2008 July | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Archive for July, 2008

I have four words for evangelicals who won’t vote McCain/Romney

If you’re an evangelical that is supporting McCain and won’t cry if Romney is on his ticket, then my four words are “have a nice day”. You can stop reading. If, however, you are one of the evangelicals warning McCain that he better not take Romney because he’s a Mormon, then this is for you:

Eat. Sh*t. And. Die.

The idiot wing of the republican party is up to it again. First, they reject McCain. Then they complain when he’s the nominee. Hey buttwipes! You are responsible for McCain being the nominee. You didn’t like any of the people that could beat Barack or Hillary (including McCain) because they didn’t conform to your small minded viewpoints. Instead, you supported Huckabee. Freaking Huckabee! Mike “rewrite the constitution to conform to (his interpretation of) God’s law” Huckabee. Mike “subjugate women to their husbands” Huckabee. Mike “if we tied up all the democrats and independents and only allowed republicans to vote he still couldn’t be elected” Huckabee. You made a vote decision that defies any intellect whatsoever. A vote that is so close in stupidity to voting for Obama it’s hard to tell which is worse. Huckabee has quotes that make Obama’s misstatements look like a Cambridge Scholar. Even a republican only electorate would vote Obama over Huckabee you idiots. But, hey, he hates gays so he’s your man! Who cares that he is more liberal than McCain, Hillary or Rudy when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility and social engineering policy. Who cares that his policy twin is Bill Clinton. He’s your man! Brilliant. You could have supported Fred! Or Rudy. You could have pressured someone like JC Watts to come out. But no, you went for Mike “rewrite the constitution” Huckabee. Morons.

So after picking someone who even most republicans think is a loser, they have the audacity to tell him he better not pick Romney for his VP because he’s a Mormon. Really now? Seriously? McCain is the one candidate of the republican party that enjoyed telling you to go screw the devil and you think you can threaten him with a lack of support if he doesn’t cowtow to your bidding?

Hey idiots: BLOW ME! We are trying to win the presidency. If a Romney can deliver a state like Michigan where he and his family are immensely popular, then McCain should pick him and tell you to blow it out your pompous rears again. And, if you are dumb enough to tell McCain that you won’t vote for him because his running mate is a Mormon, then you are just like the daily Kos kids: too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Besides, here’s a newsflash for you: You stayed home in 2000 and we still won. We didn’t even break a sweat with your minimal support in 2004. You’re not nearly as powerful as you once were or think you are. Threats will get you nowhere because you haven’t gotten us anywhere for the last 2 elections. We’ll find a way without you. And when we do, you will rightly find yourself out in the cold.

Now, in fairness, on my local radio station they had evangelicals call in and a number, to their credit, said that they liked Romney’s conservative creds. Some even said that Romney would take them out of the “not voting” category and get them to vote McCain because he’s a great candidate. Unfortunately, there were a bunch from the idiot wing, that called and repeated the statements of the ones documented in the story. Because Romney is a Mormon, they won’t vote for McCain if he takes him. Idiots. Complete f’ing idiots. The sooner we can lose that part of our party, the better.

i don’t want a democrat president

But McCain needs to start landing a few punches, or we’re going to have the indescribably vacuous Barry Obamateur™ preening and posing his way around the White House for the next four years. Daniel Henninger agrees.

Then this week in San Francisco, in an interview with the Chronicle, Sen. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an “inspiration to millions of Americans.” Notwithstanding his promises to “work with the other side,” this is a politically obtuse thing to say in the middle of a campaign. Would Bill Clinton, running for president in 1996 after losing control of the House, have called Newt Gingrich an “inspiration”?

No. He wouldn’t. And nor should he. This is for keeps, and McCain needs to step it up and stop trying to make the New York Times say nice things about him.

They will NEVER do that - he’s a Republican, and therefore their enemy. They only pretend he’s their friend when he upsets Conservatives, who they simply dislike more. Geddit??

errrrm. ok. this is getting a little creepy

Are we electing a President, or an honest-to-God Messiah? Do these retards on the left actually believe all this hope and change twaddle? Really? Really??

If so, they’re in for some serious, industrial strength disappointment when they realize teh Obamateur™ is just another arrogant, self-obsessed, vapid political hack whose accomplishments can be counted on a number of fingers not unadjacent to ZERO, and who will more than likely be a miserable failure if elected President (a prospect that is still very much in doubt).

