorry for him because of the way the party just chewed him up and spat him out, and because of this they entertained the notion that he was somehow different from all the other Republicans destroying our country. He was special, if he had just won that election somehow we'd be living in a wonderful land of bipartisan agreement and cross aisle love.
McCain has spent the last 8 years crawling so far up Dubya's ass that he could probably blow his nose for him by now. The lesson he learned from 2000 was that he should abandon all independence and become a mindless party hack so he can become President and unleash his horrible Manchurian design upon this unsuspecting nation. The media ignores all this though in the service of their favorite candidate. I hope we can come to realize that he isn't this wonderful "maverick" candidate we've all been waiting for (he's not even as good as he was in 2000 since that ordeal damaged his psyche in ways I'd imagine we'll never fully know). If we don't, we may end up falling for the same trick we fell for in 2000 when we elected George "compassionate conservative" Bush.
who is widely regarded (everywhere except inside the Republican Party itself) as honest, courageous, likable and intelligent.
I've never heard anyone call him these things other than Republican party flacks and nightly news anchors (and Joe Lieberman but he fits into the category of Republican Party flacks).
There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own.
There is no proof that he enjoys widespread popularity in the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling unprecedented amounts of Republicans across party lines, the poll numbers tend to suggest he's not getting many Dems at all other than Lieberman and the Blue Dog Traitors.
Only a couple of years ago, there were noises that McCain might admit he was much too nice to be a Republican and might run for President as an independent--or even as a Democrat.
That possibility existed solely within the Beltway and the depraved minds of the moronic Washington media elite. That would have been a case of the Democratic Party surrendering and running a Republican in order to win.
Democrats swooned and said they would vote for McCain because he was "honest."
That never happened. In 2000 he was floated as being better than Bush (which is like saying Mussolini is better than Hitler) and was perceived as a more palatable alternative. That doesn't mean Dems are going to jump ship in droves to vote for an emotionally destroyed quasi-corpse just because he seems like their old, crazy Grandpa. It certainly didn't happen "a couple of years ago". A couple of years ago we were kicking the Republicans asses up one side and down the other in the '06 elections.
McCain is perceived as authentic, which is a deeper form of honesty than mere truth-telling.
Only to beltway media elites, Bush was "authentic" to them too. That's another word for Republican in their book so they can paint Dems as effeminate fakes.
He says he's antiabortion? Oh, he doesn't mean that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Among current or recent figures in American public life, only Colin Powell shares McCain's mystical ability to make liberals believe he secretly agrees with them, no matter what he actually says.
I feel bad for Colin Powell since he was hung out to dry by the neo-con elements in his party. I still wouldn't vote for him for President, Secretary of Defense maybe if he changes parties, but not President.
Then they choose the very guy many Republicans most suspect of being a witch.
That's funny since he's been the heir apparent for the better part of the last four years since he proved himself trustworthy by giving up all his convictions and endorsing Bush in '04.
If you doubt that the whole thing was staged, just consider who the runner-up was. How could a party truly dedicated to self-destruction through ideological purity end up with the choice of McCain or Romney?
The Republican establishment has always been interested in victory at all costs much more than ideological purity. They pay lip service to the ideological morons because they're the ones who man the trenches but they secretly make fun of them at their tea parties in Georgetown.
But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.
Bullshit. Is this guy Joe Lieberman's press secretary? As I said before, unless the polls are lying, there just aren't that many Dems running to Papa McCain. A lot of the most loyal Republicans are very unhappy with their party's choice. Many of them could vote for Hillary as a protest (as Ann Coulter has half-heartedly suggested) or more likely they'll just not vote. Anyone who can stand there after the showing that Obama has made among independents and Republicans and say that no Republicans will cross for him in November is an idiot.
If it's Hillary, people's growing dislike of Bush, his horrible war, his crumbling economy, his tiresome smirk, will help McCain. Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.
This is what passes for journalism in Washington. Hillary will suffer for making a few pro-war votes because she's tied to the war in people's minds (by people's, he means the people he meets at cocktail parties in Washington). Meanwhile, McCain (the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleader for Bush's disastrous war) is somehow completely untarnished by his 5 years of ass kissing and will be seen as a fresh start even though he wants us to be there forever (he's said up to 10,000 years).
Hillary, meanwhile, has been transformed by the Washington press corps in the past few weeks from the first woman with a serious chance of becoming President into a two-headed monster always referred to as "the Clintons."
That's not her fault, the Washington press corps is a bunch of self-important morons who really love the Republican Party.
