Posts
"Osama bin Laden."
Not fucking funny, CNN. Not funny at all.
Source: Blip.tv
Blogged with Flock
Monday, February 11, 2008
I am so offended right now
Oh, hey, CNN. Great start to a joke. "Who's Clinton and Obama and McCain pointing to in the audience? Hahaha - look, Hilary's pointing at Monica Lewinsky! And McCain's pointing at Ann Coulter! And Obama's pointing and waving at -
"Osama bin Laden."
Not fucking funny, CNN. Not funny at all.
Source: Blip.tv
"Osama bin Laden."
Not fucking funny, CNN. Not funny at all.
Source: Blip.tv
Not a good sign for the Clinton campaign
Getting outraised by a guy who a year ago was 20 points behind you in the polls? A little bothersome.
Being behind in delegates (not superdelegates) to a guy who was 20 points behind you in the polls as little as a couple of weeks ago in lots of states? More bothersome.
Finding out that the $175 million you had saved up for the campaign was pretty much gone, and nobody bothers to tell you until after Super Tuesday, and now people start to wonder if you're really qualified to run your campaign, let along a country?
That's a big, huge problem.
According to the Chicago Tribune, nobody had bothered to tell Senator Clinton that the campaign was broke. Evidently, she didn't keep an eye on the balance sheets either. Look, I know she's busy, but - isn't good judgement in who you hire important? Being the kind of person who says "OK, let's take an hour - give me the numbers. How are we doing?" every few days (like on the airplane or something while you're going to the next campaign stop) - isn't that kind of important?
Being behind in delegates (not superdelegates) to a guy who was 20 points behind you in the polls as little as a couple of weeks ago in lots of states? More bothersome.
Finding out that the $175 million you had saved up for the campaign was pretty much gone, and nobody bothers to tell you until after Super Tuesday, and now people start to wonder if you're really qualified to run your campaign, let along a country?
That's a big, huge problem.
According to the Chicago Tribune, nobody had bothered to tell Senator Clinton that the campaign was broke. Evidently, she didn't keep an eye on the balance sheets either. Look, I know she's busy, but - isn't good judgement in who you hire important? Being the kind of person who says "OK, let's take an hour - give me the numbers. How are we doing?" every few days (like on the airplane or something while you're going to the next campaign stop) - isn't that kind of important?
Blogged with Flock
Sunday, February 10, 2008
More proof - Bush is a moron
When President Bush was asked about Obama:
"I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said when asked if there had been a "rush to judgment" about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." Source: Huffington Post
Has this guy been right about *anything*? Anything? Please. I'll take one thing.
Oh, yeah - his best day in office was catching a big fish. I forgot.Blogged with Flock
OK - now the Obama wins are getting silly
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Stealing my own comment for here
There are people who say that "What's good for business is good for America". That the "New Deal" really set out to destroy our country. People like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul seem to have this belief that taxing the wealthy and giving it to the poor only leads to more poor people bleeding the system dry, leading to dependancy, and driving the rich away. Instead, just let business do whatever it wants, and things will "work out".
After all, look at our current economy! Hardly any regulation of the market (or the environment, or food and product safety, or civil rights), the very wealthy absolved of many taxes, education left without proper funding, and the money that could have been spent on roads and health care going instead to fund the War in Iraq - which has made some companies *very* wealthy indeed.
Oh, wait - that's right, our economy is going down the tubes partly because the regulations on the market to make sure things didn't go belly up weren't there, and we had rampant housing speculation leading to billions in bad debts - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In 1930, the New Deal was not about "taking the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor". That's nothing more than stealing, or communism.
However - it is "taking some money from the wealthy *who have benefited from the systems that supported them, and returning it back to those systems so that they and others can continue to benefit*".
Those who have made their fortunes in America do so because of their own hard work and ingenuity. And because there is a system of education to help provide them with smarter people. Roads that for a long time were the backbone of our continental business needs. Just courts and laws to ensure that people could compete without have to pay off authorities for graft. Tending to the commons so that all could benefit from clean air and water and healthy food.
