Right Wing Lunatic

Spain's current socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, responded during his own allotted time by urging Chavez to be more diplomatic in his words and respect other leaders despite political differences.

"Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," he said, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.

Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, but his microphone was off.

Spanish King Juan Carlos, seated next to Zapatero, angrily turned to Chavez and said, "Why don't you shut up?"

God how I love it when dictators are put in their place. Remember kids, it's best to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool, then to open your mouth and confirm it.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Politicians, please take note of the idiotic idea of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's shitstorm over his idea of illegal aliens getting driver's licences.

I know my ideas are radical sometimes, but I have a solution that will fix 99% of your scandals and blowups. Govern from your own personal beliefs instead of pandering to one group over another. If you govern according to right and wrong, you're likely to come out ahead almost 100% of the time. If you're wrong, you can simply explain to voters how you came to the conclusion that you did and most people are smart enough to say "I can see how he would think that".

Instead, we have morons like Spitzer wanting to give a privilege to someone who doesn't belong in this country.

Want to get re-elected? Don't do dumb things like this.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

We all knew Hillary and her kind were sneaky, but actively planting questions with audience members? That's a new low. Of course she admits it, and hopes to move on, however, I as well her fellow Democrat's, aren't so forgiving:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday that staging questions in an audience is something he doesn't do but that it's "what George Bush does."

"That's what George Bush does," the former senator from North Carolina said. "George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where the'yre only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor."

Now, for the most part, you would think that this would be a one time event, she'd get her knuckles racked and we'd all move on and this would just be one more event in the slimy life of Hillary Clinton.

But you'd be wrong:

It happened again.....even after she sweared "It won't happen again".

Can you still support a politician who does sneaky things like this? With her commanding lead, it's difficult for anyone to believe that Obama or Edwards will make up such a deficit, but weirder things have happened in the world of politics.


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

It looks like they're getting a bit nervous on the other side of the aisle.

The House was on track to consider next week legislation that would give President Bush $50 billion for operations Iraq and Afghanistan but insist that he begin withdrawing troops.

The measure identifies a goal of ending combat by December 2008, leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.

Pelosi, D-Calif., told members in a private caucus meeting on Thursday that if Bush rejected the measure, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

Sounds awfully familiar doesn't it?  Oh yeah, Nancy Pelosi said almost the exact same thing the last time a spending bill came up.  Well unfortunately for them, they are now REALLY going to have to explain why they want to yank funding when violence and deaths are down significantly.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats face "unfortunate timing" because of the military progress being made in Iraq.

"While our troops are quelling violence and defeating terrorists in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, Democrats in Washington are trying to choke off funds for our troops in the field," he said.

Exactly right.  To yank out funds now would be disastrous on many levels.  Too bad Pelosi, Reid and their ilk simply can't take good news from Iraq.  It's like they've buried their heads in the sand and simply won't change their minds.  Sure, we can't remain there forever, however we're making such great progress that to pull out now would almost certainly reverse all the sacrifices that our soldiers have made up to this point.

They talk about "supporting the troops", but I'd love to hear them explain to a soldier why his friend died trying to rid a village of insurgents only to have Congress rip his unit out of Iraq and have the insurgents come back and terrorize a generation of Iraqi's.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

House Democrats on Friday pushed through an $80 billion bill to block the spread of a dreaded tax on middle-income people. The White House and Republicans, protesting tax increases in the bill affecting mainly investment fund managers, maintained that it would never become law.

Negotiators are trying to come up with a compromise that would fix the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The 216-193 vote to "patch" the alternative minimum tax for a year sends the issue to the Senate, where its prospects are at best uncertain. Not one House Republican voted for it.

What is certain is that if Congress and the White House do not reach a compromise by the end of the year, anywhere from 21 million to 25 million middle-income taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing them as much as $2,000 in extra taxes.

Confusing?  You bet.  But it basically boils down to possible additional taxes to everyone, including you and me.  Personally, I'd rather the government get a bit more responsible with the money we already give them.  You simply cannot tell me that Buck McKeon's district needs $50,000 to investigate the feasibility of a Mule Museum or John Murtha needs $150k to "restore a key historic property".

How about you do this:

Work within the budget that you're given.  Stop spending money that American's simply don't have.  Some people will say "well $50,000 isn't much in the grand scheme of things", but it's $50,000 that could be used elsewhere.  It's $50k that could be put towards the SCHIP program that Democrats are so passionate about.  It's $50k that could be used to hire another Federal employee for a year.

I fail to see how the recent request by Congress for an extra $22 billion dollars worth of earmarks and then have the nerve to call it a "small request".

