Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Bush or bin Laden: Who is More Evil?
Oh my God, check out the brainwashing that's going on with this idiot.
It is the time of the year once again for Americans to mourn the loss of friends, family members and co-workers and to remember all who died on September 11, 2007.
Of course, it's "that time of year again", you know, like Easter, or Father's day.
While I cannot support bin Laden’s opinion that all Americans should be killed and that Islam is the only way to be saved, it is hard to overlook the statements that he makes about the Bush administration.
Oh sure, it's just his "opinion", it's not like he's actually DONE anything about it right?
In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.
If you're more worried about Bush then Bin Laden, you're a fucking idiot.
Travis
Labels: idiocy
Zach Marks: Tasering Students: A Shocking Disgrace - Politics on The Huffington Post
It's yet ANOTHER Huffington Post blogger that simply doesn't want to be bothered with seeing evidence and looking at those pesky "facts".
Zach Marks writes about the recent tasing of a university student.
I watched in disgust as Andrew Meyer, 21, was dragged by police through the auditorium and tasered repeatedly after he pleaded, "Don't tase me!" while Kerry did nothing to intervene. Every time the taser's shock caused Meyer to shriek, I didn't just hear a defenseless young man screaming in pain, I saw a fellow student becoming the victim of police brutality and unconstitutional censorship. Sure, Meyer's rant was getting a little long-winded, but while his verbal diarrhea may have deserved the ire of the audience, it certainly did not justify the violent arrest that prompted one onlooker to shout, "This is Rodney King all over again." Obviously an overstatement, but the police's use of force was undoubtedly unwarranted.
Really Zach? Do you think that after being put on the ground by several officers and him still flailing his arms around that he didn't deserve to be tased? Do you think he should have been able to keep that arm free? What if he had reached for an officer's gun? The officers were clearly trying to arrest him, he was resisting, and he was warned before that if he didn't stop, he'd be tased.
He continued, and he was tased.
Of course, there's always going to be a "march" and "outrage" by students.
There's even an entry in the police report where your "victim" told officers "You didn't do anything wrong".
Care to explain that Zach? Or are you going to go off on a tangent on how this is all a "police state" and other bullshit for officers just doing their job and a perfectly good textbook example of what to do when someone gets unruly and won't leave when told to do so. At that point, he's trespassing, you know, a crime.
Travis
Labels: Huffington Post, idiocy, Zach Marks
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Police Taser student at Kerry speech - News - GainesvilleSun.com
Well here's yet another example of the police trying to do their job and liberals getting their panties all in a knot over it.
A minute or so into what became a combative diatribe, Meyer's microphone was turned off and officers began trying to physically remove him from the auditorium. Meyer flailed his arms, yelling as police tried to restrain him.
He was then pushed to the ground by six officers, at which point Meyer yelled, "What have I done? What I have I done? Get away from me. Get off of me! What did I do? Help me! Help."
Police threatened to use a Taser on Meyer if he did not "comply," but he continued to resist being handcuffed. He was then Tased, which prompted him to scream and writhe in pain on the floor of the auditorium.
So the police had given him a warning that he would be Tased, but yet in the video, you can still see him flailing his arms about. At the beginning of the video, you can clearly see the guy stick his hand into the face of the officer.
As Meyer was escorted away, he was followed by several students, including Matthew Howland, 20. Howland, a UF senior who said he didn't know Meyer, said he was "appalled" by the way UPD officers handled the situation. Howland acknowledged that Meyer had acted inappropriately by "rushing" the microphone and forcing a question on Kerry.
"It's a perfect example of when officers take something to a level that is not necessary," he said. "The officers escalated that situation."
So the guy admits that he acted inappropriately and "rushed" the microphone and forced a question onto Senator Kerry. So what are the police supposed to think? Is this guy a threat? Does he have a weapon? He is clearly seen as flailing his arms around and would not leave peacefully when ordered to do so.
This is the same kind of liberal bullshit that cops get all the time. When bad guys with guns show up and start shooting up the place, police get blames for not doing enough or knowing ahead of time that something might happen.
Then, when they have a real life looney on their hands, they try to get him to leave peacefully, he won't and he's arrested. He clearly resists arrest, despite of what he's saying, and is warned that he'll be tazed if he doesn't comply. You even see a flash of light and a clear Taser noise at minute 2:49 in the video. He was clearly warned and yet continued to resist arrest.
The kid had it coming and has a history of pulling publicity stunts like this according to witnesses.
Take for example, the comments he makes right after his arrest:
"There are people who know I'm here. You can't just, just you know, kill me."
