Because that's what you think of your own country, and you believe it when it comes to global warming. You may believe in global warming for other reasons as well, just because you're a coward. You may actually hear all this doom and gloom and you may actually think, "Oh, my gosh! I'm going to die!" You may actually believe all this. You may actually think that all of this is about you. You may think of yourself as powerless, and you're nothing but a victim. If you're on the left, that probably pretty much describes you. You're a victim of everything. You're a victim of fossil fuels. You're a victim of evil corporate capitalists. You're a victim of tax cuts for the rich. You are a victim of global warming. You're a victim of the pharmaceutical companies. You're a victim of Ken Lay. You're a victim of Enron. You're a victim of Bush. You're a double and triple victim of Rumsfeld. You are a victim of practically everything. Everybody's out to getcha.
The rich corporate capitalists who themselves don't care if they breathe dirty air, don't care if their kids get burnt to a crisp with global warming, you think all they want to do is get rich. While they themselves die, along with you from all of these horrible things. So I know you believe it. I know there are a number of you in this audience that believe this global warming tripe, because I know that human nature, that people will bond to doom and gloom faster than they will bond to hope and salvation. People will bond to this. It's a puzzling thing to me, but it nevertheless happens. So whatever the latest doom -- I mean, if you hear that oat bran will clog your arteries, you will stop eating it. You will not even think about it. If someone wacko geek that has anorexia gets on television and tells you that you are going to die from Big Macs, you will believe it. Without examining who this anorexic geek is. You will not examine the motives. You will not stop it ask, "What could this anorexic geek care about all this? Why would this anorexic geek try to actually get in my mouth?" You have to understand you people on the left how contradictory you are. This is how we look at you.
On the one hand, you run around and you have made a career and you have tried to identify yourselves by saying, "Keep the government and everybody else out of my womb!" and in the next sentence, you want in everybody's mouth by telling them what they can't put there. You want everybody out of your womb, but yet nobody should eat cheeseburgers; nobody should eat Big Macs; nobody should eat this or that. As long as you keep up with these contradictory statements, you will become more and more marginalized and more and more kooky and you will only affirm similar emotions and thoughts within your little group but you're not going to persuade others. This global warming thing is a great example. I think global warming is almost a hoax. I think it's almost a hoax but it's so easy to believe because anecdotally people can look out there when it's a hundred degrees in July and say, ''Man, I don't remember it ever being this hot, and even if it has been, I don't remember it feeling this hot. Gee, there's got to be global warming," and bam, everybody believes it just because it's a hundred degrees in July, when it's always a hundred degrees in July.
Or you may have the weird weather front where it's 60 degrees in January. "See? It's global warming!" So it's easy to fall for this. For those of you who know it, you believe these wacko experts that say it, the same wacko experts who say it have conceded that Kyoto will have no impact on them. Yet they believe in Kyoto. "Despite the fact the green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President Bush immoral and illegitimate for not supporting Kyoto, the groups themselves concede the protocol will only have symbolic effect on climate because they believe Kyoto's too weak. Kyoto is international treaty, seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012," but China's exempt from it and China is on its way to becoming the #2 greenhouse gas producer. China's exempt. Tell me what Kyoto is all about, then -- and so the keyword in this paragraph is "it will only have symbolic effect." Symbolic effect is all the left is interested in terms of persuading people. We are never to ask the results of their work, only their intentions. We're never supposed to dig deep to find out how their ideas work or fail.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Keep the Government Out of My Mouth!
Excellent little ditty from Rush on Friday:
Cult of Phil
For once, I agree--mostly--with a writer at the New Republic:
Oh, where to begin? For starters, [Phil] McGraw relies on much the same exploitative freak-show format as Jerry Springer or Jenny Jones, with everyone from drug-addicted housewives to love-starved transsexuals spinning their tales of woe for a salivating audience. But to help himself--and his audience--feel less icky about their voyeurism, Dr. Phil exposes America's dark side under the guise of inspiring hope and change. In Dr. Phil's formulation, cheating couples who air every nauseating detail of their sex lives on national television aren't shameless media whores, they are troubled souls courageous enough to seek help. Even in cases so marginal as to have no bearing on 99.9 percent of viewers--such as parents struggling with a child exhibiting homicidal tendencies--Dr. Phil reassures us that the publicity is beneficial to other families because these problems occur "on a continuum": A six-year-old with low-grade behavior problems today could, if left unchecked, turn out to be a serial killer down the road.Check out the entire article here; subtract the nonsense about how conservatives like this guy--they DON'T!