If Congress would get on the ball for making a balanced budget, this country could achieve things that were never thought possible before.  We could have a transportation infrastructure that would be second to none.  We could have an education system that gets students tuition down to almost nothing.  We could do a lot of good things if Congress, Democrats especially, would stop spending money they don't have.

Democrats love to talk about the war in Iraq and it's spending, but yet, they want Universal Health Care at a cost of $60+ billion a year.  And that's just to start.  You're naive if you think it'll stay at that price.  They want a 140% increase in the SCHIP program with the "won't something think of the children" bit, but they don't think of those same children when it comes time for them to pay for the programs they enjoyed while they were children.

Sooner or later if we don't get on the ball about paying down our debt, we're going to be in serious financial trouble.  If we hunkered down, I honestly believe we could pay off the Federal debt within 3-5 years.  I'm talking massive, to the bone cuts in government programs.  Welfare and food stamp fraud jail times triple, non essential programs are cut or taken very far back. 

It can be done, it's just a matter of getting the will to do it.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

 

The U.S. statement said the Iranians were released after a “careful review of individual records to determine if they posed a security threat to Iraq, and if their detention was of continued intelligence value.”

“All nine individuals were determined to no longer pose a security risk,” it said.

Are the Iranian's starting to back off?  Is this a gesture of goodwill?

Personally, if they are found again in Iraq supporting the insurgency, they should get the business end of a soldier's rifle.

I simply cannot condemn our men and women over there for defending themselves from people who want them dead, regardless of their political status.

If someone's supplying bombs to insurgents, they are just as guilty as the insurgents and should be captured or killed immediately.  If they are captured, released and found again, they've had their chance and should die for their crimes.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Rudy Giuliani refused to say if he'd consider pardoning his old friend Bernie
Kerik - who was indicted Thursday on federal corruption charges - if elected President.

"It wouldn't be fair to ask that question at this point," the Republican presidential hopeful said in an exclusive interview in Dubuque, Iowa, just hours before Kerik was indicted in New York.

"He may or may not be charged, he may or may not be convicted. Who knows what happens?"

That's a cop out.  It's a simple question, if Bernie was found guilty on all counts, would you pardon him if you were President? 

That seems like an easy enough question if you ask me.

The guys is up on a lot of corruption related charges, so personally, I would say "no" to pardoning him.  If I felt his jail sentence was too long, perhaps I would pardon part of the sentence, but a crime is a crime, and if he's found guilty, he should serve a fair sentence.

To dodge the question puts a big red flag over Guiliani's head for me.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Really?  You think that American's aren't pissed about the Hollywood elitism going on and how everyone ignores the positive news coming out of Iraq?

You think that people are sick and tired of people telling them how they should think, act, and talk?  You think people are tired of Hollywood types who think their word is gospel and they should be believed over everyone else?

People don't like to be told what they can and can't think.  People don't like it when other's with differing political points of view are spewing out venom to them.  And most of all, people are tired of the blatant anti-Americanism.

Get your head out of your asses and stop trying to push your opinions down everyone's throats and maybe you'll start making films that actually turn a profit.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Damn, Karl Rove let's Democrats have it with both barrels!  Take a look:

The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.

Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

I must admit, if I were searching for Iranian agents, I don't think I would have thought to look through credit card receipts for grocery stores.

The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI's criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal.

Exactly.  While you are in law enforcement, sometimes you have to be creative, however this idea was DOA.  If I ate some Middle Eastern foods, they could theoretically put me on a list.  It's an idiotic, time wasting idea that was put to bed rightfully so.

Our real problem is that once we find people like this, we simply put them in jail for a little while and then ship them back to their country of origin or in a spy swap.

Now, I've been called many names, but I don't see why you can't simply put a bullet in these guys' heads because the only reason why Iranian agents would be here is to collect intelligence on us and possibly strike at us if we attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Make it look like a robbery, home invasion, or a car accident all you want to throw them off of the trail, but if you send them home, they're going to come back.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Like previous incarnations of the PIRATE Act, this one tries to force the Department of Justice to bring suits against individual file-swappers, something that could save the recording industry plenty of money and could also displace some of the "bad guy" stigma that the labels have acquired after suing people like Jammie Thomas.

The bill would give the Department of Justice authority to bring civil (not just criminal) cases against infringers, though it does limit penalties to those that could be imposed in criminal proceedings. The Attorney General can also bring such civil suits only when the act in question constitutes a crime (such civil suits can be easier to win).