Now, we have people attacking the Dept of Education, leaving roads crumbling, telling people that "what's good for business is good for America", without realizing it should be the opposite: what is good for America is good for business! Fix the roads - get goods across faster. Build public transportation systems - give citizens more money to spend on goods while helping them get to work faster, while reducing the price of gas to make goods cheaper to build.
There are those like Ron Paul who don't seem to get that, and while I admire his constitutional ideals, his economics seem to ignore reality. If anything, the 80's and the last 8 years have proved this out. "Voodoo economics" don't work - and we should abandon them just as the world abandoned feudalism and communism as bad ideas.
After all, look at our current economy! Hardly any regulation of the market (or the environment, or food and product safety, or civil rights), the very wealthy absolved of many taxes, education left without proper funding, and the money that could have been spent on roads and health care going instead to fund the War in Iraq - which has made some companies *very* wealthy indeed.
Oh, wait - that's right, our economy is going down the tubes partly because the regulations on the market to make sure things didn't go belly up weren't there, and we had rampant housing speculation leading to billions in bad debts - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In 1930, the New Deal was not about "taking the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor". That's nothing more than stealing, or communism.
However - it is "taking some money from the wealthy *who have benefited from the systems that supported them, and returning it back to those systems so that they and others can continue to benefit*".
Those who have made their fortunes in America do so because of their own hard work and ingenuity. And because there is a system of education to help provide them with smarter people. Roads that for a long time were the backbone of our continental business needs. Just courts and laws to ensure that people could compete without have to pay off authorities for graft. Tending to the commons so that all could benefit from clean air and water and healthy food.
Now, we have people attacking the Dept of Education, leaving roads crumbling, telling people that "what's good for business is good for America", without realizing it should be the opposite: what is good for America is good for business! Fix the roads - get goods across faster. Build public transportation systems - give citizens more money to spend on goods while helping them get to work faster, while reducing the price of gas to make goods cheaper to build.
There are those like Ron Paul who don't seem to get that, and while I admire his constitutional ideals, his economics seem to ignore reality. If anything, the 80's and the last 8 years have proved this out. "Voodoo economics" don't work - and we should abandon them just as the world abandoned feudalism and communism as bad ideas.
Blogged with Flock
Friday, February 08, 2008
Plagerism is the sincerest form of flattery?
First, she was the experience candidate - then she became the change candidate after Obama.
Now, she's taking Yes We Can, and evidently is putting out ads putting herself as - the hope candidate.
OK, Ms. Clinton - really. Hire some staff to come up with your own stuff.
Now, she's taking Yes We Can, and evidently is putting out ads putting herself as - the hope candidate.
OK, Ms. Clinton - really. Hire some staff to come up with your own stuff.
Blogged with Flock
Quick - name the candidate's generational appeal
OK - here's Obama supporters musical talents on display:
And - the one made for Ms. Clinton:
Quick - name the candidate getting support with people 45 and under, and the candidate getting support from voters 45 and over.
And - the one made for Ms. Clinton:
Quick - name the candidate getting support with people 45 and under, and the candidate getting support from voters 45 and over.
Blogged with Flock
This is hilarious
You've got this reporter talking to a young black man, and the reporter grills him about the issues.
And then he gets details. And details. And details.
It is pure pwnage, and anyone who says "Oh, Obama supporters are just in love with his speeches" needs to see this.
And then he gets details. And details. And details.
It is pure pwnage, and anyone who says "Oh, Obama supporters are just in love with his speeches" needs to see this.
Blogged with Flock
Fighting the ignorant
Dude: You know, Obama is just a empty suit.
Me: What makes you say that?
Dude: He gives good speeches, but where's the details?
Me: You want Al Gore back.
Gore was smart. He presented specifics on why his plan was going to work, and on everything he. Was. Right.