However, over at Huffington Post, they seem to think that this is all a "grave injustice". You know, I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of publicly shaming the idiots over at Huffington, but they keep coming up with dumb statements and backing it up with as few facts as possible:
And third, the police officers in this video are absolute scum. They should all be fired, and the one who used the Taser should be put in jail. It was bizarre and irrational for them to attack Meyer, a display of utterly unprovoked violence. The sheer brazenness of it, in front of an auditorium and multiple cameras, chills me. You can't go to a microphone and question an elected official (and again, there was nothing abusive or even particularly combative about these questions) without fear of being dragged off and tased? Apparently, Nick Antosca can't be bothered to actually WATCH the videos he posted. And yes Nick, if you're asked to leave, a place, then you leave. Failure to leave will result in your removal and possible tazering as this kid found out.
The use of tasers on handcuffed prisoners, particularly when, like Meyer and Mustafa Tabatabainejad, the prisoner has done absolutely nothing wrong and is unarmed, is straight torture.
WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEOS IDIOT, he wasn't handcuffed, he was partially handcuffed. Meaning only one hand was in the cuffs and you clearly see him jump up after officers were trying to get him down. He was CLEARLY resisting arrest and was not cuffed when he was tazed.
It's these same kind of people that like to say "George Bush is responsible for X" when they have zero evidence and zero facts on their side.
Travis
Labels: Funny, Huffington Post, idiocy, Nick Antosca
Monday, September 17, 2007
Cities cracking down on saggy pants - Yahoo! News
You know, I thought we had evolved as a nation past stupid crap like this. An article on how various cities are "crack"ing down on people with saggy pants. Here's a perfect example of the idiocy I'm talking about:
"Are they employed? Do they have a high school diploma? It's a wonderful way to redirect at that point," said Trenton Councilwoman Annette Lartigue, who is drafting a law to outlaw saggy pants. "The message is clear: We don't want to see your backside."
I don't care! If you see bare ass, hit them with indecent exposure. That's it. Otherwise, leave them alone and deal with more pressing issues that are facing our nation today.
God, you all sound like the idiots in the 50's that were talking about how "rock and roll is the devil's music!"
Grow up.
Travis
Labels: idiocy, idiotic politicians
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Treason
Oh you have GOT to be kidding me. Hillary Clinton is working with former national security advisor Sandy Berger on foreign policy.
The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).
This is the guy who STOLE classified documents and some of them have not been found to this day. If Hillary thinks that she can get away with this, she's deeply mistaken.
What the hell is she thinking? You know she's going to get called out over this. First it's the illegal campaign contributions from Hsu now it's working with her husbands failed national security advisor who's stolen classified documents AND was convicted for it.
We all know how well Sandy did with his previous national security experience (Osama, 9/11, etc), so it boggles the mind why Hillary would be within miles of this guy.
I certainly hope she's not working with Aldrich Ames over CIA matters.
Travis
Labels: Hillary Clinton, idiocy
The Associated Press: Report: Lab Not Tracking All Plutonium
Ok, if you can't be trusted with the nations nuclear secrets and materials, maybe you should all be fired and replaced with competent people? Maybe you should revamp your security? Maybe you should turn it all over to people who actually TAKE THIS STUFF SERIOUSLY!
A stockpile of plutonium and other nuclear weapons materials stored at Los Alamos National Laboratory hasn't been fully accounted for in 13 years or more, a government audit has found.
The northern New Mexico lab's workers have done regular, partial inventories of the material, which the government considers to be at high risk of theft, the audit by the Energy Department's inspector general, Gregory Friedman, found.
Yet an inventory of all the material hasn't been done in "perhaps 13 years or more," Friedman wrote. It wasn't even done when the lab's management contract changed last year, investigators noted in the report made public Wednesday.
Friedman said he is concerned because the lack of complete inventories means that lab workers likely haven't physically accounted for all of the material in more than a decade.
Granted the chances of inventory actually being missing is pretty low, but if they don't understand how crucial the material and documents are, then maybe a good firing is in order? At my job, if network security is breached, I'm the one responsible for it. Well if it happens enough times, guess what happens? I'm looking for another job.
And that's with relatively minor confidential information. This is stuff that in the wrong hands, can kill thousands of people.
That's something I don't want on my conscience, so I would take security of that as serious as you could get.
In an area that stores less sensitive nuclear material — containing smaller amounts of plutonium and uranium — a new shipment of nuclear material wasn't documented for eight days. Auditors noted that it was supposed to have been entered into the system within four hours.