Here's why there's a problem with this line of thinking.  Yes, I agree that software piracy needs to be handled and the criminals should be prosecuted.  However, if a civil suit is brought, who keeps the judgements?  Is the Justice Department going to share that with those companies that are effected?  Where does the line begin and end when colluding with these companies.

I certainly don't mind if they go after counterfeiters who sell pirated Window's discs, but are they going to start filing lawsuits against individual file sharers like the RIAA has done in the past? 

To do so sets a dangerous precedent that needs some oversight, which I sadly think that the Justice Department is severely lacking in.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

And why shouldn't they be?  Democrats promised the world during the 2006 elections and have delivered exactly 1 promise:  To raise the minimum wage.

Ending the "culture of corruption", the "5 day work week", the "lobbying reforms", the ending to the war in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, all of these things were promised to Americans for electing Democrats to Congress and the American people have gotten none of those promises after almost a year in power.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha and others are in serious trouble right now because they know they promised a lot of things and because they haven't done a single one except the minimum wage, they stand a good chance to not get reelected when their turn comes around.

Republicans haven't faired much better either.  Fiscal responsibility, lesser government, and others are cornerstones of the Republican party and those values have been ignored by many in Congress as well.

It's time for politicians to really get a grasp on how the public feels about them.  If they don't, they'll soon be out of a job.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

I took the day off today for motorcycle lessons. That's why my posts were a bit shorter then usual today. Tomorrow we return to our normal level of posts.

Travis

I was going through my site statistics today and guess who I come across? The World Bank has been visiting my site. I guess it's over this story here.

I'm becoming more popular. I can't wait for the hate mail and death threats to increase!

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

“Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,” and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.

General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis’ rejection of “the rule of the gun.”

And this is being reported by the NY Times. The article doesn't say that things are perfect, far from it, but it does show significant improvements in the violence levels and things are starting to return to normal in Iraq.

Funny, aren't Democrats decrying the "quagmire" in Iraq and saying that they're going to shut down funding for the war in Iraq? If they do so now, they'll be slaughtered in the elections. There's clear evidence that the new tactics as well as local help is making Iraq a much safer place to be for everyone. But Democrats don't see it that way. They want our guys out of there now, even though things are showing improvement.

So go ahead Democrats, do it. I dare you, but be warned, I'll bring a mountain of evidence to show you are not only wrong, but you're actions will lead directly to the deaths of thousands. You think we're "creating more terrorists" now? Leave people to the wolves and see how they react to us.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

This is disgraceful. Many of you may or may not know, but it is against the law to not give a person their job back if they are called up to active duty as a soldier. Well some soldiers are finding it difficult to come back to their civilian life and their employers are trying to make life hard for them.

What a lot of employers don't seem to realize, is that soldiers make some of the best employees. Generally speaking, they are responsible, work well in groups, and take orders perfectly. To deny them their old jobs when they return is an act of cowardice. What I really want to know is, which companies are doing it? I have my own personal convictions about things and to this day, I won't shop at Lowe's over the treatment a friend of mine got over an $11 purchase. That includes when I had my house being built 2 years ago and I needed appliances and misc. parts. I simply went to Home Depot instead and ended up spending around $8,000 on various things.

I know that Lowe's had some of my things slightly cheaper, but Home Depot gave me price matching and treated me with respect. I shop more at Sears because of this story.

It's not a good idea to piss people off.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

So Mohamed ElBaradei finds it "distressing" that neither Israel nor the U.S. shared information with him about an apparent Syrian nuclear program before Israeli jets destroyed it on September 6. Imagine that:

Not everyone is prepared to entrust the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency with their national security.

For the past year, Mr. ElBaradei has been running an independent foreign policy from his IAEA perch. People tell him he is "doing God's work" -- or so he tells the New York Times. In August, he announced a nuclear agreement he had reached with Iran's mullahs, without consulting his political superiors at the agency. Even the Europeans protested that one.

Ouch.  You begin to wonder about the impartiality of the IAEA if things like this go on.

The agreement made no reference to the U.N. Security Council's demand that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, a demand Mr. ElBaradei himself dismisses as moot.

Bullshit.  The demand was made and sanctions were in place for that very reason.  Stop enrichment and we'll negotiate.  Even the Security Council decided that was the way to go.  ElBaradei seems to be trying to undermine the credibility of the US and Europeans.

The agreement also allowed the Iranians to dribble out information on the dozen outstanding questions the IAEA has yet to resolve.

Answer the questions or face stiffer consequences.  It's really not that hard to understand.

