"What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president."
Nice!!
Full Article
I was LMAO when I read this post at wuzzadem. You really need to check this out. Addresses the absudity of the trendiness of online and emerging technologies to a T.
It seems that as usual Democrats are not the ones with their fingers on the pulose of Americans contrary to their own comments and suggestions that this is so. I submit to you the latest poll numbers from this headliner on the Drudge Report.
Most Americans "Want to Win In Iraq"
with that sharply contrasting what Gallup found Here
Wonder which is more accurate? Hmmmm...
Well, let me be the next to join the throng of conservative bloggers who DON'T think the new 1/2 hour news hour promo clip is the least bit funny. I won't go so far as wuzzadem and say the entire thing is going to suck before actually watching it on Sunday. But, that clip sure does suck out loud. It is so bad there was likely a disturbance in the force... You know, the sound of thousands of conservatives crying at the prospect of giving anymore ammunition to the nutroots. If the rest of the show is as bad it will end up being a piece of Colbert skit next week, only that will actually be funny. How's that for a Brain Bender. A liberal mocking a serious conservative news program, pretending to report on how funny a non-funny, non-entertaining conservative comedy is, as a part of a skit. AAAooowwwww, my brain hurts!
This comment from Hog On Ice kinda says it all...
Without exception, the best humorists in the conservative Blogosphere say this show reeks. That's not coincidence. That's not jealousy. All of us wanted this to succeed, and we are only too happy to praise Greg Gutfeld. We criticize the show because it sucks and represents a huge missed opportunity, and because it makes us look bad because we're conservative.
He says earlier in his post that we (conservatives) need to not be as good or sorta' good to compete with Stewart and Colbert. Why? Because as he rightly points out the odds are stacked against us to begin with. I suggest reading the whole thing from the above link bearing his name.
...and if you don't believe us, smell for yourself below.
I have talked at length in past posts about our society's back is front, right is wrong, etc... turn for the worst in the last 3 decades. But I had to post about this one more time. In reading an article today on CBS's website about Tim Hardaway's phone interview, I realised something shocking. In American pop culture it is no longer acceptable to abhor homosexual behavior. No, I did not say homosexuals (meaning the actual people) although that is even more taboo. No, I said and meant that if you come out against men having sexual relationships with other men and women with other women you are homophobic & a bigot. Now lets examine those two words for a moment shall we? According to ReligousTolerance.org...
The word "homophobia" was invented by George Weinbert who defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." It grew to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior."
According to Wikipedia though, which is usually pretty accurate it has taken on a half a dozen different meanings,
Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.
So really what they are saying is that you can call someone a homophobe for something as simple as taking a gay guys parking space, or as complex as oh, I don't know, saying you wouldn't want a gay team mate changing & showering with you in a locker room.
Next the oft coined word "Bigot" or "Bigotry" again according to Wikipedia,
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr(sound of brakes screeching).
Hold up one minute. If we accept this definition then we also have to look at the word "intolerant". Another term bandied about by those who use the word bigot and homophobe a lot. Let's hear Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" shall we?
He states that among other things,
In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.
If you take that last part and substitute the word Homosexuality for the word Nazism and the word Christendom for the word Germany (not that I am comparing Christians to Germans by any means) it is easy to see why a reasonable person who, simply but vehemently, disagrees with the homosexual life style and its effect on our society might take offense to being called a homophobe and/or a bigot because they are not tolerant of a person or group's destructive and harmful behavior. Or maybe they just feel that in certain situations said behavior might be inappropriate and subject to moral scrutiny.
Lets take Mr. Hardaway's comment about not wanting a homosexual team mate in his locker room. If you were a woman basketball player would you want a man showering with you and watching you undress? Well I suppose it would depend on the man and on you but generally I think the answer would be no because... wait for it... it would be inappropriate. Why? There is a privacy issue where sexual attraction is involved and whether you are a man or a woman you should have the basic right to not be stared at and ogled while you undress and shower. Actually I will go farther, you should not even have to worry about the possibility of being ogled while undressing or showering. In my mind being in the locker room with a homosexual is like being in the locker room with someone of the opposite sex... Not cool!
So to bring this all back around to my original point, those who throw around terms like Bigot, Homophobe and Intolerance should take a step back and look at the larger picture. It may just be that your Intolerant attitude towards Intolerance is itself bigoted and Intolerable!
"If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine."
Full Article
Iraq to close borders with Iran and Syria (for 72 hours).
Let's see if they follow through. I am betting this will coincide with the kicking of some serious butt by our military as they did not specify when the 72 hours would start or end.
Stay Tuned!