If McCain were half the principled gentleman he pretends to be, he would drop out now in favor of Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a Republican you can sink your teeth into.
I can only imagine the impassioned missives that Michael and his buddies would be writing right now if Limbaugh was the Republican candidate. I think it would look a lot like what he wrote about McCain, but with McCain's name replaced with Rush Limbaugh's name. In the end, this was the same narrative they set up about Bush v. Gore (Bush is an authentic "compassionate conservative" who goes against his party when he needs to and Gore is a fake, girly man). This is the same narrative they'd set up about any Republican. Believe it at your own, and our country's own, peril.
This shit could have been written by a McCain campaign flunky. This has been the preferred media narrative from the beginning. That McCain is some sort of superman beholden to the Republican Party but somehow warm and fuzzy and comfortable to Democrats. That even though they can't find a single bill of consequence where he voted against the Republicans, he's still a maverick who goes against his party. It's all a crock of bull.
McCain is as partisan as they come. In 2000 people felt sorry for him because of the way the party just chewed him up and spat him out, and because of this they entertained the notion that he was somehow different from all the other Republicans destroying our country. He was special, if he had just won that election somehow we'd be living in a wonderful land of bipartisan agreement and cross aisle love.
McCain has spent the last 8 years crawling so far up Dubya's ass that he could probably blow his nose for him by now. The lesson he learned from 2000 was that he should abandon all independence and become a mindless party hack so he can become President and unleash his horrible Manchurian design upon this unsuspecting nation. The media ignores all this though in the service of their favorite candidate. I hope we can come to realize that he isn't this wonderful "maverick" candidate we've all been waiting for (he's not even as good as he was in 2000 since that ordeal damaged his psyche in ways I'd imagine we'll never fully know). If we don't, we may end up falling for the same trick we fell for in 2000 when we elected George "compassionate conservative" Bush.
who is widely regarded (everywhere except inside the Republican Party itself) as honest, courageous, likable and intelligent.
I've never heard anyone call him these things other than Republican party flacks and nightly news anchors (and Joe Lieberman but he fits into the category of Republican Party flacks).
There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own.
There is no proof that he enjoys widespread popularity in the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling unprecedented amounts of Republicans across party lines, the poll numbers tend to suggest he's not getting many Dems at all other than Lieberman and the Blue Dog Traitors.
Only a couple of years ago, there were noises that McCain might admit he was much too nice to be a Republican and might run for President as an independent--or even as a Democrat.
That possibility existed solely within the Beltway and the depraved minds of the moronic Washington media elite. That would have been a case of the Democratic Party surrendering and running a Republican in order to win.
Democrats swooned and said they would vote for McCain because he was "honest."
That never happened. In 2000 he was floated as being better than Bush (which is like saying Mussolini is better than Hitler) and was perceived as a more palatable alternative. That doesn't mean Dems are going to jump ship in droves to vote for an emotionally destroyed quasi-corpse just because he seems like their old, crazy Grandpa. It certainly didn't happen "a couple of years ago". A couple of years ago we were kicking the Republicans asses up one side and down the other in the '06 elections.
McCain is perceived as authentic, which is a deeper form of honesty than mere truth-telling.
Only to beltway media elites, Bush was "authentic" to them too. That's another word for Republican in their book so they can paint Dems as effeminate fakes.
He says he's antiabortion? Oh, he doesn't mean that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Among current or recent figures in American public life, only Colin Powell shares McCain's mystical ability to make liberals believe he secretly agrees with them, no matter what he actually says.
I feel bad for Colin Powell since he was hung out to dry by the neo-con elements in his party. I still wouldn't vote for him for President, Secretary of Defense maybe if he changes parties, but not President.
Then they choose the very guy many Republicans most suspect of being a witch.
That's funny since he's been the heir apparent for the better part of the last four years since he proved himself trustworthy by giving up all his convictions and endorsing Bush in '04.
If you doubt that the whole thing was staged, just consider who the runner-up was. How could a party truly dedicated to self-destruction through ideological purity end up with the choice of McCain or Romney?
The Republican establishment has always been interested in victory at all costs much more than ideological purity. They pay lip service to the ideological morons because they're the ones who man the trenches but they secretly make fun of them at their tea parties in Georgetown.
But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.
Bullshit. Is this guy Joe Lieberman's press secretary? As I said before, unless the polls are lying, there just aren't that many Dems running to Papa McCain. A lot of the most loyal Republicans are very unhappy with their party's choice. Many of them could vote for Hillary as a protest (as Ann Coulter has half-heartedly suggested) or more likely they'll just not vote. Anyone who can stand there after the showing that Obama has made among independents and Republicans and say that no Republicans will cross for him in November is an idiot.
