Aldof Hitler would be proud. This is fucking scary
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Barak Obama: Simply put a monster...
Well lots of talk today about his association with William Ayres and stuff but this is just as important. I find it very hard to believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian can even have a thought process like this. Now I am actually pro-choice; as in I believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned (On constitutional grounds, not moral) and is a states right issue, just like gay marriage. I personally would never support someone I know getting an abortion, that being said I wouldn't try and stop them either, its their decision. If 0 is Planned Parenthood view and 100 is like Sarah Palin's view on abortion I probably fall in the 40-50 range. Right in the middle. That being said I do not support late-term abortions (I'm blanking on the name for it right now) or more accurately as this video points out, infanticide. Pretty disgusting shit.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Life sucks then you die...
No political posting here today. Tonight I just went to my Senate Districts monthly meeting/dinner and I found out that one of the founders of our group had just died from bone cancer. He died earlier this month after being diagnosed in March. I didn't even know, he was 65, his name is John Swon. If you are religious (even if your not) I would appreciate if you readers out there (all 2 of you) to keep him and his family in your prayers. Also a much sadder situation I found out about last friday that was probably the equivalent to getting punched in the stomach. I still go to all my old high school's football games because I am a nerd like that. I noticed that there was a jersey on the sideline, it was the jersey of a classmate of mine who graduated the year after I did and I knew he had/has been battling cancer. I actually talked with his mom for 5-10 minutes a couple of weeks ago before a away game. Anyway, I had kinda one of those oh shit what happened thoughts then forgot about it. That is until a mom of a friend of his who I had known for years told me that he was home from the hospital, I could just tell in her face that this was good news. I asked the question I feared to know the answer to, "It's not terminal is it?", she said yes quietly, figuring in for a penny in for a pound I asked, "how long?", "2 months" she replied. 2 FUCKING MONTHS. Man at a time like this it really puts things into persepective, I really couldn't enjoy the rest of the game after that, I left at halftime partly because I had a presidential debate party to go to and partly because I couldn't keep my composure there. The kid is one tough son of a bitch and to think that he's not even going to live to see his 21st birthday. It's just not fair, thank god I have my faith to fall back on. I really don't know how people who don't believe in a higher power deal with death. Knowing or at least believing that there is something beyond this life is actually quite comforting despite what "elightened individuals" may say. In the end it doesn't make it any easier but your comforted with the thought/belief that they are at peace now and not suffering anymore. Still no one should have to go through what he has gone through and continues to go through. On a happier note I just joined a group on facebook called "ideas for Matt". He has a lot of friends and you can believe that he will have a blast before he leaves this earth. When his time comes his friends and family want to make sure he lived with no regrets. With that being said does anyone have any ideas for him. I know you don't know him and I don't know him as well as I'd like to but I hope to before he leaves.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Doomsday electoral scenario...
Imagine if we wake up on November 5th and there is no president-elect. Worse, we have to go to our constitution to decide it, how can this happen? Well thanks to DC getting 3 electoral votes the number of electoral votes are now 538, not 535. A 269-269 tie is while however improbable a very real possiblity this time around. Don't believe me? Check out this article I found on Drudge courtesy of the Washington Times:
President Obama, with Vice President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.
"Wow," said longtime presidential historian Stephen Hess. "Wow, that would be amazing, wouldn't it?"
"If this scenario ever happened, it would be like a scene from the movie 'Scream' for Democrats," said Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. "The only thing worse for the Democrats than losing the White House, again, when it had the best chance to win in a generation, but to do so at the hands of Cheney and Lieberman. That would be cruel."
Sound impossible? It's not. There are at least a half-dozen plausible ways the election can end in a tie, and at least one very plausible possibility - giving each candidate the states in which they now lead in the polls, only New Hampshire - which went Republican in 2000 and Democratic in 2004, each time by just 1.5 percent - needs to swap to the Republican column to wind up with a 269-269 tie.
There are currently 10 tossup states, according to RealClearPol-itics.com, which keeps a running average of all state polls. If Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain wins Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana - not at all far-fetched - and Mr. Obama takes reliably Democratic states Pennsylvania and Michigan, and flips Colorado (in which he holds a slight poll lead), with the two splitting New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied at 269.
Absurd? Possibly, and there is not complete agreement among constitutional experts on whether a newly elected Congress or the currently sitting House and Senate would make the decision.
So try this scenario: The newly elected House, seated in January, is unable to muster a majority to choose a president after a 269-269 tie, but the Senate, which is expected to be controlled by Democrats, picks Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the Democratic ticket. If the House is still deadlocked at noon on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, Mr. Biden becomes acting president.
Or try this one on for size: Neither the House nor the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty to select the president and the vice president by Jan. 20, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, becomes acting president until the whole mess is sorted out.
"That would cause all kinds of lawsuits: We would have 50 Floridas, and we might not know who the president is for two years," said Judith Best, a political science and Electoral College specialist at the State University of New York in Cortland.
The archaic system in the Constitution was set up in the days of oil lamps and horse-drawn carriages. After the presidential vote on the first Tuesday in November, electors have until the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, this year Dec. 15, to reach the state capital, where they cast their ballots for president.
The electoral vote is then transmitted "sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate," according to the 12th Amendment. If there's a tie, the 1804 amendment says, the House of Representatives "shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president."
"The Constitution says 'immediately,'" Mr. Hess said. "It's that word 'immediately' that makes me believe it's got to be the outgoing Congress that makes the decision, because we know that the Electoral College ballots are counted in December."
But despite the delicious possibility that Mr. Cheney would break a Senate tie to create a Obama-Palin White House, several other constitutional scholars say, forget the Constitution. They say the operative - and decisive - verbiage was set out in U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, in 1934.
"Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day," the section says.