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Can Someone Crunch These Numbers?
Okay, I am still confused about our military organization and numbers. The Old York Times had another hit piece today saying the national guard is 30% below it's expected recruitment. This is to be expected because the national guards appeal is for people who do not want to be deployed for more than 12 months at a time (the regular army expects at least 4 years, one being a hardship tour to South Korea if you do not see active duty).
In the article, they say that the reserves and National Guard make up 40% of the troops in Iraq. So out of 150,000 troops only 90,000 are regular army.
Our current full-time military personnel force is 1.2 million. Now if you divide that by four for the four services (this is being very generous to the Air Force, Navy and Marines) you have 300,000 full time Army personnel. 90,000 are in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan.
Where are the other 200,000? And why is everyone claiming we are stretched too thin??
Remember, I am only talking about ARMY! And if you look closer, the standing National Guard is 350,000 as stated here. So that means that only 60,000 are in Iraq (less than one fifth)--so we have 290,000 National Guard folks in our force structure. In any war situation we would also have the Air Force and Navy and such. These numbers are just not adding up for me; I do not understand the claim that if we were attacked we would be up a creek without a paddle because "all our forces are in Iraq." Can someone who knows shed some light on this?
From my outlook, we have 200,000 full time army personnel and 290,000 national guard personnel NOT IN IRAQ. I said before that I don't believe we only have 150,000 people in Iraq...and so it could be the case that we have many more soldiers in Iraq that the military is not telling us.
But if I am wrong, then where are we getting this, "the army is stretched TOO THIN!" argument?
In the article, they say that the reserves and National Guard make up 40% of the troops in Iraq. So out of 150,000 troops only 90,000 are regular army.
Our current full-time military personnel force is 1.2 million. Now if you divide that by four for the four services (this is being very generous to the Air Force, Navy and Marines) you have 300,000 full time Army personnel. 90,000 are in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan.
Where are the other 200,000? And why is everyone claiming we are stretched too thin??
Remember, I am only talking about ARMY! And if you look closer, the standing National Guard is 350,000 as stated here. So that means that only 60,000 are in Iraq (less than one fifth)--so we have 290,000 National Guard folks in our force structure. In any war situation we would also have the Air Force and Navy and such. These numbers are just not adding up for me; I do not understand the claim that if we were attacked we would be up a creek without a paddle because "all our forces are in Iraq." Can someone who knows shed some light on this?
From my outlook, we have 200,000 full time army personnel and 290,000 national guard personnel NOT IN IRAQ. I said before that I don't believe we only have 150,000 people in Iraq...and so it could be the case that we have many more soldiers in Iraq that the military is not telling us.
But if I am wrong, then where are we getting this, "the army is stretched TOO THIN!" argument?
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Listen to the Soldiers
That means that Ghost Dansing cannot critique since he/she has never been in Iraq.
Question Authority
What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.
_______________________________
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 a.m.
To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson's question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.
Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few "up-armored" humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon's highest official. I wasn't.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you're in the middle of a firefight, you cannot--and must not--second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged--even demanded, I found.
As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."
I soon discovered that this command to think and to ask questions wasn't mere rhetoric. I was serving with the First Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment at an abandoned pistol factory in Al Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Every three weeks or so, we were visited by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, who was then commanding the First Marine Division in Iraq.
Gen. Mattis is a Marine's Marine, a true warrior who speaks bluntly and candidly, without being bound by the constraints of political correctness. For well over an hour, on a routine and regular basis, the general would gather together his Marines and field questions. Nothing was out of bounds. The event was entirely democratic and thoroughly American--though marked by standard military etiquette and respect for rank. Thus, newsmen and commentators who fear "retribution" against Spc. Wilson haven't a clue as to what the U.S. military is all about. Spc. Wilson asked a tough but fair question; however, for any U.S. serviceman who's ever been to war, this was hardly surprising.