"Under the circumstances, the nuclear material could have been diverted without any record showing that it had ever existed," Friedman wrote.
That's how serious this type of thing is.
Some lab employees don't follow instructions for how to develop identification numbers for the materials so they are easily identified. For example, auditors said one system was based on characters in a movie that a technician had just seen.
Well if he's not following the rules, fire him, demote him, reprimand him. Make sure it doesn't happen again. Am I the only one who sees this as a major problem??
Travis
Labels: idiocy, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons, Security
Kucinich: I Wouldn't Assassinate Bin Laden - Politics on The Huffington Post
I knew this guy was a nutjob, but WOW. He has said that he wouldn't order the death of Osama Bin Laden. He starts talking about "stopping the deaths of innocents".
Really Dennis? How is Osama Bin Laden an "innocent"? Hell even Bill Maher, whom I disagree with about 90-95% of his views is taken aback by Kucinich's idiocy.
"How can you expect liberals such as myself to support you, when you don't even want the head of the man, who in the name of righting Muslim persecution, murdered 3,000 fellow citizens who's immediate complicity in the plight of Muslims is non existent"
Couldn't have said it better myself Bill.
Even readers are noticing the idiotic nature of Kucinich's ideas:
1will
You sound like Bill Clinton. He wanted to capture him instead of killing him too. That was a very successful policy as we've all seen.
Keep talking Dennis, you're furthering your failure even within your own party.
Travis
Labels: 9-11, Dennis Kucinich, idiocy, Osama Bin Laden
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq - Yahoo! News
"President Bush's policy announced by General Petraeus is a path to 10 more years of war in Iraq. General Petraeus' testimony to Congress drew a bright line: redeployment is not an option; endless war in Iraq is the Administration's only option.
"Under the Bush plan, 130,000 Americans will remain in harm's way in Iraq at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars. This status quo policy was rejected by General James Jones, whose recent report stated that significant force reductions are possible and that we must reduce our military footprint in Iraq.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.
"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."
10 more years eh Nancy? Have any proof of that? Redeployment is NOT an option because there is progress being made and you simply don't like it.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint" You assume too much. Petraeus never said that we would have to remain at war in Iraq for 10 years.
"will be in Iraq in some way for 9 or 10 years" could mean anything. Hell, even one soldier in Iraq could mean "some way". We certainly aren't going to have 130,000 troops in Iraq in 9 or 10 years. It simply isn't possible. You're stretching the truth to fit your own personal agenda.
And finally, Americans voted in Democrats in 2006 for a variety of reasons, including Iraq. But you assume that's the ONLY reason you were voted in. If you truly believe that, you're in some deep trouble come election time.
Travis
Labels: idiocy, iraq, Nancy Pelosi
Olbermann - Fox News Worse Than Al-Qaeda
I've railed against Keith Olbermann for quite some time and I thought that he was just another looney tune liberal with a TV show. Wow, I could not have imagined that he thinks that two groups who've murdered almost 4,000 people are less than a threat then a new station.
Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.
He's really off the deep end on this one. Especially to spit it out on September 11th is really offensive. Because a news organization takes a different stance then him, he can't stand up to the opposing viewpoint, so he simply calls names and makes wild accusations. That's the first sign of a losing argument.
So, I think I can speak for all of America and say: Fuck you Keith.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, Fox News, idiocy, Keith Olbermann
Monday, September 10, 2007
Gareth Porter: War Against Iran and the Logic of Dominance - Politics on The Huffington Post
Really genius? So you mean to tell me that other nations like Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia who are concerned with Iran's nuclear program only want the US to be the only global superpower? Go on, I'm all ears.
In other words, Iran could not be allowed to have even the option of a nuclear weapon capability, because the United States had to be able to operate with a completely free hand militarily in the region.
Umm....have you even READ the non proliferation nuclear treaty that Iran SIGNED??
What Donnelly did not say, but which follows from that posture, is that even a non-nuclear Iran that has links to strong allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, could not be allowed to be a regional power.
So I guess you're ok with a nation with nuclear weapons intentions to have ties to known terrorist organizations? Are you ok with Russia having ties to Al-Qaeda? What about China and the IRA? You still ok with that?
Finally, the Bush administration refused to tolerate any real negotiations by the Europeans with Iran over its uranium enrichment program in 2004-2005, even though those negotiations could have resulted in an agreement that would limited Iran to a level of uranium enrichment that would have only a small fraction of what is required for the production of a nuclear weapon. In March 2005, Iran proposed to its European negotiating partners to submit to a system of their devising to guarantee against enrichment that could support a nuclear weapons through an inspection system. But under U.S. pressure the Europeans refused even to discuss it.