That, they say, means the new Congress would decide the president and vice president in the event of an Electoral College tie. Here's where things get dicey, though. Back to the Constitution, the 12th Amendment: " ... in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote." That means that a state's entire House delegation gets just one vote each - California, with 53 House members, would get one vote; Alaska, with its one representative, would get one vote.
Florida, for instance, has 16 Republicans and nine Democrats. That means the delegation would (almost certainly) vote 16-9 for Mr. McCain, while Colorado, with four Democrats and three Republicans, would vote 4-3 for Mr. Obama.
In the current House, Mr. Obama would win - 27 delegations have a majority of Democrats, 21 have a majority of Republicans, and two states, Kansas and Mr. McCain's home state of Arizona, are evenly split.
But those numbers will change Nov. 4, and Paul Sracic, associate professor in the department of political science Youngstown State University in Ohio, said they could change dramatically. Of the 27 state congressional delegations with a majority of Democrats, 25 of them would switch to deadlocked or Republican control if two or more seats change to Republican.
At least 26 state delegations in the House must agree before the next president can be chosen. But even if Democrats maintain a majority, there would be pressure on Democratic delegations to vote Republican in states where voters chose Mr. McCain.
It took 36 ballots in the House to select Thomas Jefferson as the third president after the 1800 election ended in a 73-73 tie. There was so much animosity after that election that Aaron Burr, elected vice president, faced off in a duel with Alexander Hamilton, who had thrown his support behind Jefferson. Burr shot Hamilton dead in a duel.
The number of electors, 538, is equal to the number of senators - 100 - and representatives - 435 - in the Congress, plus the three electors added in 1961 when the 23rd Amendment gave the District a say in U.S. presidential elections. Thus, there have been 10 presidential elections in which a 269-269 tie was possibly, but it has never occurred.
"The probability of a tie in 2008 is about 1.5 percent, which is slightly higher than we calculated at about the same time back in 2004," said Mr. Sracic, who enlisted the help of the university's math department to come up with a possible 1,024 combinations with the current 10 states now considered tossups.
"What really strikes you is how easy it would be for a tie to occur. Take the 2004 map and switch Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado into the Blue column, which is what the poll numbers indicate. Then, take New Hampshire and give it to McCain, which is what two recent polls suggest is going to happen. There is your tie."
Pardon my french boy HOLY SHIT. Can you imagine possibly president Obama with Vice President Palin, my would that be a sight to behold. Hell, it may actually be good for democracy. If this happens it will make the 2000 mess look like a walk in the freaking park.
President Obama, with Vice President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.
"Wow," said longtime presidential historian Stephen Hess. "Wow, that would be amazing, wouldn't it?"
"If this scenario ever happened, it would be like a scene from the movie 'Scream' for Democrats," said Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. "The only thing worse for the Democrats than losing the White House, again, when it had the best chance to win in a generation, but to do so at the hands of Cheney and Lieberman. That would be cruel."
Sound impossible? It's not. There are at least a half-dozen plausible ways the election can end in a tie, and at least one very plausible possibility - giving each candidate the states in which they now lead in the polls, only New Hampshire - which went Republican in 2000 and Democratic in 2004, each time by just 1.5 percent - needs to swap to the Republican column to wind up with a 269-269 tie.
There are currently 10 tossup states, according to RealClearPol-itics.com, which keeps a running average of all state polls. If Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain wins Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana - not at all far-fetched - and Mr. Obama takes reliably Democratic states Pennsylvania and Michigan, and flips Colorado (in which he holds a slight poll lead), with the two splitting New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied at 269.
Absurd? Possibly, and there is not complete agreement among constitutional experts on whether a newly elected Congress or the currently sitting House and Senate would make the decision.
So try this scenario: The newly elected House, seated in January, is unable to muster a majority to choose a president after a 269-269 tie, but the Senate, which is expected to be controlled by Democrats, picks Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the Democratic ticket. If the House is still deadlocked at noon on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, Mr. Biden becomes acting president.
Or try this one on for size: Neither the House nor the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty to select the president and the vice president by Jan. 20, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, becomes acting president until the whole mess is sorted out.
"That would cause all kinds of lawsuits: We would have 50 Floridas, and we might not know who the president is for two years," said Judith Best, a political science and Electoral College specialist at the State University of New York in Cortland.
The archaic system in the Constitution was set up in the days of oil lamps and horse-drawn carriages. After the presidential vote on the first Tuesday in November, electors have until the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, this year Dec. 15, to reach the state capital, where they cast their ballots for president.
The electoral vote is then transmitted "sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate," according to the 12th Amendment. If there's a tie, the 1804 amendment says, the House of Representatives "shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president."
"The Constitution says 'immediately,'" Mr. Hess said. "It's that word 'immediately' that makes me believe it's got to be the outgoing Congress that makes the decision, because we know that the Electoral College ballots are counted in December."
But despite the delicious possibility that Mr. Cheney would break a Senate tie to create a Obama-Palin White House, several other constitutional scholars say, forget the Constitution. They say the operative - and decisive - verbiage was set out in U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, in 1934.
"Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day," the section says.
That, they say, means the new Congress would decide the president and vice president in the event of an Electoral College tie. Here's where things get dicey, though. Back to the Constitution, the 12th Amendment: " ... in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote." That means that a state's entire House delegation gets just one vote each - California, with 53 House members, would get one vote; Alaska, with its one representative, would get one vote.
Florida, for instance, has 16 Republicans and nine Democrats. That means the delegation would (almost certainly) vote 16-9 for Mr. McCain, while Colorado, with four Democrats and three Republicans, would vote 4-3 for Mr. Obama.
In the current House, Mr. Obama would win - 27 delegations have a majority of Democrats, 21 have a majority of Republicans, and two states, Kansas and Mr. McCain's home state of Arizona, are evenly split.
But those numbers will change Nov. 4, and Paul Sracic, associate professor in the department of political science Youngstown State University in Ohio, said they could change dramatically. Of the 27 state congressional delegations with a majority of Democrats, 25 of them would switch to deadlocked or Republican control if two or more seats change to Republican.