If it's Hillary, people's growing dislike of Bush, his horrible war, his crumbling economy, his tiresome smirk, will help McCain. Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.
This is what passes for journalism in Washington. Hillary will suffer for making a few pro-war votes because she's tied to the war in people's minds (by people's, he means the people he meets at cocktail parties in Washington). Meanwhile, McCain (the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleader for Bush's disastrous war) is somehow completely untarnished by his 5 years of ass kissing and will be seen as a fresh start even though he wants us to be there forever (he's said up to 10,000 years).
Hillary, meanwhile, has been transformed by the Washington press corps in the past few weeks from the first woman with a serious chance of becoming President into a two-headed monster always referred to as "the Clintons."
That's not her fault, the Washington press corps is a bunch of self-important morons who really love the Republican Party.
If McCain were half the principled gentleman he pretends to be, he would drop out now in favor of Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a Republican you can sink your teeth into.
I can only imagine the impassioned missives that Michael and his buddies would be writing right now if Limbaugh was the Republican candidate. I think it would look a lot like what he wrote about McCain, but with McCain's name replaced with Rush Limbaugh's name. In the end, this was the same narrative they set up about Bush v. Gore (Bush is an authentic "compassionate conservative" who goes against his party when he needs to and Gore is a fake, girly man). This is the same narrative they'd set up about any Republican. Believe it at your own, and our country's own, peril.
Chelsea wants it both ways...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/chelsea.clinton/index.html
The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways here. When she was a child, I think the media should have left her alone. Now that she's acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail there's no reason she should be afforded any special deference at all. She has placed herself out there in the public eye as a part of her mother's campaign and she should have to talk to the media.
The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways here. When she was a child, I think the media should have left her alone. Now that she's acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail there's no reason she should be afforded any special deference at all. She has placed herself out there in the public eye as a part of her mother's campaign and she should have to talk to the media.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
When Your Children Just Can't Get Jobs On Their Own...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01222008-1475063.html
Nepotism is alive and well in the NJ Republican Party. Too bad actual experience and knowledge is far less important than rewarding the children of well connected Republican politicians. The county will no doubt suffer while she learns how to do her job. Don't hold your breath waiting for the absolute outrage from the comments sections of this paper or the Courier Post, that's only for the perceived infractions committed by Democrats.
Nepotism is alive and well in the NJ Republican Party. Too bad actual experience and knowledge is far less important than rewarding the children of well connected Republican politicians. The county will no doubt suffer while she learns how to do her job. Don't hold your breath waiting for the absolute outrage from the comments sections of this paper or the Courier Post, that's only for the perceived infractions committed by Democrats.
When the Truth Just Isn't On Your Side...
http://www.nbc10.com/news/15083420/detail.html
This is disgusting. There should be laws against mailing shit like this. Just goes to show which side has the facts and which side needs to resort to bloody theatrics.
This is disgusting. There should be laws against mailing shit like this. Just goes to show which side has the facts and which side needs to resort to bloody theatrics.
Republican Dirty Tricks...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01202008-1474326.html
And yet the idiots with no idea what they're talking about (and the Republicans who know but want to hurt Corzine) will keep calling this a horrible injustice. If the past Republican Governors had raised tolls when they should have, instead of just increasing spending and borrowing the difference, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
Somehow, if Forester had won I'd imagine all the Republicans who are currently beside themselves with indignation would be just tickled pink at his bold revenue plan. Make no mistake, the outrage is largely a function of the Republican controlled state media trying to get a Republican Governor next election.
And yet the idiots with no idea what they're talking about (and the Republicans who know but want to hurt Corzine) will keep calling this a horrible injustice. If the past Republican Governors had raised tolls when they should have, instead of just increasing spending and borrowing the difference, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
Somehow, if Forester had won I'd imagine all the Republicans who are currently beside themselves with indignation would be just tickled pink at his bold revenue plan. Make no mistake, the outrage is largely a function of the Republican controlled state media trying to get a Republican Governor next election.
Surprising and Not So Surprising...
This is surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/heath.ledger.dead/index.html
This, not so surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Mov
This, not so surprising...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/2
This Explains Alot...
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/01/10/john_vincent_coulter?voted=1
What a horrible, detestable man.
