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.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Did Bin Laden Just endorse Kerry?
I'm not sure if Bin Laden endorced Kerry or not. I think a quick look at the buzz that's been created online says the answer is in fact yes. I guess my vote would be yes. Either way, the spawn of Hitler is obviously trying to influence the election.
I absolutely love the fact that up until now OBL has only resorted to pleading to the American people in trying to influence the election. That sure beats his voter-altering methods he successfully employed in Spain.
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
--The spawn of Hitler
The world most wanted terrorist is pleading with his sworn enemy -the Americans people. How to respond to such a plea? I think John McCain can answer that one for us Americans:
God may show you mercy. We will not.
I absolutely love the fact that up until now OBL has only resorted to pleading to the American people in trying to influence the election. That sure beats his voter-altering methods he successfully employed in Spain.
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
--The spawn of Hitler
The world most wanted terrorist is pleading with his sworn enemy -the Americans people. How to respond to such a plea? I think John McCain can answer that one for us Americans:
God may show you mercy. We will not.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Clinton KO's Bush and Kerry
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/september96/clinton2_9-23.html
The link is to Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer when he ran against Dole in '96.
Reading ease:
61.4
Grade level:
10.1
Clinton wins big. I guess you could make the case that Jim Lehrer gave him a different style interview, but I doubt that would make up for the difference.
I just have to say this, in the interview, Lehrer brought up a stat that said only 30 percent of America thought Clinton was "honest and truthful". I think Bush AND Kerry would beat him on that record, but back then, no one seemed to care.
Ah, such simpler times back in 96.
The link is to Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer when he ran against Dole in '96.
Reading ease:
61.4
Grade level:
10.1
Clinton wins big. I guess you could make the case that Jim Lehrer gave him a different style interview, but I doubt that would make up for the difference.
I just have to say this, in the interview, Lehrer brought up a stat that said only 30 percent of America thought Clinton was "honest and truthful". I think Bush AND Kerry would beat him on that record, but back then, no one seemed to care.
Ah, such simpler times back in 96.
Bush vs. Kerry
Bad things happen when I have too much free time. When I finally was able to pry myself away from playing Snood, I got this weird idea. Compare the grade level Bush and Kerry's interviews and see if Bush speaks on a lower level. Tim Russert of meet the Press interviewed both guys for quite a while so I chose those two interviews. The Bush transcript, and the Kerry transcript. I tested them using Microsoft Word. It has an analyzer that checks readability and the grade level.
I took out what Russert said and took out the "President Bush:" and the "Sen Kerry:" at the beginning of each paragraph --gotta love the replace feature in Word. Here's what I found.
Readability level (the higher the easier it is to understand)
Bush: 66.1
Kerry: 64.8
Academic grade level
Bush: 7.9
Kerry:7.7
Conclusion: According to the test, Bush was easier to understand and spoke on a higher grade level than Kerry. The difference is ever so slight, but it's certainly measurable. Also, Russert didn't engage Bush on a higher level (grammatically at least) because the scores actually went down when Russert and Bush/Kerry were analyzed together.
What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than I've got too much free time. I guess it could give a black eye to people who feel Bush is this big idiot that can't speak English.
I wonder if Russert interviewed Clinton and how those numbers would pan out....
I took out what Russert said and took out the "President Bush:" and the "Sen Kerry:" at the beginning of each paragraph --gotta love the replace feature in Word. Here's what I found.
Readability level (the higher the easier it is to understand)
Bush: 66.1
Kerry: 64.8
Academic grade level
Bush: 7.9
Kerry:7.7
Conclusion: According to the test, Bush was easier to understand and spoke on a higher grade level than Kerry. The difference is ever so slight, but it's certainly measurable. Also, Russert didn't engage Bush on a higher level (grammatically at least) because the scores actually went down when Russert and Bush/Kerry were analyzed together.
What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than I've got too much free time. I guess it could give a black eye to people who feel Bush is this big idiot that can't speak English.
I wonder if Russert interviewed Clinton and how those numbers would pan out....
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Letter to Media Matters for America
So I write this letter to Media Matters for America. They seem to get really fired up when anyone in the media suggests terrorists would like to see Kerry get elected because there's no "evidence." I provided them with some evidence, but, to date, they have not provided me a response.
Oct, 22:
Media Matters for America
Your site declares there is “a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the claim” that terrorists prefer Kerry over Bush. However, more than a month before you said that, The Washington Times quoted an anonymous intelligence official that says terrorists do prefer Kerry over Bush. Here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm Have you not read it?
Granted, the claim could be politically motivated, so I think you’re justified in saying there’s a lack of obvious evidence. But then you provide, what you call, “evidence” of your own to the contrary.