Nor does his question demonstrate, as some have argued, that the Iraq war was ill-conceived or poorly planned. War is, by its very nature, surprising and unpredictable; it forces us to adapt and to be innovative. Armchair "experts" notwithstanding, the fact is no one anticipated the Baathist-Sunni insurgency, certainly not the U.S. military. We all expected to knock off Saddam Hussein and his elite Republican Guard and then head home in time for the July 4 celebrations. That's why, when I deployed to Iraq in 2003, I traveled throughout the country in a standard canvas humvee with no special armor. Nor did I have any special body vest or protection.
I thought nothing of this at the time and still don't. My team went as far north as Baghdad, but we were situated mainly south of the Sunni Triangle, in predominantly Shiite Iraq. Throughout our entire time there, the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators. We were well prepared for the threat as it then existed and as we understood it.
But when my old Marine Corps reserve unit redeployed to Iraq in September, it did so with fully armored vehicles, new sappy plated vests and special goggles--all designed to protect against shrapnel and improvised explosive devices. That's because the unit was deploying to Fallujah, and the threat there was different from what we had faced in southern, Shiite Iraq.
This type of change and adaptation has occurred in all wars from time immemorial. It reflects not poor planning but the unpredictable nature of war. That's why the Defense Department has been moving quickly to up-armor its humvees, producing nearly 400 such vehicles a month, up from 30 a month in August 2003, according to Army Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb.
The U.S. military ultimately wants 8,100 up-armored humvees versus the nearly 6,000 such vehicles that it has currently, Gen. Whitcomb told reporters last week. Moreover, according to the Army vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the military long ago embarked on a "Manhattan-like project" to remotely jam IEDs with radio sensors.
If you're an American soldier or Marine whose life is on the line now, clearly that's not good enough. On the other hand, it simply isn't true that U.S. military leaders have callously ignored the troops' request for up-armored vehicles and other protective equipment. In fact, most of our troops in Iraq have up-armored vehicles, and units there take force protection quite seriously.
Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that's what military transformation--a Rumsfeld priority--is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.
Example: When the Army decided last winter to cancel development of its Cold War relic Comanche helicopter, Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, immediately took to the barricades. "It simply doesn't make sense to pull the plug on the Comanche," Mr. Dodd said. "Obviously, this will not be an easy fight, but I intend to work with other members of the Connecticut congressional delegation to seek to retain the Comanche as part of our military arsenal."
It didn't seem to matter to Mr. Dodd that the Comanche was a $39-billion boondoggle that the Army didn't want because the aircraft isn't suitable for 21st-century urban warfare. Nor did Mr. Dodd seem to care that much of the displaced Comanche money would be used to equip existing Army helicopters with new countermeasure systems necessary to neutralize the ubiquitous threat posed by rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, and man-portable air-defense systems, all of which are omnipresent in Iraq.
Yet Mr. Dodd, who has never been a champion of big defense budgets, now has the chutzpah to lecture Mr. Rumsfeld about the need to "spare no expense to ensure the safety of our troops, particularly as they confront a hostile insurgency and roadside bombs throughout Iraq." Mr. Dodd says Mr. Rumsfeld's response to Spec. Wilson--"You go to war with the Army you have"--is "utterly unacceptable. Mr. Secretary," he writes, "our troops go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide."
Quite true--and Mr.. Dodd is one of those leaders.
Nor does the entire hullabaloo concerning up-armored humvees show, as some commentators contest, that U.S. troops lack confidence in their military and civilian leaders. The reality is that troop morale is consistently high.
Of course, American soldiers and Marines yearn to come home; it is not in our nature to colonize or occupy a country. By the same token, however, most U.S. troops take understandable pride in a job well done. They are pleased to have the historic chance to serve and to practice, in a real-world operation, that which they have been training for all these many years. That's why re-enlistment rates are high.
As U.S. Central Commander Gen. John Abizaid told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sept. 26: "The constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply does not square with the facts on the ground." In fact, the vast majority of Iraq is not a war zone; it is peaceful, tranquil and doing surprisingly well. I refer specifically to the Shiite south. The Kurdish north, too, is doing relatively well, despite the recent upsurge of violence in Mosul.