At least 26 state delegations in the House must agree before the next president can be chosen. But even if Democrats maintain a majority, there would be pressure on Democratic delegations to vote Republican in states where voters chose Mr. McCain.
It took 36 ballots in the House to select Thomas Jefferson as the third president after the 1800 election ended in a 73-73 tie. There was so much animosity after that election that Aaron Burr, elected vice president, faced off in a duel with Alexander Hamilton, who had thrown his support behind Jefferson. Burr shot Hamilton dead in a duel.
The number of electors, 538, is equal to the number of senators - 100 - and representatives - 435 - in the Congress, plus the three electors added in 1961 when the 23rd Amendment gave the District a say in U.S. presidential elections. Thus, there have been 10 presidential elections in which a 269-269 tie was possibly, but it has never occurred.
"The probability of a tie in 2008 is about 1.5 percent, which is slightly higher than we calculated at about the same time back in 2004," said Mr. Sracic, who enlisted the help of the university's math department to come up with a possible 1,024 combinations with the current 10 states now considered tossups.
"What really strikes you is how easy it would be for a tie to occur. Take the 2004 map and switch Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado into the Blue column, which is what the poll numbers indicate. Then, take New Hampshire and give it to McCain, which is what two recent polls suggest is going to happen. There is your tie."
Pardon my french boy HOLY SHIT. Can you imagine possibly president Obama with Vice President Palin, my would that be a sight to behold. Hell, it may actually be good for democracy. If this happens it will make the 2000 mess look like a walk in the freaking park.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Where is the bottom for this market...
Man I could be venturing off into dangerous territory with this one. Economics is not my strongest suit, that being said I usually watch CNBC 1-2 hours a day (mostly Mad Money) and consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about the stock market. I am opening this up to anyone who knows anything about this type of economy. When and where is the bottom for this market? Will it happen tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Sometime in 2009 (god forbid)? What is the bottom for the Dow Jones? 10000? 9000? 8000? 7000? Or maybe even lower? That being said after watching the first few minutes of Cramer I think the Dow will bottom out at around 7,000 sometime around Halloween. I am trying to get some cash available because, and I'll be honest, I have dollar signs in my eyes right now. I'm drooling at the possibility of being able to make an absolute killing right now in the market. Stocks that have good bottom lines and solid "fundamentals" are being sold off in this panic frenzy are way undervalued at this point and they could go lower. As FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear causes people to do irrational things, irrational things lead to unintended results. Word to the wise, people who are confident and keep their cool (me and hopefully at least a few of you out there) will see a 100-1000% return on their even short-term investment if you do your research.
I'm back, sort of....
Hello to all who are actually still reading this blog. It has been forever since I posted here but alas I have not stopped writing (well typing I guess). To anyone who cares I have been continuing to do my daily journals for my book that I hope to get published sometime in 2009. I have also been a regular commenter on anti-strib. They have a blog I can only dream of having some day. I will be back to posting 1-2 times a day this week, maybe even later today.
Monday, July 07, 2008
weird news....
Sometimes there is just a story that is out there that makes you think, "It can't get any better or funnier than this." This is one of those stories, trust me I didn't make this up, I'm not this freaking creative.
It's unclear whether his Mossad retirement benefit card will be confiscated, but former spy and current political analyst Yossi Alpher is certainly feeling sheepish after being fooled by actor Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Borat.
Cohen was in Jerusalem two weeks ago filming scenes for his next movie, Bruno, based on a character the British comedian played in his Da Ali G Show. In that show, Cohen played Bruno as a flamboyant Austrian fashion and celebrity journalist, regularly interviewing unwitting members of the public who weren't aware he wasn't a real person.
Cohen's producers contacted Alpher, a writer on Israel-related strategic issues and co-editor of the Israeli-Palestinian political Web site Bitterlemons, and asked him to be interviewed along with a Palestinian for a documentary that would explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the youth of the world.
"The producers explained that our interviewer, a German rock star, was the perfect person to establish strong communication with our audience," Alpher wrote in a column that appeared in The Forward.
Alpher - who served in the Israel Defense Forces as an intelligence officer, followed by 12 years' service in the Mossad and senior positions at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East office - realized something might not be quite kosher when the "rock star" interviewee brought up Hamas:
"Vait, vait. Vat's zee connection between a political movement and food? Vy humous?" asked the interviewer in heavily accented English, echoing the obsession with the chickpea spread shared by Adam Sandler's Zohan. "Yesterday I had to throw away my pita bread because it vas dripping humous. Unt it's too high in carbohydrates."
The absurd Hamas-humous confusion went on for several minutes, and Alpher began to smell a rat, but stuck with the interview nonetheless - thus joining the long list of prominent figures down the years who have sought to maintain their gravitas while being tricked by one of Cohen's ridiculous personas.
It got worse, Alpher acknowledged: "Then the interviewer declared, 'Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse.'"
Alpher and his Palestinian partner exchanged puzzled glances at the comparison of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie fighting over Brad Pitt, but because they had both received a fee for their appearance, and still hadn't completely internalized that their interviewer was not exactly who he seemed, they soldiered on.
"We played it straight and square... We smiled at the idiotic questions and answered them patiently... We knew something ludicrous was happening but couldn't quite figure it out," Alpher wrote. "Our rock-star host concluded with a mind-boggling song about the epic Middle East conflict between 'Jews and Hindus.' At the crescendo, he grabbed our hands and joined them with his."
Only after the completion of the interview did Alpher realize he'd been had, and that Cohen in the guise of Bruno had struck again.
Alpher had signed a release form before being filmed for the movie, due to be released in May 2009, so he won't likely be filing a lawsuit against Cohen like some of the comedian's patsies in 2006's smash hit Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
Trying to make the best of the experience, Alpher asserted, "We ourselves were not being ridiculed - only the conflict that occupies and preoccupies us."