Watch this for a sample of the extent to which the left is going through an Obama Rapture™ bordering on the utterly scary:

Watch this commercial from MoveOn.org (I hate linking their tripe, but it’s worth it this once).

Thankfully I was not on the planet last week to witness what must have been the hysterical response to Obama’s Excellent Adventure® in Eurabia. I came back to the media behaving like teenage girls, giggling about and flirting with this absolute lightweight dressed as a Presidential candidate.

Nancy E. Pelosi: Suuuuuuper genius

That’s not sarcasm. She kicked the crud out of us again. I really wish the republicans would play like this sometimes. So here’s what she did this time.

Again, she pulls out the “emergency legislation”. This one was called “The Gas Price Relief Bill”. You can already see where this is going can’t you? What does the “Gas Price Relief Bill” do? NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. It pulls 70 million barrels of the strategic oil reserves. Big floopdy doo. Before they bring it to the house, they put out a press release saying it was so good, no one would dare vote against it. Of course, Bush says it’s worthless and he’ll veto it. So Bush “Vows to veto gas relief bill” blare the headlines. Again, with the emergency provisions, no amendments may be added to the bill without a 2/3 majority. The republicans have the votes to add drilling if it was a simple majority, but they don’t have them for 2/3. So no amendments. Also, it needs 2/3 to pass. The republicans don’t supply enough votes and it fails. So, what do we see across the news wires?

Republicans kill gas price relief bill

Next we have the wonderful work of Pete Hokstra. Pete submits a bill to Pelosi that seeks to address the national security implications of high energy prices. Sounds reasonable. Pelosi kills it. Gone. See ya! THE VERY NEXT DAY, the democrats introduce house bill #HR6545. What do you thing HR6545 does? Why, of course, it seeks to address the national security implications of high energy prices. No f’ing way. Bet Pete wishes he had thought of that. But alas, guess who gets credit for it.

She kicked our butts twice in a week. Seriously, we need to learn to play hardball like this. Politics isn’t a gentleman’s sport. It’s a blood sport and it’s time we treated it like this. It’s a pitiful shame that when we had the majority we didn’t play tough, instead we wimped our majority away.

It’s not too late, but we better get our act together or it will be President Obama and a filibuster proof majority and then we’ll be screwed.

They’re not lies, just Exaggerations

Remember when Algore was caught in all those lies in the 2000 election? “I invented the internet” “My dogs prescription cost 25 dollars and my mom pays 300 dollars for the same thing” “I drank a lot of tea and was out of the room” etc, etc. Remember when he was confronted? What was his excuse? “Sometimes, I get some details wrong.” His campaign had a memo leaked that told him his tendency to exaggerate would get him in trouble. So, what will Obama’s lies be called? Here are some for you. They are gutsy as heck too. They are so easily verified he’s hoping no one would notice or call him on it. The MSM won’t but we will.

We’ve already covered the “I will take public financing”. He signed a sheet saying he would take it. He then turned it down, becoming the first nominee of either party to do so since it started. I can’t blame him, he’s made a lot more than he would have received from the government, but still, it’s a lie. Some will call it a flip-flop, but when you sign something and you purposefully don’t deliver, it’s a breach and a lie.

A couple more brazen ones happened in March ‘08 and April ‘06. In March, congress was in the middle of the housing market bailout attempts. In one try, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put together a bill that would have the FHA back loans for lenders to allow them to “help” homeowners nearing or in foreclosure. A few days after Dodd and Frank have the press conference, Obama steps up to a mic and says “At this moment, we must come together and act to address the housing crisis that set this downturn in motion and continues to eat away at the public’s confidence in the market. We should pass the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd to create …” What’s that? He had nothing to do with the bill, yet he gives himself top billing with Dodd and leaves out Barney Frank. Needless to say, Dodd and Frank were not overly pleased.

In April 2006, the Senate committee and the president had just finished the final touches of the ~~Amnesty~~ Immigration bill. Obama catches them in the hall and asks if he can go with them. No big deal. Happens all the time. However, when they got to the mic, he takes it and thanks the team for the bill. Lindsey, Sam, Mel, Ken, *MYSELF*, and so on. Now that’s ballsy. They sat in the meetings for days haggling this thing and here comes Obama, trying to leach credit.

You can read about both of those events here.