"So is this fight in the Middle East worth fighting?" the general asked Mr. Russert. "Absolutely," he said. "In my mind, and in the minds of our young people that are out here fighting and sacrificing, it's absolutely worth it."
Of course you won't hear any of this in many news articles or broadcasts. The media long ago decided that its job was to put a negative slant on all things Iraq. Truth is, as they say, the first casualty of war.
Mr. Guardiano is an Arlington, Va.-based journalist who served in Iraq in 2003 as a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps' Fourth Civil Affairs Group.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Question Authority
What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.
_______________________________
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 a.m.
To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson's question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.
Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few "up-armored" humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon's highest official. I wasn't.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you're in the middle of a firefight, you cannot--and must not--second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged--even demanded, I found.
As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."
I soon discovered that this command to think and to ask questions wasn't mere rhetoric. I was serving with the First Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment at an abandoned pistol factory in Al Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Every three weeks or so, we were visited by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, who was then commanding the First Marine Division in Iraq.
Gen. Mattis is a Marine's Marine, a true warrior who speaks bluntly and candidly, without being bound by the constraints of political correctness. For well over an hour, on a routine and regular basis, the general would gather together his Marines and field questions. Nothing was out of bounds. The event was entirely democratic and thoroughly American--though marked by standard military etiquette and respect for rank. Thus, newsmen and commentators who fear "retribution" against Spc. Wilson haven't a clue as to what the U.S. military is all about. Spc. Wilson asked a tough but fair question; however, for any U.S. serviceman who's ever been to war, this was hardly surprising.
Nor does his question demonstrate, as some have argued, that the Iraq war was ill-conceived or poorly planned. War is, by its very nature, surprising and unpredictable; it forces us to adapt and to be innovative. Armchair "experts" notwithstanding, the fact is no one anticipated the Baathist-Sunni insurgency, certainly not the U.S. military. We all expected to knock off Saddam Hussein and his elite Republican Guard and then head home in time for the July 4 celebrations. That's why, when I deployed to Iraq in 2003, I traveled throughout the country in a standard canvas humvee with no special armor. Nor did I have any special body vest or protection.
I thought nothing of this at the time and still don't. My team went as far north as Baghdad, but we were situated mainly south of the Sunni Triangle, in predominantly Shiite Iraq. Throughout our entire time there, the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators. We were well prepared for the threat as it then existed and as we understood it.
But when my old Marine Corps reserve unit redeployed to Iraq in September, it did so with fully armored vehicles, new sappy plated vests and special goggles--all designed to protect against shrapnel and improvised explosive devices. That's because the unit was deploying to Fallujah, and the threat there was different from what we had faced in southern, Shiite Iraq.
This type of change and adaptation has occurred in all wars from time immemorial. It reflects not poor planning but the unpredictable nature of war. That's why the Defense Department has been moving quickly to up-armor its humvees, producing nearly 400 such vehicles a month, up from 30 a month in August 2003, according to Army Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb.
The U.S. military ultimately wants 8,100 up-armored humvees versus the nearly 6,000 such vehicles that it has currently, Gen. Whitcomb told reporters last week. Moreover, according to the Army vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the military long ago embarked on a "Manhattan-like project" to remotely jam IEDs with radio sensors.
If you're an American soldier or Marine whose life is on the line now, clearly that's not good enough. On the other hand, it simply isn't true that U.S. military leaders have callously ignored the troops' request for up-armored vehicles and other protective equipment. In fact, most of our troops in Iraq have up-armored vehicles, and units there take force protection quite seriously.
Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that's what military transformation--a Rumsfeld priority--is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.
Example: When the Army decided last winter to cancel development of its Cold War relic Comanche helicopter, Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, immediately took to the barricades. "It simply doesn't make sense to pull the plug on the Comanche," Mr. Dodd said. "Obviously, this will not be an easy fight, but I intend to work with other members of the Connecticut congressional delegation to seek to retain the Comanche as part of our military arsenal."