So you're ok with them taking just a bit longer to make a nuclear weapon?? Is that like Timothy McVeigh gathering up bomb components over the course of 20 years instead of 3? That sounds like what you're saying to me.
We pressured the Europeans because they have a vast history of appeasement against threats and they needed to be reminded of the threat that we all face.
The administration's argument against such an agreement was that there was a secret enrichment program paralleling the acknowledge program that would fall under international inspection. But as Sy Hersh reported last November , after years of trying, the CIA still had found "no conclusive evidence" a such a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the one being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact the still classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in mid-2005 concluded that no final Iranian decision had been made to pursue the manufacture of a nuclear weapon.
Well according to the IAEA, Iran got themselves a hold of nuclear weapons documents.
Still ok with them getting a hold of a nuclear weapon?
The implication of the general acceptance of the threat of war against Iran as instrument of policy is that neither the "moderates" inside the administration nor the Democrats will be in a position to offer effective resistance to actual war against Iran before it is too late. Unless someone begins to push back soon, the distorted logic of dominance may carry this nation into an irrational and criminal war whose consequences for us and for the world would be the gravest imaginable.
So you're ok with a nation with nuclear weapons intentions, with known terrorist group ties, with knowingly fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq? You're ok about doing NOTHING about it? You're ok that their President has made numerous threats about genocide against Israel?
Well, going by your logic, you wouldn't mind if your neighbor just started shooting at you. You wouldn't mind if he invited over a few skinheads to have a "peaceful" rally in his front yard. Hell, you wouldn't even mind if he out and out said he'd want to flatten your home, with you inside it. Now of course, no one is actually calling for Gareth's neighbor to engage in violence against him, but once it effects you personally, views change.
Now that I've made the virtual situation more personal, Gareth, are you still ok with it?
I feel that way about ALL American lives, not just my own. When I see a threat, I want that threat eliminated. When I see people who are dismissive about it and call names, I need to point out their idiocy, including your own.
Travis
Labels: Huffington Post, idiocy, iran
Rick Jacobs: "Yes to Four More Years in Iraq" -- California Republican Party - Politics on The Huffington Post
For all the times I call out someone when they are wrong, occasionally I get to hear from them and they offer a rebuttal. I doubt I'll be hearing from Huffington Post blogger Rick Jacobs on his idiotic assumptions:
As the Petraeus/Crocker show starts tomorrow, think about this: a Republican White House victory in 2008. That'd mean four more years in Iraq and who knows what in Iran. It'd mean four more years of torture in prisons, of wire tapping our phones and computers, of making the environment worse, not working to reverse the damage. Four more years sounds far- fetched, doesn't it? The "surge" has failed. America's low standing in the world is matched by that of Bush's standing in the US. The Republican presidential candidates are in disarray. The American people "get it." The Republicans can't win again in 2008, right?
Well Rick, the surge HASN'T failed. Unless you want to discredit the guy who's been over there and seen what it has and hasn't accomplished. Or perhaps you haven't seen the testimony of the General seeing as how you posted this yesterday.
That I can forgive, but all reports and leaks coming out of Washington said that he had positive things to say. So you're simply making assumptions. Something I very rarely like to do.
Secondly, what makes you think a Republican would have us in Iraq another 4 years? General Petraeus is saying that we can start bringing a lot of our guys home at the end of next summer if things keep going the way they are now.
If America has such a low standing, why are there people STILL coming to America to build better lives for themselves?
And if American's "Get it". Why do 72% of them say that no matter what General Petraeus says in his report, it won't change their mind about Iraq? That's pretty close minded if you ask me.
Governor Schwarzenegger gave the delegates a talking to on Friday night, explaining that they had left the voters behind, that they had to address issues such as the environment and healthcare if they hoped to win another election. This was on the heels of his having called the Electoral College dirty tricks initiative part of a "loser's mentality" for those who seek to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Any candidate will lose the election if they don't pay attention to voters needs. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on. Plus, the "loser's mentality" is what Democrats were wanting to do right after the 2000 and 2004 elections. There were calls for reforming the Electoral College votes to more of a popular vote right afterwards that didn't go very far. So if Democrats wanted to change the rules then, they shouldn't have a problem with changing the rules now right?
