If there's one dove in the Bush administration, it's Colin Powell. His quote regarding Iraq has become quite famous: You break it you own it.
That's why I was really surprised to hear Powell give a speech directed at the Ukraine and say stuff like:
"[The Ukraine needs] to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not."
-How patronizing...
"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud,"
-Wait! Weren't criticisms of voters being threatened directed at people within the Ukrainian government?
"We cannot accept this result as legitimate, because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse"
-Powell knows darn well he, along with the entire country, would give the rest of the world the finger if they tried to impose "international standards" on our elections. Nothing says "we defy another country's sovereignty" more than not accepting election results.
Sure the United States would be better off if the Ukrainians opted for Viktor Yushchenko over Viktor Yanukovych.
Questioning your own country's election results are bad enough. What Powel is doing here is giving validity to the argument that United States is this big Evil Empire. It's this type of foreitn policy that, in some areas, gives bin Laden a higher approval rating than Bush.
Please people! LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
George W. Bush - The Tyrant
Who are these idiots kidding?
link
.
Behold. The tyrant!
One such idiot who published a story about the *shocking* billboard claims that it is "raising eyebrows among progressives". Right.... This is a site that has banners comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Hitler and I'm supposed to believe they know what a "progressive" is? This is just too funny.
Here's what these same idiots were saying in 2000.
-Bush stole the election (ala the Grinch that stole Christmas)
-Bush lost the popular vote
-Bush is a minority president
-Bush will never be re elected
-Gore had more votes than any candidate in US history
These same idiots can't make those claims anymore since
-Bush flat out won this election
-Bush is the first majority president in 16 years
-Bush was re elected
-Bush got more votes than any US candidate
Now that they can't say anything about Bush, they are saying Americans are idiots because they voted for Bush.
Can anyone imagine the gloating these irrational idiots would be doing if Kerry won? It's absolutely terrifying to think about.
link
.
Behold. The tyrant!
One such idiot who published a story about the *shocking* billboard claims that it is "raising eyebrows among progressives". Right.... This is a site that has banners comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Hitler and I'm supposed to believe they know what a "progressive" is? This is just too funny.
Here's what these same idiots were saying in 2000.
-Bush stole the election (ala the Grinch that stole Christmas)
-Bush lost the popular vote
-Bush is a minority president
-Bush will never be re elected
-Gore had more votes than any candidate in US history
These same idiots can't make those claims anymore since
-Bush flat out won this election
-Bush is the first majority president in 16 years
-Bush was re elected
-Bush got more votes than any US candidate
Now that they can't say anything about Bush, they are saying Americans are idiots because they voted for Bush.
Can anyone imagine the gloating these irrational idiots would be doing if Kerry won? It's absolutely terrifying to think about.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Peter Jennings, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the international community
The Peter Jennings' interview with Bill Clinton seems to be generating a lot of buzz. While I did find the "you don't want to go there Peter" amusing, there's something else that Clinton said in the same breath that caught my attention.
Jennings was challenging Clinton on his moral authority, saying he ranked second to last behind Nixon. Here in part is what Clinton said.
"...And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it. When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."
The rest of the transcript.
Maybe I wouldn't have thought too much of it if Clinton didn't remind me of something Kerry said earlier this year:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me see if I can clean up a comment that you made in March that created an awful lot of controversy and stir. "I have met more leaders who can't go out and say it publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy'--things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute."
The Washington Times added this: "Although Mr. Kerry indicated that he had met in person with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, he has made no official trips abroad in the past two years. Within the United States, he has had the chance to meet with only one foreign leader since the beginning of last year, according to a review of his travel schedule."
Specifically, which foreign leaders have you met with who told you that you should beat George Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, first of all, that is an inaccurate assessment of how I might or where I might be able to meet or talk to a foreign leader, number one.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have talked to foreign leaders who told you...
SEN. KERRY: Number--Tim, what I said is true. I mean, you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader. There are plenty of places to meet people without traveling abroad. Number two, I'm under no obligation--I would be stupid if I were to sit here and start saying, "Well, so-and-so told me this," because they have dealings with this administration. This administration doesn't talk about its private conversations, and nor will I. I invite you, I invite The Washington Times editorial, go to European, go to foreign capitals, travel in the world. Talk to any American businessman who has been abroad, talk to any of our colleagues who've traveled abroad, and the conversations they've had. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally--and polls have shown this--as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked.
MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you...
SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.
The rest of the transcript.
Gosh. Where to begin. I think I can speak for most of America when I say I'm concerned about the amount of "closed door meetings" that Bush is involved with and the lack of time Bush has been available to the folks.
Obviously, Kerry is not one of those people.
I think the privacy Bush has had while in office are not preferable, but certainly understandable. Kerry, on the other hand, basically told Russert, "Bush can have secret meetings involving the security of the United States. So in return, it's only fair that I can meet with anonymous foreign leaders in private who are cheering for me to beat Bush."
Maybe I'm taking his words out of context, but in light of what Kerry said here, how could anyone think they'd be getting a more open and accountable administration under Kerry? It's completely absurd!