The evidence you allude to is a video clip of an anonymous, self-proclaimed terrorist saying he’d prefer Bush over Kerry. If these claims are untrue, the evidence you present is hogwash. If they are true, you’d still have to take a terrorist’s political endorsement at face value. That’s unwise in my humble opinion.
Maybe both reports aren’t true, but how on earth could you justify rebutting the claim of an intelligence official with that of a political endorcement from a self-proclaimed terrorist?
Oct, 22:
Media Matters for America
Your site declares there is “a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the claim” that terrorists prefer Kerry over Bush. However, more than a month before you said that, The Washington Times quoted an anonymous intelligence official that says terrorists do prefer Kerry over Bush. Here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm Have you not read it?
Granted, the claim could be politically motivated, so I think you’re justified in saying there’s a lack of obvious evidence. But then you provide, what you call, “evidence” of your own to the contrary.
The evidence you allude to is a video clip of an anonymous, self-proclaimed terrorist saying he’d prefer Bush over Kerry. If these claims are untrue, the evidence you present is hogwash. If they are true, you’d still have to take a terrorist’s political endorsement at face value. That’s unwise in my humble opinion.
Maybe both reports aren’t true, but how on earth could you justify rebutting the claim of an intelligence official with that of a political endorcement from a self-proclaimed terrorist?
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Jon Stewart
So I'm surfing (what wannabe hipster coined that term anyway) over at the very impartial site *cough cough* Media Matters for America. The site is a joke, but they've got some video and sound clips of some heated discussions between the talking heads, which is usually coolio. All of media matter's take on things, however, is NOT coolio. Anyway, I see a clip of Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I think Jon is freggin hilarious so I click the link. Seeing the clip only reaffirmed my opinion on Jon.
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie?
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.
I don't care where you're from, that's funny right there! I guess Jon got a little too steamed at the end and called Carlson a dick. I thought it was a little odd when I saw it but didn't think too much of it. Come to find out, that was no small meeting Jon and Carlson had. People can't stop talking about it. Apparently, it's controversial to ask the press to keep the President and Presidential candidate accountable. What's more, Jon even says he plans to vote for Kerry *gasp*!!! Oh my gosh! The humanity! Just like those other 45 million Americans!
Yeesh, people. Go back to sleep. The only thing shocking about Jon is that he wasn't able to come up with something more pithy than "dick" when addressing Carlson, otherwise, Jon was totally ripping into that guy and I think he probably deserved it. To be fair, I never watch Carlson or Crossfire, but Jon does have a point, no one in the press seems to think it's necessary to ask and force and answer to tough questions. Right now Kerry has the simple formula to the White House:
1. Identify the biggest problems in America
2. Blame it all on Bush
3. Say it will be all better when you're President because you have a "PLAN"
4. Sit back while the media reassures everyone of your great plan
An unchallenged plan is worthless. So is a press that propagates one.
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie?
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.
I don't care where you're from, that's funny right there! I guess Jon got a little too steamed at the end and called Carlson a dick. I thought it was a little odd when I saw it but didn't think too much of it. Come to find out, that was no small meeting Jon and Carlson had. People can't stop talking about it. Apparently, it's controversial to ask the press to keep the President and Presidential candidate accountable. What's more, Jon even says he plans to vote for Kerry *gasp*!!! Oh my gosh! The humanity! Just like those other 45 million Americans!
Yeesh, people. Go back to sleep. The only thing shocking about Jon is that he wasn't able to come up with something more pithy than "dick" when addressing Carlson, otherwise, Jon was totally ripping into that guy and I think he probably deserved it. To be fair, I never watch Carlson or Crossfire, but Jon does have a point, no one in the press seems to think it's necessary to ask and force and answer to tough questions. Right now Kerry has the simple formula to the White House:
1. Identify the biggest problems in America
2. Blame it all on Bush
3. Say it will be all better when you're President because you have a "PLAN"
4. Sit back while the media reassures everyone of your great plan
An unchallenged plan is worthless. So is a press that propagates one.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Debate Round 3
Sadly, I was turned off by the first 5 minutes of this debate. Every response from the candidates' mouths was a cut-and-paste-responses from the first two. I couldn't put up with it. I did hear that bush finally put Kerry on the defensive by accusing him of being liberal. FINALLY. I don't think people realize how liberal Kerry's record is.
Rasmussen says 55% of the population says Kerry is politically liberal.
However, Americans for Democratic Diversity gives Kerry a liberal rating of 92% for his career. Hillary Clinton barely surpasses him with a 95% rating.
