Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Tonight's debate |
| 09.30.04 (8:36 pm) [edit] |
|
There will be a whole lot more this weekend, reactions from the debate and all. Hopefully. I do have a reunion to go to this weekend which will involve traveling, attending a football game, etc. But I'm going to give it a shot. What I did want to talk about was tonight's "debate," specifically the rules regarding the "debate." First of all, there was a 32 page memorandum that was written jointly by the campaigns that outlined the "rules" of the debate. 32 pages! Some of the rules: 1) The candidates cannot ask each other direct questions. (hence my referring to this as a "debate" rather than an actual DEBATE.) 2) No props (i.e. charts, notes, diagrams.) 3) Answers will be limited to 2 minutes, rebuttals to 90 seconds, and extended discussion to 60 seconds. 4) The thermostat will be set to 70 degrees. 5) Podiums will be 50 inches tall (4 feet 2 inches), set 10 feet apart. Supposedly the podium height will help downplay the height difference between Kerry and Bush (6'4" and 5'11" respectively.) 6) The candidates can take notes with pen and paper, but all materials must be submitted for inspection prior to the debate. So what we're really going to see tonight will not be a debate, but a joint press conference. I'd like to see a good ol' fashioned debate. Throw out a topic and let the two guys go at it. They can interupt each other and everything. Give them a time limit on the topic, say 5, 10 minutes. In other news; Blacks are afraid of electronig voting machines, so saith Joanne Bland, director of an Alabama Civil Rights Group. The Kerry Campaign has no sense of humor. The newest Kerry campaign tactic is to tell people that Bush has a "secret plan" to reinstate the draft. Problem is, Democrats are the only ones introducing legislation to reinstate said draft. In fact, CBS aired a segment the other night which featured "worried mother" Beverly Cocco worrying that her sons will be draft. CBS featured Cocco working as a crossing guard and identified her only as a "Pennsylvania Voter." Cocco stated "I go to bed every night and I pray, and I actually get sick to my stomach. I'm very worried. I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared. I'm petrified." The reported continued... "Beverly is petrified about a military draft, and she's not alone. Mass e-mails are circulating among worried parents. But neither President Bush nor John Kerry has said he will re-institute the draft. In fact, they both say they will not." The report then goes on to state that while both Kerry and Bush have said that they will not reinstate the draft, "Beverly's not buying it. She's a Republican, but she's also a single-issue voter." The reporter asks Cocco "Would you vote for a Democrat?" Cocco responds... "Absolutely. I would vote for Howdy Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe." Both of Cocco's sons are asked if they are worried about being drafted, and the boys both reply "yeah." However, Beverly Cocco is hardly the atypical "PA voter" she was played up to be in the report. Cocco is actually a member of the Philadelphia Lancaster/Bucks County chapter of People Against the Draft. PAD's website says they are a "non-partisan, grassroots organization of concerned parents, students, educators, and others..." However, the title page of the website features a photo of a child holding a poster saying "President Bush: bring my daddy back home ALIVE!!!" and the caption "Bring them home now!" Gee, kinda like an honest-to-God actual partisan antiwar organization, huh? You can go here to see just how non-partisan PAD actually is. (HINT: their Bronx Chapter contact, Anita Dutt is a Green Party Activist and also belongs to the anti-war group Bronx Action for Justice and Peace.) You would think CBS might think it would be important to disclose this information about Cocco before trying to pass her off as John...excuse me...Jane Q. Public, wouldn't you? Me either. |
| Kerry interview with Diane Sawyer |
| 09.29.04 (8:02 pm) [edit] |
So, Johnny Appleseed was interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC. Sawyer asks Kerry if the war in Iraq was worth it, his response:
But little more than a month ago, John Kerry said that he still would have voted to give the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. So which is it? Should we have gone to war or not? And give me that "nuance" crap, "Kerry voted to give Bush the authority, not for the actual war." If he believed (as he said in August) that he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, then he can't be opposed to the war now. Well, he can be, but he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Sawyer also pressed Kerry about his "I actually did vote for the 87 billion BEFORE I voted against it." Kerry responded:
Late in the evening? According to USA Today, the comments were made at "a midday town meeting." Later on in the article, the article states "At 9:33 a.m. ET, MORE THAN FOUR HOURS (so give him five hours, he said it at 1:00 pm -H/Arms) before Kerry said any of this, the Bush campaign e-mailed to reporters a news release..." Now, not to nit-pick these points. And they are minor points. Kerry may be mis-remembering the "for before against" statement, I can understand he may have been tired and it was a hectic time for him. But can you imagine NBC or ABC or CBS letting Bush slide on this kind of stuff? Hell, CBS went after Bush with FAKE memos. Kerry has changed his position on the war in Iraq and a boatload of other things. There are FACTS to back this up, but you won't hear it on NBC Nightly News. Can't wait for the debate tomorrow night. Also, thanks be to Allah for pointing this out. These are =http://www.memri.org/bin/late..."some excerpts from a peice that aired on Saudi Arabia's IQRA TV. Sort of a "street beat" reporter deal. Some people were interviewed about their feelings toward Jews. Would you, AS A HUMAN BEING (emphasis added -H/Arms), be willing to shake Hands with a Jew? 1) "Of course I wouldn't be willing to shake hands with a Jew, for religious reasons and because of what is happening now in Palestine, and for many reasons that don't allow me to shake a Jew's hand." 2)"No. Because the Jews are eternal enemies. The murderous Jews violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me." 3)"No, the Jew is an enemy. How can I shake my enemy's hand?" Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew? 1) "Of course, so I wouldn't have to consider amputating my hand afterwards." If a child asks you "Who are the Jews," what would you answer? 1) "The enemies of Allah and His Prophet" 2) "The Jew is the occupier of our lands." 3) "The murderers of prophets. Our eternal enemies, of course." 4) "The murderers of prophets, that's it." Here's my favorite response: 5) "Allah's wrath is upon them, as the Koran says. Allah's wrath is upon them and they all stray from the path of righteousness. They are the filthiest people on the face of this earth because they care only about themselves - not the Christians, not the Muslims, nor any other religion. The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… There is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet. There is another country that donated money, saying, 'I am behind you, I'll support you with weapons, just wage Jihad. But the cowardice inside us, deep within our hearts, was instilled by the Arab leaders, may Allah forgive them. They breast-fed us with it from the day we were born to this very day it has grown with us." Remember, these weren't members of HAMAS or Hezbollah, these are just ordinary everyday folks on the street. Peaceful people, those Muslims. |
| Yeah..yeah.. |
| 09.24.04 (3:20 pm) [edit] |
I know, no new posts in a week or so. What's there to talk about? Nothing new is happening. Dan Rather has apologized for using the documents, but still won't admit that they are fake. He can no longer vouch for the journalistic integrity of the memos.
Ain't that a hoot? He tries to cast doubt upon the integrity of a man running for President (of the YOU-Nited States of a American) by using fake documents, and all we get is "I'm sorry." I know it gets old, but flip the scenario. Imagine I sat down at my home PC and faked some documents that showed John Kerry never REALLY served in Vietnam. Now say I sent these to, say, FOX News and they ran with the story. Would Britt Hume get off with a simple "My Bad?" Doubt it. Let's see, what else? Oh, some dude from Iraq came over and said it ain't that bad over there. John Kerry's response "nuh-unh." This seems to be Kerry's newest campaign strategy. Whenever President Bush says something, Kerry holds a press conference to say "nuh-unh." Bush: Uh-merka's (Thats' Bush-ese for America) economy today is as strong as it has been in the last 20 years. Kerry: Nuh-unh Bush: This was a good war. Kerry: Nuh-unh. (Okay it was actually "This was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.") Bush: The tax cuts are working Kerry: Nuh-unh Sorta makes me look forward to the debate to see if Kerry will maybe stick his tongue out or reply to a question with "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." |
| Memogate |
| 09.17.04 (3:45 pm) [edit] |
|
I know, no new posts in a while. Combination of things. I'm tired of hearing about "memogate." Rather's newest line is that it doesn't matter that the documents may be false, what IS important is the questions raised by the documents. Read that again. Don't worry if the memos are fake, just worry about the questions raised by them. Questions...raised...by...fake...memos. *SIGH* Of course, those on the left side of the spectrum will continue questioning George Bush's National Guard Service, even though George Bush is not making his Guard service a campaign item. So, as far as I can tell, here are the DO's and DON'T's for CNNCBSABCNBC media machine: DO cast doubt upon George Bush's 6 years of National Guard service because there are some fake memos out there that bring up good questions. DON'T question Kerry's 4 months of Vietnam service, even though there are 250 guys who served with him and say he is a liar. DO make a big deal out of the current employment rate (5.4 percent), even though it is as low as it ever ever was during Clinton's presidency, which was an economic utopia. DON'T point out that we are still fighting a war against ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. DO try to portray Bush as an ignorant redneck rube, who happens to be intelligent enough to get in bed with the Saudi royal family and conspire against the United States so he can make his "big oil" and Haliburton buddies rich. (Oh, that crafty, foxy, ignorant moron.) DON'T report Kerry's flip-flops re: the Iraq War, the "87 billion," firearms, his opinion of National Guard Service, whose ribbons he tossed over the fence, when he was in Cambodia, whether or not he was actually IN Cambodia, what shoes he wore today, blah blah blah. 45 days to go. |