Now those last 2 were covered by the Washington Post. Ok, but here’s one more. Have you seen this one in any papers? Only Fred Barnes on Fox News called him on it. He was in Israel trying to sound tough against the Iranians and let fly this one:

“Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”

One problem. He’s not on that committee. He never voted for that bill in the committee. It hasn’t come before the senate yet. There’s no way he voted on it. No possible way. It’s a flat out, bold faced lie. He keeps trying to take the fruit of everyone’s work. Basically he’s trying to welfare himself a senate record.

Speaking of welfare (don’t you love that transition), thank you to Don, here is the Obama commercial where he takes credit for welfare reform he opposed:

Add that he says his dad was part of Kennedy’s airlift program from Kenya (he wasn’t) and you get a liar. A liar who is very much at ease telling verifiable whoppers. The media will ignore all this, we won’t. Pass it along. November is approaching and the more people see this, the more they will wake from their Obamacoma and get back to reality.

The Obamessiah: “He ventured forth to bring light to the world”

BRILLIANT! — and right on target.

The article written by Gerard Baker is here. This one’s pure genius. :D

I can not WAIT for the election

I’m going to laugh my ass off when Teh Obamateur loses. It’s going to be even more satisfying than when Manbearpig and John F’n Kerry lost, because at least they didn’t have that messianic cult thing going on. (That’s about all I can say for them, but at least they had that.)

I’m starting to wish I hadn’t decided to donate to the McCain campaign every time I see some outrageous crap like this, because I’m certainly not rich. Still donated, though. ;)

BTW, if you can’t part with a few dollars for the McCain campaign but you still want to help defeat the Obamessiah and the other Donks, check this out. It’ll cost you nothing. Call it Obamateur Insurance. :)

musings on a Thursday

So Obama is channelling Reagan? Tearing down walls in Berlin. How far the world has fallen when this empty rhetoric is applauded.

Obama says raising the capital gains rate won’t hurt the economy or the country. His adviser on this is the impeccable Warren Buffet. Warren says it, so it must be so. After all, Warren only has our best interests at heart. Has anyone analyzed Warren Buffets primary income streams? He doesn’t make money buying and selling. His style has pretty much been buy low and hold. Get dividends. Buy up companies and take profit. He won’t pay capital gains on that kind of income stream so of course he doesn’t mind. I wonder if he would be so generous if we tossed taxes on trust funds and holdings. For the rest of us joes out there, a 25% capital gains rate will eliminate liquidity from the market. Not all, obviously, but enough to damage the economic expansion that Obama would be trying to cull.

During the patriot act vote, there was a provision that said if we find a group that we think are terrorists, we can investigate them in secret for 6 months. Obama joined the side that killed it and instead put one in that says you have to inform them in 7 days. So instead of watching and learning about them, Obama says with his vote that he wants to call them. “Hey, Osama, how’s it going buddy! Just so you know, we’re kind of watching you. Don’t do anything different, now. Go ahead and tell us what your plans are and we’ll stop. Oh, and have a nice day. Remember, we don’t judge in this administration!” Unfit for command.

I’ve been looking for Obama’s commercial where he takes credit for welfare reform even though he voted against it. If you can find it, please leave it in comments.

In Hungary, a court actually ruled that pelting gay people with eggs is protected free speech. Wonder if we can get that here and apply it to throwing rocks at hippies.

There is a place called Bristol Downs in England. It hasn’t been kept up much. There are large unkept hedges all over and the gay guys like to meet there for their sexcapades. One day a group of firemen on a fire truck decided to have some fun and flash their spotlight on the “gentlemen” in the park sending the scattering in all directions. The firemen were disciplined, fined and transferred. After all, how uncaring of them interrupting illegal sex and all.

Same place, different time. The city decided to clean up said park because of all the naked men having sex in public. They gays protest because to stop them from having illegal sex in public at a park is discrimination. Coming (HA!) soon to a town near you.

I love these Japanese prank shows…

On that note, it’s time for bed.

Sanctuary city kills citizen

First the video. This will be hard, but go here and watch this: It is a woman talking about her dead family.

Anthony Bolognas and his family were out for a drive. He accidentally blocked an intersection. He realized it and backed his car up to allow a vehicle he was blocking to pass. The car was being driven by this nice illegal alien who decided to commit the murder that Americans don’t want to commit. In a rage, he stepped out of the vehicle and opened fire. Danielle lost her 2 sons and her husband. In 15 seconds, she became a childless widow.

