someone else who agrees with me...
know that right now there have been many bloggers posting there thoughts and feelings about this storm already. I have family who luckily are in a city about 50miles outside Shreveport, I have not heard if they were flooded out by the rain, they live on a lake that likes to flood, but I am greatful from what I can find out that they missed the worst. I read today some one who sent an email to CNN that they wanted to see now other countries help us as we have helped them and I became irate. This tragedy is not in anyway shape or form a forum for politcal arguement. I personally could care less where help comes from if other countries help or not, as long as these people are helped. People have already begun to judge President Bush's reaction to this during his speech in California, again I do not care if said one sentence or fifty, as long as he is helping he is doing his job. If you are one of these bloggers who have bloged about the politics of this storm you should be ashamed of yourself, do something better with your words raise money for these folks, get the word out for help but leave the politics out of this for now, let things settle before bashing whoever, many people are dead, many more are without homes and have had their lives turned upside down do you think they care about politics...I think not. My rant is over now, my thoughts and prayers are with those in MS,AL,LA,Fl who's
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
great article...
I found someone out there called Violence Worker who agrees with me, here's his article about what was posted on DailyKos (a big liberal blog). This only confirms what I said earlier, they have no low.
Unhinged Bush Bashing!
Flip Floss over at the Daily Kos is unhinged. In a post titled "New Orleans will be Destroyed. Where's Bush?" He/She/It decided that Bush isn't doing enough. Let me Fisk this idiot. This will be easy.
We are going to witness the destruction of an entire city. Shouldn't there be a nationwide address by the President?
And this address would do what? Is he God? Will his very words miraculously save everyone and make the waters recede? He's the president, not Moses, Mega-Mind..
Shouldn't he be mobilizing every citizen. Every military airplane, military bus, jeep before the storm hits to evacuate these people who are going to stay in WHAT?...the Superdome?
To do that Genius, he'd have to declare martial law. And if he did that, you and your moonbat friends would scream he was trying to stop elections.
What kind of an emergency evacuation is that? Thats not a safe building. Bush couldn't have evacuated a few thousand people with military aircraft and buses?
OK Einstein, just exactly how many airplanes do you think we have?
Second, Mensa Man, where do you think we are storing all those buses? Underground in a secret garage just waiting outside New Orleans?
Third, OK, we send every plane, train and bus down there to cart people out. Where do you propose we take them? To the state line and drop them to go back for another load? Maybe to Gitmo? Maybe Bush could draft them as he is carting them out and send them to Iraq!!
Fourth, oh Quick-witted One, It is the Governor and local officials that order evacuations.
Oh, and just in case you are interested Professor, the Superdome was probably as good as anywhere else. It stood up to the storm better than most structures.
Isn't that the purpose of having a leader? Some one who can anticipate problems and do his best to solve them?
Again, Sir Cerebral, where is he going to get all this stuff? Oh, and just in case it hadn't occured to you, Oh Brainy One, New Orleans isn't the only place destroyed or devastated. The destruction is widespread. Where were the Governors and the mayors?
Much of the national gurard from these states affected are in Iraq keeping America safe from ...something or other. Here where there is an impending national catastrophe about to happen (sic)
But not all (this is my commentary, it is law that at all times 65% percent of NG troops have to be ready to be deployed somewhere here in the U.S. only 35-40% tops can fight overseas at any given time, in LA 80% of NG troops have to stay put ready to be called on anytime to help the United States, kiss my butt you lying liberal). Most are still there, especially the Air Guard. Even if they weren't, there would still be thousands who could not answer the call. Also, just for your information, calling up the guard is usually up to the governor unless they are federalized and deployed by the Army, which is a process of much paperwork and takes some time..
this(sic) is turning into a disaster movie on TV. There no real content on the coverage. Just stay tuned for when the hurricane hits...it will really be exciting.
And this is whose fault? Bush? Try again, Brainchild. Also, what are they supposed to report before it gets there, stuff they make up? I know you lefties are prone to do that, but there is a line.
Of course it has nothing to do with Global warming. I haven't heard anything about that possibility being discussed.
Bush caused the whole problem in 5 short years. Get a grip, Egghead. Even in your beloved New York Times today there was an article about the cyclic history of Hurricanes.
I havent' heard anything about why National Guard troops and equipment being unavailable to the extent they could have if there were no pretentious war in Iraq.
Is this like mantra. Something you keep repeating until you believe it?
I haven't heard anything about the safety of the Superdome. A place ripe for collapse.
It's still standing. Surprise!
I haven't heard anything about who the people are who are unable to leave. They don't have enough money to warrant coverage. I haven't seen any of these people who could not leave being interviewed about how they feel. I haven't heard anything about what happens after a city is 20' underwater and how that affects people who once lived in it long term.
Holy Lightbulb, Batman, this guy is bright! It was all over the mainstream news. Read something other than a lefty blog, Brilliance, and you might have heard and seem all that. I did, and I live way up in the Pacific Northwest.
New Orleans is about to be destroyed not only because of the Hurricane but because it is below sea level. Why aren't the people being protected?
You are the most stupid person to ever sit in front of a computer and type. Read closely, you ignorant Schlepp, it isn't Bush that left New Orleans unprotected. It is built in a bad spot in the first place. Years of CORRUPT DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP in Louisiana is who you need to blame!!!
Flip Floss, you are unbelievably STUPID!!!!!! With people like you, it's no wonder the Democrats are losing!!!!! Thankfully so!
VW
I think I found a new blog friend people :)
Unhinged Bush Bashing!
Flip Floss over at the Daily Kos is unhinged. In a post titled "New Orleans will be Destroyed. Where's Bush?" He/She/It decided that Bush isn't doing enough. Let me Fisk this idiot. This will be easy.
We are going to witness the destruction of an entire city. Shouldn't there be a nationwide address by the President?
And this address would do what? Is he God? Will his very words miraculously save everyone and make the waters recede? He's the president, not Moses, Mega-Mind..
Shouldn't he be mobilizing every citizen. Every military airplane, military bus, jeep before the storm hits to evacuate these people who are going to stay in WHAT?...the Superdome?
To do that Genius, he'd have to declare martial law. And if he did that, you and your moonbat friends would scream he was trying to stop elections.
What kind of an emergency evacuation is that? Thats not a safe building. Bush couldn't have evacuated a few thousand people with military aircraft and buses?
OK Einstein, just exactly how many airplanes do you think we have?
Second, Mensa Man, where do you think we are storing all those buses? Underground in a secret garage just waiting outside New Orleans?
Third, OK, we send every plane, train and bus down there to cart people out. Where do you propose we take them? To the state line and drop them to go back for another load? Maybe to Gitmo? Maybe Bush could draft them as he is carting them out and send them to Iraq!!
Fourth, oh Quick-witted One, It is the Governor and local officials that order evacuations.
Oh, and just in case you are interested Professor, the Superdome was probably as good as anywhere else. It stood up to the storm better than most structures.
Isn't that the purpose of having a leader? Some one who can anticipate problems and do his best to solve them?
Again, Sir Cerebral, where is he going to get all this stuff? Oh, and just in case it hadn't occured to you, Oh Brainy One, New Orleans isn't the only place destroyed or devastated. The destruction is widespread. Where were the Governors and the mayors?
Much of the national gurard from these states affected are in Iraq keeping America safe from ...something or other. Here where there is an impending national catastrophe about to happen (sic)
But not all (this is my commentary, it is law that at all times 65% percent of NG troops have to be ready to be deployed somewhere here in the U.S. only 35-40% tops can fight overseas at any given time, in LA 80% of NG troops have to stay put ready to be called on anytime to help the United States, kiss my butt you lying liberal). Most are still there, especially the Air Guard. Even if they weren't, there would still be thousands who could not answer the call. Also, just for your information, calling up the guard is usually up to the governor unless they are federalized and deployed by the Army, which is a process of much paperwork and takes some time..
this(sic) is turning into a disaster movie on TV. There no real content on the coverage. Just stay tuned for when the hurricane hits...it will really be exciting.
And this is whose fault? Bush? Try again, Brainchild. Also, what are they supposed to report before it gets there, stuff they make up? I know you lefties are prone to do that, but there is a line.
Of course it has nothing to do with Global warming. I haven't heard anything about that possibility being discussed.
Bush caused the whole problem in 5 short years. Get a grip, Egghead. Even in your beloved New York Times today there was an article about the cyclic history of Hurricanes.
I havent' heard anything about why National Guard troops and equipment being unavailable to the extent they could have if there were no pretentious war in Iraq.
Is this like mantra. Something you keep repeating until you believe it?
I haven't heard anything about the safety of the Superdome. A place ripe for collapse.
It's still standing. Surprise!
I haven't heard anything about who the people are who are unable to leave. They don't have enough money to warrant coverage. I haven't seen any of these people who could not leave being interviewed about how they feel. I haven't heard anything about what happens after a city is 20' underwater and how that affects people who once lived in it long term.
Holy Lightbulb, Batman, this guy is bright! It was all over the mainstream news. Read something other than a lefty blog, Brilliance, and you might have heard and seem all that. I did, and I live way up in the Pacific Northwest.
New Orleans is about to be destroyed not only because of the Hurricane but because it is below sea level. Why aren't the people being protected?
You are the most stupid person to ever sit in front of a computer and type. Read closely, you ignorant Schlepp, it isn't Bush that left New Orleans unprotected. It is built in a bad spot in the first place. Years of CORRUPT DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP in Louisiana is who you need to blame!!!
Flip Floss, you are unbelievably STUPID!!!!!! With people like you, it's no wonder the Democrats are losing!!!!! Thankfully so!
VW
I think I found a new blog friend people :)
does the left have no low?
Jesus, everytime I say the left in this country has hit rock-bottom they somehow manage to sink even lower. Going around BlogClicker and BlogExplosion last night I saw people that were ripping Bush, one even went as far to compare it to 9/11 (implying that Bush created 9/11 and Katrina, talk about mentally disabled), others had a picture outside the White House asking Bush if he was still enjoying his vacation. Unfortunately for Bush there is no pleasing these losers, see if he had left Crawford immeaditely the left would criticize him for trying to capitalize on the hurricane (believe me they would), he stayed down there to make things look "normal". Don't fool yourselves they would still be ripping him no matter what he did. Anyone try to convert me to this line of "reasoning" (or more accurately insanity)? Good luck with that. So it was a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for Bush. I mean can't these people put down their partisan bickering for 2 weeks to help out the victims? The only reason I'm commenting on this is because they started it. Outside of this I'm burying the hatchet with dems for a couple weeks. Heck, I might even ask for help from the college democrats. This issue isn't about politics, but liberals don't seem to be able to get that through their mentally disabled minds. Also, NEVER say that the left has hit rock bottom as I've learned. They always somehow manage to go lower, even if that doesn't seem possible at the time, trust me I've watched them.
You know what pisses me off...
RANT TIME!!!! Ok this one is very topical.
Tell me why do we give foreign aid to other nations? No, seriously why do we? I mean hours after he tsunami hit Indonesia, Bush came out and pledged aid, and yet the mentally disabled left was yelling for more, we weren't generous enough. Now, tell me in the 48 hours since Katrina hit has there been a peep from the international community about helping us?????!!!!! I mean the rest of the world is a bunch of ungrateful jerk-offs, I don't care what they think anymore (not that I really did in the first place). Were suffering the worst natural disaster in our history and the international community (and don't forget the UN) is basically giving us the finger. Now they have a right to do this, but I say the next time that a big disaster hits somewhere in the world besides the US we should say, were not giving you one damn dime. You didn't help us after Katrina so why should we help you now. The world (like the left) expects handouts without ever having to repay them (see: forgiving debt in Africa). If we are stupid enough to give federal aid to a country/area the next time a big disaster hits, we not only should cease to exist as a country but probably will. You don't think the rest of the world is just basically saying, "Ha, stupid Americans, they deserve this, God is punishing them for their wrongdoings (or in the Middle East it would be the Great Satan is getting what it deserves). I hope they have massive loss of life, that will teach them. But the next time we suffer we expect them to go beyond their means to help US." The US should ONLY be working in it's own SELF INTEREST. Read the damn Constitution or Bill of Rights sometimes. Unless radical judges have changed things I don't think that there is anything in there that says we have to give foreign aid! Holy crap, the world's silence is so (*&^%$# deafening. As Randy Newman said in one of the best songs of all-time, "They all hate us anyway so why not drop the big one now?" Screw the world the U.S. rules. Even if we are too generous sometimes; by the way that's why I started that blog, we need to donate as much as we can to make up for lack of foreign aid.