| Finally! |
| 09.10.04 (3:48 pm) [edit] |
|
You know that feeling you get when you witness a double standard? You know, like when Bush won in 2000, I said "what if Gore had won the electoral vote and Bush took the popular vote?" Would the Republicans have screamed as loudly as Democrats did to abolish the Electoral College? Would Democrats have screamed as loudly as Republicans to defend it? Well, we finally have a double standard where we can compare and contrast the media's reaction to both. First, we had the Swift Vets challenging John Kerry's claims about his service in Vietnam. It didn't help that Kerry himself was in Cambodia during Christmas when Nixon was president (SEARED dammit!), then later Kerry recanted and said he MAY have been in Cambodia in January. "Bullocks!" screamed the media. They didn't bother to interview the Swift Vets and get their story. It didn't matter that these 250 guys were the same thing Kerry claimed to be, decorated war veterans. Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Matthews et al simply shouted them down as Republican hacks, and questioned their ties to the Bush administration because some guy in Texas gave them all donations. Well, now we have a few people questioning President Bush's service in the National Guard. First we have some documents produced by Dan Rather on 60 Minutes II. These documents were taken, CBS was TOLD (not actually verified - there's good journalism!) from the personal files of one Col. Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago. We also had Ben Barnes recently claim that he got Bush into the National Guard when he served as Texas Lt. Governor in 1968. CBS and others have RUN with this story. No fact checking, no questioning of their motives as they did with the Swift Vets. These claims hurt Bush, so they must be true! Well not so fast. 1) Regarding the documents. Several people have come out saying that there is a good possibility that these documents have been faked. Questions about the font the documents are in have been raised, several people have said that these documents have been typed in the Times New Roman font common in Microsoft word processing programs. Also, the fact that the subscript "th" as in "111th FIS" are in these documents. Only a few high-end typewriters were equipped to type subscript, not something a National Guard unit would have had. There are also curved apostrophe and quotation marks on the documents. Again, on most typewriters of the time, there were only foot and inch marks (straight marks) that had to pull double duty as quotations. The widow and son of Col. Killian both have come forth and said that their husband and father was not the type of person to type memos, preferring to handwrite things instead. Both noted that these memos were not written in the way they knew Col. Killian would have written. CBS claims that these document came from Col Killian's "Personal File" but his son and wife state that the documents didn't come from their home. CBS has so far ignored the widow and son. Why would a man keep memos that could possibly incriminate himself anyway? Some military officers have also come forward and acknowledged a lack of proper military jargon, and noted discrepancies like "One hundred and eleventh Fighter Interceptor Squadron" would have been shortened to "111 FIS" or "111th FIS" not "111 F.I.S" and "111th F.I.S." They also said that only one of the abreviations would have been used, not both, as in the memo. As of this writing, CBS is still saying these documents are legitimate, thought they refuse to divulge the source of these documents (someone check Michael Moore's computer and see if its still smoking.) 2)On to Ben Barnes, who claimed to have gotten George Bush into the Texas National Guard while Barnes was serving as Lt. Governor. The problem is, Ben Barnes was sworn in as Lt. Governor in January of 1969. George Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in May 1960. Ben Barnes, by the way is also a Vice Chair on John Kerry's campaign. You get to be a Vice Chair by donating $100,000 or more. Barnes has donated over $500,000 for John Kerry. This isn't a true double standard, though. Because Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the centerpeice of his campaign. Bush has NOT made his Service in the Texas Air National Guard the centerpeice of HIS campaign. Now, if the National News Media was TRULY OBJECTIVE, don't you think these discrepancies would raise some questions? Don't you think that SOMEONE would call into question these facts? Not if it helps the guy you want to win in November I guess. The Kerry campaign is floundering, it's only going to get worse. |
| Kerry a Hypocrite? Nawww |
| 09.08.04 (3:54 pm) [edit] |
|