Mr. ElBaradei has coasted on the IAEA's reputation as the authoritative source of information on the world's nuclear secrets. Yet this is the same agency that was taken by surprise by nuclear projects in Libya, North Korea and Iraq in the 1980s. And now in Syria, which in September was voted co-chair of the IAEA's General Conference.

Aren't these guys supposed to be on top of every nation's nuclear intentions?  If they are taken by surprise by 3 different nations, perhaps a changing of the guard is in order.

All this is reason enough for the U.S., Israel and any other country serious about stopping nuclear proliferation to refuse Mr. ElBaradei's not-so-good diplomatic offices. Not surprisingly, the Syrians are hailing the IAEA chief for saying neither Israel nor the U.S. had provided "any evidence" to suggest Damascus was in the nuclear business. Satellite images show the Syrians have now covered their tracks in the desert.

The Syrians could have easily answered these questions by leaving the site alone after the bombing.  However, the fact that they cleaned it up so quickly and left such little left shows that they had something to hide.

You can win a fair fight if the Referee's against you.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

French President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged Wednesday a renewed alliance and friendship between his country and the United States.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy tells U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that "America can count on France."

Sarkozy promised to stand firm with Washington on the war in Afghanistan and against Iran's nuclear program in his speech to a joint meeting of Congress.

"In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other's freedom," he said.

"Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic alliance," he said. "For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism. America can count on France."

Wow.  But it gets better:

"Let me say it here before all of you: The prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable," he said.

Back it up with actions and you'll color me surprised at the growth of a backbone from the French.

Almost seems like an episode of the Twilight Zone.  "The French want to fight Terrorism!  The French love Americans!"....I'm waiting for Ashton Kutcher to come out of the back of the room and say "Ha! You got punked!"

France has readily earned their reputation of being cowardly in the face of threats.  If Sarkozy backs these words up with actions, I'll gladly rethink this reputation they've earned.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous.

I don't know if it's frivolous or not, however, the guy does bring up an interesting point:  If a woman can choose abortion, adoption, or keeping the child, what choices does the man have?

Well guys, I hate to break it to you, but you have really no choice.  If you're man enough to get down with a woman, you're man enough to support any child conceived because of that sex.

In that regard, men do get proverbially screwed, but that's the price you pay for being men. 

Personally, I feel that if I'm in a relationship with a woman (even if it only lasts for a few hours) and a child is conceived because I had sex with the woman, then I'm a new dad, end of story. 

It doesn't sound fair if you want to play the "equal treatment" card across the board, but we have benefits of being men, and women have benefits of being women.

As a side note, what has happened to the men of this country when this is a story on CNN?

There used to be a time when this guy would have been publicly humiliated and shunned by other men for being irresponsible and selfish.

I know my Grandfather would have probably slapped him in the back of the head and said "You gonna act like a man!".  We all have become a bit too self involved, both men and women, to where it effects the lives of children.

When that happens, watch as the children grow up to have severe emotional problems.

What do you think this little girl is going to think when she finds out that her dad not only doesn't want anything to do with her, but fought a 2 year legal battle so he wouldn't have to pay child support?

It'll be emotionally devastating to her.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Now maybe Russia might start listening to what we have to say about Iran.  If they are so bent out of shape about this missile defense shield, then maybe we can negotiate a deal. 

However, the further things go, the less likely a deal might be made.

Russia might be worried about our intentions with this missile shield, especially since it takes the bite out of their bark in threatening it's neighbors.

They've already threatened them by shutting off access to heating oil and gas and strong armed them into significantly higher prices, so why is it inconceivable for them to be pissed that they aren't the biggest kid on the block anymore?

Wait for Putin to try to say how we're trying to "destabilize the region" and other such nonsense.

You want us to back off Putin?  You'd better work some magic on the Iranians quick.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

God how I hate it when people don't seem to "get it".

American Gangster is a big, brash and brilliant cinema tour de force. But it also reinforces a glaring stereotype, in fact, one of America's most enduring stereotypes, and that's that the drug problem and by extension drug kingpins come with a black face. There are two telling scenes in American Gangster that drive that point home with a tormenting vengeance.

First off, it's based off of the true story of Frank Lucas...a BLACK MAN.  So there in of itself, it's not a stereotype.

I've saw the movie earlier last week and it was entertaining and not once did I think to myself "Typical stereotype of a black man who deals drugs".

Why?  Because it was based upon a true story, so I didn't think the writers were embellishing anything, and I don't care about stereotypes when I watch a MOVIE.