It didn't seem to matter to Mr. Dodd that the Comanche was a $39-billion boondoggle that the Army didn't want because the aircraft isn't suitable for 21st-century urban warfare. Nor did Mr. Dodd seem to care that much of the displaced Comanche money would be used to equip existing Army helicopters with new countermeasure systems necessary to neutralize the ubiquitous threat posed by rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, and man-portable air-defense systems, all of which are omnipresent in Iraq.
Yet Mr. Dodd, who has never been a champion of big defense budgets, now has the chutzpah to lecture Mr. Rumsfeld about the need to "spare no expense to ensure the safety of our troops, particularly as they confront a hostile insurgency and roadside bombs throughout Iraq." Mr. Dodd says Mr. Rumsfeld's response to Spec. Wilson--"You go to war with the Army you have"--is "utterly unacceptable. Mr. Secretary," he writes, "our troops go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide."
Quite true--and Mr.. Dodd is one of those leaders.
Nor does the entire hullabaloo concerning up-armored humvees show, as some commentators contest, that U.S. troops lack confidence in their military and civilian leaders. The reality is that troop morale is consistently high.
Of course, American soldiers and Marines yearn to come home; it is not in our nature to colonize or occupy a country. By the same token, however, most U.S. troops take understandable pride in a job well done. They are pleased to have the historic chance to serve and to practice, in a real-world operation, that which they have been training for all these many years. That's why re-enlistment rates are high.
As U.S. Central Commander Gen. John Abizaid told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sept. 26: "The constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply does not square with the facts on the ground." In fact, the vast majority of Iraq is not a war zone; it is peaceful, tranquil and doing surprisingly well. I refer specifically to the Shiite south. The Kurdish north, too, is doing relatively well, despite the recent upsurge of violence in Mosul.
"So is this fight in the Middle East worth fighting?" the general asked Mr. Russert. "Absolutely," he said. "In my mind, and in the minds of our young people that are out here fighting and sacrificing, it's absolutely worth it."
Of course you won't hear any of this in many news articles or broadcasts. The media long ago decided that its job was to put a negative slant on all things Iraq. Truth is, as they say, the first casualty of war.
Mr. Guardiano is an Arlington, Va.-based journalist who served in Iraq in 2003 as a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps' Fourth Civil Affairs Group.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Why I Am Mad at Democrats
For forcing me to root for Jerry Falwell on television! Grrrr! To be honest, I can barely make it through the 700 Club (although they have very good reporting from the Middle East). I think that Pat Robertson is a brilliant writer, but his show makes me cringe--not because of his belive in Jesus the Christ, but because he is soooo corny and I cringe at how that must turn people off.
But the ACLU (see below in X Marks the Spot) is creating this culture war--not Bush.
But the ACLU (see below in X Marks the Spot) is creating this culture war--not Bush.
About.com
I've discovered some of the great things at About.com--especially how put a lot of great information in one place. Here is their 25 funniest quotes of 2004:
#25: "Well, there was no sex for 14 days." —California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on getting the cold shoulder from his wife after backing President George W. Bush at the Republican Convention
#24: "If I could only go through the ducts and leap out onstage in a cape — that's my dream." —Ralph Nader, on crashing the presidential debates
#23: "The only politician in America I know with a mandate is Jim McGreevey." —Democratic strategist James Carville
#22: "It's been a little tough to prepare for the debates, because he keeps changing his positions, especially on the war. I think he could spend 90 minutes debating himself." —President Bush, on Sen. John Kerry
#21: "The big hang-up was George Bush wanted to get life lines, you know, so he could call somebody." —Sen. John Kerry, on negotiations over the presidential debates, during an appearance on "Live With Regis and Kelly."