Tell me why do we give foreign aid to other nations? No, seriously why do we? I mean hours after he tsunami hit Indonesia, Bush came out and pledged aid, and yet the mentally disabled left was yelling for more, we weren't generous enough. Now, tell me in the 48 hours since Katrina hit has there been a peep from the international community about helping us?????!!!!! I mean the rest of the world is a bunch of ungrateful jerk-offs, I don't care what they think anymore (not that I really did in the first place). Were suffering the worst natural disaster in our history and the international community (and don't forget the UN) is basically giving us the finger. Now they have a right to do this, but I say the next time that a big disaster hits somewhere in the world besides the US we should say, were not giving you one damn dime. You didn't help us after Katrina so why should we help you now. The world (like the left) expects handouts without ever having to repay them (see: forgiving debt in Africa). If we are stupid enough to give federal aid to a country/area the next time a big disaster hits, we not only should cease to exist as a country but probably will. You don't think the rest of the world is just basically saying, "Ha, stupid Americans, they deserve this, God is punishing them for their wrongdoings (or in the Middle East it would be the Great Satan is getting what it deserves). I hope they have massive loss of life, that will teach them. But the next time we suffer we expect them to go beyond their means to help US." The US should ONLY be working in it's own SELF INTEREST. Read the damn Constitution or Bill of Rights sometimes. Unless radical judges have changed things I don't think that there is anything in there that says we have to give foreign aid! Holy crap, the world's silence is so (*&^%$# deafening. As Randy Newman said in one of the best songs of all-time, "They all hate us anyway so why not drop the big one now?" Screw the world the U.S. rules. Even if we are too generous sometimes; by the way that's why I started that blog, we need to donate as much as we can to make up for lack of foreign aid.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
my crazy day...
wow today was nuts, I had 3 classes and had a great time in all of them. And I did try and check in on how messed up the Southeast is. In two of them I did something as radical as offer a conservative opinion (by the way they treated me they weren't too used to or comfterable with that, don't worry that won't deter me) on a few topics and they attempted to yell me down but I just yelled louder. Oh well, looks like this is what I have to do with for 4 more years, it will be worth it though, it'll keep me sharp. Who knows maybe this could help me become a talk show host, but I digress. Anyway after that I went to the Minnesota State Fair (aka: The Great Minnesota Get Together) with some friends from CC but we met up at the end because they weren't interested in the stuff I was. In the two and a half hours I was there I got my Right Turns copy signed by Michael Medved (yes, the talk show host. Cool guy), saw the KFAN booth, watched the WCCO 6pm broadcast and got on TV a few times :) then I went to the 93X (local hard rock station) broadcast area, and I finished it off with talking to the Independence Party of Minnesota and how I will support their candidate for govenor (I hate Pawlenty with a passion now) and talked Twins and Gophers with a few fairgoers. Not to brag or anything but how many 19 year old males are able to do such diverse activities in such a short amount of time? Anyway, I finished the day off by going to a friends house and watching the Twins win, yay. Now I am back and trying to get my katrina blog going, don't worry it's sole purpose is to help the victims of the worst natural disaster in US history, if politics are involved at all it will be at an absolute minimum level. Wow what a 15-16 hour strech of my life. I will be ranting in a few...
Katrina posts...
all my posts about hurricane Katrina are being moved to http://helpkatrinavictims.blogspot.com/
courtesy of RWR again...
man the stuff conservative bloggers dig up is amazing... check this out
An Open Letter to the Mother of a Fallen Hero
Dear Cindy Sheehan:
I know you want to talk to President Bush about the conflict in Iraq, the war in which your son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was tragically killed. I also know that while the President met with you previously, he is not eager to see you again – not now that you are affiliated with Moveon.org and supported by David Duke and handled by slick public relations professionals.
So let me suggest an alternative: Come visit with me. Our meeting probably won't get much publicity, but I can promise you an interesting discussion. I'll invite to join us some of the many Iraqi freedom fighters with whom I've been working for the past several years – many of them women -- as well as democracy and human rights activists from Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and other countries.
You say you want to know, “What is the noble cause that my son died for?” They would answer: Your son died fighting a war against an extremist movement intent on destroying free societies and replacing them with racist dictatorships.
The Iraqis will want to tell you what life was like under Saddam Hussein – the mass murders of hundreds of thousands, the women and girls who were gang-raped by Saddam's cronies, the creative forms of torture that were ignored by the “international community.”
I know several Baghdadi businessmen whom Saddam suspected of disloyalty. He had their right hands amputated. Want to meet them? The doctors who were forced to perform these amputations are worth chatting with as well.
It's true, as you and others have pointed out, that we did not find Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. But don't be misled into believing that Saddam never had any. Indeed, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds, slaughtering thousands in villages like Halabja, where mothers laid down in the streets and embraced their children in their final moments. We can show you pictures. We can introduce you to survivors.
Like you, I wish America's intelligence agencies had known more than they did about Saddam's capabilities. But Saddam's intentions were never in doubt.
Cindy, you've been calling for the U.S. to get out of Iraq at a time when our enemies in that country include the most aggressive and lethal branch of al-Qaeda, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Can you not see that if we were to retreat from Iraq now, it would be a historic defeat for the United States?
And it would be a huge victory for al-Qaeda. Zarqawi would view himself – not without justification – as a giant killer. Recruits would flock to him for the many battles that would, inevitably, follow. We could not expect to do better in those battles than we did in Iraq.
We will never be able to make ourselves inoffensive to the racist death cults that have declared war on us. When these barbarians kill brave Americans like Casey Sheehan we can't run and hide. Or rather we can – but that only invites the terrorists to hit us again. For years we didn't understand that. The consequence was Sept. 11, 2001.
Remember: We fled from Somalia in 1993. We left Saddam in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. We did nothing much after the Hezbollah bombing of our Marine barracks in 1983. Our response to the taking of American hostages in Tehran in 1979 was toothless.
In each of these cases – and too many others – we demonstrated to our enemies that there would be no penalty for humiliating and even slaughtering Americans. In each of these cases Osama bin Laden saw evidence that Americans are irresolute and weak; that America's military – for all its sophistication and technology – would prove no match for determined hostage-takers, decapitators and suicide bombers.
One more thing: Your slogan has been “America out of Iraq!” and also “Israel out of Palestine!” I wonder if you understand that you are calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their ancient homeland. I wonder if you understand that more than half of all Israelis fled from places like Tehran, Cairo and Tripoli – and they are not welcome to return. I wonder if you understand that there is no way for Israelis to get “out of Palestine” that does not include genocide.
If you and your supporters are not, in fact, arguing for another Holocaust, would you be so good as to clarify your remarks?
Again, Cindy, I hope we can discuss all of this and more in my office with my friends–fighters for freedom who count on the support of freedom-loving Americans. Will you join us for lunch?
Sincerely,
Clifford May
President
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
The link is at Defend Democracy
An Open Letter to the Mother of a Fallen Hero
Dear Cindy Sheehan:
I know you want to talk to President Bush about the conflict in Iraq, the war in which your son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was tragically killed. I also know that while the President met with you previously, he is not eager to see you again – not now that you are affiliated with Moveon.org and supported by David Duke and handled by slick public relations professionals.
So let me suggest an alternative: Come visit with me. Our meeting probably won't get much publicity, but I can promise you an interesting discussion. I'll invite to join us some of the many Iraqi freedom fighters with whom I've been working for the past several years – many of them women -- as well as democracy and human rights activists from Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and other countries.
You say you want to know, “What is the noble cause that my son died for?” They would answer: Your son died fighting a war against an extremist movement intent on destroying free societies and replacing them with racist dictatorships.
The Iraqis will want to tell you what life was like under Saddam Hussein – the mass murders of hundreds of thousands, the women and girls who were gang-raped by Saddam's cronies, the creative forms of torture that were ignored by the “international community.”
I know several Baghdadi businessmen whom Saddam suspected of disloyalty. He had their right hands amputated. Want to meet them? The doctors who were forced to perform these amputations are worth chatting with as well.
It's true, as you and others have pointed out, that we did not find Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. But don't be misled into believing that Saddam never had any. Indeed, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds, slaughtering thousands in villages like Halabja, where mothers laid down in the streets and embraced their children in their final moments. We can show you pictures. We can introduce you to survivors.
Like you, I wish America's intelligence agencies had known more than they did about Saddam's capabilities. But Saddam's intentions were never in doubt.
Cindy, you've been calling for the U.S. to get out of Iraq at a time when our enemies in that country include the most aggressive and lethal branch of al-Qaeda, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Can you not see that if we were to retreat from Iraq now, it would be a historic defeat for the United States?
And it would be a huge victory for al-Qaeda. Zarqawi would view himself – not without justification – as a giant killer. Recruits would flock to him for the many battles that would, inevitably, follow. We could not expect to do better in those battles than we did in Iraq.
We will never be able to make ourselves inoffensive to the racist death cults that have declared war on us. When these barbarians kill brave Americans like Casey Sheehan we can't run and hide. Or rather we can – but that only invites the terrorists to hit us again. For years we didn't understand that. The consequence was Sept. 11, 2001.
Remember: We fled from Somalia in 1993. We left Saddam in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. We did nothing much after the Hezbollah bombing of our Marine barracks in 1983. Our response to the taking of American hostages in Tehran in 1979 was toothless.
In each of these cases – and too many others – we demonstrated to our enemies that there would be no penalty for humiliating and even slaughtering Americans. In each of these cases Osama bin Laden saw evidence that Americans are irresolute and weak; that America's military – for all its sophistication and technology – would prove no match for determined hostage-takers, decapitators and suicide bombers.
One more thing: Your slogan has been “America out of Iraq!” and also “Israel out of Palestine!” I wonder if you understand that you are calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their ancient homeland. I wonder if you understand that more than half of all Israelis fled from places like Tehran, Cairo and Tripoli – and they are not welcome to return. I wonder if you understand that there is no way for Israelis to get “out of Palestine” that does not include genocide.
If you and your supporters are not, in fact, arguing for another Holocaust, would you be so good as to clarify your remarks?
Again, Cindy, I hope we can discuss all of this and more in my office with my friends–fighters for freedom who count on the support of freedom-loving Americans. Will you join us for lunch?
Sincerely,
Clifford May
President
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
The link is at Defend Democracy
So funny, and so true...
ZS linked me to this, I laughed, then thought hard because it's kinda scarily accurate. Thanks dude!
On The Front Lines
insurgent#1: I don't have the heart for this anymore. This isn't working, we're spinning our wheels for no reason, all is lost. I'm going to quit.
insurgent#2: If you quit now you'll dissapoint all your loyal fans.
insurgent#1: What fans? We've been killing our own civilians. The regular Iraqis hate us.
insurgent #2: I'm not talking about the Iraqis. I'm talking about the Americans.
insurgent #1: The Americans??
insurgent #2: We have many fans on the American left. Militarily we have had our asses handed to us. Our conventional war machine has been dismantled, our dictator has been taken down, and our government has been replaced all with a minimum of American losses. George Bush has proven to a be a formidible foe and the American military is mighty. But all the while our fans on the American left have championed our cause, they have disparaged every American victory and exaggerated every one of ours. They call their President a n00b and they tell their administration they are p@wn3d. All because the candidate they preferred was not elected President. They would rather lose the war than to see George Bush succeed.
insurgent #1: (stunned silence) . . . . . .They want to lose?? Are they fucking RETARDS??
insurgent #2: Yes (nodding solemnly), they are.
insurgent #1: How do you know these things?
insurgent #2: I've seen their websites.
insurgent #1: This is inexplicable
insurgent #2: Not quite. Remember how the Qur'an says that in the battle of Badr Allah sent down angels to assist the Muslims and they were victorious over an overwhelming force? Well it seems this time that Allah has sent down not Angels but Shayateen (Devils). Only He's sent them to the other side.
insurgent #1: OMFG! Unbelievable
insurgent #2: Yes, the greatest military machine the world has ever known is going to fail and it's going to be because of our cheerleaders. A nagging wife can destroy even the will of a champion.
insurgent #1: This news gladdens my heart and strengthens my resolve. Give my regards to our American fans. I'm going to kill some Americans!
The link is in the comment section of my last post.
On The Front Lines
insurgent#1: I don't have the heart for this anymore. This isn't working, we're spinning our wheels for no reason, all is lost. I'm going to quit.
insurgent#2: If you quit now you'll dissapoint all your loyal fans.
insurgent#1: What fans? We've been killing our own civilians. The regular Iraqis hate us.
insurgent #2: I'm not talking about the Iraqis. I'm talking about the Americans.
insurgent #1: The Americans??
insurgent #2: We have many fans on the American left. Militarily we have had our asses handed to us. Our conventional war machine has been dismantled, our dictator has been taken down, and our government has been replaced all with a minimum of American losses. George Bush has proven to a be a formidible foe and the American military is mighty. But all the while our fans on the American left have championed our cause, they have disparaged every American victory and exaggerated every one of ours. They call their President a n00b and they tell their administration they are p@wn3d. All because the candidate they preferred was not elected President. They would rather lose the war than to see George Bush succeed.
insurgent #1: (stunned silence) . . . . . .They want to lose?? Are they fucking RETARDS??
insurgent #2: Yes (nodding solemnly), they are.
insurgent #1: How do you know these things?
insurgent #2: I've seen their websites.
insurgent #1: This is inexplicable
insurgent #2: Not quite. Remember how the Qur'an says that in the battle of Badr Allah sent down angels to assist the Muslims and they were victorious over an overwhelming force? Well it seems this time that Allah has sent down not Angels but Shayateen (Devils). Only He's sent them to the other side.
insurgent #1: OMFG! Unbelievable
insurgent #2: Yes, the greatest military machine the world has ever known is going to fail and it's going to be because of our cheerleaders. A nagging wife can destroy even the will of a champion.
insurgent #1: This news gladdens my heart and strengthens my resolve. Give my regards to our American fans. I'm going to kill some Americans!
The link is in the comment section of my last post.
Monday, August 29, 2005
very good news for me :)
Women Prefer Strong Republican Men
Rush ^ | 3-8-05
Posted on 03/08/2005 4:06:19 PM PST by hope
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Folks, it looks like something finally has happened that might get Bill Clinton to switch parties after this next round of heart surgery that he has. Did you see this little blurb from the editor of Playgirl magazine? Her name is Michele Zip. You didn't see this, Mr. Snerdley? (Laughing.) No, Dawn, you didn't find this, did you? I wondered how this ended up in the stack. Listen to this. "When it comes to sex and politics, Democrats are the more liberal, right? Not so fast. Playgirl editor-in-chief Michele Zipp explores 'down and dirty' politics and examines sexuality on both sides of the aisle. In the process she comes to a realization about herself and reveals for the first time she’s now a Republican."