Travis
Labels: Assumptions, Huffington Post, idiocy, iraq
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Marty Beckerman: Picard for President: Why the (Other) Bald Captain of the Enterprise is a Better Leader than Bush - Entertainment on The Huffington P
Yes, let's debate why a fictional character on a science fiction show would be better at being President then President Bush. You know, it simply wouldn't be a complete day without pointing out the idiot blogger's over at Huffington Post. This time it's blogger Marty Beckerman.
Marty, buddy, it's a TV show. That's like comparing someone's fathering skills to Cliff Huxtable. But don't buy my end of the story take a look at the journalistic glory that is Marty Beckerman:
a nuanced political worldview that often explored the tactical necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils, the proper time for diplomacy to devolve into warfare, and other unpleasant shades of gray. (Does sex with an android count as emotional lovemaking or futuristic masturbation?)
Riveting Marty, please, go on.
At the moral center of these realist quandaries was Captain Jean-Luc Picard, whom Patrick Stewart played with Shakespearean gravitas (and without the use of William Shatner's signature toupee). The French-born, tea-drinking Picard, who popularized the catch phrase "make it so," was far more of a refined interstellar emissary than a testosterone-oozing brawler -- the Tony Blair to George W. Bush's Kirk, or more fittingly his Zapp Brannigan -- but was hardly a pacifist in an emergency. Indeed, Picard was a literate, contemplative and judicious leader, the exact opposite of what America has had so far in the Twenty-First Century.
Why doesn't this man have a Pulitzer yet?!?! It's a travesty of justice!
Travis
Labels: Huffington Post, Humor, idiocy
Fake motorcade causes summit stir - CNN.com
Oh man, that was hilarious! I mean, come on! Fake motorcade? That's original!
These idiots deserve any jail time that they have coming to them. To purposefully act like people they aren't and pull a stunt like this is irresponsible at best and idiotic and dangerous at worst.
Can you imagine what might have happened if police thought that the people inside the car were indeed terrorists? It's not as unthinkable as you might think. I think we all remember the limo bomb plot a little while back, so these morons are lucky the police didn't end up shooting them or anyone else getting hurt.
The police were right in treating them like a threat because they acted like a threat. I wonder what the TV station would have done if someone had gotten hurt or killed. There's bound to be lawsuits from this incident regardless of how it ends.
Travis
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Keith Olbermann Twists Words Yet Again
Here's a transcript of his latest rant, but there's a few problems of course:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush’s trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.
And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.
But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.
As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying — is lying… will be lying — about Iraq.
He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper’s book “Dead Certain.”
“I’m playing for October-November,” Mr. Bush said to Draper.
That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.
Really Keith! Do tell!
Which is, to quote him: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.”
Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay longer.”
And there it is, sir. We’ve caught you.
I'm confused, how do you catch someone when they say something out loud?
Your goal is not to bring some troops home — maybe — if we let you have your way now;
How do you know that? You're grasping at straws Keith. "I'm playing for October-November" could very well mean "I'm trying to get Iraqi violence levels down to acceptable levels around October or November. I want the American people more comfortable to keep US troops in Iraq until the Iraqi's are more able to stand on their feet, presumably within the next few months." Keith, you're assuming things. We all know that the President isn't exactly the best at public speaking.
Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;
How do you know that? You're assuming.
You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
So he's trying to get other Republican Presidential nominees to see the progress in Iraq and be ok with keeping them there if the need does arrive?
Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal — perpetuating this war indefinitely.
We simply can't afford to be at war forever. No one has even suggested it. Well except you.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
And you are playing at it!
Playing!
A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!
You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, sir.
You had none to start with Keith.
And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing — and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, “They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) “tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”
And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today: “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home.”
What makes it fraudulent? If General Petraeus says "we should bring down troop levels", how can you possibly argue with that? He's the guy on the ground, he's the one with the experience and he's the one who's actually making a difference. Oh wait, that's right, he's also the one that Democrats are already calling a "Political Hack" and other nasty names because they know he's going to show positive results and it'll completely take the wind out of Democrats argument of complete and immediate withdrawal.
While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President’s true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.
You're assuming again Keith, it seems to be a pattern with you.
But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen — a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.
Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.
You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book
And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq — hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.
“If you look at my comments over the past eight months,” you told reporters, “it’s gone from a security situation — in the sense that we’re either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I’m able to speculate on the hypothetical.”
Mr. Bush, the only “hypothetical” here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage.
Hardly. Now the "hypothetical" is when can we bring troops home and how are the Iraqi security forces doing?
You have no intention of withdrawing them.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t pretend you’re thinking about it, does it?