I mean wow, just wow. I saw a pre-screening of Borat and had only heard mentions of Sasha Bara Cohen before that but with this he will be one of the most famous comedians in the history of the world. The part I liked best was that the guys went along, some people (as noted in the article) tried to sue his ass after they had already signed release waivers. This movie is going to be HUGE, May 2009 can't come soon enough
It's unclear whether his Mossad retirement benefit card will be confiscated, but former spy and current political analyst Yossi Alpher is certainly feeling sheepish after being fooled by actor Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Borat.
Cohen was in Jerusalem two weeks ago filming scenes for his next movie, Bruno, based on a character the British comedian played in his Da Ali G Show. In that show, Cohen played Bruno as a flamboyant Austrian fashion and celebrity journalist, regularly interviewing unwitting members of the public who weren't aware he wasn't a real person.
Cohen's producers contacted Alpher, a writer on Israel-related strategic issues and co-editor of the Israeli-Palestinian political Web site Bitterlemons, and asked him to be interviewed along with a Palestinian for a documentary that would explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the youth of the world.
"The producers explained that our interviewer, a German rock star, was the perfect person to establish strong communication with our audience," Alpher wrote in a column that appeared in The Forward.
Alpher - who served in the Israel Defense Forces as an intelligence officer, followed by 12 years' service in the Mossad and senior positions at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East office - realized something might not be quite kosher when the "rock star" interviewee brought up Hamas:
"Vait, vait. Vat's zee connection between a political movement and food? Vy humous?" asked the interviewer in heavily accented English, echoing the obsession with the chickpea spread shared by Adam Sandler's Zohan. "Yesterday I had to throw away my pita bread because it vas dripping humous. Unt it's too high in carbohydrates."
The absurd Hamas-humous confusion went on for several minutes, and Alpher began to smell a rat, but stuck with the interview nonetheless - thus joining the long list of prominent figures down the years who have sought to maintain their gravitas while being tricked by one of Cohen's ridiculous personas.
It got worse, Alpher acknowledged: "Then the interviewer declared, 'Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse.'"
Alpher and his Palestinian partner exchanged puzzled glances at the comparison of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie fighting over Brad Pitt, but because they had both received a fee for their appearance, and still hadn't completely internalized that their interviewer was not exactly who he seemed, they soldiered on.
"We played it straight and square... We smiled at the idiotic questions and answered them patiently... We knew something ludicrous was happening but couldn't quite figure it out," Alpher wrote. "Our rock-star host concluded with a mind-boggling song about the epic Middle East conflict between 'Jews and Hindus.' At the crescendo, he grabbed our hands and joined them with his."
Only after the completion of the interview did Alpher realize he'd been had, and that Cohen in the guise of Bruno had struck again.
Alpher had signed a release form before being filmed for the movie, due to be released in May 2009, so he won't likely be filing a lawsuit against Cohen like some of the comedian's patsies in 2006's smash hit Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
Trying to make the best of the experience, Alpher asserted, "We ourselves were not being ridiculed - only the conflict that occupies and preoccupies us."
I mean wow, just wow. I saw a pre-screening of Borat and had only heard mentions of Sasha Bara Cohen before that but with this he will be one of the most famous comedians in the history of the world. The part I liked best was that the guys went along, some people (as noted in the article) tried to sue his ass after they had already signed release waivers. This movie is going to be HUGE, May 2009 can't come soon enough
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A true hero...
Irene Sendler was an amazing woman. She saved over 2,500 children from Nzai concentration camps during WWII. Just remember this saying I heard today, "very rarely are the famous significant and the significant famous." Considering all the idiots who have won Nobel Peace Prizes over the years (Carter and Gore come to mind right away) and she never even got a sniff, it just shows you how meaningless some things are.
Irene Sendler, known to many as the “female Schindler”, rescued children and babies imprisoned in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, smuggling them out in bags, or through the sewers, and hiding them with friendly families around Warsaw.
Donning a Star of David armband used by the Nazis to mark out Jews, she passed incognito in the ghetto to organise the escape plans.
She was eventually arrested by the Gestapo, tortured and condemned to death.
But members of 20-strong secret organisation managed to bribe a guard so she could escape. She lived for another 65 years.
"She died today,” said her daughter Janina Zgrzembska, adding that Ms Sendler had passed away in a Warsaw hospital.
Last year, Miss Sendler was officially honoured as a national heroine by the Polish parliament, in a ceremony attended by some of those she had rescued.
Too frail to attend herself, she sent a letter read out by Elzbieta Ficowska, who was a six-month-old baby when she was spirited out the ghetto by Miss Sendler’s resistance group.
"Every child saved with my help is the justification of my existence on this Earth, and not a title to glory,” Miss Sendler said in the letter.
"Over a half-century has passed since the hell of the Holocaust, but its spectre still hangs over the world and doesn’t allow us to forget the tragedy.”
Miss Sendler was also honoured as a “righteous gentile” by the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Centre, Yad Vashem.
It described how between the years of 1940 and 1943 she established a network of friends and acquaintances to help some of the half million Jews forced into the Warsaw ghetto.
Using her status as a municipal welfare officer, she roamed the ghetto, ostensibly to combat contagious diseases.
While she was there however, she also handed out money, clothes and medicines.
Then, slipping on a Star of David armband, she formulated extraordinary schemes to spirit children to safety.
Some were carried out in bags, others were sent crawling through the network of sewers common to the ghetto and the rest of Warsaw.
Once successfully out, Ms Sendler farmed the children out to Warsaw families, orphanages or convents, where they were hidden.
For each success, Miss Sendler buried a jar containing the child’s name, to help families reunite after the war.
Some 400,000 she could not help died, however, either through disease in the ghetto or at the death camps where in total three million Polish Jews perished.