The fight by Muslims to close down a repair of the bridge that non-Muslims use to enter the temple mount has been a page 6 story at best. But the significance to Christians and Jews is front page news. So why did the Mayor of Jerusalem suspend repairs and why are Muslims so angry. Well, you won't hear this in the MSM but from the mouths of Muslims themselves, they are afraid. Afraid that repairs to the bridge may uncover some evidence that proves Israels right to the temple mount prior to the arrival of the Muslims in Jerusalem and the building of Al-Aqsa. You see one of the most ridiculous Muslim claims other than denying the Holocaust is there assertion that the Jews have no inherent right to the Holy Land. No, not that they can't have it back, or that they haven't earned it. No, they believe rather blindly that contrary to thousands of years of written history the Israelites were just plain never there to begin with.
So why is this such an issue over the rebuilding of a bridge? Well, simply put, in Jerusalem you need and Archaeological permit to do any kind of construction work on or near a sight like this even if you have no intent to search for any artifacts. Just the fact that you might find one while moving the earth needed to build whatever it is stands as enough of a need that Israel's government has this law. In any event, the Muslims being ever distrusting of Jewish motives, have taken the position that Jews are doing this renovation as a guise for proving the existence of a B.C. Jewish temple on that site. Some Muslims claim however that the re-construction of the bridge in question, which is well outside the area Muslims consider Holy Ground is defiling the ground and object on that basis alone. This is sort of disingenuous though when you consider that barely 6 years ago Muslims ravaged with bulldozers, the area within the boundaries they say they want to protect despite the deep and very vocal objections of Jewish leaders.
This Article covers the edges of it, but I would suggest a comprehensive Google search if you want the entire story.
Blogs -4- Bauer touches on it with a fairly good Dennis Miller Parody . But its really more than that. Fox has gone completely off the deep end into the realm of Fairies and Fantasy land... and no I don't mean the 10:00 o'clock news. Last season they at least tried to mask their whimpification of Bauer and friends by keeping a little truth in reality on board for the ride. This season is among other things an Islamo-Love fest rivaled only by the quarterly CAIR, "I'm Good Enough, Radical Enough, & Praise Be To Allah, My 13th Wife Likes Me" conference. 99.5% of the characters this season have a more than obvious liberal bent to them and what is worse yet, they are being portrayed as mainstream while the only two on the show with any conservative tendencies at all, Peter Mac Nichol and Powers Booth, are portrayed as extremest ideologues who are bent on imprisoning Americans and denying people their rights. So this adds yet another element, which is basically that they have, by searching the archives of letterman's Top 10 list for the last 6 years and digging deep into the Sheehan articles on the Huffington Post, come up with what a conservative really is and used that as a template for these characters. Not only is it offensive, its just flat out lame. From a guy who has watched every single season of 24, I am half tempted to just forget the rest of the of it and be content to wait until Tuesday where there is (for the time being anyway) still a half way decent Pro-American show on (NCIS) to get my fix. Honestly, if I were not to have had the history already with this show and had just turned it on for the first time last night not only would I have never watched again, I would have put it in the same category with Boston Public, Law & Order(s), Crossing Jordan, etc... and bagged on anyone who said they watched it.
It was nice while it lasted, but I have to say goodbye to 24 I'm afraid, and say, in the immortal words of some eeeviiilll vilan out there that Jack may have eaten for lunch 3 seasons ago, but now would not have the will to hurt because of all the emotional damage done to him by our oppressive government's abuse of human rights and lack of a good dental plan... "I Must Kill You Now"
______________________________________________
Update: 02/07/07
I almost forgot to mention the plot. Yes folks it now seems that America and its Imperialist corporations are responsible for terrorism. It was the greed and short-sightedness of evil American white men that allowed Imhotep to get his hands on the suitcase nukes to begin with. Oh, and be sure not to miss the fact that they make the go between, who is not responsible but complicit, a Brit either. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this entire season is a an attempt at a bad metaphor for The Us and Britan's Iraq and terrorism policies respectively. When you really think about it the writers must think the majority of us are brain dead to have written such a massive piece of dung. I am insulted
Rudy in 08?
So would you? If it were between him and Hillary? Him and Edwards? I am speaking to moderate democrats as well, cuz while Rudi is a hawk on defense, he may as well be a log cabin repulican member of NOW for all he cares about conservative social policy. He is a bit of an enigma to me with his views bouncing from conservative to liberal back and forth so many times that I am not really sure where he stands morally in his own life. I don't know about you but that matters to me. A man's business is his business and everything, but it scares me to think of having another clintoonesque president for lack of a better term. On the whole though I like him, he "seems" to have his head on semi-straight and apart from his liberal stance on Gay Marriage/Rights and Abortion seems also to understand the argument, why people oppose those things and seems to believe that there is a valid argument unlike those on the left who sware by those things like they are written in stone or something. Oh well, I suppose more time will tell though. I am interested in what all of you think. All comments are welcome!