That is your genius, sir — as you see it, anyway.
So, I'm confused, is Bush a genius or an idiot. Liberals flip flop on this so many times. But then again, they flip flop like a fish out of water, so it's not surprising.
You can deduce what we want — we, the people, remember us? — and then use it against us.
You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.
Ooooh a metaphor! I'm impressed!
And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq — or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq — they will get the bullet points: ‘Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.’
Yes, because after Generals on the ground have said we've captured or killed almost 4,000 Al-Qaeda members, we certainly are much less safe aren't we? Al-Zahirwi has said that Iraq is Al-Qaeda's main focus point now, we've seen evidence of that statement to be true, so we must indeed be less safe! It all makes sense now!
You can fool some of the people all of the time, can’t you, Mr. Bush?
You are playing us!
And as for the most immediate victims of the President’s perfidy and shameless manipulation — those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base…
Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death…
The President saved, for them, the most egregious “playing” in the entire trip.
“I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.”
One must compliment Mr. Bush’s writer.
That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.
But well crafted or not, is it true? I believe it is. I believe it's the right thing to do. Politicians, especially Democrats, will say or do anything to keep themselves in power and they see positive results coming from Iraq and with their constituency saying "get out of Iraq now!", they are stuck either looking like a pandering bunch of idiots, or a dangerously short sighted bunch of idiots.
For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people — nothing… could top that.
As if, sir, you listened to all the “calm assessments” of our military commanders –rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;
Pretty hard to dismiss General Petraeus isn't it? I mean he can do it, but it would be political suicide to do so.
As if, sir, your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction”, and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;
As if, sir, “the media” does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation’s future may depend on the airing of dissent.
And as if, sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation’s agony and the nation’s insistence.
But this President has ceased to listen.
Why? Because there are vast consequences to withdrawal that Democrats simply don't see? They don't know about the 1991 slaughter of Iraqi citizens that rose up against Saddam that we encouraged? They don't think that we'd have a nation of pissed off people if we pulled out and they were summarily slaughtered as well?
This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.
To tell you the truth, I could give a shit what the world thinks of us. I only care about the safety and security of America.
And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will — on his orders — be killed before the year, maybe the month, is out.
Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.
Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this President’s trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.
Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November.” The goal in Iraq is “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence” and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.
Even if it means your resignation.
Won't happen.
Even if it means your impeachment.
REALLY won't happen. Democrats simply don't have the backbone to do it. So whine all you want, we all know you're full of hot air. They also don't have the votes, or the criminal charges.
Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.
President Cheney? Yeah, I'm sure that Democrats would go for that.
Even if it means a Democratic Congress — and those true Patriots among the Republicans — standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
Go for it. Hell, I double dare you to do it. You'll end up getting the reputation that you so richly deserve just like the one you got after Democrats defunded the Vietnam war. Ones of cowardice and undermining troops with no money to pay for proper equipment and supplies.
But alas, Democrats don't have the backbone to do it. They are too worried about doing what's popular instead of what's "right" in their minds. They lack the courage, the conviction, and the moral radar to actually do anything about the Iraq war, which they are so enraged about.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days…
Not while you, sir… are playing.
And you sir, are assuming, grasping at straws, and trying to rile up people who aren't going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, idiocy, iraq, Keith Olbermann, Politics, Republicans
Paula Gordon: An Open Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi - The Huffington Post
Some people are just too dumb for words. Case in point, yet another Huffington Post blogger, Paula Gordon. She writes an "open letter" to Nancy Pelosi telling her to not to authorize any attacks on Iran.
Here's her reasoning:
A plan is not an action and stories about America attacking Iran have been floating around for years. However, given:
• the deteriorating condition of Iraq,
• setbacks in Afghanistan,
• overextended and depleted U.S. military,
• astonishing cost of the Iraq adventure and related actions (threatening the economic viability of the nation and demonstrably diminishing the quality of life),
• ongoing intelligence failures (c.f., Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner),
• the demonstrated inability of this Administration to plan for what-happens-next (e.g., Amb (ret) Peter Galbraith's The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End),
• the potentially catastrophic consequences of attacking Iran,
• the inattentiveness of mainstream media,
• the Administration's arrogant disregard of the Constitution, the laws of the land and the people's will expressed through Congress,
• the messianic paranoia laced throughout this Administration, and
• the feeble response of Congress to all the above,
I think what she meant was:
Senator Pelosi,
I don't have the foggiest idea on what's going on in Iraq. I don't know or don't care to do even the most basic research on the rumors of Iranian support of insurgents who are shooting at and murdering US troops. I certainly don't think that we should actually retaliate against people who are shooting at US troops.