It may sound bad, but there are stereotypes in the movies.  Need a terrorist?  A Middle Eastern person is who you'll probably end up getting in that movie because that's what a movie needs....realism.  Think about that, if someone in a movie said "I have a meeting with this terrorist who's going to blow up an airplane" and a moose hunter from Canada shows up, what do you think?  Do you think "Ah HA!  That's the guy!"  Or do you think "That's a twist I wouldn't have seen"?

A movie needs a certain air of realism, otherwise you lose the audience.  It's not racism, it's believability.

I find it odd that a man like Hutchison would try to point out stereotypes in movies when he's using a true story as his example.  He may have a point about stereotypes, but when he used a true story, it threw that argument out the window.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Why are these Al-Qaeda types getting such short sentences?  We send people to jail for life for lesser things.  We put drug dealers in jail for 20-30 years at a time, but this guy was willing to train Al-Qaeda members with the knowledge that they would use it to harm or kill Americans.

So only 15 years for that?

Tarik Shah, 44, a Muslim born and raised in New York, received the maximum sentence in Manhattan federal court under a plea agreement with U.S. prosecutors in which they dropped one of the terrorism charges against him.

STOP MAKING PLEA DEALS with these people!  If you're going to offer a plea, make it so they won't get out of jail until they are near death.  What's wrong with this guy getting a 30 year sentence?  He's be 74 when he gets out and would likely be much less of a threat then before.

Doing this amount of time still allows them to maintain their hatred and willingness to do harm towards this country.

If you don't put these people away for a long period of time, then what's the point of putting them in jail?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Of course it's "irreversible" in the eyes of Ahmadinejad.

If it wasn't, then his little bitty pride might be hurt and he'd cry himself to sleep at night dreaming of those "big bad Americans".

Then you have the little bit of Russian's and their "secret message" to the Iranian's, which has just now been denied.

Why it took so long to deny it is anyone's guess, but if Russia wants diplomacy to work like it says it does, then it had better start prodding it's ally Iran into getting into the negotiation room.

Iran claims to have 3,000 centrifuges running and by some estimates, that'll make about 1 bomb per year.  Let's not forget that Pakistan had about 3,000 centrifuges going for it when it made it's own atomic weapon in the 90's according to Nuclear Engineer Whitney Haas.

Time is running out very quickly, and if Russia truly wants to see this end peacefully, they had better get on the ball quickly and back sanctions.  Even though previous sanctions said that Iran must stop enrichment otherwise further sanctions would come into play, China and Russia seem to be trying to back out of that deal.

Some analysts have speculated that Putin could be seeking to use Moscow's influence with Tehran to secure assurances from Washington over U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Europe and the future of Serbia's Kosovo province.

That's entirely possible, even likely.  However, for us to back off of the missile shield, then Iran's nuclear facilities must be shut down completely, not just go ahead and be subjected to UN weapon's inspectors.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Normally, I don't report things like this, but I thought it was funny. :)

When Democrat Barack Obama's charter plane touched down Tuesday night, aides were surprised a car wasn't waiting to rush him to that night's campaign events.

Someone stepped onto the tarmac and quickly realized why: They had landed at the wrong airport.

You know, it could have been that Obama simply as important as he thinks he is.  :)  But alas, their pilot found out that he landed in the wrong place and the only harm done is to the pride of the pilot.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

John Kerry said Monday there might be a next time for his presidential aspirations, and if there is, the 63-year-old U.S. senator from Massachusetts says he’ll be ready for the political torpedoes that helped sink his 2004 White House bid.

John, let me explain something to you. You had your chance and you simply blew it. I wrote about the many, MANY reasons why you lost in 2004 here. You waited too long to respond to the accusations, giving many the impression that they were true. We need a leader as President, and you simply showed you weren't capable of it.

We need someone who can make a tough decision, follow through with it, and do so in a timely manner. The fact that you waited weeks before you even acknowledged it shows you are either ignorant of things going on around you, or you are too wrapped up in your own little world to care. Either way, that's not a quality we need in a leader.

Sorry John, but you're never going to be President.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Look for Hillary to change her mind on the "illegal immigrants getting driver's licences bit" in the coming weeks and months.

Voters oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens by a nearly five-to-one margin, a new Fox 5/Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

Look, it's a simple matter of this: Illegal immigrants are entitled to nothing. I think as a society, we're extending them a bit of humanity in giving them emergency medical treatment such as an accident or child birth, but past that, we owe these people zero.

The fact that a politician could even suggest such a thing shows how far we've slid as a country. There used to be a time when we'd simply put them on a bus and ship them back to their country of origin.