He lost. Why? Because people were bored. He didn't know how to sell himself.
Now we have Obama, who says "If you want to details, go online, read my books. While you're there, volunteer." He combines the power of the net roots to get people to act, with the power of the spoken word to inspire people to move.
You tell people the simple truths: I support a woman's right to choose. I will start pulling us out of Iraq as soon as I took office and called in the generals. I will issue this health care plan to do X.
So far, I'd say Obama's style is working very well. He tells us we're going to have to work hard. We're going to have to sacrifice to get energy independence. He tells us that we're going to up against people who will tell us "You can't have health care and security and environmental protection!", and that they will fight us tooth, claw and nail because they want to hold on to the power of their dollar.
That's honesty, and specific enough to people who haven't had a reason to get involved before to start getting involved. Once they are, they can learn the details through his writing (you know - books and things), or on his web site. But if you're too lazy to go that far, and want to sit back and be spoon fed all of the information, then we can't help you.
We're too busy working.
Dude: You talk a lot.
Me: Yeah. And get more done.
Me: What makes you say that?
Dude: He gives good speeches, but where's the details?
Me: You want Al Gore back.
Gore was smart. He presented specifics on why his plan was going to work, and on everything he. Was. Right.
He lost. Why? Because people were bored. He didn't know how to sell himself.
Now we have Obama, who says "If you want to details, go online, read my books. While you're there, volunteer." He combines the power of the net roots to get people to act, with the power of the spoken word to inspire people to move.
You tell people the simple truths: I support a woman's right to choose. I will start pulling us out of Iraq as soon as I took office and called in the generals. I will issue this health care plan to do X.
So far, I'd say Obama's style is working very well. He tells us we're going to have to work hard. We're going to have to sacrifice to get energy independence. He tells us that we're going to up against people who will tell us "You can't have health care and security and environmental protection!", and that they will fight us tooth, claw and nail because they want to hold on to the power of their dollar.
That's honesty, and specific enough to people who haven't had a reason to get involved before to start getting involved. Once they are, they can learn the details through his writing (you know - books and things), or on his web site. But if you're too lazy to go that far, and want to sit back and be spoon fed all of the information, then we can't help you.
We're too busy working.
Dude: You talk a lot.
Me: Yeah. And get more done.
Blogged with Flock
I don't hate Tom Delay. He's just - closed minded.
I don't mind someone with a viewpoint - but what kills me is when they hold that viewpoint to the exclusion of all else.
Like - Tom Delay. I was catching some MSNBC, when I saw Tom Delay talking to Chris Matthews about conservative values. And the exchange basically went like this:
This reminds me of watching the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design trials. First you had an ID scientist explain that there were no studies that explained how the immune systems evolved. So the prosecuter dropped some studies on his lap that did. Well, they didn't do it well enough. So the prosecutor brought out some books that showed how the immune system evolved - whole texts of research done based on DNA and everything else.
Nope, the ID scientists said - not proof.
Delay strikes me as the same way. In the past, people dumped whatever they wanted into the oceans. It was hubris to think that man could affect what God had made - we were so small compared to God's work!
And then the Hudson River caught on fire. And then lakes were so polluted by industries that children were born with birth defects.
It doesn't matter what you show, the very notion of "conservative" is basically "unchanging". Don't bother me with the evidence that shows I'm wrong, whether it be science or economics or health. Don't show me that people in England now have greater purchasing power than the US in spite of taxes that make gas $8 a gallon. Don't show me that people in Canada have better health and more access to health care than the average American.
And certainly, don't show me evidence of evolution, global warming, pollution, or any of that liberal mumbo-jumbo. It's not science, because I say so, and I'm going to sit here, shout over you and not listen while everything burns down around me.
Like - Tom Delay. I was catching some MSNBC, when I saw Tom Delay talking to Chris Matthews about conservative values. And the exchange basically went like this:
Delay: Global warming might be happening, but there's no science that proves its caused by man.