The murderer, Edwin Ramos, is an illegal and a member of MS-13 with a felony record. Frisco knew he was a felon and failed to report him for deportation. After all, the enlightened liberals run a sanctuary city. Another American family is sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

I wish someone would ask Pelosi if she still agrees with her town’s sanctuary city stand. Bush is partly to blame too. He has been lax his entire tenure on this issue. San Fran needs its federal funds frozen. They need to feel some kind of pain for this kind of nonsense. Unfortunately, our government, starting at the top with Bush, Pelosi and Reid, will never do anything. They have long supported illegals in the country. This won’t change that. Taking back the congress and forcing the next president to do something might. Start with McCain, then vote the house and senate back too.

dnc’s “Drill”, an act in 2 parts

So the democrats have come to their senses and decided to make a move on oil! Could it be that they are feeling the heat? Could it be that they want to help hurting Americans? Could it be that they are actually seeing the light? Well, no. Not so much. You see, they are feeling the heat. This is a home run issue for McCain. The democrats are completely on the wrong side and they know it. But they are hostage to the envirowackos in their base. So what do they do? They take an emergency bill called the Drill Act and try to ram it through. So, what is the Drill Act and why is it impotent? No, not important, impotent. Why? Read on and see.

There are 2 provisions in the Drill Act. First is the drill now or lose the lease provision, AKA “Use it or lose it”. That sounds reasonable. If you have a lease and you fail to utilize it, you lose it. Can’t argue with that. One problem: That’s already the policy! The federal oil leasing system has flaws, yes, but this isn’t one of them. Simply put, if a company, say BP, grabs a lease (more on that in a later post), it has between 5 - 10 years to drill it. If it doesn’t, then the lease goes to someone else. This stops a company from grabbing up the leases and holding them to drive up prices. So, strike that provision as totally useless. The republicans have pointed this out but few people want to report it. If you’re in the tank for Obama and Pelosi, you can’t make them look bad. Our republican leader points out in 1992 Pelosi voted for the very provision that she is trying to pretend doesn’t exist now. Fortunately for her, Obama supporters aren’t bright enough to know that or to find that out.

Next up in the 2 part act is the Alaska oil only to America provision. This one says that Alaskan oil cannot leave the US. It goes to American refineries only. Again, that sounds good. After all, we know that all oil goes straight to the world market and is overpriced there now don’t we? Um, well, no it doesn’t. It’s not law, no, but not one barrel of Alaskan oil has left the US since 2000. It stays here. Surely, someone in the press would mention that, right? Sure they would. Again they are in lockstep with Pelosi and Obama so not a word will be said. Only Investors Business Daily pointed that one out so far. Don’t hold your breath for the others.

So, why did the republicans just roll over and not fight? Come on, this is a winning issue. Well, this time, they really tried. They had all kinds of amendments ready to go, but the democrats used a procedure for emergency bills. A process put in place to expedite laws in response to 9/11 type of emergencies. Ironically, they wouldn’t allow this method to be used after 9/11. No, the 9/11 stuff allowed all kinds of changes, but this bill is for election pandering and is way more important than responding to the September 11th attacks, so under this emergency procedure, a 2/3’s majority was needed to allow any change to the Drill Act. So when the republicans tried to attach ANWAR drilling, they had a majority supporting it, but not the super majority. So out it went. When the republicans tried to attach outer continental shelf, again they had a majority, but not the super majority. Basically, Pelosi used a procedure for emergencies (that wasn’t invoked after 9/11) to stop actual drilling changes to occur. Also in her favor, it needed that 2/3 majority to pass too. It didn’t get it and now all the press headlines are blaming the republicans for blocking it.

Give it to Pelosi here. She did what the republicans would never have done. She puts up a bill that was just a passage of the same stuff that is already law or policy saying it will fight gas prices even though it would change nothing. Then she blocks all changes and makes sure a super majority of her party supported it and when it fails, she blames the republicans. This will be in commercials all over the country by the end of the week. Unfortunately, it will probably work because the press won’t throw the BS flag and because people willing to support Obama are certainly stupid enough to believe it. We, however, know better. And we will shine the light on it even if the press won’t.

A blow against the NYT

Over at the Rott, they are publishing McCain’s rejected counter to Obama. The NYT refused to run it saying it needed to agree, not disagree, with Obama. In the spirit of spreading the word, I’m going to do a copycat. So with a hat tip to LC Brendan over at the Rott, here is McCain’s rejected editorial he sent to the NYT:

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Bite us, Times. You’re just a dinosaur waiting for extinction.