Actually, this explains a lot. She's spent her entire life watching this man behave like a colossal asshole and she determined this was the way to be. She's not really a horrible, soulless harpy, she's just been trying for her whole life to make this man happy.
As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.
Nothing like belittling your wife to make the funny.
John Vincent Coulter was of the old school,
That's a nice way of saying he was a violent bigot.
Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.
Like when you go to school and you notice your friends don't have bruises all over their bodies, that's a real growing experience.
So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.
Everybody loves a laugh after a long, hard day of killing small rodents for sport and cracking the skulls of hippies trying to get a living wage.
He just was good.
I don't think that word means what Ann thinks it means.
Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.
Evidently the life of the girl doesn't fit into the equation.
He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement.
As opposed to those wonderful anti-union businessmen who were paragons of virtue. Nothing says moral crusader like hiring former cops to shoot striking workers.
But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known.
As long as that working man didn't expect to be paid enough to feed his family. Evidently wanting benefits makes one a non-genuine working man.
He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.
At least John Edwards never cracked someone's head open with a baseball bat for wanting dental benefits for his children.
the last book of mine he was able to read.
I'm sure that made dying a lot easier for him. I'd want to die after reading her books too.
In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still.
Remember people, this is the kind of thing conservatives consider heroic.
There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work.
I'm sure the strike breakers never used violence. Why, I bet they were perfectly reasonable as they crashed through the lines every day busting heads.
Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.
Fuck eggs, throw bricks next time.
By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved.
That'll tend to happen when workers are threatened with death by former FBI agents with guns.
For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."
I'm sure Ann knows all about happy endings.
To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses
Bet she wanted to smother him with something else...
Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan.
At least she's mature enough to accept that her father's in Hell.
What a horrible, detestable man.
Actually, this explains a lot. She's spent her entire life watching this man behave like a colossal asshole and she determined this was the way to be. She's not really a horrible, soulless harpy, she's just been trying for her whole life to make this man happy.
As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.
Nothing like belittling your wife to make the funny.
John Vincent Coulter was of the old school,
That's a nice way of saying he was a violent bigot.
Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.
Like when you go to school and you notice your friends don't have bruises all over their bodies, that's a real growing experience.
So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.
Everybody loves a laugh after a long, hard day of killing small rodents for sport and cracking the skulls of hippies trying to get a living wage.
He just was good.
I don't think that word means what Ann thinks it means.
Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.
Evidently the life of the girl doesn't fit into the equation.
He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement.
As opposed to those wonderful anti-union businessmen who were paragons of virtue. Nothing says moral crusader like hiring former cops to shoot striking workers.
But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known.
As long as that working man didn't expect to be paid enough to feed his family. Evidently wanting benefits makes one a non-genuine working man.
He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.
At least John Edwards never cracked someone's head open with a baseball bat for wanting dental benefits for his children.
the last book of mine he was able to read.
I'm sure that made dying a lot easier for him. I'd want to die after reading her books too.
In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still.
Remember people, this is the kind of thing conservatives consider heroic.
There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work.
I'm sure the strike breakers never used violence. Why, I bet they were perfectly reasonable as they crashed through the lines every day busting heads.
Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.
Fuck eggs, throw bricks next time.
By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved.
That'll tend to happen when workers are threatened with death by former FBI agents with guns.
For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."
I'm sure Ann knows all about happy endings.
To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses
Bet she wanted to smother him with something else...
Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan.
At least she's mature enough to accept that her father's in Hell.
Go Italy...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm
Good for them. The papacy has always been actively hostile to science and this pope is even worse than his predecessor.
Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.
It's pathetic that they only did this 15 years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the rest of the world came to this conclusion centuries ago.
Now if only we could get the rest of the world to shun him.
Good for them. The papacy has always been actively hostile to science and this pope is even worse than his predecessor.
Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.
It's pathetic that they only did this 15 years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the rest of the world came to this conclusion centuries ago.
Now if only we could get the rest of the world to shun him.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Maybe They Should Have Thought Before They Elected Him...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/sarkozy_stormy_interview_6
If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...
Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.
I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.
It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...
Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.
I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.
It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1677120,00.html
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world...
downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10/clear-channel-republican...
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
If They Wanted Human Rights They Shouldn't Have Been Born in Pakistan...
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/world/asia/04pakistan.html
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Stupid...
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/...
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The McCain Campaign is Officially on Life Support...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain...
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Bush's Brain Leaves the White House...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove...
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Friday, August 10, 2007
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1649312,00.html
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Are you serious?...
www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809...
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What?...
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642885,00.html
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)