Now, just stick with me on this, folks. She says, among other things, "The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom? Siding with the GOP when you live in the bluest state around is almost like wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey at a New York Yankees’ home game. I cannot tell you how many times a person assumed I voted for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the time, I don’t have the heart to tell them, or the energy to discuss my reasons for going red this election year. But this is PLAYGIRL magazine so it’s about time I was the one who bared what’s underneath. Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed -- two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all."
So when Clinton gets hold of this, this is the one thing that could make him switch parties. If you ask me, folks -- and I'm a noted expert in this -- it's something everybody's known for years. Women crave men who are willing to fight for their country and fight for what they believe in. How could a member, for example, of the media who produces adult entertainment for women possibly side with conservatives from the red states? How could this woman? She's in the adult entertainment business, she's in the media, how could she side with conservatives? Simple, she says, and spells it out. "Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed, two really sexy traits in the bedroom."
So single women, lets not forget this, we got this from the last election, single women tend to vote for Democrats. Now, apparently, according to what I've just read here by Michele Zip this is because they're inexperienced in and out of the bedroom, single women are, and so they don't really know with whom they are dealing. Married women vote Republican. Do they know something that single women don't? When you look at Maureen Dowd and what she writes when she talks about her loneliness and her woe-is-me stuff, when it comes to relationships, it's clear. And you look at the guys that she's been dating, and they are not the horses that Michele Zip points out. So now the Democrats, folks, have another thing to worry about. First they found out the way they used the language is all fouled up. They're all taking crash courses on how to lie better about their positions from that guy out in Berkeley, George Lackoff, rhymes with. Now they need to go out and lie to women to get in better positions, if you take my meaning. Democrats not only need to lie to get elected, they've got to come across as something they're not in the bedroom now in order to really -- what a story. What an absolute story and something I've known all along.
You know, I've been so amazed over the years when feminists have told us that the model of the real man is Alan Alda or Michael Kinsley, and I'm saying, "No, that's not true." It may well be in the feminist circles where you can boss these guys around. They have them on a leash basically, but that's not the country. That's inside the Beltway, and the New York, Boston, liberal corridor. But you get out there in the red states where men are men and women are women, and you find out with whom women have the best time. It's conservative Republicans. And this last line, you just have to love this. "The Democrats of the sixties were all about making love and not war, while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?" This from the editor of Playgirl, Michele Zip.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jane in Gambrills, Maryland. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: Couldn't be better, thank you.
CALLER: I tuned in kind of late but I was listening to what you were talking about with that Michele Zip article and I wanted to tell you, I have always thought Dick Cheney was the sexiest man alive, and it's because of his power and his confidence, and just he makes me feel safe and secure. I am married, incidentally. I do vote Republican but I just had to call and tell you how much I agree with what you're talking about.
RUSH: Well, thank you, appreciate that, always liked being echoed and supported by people. I knew that I was right. I mean don't misunderstand but I'm happy to hear it from you. She thinks Cheney is one of the sexiest men alive, the left is now, "What about Warren Beatty? What about Richard Dreyfuss?" They're out there shouting, they can't believe this. I just want to warn you out there, Jane, they're going to think you're an absolute nut and wacko. That's going to be their reaction to it. But I mean this babe from Playgirl magazine has laid it out. It's real simple. It all totally makes sense now. Now we know why single women vote Democrat and why married women vote Republican. All the political analysis that went into this and trying to explain it, just go to the bedroom, folks, and that's where the answer lies.
WOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Rush ^ | 3-8-05
Posted on 03/08/2005 4:06:19 PM PST by hope
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Folks, it looks like something finally has happened that might get Bill Clinton to switch parties after this next round of heart surgery that he has. Did you see this little blurb from the editor of Playgirl magazine? Her name is Michele Zip. You didn't see this, Mr. Snerdley? (Laughing.) No, Dawn, you didn't find this, did you? I wondered how this ended up in the stack. Listen to this. "When it comes to sex and politics, Democrats are the more liberal, right? Not so fast. Playgirl editor-in-chief Michele Zipp explores 'down and dirty' politics and examines sexuality on both sides of the aisle. In the process she comes to a realization about herself and reveals for the first time she’s now a Republican."
Now, just stick with me on this, folks. She says, among other things, "The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom? Siding with the GOP when you live in the bluest state around is almost like wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey at a New York Yankees’ home game. I cannot tell you how many times a person assumed I voted for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the time, I don’t have the heart to tell them, or the energy to discuss my reasons for going red this election year. But this is PLAYGIRL magazine so it’s about time I was the one who bared what’s underneath. Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed -- two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all."
So when Clinton gets hold of this, this is the one thing that could make him switch parties. If you ask me, folks -- and I'm a noted expert in this -- it's something everybody's known for years. Women crave men who are willing to fight for their country and fight for what they believe in. How could a member, for example, of the media who produces adult entertainment for women possibly side with conservatives from the red states? How could this woman? She's in the adult entertainment business, she's in the media, how could she side with conservatives? Simple, she says, and spells it out. "Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed, two really sexy traits in the bedroom."
So single women, lets not forget this, we got this from the last election, single women tend to vote for Democrats. Now, apparently, according to what I've just read here by Michele Zip this is because they're inexperienced in and out of the bedroom, single women are, and so they don't really know with whom they are dealing. Married women vote Republican. Do they know something that single women don't? When you look at Maureen Dowd and what she writes when she talks about her loneliness and her woe-is-me stuff, when it comes to relationships, it's clear. And you look at the guys that she's been dating, and they are not the horses that Michele Zip points out. So now the Democrats, folks, have another thing to worry about. First they found out the way they used the language is all fouled up. They're all taking crash courses on how to lie better about their positions from that guy out in Berkeley, George Lackoff, rhymes with. Now they need to go out and lie to women to get in better positions, if you take my meaning. Democrats not only need to lie to get elected, they've got to come across as something they're not in the bedroom now in order to really -- what a story. What an absolute story and something I've known all along.
You know, I've been so amazed over the years when feminists have told us that the model of the real man is Alan Alda or Michael Kinsley, and I'm saying, "No, that's not true." It may well be in the feminist circles where you can boss these guys around. They have them on a leash basically, but that's not the country. That's inside the Beltway, and the New York, Boston, liberal corridor. But you get out there in the red states where men are men and women are women, and you find out with whom women have the best time. It's conservative Republicans. And this last line, you just have to love this. "The Democrats of the sixties were all about making love and not war, while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?" This from the editor of Playgirl, Michele Zip.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jane in Gambrills, Maryland. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: Couldn't be better, thank you.
CALLER: I tuned in kind of late but I was listening to what you were talking about with that Michele Zip article and I wanted to tell you, I have always thought Dick Cheney was the sexiest man alive, and it's because of his power and his confidence, and just he makes me feel safe and secure. I am married, incidentally. I do vote Republican but I just had to call and tell you how much I agree with what you're talking about.
RUSH: Well, thank you, appreciate that, always liked being echoed and supported by people. I knew that I was right. I mean don't misunderstand but I'm happy to hear it from you. She thinks Cheney is one of the sexiest men alive, the left is now, "What about Warren Beatty? What about Richard Dreyfuss?" They're out there shouting, they can't believe this. I just want to warn you out there, Jane, they're going to think you're an absolute nut and wacko. That's going to be their reaction to it. But I mean this babe from Playgirl magazine has laid it out. It's real simple. It all totally makes sense now. Now we know why single women vote Democrat and why married women vote Republican. All the political analysis that went into this and trying to explain it, just go to the bedroom, folks, and that's where the answer lies.
WOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
what will be my first article...
all of you bloggers out there will have a preview to every opinion piece I write. Here's the first one
My view has changed of the war, but I still support it"
Hello and welcome to the opinion page Normandale readers. I am your editor for this page for the year. As you can see I am coming out with guns blazing.
'Why has your view changed Ben?' would be the first obvious question, well you see a very good family friend of mine, who is a graduate of Westpoint is over there now as a leuitenant. Our families have known each other since I was around 5 and I see his parents on occasion around town. He is an awesome kid, very smart, funny, and most importantly, brave. So if any of you liberals come up and try to heckle me fine, be prepared for a huge lesson, I am not scared of any of you.
I get so sick of all of you "I support the troops, but bring them home NOW!" or "I support the troops but not their mission" liberals. Really? Let's break this one down. If you support the troops you should support their decision to join and fight, but not in Iraq? Not to mention the fact that it is a VOLUNTEER ARMY and the re-enlistment rate is 90%. No, the main stream media (MSM) oddly ignores that fact. I don't care weather or not you think the war was justified, were over there now and there's nothing you can do about it (despite what Cindy Sheehan may make you think). If we pull out now the terrorists will consider that a victory and it would only help their cause in recruiting more terrorists, not insurgents, terrorists. Once again, the blame America first crowd is howling because we did something as radical as protect our best interests as opposed to what's good for the 'world community', even if it was on bad information. By the way, everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. Including the leftiest of the left. Don't believe me?
'We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.'
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
'Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.'
Madeline 'Not so Bright' Albright
'The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.'
Bill Clinton
'Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.'
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Don't get me wrong, I don't support everything Bush does, as a matter of fact I think it is embarrassing how he is managing this war. You cannot win a politically correct war. He is trying to do that. Let me ask you all a question; what was worse, Abu Ghraib or the sick terrorists decapitating innocent civilians and blowing up themselves in front of police stations in the name of Allah? If you said Abu Ghraib you, simply put, are mentally disabled. In the words of Michael Savage, "We need more Patton and less patent leather." and "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Yes, a conservative is in charge of the opinion page but, unlike the left, I am willing to listen to and print the other side. I will never agree with them but I believe in freedom of speech and everyone in this country has a right to speak, no matter how stupid they sound when they do it. But there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and aiding the enemy, which I will cover in a later issue.
Finally, I do not expect my views to go unchallenged, feel free to write an editorial on this article, but be warned, anything turned into me is fair game for this paper.
My view has changed of the war, but I still support it"
Hello and welcome to the opinion page Normandale readers. I am your editor for this page for the year. As you can see I am coming out with guns blazing.
'Why has your view changed Ben?' would be the first obvious question, well you see a very good family friend of mine, who is a graduate of Westpoint is over there now as a leuitenant. Our families have known each other since I was around 5 and I see his parents on occasion around town. He is an awesome kid, very smart, funny, and most importantly, brave. So if any of you liberals come up and try to heckle me fine, be prepared for a huge lesson, I am not scared of any of you.
I get so sick of all of you "I support the troops, but bring them home NOW!" or "I support the troops but not their mission" liberals. Really? Let's break this one down. If you support the troops you should support their decision to join and fight, but not in Iraq? Not to mention the fact that it is a VOLUNTEER ARMY and the re-enlistment rate is 90%. No, the main stream media (MSM) oddly ignores that fact. I don't care weather or not you think the war was justified, were over there now and there's nothing you can do about it (despite what Cindy Sheehan may make you think). If we pull out now the terrorists will consider that a victory and it would only help their cause in recruiting more terrorists, not insurgents, terrorists. Once again, the blame America first crowd is howling because we did something as radical as protect our best interests as opposed to what's good for the 'world community', even if it was on bad information. By the way, everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. Including the leftiest of the left. Don't believe me?
'We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.'
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
'Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.'
Madeline 'Not so Bright' Albright
'The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.'
Bill Clinton
'Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.'
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Don't get me wrong, I don't support everything Bush does, as a matter of fact I think it is embarrassing how he is managing this war. You cannot win a politically correct war. He is trying to do that. Let me ask you all a question; what was worse, Abu Ghraib or the sick terrorists decapitating innocent civilians and blowing up themselves in front of police stations in the name of Allah? If you said Abu Ghraib you, simply put, are mentally disabled. In the words of Michael Savage, "We need more Patton and less patent leather." and "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Yes, a conservative is in charge of the opinion page but, unlike the left, I am willing to listen to and print the other side. I will never agree with them but I believe in freedom of speech and everyone in this country has a right to speak, no matter how stupid they sound when they do it. But there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and aiding the enemy, which I will cover in a later issue.
Finally, I do not expect my views to go unchallenged, feel free to write an editorial on this article, but be warned, anything turned into me is fair game for this paper.
liberals suck...
I mean, why? Can't we unite around ONE *^%$#^& ISSUE!?!?!?!
Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 10:46 a.m. EDT
Lib Bloggers: Katrina Bush's Fault
A handful of liberal bloggers have wasted no time politicizing the Hurricane Katrina disaster, alleging that the Iraq war has stripped New Orleans of National Guard protection and blasting President Bush for not dealing with global warming.
"So far today, I've looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Louisiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state," complains the "Swing State" blog.
"Will Bush stay on vacation? At this point, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush has been asleep at the wheel for four years."
Over at the "American Blog," they've started a "Hurricaine Bush Vacation Watch," which is "keeping a tab on whether Bush is going to return to Washington to deal with this historically devastating hurricane, or whether he's going to stay on vacation while a major American city faces imminent disaster."
"Can't you just see Bush staying on vacation while all this happens THEN touring the damage like he's some kind of concerned hero?" the American Blogger griped.
Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 10:46 a.m. EDT
Lib Bloggers: Katrina Bush's Fault
A handful of liberal bloggers have wasted no time politicizing the Hurricane Katrina disaster, alleging that the Iraq war has stripped New Orleans of National Guard protection and blasting President Bush for not dealing with global warming.
"So far today, I've looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Louisiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state," complains the "Swing State" blog.
"Will Bush stay on vacation? At this point, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush has been asleep at the wheel for four years."
Over at the "American Blog," they've started a "Hurricaine Bush Vacation Watch," which is "keeping a tab on whether Bush is going to return to Washington to deal with this historically devastating hurricane, or whether he's going to stay on vacation while a major American city faces imminent disaster."
"Can't you just see Bush staying on vacation while all this happens THEN touring the damage like he's some kind of concerned hero?" the American Blogger griped.
breaking news...
parts of the SuperDome roof are tearing off, god help all those people in there and anywhere in the path of this storm...