4th branch of government

So, are y’all aware of the black hole of economic death that we’re screaming towards? Forget the crazies in the media. They’re bad, but they can only mold the minds of weak and stupid people. Yeah, I know, it’s working. There are a lot of Barack supporters. But they can be made smarter and they will leave the Obama camp and the media will have failed. Congress problems? Nothing we can’t and haven’t taken care of previously. Remember 1994? 2006? Congress we can handle when we get mad enough. No, our problem is with uncontrolled, unaccountable government agencies sticking us with mandates and regulations that will kill our economy. Today’s problem child is our very own EPA. I call it our own, because it was approved by Nixon. So, for better or worse, the EPA is a “pandering republican looking for love from the left” caused issue.

About 18 months ago in Mass vs. EPA the SCOTUS said in a 5-4 decision that the EPA must use the 1970 clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases, siding with lefty states, the Sierra Club and other lunatic enviro-wackos. I do want to be clear here. The EPA lost. The (Bush appointed) head of the EPA declined to regulate carbon dioxide under the clean air act. The SCOTUS basically said they had to. The EPA went to work and came back with a 200 plus page blueprint containing 33 programs to regulate every aspect of the economy. Tractors, cars, lawn mowers, RV’s, boats, planes could be subject to permitting from the EPA. Think about that. Do you need a tractor? You will have to fill out a form and send it (with a nice check too) and hope you get a permit. Want a boat? Fill out this form and send in your dough and hope that the person who gets your application has had a decent day. Run a landscape company? Well, get ready for a dozen or so permits for everything: Your mowers, your cars, your weed eaters, chainsaws. Use natural gas in your company like a restaurant? Or someone who sells and installs water heaters or gas furnaces? If you go over some vaguely defined threshold that can be redefined on an EPA decree, you’ll have to beg for your permits.

Here’s the worst part: the vagueness of it. If you own a company and want to expand to a bigger place and it’s over 100k sq ft (a 10 story 100×100 building) well, you have to have installed “appropriate carbon control technology” before you can get the permits. What is appropriate carbon controlling technology? Well, there is no definition and no guarantee that such technology even exists. The EPA wouldn’t define it in the package. They’ll know it when they see it and if they don’t see it, you can’t get the building. It will be possible to get an EPA person who basically strings you along because you don’t have the right technology for your “widget” factory when in reality the person just doesn’t know what it is.

The US Chamber of Commerce looked at it and found that over 1 million new companies (small businesses) that have never had anything to do with the feds other than taxes would now be regulated by the EPA. Welcome to Al Gore’s utopia.

All of this will be ours without a congressional vote or a presidential decree. The EPA will say it must be, and that’s the way it is. It is entirely possible that the EPA, without congress even voting on it, could enforce it’s own version of Kyoto. You remember that one, right? The pact that the senate voted down 98-0 or something like that. Doubt it? Well, look the fun in DC a couple weeks ago. The Warner-Lieberman bill had a cap and trade system in it and did other things to combat the myth of climate change and was voted down overwhelmingly. Blown out of the water in bipartisan fashion. Right after, the EPA came out with it’s own cap and trade system that it said it was going to mandate and enforce going so far as to say it didn’t need permission from congress because it interprets the 1970 clean air act as allowing it. Think on that one for a while. If it doesn’t need congressional approval to enforce certain levels of carbon output, who can stop it from changing the levels? They already have changed the levels for ozone measurements and mandates. When the air quality improved and started resulting in fewer red days, they lowered the standard to get more. On a whim. New standards. Right now it’s run by pseudo business friendly Bush appointees. If Barack gets in, he will bring in an Al Gore wannabe to run the place. Still think an EPA mandated Kyoto is out of the question?

The EPA is not bad now, but when the next liberal gets in, we’re screwed. They will use this ruling to set the EPA above the congress. We need to take this back and the way to do it is through the SCOTUS. One SCOTUS nominee will change everything. One of the majority of Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer, Souter or Ginsburg leaving and being replaced with a thinking conservative would roll this ruling back. What do you think Barack will appoint to the court when one leaves? McCain may be a risk, yes, but Obama is a certainty. He will put as many Ginsburgs on the court as possible. As government claims more and more of our life, every thing that we can do to stop them needs to be done. At this moment, that is the defeat of Obama. Obama’s defeat is a must.