In regard to Clinton, I'll say this: As President, your obligation was to the American people. To invoke support by referring people to the UN's ovation is flat out wrong. American demands a level of accountability in its leaders that foreign leaders don't even begin to understand. I think you gravely mistook international support with international defiance to a much higher code of ethics that has been ingrained in American politics.
To both Kerry and Clinton, I'll say this: Congratulations, you just won a foreign popularity contest because foreign leaders who possess a tacit defiance to the United States feel more comfortable in confiding in you.
Jennings was challenging Clinton on his moral authority, saying he ranked second to last behind Nixon. Here in part is what Clinton said.
"...And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it. When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."
The rest of the transcript.
Maybe I wouldn't have thought too much of it if Clinton didn't remind me of something Kerry said earlier this year:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me see if I can clean up a comment that you made in March that created an awful lot of controversy and stir. "I have met more leaders who can't go out and say it publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy'--things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute."
The Washington Times added this: "Although Mr. Kerry indicated that he had met in person with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, he has made no official trips abroad in the past two years. Within the United States, he has had the chance to meet with only one foreign leader since the beginning of last year, according to a review of his travel schedule."
Specifically, which foreign leaders have you met with who told you that you should beat George Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, first of all, that is an inaccurate assessment of how I might or where I might be able to meet or talk to a foreign leader, number one.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have talked to foreign leaders who told you...
SEN. KERRY: Number--Tim, what I said is true. I mean, you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader. There are plenty of places to meet people without traveling abroad. Number two, I'm under no obligation--I would be stupid if I were to sit here and start saying, "Well, so-and-so told me this," because they have dealings with this administration. This administration doesn't talk about its private conversations, and nor will I. I invite you, I invite The Washington Times editorial, go to European, go to foreign capitals, travel in the world. Talk to any American businessman who has been abroad, talk to any of our colleagues who've traveled abroad, and the conversations they've had. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally--and polls have shown this--as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked.
MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you...
SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.
The rest of the transcript.
Gosh. Where to begin. I think I can speak for most of America when I say I'm concerned about the amount of "closed door meetings" that Bush is involved with and the lack of time Bush has been available to the folks.
Obviously, Kerry is not one of those people.
I think the privacy Bush has had while in office are not preferable, but certainly understandable. Kerry, on the other hand, basically told Russert, "Bush can have secret meetings involving the security of the United States. So in return, it's only fair that I can meet with anonymous foreign leaders in private who are cheering for me to beat Bush."
Maybe I'm taking his words out of context, but in light of what Kerry said here, how could anyone think they'd be getting a more open and accountable administration under Kerry? It's completely absurd!
In regard to Clinton, I'll say this: As President, your obligation was to the American people. To invoke support by referring people to the UN's ovation is flat out wrong. American demands a level of accountability in its leaders that foreign leaders don't even begin to understand. I think you gravely mistook international support with international defiance to a much higher code of ethics that has been ingrained in American politics.
To both Kerry and Clinton, I'll say this: Congratulations, you just won a foreign popularity contest because foreign leaders who possess a tacit defiance to the United States feel more comfortable in confiding in you.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
MPAA hops on the sue-em-all bandwagon
For about a year now the RIAA, which represents recording artists, has launched a sue-em-all campaign against 1 in 5 Americans (that based on the fact that there are an estimated 60 million file swappers and roughly 5 times that many Americans). So the RIAA feels completely justified in seeking a few thousand dollars from each of these awful file swappers. The status quo says that the RIAA can seek up to $150,000 for each copyrighted song a P2Per has on their computer.
Some math: 60 million p2pers X 150,000 per copyrighted song X 500 songs (rough estimate of the number of songs a p2per has) = $4,500,000,000,000,000. Dude! I don't even know how to read that number.
Something like forty-five hundred trillion dollars.
Yes, that's the "damages" the RIAA is justified in seeking in the eyes of the law, and I'm sure they deserve every penny of it.
But in the RIAA's infinite grace and wisdom, they usually offer each individual they sue a merciful out-of-court settlement of a few thousand dollars. Thank goodness for checks and balances! (Hope you caught the sarcasm there).
So far they've managed to shake down 5,000 people.
So anyhoo, the MPAA has hopped on this bandwagon. I guess they have found the wonderful PR benefits of suing your customers. But here's the twist: In a thinking-outside-the-box move which seems woefully rare by industries that are covered by the colossal umbrella of protection that copyright holders are granted, the MPAA has decided to tell our mummies and daddies. How mature.
link
Somehow, the RIAA is planning on installing software on people's computer and that will hunt for copyright software and encourage the user to delete it.
Supposedly Section 512(f) of the DMCA of 1998 forbids intimidating people if the accuser knows the person is not guilty and it also forbids anyone from deleting files in which copyrights have not been infringed. If these rules are violated, the accused person can seek damages.
Lets hope we can sick section 512(f) on the derrieres of the MPAA.