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Buy Gas NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
No I'm not saying stockpile it that would be selfish. But if your reading this before Katrina hits (and even a little bit after) go out ASAP and fill up your car(s). The reason is Katrina is going to damage or take out 9 MAJOR OIL RIGS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. Yes 9, I would not hesitate to say that whatever your gas price is now per gallon, expect it to raise as much as $1 per gallon by Wednesday or Thursday.
I know this is very grim...
but here are my projected Katrina death tolls for New Orleans. I am doing this to only compare where my guesses are to what actually happens.
Best-Case Scenario (misses NO)- 1,500-2,000
Medium Case Scenario (grazes NO)- 5,000-15,000
Worst-Case Scenario (direct hit)- 50,000-75,000
100,000 people are trapped there, please pray for them and for a miracle.
Best-Case Scenario (misses NO)- 1,500-2,000
Medium Case Scenario (grazes NO)- 5,000-15,000
Worst-Case Scenario (direct hit)- 50,000-75,000
100,000 people are trapped there, please pray for them and for a miracle.
facts about Katrina...
Why 3 posts in a row about a hurricane? Well, when I show you these facts it should be obvious. Politics is honestly the furthest thought from my mind right now.
Ok, there have only been 3 category 5 hurricanes to ever strike the US, well at least since records started being kept. They are:
1935 Labor Day Hurricane (hit the Keys)
1969 Camille (I think NC/SC area)
1992 Andrew (FL and a bunch of other gulf coast states)
Now each one of them had their own record they set; Katrina's potential in parentheses
1935 Labor Day Hurricane- lowest pressure 892 mb (Katrina is at 906 mb at last reading)
1969 Camille- 200+ MPH winds and 20+ ft storm surge (Katrina's at 175 mph, storm surge could be 25 feet)
1992 Andrew- costliest storm at $26 billion (people are saying that Katrina will DESTROY THIS RECORD, not break, DESTROY)
This is the storm of the century people. The mayor of New Orleans declared a state of emergency earlier today, but that's just a nice way of saying Marshal Law in reality. But it is sorely needed. 100,000 people are stuck in NO, please pray for them everyone. They are in grave danger. A lot could die but hopefully they won't.
Only one word is needed to describe this... damn
Ok, there have only been 3 category 5 hurricanes to ever strike the US, well at least since records started being kept. They are:
1935 Labor Day Hurricane (hit the Keys)
1969 Camille (I think NC/SC area)
1992 Andrew (FL and a bunch of other gulf coast states)
Now each one of them had their own record they set; Katrina's potential in parentheses
1935 Labor Day Hurricane- lowest pressure 892 mb (Katrina is at 906 mb at last reading)
1969 Camille- 200+ MPH winds and 20+ ft storm surge (Katrina's at 175 mph, storm surge could be 25 feet)
1992 Andrew- costliest storm at $26 billion (people are saying that Katrina will DESTROY THIS RECORD, not break, DESTROY)
This is the storm of the century people. The mayor of New Orleans declared a state of emergency earlier today, but that's just a nice way of saying Marshal Law in reality. But it is sorely needed. 100,000 people are stuck in NO, please pray for them everyone. They are in grave danger. A lot could die but hopefully they won't.
Only one word is needed to describe this... damn
Update...
I was right, why? Katrina is taking direct aim at New Orleans, winds sustained at 175 MPH, this is going to make any other previous natural disaster look like childs play. Were talking upwards of a trillion (yes trillion) dollars in damage, maybe more. Oh, and oil will probably hit $80 a barrel by October.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Katrina could wipe New Orleans off the map...
Or at least make it Lake New Orleans. See Katrina is what scientists have feared for years a possible Category 4-5 hurricane taking direct aim at the city. The problem is that the city is 13 feet below sea level, and if Katrina, god forbid, hits them directly the levis that protect New Orleans will collapse and New Orleans will be flooded with no where for the water to go. How do I know this? Well when I was little I loved watching TLC (before it became the gay channel) and Discovery Channel. Scientists always feared this day, and now the day could be here. Anyone in the Southeast that is reading this and in the area of this storm GET OUT NOW (but I think most of you have already). This isn't something to be messed with, Katrina is shaping up to be the next Andrew, possibly worse.
Here is Satellite photo of the monster:
And the all important projected paths.
Here is Satellite photo of the monster:
And the all important projected paths.
site change...
well what do you all think? It happened by accident because I was bored and lost most of my links, it may take days (or weeks) for me to recover all of them. So bear with me with this guys!
back pain...
Well I think that Ben Franklin had the saying, "Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes." I think that back injuries should be added to that. On Thursday I went down to play intramural flag football. I thought it was just going to be fun and laid back. Boy was I wrong, every guy on the field except me had at least one year of varsity football experience. Needless to say I was outclassed big time. But wait that wasn't the worst part, the worst part was I got stuck at center. For those of you who don't know I'm 6'4 180 lbs. Translation: NOT BLOCKING MATERIAL!!!!!!!! I had one play where our "coach" basically fell onto my my back, yea just what I need when I am a bag boy and work Friday, Saturday and Sunday working a total of 16 1/2 hours over those 3 days. Don't feel too bad for me, I make $8 an hour (plus the $16 a month that goes to my union but I already talked about that in a earlier post) but that doesn't mean it wasn't a gigantic pain in the ass, or more accurately back. Thank god for IcyHot, a product I totally endorse. It numbed my back enough so I could work for 5 hours today, still hurts though. I have a question for anyone reading this, is there anyone out there who HASN'T messed their back up? Seriously I bet that 80%-90% of the American public has done something to their back.
Friday, August 26, 2005
why the UN is dangerous...
just read and you'll understand...
The U.N.'s Latest
New York Sun Editorial
August 26, 2005
Just when you thought the United Nations couldn't disgrace itself further, it fetches up siding with supporters of terrorists against defenders of innocent civilians. The Commission on Human Rights' special investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, is threatening to expand his own brief and refer Britain to the United Nations General Assembly for human rights violations. This is because Britain is preparing plans to deport foreign citizens who engage in "unacceptable behavior" such as encouraging or glorifying terrorism.
It doesn't seem to matter to Mr. Nowak that Britain is tightening its anti-terror laws to protect itself in the wake of attacks on London's transit system. The British government has said it will only send undesirables to states that will promise not to torture them. Sounds like Britain is going beyond the call of duty. Foreign citizens are in a country at the goodwill of their hosts. Encouraging terrorist attacks oversteps that welcome by far; the foreigners are fortunate Britain is showing any concern about their new destination.
Not according to Mr. Nowak. He says there is no guarantee that the countries will keep their promise not to torture and that Britain is wrong to send them anywhere. According to the Guardian, Mr. Nowak is seeking permission to visit Britain and discuss his concerns with the home secretary, Charles Clarke. It would be far more appropriate for Mr. Nowak to be visiting, and publicly chastising, those countries he is concerned will torture people, rather than hampering Britain's attempts to protect its population from further terrorist attacks.
Mr. Clarke responded to Mr. Nowak's criticisms by saying: "The human rights of those people who were blown up on the Tube in London on July 7, are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts." Quite, but not to the Commission on Human Rights to which Mr. Nowak belongs. It's infamous for siding with terrorists against democracies. Israel is regularly chastised by the commission for interfering in the lives of Palestinian Arabs, while scant mention is made of either the terrorism that makes the interference necessary or the right of Israelis to life.
This latest disgrace from Turtle Bay follows last week's discovery that the United Nations Development Program was financing the distribution of anti-Israel propaganda in Gaza. Which comes amid the oil-for-food scandal, the sex scandal, and the inaction against the ethnic cleansing in Sudan, to list but a few. The question to ask in all this is, "Where is the secretary-general, Kofi Annan?" He was supposed to be reforming the human rights commission. The case for active, pre-emptive oversight of the United Nations by the United States Congress gets stronger by the day.
seriously lets get out of this sorry excuse of diplomacy before it's too late.
The U.N.'s Latest
New York Sun Editorial
August 26, 2005
Just when you thought the United Nations couldn't disgrace itself further, it fetches up siding with supporters of terrorists against defenders of innocent civilians. The Commission on Human Rights' special investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, is threatening to expand his own brief and refer Britain to the United Nations General Assembly for human rights violations. This is because Britain is preparing plans to deport foreign citizens who engage in "unacceptable behavior" such as encouraging or glorifying terrorism.
It doesn't seem to matter to Mr. Nowak that Britain is tightening its anti-terror laws to protect itself in the wake of attacks on London's transit system. The British government has said it will only send undesirables to states that will promise not to torture them. Sounds like Britain is going beyond the call of duty. Foreign citizens are in a country at the goodwill of their hosts. Encouraging terrorist attacks oversteps that welcome by far; the foreigners are fortunate Britain is showing any concern about their new destination.
Not according to Mr. Nowak. He says there is no guarantee that the countries will keep their promise not to torture and that Britain is wrong to send them anywhere. According to the Guardian, Mr. Nowak is seeking permission to visit Britain and discuss his concerns with the home secretary, Charles Clarke. It would be far more appropriate for Mr. Nowak to be visiting, and publicly chastising, those countries he is concerned will torture people, rather than hampering Britain's attempts to protect its population from further terrorist attacks.
Mr. Clarke responded to Mr. Nowak's criticisms by saying: "The human rights of those people who were blown up on the Tube in London on July 7, are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts." Quite, but not to the Commission on Human Rights to which Mr. Nowak belongs. It's infamous for siding with terrorists against democracies. Israel is regularly chastised by the commission for interfering in the lives of Palestinian Arabs, while scant mention is made of either the terrorism that makes the interference necessary or the right of Israelis to life.
This latest disgrace from Turtle Bay follows last week's discovery that the United Nations Development Program was financing the distribution of anti-Israel propaganda in Gaza. Which comes amid the oil-for-food scandal, the sex scandal, and the inaction against the ethnic cleansing in Sudan, to list but a few. The question to ask in all this is, "Where is the secretary-general, Kofi Annan?" He was supposed to be reforming the human rights commission. The case for active, pre-emptive oversight of the United Nations by the United States Congress gets stronger by the day.
seriously lets get out of this sorry excuse of diplomacy before it's too late.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Are you a liberal?
Courtesy of Dennis Prager...
You say you are a liberal.
Do you believe the following?
Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.
Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
Murderers should never be put to death.
During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.
Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.
It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.
The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.
The present high tax rates are good.
Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.
The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.
It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
No abortions can be labeled immoral.
Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.
Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.
No culture is morally superior to any other.
Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?
Personally I'd like to hear Laura's responses, I really don't think she's as liberal as she says she is.
You say you are a liberal.
Do you believe the following?
Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.
Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
Murderers should never be put to death.
During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.
Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.
It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.
The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.
The present high tax rates are good.
Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.
The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.
It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
No abortions can be labeled immoral.
Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.
Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.
No culture is morally superior to any other.
Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?
Personally I'd like to hear Laura's responses, I really don't think she's as liberal as she says she is.
Minnesota state fair...
I'm sick of politics. So here's a post about something everyone in the country should know about. The Minnesota State Fair is the 2nd largest state fair in the country (behind Texas ZS ;). Anyway I suggest that everyone in this country come here at least one time in your life to experience it. I have went every year for the past 14 years and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon. Over 100,000 people a day visit it and there are so many cool things. The midway, bandshell, barns, deep fried everything (including candy bars, still haven't had one yet). It is all amazing. It is really part of Americana, plus all the local radio stations go there and broadcast everyday from the fairgrounds. Even national talk show hosts go there, I plan on going to see Dennis Prager on Monday if I don't work.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
You can't make it up...
Wow, Cindy's taking a page right out of Moore's playbook. I'm sure Casey would be happy to know his mom thinks he was killed by freedom fighters and not terrorists...
In an interview earlier this month, Bush-bashing Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan referred to terrorists allied with the Iraqi insurgents who killed her GI son Casey as "freedom fighters."
"Now that we have decimated [Iraq], the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country," Sheehan complained to CBS Newsman Mark Knoller.
Knoller, as well as other reporters who heard Sheehan's remarks, declined to include the outburst in his coverage.
But a video unearthed Tuesday by FreeRepublic.com captured Sheehan's comments on tape.
KNOLLER: You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?
SHEEHAN: No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state.
But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country. [END OF EXCERPT]
newsflash to the anti-war left, find a new spokesperson!
In an interview earlier this month, Bush-bashing Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan referred to terrorists allied with the Iraqi insurgents who killed her GI son Casey as "freedom fighters."
"Now that we have decimated [Iraq], the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country," Sheehan complained to CBS Newsman Mark Knoller.
Knoller, as well as other reporters who heard Sheehan's remarks, declined to include the outburst in his coverage.
But a video unearthed Tuesday by FreeRepublic.com captured Sheehan's comments on tape.
KNOLLER: You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?
SHEEHAN: No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state.
But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country. [END OF EXCERPT]
newsflash to the anti-war left, find a new spokesperson!
Host re-hired!!!
Mike didn't stay unemployed long, thank God.
Fired radio host
hired on Internet
ABC booted Michael Graham for linking Islam to terrorism
It didn't take long for talk-show host Michael Graham to find another job after he was fired last week by ABC Radio for his comments linking Islam to terror.
He's been hired by the Internet-based conservative radio network Rightalk.com, and will start on Monday in a show called "Michael Graham, Unleashed!"
"No liberal network execs, no advertisers, not even the FCC," says Graham. "Rightalk.com has asked me to do this show, not because they necessarily agree with everything I say, but because they understand that free speech and open discourse are key elements in successful talk radio, not to mention successful democracies and thriving societies, too."
His one-hour daily show will be live at noon each weekday, and will be available for podcasting or downloading every hour, on the hour.