Matthews: What about the studies showing the Rocky Mountains snow cap is vanishing, and it's directly attributable to man's impact on the climate?
Delay: Why, that's just arrogance to suggest that man can affect climate change. There's no science that supports such a notion.
This reminds me of watching the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design trials. First you had an ID scientist explain that there were no studies that explained how the immune systems evolved. So the prosecuter dropped some studies on his lap that did. Well, they didn't do it well enough. So the prosecutor brought out some books that showed how the immune system evolved - whole texts of research done based on DNA and everything else.
Nope, the ID scientists said - not proof.
Delay strikes me as the same way. In the past, people dumped whatever they wanted into the oceans. It was hubris to think that man could affect what God had made - we were so small compared to God's work!
And then the Hudson River caught on fire. And then lakes were so polluted by industries that children were born with birth defects.
It doesn't matter what you show, the very notion of "conservative" is basically "unchanging". Don't bother me with the evidence that shows I'm wrong, whether it be science or economics or health. Don't show me that people in England now have greater purchasing power than the US in spite of taxes that make gas $8 a gallon. Don't show me that people in Canada have better health and more access to health care than the average American.
And certainly, don't show me evidence of evolution, global warming, pollution, or any of that liberal mumbo-jumbo. It's not science, because I say so, and I'm going to sit here, shout over you and not listen while everything burns down around me.
Blogged with Flock
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Mitt Romney: You are a bad Mormon
I just heard the Mitt Romney consession speech. And as a Mormon, I am incredibly offended.
We are taught from youth to "do what Jesus would do". That when you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God (as taught by the Book of Mormon). The words of Jesus that even as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto me.
Instead, Romney's campaign ending speech was full of hate. That those who are poor should suffer - it's they're own damn fault for being such lazy sots. Ignoring again the words of King Benjamen:
He spoke about the need to continue the War on Terror, and peddled fear. Ignoring that perhaps we have caused our own oil dependency, and blamed it on Chavez and Putin and others - and his solution? Well, use coal! After all, going from one dependency to the next doesn't fix the problem. Changing the structure of our cities so more people can use public transportation (oh, noes, teh evil - public works!) actually does. I saw it in Utah, the most conservative state, embrace public transportation - and the entire state benefited.
Romney spoke about protecting marriage and stopping the evils of pornography. Ignoring the 11th Article of Faith, given by the Prophet Joseph Smith to explain our beliefs to the world:
It's ironic - in part of his talk me mentioned how we have never taken land as part of our wars. Well, other than Texas, and the mid-west I guess, if you don't know your history. But then to blatantly ignore Iraq, and how we *have* claimed land, and property, and oil, and businesses, and forced the new Iraqi government so sign contracts that gave away their resources to US companies. Yeah, we didn't take land for ourselves during the 20th Century - instead, we waited until the 21st and used the War on Terror to justify taking what we wanted from a country that had never attacked us.
So I'm sorry - but if his speech is the center of Conservative ideals, then I'm proud to be a Liberal. I'm proud not to demonizing people for their beliefs. I'm proud to let people believe how they will. I'm proud to be willing to give up some of my income - even with three children to support - to help those in need.
And if Mitt Romney is going to speak out against those ideals, then yes, I believe he speaks against the faith he and I profess to believe in. And I am ashamed to have him count him as a fellow member.
We are taught from youth to "do what Jesus would do". That when you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God (as taught by the Book of Mormon). The words of Jesus that even as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto me.