There's no doubt he's an extremely liberal guy, regardless of what he says. I mean, come on! This is the guy that goes in front of a bunch of hippies and says stuff like the Iraq war is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "no man and woman in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil" then he'll turn right around and speak in front of vets and pledge 40,000 troops to Iraq.
The pandering Kerry has displayed is over the line. The majority of people in California were relieved to recall Davis, but unfortunately, his spirit is now manifesting itself in the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Rasmussen says 55% of the population says Kerry is politically liberal.
However, Americans for Democratic Diversity gives Kerry a liberal rating of 92% for his career. Hillary Clinton barely surpasses him with a 95% rating.
There's no doubt he's an extremely liberal guy, regardless of what he says. I mean, come on! This is the guy that goes in front of a bunch of hippies and says stuff like the Iraq war is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "no man and woman in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil" then he'll turn right around and speak in front of vets and pledge 40,000 troops to Iraq.
The pandering Kerry has displayed is over the line. The majority of people in California were relieved to recall Davis, but unfortunately, his spirit is now manifesting itself in the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
President debate round 2
I don't get it. Most of the country, especially the independent and swing voters, is fed up with the National Guard memos and the Swift boat controversy. They want to have Bush and Kerry meet up so they can finally talk about the "issues." But then a funny thing happens; neither candidate, especially Kerry, seems to be able to directly address any questions. Instead directly answering a question, they simply recite a canned answer regarding the topic the question is addressing. I was pretty turned off by it. I mean, Bush and Kerry basically waste the time of tens of millions of people who tune into the debates by reciting propaganda they could have gotten from their websites. The moderator tried really hard to get them to answer questions they dodged, but that got annoying too because he started sounding like a broken record. How many times can two people dodge the question: "how can you cut the deficit in half by not raising taxes." Bush and Kerry just kept telling us how the other person couldn't do it.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
More on CBS Memos
A bunch of execs over at CBS are saying they have no intention of telling the American people why they FUBARed the infamous 60 minutes story on Bush. Grow some stones people.
Quote the Les Moonves (co-president CBS parent company Viacom): Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on.
Gee Lester, if you could have only expected the same journalistic standards from 60 Minutes none of this would have happened. You, sir, are a hypocrite for even thinking of suggesting to wait until after the election.
Compound this mess by the fact that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the documents were planted at CBS by people very high up in the Kerry campaign. If these accusations are proven to be valid, and CBS refuses to release the information before the election, Les Moonves and all the yes-men he commands need to lose their jobs.
Link
Quote the Les Moonves (co-president CBS parent company Viacom): Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on.
Gee Lester, if you could have only expected the same journalistic standards from 60 Minutes none of this would have happened. You, sir, are a hypocrite for even thinking of suggesting to wait until after the election.
Compound this mess by the fact that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the documents were planted at CBS by people very high up in the Kerry campaign. If these accusations are proven to be valid, and CBS refuses to release the information before the election, Les Moonves and all the yes-men he commands need to lose their jobs.
Link
Cheney won
Cheney won the debate on Monday. There's no question in my mind. He made Edwards look like he was running for vice mayor of Hicks-ville, North Carolina. Cheney was a heavy hitter and Edwards wasn't unable to stand up to him. Additionally, Edwards dodged some very direct questions asked by moderator Gwen Ifill. Of course Cheney did too, but not nearly to the same extent.
Cheney really did surprise me. I don't really care for the guy, but he really game thru Monday night. McCain said the first Kerry-Bush debate was perhaps the biggest highlight of Kerry's campaign. I think Cheney's performance in the debate was actually the highlight of his 4 year administration as VP.
Cheney really did surprise me. I don't really care for the guy, but he really game thru Monday night. McCain said the first Kerry-Bush debate was perhaps the biggest highlight of Kerry's campaign. I think Cheney's performance in the debate was actually the highlight of his 4 year administration as VP.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Kerry already failed his own "Global Test"
So Kerry based most of the first debate on trying to convince America that he would form strong alliances with countries in the war on terror. Maybe if Kerry was a quarterback in the Superbowl, and someone asked him how he'd win, he'd say, "I'll just keep throwing touchdown passes."
He seemed to convince a lot of Americans as the polls say Kerry came out on top.
Here's the problem:
Kerrys leading candidate for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, told Germany's Schroeder he'd be the first guest to the White House.
Schroeder's response?
"I was afraid of that."
Looks like Kerry got an "A" for style in the debate, but an "F" on his own "Global Test."
link
He seemed to convince a lot of Americans as the polls say Kerry came out on top.
Here's the problem:
Kerrys leading candidate for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, told Germany's Schroeder he'd be the first guest to the White House.
Schroeder's response?
"I was afraid of that."
Looks like Kerry got an "A" for style in the debate, but an "F" on his own "Global Test."
link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)