#20: "I think it was his battery. I think tomorrow, before the debate, John Kerry ought to pat him down." —Sen. John Edwards, after Jay Leno asked him about Bush's mystery bulge during the first presidential debate, which some speculated might have been a radio transmitter to feed him answers through an earpiece
#19: "Is he hot? Yeah. Is he hung? Yeah. Is he [she waved her hand to suggest bisexual]? Not unless you can give a better [she mimicked eating a banana] than me." —Court TV's Kimberly Newsom, at a gay rights fundraiser, on her husband, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
#18: "Can't you see it now? Cheney saying, 'You need me on that wall! You need me on that wall!' And me saying, 'You can't handle the truth!'" —Sen. John Edwards, after "Regis & Kelly" host Kelly Ripa suggested Tom Cruise could play Edwards in a movie of the 2004 campaign
#17: "I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up. And some would say maybe me more so than others." —Sen. John Kerry, during the third presidential debate
#16: "This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?" —Sen. Zell Miller, attacking Sen. John Kerry in his GOP convention speech
#15: "Well, here's an update. Since the election, that gay couple I knew in the red states? They've moved back to the blue states." —Sen.-elect Barack Obama, joking about his Democratic Convention speech, in which he said that "we coach Little League in the blue states and we have some gay friends in the red states"
#14: "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants." —Michael Moore
#13: "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show." —Jon Stewart, bitchslapping Tucker Carlson during an interview on CNN's "Crossfire"
#11: "They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, 'I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow.'" —Jon Stewart, on his sniping match with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on "Crossfire"
#11: "Kerry said about Tora Bora, 'I think we've been smart. I think administration leadership has done well, and we are on the right track.' End quote. All I can say is that I am George W. Bush, and I approve of that message." —President Bush
#10: "People tell me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, and his great hair. I say to them, 'How do you think I got the job?'" —Vice President Dick Cheney
#9: "I had hoped to be back here this week under different circumstances, running for re-election. But you know the old saying: you win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category. I didn't come here tonight to talk about the past. After all, I don't want you to think I lie awake at night counting and recounting sheep. I prefer to focus on the future because I know from my own experience that America is a land of opportunity, where every little boy and girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote." —Former Vice President Al Gore, at the Democratic Convention
#8: "If Barbara gets her hands on John Kerry, he might get another Purple Heart." —Former President Bush, on the political attacks on his son
#7: "It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy," he said. "I mean, look what I've done for the book publishing industry. You've heard some of the titles. 'Big Lies,' 'The Lies of George W. Bush,' 'The Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' I'd like to tell you I've read each of these books, but that'd be a lie." —President Bush, at the White House Correspondents Dinner
#6: "I forgot out there on the stage to thank my cast. So if I could do that now, I want to thank Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. I thought the love scene between Cheney and Rumsfeld brought a tear to my eye." —Michael Moore, after winning the top prize at the Cannes film festival for his documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11"
#5: "I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering." —Rev. Al Sharpton
#4: "The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions — for tax cuts and against them, for NAFTA and against NAFTA, for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act, in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." —President Bush
#3: "Did the training wheels fall off?" —Sen. John Kerry, after being told by reporters that President Bush took a tumble during a bike ride
#2: "To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say, Don't be economic girlie men!" —California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, at the Republican convention
#1: "I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?" —Sen. John McCain
~Compiled by Daniel Kurtzman
Vast Western Conspiracy
Right out of the Clintonista playbook, we have Kojo Annan is calling the investigation into the disappearance of some $20,000,000,000 dollars a (are you sitting down?): a "witch hunt."
Tip from Drudge.
Tip from Drudge.
Peterson Verdict
I didn't want to do a post about this until I read this EXCELLENT piece on WorldNetDaily about how emotions have too much play in our justice system. Here's a snippet:
The jury is now deciding Scott's fate. Allegedly to help, the jury was subjected to what has to be the most ludicrous, and sad, aspect of the law. Prosecution and defense are each allowed to address the jury to tell how they "feel" about the crime, how they "feel" about the victims, how they "feel" about the accused.Read the rest here.
Who cares?
It was exhausting and demeaning to read of the tearful accounts of lovely memories of Laci by her friends and family, and insulting to hear from Scott's side that he was a terrific little boy who saved a bunny's life and helped old people.
Reporters say the purpose is to affect the emotions of the jurors and to influence their decisions.
When did emotion become part of a legal decision? Why should it be? Facts speak for themselves. Emotions can excuse anything. I thought that justice was blind – to make fair and, if you'll excuse the redundancy, "just" decisions.
We hear it after every grisly murder or after umpteen bodies are discovered. Reporters swarm to neighbors and friends for a reaction about the accused. The answers are always the same.
"We got along great."