Now all of a sudden, there's this sense of obligation to these people who've broken the law by being here in the first place. Politicians don't want to say what I'm saying because they don't want to appear cruel towards immigrants. That's where the problem lies. We're not talking about immigrants, we're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants. This country was founded on immigration and to turn people away as a blanket policy is stupid and counterproductive. However, it does need to be done in a legal and rational way.

It's not fair for someone to get to this country legally, wait years to become a citizen, and then have someone else come right on in and start demanding everything.

If I broke into your home and started demanding to use the TV and phone, you'd forcefully remove me from the house. However, if I politely rang the bell and said, "may I use your phone", chances are I'd be able to do so. It's no different, so why are we spending billions on services for people that shouldn't be here in the first place? We shouldn't and it would help get this country out of debt quicker then anything.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

If Yahoo executives didn't tell the whole truth during Congressional testimony, isn't that a lie or at least they were misleading them? If so, why aren't they threatened with going to jail? If you or I were doing that, we'd be sitting in a jail cell, so why are Yahoo executives exempt from this? Why aren't they getting more then a tongue lashing?

If Democrats are tired of corporations in politics, then they sure as hell better start to man up and do something about it instead of just spewing out idle threats.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

I swear that the media in general is ALWAYS looking for bad news in Iraq. For example:

2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq

And yet, while true, violence is down 70% across the board in Iraq, and the article even mentions this in the later parts:

The grim milestone passed despite a sharp drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths here in recent months, after a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.

So in other words, yes, 2007 is a deadly year, however, they don't bother to emphasize that US troop deaths are down 64%. While any death is tragic in of itself, the fact that it has dropped so severely is something that needs to be put out there for the general public to know about.

Even popular liberal blogs can no longer ignore the facts. When deaths were high, they said "See! It's a quagmire! We need to leave now!" Now that the deaths are down significantly, they want to find a reason, ANY reason to try to make it look like what we're doing there with more troops and better tactics are working. That would mean that Bush was right and they can't ever seem to want to admit that.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

And what did they manage to override? A water bill. Well congratulations Congress, you've managed to make ONE thing get passed in your pathetic track record. Keep it up and you may actually go for some kind of record.

It's not like they even have it hard.

Since Democrats gained control of Congress in January, Bush has issued dozens of veto threats, warning he will veto annual spending bills that go beyond his budget levels. As Congress winds down for the year, veto threats hang over a $288 billion farm bill the Senate is considering and new attempts to come up with a children's health insurance bill.

Stay within the budget. That doesn't sound too hard does it? Of course it does, this is Democrats we're talking about. They are the kings and queens of pork spending. Too much in the budget? Well simply raise taxes! It's the same if you're running a business, a home, or the government. You have X amount of dollars to spend for the year. If you go over it, you run the risk of fiscally ruining yourselves.

So knock it off and get on to being fiscally responsible. If you can't even manage that, then perhaps you shouldn't be in a position of power.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

The guy just can't win. First, he tried to get Congress to debate impeaching Dick Cheney, but even with Republican help, he failed. Now, there's a video with him trying to denounce our pressure on Iran over their nuclear program as "illegal". Take a look:








Bullshit. Iran has not attacked the US? How about all the Iranian made weapons that suddenly show up in the hands of insurgents? How about how we keep finding Iranian agents in Iraq? How about the expensive sniper rifles I spoke about earlier this year?

Not attacked the US? I guess Kucinich doesn't consider US soldiers "Americans" with that kind of logic. It's a good thing he's so far behind in the polls, I might get my blood all angered up over this guy's idiotic ideals.....ahh screw it.

Fuck you Kucinich! Your "head in the sand" approach will only get Iranians nuclear weapons and the threat of terrorist born nuclear attacks all the more likely. This whole "peace through peace" line of thought you push isn't going to accomplish anything. When we invaded Iraq, we did literally NOTHING to Iran. Yet, our troops are dodging IED's and sniper fire from Iranian made weapons from Iranian trained insurgents. Is that "peace through peace" you talk about Kucinich? Is going on Syrian TV showing what a puss you really are going to make any kind of difference? It certainly didn't appear so when the Syrian's are building nuclear facilities with blueprints they got from North Korea. Oh and speaking of North Korea, since they are trying to subvert the deal we made with them and sell the nuclear technology to rogue nations, what do you plan on doing about that Kucinich? Oh let me guess, a big, fat, nothing?

And then you wonder why you have ZERO chance of being President. We need a leader, not a doormat.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday her performance may have been lacking at last week's presidential debate, but brushed aside criticisms she has not been clear on where she stands on the issues.

"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton told CNN's Candy Crowley. "We've had a bunch of debates and I wouldn't rank that up in my very top list.

