OH MY DOG IT IS CONTAGIOUS!!!

The emo part not the anti-emo pounding…though, hmmmm…

I’m a bully for expecting a modicum of common sense from TH-EMO.

“I tried to suffocate myself in the cupboard last night, but I came out when I heard the theme tune to Lost. I simply can’t afford to miss an episode of that show.”

Ulp, SORRR-E, thx BabelFish

“Intenté sofocarme en el armario ayer por la noche, pero salí cuando oí la consonancia del tema a perdido. No puedo permitirme simplemente faltar un episodio de esa demostración.”

Had to cite the article and quote as being almost too funny. Viva Mexico, no wonder people are fleeing this stygian depths of hell.

Fix your damn country, putas estúpidas del bebé del grito!!!

GoingThere

Trackback URL | Comments Off

I’m thinking I’m going to take some time off from this site…

…it doesn’t bring me joy any more, and my heart’s not in it. The debate of ideas is done, and instead it’s become the debate of faith, and I haven’t been one for faith based debates for a long time.

I have no faith in the candidates, and have no faith in “the party”. I don’t want to wax intellectual for the sake of it, and there’s no room for criticism, if all the current offerings that are out there lead me to that.

Life goes on…and I’m too busy.

I think I’m going to start writing cheesy love songs on my Telecaster again…

/game

Trackback URL | 3 Comments »

“Fairness” Doctrine:

…there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.

The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.

I like to call it “I don’t agree with Conservative talk show hosts so I feel that it’s the government job to regulate free speech by forcing companies to stop paying attention to what has an audience and what sells and instead force them to “balance” the message by offering a mandatory differing view point.”

Obama of course?

As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.

Here’s a crazy idea. Since media outlets are owned by business, how about he instead just lets successful businesses thrive, and bad businesses fail. “Diverse Viewpoints” will be accepted if there’s market.

Public Interest Obligations? Sounds about as legitimate as mandatory volunteerism. Ick, who else do I know that’s making government control media in the name of the public good.

I don’t need a nanny. This goes for you too McCain (to keep the Obamaniacs from proselytizing about the woes of Obama criticism).

Comments that somehow work in the Iraq war will be deleted.

Trackback URL | No Comments »

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

No…really…

Trackback URL | 9 Comments »

You know why people don’t respect, or care, about the plight of many of the Palestinians in Gaza?

Eight people have been killed and nine wounded by a Palestinian gunman who infiltrated a Jewish seminary in West Jerusalem, Israeli officials say.

Witnesses said the gunman went into a crowded hall during dinner at the Mercaz Harav seminary in the city’s Kiryat Moshe quarter and opened fire.

The assailant, who Israeli police said was a resident of East Jerusalem, was shot dead by an Israeli army officer.

The attack is the worst of its kind in Israel for a number of years.

The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says the Israeli government will be under immense pressure to respond - and it will, even though it is not known when and where precisely.

Terrorists were “trying to destroy the chances of peace”, an Israeli government spokesman said. The shooting was also immediately condemned by the US, UN, UK and the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Islamist group, Hamas, praised the attack, calling it “heroic”, but did not claim responsibility. There was also celebratory gunfire in Gaza.

Is this perchance the Gaza that Israel withdrew from in February of 2005 under the Oslo accords…with the promises that peace would reign in the area? Tihs is what Europe and the liberals pushed so hard as being the solution, the beginning of a Palestinian state. Ignoring the fact that Hamas thinks Israel should not exist. And yet…when you talk to the “the Joooooos did it” left, they blame the victim…it’s Israel’s fault. Ignoring the fact thousand of mortars are fired every month blindly into residential areas of Israel. Israelis make tactical strikes, Hamas aims for the women, the IDF doesn’t make a point of killing children in school.

Savages.

ADDITION:

Propaganda maybe?
Pardon me if I don’t trust Palestinian Journalists as much as some.

Trackback URL | 9 Comments »

He’s just not that bright. Legendary of course when on paper, prompter, and print, but more and more he’s making amateur mistakes.

There was the CBN thing…Rezko (we’ll call it the Democrats Abramoff but with more definitive ties), and now this chunk oh knowledge?

Obama Nov 3rd, 2007:

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran…

Obama March 3, 2008:

You can’t negotiate with somebody who does not recognize the right of a country to exist so I understand why Israel doesn’t meet with Hamas…

Jan 23, 2007:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives,” the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

…and full circle…

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran…

It’s hard to be consistent when you just say what people want to hear.

Hark…it seems the time of the Messiah might be coming to an end…people are actually starting to be critical of him, instead of waiting to have hands laid on them:

Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.

Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama claimed that when he had first denied the meeting between Austan Goolsbee and any members of the Canadian administration he provided “the information that [he] had at the time.”

He added, “Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to reassure them. They reached out, unbeknownst to the rest of us; They reached out to Mr. Goolsbee, who provided them with a tangible conversation and repeated what we’ve said on the campaign trail.”

When did the meeting take place? Why did the Canadian officials reach out? Did Goolsbee not come forward right away and admit the meeting to Campaign Manager David Plouffe and Obama when both denied it last week? These are questions that went unanswered as the press conference was cut short.

That’s spicy. What’s he got to hide…

OBAMA! REZKO! CORRUPTION!