I have been following this debate over the last two or three years and especially since Al Gore declared the coming Global Apocalypse in "An Inconvenient Truth". Two things have occurred to me: One is that based on the gobs and gobs of money involved on both sides, I trust nobody. Two is that faith definitely comes into play here, more than a lot of people realise. Honestly... when you think about it, it takes a very vain, self important world view to say, "I affect the world's climate", or even, "I can prevent Climate Change", for that matter. Now I'll grant you that a dozen or so Nuclear weapons certainly could, but me thinks, not much else. Yes we are to be good stewards of this earth and respect that great gift. But psychologically I believe that the Global Warming debate turns on a persons personal Faith in God, and not so much how they feel about the science. Evidence of that is found in people from either side who will ignore what appears to be solid evidence because it does not fit their worldview. I mean think about it for a moment, how could someone who has no faith in a Creator possibly believe that the fate of the earth is in any but their own hands. Conversely, how then could someone with a very deep faith in God and a knowledge of how He operates in the world possibly come to the conclusion that they(instead of God) are causing anything that happens on a global scale or that they have any say in the matter ultimately whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I mean there were warming and cooling trends globally in the past, there are now, and there will be again. But as Timothy Ball from the Canada Free Press quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen to say in this article , "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." This is the case in too many "studies" bent on proving one point or the other. No wonder why God said that you cannot serve Him (Truth) and Money both as masters simultaneously. Reality gets lost under all the dollar bills flying back and forth.
Whether it is faith, worldview or politics, from what I can see one thing is clear... Sound science is not the major force influencing this debate.
"You want to protect the borders, cut taxes, fight Islamic fascists and put up Ten Commandments monuments? Get her name. Find out about Patrick Fitzgerald what we'd know if he were Ken Starr. If you won't defend your own champions, conservatives, then don't sit back and wonder why so few people want to be your champions. "
Full Article
Barak Obama says "The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact" in his memoirs this year. This intruiged me so that I decided to do some research and confirm brother Obama's claims if I could. Here is what I found:
Liberals are for Multiculturalism in America which essentially says that any race group should be allowed to form subcultures over and above any culture of a nation state in which they live. Simply put they believe that to make America stronger we need less national unity, patriotism and assimilation of immigrants as opposed to the exact opposite lesson taught us by our founders who from many, made one by unifying, and finding a common culture as American's.
Liberals are against Capital Punishment for murderers, but for the killing of innocent children on the notion that the former is cruel and unusual and the latter is justified by a combination of some intangible age of viability and a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Likely the most unreasonable argument I have ever heard, 99% of women have a choice when they flirt, a choice when they invite a man home with them, a choice to undress, and a choice to make when they allow a man inside them... By the time of conception all of the relevant and important "choices" should have already been made. For those who have been forcibly made pregnant through rape this does not apply. But what does however is the fact that life begins at conception, period. Choice can be argued, but to argue that there are not clear and dyer implications to that "choice" is neither reasonable nor factual.
Liberals believe in Affirmative Action as a means to equality. When in fact the implimentation of AA at its core would see colleges, businesses, etc.. use racial quotas to ensure said equality. In other words, denying certain students or applicants solely on the basis of race so that you can accept or hire others based on race as well. Discriminating as a means to end discrimination, does not sound like a very reasonable argument to me.
and last but certainly not least an op-ed pice that kind of says it all... Hate Speech On The Left
The Iranian ambassador to Baghdad explained among other things, why exactly his country had military and security personnel in Iraq. Or at least , he tried to explain it. The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi stated that his country's security personnel were only there to meet with Iraqi officials to discuss how they might cooperate in the future. Mr. Qumi also openly admitted that Iran plans to build a bank in the center of Baghdad to spark and/or improve Iran's ability to "Trade" with Iraq.
If you ask me, and you didn't, Iran has no other agenda than to claim as much power and authority in Iraq as it can. In addition their sole mission is also to disrupt coalition forces and make it impossible for the US to stabilize Iraq. I for one am happy that our President authorized force against Iran's agents inside Iraq. Now if we could only do that with our own borders, in our own country.
By teh way, I find it rather expected, funny and obvious that the NYT was the one to break this story in print. A paper so bent on portraying the war in a bad light, that it would print a story confirming Iranian involvement in Iraq just for another opportunity to throw a jab at the Bush administration. Classic!
Full Story
well, "Dude". At least as far as I can tell anyway. I did however read an interesting article today from a Yahoo blog that left me chuckling a little and thinking that my girlfriend (and probably any girl who is interested in understanding how men relate to one another) should read. It is by a gent named David Zinczenko whom I have never heard of before. But I think you all will find his insights entertaining at the very least and maybe helpful at most.
The Secret Language Of Men
"Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously. "
Entire Article
| Your Biblical Name Is... |
You will not live to see the end of times. |