Friday, May 09, 2008
interesting map
I don't know what polls that they used but here is a electoral map that the financial times had. Very interesting, I just thought everyone that read this will find this somewhat intriguging. Of course the election is still nearly 6 months away and things do change but for now its looking promising for McCain.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Governor Jindal On The Tonight Show, McCain's VP if he has any brains
Seriously guys you need to watch this, this guyu is mart, funny, quick, everything that Obama is without the eliteism and BS shady Chicago stuff. Believe me Wright was just the tip of the iceburg.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
On this Earth Day...
First off don't even get me started about this BS "holiday" that was started by Greenpeace in the 1970's. I will not take this time to vent but I will let someone do it for me. This is an article written by Dennis Prager. He is a prolific writer and a popular talk show host. I listen to him everyday and encourage you all to do this same. He is on at the same time Rush is but he is much smarter and calmer and more reasonable than Limbaugh could ever hope to be. I hope you enjoy this article as much as I did:
ime Fights Carbon Emissions; Military Fights Evil
By Dennis Prager
The state of the liberal mind is on display on this week's cover of Time magazine.
The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag. Why Time's editors did this explains much about contemporary liberalism.
The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans -- it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.
That is why liberals have gone AWOL in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism. As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists. Thus, Democrats routinely dismiss the Bush administration's talk about the threat of Islamic terror as "scare tactics."
But -- and this is a primary reason for Time's cover -- liberals know that they have largely opted out of the fight against Islamists; their only passion on this matter is abandoning the war against Islamists in Iraq. But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation.
Third, the left is far more internationalist -- global, if you will -- in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, "Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?" Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.
Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria. From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics."
Years from now, Time's cover will be regarded as another silly media-induced fear. But, as with Time's 1974 article warning its readers about "another ice age" and its many articles on the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America, Time will just let public amnesia deal with credibility problems. Until then, however, one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about.
ime Fights Carbon Emissions; Military Fights Evil
By Dennis Prager
The state of the liberal mind is on display on this week's cover of Time magazine.
The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag. Why Time's editors did this explains much about contemporary liberalism.
The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans -- it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.
That is why liberals have gone AWOL in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism. As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists. Thus, Democrats routinely dismiss the Bush administration's talk about the threat of Islamic terror as "scare tactics."
But -- and this is a primary reason for Time's cover -- liberals know that they have largely opted out of the fight against Islamists; their only passion on this matter is abandoning the war against Islamists in Iraq. But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation.
Third, the left is far more internationalist -- global, if you will -- in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, "Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?" Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.
Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria. From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics."
Years from now, Time's cover will be regarded as another silly media-induced fear. But, as with Time's 1974 article warning its readers about "another ice age" and its many articles on the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America, Time will just let public amnesia deal with credibility problems. Until then, however, one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Fitna The Movie: Geert Wilder's documentary about Islam
I haven't posted in awhile, I think that this is a must watch for anyone who still thinks that Islam is a "religion of peace". Yes I know not all Muslims are like this, but pretty soon all the moderates will be overrun by the psycho 1-10% of Islam that is murderous and intolerant and a danger to Western Civilzation
Saturday, March 15, 2008
movie review...
damn a week and a half without a post. ANyway I went to go see Doomsday yesterday and in doing so I broke 3 my movie going commandments: #1- never see a movie that hasn't been pre-screened for reviewers (because it almost ALWAYS sucks). #2- never see a movie until you see what it is rated on IMDB (a site for movie nerds) #3- never see a movie on opening night/day because you like getting feedback from people who save done said thing. That being said I was very pleased and surprised by the movie. It doesn't focus on the "Reaper Virus" that devestates the Scotland in the UK (what is with the recent facination with that country and apoclyptic movies?) and is literally walled off from the rest of the world. From previews you would think that its another 28 days/weeks later movie (sidenote, I can't wait for 28 months later) but it is only that for like the first 5-10 minutes of the movie if even. It has a surprising amount of dark humor in it which totally caught me offgaurd and made me from liking the movie to loving it. The plotline seems simple, crack team goes in to find cure for deadly virus, most die, they escape at end, they get out (sort of) and well it has a twist ending you don't really see coming. The last line of the movie almost made me laugh and cheer at the same time (odd combo I know). Tons of gore, mindless killing, and a sligtly disturbing cannibalism scene gives this movie a hard, solid R but if your even considering going to this movie that's probably not an issue for you. If you liked 28 days/weeks later, mad max, 12 monkeys and so on you'll LOVE this movie because it focuses on different aspects that you wish those movies had. This gets a 9/10 and probably gets $50 million plus this weekend. I left the movie theater only asking myself one question, why were the producers scared to preview this to critics? They might have actually done damage doing that by having people write it off as a bad movie which it is far from.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
You can't make this shit up...
Just watch this, SNL could not have done a better job on making fun of Obama supporters.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
retooling the site a little bit...
While most bloggers out there are focusing on the presidential election, I now have my own individual outlet to that in me writing a book so I will be doing mainly news stories from now on. But they will be by no means front page news items (unles the unthinkable happens). I will be focusing on terrorism and the jihadists. Now I know I may get hate mail for this but goddamn it we have freedom of speech in this country and I intend to use it. If you are offended by something posted please let me know so I can post your hate mail and refute you point by point. I am also ading a new link section on my sidebar related to this. I will post some political cartoons tomorrow to ligthen the mood a little bit then its back to the hard news on Monday.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Living Colour performing... Obama campaign theme song?
Tell me this is not what is happening with the Obama campaign, its almost freaky. Listen to the lyrics, its kinda creepy.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
new things...
I think politics is kinda interesting right now but I will not be making as detailed posts as I have in the past because I'm starting to write a book.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Fun/funny stuff....