I mean, God forbid we actually DEFEND ourselves at anything.
But I'm getting off subject. Because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and setbacks in Afghanistan, that automatically gives the Iranians full permission to take pot shots at our guys.
I certainly can't be bothered to research Iran's support of Hezbollah, a known terrorist organization, and be deeply troubled by Iran's obvious nuclear weapons ambitions.
I also can't put two and two together and think that maybe if the Iranians weren't supporting the insurgency in Iraq that maybe the picture in Iraq might be a LOT more better then it appears on the news. I mean, that would make Republicans right, wouldn't it?
In closing Ms. Pelosi, I want to make sure that our friends and enemies know that we're going to back down from a fight if it gets too hard. I want our enemies to know that if we're busy with something else, we can't be bothered to retaliate against known aggressors. I just want everyone to know that when the going gets tough, liberals will push for withdrawal because they're pussies.
I'm pretty sure that's the gist of the article she wrote.
Travis
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The Denver Post - Grads fall shy of state hopes
This is why other countries are kicking our asses in terms of generating more scientists and mathematicians.
At Metropolitan State College in Denver, half the new freshmen don't meet upcoming state requirements for the number of high school courses needed to get into public colleges and universities.
At the University of Northern Colorado, 22 percent of the freshman class fall short of the requirements. And among Colorado State University freshmen, the figure is 17 percent.
The first minimum college-entrance standards weren't scheduled to go into effect until 2008.
But state officials were so alarmed at the number of freshmen - some 3,000 this fall - who wouldn't meet the standards were they in place now that last month they relaxed the requirements to let school districts catch up.
Not up to snuff? Who gives a crap, we'll pass you anyway's.
"One hundred percent of our kids graduate from high school," he said. "It's not in our business to, in my mind, make sure students just go to a four-year college. That's not the only path."
No one sees a problem with this? 100% of students graduate? Sure, it's a nice statistic to tout, but you're just creating idiots and giving them the false sense of accomplishment.
This is why I continue to see kids right out of high school who are complete idiots. They have no preparation for the real world in terms of math, science, basic English skills, or even correct spelling.
For Christ's sake, I get resume's on my desk in Microsoft Word format that have misspellings in them. Word comes with a spell checker! These people simply cannot compete on the world stage if they don't have basic skills and knowledge of things around them.
They also worry about 2010, when even tougher college-admissions policies come on line that require students to have taken one year of a foreign language and four years of math.
Many school districts already admit they will not be ready.
They have 2 full years to get ready and they admit they won't be ready now? What kind of preparation do they need so that they CAN be ready? We devote billions of dollars a year towards education and frankly, I think we're being screwed. We're simply not getting a good value out of it. We continually see children graduate from grade to grade who haven't passed the tests that were placed in front of them to move onto the next grade.
I assume that my older readers know of someone or at least have HEARD of someone who was held back a grade or two? Try hearing about it today. You simply don't.
So either the teachers and faculty start failing kids that truly aren't ready for the next grade, or start losing funding. I'm tired of my hard earned tax dollars going for state of the art schools (we've opened up several in the last 5 years with massive amounts of equipment, teachers, and huge buildings) and not having kids who are at least semi competent to run a McDonalds drive through.
Put it this way, if you paid $70,000 for a new sports car, and the blinkers didn't work, the engine sputtered, and it's 0-60 time was in minutes, you'd feel ripped off and want your money back. So how is it any different when it comes to educating our children?
I constantly see propositions during election time for this tax or that tax to go towards paying for schools. It's a feel good idea but we never get to see actual results. Instead we're all greeted with people asking for more money, over crowded schools, laughable text books, and idiotic ideas like giving all students ipods.
So it's high time we started telling teachers and principals that if the student isn't up to snuff, they repeat the grade. If they quit school, then they'll learn the very hard way that jobs that pay well require an education. If it's your child that's failing, step up as a parent and get involved with their school work. Help them out, hire a tutor, do whatever it takes to make them smarter. If it's your child that's failing, don't blame the principal or the teacher, how about, you know just for a change, you blame the one person who's responsible for them failing: the student.
Travis
Labels: Children, idiocy, Schools
Friday, August 31, 2007
Corey Feldman, Corey Haim Talk Lindsay, Paris, Britney - Movie News Story | MTV Movie News
Umm...No it isn't you idiot. The behavior problems by the three that you list are their problems only. It's called personal responsibility. It's obviously something you still haven't learned yet.