"I don't believe Michael intended to brand all of Islam as supporters of terrorism. However, that many people perceive militant Islamists as fundamentally supporting terrorism indicates Michael's comments were relevant and need to be discussed," said Rightalk executive producer Bob Johnson. "Rather than silencing opinions, moderate Muslims who are disgusted at what extremists are doing in the name of their religion should be engaging that discussion to dispel those perceptions."
WorldNetDaily broke the story of Michael's firing last week following weeks of pressure applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with its own well-documented connections to terrorism.
Graham was the popular mid-morning host on WMAL in the nation's capital until four weeks ago when CAIR demanded he be punished for his on-air statements about Islam. After initially backing the host, WMAL, which is owned and operated by ABC, suspended him without pay July 28.
"CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired," Graham said in a statement to WND. "ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed 'offensive,' and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as 'additional outreach efforts' to those people or groups who felt offended. I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired."
CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.
Graham's suspension stemmed from characterizing Islam a "terrorist organization." Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it.
Before his Internet job begins Monday, Graham is slated to fill in Friday night for 2 hours on KFI Radio in Los Angeles.
Fired radio host
hired on Internet
ABC booted Michael Graham for linking Islam to terrorism
It didn't take long for talk-show host Michael Graham to find another job after he was fired last week by ABC Radio for his comments linking Islam to terror.
He's been hired by the Internet-based conservative radio network Rightalk.com, and will start on Monday in a show called "Michael Graham, Unleashed!"
"No liberal network execs, no advertisers, not even the FCC," says Graham. "Rightalk.com has asked me to do this show, not because they necessarily agree with everything I say, but because they understand that free speech and open discourse are key elements in successful talk radio, not to mention successful democracies and thriving societies, too."
His one-hour daily show will be live at noon each weekday, and will be available for podcasting or downloading every hour, on the hour.
"I don't believe Michael intended to brand all of Islam as supporters of terrorism. However, that many people perceive militant Islamists as fundamentally supporting terrorism indicates Michael's comments were relevant and need to be discussed," said Rightalk executive producer Bob Johnson. "Rather than silencing opinions, moderate Muslims who are disgusted at what extremists are doing in the name of their religion should be engaging that discussion to dispel those perceptions."
WorldNetDaily broke the story of Michael's firing last week following weeks of pressure applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with its own well-documented connections to terrorism.
Graham was the popular mid-morning host on WMAL in the nation's capital until four weeks ago when CAIR demanded he be punished for his on-air statements about Islam. After initially backing the host, WMAL, which is owned and operated by ABC, suspended him without pay July 28.
"CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired," Graham said in a statement to WND. "ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed 'offensive,' and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as 'additional outreach efforts' to those people or groups who felt offended. I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired."
CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.
Graham's suspension stemmed from characterizing Islam a "terrorist organization." Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it.
Before his Internet job begins Monday, Graham is slated to fill in Friday night for 2 hours on KFI Radio in Los Angeles.
helping the Dems...
This post and the next couple will be for liberals who read this page. I seriously want to at least have a fair competitor. There is a serious risk of the Democratic Party imploding even before 2008, I've said too much, just read...
Cindy Sheehan and the Democrats
This summer’s noisy protests against the Iraq war are a dangerous warning--but not dangerous to President Bush. They are dangerous to the Democratic party. And the great political question in the United States over the next few months is: Will the Democrats succumb?
No question, President Bush has political problems. A majority of Americans now say that the war in Iraq is going either “very badly” (28%) or “moderately badly” (another 28%) according to the latest CNN/Gallup poll. A majority (54%) agree that the country “made a mistake” in going to war in Iraq. And 33% of Americans want to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately.
But make no mistake: Americans are unhappy about the war in Iraq because they fear they are losing--not because they think the war wrong or immoral. Americans do not blame “American imperialism” for the problems of the Middle East. They know that Islamic terrorism threatens their country and favor strong measures to crush terrorism.
The so-called peace movement that has been drawing so much attention with its media stunts at the Bush ranch this summer thinks very differently. It opposed the Afghan war and now opposes the Iraq war because it opposes any and all American wars, successful or unsuccessful. It denies the reality of terrorism--or else thinks terrorism an unfortunate but understandable response to American aggression.
Here for example is Cindy Sheehan’s explanation of the war in Iraq. Sheehan of course is the summer’s media sensation, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq who kept a vigil at President Bush’s Crawford ranch until the end of last week:
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”
[PNAC is the acronym for the "Project for the New American Century"--a three person think tank in Washington DC that fills a large place in the imaginations of America's left-wing.]
Those words come from an email Sheehan sent on March 15 to the producers of the ABC News program, “Nightline.” Sheehan has since claimed that these words were inserted into her letter by a supporter, but this claim has been exposed as false by the journalist Christopher Hitchens in the online magazine Slate. (See www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791)
But Sheehan’s excuse is if anything even more revealing than the truth. It is indeed the case that the antiwar movement is heavily populated by people who regard the whole 9/11 war as a Jewish plot.
The more Americans see of the antiwar movement, the more appalled they will be.
There is great nostalgia on the American left today for the antiwar movements of the 1960s. Leftists now in their 60s remember the marches, the cheering, and of course the sex. What they forget is that it was the reaction against the riots and the protests of the 1960s that delivered the White House to the Republicans for 20 of the 24 years from 1968 until 1992.
Today an even more extremist antiwar movement is again beckoning to the Democratic party. Some Democrats are listening: It looks as if Ohio Democrats will run the violently antiwar Paul Hackett as their candidate in that state’s 2006 Senate race. Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold is planning to run an antiwar campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
But the leaders of the national party--Bill and Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Harry Reid, and others--are resisting. They have seen this movie before--and they know how it ends: with the Democrats marginalized and the Republicans back in power.
Cindy Sheehan and the Democrats
This summer’s noisy protests against the Iraq war are a dangerous warning--but not dangerous to President Bush. They are dangerous to the Democratic party. And the great political question in the United States over the next few months is: Will the Democrats succumb?
No question, President Bush has political problems. A majority of Americans now say that the war in Iraq is going either “very badly” (28%) or “moderately badly” (another 28%) according to the latest CNN/Gallup poll. A majority (54%) agree that the country “made a mistake” in going to war in Iraq. And 33% of Americans want to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately.
But make no mistake: Americans are unhappy about the war in Iraq because they fear they are losing--not because they think the war wrong or immoral. Americans do not blame “American imperialism” for the problems of the Middle East. They know that Islamic terrorism threatens their country and favor strong measures to crush terrorism.
The so-called peace movement that has been drawing so much attention with its media stunts at the Bush ranch this summer thinks very differently. It opposed the Afghan war and now opposes the Iraq war because it opposes any and all American wars, successful or unsuccessful. It denies the reality of terrorism--or else thinks terrorism an unfortunate but understandable response to American aggression.
Here for example is Cindy Sheehan’s explanation of the war in Iraq. Sheehan of course is the summer’s media sensation, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq who kept a vigil at President Bush’s Crawford ranch until the end of last week:
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”
[PNAC is the acronym for the "Project for the New American Century"--a three person think tank in Washington DC that fills a large place in the imaginations of America's left-wing.]
Those words come from an email Sheehan sent on March 15 to the producers of the ABC News program, “Nightline.” Sheehan has since claimed that these words were inserted into her letter by a supporter, but this claim has been exposed as false by the journalist Christopher Hitchens in the online magazine Slate. (See www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791)
But Sheehan’s excuse is if anything even more revealing than the truth. It is indeed the case that the antiwar movement is heavily populated by people who regard the whole 9/11 war as a Jewish plot.
The more Americans see of the antiwar movement, the more appalled they will be.
There is great nostalgia on the American left today for the antiwar movements of the 1960s. Leftists now in their 60s remember the marches, the cheering, and of course the sex. What they forget is that it was the reaction against the riots and the protests of the 1960s that delivered the White House to the Republicans for 20 of the 24 years from 1968 until 1992.
Today an even more extremist antiwar movement is again beckoning to the Democratic party. Some Democrats are listening: It looks as if Ohio Democrats will run the violently antiwar Paul Hackett as their candidate in that state’s 2006 Senate race. Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold is planning to run an antiwar campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
But the leaders of the national party--Bill and Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Harry Reid, and others--are resisting. They have seen this movie before--and they know how it ends: with the Democrats marginalized and the Republicans back in power.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Talk show host gets fired for speaking about the truth of Islam...
This is beyond pissing me off, no words can describe how angry I am and how sorry I feel for this guy. This is just the lastest example of a pc society run amok.
Editor's note: The following commentary is what led to talk-show host Michael Graham recently being fired from ABC Radio station WMAL in Washington, D.C., after pressure was applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
By Michael Graham
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a terror organization.
For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9-11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.
Immediately after 9-11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."
But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."
Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."
Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.
That is part of the state of modern Islam.
Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack.
The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong.
Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't – care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history – I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder-suicide bombings are rejected by all.
And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can't, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can't. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers.
Can't kick 'em out of your faith? Can't excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.
Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world's Muslim nations gathered after 9-11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn't even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world's largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia – both governed by Islamic law?
If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the "Boy Scout Handbook" and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be" – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.
Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam's members give these killers support and comfort.
The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.
As I've said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace.
Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.
Many Muslims, I believe, know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, "two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large."
But Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He's called for a jihad against the jihadists. He's putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency.
He remembers, I'm sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.
Let's hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself.
Hey CAIR, how about you do something productive like denounching the extremeists? I'm only surprised that the ACLU hasn't gotten involved yet. Good god, what happened to freedom of speech?
Editor's note: The following commentary is what led to talk-show host Michael Graham recently being fired from ABC Radio station WMAL in Washington, D.C., after pressure was applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
By Michael Graham
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a terror organization.
For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9-11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.
Immediately after 9-11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."
But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."
Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."
Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.
That is part of the state of modern Islam.
Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack.
The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong.
Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't – care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history – I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder-suicide bombings are rejected by all.
And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can't, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can't. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers.
Can't kick 'em out of your faith? Can't excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.
Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world's Muslim nations gathered after 9-11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn't even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world's largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia – both governed by Islamic law?
If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the "Boy Scout Handbook" and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be" – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.
Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam's members give these killers support and comfort.
The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.
As I've said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace.
Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.
Many Muslims, I believe, know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, "two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large."
But Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He's called for a jihad against the jihadists. He's putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency.
He remembers, I'm sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.
Let's hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself.
Hey CAIR, how about you do something productive like denounching the extremeists? I'm only surprised that the ACLU hasn't gotten involved yet. Good god, what happened to freedom of speech?
Inside 9/11...
The documentary got major press (or maybe I just watch too much tv) before it aired last night and tonight on the National Geographic Channel. I have it all on tape, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about it was a 4 hour 2 part documentary about 9/11. The first two hours were background, the last two were about 9/11 and what followed. In the end this might be a doucmentary for the ages (besides its so much better than Farenheit 9/11, plus you didn't have to pay to see it) and should be commended if for no other reason it was non-partisan. The ending went like this, OBL and a Pakistan reporter were in the hills of Afganistan in November, 2001 with US forces off in the distance. Bin Laden told the reporter, and I quote "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us". I couldn't have said it any better myself. And this is why we must win, it truly is a battle of good vs. evil despite the fact that those on the left don't want you to see it that way. Sadly, I really think they are more on the side of the terrorists than the US sometimes because they both hate America.
Monday, August 22, 2005
attention all spam commentors...
If you try to promote some shit on my site you will be deleted forever! Unless you have something intelligent to contribute to the conversation please don't post and if you do I will delete you the next chance I have.
you know what pisses me off...
Picture time to start off then the rant.
This is just reason #98364 why I hate unions with a passion. They were good and necessary early on, but like many things they have outlived their usefulness (see Social Security, 1% *^&#& return over 30 years?!?!). Now with that said I belong to a union because my job requires it, I have no say in the matter. And the shits take $16 out of my paycheck every month. I am searching for another job if soley for that reason I have to belong to a union otherwise I can't work. Ugh, in the words of foamy "Go fuck yourselves with a fucking loaf of bread" seriously I don't want to be a part of a union, I AM FORCED TO. Funny thing, dems support choice, but not when it comes to financial matters.
Back to this idiotic strike. The mechanics union not only walked out, but they are being replaced! They were hoping for a sympathy strike so NWA would really feel it but because they are more "skilled" than the other groups (baggage claimers, ticket counter workers, etc) they broke off and formed their own union. Then after pissing on their "co-workers" they asked them to join them at the 11th hour and those unions basically said "fuck you". And I'd agree with them. The NWA mechanics would rather strike and loose their jobs (which will probably happen) than agree to take a paycut because NWA cannot support the current contract with their financial situation (they're losing $4 million A DAY). This on top of the fact that the AFL-CIO is basically on the verge of being extinct. The unions are in their last death throws, and I for one say this day is long overdue. Too bad their such big supporters of the Democratic Party, their going to loose a lot of financial support, so sad... NOT! :)
This is just reason #98364 why I hate unions with a passion. They were good and necessary early on, but like many things they have outlived their usefulness (see Social Security, 1% *^&#& return over 30 years?!?!). Now with that said I belong to a union because my job requires it, I have no say in the matter. And the shits take $16 out of my paycheck every month. I am searching for another job if soley for that reason I have to belong to a union otherwise I can't work. Ugh, in the words of foamy "Go fuck yourselves with a fucking loaf of bread" seriously I don't want to be a part of a union, I AM FORCED TO. Funny thing, dems support choice, but not when it comes to financial matters.