"He couldn't have done it."
"He was such a nice kid – never a problem."
Uh-huh.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Democrats: Sensor Free Political Speech
How many more examples do we need to demonstrate that democrats find free speech to be very dangerous to their cause. First its "hate speech," then they want to regulate bloggers, NOW they want to tell vendors what kind of pictures they can show because it HURTS DEMOCRATS FEELINGS!
Boo-fucking-hoo!
Boo-fucking-hoo!
This Is Rich!
The New York Times has officially left orbit; these people continue to make fools of themselves. Today we have a front-page article discussing the "drawbacks" of our government using disinformation as a tactic and how it threatens our credibility.
Who are they kidding here? Even if there wasn't a purposeful attempt by the Pentagon, the New York Times is happy to fill its papers with misinformation every day!
Who are they kidding here? Even if there wasn't a purposeful attempt by the Pentagon, the New York Times is happy to fill its papers with misinformation every day!
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Numbers
Two weeks ago, we discovered that the military duped CNN into thinking the strike on Fallujah began a month before it really did. Before that, we discovered that more than 10,000 special forces troops infultrated Iraq months before the war began.
This raises a serious question: Are there REALLY only 130,000 troops in Iraq? Or is that what we want our enemies (Syria/Iran) to think? Could we not have black operations being undertaken by special forces in those countries as we speak?
People tend to believe that everything that happens in the world is on television or known to some politician or pundit. Look at the recent poisoning of the Ukrainian opposition leader by the freakin' KGB!!
This is what I believe:
1. There are at least 30,000 more troops in Iraq than the media knows about. This just makes sense. You want the enemy to believe that your forces are "stretched beyond belief" so that if they make a provacative move you cannot respond. No endeavor would bring us to that point with only 130,000 troops in one place and 10,000 in another when we have 435,000 ACTIVE DUTY (that does not include reserves and national guard).
2. We have a large number of troops operating in Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. This is nothing new and not beyond past alliances. Remember, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were our secret allies against the Soviet Union during the Afghanistan war. The US and Saudia Arabia split the cost of the CIA operation with the Mujahadeen with Pakistan operating as the middleman for the transactions.
3. We know where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are and are waiting until after the elections in Iraq to make the announcement that they are in Syria and were discovered by our special forces operations there (Bush wanted better intelligence than what Tenet gave him; we will have human intelligence on this).
4. The US is allowing minor attacks to take place to win over the Iraqis. I believe that fewer and fewer Iraqis feel they are under occupation with the Sunni (Saddam loyalists) and foreigners slaughtering Iraqis. They are seeing now that the enemy of the US is their enemy as well.
That's my attempt at ESP. What do you think?
This raises a serious question: Are there REALLY only 130,000 troops in Iraq? Or is that what we want our enemies (Syria/Iran) to think? Could we not have black operations being undertaken by special forces in those countries as we speak?
People tend to believe that everything that happens in the world is on television or known to some politician or pundit. Look at the recent poisoning of the Ukrainian opposition leader by the freakin' KGB!!
This is what I believe:
1. There are at least 30,000 more troops in Iraq than the media knows about. This just makes sense. You want the enemy to believe that your forces are "stretched beyond belief" so that if they make a provacative move you cannot respond. No endeavor would bring us to that point with only 130,000 troops in one place and 10,000 in another when we have 435,000 ACTIVE DUTY (that does not include reserves and national guard).
2. We have a large number of troops operating in Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. This is nothing new and not beyond past alliances. Remember, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were our secret allies against the Soviet Union during the Afghanistan war. The US and Saudia Arabia split the cost of the CIA operation with the Mujahadeen with Pakistan operating as the middleman for the transactions.
3. We know where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are and are waiting until after the elections in Iraq to make the announcement that they are in Syria and were discovered by our special forces operations there (Bush wanted better intelligence than what Tenet gave him; we will have human intelligence on this).
4. The US is allowing minor attacks to take place to win over the Iraqis. I believe that fewer and fewer Iraqis feel they are under occupation with the Sunni (Saddam loyalists) and foreigners slaughtering Iraqis. They are seeing now that the enemy of the US is their enemy as well.
That's my attempt at ESP. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