A couple funny things for your Saturday night

I know I seem like their field reporter, but they are so funny that they have to be mentioned yet again. So, over at the Moxargon Group, Barack Obama is having a yard sale. Stop by at Barack’s yard sale to shop his astoundingly low prices.

Here’s a little piece of advice for you. If you’re going to get drunk and drive and get caught, it is not a wise idea to go to a Halloween party dressed in a prison outfit and have pictures of you at said party drinking while dressed in said prison suit. It just might change the judges mind on sentencing when someone you hurt shows him those pictures on the myspace page. Oh and if you kill someone while drunk driving and then go to a party right afterword and post how you live to drink and party, the judge may look disfavorably on you when he sees that page too.

Here’s something you don’t see everyday, Pluto in Disney chasing a kid to kick his bahonkis. Apparently the kid nailed Pluto in the ~~nuts~~ globes and Pluto was out for a butt kicking.

Here’s another office freakout to laugh at. At least no one got hurt. Well, not that it shows.

Finally, as a soccer coach and sometime player, it is good to see the pros make the same stupid mistakes I do on the field. A handful of goalie mistakes.

Have a good Sunday!

Barack Obama Platitudes

It’s totally true — he really said this! OMG!

“These people haven’t had happiness for fifty years. So you can’t be surprised if they get bitter and cling to their cockroaches and their plagues of locusts and their self-immolations. That’s what my campaign is about. Teaching all the little people in this country that they can have kittens.”

stein hoist Ace

UPDATE (below the fold)…

Bitches, bastards, fags, rednecks, c*nts, and n*ggers

Nice post title, huh?

Okay, now that I have your attention. I was watching Hannity and Colmes — or rather, tonight, Michael Steele and Colmes, thank God (moar Steele, less Hannity plz, but I digress) –and the main discussion was about Whoopi Goldberg’s use of The N Word on The View today, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s distress about it. I don’t watch the show and don’t plan to, but what the hell? Why is Whoopi’s use of the word so upsetting? I’m sorry, but I don’t get why she (and others) don’t understand this. You don’t have to be black to understand what Whoopi Goldberg was talking about, and truthfully, any intellectually honest person should know this. Even stupid racists should.

Here’s the video.

I don’t use The N Word™, and it pisses me off when others do - unless it’s used by a black person as a term of endearment or whatever, as in, “nigga please.” Frankly, I find the outrage expressed by white people about black people using the word a little silly and pedantic. I have to wonder, why is any honest white person bothered by a black person saying it?

Let me ask: what’s the difference between that and women (and some men) saying “bitch” as a term of endearment, or gay men calling themselves or others “fags,” or women calling themselves “fag hags,” or white people calling themselves rednecks? What about those women who have “taken ownership” of the word c*nt, or those who just use it in a humorous way? (People do, you know.) What about “bastards?” Would you call an illegitimate child a “bastard?” No, but you might say it otherwise. Granted, it’s all unnecessarily crude, and there are plenty of other words that can be used that aren’t offensive to anyone. The point is, no, you/we white people can’t go around saying n*gger like black people do. It’s not “our word” to take ownership of; we’ve already had ownership of the word, and obviously not in a way in which anyone can be proud. If there’s a legitimate complaint, it’s that the word is offensive to too many people - as are bitch, fag, bastard, redneck/trailer trash, and c*nt (see? I won’t even write that word out either).

I’m just saying, Whoopi Goldberg is right. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and others who think it’s hypocritical (or whatever) are completely missing the point. I’m not sure why that is — maybe it’s overeagerness to argue and simple pedantry, maybe some are just obtuse, and maybe some absurdly feel oppressed or something because those people get to say it, but they can’t. Well, cry me a river.

Notice how I don’t feel compelled to self-censor on “bitch” or “fag” (let alone “redneck”)? It’s because those aren’t that offensive in the right context; they’ve become less powerful words. That’s the whole point. Obviously, anyone can argue that it’s made common language more vulgar, and I’d have to agree, but personally, I’m hardly in a place to say discourse should be more formal and refined. Your mileage may vary, of course.

So…explain to me why I’m wrong. I know some of y’all think I am, and I’m more than happy to debate you morons* on the issue. ;-P

* another term of endearment, as coined by fellow morons at Ace’s

Older Entries