Anybody see the picture of Kerry accepting a firearm presented to him at a Labor Day campaign stop? What's funny about this is that the firearm he was presented would have been banned by a bill he sponsored in the Senate last year. S.1431 bans, among other firearms, "semi-automatic shotguns having a pistol grip." The bill loosely defines a "pistol grip" as "a grip, thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." This basically include ALL Semi-automatic shotguns, since all shotguns have to have a funtional grip, otherwise you couldn't hold it. This shotgun features what most consider a "pistol grip." Under the bill's definition, the Beretta Model A 300 (the firearm presented to Kerry) features a "pistol grip" since it has a "characteristic that can function as a grip." To go even further, the bill also would have made the way in which Kerry was given the firearm illegal. Section 6 of the bill "Requiring Background Checks for the Transfer of Lawfully Possessed Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" states It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through— The shotgun fits the definition of "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" under this bill. Did Kerry refuse the gift saying "I thank you for your generosity, but I can't accept the gift because I signed legislation to prevent this type of un-authorized assault weapon transfer"? Nope. He joked that he wished he could take the gun with him to the debate. Not to sound like a broken record, but would Bush have gotten away with jokingly implying that he wanted to bring a gun with him to the debate, presumably to shoot John Kerry? |
| Bounce?? What Bounce? |
| 09.07.04 (9:11 am) [edit] |
|
PM UPTDATE! Just finished reading the August 30 edition of Newsweek. A few things caught my eye: 1) From the "Letters (to the Editor)" section. One reader writes:
Did Lawrence miss the part where Spain was attacked by Islamic terrorists and elected a pacifist-socialist president (or whatever the hell their executive branch person is called?) This new president was elected because he promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if he won. The Spanish leader at the time was a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, sending 1300 spanish troops to the region. Another reader, Frank A. Ferrone of El Cajon, CA, wrote:
Frankie, a few things should be pointed out. We'll ignore your feeble misdirection tactic used by Kerry supporters (Don't tell them why they should vote for Kerry, instead tell them why they shouldn't vote for Bush.) 1) First, before you go telling us what the 9/11 Commission's report found, maybe you should actually read the thing first. The 9/11 Commission did NOT, I repeat, did NOT say that there were no connections between al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the Bush administration had gone to lengths to say that there has not been any credible evidence to support Iraq's connection with the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration HAS, however, stated that there were connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission's report states al Qaeda operatives met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Sudan. 2) Second, on the "11,000 Iraqi deaths figure," that figure is taken from Iraqibodycount.net. According to this web site's own disclaimer, it takes into account enemy combatants and "civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate healthcare or sanitation." You can blame the US for these deaths if you want, but I wonder how many would have died from the "breakdown in law and order, and poor healthcare and sanitation" had Sadaam Hussein still been in power. 3) As far as the "1,000 military of our military" that have been killed, the actual number, as of today, is 999 (and you can bet the National News Media is just salivating over the next US fatality, mark my words.) This number includes military members killed in action and in accidents. To date, 855 coalition members have died as a result of hostile action, though the US does bear the brunt of these casualties. This is total deaths in 19 months. Compare that to over 40,000 deaths A YEAR in automobile accidents. As I stated in an earlier blog (back in July), we have lost more PER MONTH in every major conflict the US has been involved in since the Civil War than the total number of deaths in 19 months. By a large margin. 6400/month in WWI, 9600/mo in WWII, 1500/mo in Korea, 145/mo in the first Gulf War. We've lost 53 men and women per month in this war. 4) No WMD's? We have either found either actual evidence of weapons or evidence of weapons programs in the works. Granted, we haven't found a big fuckin' wherehouse with a sign posted on the door "WARNING! This is a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction! We're hiding the WMD's from the UN Inspectors...so don't tell nobody!" Of course, even if we did, somebody will be screaming "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain! Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!" More fun from Newsweek tomorrow! AM So, after the big Jackass National Convention in Bah-stin, we saw a tiny little "bounce" in polls in favor of John Kerry. The candidates were virtually tied, and Kerry's "bounce" averaged out to about a 4 point lead. Most media outlets played it up with the usual "Kerry gets a small, but substantial, lead over the president. The four point bounce was expected we were told, because the candidates were in such a dead heat. Any headway Kerry made showed that the President was vulnerable in November. 1) CNN/USA Today/Gallup had the President in the lead 51-45 among likely voters, Kerry was actually polled at 47-46 in the week prior to the DNC convention, No "bounce," just a 1 point "drop." 2) Newsweek had Kerry/Edwards in the lead 49-42 among registered voters, up from 47-44 in favor of Kerry. A 2 point "bounce." 