New item I have thought up, I will show random funny pics/op-ed cartoons once to twice a week (depending on how freaking depressing current events are). Everyone needs laughter in their life and to quote Lewis Black, "The muslim crazies have snapped, they have no sense of humor." I still say on top of bombs we need to drop a bunch of George Carlin/Dennis Leary/Dennis Miller jokes and playboys on them too. I bet it would help, anyway onto the pics...
Don't worry more to come, oh and if your offended by any of the pictures above you don't have a sense of humor, either that or your a liberal.
Don't worry more to come, oh and if your offended by any of the pictures above you don't have a sense of humor, either that or your a liberal.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
movie review...
I do movie reviews from time to time and on the weekends I will review books, movies, even the occasional TV show because I tire of hard news and this blog should have some fun to it.
Jumper, a very well done movie with amazing special effects that do what is almost impossible in today's movies. They don't overshadow the movie, they blend in perfect with the plot and story. Samuel L Jackson and Hayden Christensen do a great job with this movie and it is fun and fast paced. It is witty and clever at times too. But like most good movies today it cops out at the end with the lame-ass traditional happy ending, I was hoping for more. This is a great popcorn movie but you leave the theater saying, "Man that was a good movie, but it could have been SO much better." That is what is stuck in my mind about this movie. I give it a 7/10 because of the acting and special effects. If your looking to be entertained and have a few laughs this is a great movie, if your looking for anything deeper you will be sorely disappointed.
Jumper, a very well done movie with amazing special effects that do what is almost impossible in today's movies. They don't overshadow the movie, they blend in perfect with the plot and story. Samuel L Jackson and Hayden Christensen do a great job with this movie and it is fun and fast paced. It is witty and clever at times too. But like most good movies today it cops out at the end with the lame-ass traditional happy ending, I was hoping for more. This is a great popcorn movie but you leave the theater saying, "Man that was a good movie, but it could have been SO much better." That is what is stuck in my mind about this movie. I give it a 7/10 because of the acting and special effects. If your looking to be entertained and have a few laughs this is a great movie, if your looking for anything deeper you will be sorely disappointed.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Someone has done my work for me...
While reading the RCP page today something caught my eye, a list of people who could be on McCain's ticket here's the article...
Our third look at potential vice presidential contenders tackles John McCain, the all-but-crowned Republican nominee. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain has problems with his own base, which will likely play a major factor in the selection process. Still, McCain has a history of seemingly intentionally irritating conservatives, so he could throw those concerns out the window and just pick whoever he likes.
Again, here are four serious choices, a long-shot contender and someone you'll never see on McCain's ticket:
Tim Pawlenty: The governor of Minnesota was one of McCain's earliest and loudest supporters. Unlike some, when McCain's campaign seemed to collapse, Pawlenty didn't abandon ship. McCain values loyalty, and Pawlenty's loyalty could be repaid with a nomination. Pawlenty has found electoral success, though by the skin of his teeth in 2006, in a traditionally Democratic state, and balancing the ticket with a Midwesterner could be just what Southwestern McCain needs. Republicans need Ohio to win an election, though Pawlenty could make the case for the GOP ticket in nearby Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, three states that chose presidential candidates by very narrow margins in 2004.
Well, as a fellow Minnesotan it would be nice to see a REPUBLICAN from Minnesota on a national ticket (see Humphrey, Mondale),I am not warming up to this idea as much as I was before. We need Pawlenty here in this state, the Lt. Govenor (sp?) Carol Molnau is caught up in a "scandel" with the 35W bridge collapse (I'd care not to get into it now, maybe in another post) and she could be the target of, and I'm not kidding, impeachment if she gets bumped up to govenor. Now 2012 or 2016 is another story, I think T-Paw is biding his time, he could be president someday. You can quote me on that.
Odds: 10:1
Mike Huckabee: In what has to be the most polite campaign in generations, Huckabee is still running against McCain, and though he can't win the race mathematically, he can prevent McCain from getting the necessary delegates to do so. That might force McCain's hand and make him hire Huckabee, or it could prove that the former Arkansas Governor is scrappy enough to be the attack dog. When thinking about running mates, McCain has to consider the possibility of a vice presidential debate, and regardless of who the Democrats pick, Huckabee could wipe the floor with them for a solid hour. McCain has never had the closest relationship with evangelical voters, something Huckabee knows about, and while anti-tax groups would scream bloody murder, picking Huckabee could go a long way toward healing McCain's rift with the base.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this guy is the odds on favorite to win the VP nomination. As quoted from above he could hold the McCain nomination hostage is John doesn't get enough delegates come Sept 1st. I still think this is the strongest ticket possible. Plus you gotta love a guy who has gone on the Colbert Report 4-5 times and held his own with Stephen (not an easy thing to do).
Odds 4:5 (a lock at the moment)
Mark Sanford: The governor of South Carolina would be the closest thing McCain could do to picking someone who irritates conservatives just for the heck of it. Sanford is widely admired by his constituents, but the Republican establishment in the Palmetto State are not fans. Sanford stayed on the sidelines this year, but in 2000 he, along with now-Sen. Lindsey Graham, were big McCain backers as members of Congress. Sanford is conservative, has a record of management, and while he doesn't bring anything geographically, he could solidify the GOP base in the South, something every Republican needs if they're to have even a chance at winning the White House. Picking Sanford could be tantamount to admitting McCain needs help in solid red country, but he still brings benefits as a governor.
Honestly I've never heard of this guy. And I don't think many people outside of SC have either, enough of a reason to discount him right now.
Odds n/a
Chuck Hagel: A fellow Vietnam veteran, if the war in Iraq once again comes to dominate the debate, Hagel would be a good choice if McCain tries to tack back toward the center. That's not to say McCain will change his position; he is invested, both personally and politically, in the success of the war. But Hagel's opposition to some parts of the war could send the message that McCain is more interested in success now than success later. Hagel, a businessman, would probably make business Republicans happy. Like McCain, though, Hagel's record on social issues is solid, but with little advocacy to which he can point. Some social conservatives might think Hagel, like McCain, is not really one of theirs despite voting records that tell the opposite story.