I’m just getting used to what it feels like to irrationally parrot what for the most part are lame assumptions, and loose connections…it’s just neat to try to act like an irrational hater…does this mean I’m going to hell? I mean, he is Jesus…

Trackback URL | 12 Comments »

The AP actually calls Democrats out for misrepresenting the record. Kudos to fact checking writer Calvin Woodward. Excuse the large snipet, but there’s no way to paraphrase this:

No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.

The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.

That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.

THE SPIN:

Obama: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.”

Clinton: “I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be — 50 to 100 years.”

THE FACTS:

The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.

When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

Wow…it continues…

That hasn’t stopped the Democrats from making hay with the comment on a frequent basis. And it’s seeped down to voters, one of whom challenged McCain this week on his remark.

The senator pointed to the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are stationed to deter conflict, not fight one.

“No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties,” he said. In fact, some Americans do argue against permanent bases in far-flung places, but not with the same vigor they oppose a war with casualties.

The White House said in May that Bush envisioned a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years.

Trackback URL | No Comments »

Yeah…causation. Click through the image to Ace’s commentary on the Newsbuster story.

After heavy coverage of the shift to a new Iraq policy in January and February 2007, the TV coverage began to closely track the rising and falling death rates for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. When the number of U.S. fatalities jumped in May, TV coverage jumped, too. When U.S. casualties began to steadily decline, TV coverage of Iraq dramatically decreased.
While the amount of coverage has shriveled, the tone remains more negative than positive…..

Back in December, NBC’s Tim Russert conceded that the media were less interested in covering a successful U.S. mission in Iraq, telling anchor Brian Williams that “with the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages.”

This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV’s lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge. Does anyone think the media would have let John McCain off the hook had the surge failed as spectacularly as it has succeeded.

So that’s the reason I can’t have a conversation with someone about the Iraq war and get them to recognize the improvements…is because they’re not told about them. As far as they’re concerned, their information stops when MSM stops spoon feeding them their News (read “editorial opinion”). It’s hard to be a member of the left, because your success as a party is directly tied to how badly we do, at war, in the economy, etc.:

“Obviously, the economy is the No. 1 issue in the country, and it’s unbelievably important here in Ohio,” said Clinton. “I think, absent any intervening circumstances, the economy will be the domestic driver with all the related issues like health care and energy costs and home foreclosures.”

Absent any intervening circumstances? Like what — prosperity, employment, and security? It sounds like Hillary has her own version of hope and change in the presidential race. Specifically, her only hope is that the economy changes for the worse.

Trackback URL | 4 Comments »

I feel myself becoming a little more jaded. I don’t have a horse in this race…

There are certain issues that I agree with when it comes to McCain. And when it comes to Obama, I believe that he’s a good speaker. So, as a spectator, I’ve noticed funny personality quirks of Obama supporters.

1. Obama does no wrong. Not only does he do no wrong, but his inactivity and inexperience are included as right. People defend Obama’s inability to make mistakes with the same fervor that they attack Bush for being unable to make any good decisions. I don’t think many of these people think…they just feel, and mistake it for thinking…and I can’t be attacked as a Republican shill, because I don’t like McCain either. Absolute Moral Authority!

2. I think they’ve found their Jesus. He’ll solve everything, ever, always.

3. Okay, Obama is either pandering, or just plain silly. In the last few days, he’s managed to say that we would go back into Iraq if Al-Qaeda was there, and then concede that Al-Qaeda is there, and of course wrap it with, “They weren’t they until we went there.” Okay, let’s not argue that point, it makes me head hurt with the circular logic talking. For a man that’s all about the future, he doesn’t seem to be able to think in the now. Stop living in the past. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq NOW, without once referencing George Bush, WMD’s, Karl Rove, or McCain…what would you do militarily to deal with the fact that Iraq has Al-Qaeda…in Iraq…NOW.

Look, I’m disappointed I have no one to vote for…but I’m just in total awe of Obama supporters. Never before have I seen a willing abandment of reason for “Hope”…unless maybe you replace Obama with Jesus, and Hope with Faith. Maybe that I could forgive…

I’m just waiting for the door to door Obama brigade, knocking, smiling, and asking my if I’ve heard the glad tidings as they offer me a free copy of The Audacity of Hope.

UPDATE: He’s a fantastic talker.

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

Preemptive liberal response? ‘Well of course he’s just talking, he has to do that to get the (fill in the blank) on board, but he’s not like that with (fill in specific issue), he really means that.”

Anyone starting to realize why a record and experience is important?

Trackback URL | 5 Comments »

My wife had to call me at work to inform me that the today show is currently doing a fluff piece on how great Barack Obama is because he still does his own shopping. They have an expert and everything…

(*cough*)

That’s hard hitting journalism for you.

Ed Morrissey investigating claims vs reality in Obama and Clinton.

They both received tens of thousands of dollars from lobbyists in order to make it easier for foreigners to compete in American markets. Hillary’s change made it tougher on American tomato farmers to compete against foreign farmers, while Obama’s allowed the Japanese to expand their competition against American pharmaceuticals, although at least it created jobs in this country.
How did they manage to do that? A little-known rule in Congress allows members to create exceptions in tariff laws every two years, individually, somewhat akin to earmarks. Basically, this process exists to sell Congressional influence to the highest bidder. Lobbyists can make a fortune for their clients with a little down payment to a single Senator or Representative.

What ever happened to no lobbyists having control?

Can anyone say Rezko? It’s a British Newspaper, so it must be true.

Trackback URL | 2 Comments »