Some math: 60 million p2pers X 150,000 per copyrighted song X 500 songs (rough estimate of the number of songs a p2per has) = $4,500,000,000,000,000. Dude! I don't even know how to read that number.
Something like forty-five hundred trillion dollars.
Yes, that's the "damages" the RIAA is justified in seeking in the eyes of the law, and I'm sure they deserve every penny of it.
But in the RIAA's infinite grace and wisdom, they usually offer each individual they sue a merciful out-of-court settlement of a few thousand dollars. Thank goodness for checks and balances! (Hope you caught the sarcasm there).
So far they've managed to shake down 5,000 people.
So anyhoo, the MPAA has hopped on this bandwagon. I guess they have found the wonderful PR benefits of suing your customers. But here's the twist: In a thinking-outside-the-box move which seems woefully rare by industries that are covered by the colossal umbrella of protection that copyright holders are granted, the MPAA has decided to tell our mummies and daddies. How mature.
link
Somehow, the RIAA is planning on installing software on people's computer and that will hunt for copyright software and encourage the user to delete it.
Supposedly Section 512(f) of the DMCA of 1998 forbids intimidating people if the accuser knows the person is not guilty and it also forbids anyone from deleting files in which copyrights have not been infringed. If these rules are violated, the accused person can seek damages.
Lets hope we can sick section 512(f) on the derrieres of the MPAA.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Attack on Fallujah
A few people are questioning the timing of the 2004 elections and the can of whoop A we opened up on Fallujah.
And to them I would say, "Only an ignorant person didn't see this coming. Go easy on the anti-Bush propaganda, and instead, focus more on finding out what's going on in the world."
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
The Democrats Strike Back
Who knows if the Clarence Thomas thing is legit, but today, the Democrats are tapping Howard Dean to be the chairman of the DNC!
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
For your listening and viewing pleasure, I give you the Howard Dean Remix.
Is this guy Presidential material? Even the Democrats realized the answer to that was a resounding NO.
So why on earth would anyone in their right mind want Howard Dean to head the currently heavily bruised Democratic party?
It's moderation people want. M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.
When Kerry was not bashing Bush (which seems like it took up 90% of his campaigning), he was spending virtually all the remaining time pleading with the folks trying to convince them he wasn't liberal. MODERATION!
The Democrats were supposed to the champions of the middle class. The fact that they're picking Dean means they're clueless when it comes to giving the folks what they want.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
For your listening and viewing pleasure, I give you the Howard Dean Remix.
Is this guy Presidential material? Even the Democrats realized the answer to that was a resounding NO.
So why on earth would anyone in their right mind want Howard Dean to head the currently heavily bruised Democratic party?
It's moderation people want. M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.
When Kerry was not bashing Bush (which seems like it took up 90% of his campaigning), he was spending virtually all the remaining time pleading with the folks trying to convince them he wasn't liberal. MODERATION!
The Democrats were supposed to the champions of the middle class. The fact that they're picking Dean means they're clueless when it comes to giving the folks what they want.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Clarence Thomas to become Chief Justice?
That according to the infamous drudge report.
Err. Wasn't Bush supposed to "reach out to Democrats" in his second term?
If true, this will get a lot of people fired up. Namely, the Democrats.
Err. Wasn't Bush supposed to "reach out to Democrats" in his second term?
If true, this will get a lot of people fired up. Namely, the Democrats.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Exit polls show what I talked about in July
It seems that anyone that's politically active runs by the worlds "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." As if to say, "hello stranger, you hate Bush! Great! You're my new best friend."
-Me, July 04
The exit polls show that 36% of Kerry voters were more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. Only 14% of Bush voters were voting against Kerry. The absolutely enormous spread more than makes up for the inaccuracy of exit polls.
Voting against someone by voting for the "other guy" is very dangerous. What happened to voting for someone because you like what they stand for? Should that not be a prerequisite for voting for the leader of the free world?
-Me, July 04
The exit polls show that 36% of Kerry voters were more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. Only 14% of Bush voters were voting against Kerry. The absolutely enormous spread more than makes up for the inaccuracy of exit polls.
Voting against someone by voting for the "other guy" is very dangerous. What happened to voting for someone because you like what they stand for? Should that not be a prerequisite for voting for the leader of the free world?
Kerry's campaign exposed
I think anyone who was down with Kerry should read this. I'd really like to hear from someone who actually thought Kerry has enough character to be the leader of the free world. Since basically no one reads this blog, I kinda think I'm wasting my time. But still. His first choice for running mate thought Kerry was "out of his mind". What more can you ask for?
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Congrats Bush
Finally, it's over. Now Americans can try to get back the hundreds of millions of hours of sleep that they lost over this.
The "anybody but Bush" crowd never knew what hit them. Hint: Next time endorse a candidate that reflects the interests of America as opposed to the most liberal left wingers out there.
Now that the election is over, lets hurry up and flatten Fallujah.
The "anybody but Bush" crowd never knew what hit them. Hint: Next time endorse a candidate that reflects the interests of America as opposed to the most liberal left wingers out there.
Now that the election is over, lets hurry up and flatten Fallujah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)