3) Time had Kerry 51-44 among likely voters, up from 50-46, a 1 point "bounce." 4) Zogby had Kerry 48-43 among likely voters, up from 48-46. The President lost 3 points, but Kerry didn't get his "bounce." 5) ABC/Washington Post had Kerry 50-44 , up from 48-46 in favor of the president. Another 2 point "bounce." 6) FOX/Opinion Dynamics had Kerry 47-43, up from 44-43. A 3 point "bounce." In the weeks leading up to the RNC in New York, we were told to expect much of the same. The candidates were again tied, with the President holding a slight lead. "Expect the same." "The voters are already locked up." Well, the results are in from the RNC convention: 1)CNN/USA Today/Gallup has the President in the lead 52-45 among likely voters, up from 50-47. This poll has had the President with the lead with 50-51 points versus Kerry at 47 percent in the weeks since the DNC in July, so not much of a gain here. 2) Newsweek has the President 54-43 among registered voters. I can't find numbers prior to the convention, but Kerry las lost 6 points and the President has gained 12 points since the DNC. 3) Time has the President at 53-43, up from 46-46. A 7 point bounce, plus a 10 point lead over Kerry. 4) Zogby has the President 46-44, up from 43-50 in favor of Kerry. A modest gain for the President, but a 6 point drop for Kerry. 5) ABC/Washington Post had the candidates tied 49-49. Most recent numbers aren't out yet. 6) FOX/Opinion Dynamics had Kerry in the lead 45-44 prior to the convention. Their most recent numbers aren't out yet either. Now, Bush got a much larger bounce than Kerry. That in and of itself is impressive, but also consider the fact that only about 40% of registered voters said they watched at least SOME of the Republican National Convention, versus 48% of registered voters who said the watched at least some of the Democratic National Convention. So, less people watched the RNC than the DNC, and Bush STILL made a huge gain on his opponent. source: Polling Report another: Polling Report |
| The RNC and Media Bias |
| 09.01.04 (5:56 pm) [edit] |
Well, folks, the "un-biased" National News Media rears its ugly head yet again. Don't you just love the first sentence? Republicans belittle John Kerry as a shift-in-the-wind campaigner... The headline kills me, too. "Republicans ASSAIL..." This is the headline from Tuesday, the day when the two big speakers at the RNC were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But the article doesn't provide any QUOTES where a Republican said "John Kerry is a whiny little bitch." In fact, the article states "McCain DID NOT SINGLE OUT Kerry, a good friend, for criticism." Of course, there were no such headlines "Democrats Belittle President Bush..." or "Demcrats ASSAIL President Bush..." despite: 1) Jimmah Carter's telling us that HIS presidential candidate "will not mislead us into war." 2) alGore's whining about losing in 2000 and telling us that the president should select the Supreme Court, not the other way around, and that "we should make sure EVERY vote is counted." (note: They were, AL, several times. Each recount showed YOU LOST) and that we'd be safer with a president that didn't "confuse al Qaeda and Iraq." 3) Terry McAuliffe's characterization of Dick Cheney as "the Bush campaign's Attack-Dog-in-Chief. 4) Teddy Kennedy's assertion that "Today, we say: The only thing we have to fear if four more years of George Bush." 5) Al Sharpton's overt implication that George Bush is a racist. "I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the (Supreme) (C)ourt in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school." et al Also of note: Back in July, USA Today hired Ann Coulter to be their columnist for the DNC convention. However, due to an "editing dispute" USA Today scrapped Coulter's very first column and replaced her with another conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg. You can go read Coulter's column here. You can go to National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg archive to read his columns that, while good, are not as entertaining as Coulter's and are of tamer "I'm a Stranger in a a Strange Land" ilk. USA Today, unabashedly "unbiased" has hired the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man (i.e. Michale Moore) as it RNC columnist. So far, Fatty has written two articles, one where he points out that most Republicans are RINOs (if you don't know what those are, you'll find out), and one where he attacks John McCain for referring to him as "a disingenuous film-maker." In neither of the articles does he ACTUALLY report what is going on at the RNC (sort of like Coulter's column, only less funny). However, Moore has been kept on as USA Today's columnist. The Saga Continues. |
WARNING!!
May contain prejudiced, offensive, right-wing, sexist, homophobic, redneck, or other generally offensive language. Not suitable for children under the age of 3. If you are easily offended, like to point out grammatical or spelling errors, or are just generally disagreeable, go away.
LINKS
Addicted to Plastic - my toy collecting blog, also useless
Well, That's Just Prime! My weekly web comic, updated promptly on Friday-ish
Nealz Nuze
The MullBlog
Radio Gawds
Chuck Norris CAN divide by zero