3 words: not gonna happen.
odds 100,000:1
Longshot: Charlie Crist: The only reason the extremely popular Florida governor, who has a record on taxes and social issues that conservatives love but who attracts support from Democrats too, should be considered a long shot is his relatively short two-year tenure in the governor's mansion. Other than that, Crist is nearly perfect: He's well-tanned (and it looks real), he's from a swing state critical to any candidate's fortunes, and he is one of the most personable people in politics. His last-minute backing gave McCain just enough momentum to overcome Mitt Romney in Florida, a result that essentially made McCain the front-runner. Crist may not be on a ticket this year, but watch to see if he joins a ticket in the near future.
Not as much of a longshot as Hagel but still nonethless no name recognition.
Odds 1,000:1
Bonus Longshot: Mitt Romney: As we wrote for Clinton, she could conceivably be forced to pick Obama if neither has the delegates necessary to carry the convention on their own. Should McCain's surprising underperformance against Mike Huckabee continue to an extent to which McCain cannot achieve delegates necessary to winning the nomination, Mitt Romney's 200-plus delegates could come into play. If McCain needed delegates to get over the top, and if he somehow cannot reach an agreement with Huckabee, Romney's collection could be the answer. The two men seem to intensely dislike each other, and Romney as vice president might be marginalized, but at least he would be vice president.
Um, like it says above too much bad blood. Romney's time will come, probably not until 2016 though.
Odds 500:1
Never Going To Happen: Condoleezza Rice: More people selected Rice than any other candidate in RCP's Veepstakes, but the Secretary of State will simply never make her way onto McCain's list, short or long. An African-American woman on a Republican ticket would be great for the party, of course, but choosing Rice goes against McCain's needs for two reasons: He has so far resisted comparing himself with President Bush, and by selecting someone from the same administration that he is essentially running against, McCain would reverse himself on a central tenet of his campaign. Secondly, as Democrats at all levels of government crank out press releases accusing any member of the GOP of being a Bush Republican, if McCain picked an actual member of the Bush Administration, he would give the "third term" argument that much more plausibility.
I'd love it but it isn't going to happen.
Joe Lieberman: I can't believe they didn't mention him in this article and put in someone like Rice. He could be a ultimate darkhorse but since he is at his core a democrat (outside of the war) he would destroy this party and all the evangelicals would stay home.
Odds 750:1
Our third look at potential vice presidential contenders tackles John McCain, the all-but-crowned Republican nominee. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain has problems with his own base, which will likely play a major factor in the selection process. Still, McCain has a history of seemingly intentionally irritating conservatives, so he could throw those concerns out the window and just pick whoever he likes.
Again, here are four serious choices, a long-shot contender and someone you'll never see on McCain's ticket:
Tim Pawlenty: The governor of Minnesota was one of McCain's earliest and loudest supporters. Unlike some, when McCain's campaign seemed to collapse, Pawlenty didn't abandon ship. McCain values loyalty, and Pawlenty's loyalty could be repaid with a nomination. Pawlenty has found electoral success, though by the skin of his teeth in 2006, in a traditionally Democratic state, and balancing the ticket with a Midwesterner could be just what Southwestern McCain needs. Republicans need Ohio to win an election, though Pawlenty could make the case for the GOP ticket in nearby Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, three states that chose presidential candidates by very narrow margins in 2004.
Well, as a fellow Minnesotan it would be nice to see a REPUBLICAN from Minnesota on a national ticket (see Humphrey, Mondale),I am not warming up to this idea as much as I was before. We need Pawlenty here in this state, the Lt. Govenor (sp?) Carol Molnau is caught up in a "scandel" with the 35W bridge collapse (I'd care not to get into it now, maybe in another post) and she could be the target of, and I'm not kidding, impeachment if she gets bumped up to govenor. Now 2012 or 2016 is another story, I think T-Paw is biding his time, he could be president someday. You can quote me on that.
Odds: 10:1
Mike Huckabee: In what has to be the most polite campaign in generations, Huckabee is still running against McCain, and though he can't win the race mathematically, he can prevent McCain from getting the necessary delegates to do so. That might force McCain's hand and make him hire Huckabee, or it could prove that the former Arkansas Governor is scrappy enough to be the attack dog. When thinking about running mates, McCain has to consider the possibility of a vice presidential debate, and regardless of who the Democrats pick, Huckabee could wipe the floor with them for a solid hour. McCain has never had the closest relationship with evangelical voters, something Huckabee knows about, and while anti-tax groups would scream bloody murder, picking Huckabee could go a long way toward healing McCain's rift with the base.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this guy is the odds on favorite to win the VP nomination. As quoted from above he could hold the McCain nomination hostage is John doesn't get enough delegates come Sept 1st. I still think this is the strongest ticket possible. Plus you gotta love a guy who has gone on the Colbert Report 4-5 times and held his own with Stephen (not an easy thing to do).
Odds 4:5 (a lock at the moment)
Mark Sanford: The governor of South Carolina would be the closest thing McCain could do to picking someone who irritates conservatives just for the heck of it. Sanford is widely admired by his constituents, but the Republican establishment in the Palmetto State are not fans. Sanford stayed on the sidelines this year, but in 2000 he, along with now-Sen. Lindsey Graham, were big McCain backers as members of Congress. Sanford is conservative, has a record of management, and while he doesn't bring anything geographically, he could solidify the GOP base in the South, something every Republican needs if they're to have even a chance at winning the White House. Picking Sanford could be tantamount to admitting McCain needs help in solid red country, but he still brings benefits as a governor.
Honestly I've never heard of this guy. And I don't think many people outside of SC have either, enough of a reason to discount him right now.