"But I've answered probably, I don't know, more than 5,000 questions over the last 10 months and I have been very clear about where I stand and what I want to do for the country."

Oh please. She knows damned good and well where she stands on any issue of the day. The only difference is that she wants to have this "open" type of opinion, so she can change it whenever she wants. Her problem is that people called her on her bullshit and now she's trying to do damage control.

Everyone is starting to see Hillary for who she really is: A conniving politician who'll do or say anything that's popular at that moment to gain or maintain power.

If you think otherwise, just search around this site, you'll find TONS of examples.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Man, this cold is kicking my ass.  I used to be able to get over a cold within a day or two tops.  Here it is almost a week later and I'm still hacking up crap.

The good news is that I finally have finished up some of my major projects, so things should return to normal.  I've been running around frantically trying to get articles posted and new features implemented for everyone's enjoyment.

So, anyways, things should be getting better.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Hey thanks a lot World Bank, we're trying to isolate these guys and you're going around giving them a $900 million dollar loan.  It's not like they have an ocean of oil that they are sitting on a $93 a barrel. 

The only silver lining in this whole thing is the fact that this may be able to be turned around.

Mr. Kirk said Mr. Zoellick as president of the bank cannot overrule the bank's stakeholders on its executive board. However, he said that if Mr. Zoellick asked the largest stakeholders again, he would likely find a majority of votes to halt the loans.

"The board has made a decision to spend the money. He does need a decision from the donors. The donors are in order, the Americans, the Japanese, the Europeans and the Saudis. That is by far the center of gravity on the board. With Sarkozy coming to speak before the Congress on Tuesday and clearly a changing view on Iran in Saudi Arabia, I think the board would be open to reconsidering these loans," Mr. Kirk said.

So it's us, the Japanese and the Europeans?  We should easily be able to halt these loans to the Iranians.

The loans themselves include a project to improve access to health care for rural Iranians; improvements to Tehran's sewage system; an air and water quality monitoring project; and relief for the Bam earthquake.

Hey, who's to say that these loans won't be used for other projects?  How about we cut a check to the developers of the sewage system after it's built for that amount and not a dime more?

The Iranians are up to no good and everyone on the planet except the Chinese and Russians can see it.  Loaning them this amount of money is just asking for abuse.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

"At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions," Michelman wrote of Clinton.

I don't know about you, but I'm plainly sick and tired of people trying to play the "victim" card when they aren't even CLOSE to being victims themselves.  The Jena 6, Al Sharpton, Anyone on MTV, Larry Craig, etc, are all perfect examples of people who whine about the "unfairness of it all" when something bad happens.

How about you man up (regardless of gender) and take your lumps like an adult?  I would much rather have a politician tell me "I don't know" rather than trying to sidestep an issue.  If you don't know, tell me.  If you have a position that's unpopular, explain to me why you've taken that position.

Honesty goes a very long way in life, and politics is one of those areas.  If you're open and honest about your opinions and explain to people why or how you've come to that conclusion, people will respect you a lot more and are much more likely to vote for you.

 

It's been know to work before.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

And where's the problem with holding off on the TV ads?  Advertising via the web is a great idea.  It's cheap, bordering on free, and can reach a massive audience within minutes.

Besides, the nomination is still months off and the election isn't for another year.  If someone is going to need the bump, it certainly isn't Rudy.

Although I do agree with his change in focus to his earlier years as a federal prosecutor and other areas.  Focusing on 9/11 does give you clout, but it also leaves you open to attack on why you didn't do this or that.  Plus, it's pretty shallow.  I know it sounds harsh, but people need a leader who's got experience under his belt for a long period of time, and not just one disheartening event.

Even Joe Pistone, AKA Donny Brasco, has nice things to say about Rudy in one of his recent books (I know, I read it).  If Rudy starts to focus on other areas of his leadership abilities and positions of power, I think it'll go a long way towards fence sitters in this Presidential election.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.

So is she being honest?
I think she was being disingenuous.

What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
You'll have to ask her.

Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Hillary's being disingenuous?  Well thanks Captain Obvious, glad to see the last horse finally cross the finish line.

The problem with Obama is that he genuinely lacks any kind of substance as a candidate, and now that he's been trailing by a big margin for such a long time, he's noticing that he's not going to win with the current strategy.

His only hope is a hail Mary type of maneuver that everyone knows all about.  Calling into question Hillary's dishonesty as a politician is like saying Ted Bundy was a serial killer.  Everyone knows it and no one questions it.

You'd better kick your ass into high gear if you want the nomination Obama, you're getting further behind by the moment.