"I see my life as a series of lessons. So yes, I made some bad choices, but those choices were an opportunity for me to grow and to learn. When you come out the other side, you can feel this overwhelming strength."
Exactly right, YOU made some bad choices. The only way that society is responsible for your choices is if they were made for you by society. Stop playing the blame game and start acting like a man.
You starred in several hit movies and had numerous opportunities to be responsible and live your life in luxury for the remainder of your days. You chose to go down the drunk, drugged up child star way and that's a choice you'll have to live with. Not every child star gets the success that you do, so don't think for a moment that we'll feel sorry for you.
Travis
Labels: Celebrities, idiocy, Personal Responsibility
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Robert Naiman: Slam Dunk: The Bush Administration is Trying to Provoke Iran - Politics on The Huffington Post
Oh how I enjoy the Huffington Post. It's completely filled to the brim with idiotic people who don't want to do even the most elementary research before they go spouting off about their cause du jour or hopping on the next bandwagon.
Case in point, this funny little article.
But details have emerged from the recent escalation that strongly indicate what many have long suspected: the Bush administration's fundamental conflict with Iran is not about its nuclear program or alleged weapons smuggling -- so far unproven -- into Iraq.
So far unproven? What kind of rock has this idiot been hiding under? What about the IED's? What about the weapons? What about the captured insurgents saying they trained in Iran? What about the sniper rifles that were ordered by the Iranian government and then sent into the hands of insurgents?
Unproven? Yeah, maybe if you're an idiot or are completely blind to the evidence at hand.
Here is something very simple Congress could do to indicate that they are serious about preventing the Bush Administration from provoking a war with Iran. They could mandate that U.S. forces in Iraq cannot arrest Iranian government officials who can prove that they are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless they have explicit authorization from the "sovereign" Iraqi government to do so.
The problem with that line of thinking is that we never could have arrested the Iranian diplomats who were actively helping the insurgency kill US troops. When you tie the hands of people who are trying to do their job, it only hampers their ability to do that job.
What this moron is asking US troops to do is ludicrous. They have every right to arrest and detain anyone they think may be committing a crime or working against US interests. These people were arrested and then released.
So you're telling me that US soldiers are supposed to believe a hotel manager over their own gut feeling? If this idiot had his way, even if there was evidence of wrong doing, they couldn't arrest them.
This is the same kind of defeatism that liberals keep pushing for on and on again. Tie the hands of those who are trying to do their job, then complain when they can't do their job to the best of their ability. Ignore overwhelming evidence that Iranians are actively fighting a proxy war with US troops in Iraq while complaining when US soldiers arrest someone for a reason they thought was justified. There are Iranian agents in Iraq right now with and without the permission of the Iraqi government. That doesn't mean that they get free reign of the country and aren't above suspicion.
Maybe if Iran wasn't supporting the insurgency, they wouldn't be getting treated this way.
Personally, if we find out where a bomb factory is or a training facility, I think we should bomb it to rubble, even if it's on the Iranian side of the border. No one is allowed to take pot shots at our guys and get away with it.
Travis
Labels: idiocy, insurgent, iran, iraq
CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Lawmaker seeks $64,500 for his portrait «
And he wants to use his campaign money to pay for it. I'm sure that's exactly what his campaign donors were wanting the money to go for when they donated it. An almost $65,000 painting of him.
I don't see why a large photograph can't be taken. You can get a nice photograph of you in a VERY large frame for around $1,000. Use the extra $64,000 to pay off the national debt, give schools extra cushion for things they need, employ the unemployed, ANYTHING other than a painting of yourself.
It makes you look like an egotistical jerk who's only thinking of himself.
Travis
Labels: Charles Rangel, idiocy, Waste Of Money
Suspected chemical weapons found at U.N. office - CNN.com
These were found while cleaning out an office. So it's highly unlikely that it was anything related to terrorism. However, what kind of idiot would keep something as dangerous as this chemical in their office? The sheer level of idiocy should be enough for that person to be fired and never allowed back into the US if they are a foreign diplomat.
If it is a US diplomat, they should be stripped of their job immediately and never allowed into any foreign country that deems them too stupid to come into their land.
It really can't be overstated that dealing with chemical weapons is a dangerous thing and to have it in an office building like the UN is idiotic.
Travis
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Connecticut Post Online - Town Council drops pants ordinance
Finally a town that sees through the bullshit and thought that they might have better things to do. I am starting to feel better now.
Travis
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