Instead, Romney's campaign ending speech was full of hate. That those who are poor should suffer - it's they're own damn fault for being such lazy sots. Ignoring again the words of King Benjamen:
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: the man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and I will not give unto him of my food, nor impoart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just-
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he had done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
(Mosiah 4:16-18, Book of Mormon)
Romney's last speech in his campaign was against the evils of Liberalism, and how it would expand Medicare, Medicaid, and the ways we try to help the needy, those who either can not provide for themselves (single mothers, those with ailments), or can not do so because of a lost job or other reasons. He talked about how countries that do well do so because of their culture, while ignoring that in places like Canada, Britain, France, and the like have health care and systems to provide aid to all who need it - and enjoy a higher standard of living than in the United States, were we allow *millions* to go without health care.17 Perhaps thou shalt say: the man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and I will not give unto him of my food, nor impoart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just-
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he had done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
(Mosiah 4:16-18, Book of Mormon)
He spoke about the need to continue the War on Terror, and peddled fear. Ignoring that perhaps we have caused our own oil dependency, and blamed it on Chavez and Putin and others - and his solution? Well, use coal! After all, going from one dependency to the next doesn't fix the problem. Changing the structure of our cities so more people can use public transportation (oh, noes, teh evil - public works!) actually does. I saw it in Utah, the most conservative state, embrace public transportation - and the entire state benefited.
Romney spoke about protecting marriage and stopping the evils of pornography. Ignoring the 11th Article of Faith, given by the Prophet Joseph Smith to explain our beliefs to the world:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almight God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may
Instead, Romney would force his religious beliefs upon others in the name of "protecting marriage", once again scapegoating someone else (teh gays, oh noes!) instead of having people look and decide for themselves what they will believe and worship - or not.It's ironic - in part of his talk me mentioned how we have never taken land as part of our wars. Well, other than Texas, and the mid-west I guess, if you don't know your history. But then to blatantly ignore Iraq, and how we *have* claimed land, and property, and oil, and businesses, and forced the new Iraqi government so sign contracts that gave away their resources to US companies. Yeah, we didn't take land for ourselves during the 20th Century - instead, we waited until the 21st and used the War on Terror to justify taking what we wanted from a country that had never attacked us.
So I'm sorry - but if his speech is the center of Conservative ideals, then I'm proud to be a Liberal. I'm proud not to demonizing people for their beliefs. I'm proud to let people believe how they will. I'm proud to be willing to give up some of my income - even with three children to support - to help those in need.
And if Mitt Romney is going to speak out against those ideals, then yes, I believe he speaks against the faith he and I profess to believe in. And I am ashamed to have him count him as a fellow member.
Blogged with Flock
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Clinton running low on cash?
This can't be good - evidently, Clinton advisors are now going without pay, she's having to loan her campaign $5 million from her personal funds, and she's trying to raise $3 million in 3 days - which would match the speed of Obama donations.
I don't know how she's doing - but evidently, Obama just raised $4 million in 24 hours. Heck, I'm giving him $25 tomorrow when I get paid tomorrow.
Now, while it can be fun to go "ahaha", this isn't good news for the Clinton campaign. Guiliani had to start getting people to work without pay - and he tanked. Romney had to start loaning his campaign money from his personal stash - and there's talk that he's about to tank next.
So far, Obama is the only one getting more cash fast - and from people making an average of $50 donations. What will it mean? Likely nothing - but I guess we'll have to see.
I don't know how she's doing - but evidently, Obama just raised $4 million in 24 hours. Heck, I'm giving him $25 tomorrow when I get paid tomorrow.
Now, while it can be fun to go "ahaha", this isn't good news for the Clinton campaign. Guiliani had to start getting people to work without pay - and he tanked. Romney had to start loaning his campaign money from his personal stash - and there's talk that he's about to tank next.
So far, Obama is the only one getting more cash fast - and from people making an average of $50 donations. What will it mean? Likely nothing - but I guess we'll have to see.
Blogged with Flock
Oh, now you're just talking nonsense
First, Obama wasn't black enough. Then, he only appealed to black people, and not to whites (no matter what the numbers said in places of all white people like Iowa and New Hampshire).
Then, he wasn't experience enough, didn't know enough about how the power game was played.
Now, the Clinton camp calls him the establishment candidate.