Besides, do we want a President who just NOW starts pointing out the flaws in his opponent?  I need someone with a quicker wit then that.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

The US government must be smoking some good stuff to think that people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they send out emails over their personal email accounts.

For example, when I send an email to a reader, I reasonably expect that the reader, and ONLY the reader will read my email.  Now, that person may share the email with another, but that is to be expected.  For someone to suggest otherwise, is ludicrous.

Say you are driving down the street and you are on your cell phone talking with someone.  There is equipment that may be made or purchased that allows you to hear what a person is saying by measuring the vibrations of the windows.

The same holds true with email.  You need a piece of equipment to read the email, thus, privacy is reasonably expected.  If emails were blasted over loudspeakers or across reader boards, then since no equipment is necessary, an expectation of privacy isn't there.

If the US government is saying that they can listen in on email conversations because there is no expectation of privacy, I fully expect to be able to read George Bush's emails and anyone else within the Federal Government. 

Privacy is a two way street in the US.  If you tell me I have no reasonable expectation, then YOU have no reasonable expectation.

I would LOVE to hear the US government's position on that.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

All,

I will be loosening up the permissions in the Forums here shortly, so that anonymous people may post in there. A lot of people are used to being able to say what they want anonymously, and I can respect that. So, I will allow, for the time being, anonymous people to post on the forums. My host is having problems at the moment, so I will change it when the problem is resolved.

If there is abuse, I will remove the ability to post anonymously. You may post whatever you'd like, from any point of view, however, since spammers like to exploit things, if it happens, I may yank the ability. I guess time will tell. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

All,

Due to recent spammers hitting up the comments section, I unfortunately had to change the way that comments are done.

Now, if you wish to make a comment on a story, you may still do so, but you must be a registered member of Blogger.com. Or, you may comment on the story in the forums at http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

I apologize for this change, but I found no other way for me to be able to stop the comments spam.

As a side note, I apologize for the delay in the weekly radio show. I have been getting over a cold for the past several days and my scheduling conflicts have been in overdrive with my guest. I purchased a nicer microphone for myself and my guest, so the sound quality should be a lot better. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to give me a buzz.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Finally the main stream media has admitted that the surge in Iraq is working.

No major sectarian-related displacement of people has occurred over the past three months as violence between Sunnis and Shias is ebbing in this war-battered country, the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration said on 3 November. "We did not register any large-scale displacement nationwide over the past three months that related to sectarian violence except for a few individual cases in some areas of Baghdad and other provinces," Sattar Nawroz, spokesman for the ministry, said.

"But this doesn't mean that the security of these families is related only to the presence of troops in their neighborhoods as local councils, which are led by chieftains and dignitaries, will keep protecting them after the troops pull out," he added, referring to the tribal "Awakening Councils" which have been formed to fight Sunni and Shia extremists.

Finally an admission that things are starting to turn around in quelling the violence in Iraq. It only took them several months to do so. And the admission that the troops weren't the only reason is further proof that our tactics are working. We're engaging the locals and showing them what insurgents are capable of. They don't like it, and now they are working closely with us and within themselves to make their homes a safer place to be.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

It's an anonymous source, so take it with a grain of salt, but according to them, Iran wants to be a "nuclear weapons ready" state. In other words, get the information and the technology to be able to make a weapon in a short time frame, but not actually make a weapon.

While Bush administration officials insist that Tehran intends to build a bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is concerned that Iran wants eventually to become a "virtual nuclear-weapons state," like Japan. That is, it wants to have the technology, industry and expertise to produce a bomb on short notice, but doesn't necessarily want to make or test one. ("Yes, that is what we are doing," a senior Iranian envoy, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told NEWSWEEK last week.) Many Iranians hint that this would be a sufficient strategic deterrent, unless the United States attacks first. But only real negotiations can clarify whether there remains any potential for compromise. As another Iranian diplomat told NEWSWEEK, "Nothing short of negotiations as equal partners, like what we have with Europe, will solve Iran's problems with the rest of the world." Such talks, however, are looking less likely than ever.

How's this for a "strategic deterrent": Stop supporting insurgents, Hezbollah, and poking at the Israeli's? You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. However, since you can't seem to make that distinction, then your nuclear program simply isn't going to happen.

Especially when you are supposedly suggesting something that the US already has done: Namely, a third party nuclear fuel repository. You've been offered that and you turned it down flatly. Well now suggesting it means that you're just trying to buy some extra time.

Even your fellow Arab states such as Bahrain thinks you're trying to get a nuclear weapon.