Odds n/a
Chuck Hagel: A fellow Vietnam veteran, if the war in Iraq once again comes to dominate the debate, Hagel would be a good choice if McCain tries to tack back toward the center. That's not to say McCain will change his position; he is invested, both personally and politically, in the success of the war. But Hagel's opposition to some parts of the war could send the message that McCain is more interested in success now than success later. Hagel, a businessman, would probably make business Republicans happy. Like McCain, though, Hagel's record on social issues is solid, but with little advocacy to which he can point. Some social conservatives might think Hagel, like McCain, is not really one of theirs despite voting records that tell the opposite story.
3 words: not gonna happen.
odds 100,000:1
Longshot: Charlie Crist: The only reason the extremely popular Florida governor, who has a record on taxes and social issues that conservatives love but who attracts support from Democrats too, should be considered a long shot is his relatively short two-year tenure in the governor's mansion. Other than that, Crist is nearly perfect: He's well-tanned (and it looks real), he's from a swing state critical to any candidate's fortunes, and he is one of the most personable people in politics. His last-minute backing gave McCain just enough momentum to overcome Mitt Romney in Florida, a result that essentially made McCain the front-runner. Crist may not be on a ticket this year, but watch to see if he joins a ticket in the near future.
Not as much of a longshot as Hagel but still nonethless no name recognition.
Odds 1,000:1
Bonus Longshot: Mitt Romney: As we wrote for Clinton, she could conceivably be forced to pick Obama if neither has the delegates necessary to carry the convention on their own. Should McCain's surprising underperformance against Mike Huckabee continue to an extent to which McCain cannot achieve delegates necessary to winning the nomination, Mitt Romney's 200-plus delegates could come into play. If McCain needed delegates to get over the top, and if he somehow cannot reach an agreement with Huckabee, Romney's collection could be the answer. The two men seem to intensely dislike each other, and Romney as vice president might be marginalized, but at least he would be vice president.
Um, like it says above too much bad blood. Romney's time will come, probably not until 2016 though.
Odds 500:1
Never Going To Happen: Condoleezza Rice: More people selected Rice than any other candidate in RCP's Veepstakes, but the Secretary of State will simply never make her way onto McCain's list, short or long. An African-American woman on a Republican ticket would be great for the party, of course, but choosing Rice goes against McCain's needs for two reasons: He has so far resisted comparing himself with President Bush, and by selecting someone from the same administration that he is essentially running against, McCain would reverse himself on a central tenet of his campaign. Secondly, as Democrats at all levels of government crank out press releases accusing any member of the GOP of being a Bush Republican, if McCain picked an actual member of the Bush Administration, he would give the "third term" argument that much more plausibility.
I'd love it but it isn't going to happen.
Joe Lieberman: I can't believe they didn't mention him in this article and put in someone like Rice. He could be a ultimate darkhorse but since he is at his core a democrat (outside of the war) he would destroy this party and all the evangelicals would stay home.
Odds 750:1
Saturday, February 09, 2008
McCain's voting record...
As I see fit I will show everyone how John McCain is not only right on social issues, but personal rights and foreign policy. All of these are just highlights, if you want to view this for yoursself go here
Gun Control
2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006.
2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator McCain a grade of C+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F). (Not perfect but better than anyone still in the running)
actually if you look all the way through there will be some things you will like and some you will dislike about him. This is why he is such a great candidate against Hillary or Obama, he doesn't owe anyone anything. Yes his immigration policy could be better but he can't do everything he wants to.
Gun Control
2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006.
2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator McCain a grade of C+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F). (Not perfect but better than anyone still in the running)
actually if you look all the way through there will be some things you will like and some you will dislike about him. This is why he is such a great candidate against Hillary or Obama, he doesn't owe anyone anything. Yes his immigration policy could be better but he can't do everything he wants to.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Great tune
heard this on Michael Savage and I can't believe how true it is. And I thought America was in trouble. Watch it and comment please, I want to know what you all think.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Townhall meeting....
God, I am getting really annoyed with this McCain hatred in the party. I think the guy gets a bad rap, I defended the man for about 90 minutes against a bunch of Romneyacs. I hope to be able to convince them that he is better than Obama or Clinton and some are doing a suicide/protest vote for a third party. I hope to be able to talk to you ZS about McCain, he is very good on the free speech (McCain-Fiengold isn't as bad as everyone says it is) and most importantly the 2nd amendment. We need someone like him in office now to deal with Iraq (were not getting out of there anytime soon, no matter what your stance is/was you need to realize that much) and if, God forbid, we are attacked again he will know what to do with the situation. I welcome responses to this and any challeges to McCain. I will defend him forever.
McCain has it locked up...
About an hour ago during my bowling class (yea I know) I heard that Romney was going to drop out. I wouldn't believe it until I heard it from him. So I am estatic right now because my second choice (Guliani was my original pick) is going to be the nominee of the Republican party. And the convention is right over in St. Paul so I will be there in one capacity or another (hopefully a delegate, more likely as a volunteer). Right now I am starting a little odds system that I am making up for who John McCain will nominate as his VP running mate. If I forgot anyone credible (Ron Paul supporters please, please understand he has no chance in hell) please let me know and I will reflect that in my next odds post. I will probably do it weekly. I am going to a townhall meeting tonight and I will post about it later tonight.
Mike Huckabee 3:2
Tim Pawlenty 4:1
Mitt Romney 20:1
Rudy Guliani 50:1
Joe Liberman 100:1
Mike Huckabee 3:2
Tim Pawlenty 4:1
Mitt Romney 20:1
Rudy Guliani 50:1
Joe Liberman 100:1
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
I'm back... again.
Ok, I know I've promised to start blogging again and now I will hopefully consistantly update this site 4-10 times a week. I went to my caucus last night and 84 people from my precinct showed up! Pretty freaking amazing, I was elected an alternate for the convention. I will post my thoughts on Super Tuesday tomorrow. Night all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