Back to this idiotic strike. The mechanics union not only walked out, but they are being replaced! They were hoping for a sympathy strike so NWA would really feel it but because they are more "skilled" than the other groups (baggage claimers, ticket counter workers, etc) they broke off and formed their own union. Then after pissing on their "co-workers" they asked them to join them at the 11th hour and those unions basically said "fuck you". And I'd agree with them. The NWA mechanics would rather strike and loose their jobs (which will probably happen) than agree to take a paycut because NWA cannot support the current contract with their financial situation (they're losing $4 million A DAY). This on top of the fact that the AFL-CIO is basically on the verge of being extinct. The unions are in their last death throws, and I for one say this day is long overdue. Too bad their such big supporters of the Democratic Party, their going to loose a lot of financial support, so sad... NOT! :)
Sunday, August 21, 2005
this is it...
my last few hours of freedom until may 9th, 2006. Oh well, now most of my posts will be done at the NCC library, that is if they don't block my site (which funny my last school did). A lot of posts will be dedicated to stupid things that my teachers and classmates will surely say. I will be documenting all of them for reasons I cannot discuss for 4+ years (ZS, remember our conversation a few weeks ago?). I will stay up to date on current events and politcs on this blog but I will do the occasional rant, sports post (or rant), cd review, or videogame review. Later all.
guess what? I was right...
Well I was criticized by Paul for making this statement in a post earlier this week about the Gaza pullout: If you think this is all that Palestinian leaders will demand your a complete moron.. Well Paul, put this in your pipe and smoke it...
August 21, 2005 -- GAZA CITY — Hamas terrorists vowed yesterday to drive Israel out of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
"Gaza is not Palestine," a masked spokesman for Hamas' armed wing declared, making it clear the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will not satisfy the fanatical terrorist group.
"As for Jerusalem and the West Bank, we will seek to liberate them by resistance just as the Gaza Strip was liberated," said the spokesman, surrounded by gunmen with rocket launchers.
But he did not say Hamas planned to abandon its truce, set to last until the end of the year.
Militants have agreed to respect the cease-fire at the behest of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who wants to ensure a quiet withdrawal of the Gaza settlers.
The appearance of the masked Hamas gunmen — who briefly took over Gaza City's central square — was a direct challenge to Abbas, who has appealed to militants not to flaunt their weapons in public.
It also underscored the reluctance of Abbas' police to confront gunmen.
"This retreat [by Israel] does not mean the end of our battle, but it is the beginning," said one of the gunmen.
While the pullout is seen by most of the international community as a step towards reviving negotiations on Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, terrorists see it as a victory for their side.
Israel has said there can be no talks before the dismantling of groups like Hamas, the biggest faction behind terrorist suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks against Israel.
"Our arms removed the Zionist enemy and therefore we will not abandon our weapons and we will not hand them over to anybody," said the Hamas spokesman.
He insisted the issue "was not up for discussion."
Abbas, meanwhile, signed a decree giving his government control over all lands and assets left behind by Israeli troops and settlers.
The decree said no one can make personal use of the real estate until ownership has been sorted out.
He also scheduled parliamentary elections for Jan. 25, a move that could boost his international credibility and encourage Hamas, his major political rival, to hold its fire.
From the NY Post. I don't usually like to rub it in but when your right your right.
August 21, 2005 -- GAZA CITY — Hamas terrorists vowed yesterday to drive Israel out of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
"Gaza is not Palestine," a masked spokesman for Hamas' armed wing declared, making it clear the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will not satisfy the fanatical terrorist group.
"As for Jerusalem and the West Bank, we will seek to liberate them by resistance just as the Gaza Strip was liberated," said the spokesman, surrounded by gunmen with rocket launchers.
But he did not say Hamas planned to abandon its truce, set to last until the end of the year.
Militants have agreed to respect the cease-fire at the behest of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who wants to ensure a quiet withdrawal of the Gaza settlers.
The appearance of the masked Hamas gunmen — who briefly took over Gaza City's central square — was a direct challenge to Abbas, who has appealed to militants not to flaunt their weapons in public.
It also underscored the reluctance of Abbas' police to confront gunmen.
"This retreat [by Israel] does not mean the end of our battle, but it is the beginning," said one of the gunmen.
While the pullout is seen by most of the international community as a step towards reviving negotiations on Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, terrorists see it as a victory for their side.
Israel has said there can be no talks before the dismantling of groups like Hamas, the biggest faction behind terrorist suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks against Israel.
"Our arms removed the Zionist enemy and therefore we will not abandon our weapons and we will not hand them over to anybody," said the Hamas spokesman.
He insisted the issue "was not up for discussion."
Abbas, meanwhile, signed a decree giving his government control over all lands and assets left behind by Israeli troops and settlers.
The decree said no one can make personal use of the real estate until ownership has been sorted out.
He also scheduled parliamentary elections for Jan. 25, a move that could boost his international credibility and encourage Hamas, his major political rival, to hold its fire.
From the NY Post. I don't usually like to rub it in but when your right your right.
Minnesotans thanking our troops!
Wow, saw this on Fox News in the middle of the night last night, way cool. This is a site that thanks all troops living in Minnesota (tshsmom you should check this out) and how people living in this state can help them. Better yet, it's a bipartisan effort, hopefully it will stay that way. Check the site out at Thanks Minnesota Troops
Saturday, August 20, 2005
I've changed my mind about Cindy Sheehan
I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
Let her meet with the President.
That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.
Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.
Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they'd use on Americans.
Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.
Let her meet with the President who turned his country's media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.
Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.
Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.
Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes charges for his dastardly misdeeds.
Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it to this day.
Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.
Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.
That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
Not mine but pretty good surprise ending huh?
Let her meet with the President.
That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.
Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.
Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they'd use on Americans.
Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.
Let her meet with the President who turned his country's media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.
Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.
Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.
Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes charges for his dastardly misdeeds.
Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it to this day.
Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.
Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.
That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
Not mine but pretty good surprise ending huh?
a article/letter to all democrats...
Found this surfing the net, gives good points about how the dems can win again, but why they probably won't.
What Democrats Should Be Saying
This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.
So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.
Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.
The Democrats' problem is partly a lack of strong leadership. Its main spokesman on foreign policy has become Sen. Joseph Biden, a man who -- how to put this politely? -- seems more impressed with the force of his own intellect than an objective evaluation would warrant. Listening to Biden, you sense how hungry he is to be president, but you have little idea what he would do, other than talk . . . and talk.
The same failing is evident among Democratic spokesmen on economic issues. Name a tough problem -- such as energy independence or reform of Medicare and Social Security -- and the Democrats are ducking the hard choices. That may be understandable as a short-term political strategy: Why screw up your chances in the 2006 congressional elections by telling people they must make sacrifices? But this approach keeps the Democrats part of politics-as-usual, a game the GOP plays better.
Howard Dean is a breath of air as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- but unfortunately a lot of it is hot air. Dean is admirably combative, and in that he reflects a party that is tired of being mauled by Karl Rove's divisive campaigning. The problem with Dean is that, like his party, he doesn't have much to say about solving problems. Pressed about Iraq last Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," Dean passed the buck: "What we need is a plan from the president of the United States." Rather than condemn a NARAL Pro-Choice America ad against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts that was so outrageous it was pulled from the air, Dean averred: "I'm not even going to get into that."
Today's Democrats have trouble expressing the most basic theme of American politics: "We, the people." Rather than a governing party with a clear ideology, they are a collection of interest groups. For a simple demonstration, go to the DNC's Web site and pull down the menu for "People." What you will find is the following shopping list: "African American, Asian Amer./Pacific Islanders, Disability Community, Farmers and Ranchers, Hispanics, GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) Community, Native Americans, Religious Communities, Seniors & Retirees, Small Business Community, Union Members & Families, Veterans & Military Families, Women, Young People & Students." That's most of the threads in the national quilt, but disassembled.
What can the Democrats do to seize the opportunities of the moment? I suggest they take a leaf from Newt Gingrich's GOP playbook and develop a new "Contract With America." The Democrats should put together a clear and coherent list of measures they would implement if they could regain control of Congress and the White House. If the Democrats are serious, some of these measures -- dealing with economics and energy -- will be unpopular because they will call for sacrifice. But precisely for that reason, they will show that the Democrats can transcend interest-group America and unite the country.
America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.
Well, that would be helpful, if I was a liberal...
What Democrats Should Be Saying
This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.
So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.
Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.
The Democrats' problem is partly a lack of strong leadership. Its main spokesman on foreign policy has become Sen. Joseph Biden, a man who -- how to put this politely? -- seems more impressed with the force of his own intellect than an objective evaluation would warrant. Listening to Biden, you sense how hungry he is to be president, but you have little idea what he would do, other than talk . . . and talk.
The same failing is evident among Democratic spokesmen on economic issues. Name a tough problem -- such as energy independence or reform of Medicare and Social Security -- and the Democrats are ducking the hard choices. That may be understandable as a short-term political strategy: Why screw up your chances in the 2006 congressional elections by telling people they must make sacrifices? But this approach keeps the Democrats part of politics-as-usual, a game the GOP plays better.
Howard Dean is a breath of air as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- but unfortunately a lot of it is hot air. Dean is admirably combative, and in that he reflects a party that is tired of being mauled by Karl Rove's divisive campaigning. The problem with Dean is that, like his party, he doesn't have much to say about solving problems. Pressed about Iraq last Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," Dean passed the buck: "What we need is a plan from the president of the United States." Rather than condemn a NARAL Pro-Choice America ad against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts that was so outrageous it was pulled from the air, Dean averred: "I'm not even going to get into that."
Today's Democrats have trouble expressing the most basic theme of American politics: "We, the people." Rather than a governing party with a clear ideology, they are a collection of interest groups. For a simple demonstration, go to the DNC's Web site and pull down the menu for "People." What you will find is the following shopping list: "African American, Asian Amer./Pacific Islanders, Disability Community, Farmers and Ranchers, Hispanics, GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) Community, Native Americans, Religious Communities, Seniors & Retirees, Small Business Community, Union Members & Families, Veterans & Military Families, Women, Young People & Students." That's most of the threads in the national quilt, but disassembled.
What can the Democrats do to seize the opportunities of the moment? I suggest they take a leaf from Newt Gingrich's GOP playbook and develop a new "Contract With America." The Democrats should put together a clear and coherent list of measures they would implement if they could regain control of Congress and the White House. If the Democrats are serious, some of these measures -- dealing with economics and energy -- will be unpopular because they will call for sacrifice. But precisely for that reason, they will show that the Democrats can transcend interest-group America and unite the country.
America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.
Well, that would be helpful, if I was a liberal...
Friday, August 19, 2005
I know I've done this before...
but surfing the blogs tonight I came across this.
NBC Nightly News has the exclusive:
WASHINGTON - U.S. and foreign intelligence officials tell NBC News they have credible intelligence that insurgents in Iraq have active plans to launch a massive offensive early next week — timed to coincide with the possible draft of an Iraqi constitution on Monday.
According to the officials, terrorists would launch as many as 20 simultaneous suicide bombings, mostly in Baghdad. The plans also include heavy rocket and mortar attacks against U.S. and Iraqi government offices inside Baghdad’s Green Zone, against the U.S. military at Baghdad International Airport, and at Abu Ghraib prison.
U.S. officials say the offensive was planned for early this week but was put on hold when Iraqis failed to come up with a draft constitution.
So maybe I wasn't as crazy as some people (paul) think I am. Besides this time the news is from NBC a "credible news source". But hell, in today's world what source can be considered credible. Once again, just throwing it out there people. This is also the third time I've done this. "Third times a charm?" God I hope not.
NBC Nightly News has the exclusive:
WASHINGTON - U.S. and foreign intelligence officials tell NBC News they have credible intelligence that insurgents in Iraq have active plans to launch a massive offensive early next week — timed to coincide with the possible draft of an Iraqi constitution on Monday.
According to the officials, terrorists would launch as many as 20 simultaneous suicide bombings, mostly in Baghdad. The plans also include heavy rocket and mortar attacks against U.S. and Iraqi government offices inside Baghdad’s Green Zone, against the U.S. military at Baghdad International Airport, and at Abu Ghraib prison.
U.S. officials say the offensive was planned for early this week but was put on hold when Iraqis failed to come up with a draft constitution.
So maybe I wasn't as crazy as some people (paul) think I am. Besides this time the news is from NBC a "credible news source". But hell, in today's world what source can be considered credible. Once again, just throwing it out there people. This is also the third time I've done this. "Third times a charm?" God I hope not.
Twins game...
yay they won, 6 in a row! I got a voucher so I didn't have to pay for the ticket.
Breakdown
Parking: $10 (but it went to a church, and it was literally across the street from the Dome, I'm not complaining)
Ticket: Free
Food: Dome Dog: $4.25
Large pop: $4.00
Root Beer Float: $4.25
So, basically I got to see a kick-ass game and fill myself for $22.50, considering the ticket would normally set me back $17. Crappy stadium, good prices. Plus the team ain't half bad either.
Breakdown
Parking: $10 (but it went to a church, and it was literally across the street from the Dome, I'm not complaining)
Ticket: Free
Food: Dome Dog: $4.25
Large pop: $4.00
Root Beer Float: $4.25
So, basically I got to see a kick-ass game and fill myself for $22.50, considering the ticket would normally set me back $17. Crappy stadium, good prices. Plus the team ain't half bad either.
interesting poll on DailyKos...
I think this has to do with who they want nominated in 2008, as a conservative the results are actually pretty surprising.
August dKos Straw Poll Results
by kos
Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 11:30:08 PDT
Some movement this time.
dKos reader poll. 8/18-19. 8,710 respondents.
August July June
Clark 35 34 26
Feingold 16 10 10
H. Clinton 9 10 10
No Freakin' Clue 9 13 17
Edwards 7 7 8
Richardson 4 4 4
Other 4 4 7
Biden 3 3 3
Warner 3 5 5
Bayh 1 2 2
Kerry 1 2 2
Vilsack 0 0 0
One of the striking elements of these polls is the consistency in results. The Daily Kos community isn't representative of the overal Democratic electorate, but with 8,000+ respondents, it's a miniscule margin of error for our community's sentiments on the candidates.