This has to be the biggest load of nonsense ever. This is like when Regean told Carter "There you go again", when Carter was right. This is like when Bush claimed that Kerry was "exaggerating" that Bush had said he wasn't interested in Osama - when Bush had said it in an interview a week before.
What next - they're going to claim that Obama is the true candidate with experience, but that's bad opposed to the Clinton's "message of change" that will restore Washington?
Then, he wasn't experience enough, didn't know enough about how the power game was played.
Now, the Clinton camp calls him the establishment candidate.
This has to be the biggest load of nonsense ever. This is like when Regean told Carter "There you go again", when Carter was right. This is like when Bush claimed that Kerry was "exaggerating" that Bush had said he wasn't interested in Osama - when Bush had said it in an interview a week before.
What next - they're going to claim that Obama is the true candidate with experience, but that's bad opposed to the Clinton's "message of change" that will restore Washington?
Blogged with Flock
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
My Super Tuesday predictions
Yesterday, I phone called for Obama. It's kind of weird - I always said that "someday", I'd get politically involved. "Someday" I'd donate, or campaign, or something. And here I am, three kids, trying to take three classes at once to finish my degree, working full time, trying to decide where to move to -
And yesterday I was moved to act *now*, to make phone calls to Jersey and New York and California to remind people to vote tomorrow, to encourage them to vote for Obama. Sure, I got people who just hung up. And I got a very nice gentleman who said "Well, I'm a Republican", and I told him I liked him anyway, and he responded with "Well, thank you sir, and I hope your guy wins."
With all of that, though, I don't think that Obama will win today. I think the early mail in votes in California will prove too big a hurdle to overcome (much like Florida). I don't think he can beat that initial push.
But I think that overall, he will be damn close. Perhaps 100, maybe 150 delegates behind Clinton by the time the dust settles. And then there's the rest of the campaign, the people in Washington, DC and Virginia next week (or is it two weeks from now?) who can tie that up.
In the end, I still think Obama can win it. And between studying and fathering and, maybe even getting further into Persona 3 (I think I have enough charm to make Yukari my girlfriend - sweet!), I'll try to help him out.
Tonight I'm taking my daughter to a local Tampa Obama party - she asked to, and I said "OK". I wonder what she'll say years from now if Obama does wind up winning. Wouldn't that be cool.
And yesterday I was moved to act *now*, to make phone calls to Jersey and New York and California to remind people to vote tomorrow, to encourage them to vote for Obama. Sure, I got people who just hung up. And I got a very nice gentleman who said "Well, I'm a Republican", and I told him I liked him anyway, and he responded with "Well, thank you sir, and I hope your guy wins."
With all of that, though, I don't think that Obama will win today. I think the early mail in votes in California will prove too big a hurdle to overcome (much like Florida). I don't think he can beat that initial push.
But I think that overall, he will be damn close. Perhaps 100, maybe 150 delegates behind Clinton by the time the dust settles. And then there's the rest of the campaign, the people in Washington, DC and Virginia next week (or is it two weeks from now?) who can tie that up.
In the end, I still think Obama can win it. And between studying and fathering and, maybe even getting further into Persona 3 (I think I have enough charm to make Yukari my girlfriend - sweet!), I'll try to help him out.
Tonight I'm taking my daughter to a local Tampa Obama party - she asked to, and I said "OK". I wonder what she'll say years from now if Obama does wind up winning. Wouldn't that be cool.
Blogged with Flock
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Obama Super Bowl ad
It didn't air nationally, but in a lot of local markets. The commercial is rather short, but I liked it.
Blogged with Flock
Saturday, February 02, 2008
New York court recognizes same sex marriage from other states
Not the state supreme court, just an appellate court, but - an interesting step.
Blogged with Flock
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ann Coulter endorses - Hilary over McCain?
<a href='http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/">"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."</blockquote>
...
Stop the world. I want to get off.
...
Stop the world. I want to get off.
Blogged with Flock
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)