So the big movement this time around was Feingold, who clearly got a boost for demanding a firm timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. It's impossible to tell where his new support came from, but it's probably the drop in undecideds probably benefited him.
Bowers saw a similar shift toward Feingold in the MyDD poll, which is not comparable to this one (it uses IRV and includes fantasy candidates like Schweitzer and Gore). Bowers concludes that perhaps the Netroots might not be as non-ideological as I've been claiming.
The first such question is whether or not the netroots really are as non-ideological in their support of Democratic candidates as Markos of Dailykos claims they are. My answer is no, though by no means a complete departure from his position.
Problem is, Feingold still only at 16 percent, not exactly a ringing netroots endorsement for his bold Iraq stance.
If we were a single-issue or ideology-driven community, Feingold would be running away with this thing. He's unequivically against the war, cast the lone vote against the Patriot Act, and is the only true progressive in the current mix. And he can only muster 16 percent?
My thesis still holds. We are not an ideological community. We're a practical one.
Update: In case anyone is wondering about Clark's rise in support in July -- it was an issue of wording the question. I made clear in that post that neither Dean nor Gore would be running in 2008, hence the movement from "no freakin' clue" and "other" to Clark.
Wow, Billery isn't at the top, Clark could win if we don't nominate someone decent.
August dKos Straw Poll Results
by kos
Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 11:30:08 PDT
Some movement this time.
dKos reader poll. 8/18-19. 8,710 respondents.
August July June
Clark 35 34 26
Feingold 16 10 10
H. Clinton 9 10 10
No Freakin' Clue 9 13 17
Edwards 7 7 8
Richardson 4 4 4
Other 4 4 7
Biden 3 3 3
Warner 3 5 5
Bayh 1 2 2
Kerry 1 2 2
Vilsack 0 0 0
One of the striking elements of these polls is the consistency in results. The Daily Kos community isn't representative of the overal Democratic electorate, but with 8,000+ respondents, it's a miniscule margin of error for our community's sentiments on the candidates.
So the big movement this time around was Feingold, who clearly got a boost for demanding a firm timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. It's impossible to tell where his new support came from, but it's probably the drop in undecideds probably benefited him.
Bowers saw a similar shift toward Feingold in the MyDD poll, which is not comparable to this one (it uses IRV and includes fantasy candidates like Schweitzer and Gore). Bowers concludes that perhaps the Netroots might not be as non-ideological as I've been claiming.
The first such question is whether or not the netroots really are as non-ideological in their support of Democratic candidates as Markos of Dailykos claims they are. My answer is no, though by no means a complete departure from his position.
Problem is, Feingold still only at 16 percent, not exactly a ringing netroots endorsement for his bold Iraq stance.
If we were a single-issue or ideology-driven community, Feingold would be running away with this thing. He's unequivically against the war, cast the lone vote against the Patriot Act, and is the only true progressive in the current mix. And he can only muster 16 percent?
My thesis still holds. We are not an ideological community. We're a practical one.
Update: In case anyone is wondering about Clark's rise in support in July -- it was an issue of wording the question. I made clear in that post that neither Dean nor Gore would be running in 2008, hence the movement from "no freakin' clue" and "other" to Clark.
Wow, Billery isn't at the top, Clark could win if we don't nominate someone decent.
my sense of humor...
Somehow I'm not too surprised...
the Shock Jock
(66% dark, 50% spontaneous, 42% vulgar)
your humor style:
VULGAR | SPONTANEOUS | DARK
Your sense of humor is off-the-cuff and kind of gross. Is it is also sinister, cynical, and vaguely threatening to the purer folks of this world. You probably get off on that. You would cut a greasy fart, then blame it on your mom, and then just shrug when someone pointed out that she's dead.
Yours is hands-down the most outrageous sense of humor; you like things trangressive and hardcore. It's highly likely (a) you have no limits (b) you have no scruples and (c) you have no job. Ironically, it's your type of humor that can make the biggest bucks in show business.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Howard Stern - Adam Sandler - Roseanne Barr
ZS, you should check this out.
VULGAR | SPONTANEOUS | DARK
Your sense of humor is off-the-cuff and kind of gross. Is it is also sinister, cynical, and vaguely threatening to the purer folks of this world. You probably get off on that. You would cut a greasy fart, then blame it on your mom, and then just shrug when someone pointed out that she's dead.
Yours is hands-down the most outrageous sense of humor; you like things trangressive and hardcore. It's highly likely (a) you have no limits (b) you have no scruples and (c) you have no job. Ironically, it's your type of humor that can make the biggest bucks in show business.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Howard Stern - Adam Sandler - Roseanne Barr
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The 3 Variable Funny Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid |
ZS, you should check this out.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Dean is an idiot...
Seriously this guy makes it too easy sometimes
WASHINGTON -- Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, arrived at CBS's Washington studios Sunday with one unusual talking point for his "Face the Nation" interview clearly in mind. He claimed Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein's barbarous regime than they are likely to be under the nascent democracy. In fact, he said it three times.
"That's a terrible thing to say," one old-line Democratic loyalist told me. "But what are we going to do about him? We're stuck with him." The answer by this Democrat and many others is to ignore him, which is not easy when he is on national television.
Iraq seems a major political liability for Republicans and an asset for Democrats. But Dean cannot resist employing the tactics that propelled a little-known former governor of Vermont to front-runner presidential nominee status in 2004 and then produced such a negative reaction that he lost every primary except Vermont's. To suggest that Saddam Hussein's rule is preferable to anything in Iraq is repellent.
In answer to host Bob Schieffer's first question on "Face the Nation," he replied that "it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right." A few moments later, he said: "If it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there."
"Well," said Schieffer, "I'll go back and ask you about that in a minute." He did not, as the interview moved to other things. But Dean went back a third time to his talking point: "The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of add it to them."
Dean was simplifying and distorting reality. In the complicated, delayed process of drafting an Iraqi constitution, Islam surely will be recognized as the state religion. How that conflicts with women's rights is one issue being hashed out.
The drafters last weekend were described by Shiite negotiator Jalel Aldin Saghir as agreeing that the constitution, while based on Islam, would guarantee women's rights. "There isn't anything in the constitution to impose religious teachings or religious laws in Iraq," Sheik Humam Hamoudi, chairman of the constituent assembly's constitutional committee, said in a news conference last week. Contrary to Dean, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is pressing Iraqis to protect women's rights in their constitution.
What is so demagogic about Dean's stance is his insinuation that women were better off under the Saddam dictatorship. He is following the lead taken by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Brookings Institution on Feb. 25 last year. She quoted Iraqi women leaders as "starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper, women had rights." She contended that "as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement."
Clinton in 2004 was not nearly so over the top as Dean in 2005, but both are contradicted by people who know the situation better than they and are not driven by partisan concerns. Nina Shea, director of the religious freedom center at Freedom House, responded to Clinton's claim: "Women's rights [under Saddam] were largely an illusion." In 1989 when the dictator was at full power, Iraqi dissident and intellectual Kanan Makiya said: "Male domination has not been done away with. It has found a substitute in the all-male Revolutionary Command Council, the higher army command and the ever-so-male person of Saddam Hussein."
Howard Dean is not the first politician to distort facts in his own interests. But many activists in the party he now leads are puzzled over what he thinks he is accomplishing politically. Is it good politics to contend that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein than even a flawed Islamic republic? Does it make sense politically to tell Americans that more than 1,800 troops have died to make life worse for half of Iraq's population?
And to think he's the "head" of the Democratic party, it would be sad if it wasn't so god awful funny
WASHINGTON -- Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, arrived at CBS's Washington studios Sunday with one unusual talking point for his "Face the Nation" interview clearly in mind. He claimed Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein's barbarous regime than they are likely to be under the nascent democracy. In fact, he said it three times.
"That's a terrible thing to say," one old-line Democratic loyalist told me. "But what are we going to do about him? We're stuck with him." The answer by this Democrat and many others is to ignore him, which is not easy when he is on national television.
Iraq seems a major political liability for Republicans and an asset for Democrats. But Dean cannot resist employing the tactics that propelled a little-known former governor of Vermont to front-runner presidential nominee status in 2004 and then produced such a negative reaction that he lost every primary except Vermont's. To suggest that Saddam Hussein's rule is preferable to anything in Iraq is repellent.
In answer to host Bob Schieffer's first question on "Face the Nation," he replied that "it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right." A few moments later, he said: "If it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there."
"Well," said Schieffer, "I'll go back and ask you about that in a minute." He did not, as the interview moved to other things. But Dean went back a third time to his talking point: "The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of add it to them."
Dean was simplifying and distorting reality. In the complicated, delayed process of drafting an Iraqi constitution, Islam surely will be recognized as the state religion. How that conflicts with women's rights is one issue being hashed out.
The drafters last weekend were described by Shiite negotiator Jalel Aldin Saghir as agreeing that the constitution, while based on Islam, would guarantee women's rights. "There isn't anything in the constitution to impose religious teachings or religious laws in Iraq," Sheik Humam Hamoudi, chairman of the constituent assembly's constitutional committee, said in a news conference last week. Contrary to Dean, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is pressing Iraqis to protect women's rights in their constitution.
What is so demagogic about Dean's stance is his insinuation that women were better off under the Saddam dictatorship. He is following the lead taken by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Brookings Institution on Feb. 25 last year. She quoted Iraqi women leaders as "starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper, women had rights." She contended that "as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement."
Clinton in 2004 was not nearly so over the top as Dean in 2005, but both are contradicted by people who know the situation better than they and are not driven by partisan concerns. Nina Shea, director of the religious freedom center at Freedom House, responded to Clinton's claim: "Women's rights [under Saddam] were largely an illusion." In 1989 when the dictator was at full power, Iraqi dissident and intellectual Kanan Makiya said: "Male domination has not been done away with. It has found a substitute in the all-male Revolutionary Command Council, the higher army command and the ever-so-male person of Saddam Hussein."
Howard Dean is not the first politician to distort facts in his own interests. But many activists in the party he now leads are puzzled over what he thinks he is accomplishing politically. Is it good politics to contend that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein than even a flawed Islamic republic? Does it make sense politically to tell Americans that more than 1,800 troops have died to make life worse for half of Iraq's population?
And to think he's the "head" of the Democratic party, it would be sad if it wasn't so god awful funny
nothing happened, thank god...
Yea, nothing happened on the 17th, I am happy, believe me when I go out on a limb on those things I always hope I'm wrong and I was wrong again. They better have not been off by a day though, if those fuckers ruin my birthday there will be hell to pay.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
why should BTK live?
I know the obvious is why he should die, but I pose this question to liberals who are anti-death penalty, why does this sub-human deserve to live? Seriously tell me, how the fuck do you defend this sick, disgusting, disturbed, and souless thing (to call him human is a disservice to humanity)? This may be a little graphic but here's a list of his victims, or at least the ones that he has admitted to so far...
— Joseph Otero, 38, found slain in his home along with three family members on Jan. 15, 1974. He had been strangled. Otero served in the Air Force for more than 20 years, retiring as a master sergeant, and was working as a mechanic and flight instructor.
— Julie Otero, 34, wife of Joseph Otero, was struck, gagged and bound before being killed. She had worked at the Coleman Co., a manufacturer of camping equipment — where Dennis Rader (search), the suspect in her killing, also worked in the early 1970s. She had extensive training in judo and had insisted that her children be trained in it as well.
— Josephine Otero, 11, their daughter, was strangled. Police said her partially clothed body was found hanging by the neck from a rope tied to a sewer pipe in the basement.
— Joseph Otero II, 9, their son, was also strangled. He was found tied up with three hoods over his head. Three other children were at school at the time of the killings.
— Kathryn Bright, 21, was found stabbed in her home on April 14, 1974. She was bound with cord, partially dressed and had been stabbed several times and choked. Her brother, Kevin, was shot by the attacker but survived. Bright also worked at the Coleman plant.
— Shirley Vian, 24, found strangled in her home on March 17, 1977. She was partially dressed on her bed with a plastic bag over her head, and cord was wrapped around her neck, hands and feet. Vian had three children who were in the house at the time of the killing but were unharmed. BTK later wrote that a telephone call interrupted his plans to kill them. Vian's 5-year-old son let the killer into the home.
— Nancy Fox, 25, strangled with nylon stockings in her home on Dec. 8, 1977. Her telephone cord was cut and she was partially clothed. Her killer called police from a pay phone, giving her name and address. A neighbor described Fox as a loner who seldom entertained friends. She was a secretary at a construction company and worked part-time at a jewelry store.
— Marine Hedge, 53, found along a dirt road eight days after she was abducted from her Park City home on April 27, 1985, when she had spent the evening eating dinner and playing bingo with her boyfriend. She had been strangled, and a knotted pair of pantyhose was found nearby. She lived on the same street as Rader.
— Vicki Wegerle, 28, whose husband found her strangled in her bed on Sept. 16, 1986. Her 2-year-old son was home but was not harmed.
— Dolores Davis, 62, abducted from her home near Park City on Jan. 19, 1991, and found 13 days later under a bridge. She had been strangled, and her hands, feet and knees were bound with pantyhose.
What would you say to the families of these indivduals? That BTK's life is more important than his victims? Because by saying he shouldn't be killed that's basically what your saying. Take this thing out to the street and play baseball with his body, make sure it suffers a slow, painful death. It is not murder, because this thing is not human, kind of like killing a plant, but at least plants have some redeeming value this guy has none. And no I don't give a flying fuck what it did with it's church, it doesn't take away the fact that it killed 10 innocent humans because it was bored.
— Joseph Otero, 38, found slain in his home along with three family members on Jan. 15, 1974. He had been strangled. Otero served in the Air Force for more than 20 years, retiring as a master sergeant, and was working as a mechanic and flight instructor.
— Julie Otero, 34, wife of Joseph Otero, was struck, gagged and bound before being killed. She had worked at the Coleman Co., a manufacturer of camping equipment — where Dennis Rader (search), the suspect in her killing, also worked in the early 1970s. She had extensive training in judo and had insisted that her children be trained in it as well.
— Josephine Otero, 11, their daughter, was strangled. Police said her partially clothed body was found hanging by the neck from a rope tied to a sewer pipe in the basement.
— Joseph Otero II, 9, their son, was also strangled. He was found tied up with three hoods over his head. Three other children were at school at the time of the killings.
— Kathryn Bright, 21, was found stabbed in her home on April 14, 1974. She was bound with cord, partially dressed and had been stabbed several times and choked. Her brother, Kevin, was shot by the attacker but survived. Bright also worked at the Coleman plant.
— Shirley Vian, 24, found strangled in her home on March 17, 1977. She was partially dressed on her bed with a plastic bag over her head, and cord was wrapped around her neck, hands and feet. Vian had three children who were in the house at the time of the killing but were unharmed. BTK later wrote that a telephone call interrupted his plans to kill them. Vian's 5-year-old son let the killer into the home.
— Nancy Fox, 25, strangled with nylon stockings in her home on Dec. 8, 1977. Her telephone cord was cut and she was partially clothed. Her killer called police from a pay phone, giving her name and address. A neighbor described Fox as a loner who seldom entertained friends. She was a secretary at a construction company and worked part-time at a jewelry store.
— Marine Hedge, 53, found along a dirt road eight days after she was abducted from her Park City home on April 27, 1985, when she had spent the evening eating dinner and playing bingo with her boyfriend. She had been strangled, and a knotted pair of pantyhose was found nearby. She lived on the same street as Rader.
— Vicki Wegerle, 28, whose husband found her strangled in her bed on Sept. 16, 1986. Her 2-year-old son was home but was not harmed.
— Dolores Davis, 62, abducted from her home near Park City on Jan. 19, 1991, and found 13 days later under a bridge. She had been strangled, and her hands, feet and knees were bound with pantyhose.
What would you say to the families of these indivduals? That BTK's life is more important than his victims? Because by saying he shouldn't be killed that's basically what your saying. Take this thing out to the street and play baseball with his body, make sure it suffers a slow, painful death. It is not murder, because this thing is not human, kind of like killing a plant, but at least plants have some redeeming value this guy has none. And no I don't give a flying fuck what it did with it's church, it doesn't take away the fact that it killed 10 innocent humans because it was bored.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Stop Cindy Petition...
I'm all for free speech but this Cindy Sheehan is damaging our great country with her idiotic words. Read the petition and sign it with the link I will provide at the bottom.
The petition reads:
To: Cindy Sheehan
Dear Ms. Sheehan,
We, the undersigned, are extremely disappointed with your continuous radicalism you have done in Crawford, Tx. You're contining rants with such quotes as,
“America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”
and,
"We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!", etc.
The quotes you have been given are numerous and dangerous to our nation. The radicalism is now publicly tearing herself from the family, as in this statement:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."
And worst of all, you have betrayed the memory of your son Casey to set an example for your anti war views and other left-winged talking points. This tactic is no different from the one in 2004 when a man named Michael Berg used his son, Nick, for his radical agenda after Nick was murdered by decapitation by terrorist thugs. This betrayal of a true hero is not only unamerican, but the most vile, and selfish thing you can do to a family member. We ask you to stop using your son's name in vain. We ask you to reevaluate your life after Casey, because it is starting to consume you with hate. And finally, we ask for a PUBLIC apology to the immediate surviving family for whom you are making matters worse for them due to your inconsiderate tyrades. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Sign the petition
Update: 104 signatures as of 1:43pm CST on the 17th
The petition reads:
To: Cindy Sheehan
Dear Ms. Sheehan,
We, the undersigned, are extremely disappointed with your continuous radicalism you have done in Crawford, Tx. You're contining rants with such quotes as,
“America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”
and,
"We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!", etc.
The quotes you have been given are numerous and dangerous to our nation. The radicalism is now publicly tearing herself from the family, as in this statement:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."
And worst of all, you have betrayed the memory of your son Casey to set an example for your anti war views and other left-winged talking points. This tactic is no different from the one in 2004 when a man named Michael Berg used his son, Nick, for his radical agenda after Nick was murdered by decapitation by terrorist thugs. This betrayal of a true hero is not only unamerican, but the most vile, and selfish thing you can do to a family member. We ask you to stop using your son's name in vain. We ask you to reevaluate your life after Casey, because it is starting to consume you with hate. And finally, we ask for a PUBLIC apology to the immediate surviving family for whom you are making matters worse for them due to your inconsiderate tyrades. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Sign the petition
Update: 104 signatures as of 1:43pm CST on the 17th
Gaza pullout...
Well I can see both sides to what is going to be a nasty clash. Even though the Israelis will get 300K each to pull out and move on I can see why their staying. The biggest problem is that I don't see this as a step to peace but appeasement. See the Palestinians will not be happy with just Gaza being turned over, they won't be satisfied until all of Isreal is theirs. You can't make a deal with people who think Jews are the devil and people that blow themselves up killing innocent men, women, and children. This is a dangerous step, a slippery slope as some may call it. Hell, if I was there I would be fighting the pullout too. Before long, Isreal will cease to exist if Sharon tries to continue to appease the Palestinians, it didn't work with Chamberlin with Hitler and it won't work now. If you think this is all that Palestinian leaders will demand your a complete moron.
Monday, August 15, 2005
you know what pisses me off?
Rant time again, and this one isn't political. A first I think. If you have been following the sports world you know that Terrell Owens is acting like a complete spoiled baby jackass ever since the super bowl. His agent Drew Rosenhaus is complete scum in my book. First a little background, see 2 offseasons ago TO (as I will call him for the rest of this post) demanded to be traded because he didn't like SF and called his QB a fag. So Baltimore picked him up and he refused to play for them, they were forced to trade him to Philly for a 3rd round pick, probably the most lopsided trade in NFL history. Anyway so he signs a 7 year $100 million contract with the Eagles. He then goes on to break his leg in week 7 and doesn't return until the Super Bowl. He then had an amazing game and would have been MVP if the Eagles had won the game. So then since he thinks he's hot shit and is only scheduled to make $3 million next year (I know, it's sad saying only and $3 million in the same sentence but eh...) so him and his agent want a new contract even though he signed it just the previous year. Since then he has become the biggest fucking crybaby I have ever seen in sports (which is REALLY saying something). "I want more money, I'm going to hold out, the coach can't tell me to shut up because I'm special" you know basic prima donna athlete bullshit that this society has become all too accustomed with because of spoiled athletes. And I, sadly, am guilty because I love sports, I can't help it. But I do usually like college sports more than pro sports, they still play for the love of the game. Anyway, back to TO. Last week him and his coach, Andy Reid basically got into a 3rd grade argument of "shut up" "no you shut up" with a few profanities mixed in there so he sent TO home for a week because he wasn't working with the team and had an "injured" groin and was just basically being a cancer to the team out there. And people still like this guy more than Randy Moss. Someday I will do a post on why Randy is a great guy and probably one of the most misunderstood athletes of all-time. And I will do an update of the TO situation when/if he comes back to training camp this Wednesday. In the meantime I hope he gets a career-ending injury but I won't wish death on him, yet... Go fuck yourself and die twice TO, you spoiled little shit.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Mohammed of Iraq talks to Cindy Sheehan...
It's a good letter, for those of you who don't know Cindy Sheehan tragically lost her son in Iraq in April of 2004. But now she has just basically become a shill voice for the extreme left. I have stopped trying to figure out how low the left will go because it seems to be a bottomless pit for them... anyway here's the lettter.
A message to Cindy Sheehan
I realize how tragic your loss is and I know how much pain there is crushing your heart and I know the darkness that suddenly came to wrap your life and wipe away your dreams and I do feel the heat of your tears that won't dry until you find the answers to your question; why you lost your loved one?
I have heard your story and I understand that you have the full right to ask people to stand by your side and support your cause. At the beginning I told myself, this is yet another woman who lost a piece of her heart and the questions of war, peace and why are killing her everyday. To be frank to you the first thing I thought of was like "why should I listen or care to answer when there are thousands of other women in America, Iraq and Afghanistan who lost a son or a husband or a brother…”
But today I was looking at your picture and I saw in your eyes a persistence, a great pain and a torturing question; why?
I know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.
Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.
Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.
Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.
We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.
We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over.
We practiced our freedom first by kicking and burning the statues and portraits of the hateful idol who stole 35 years from the life of a nation.
For the first time air smelled that beautiful, that was the smell of freedom.
The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person.
I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. There was no definite grave in there as the whole place was one large grave but she seemed willing to dig the whole place looking for her two brothers who disappeared from earth 24 years ago when they were dragged from their colleges to a chamber of hell.
Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave and there were journalists asking her about what her brothers did wrong and she was screaming "I don't know, I don't know. They were only college students. They didn't murder anyone, they didn't steal, and they didn't hurt anyone in their lives. All I want to know is the place of their grave".
Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain?
We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am.
Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings. We refuse all kinds of restrictions and that's why we fought and still fighting everyday in spite of the swords in the hands of the cavemen who want us dead or slaves for their evil masters.
You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? Should I ask them to leave Iraq too? Should I leave too? And what about the eight millions who walked through bombs to practice their freedom and vote? Should they leave this land too?
Is it a cursed land that no one should live in? Why is it that we were chosen to live in all this pain, why me, why my people, why you?
But I am not leaving this land because the bad guys are not going to leave us or you to live in peace. They are the same ones who flew the planes to kill your people in New York.
I ask you in the name of God or whatever you believe in; do not waste your son's blood.
We here have decided to avenge humanity, you and all the women who lost their loved ones.
Take a look at our enemy Cindy, look closely at the hooded man holding the sword and if you think he's right then I will back off and support your call.
We live in pain and grief everyday, every hour, every minute; all the horrors of the powers of darkness have been directed at us and I don't know exactly when am I going to feel safe again, maybe in a year, maybe two or even ten; I frankly don't know but I don't want to lose hope and faith.
We are in need for every hand that can offer some help. Please pray for us, I know that God listens to mothers' prayers and I call all the women on earth to pray with you for peace in this world.
Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.
His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.
God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.
God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.
God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.
Also for those of you who don't know, the rest of the Sheehan family support President Bush and their mission and Cindy has vowed to never speak to them again. As a final note out of the 1800 who have died in Iraq, only 30 had families that did not support our mission in Iraq, that means 98% of families that have lost loved ones in Iraq do believe they died for a good cause. Just thought I would let everyone know that.
A message to Cindy Sheehan
I realize how tragic your loss is and I know how much pain there is crushing your heart and I know the darkness that suddenly came to wrap your life and wipe away your dreams and I do feel the heat of your tears that won't dry until you find the answers to your question; why you lost your loved one?
I have heard your story and I understand that you have the full right to ask people to stand by your side and support your cause. At the beginning I told myself, this is yet another woman who lost a piece of her heart and the questions of war, peace and why are killing her everyday. To be frank to you the first thing I thought of was like "why should I listen or care to answer when there are thousands of other women in America, Iraq and Afghanistan who lost a son or a husband or a brother…”
But today I was looking at your picture and I saw in your eyes a persistence, a great pain and a torturing question; why?
I know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.
Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.
Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.
Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.
We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.
We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over.
We practiced our freedom first by kicking and burning the statues and portraits of the hateful idol who stole 35 years from the life of a nation.
For the first time air smelled that beautiful, that was the smell of freedom.
The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person.
I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. There was no definite grave in there as the whole place was one large grave but she seemed willing to dig the whole place looking for her two brothers who disappeared from earth 24 years ago when they were dragged from their colleges to a chamber of hell.
Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave and there were journalists asking her about what her brothers did wrong and she was screaming "I don't know, I don't know. They were only college students. They didn't murder anyone, they didn't steal, and they didn't hurt anyone in their lives. All I want to know is the place of their grave".
Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain?
We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am.
Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings. We refuse all kinds of restrictions and that's why we fought and still fighting everyday in spite of the swords in the hands of the cavemen who want us dead or slaves for their evil masters.
You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? Should I ask them to leave Iraq too? Should I leave too? And what about the eight millions who walked through bombs to practice their freedom and vote? Should they leave this land too?
Is it a cursed land that no one should live in? Why is it that we were chosen to live in all this pain, why me, why my people, why you?
But I am not leaving this land because the bad guys are not going to leave us or you to live in peace. They are the same ones who flew the planes to kill your people in New York.
I ask you in the name of God or whatever you believe in; do not waste your son's blood.
We here have decided to avenge humanity, you and all the women who lost their loved ones.
Take a look at our enemy Cindy, look closely at the hooded man holding the sword and if you think he's right then I will back off and support your call.
We live in pain and grief everyday, every hour, every minute; all the horrors of the powers of darkness have been directed at us and I don't know exactly when am I going to feel safe again, maybe in a year, maybe two or even ten; I frankly don't know but I don't want to lose hope and faith.
We are in need for every hand that can offer some help. Please pray for us, I know that God listens to mothers' prayers and I call all the women on earth to pray with you for peace in this world.
Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.
His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.
God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.
God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.
God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.
Also for those of you who don't know, the rest of the Sheehan family support President Bush and their mission and Cindy has vowed to never speak to them again. As a final note out of the 1800 who have died in Iraq, only 30 had families that did not support our mission in Iraq, that means 98% of families that have lost loved ones in Iraq do believe they died for a good cause. Just thought I would let everyone know that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
