Thoughts off the the top of my head:
-Barack Obama keeps falling into the trap of explaning why tax increases on the wealthiest are okay. He just needs to keep hammering home that his plan will benefit MOST Americans, which stengthens our overall economy. He's right, but I'm already voting for him and don't buy into the nonsence that he's going to raise my taxes. Keep it simple, stupid.
-Maybe it's because I'm watching this in HD, but John McCain looks like he's crying.
-Joe the magical plumber: John McCain thinks you're an idiot.
-McCain would fight for line item veto? Uhh... wasn't that already found unconstitutional?
-"Senator Obama: I'm not President Bush." Glad McCain has decided to clear up the conclusion.
-Senator Obama: "Young people aren't an interest group: they're our future!" No wonder Obama is winning the youth vote.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Why Women Hate Sarah Palin
Nice Try, Time.
Fortunately, those aren't the reasons why women hate Sarah.
Contrary to the article:
I don't hate Governor Palin because she's handsome. I'm less than half her age, and I haven't given birth to five children. Let's just say I wouldn't trade places with her. In fact, when she was first selected, I was sort of excited to see what it would be like to have a girly-girl run for potential commander-in-chief. I mean, there's a silly thing that happens to female politicians in this country-- a lot of them look like dykes. Sarah Palin, of course, does not. So I was curious how her appearance could factor in. On the bright side of her candidacy, now that I know I don't have to chop my hair off and wear pant suits should I want to run for office one day.
However, it is true: I dislike her confidence. As she says, she doesn't blink. She's so confident, she doesn't think things through. And I, of course, have a problem with someone who uses Stephen Colbert's method of decision-making, running this country.
Could she embarrass us? I'm not so sure. Americans have been exposed to different women in power, so she's not the be-all end-all for women.
In fact, it's not Gov. Palin that I hate. I hate Senator McCain's cynical and naked political calculation, gambling this country's future to achieve his personal ambition to be president. It's obvious that she doesn't know much, and I don't think that's her fault. I don't think she ever imagined she would be in this position, so she never prepared for it. This one is all John McCain's fault.
Fortunately, those aren't the reasons why women hate Sarah.
Contrary to the article:
I don't hate Governor Palin because she's handsome. I'm less than half her age, and I haven't given birth to five children. Let's just say I wouldn't trade places with her. In fact, when she was first selected, I was sort of excited to see what it would be like to have a girly-girl run for potential commander-in-chief. I mean, there's a silly thing that happens to female politicians in this country-- a lot of them look like dykes. Sarah Palin, of course, does not. So I was curious how her appearance could factor in. On the bright side of her candidacy, now that I know I don't have to chop my hair off and wear pant suits should I want to run for office one day.
However, it is true: I dislike her confidence. As she says, she doesn't blink. She's so confident, she doesn't think things through. And I, of course, have a problem with someone who uses Stephen Colbert's method of decision-making, running this country.
Could she embarrass us? I'm not so sure. Americans have been exposed to different women in power, so she's not the be-all end-all for women.
In fact, it's not Gov. Palin that I hate. I hate Senator McCain's cynical and naked political calculation, gambling this country's future to achieve his personal ambition to be president. It's obvious that she doesn't know much, and I don't think that's her fault. I don't think she ever imagined she would be in this position, so she never prepared for it. This one is all John McCain's fault.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Drum Roll, Please
Scooter says at 4:04 am, October 3rd, 2008
- ReplyListening to Caribou Barbie’s interminable ‘answers’, I think I finally figured out why she’s spent so much of her life pregnant: She hates periods!!
Badumpbump.
- ReplyListening to Caribou Barbie’s interminable ‘answers’, I think I finally figured out why she’s spent so much of her life pregnant: She hates periods!!
Badumpbump.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sarah Palin is an idiot
When Couric asked Palin what she thought about abortion in a situation in which a 15 year old was raped by her father, Palin responded by saying that she wants this country to have a culture of life.
Sarah Palin doesn't know what it's like to have her father rape her, so I'm sure it's very convenient for her to spout off this bullshit. Did this stupid retard ever think about what a 15 year old would go through, having to put her life on hold because someone decided to rape her? What it would be like for this teenage girl to go through school, being laughed at by friends, and forever ostracized for being in that horrific situation?
Sarah Palin: being raped may not be your fault, but it should ruin your entire life.
And by the way, if she doesn't want this country to have a culture of death (I suppose she thinks we do), it would go a long way if we weren't being scared to death by existential threats.
I wonder if her "culture of life" attitude holds when it comes to capital punishment?
Sarah Palin doesn't know what it's like to have her father rape her, so I'm sure it's very convenient for her to spout off this bullshit. Did this stupid retard ever think about what a 15 year old would go through, having to put her life on hold because someone decided to rape her? What it would be like for this teenage girl to go through school, being laughed at by friends, and forever ostracized for being in that horrific situation?
Sarah Palin: being raped may not be your fault, but it should ruin your entire life.
And by the way, if she doesn't want this country to have a culture of death (I suppose she thinks we do), it would go a long way if we weren't being scared to death by existential threats.
I wonder if her "culture of life" attitude holds when it comes to capital punishment?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Debate
Honestly, it was a very good debate. Not just because I believe Senator Obama did well, but because neither of them argued over trivial bullshit.
A lot of people are hot and bothered over the fact that John McCain didn't act deferentially to Obama-- he didn't look at him once. Who cares? It's a debate STRATEGY that Hillary Clinton used in order not lend any cache or gravitas by simply gazing in Obama's direction. Look how great that turned out for Hillary!
When John McCain mentioned Fannie and Freddie, I initially wished that Obama would have mentioned how McCain's senior advisor still gets a paycheck from them. After it was over, I'm glad it didn't get mentioned, because the whole debate what have devolved into a "you <3 lobbyists! But YOU <33333 Rev. Wright!"
Personally, I came away very impressed that Obama has such a clear understanding of foreign policy. When he was up against Hillary early on, it sometimes looked as though she took him to school.
John McCain made a good point when Barack Obama mentioned how right he was not to go in. It appears that McCain has conceded the point: WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE IN. But that, according to McCain, is all in the past: the next president has to worry about getting out of Iraq, not worry about why we went there in the first place.
However, in one of the most powerful exchanges of the debate, Obama pounded McCain on his past statements on Iraq. Obama told McCain how wrong he was when he told the American people that it would be to go in and achieve victory, and that we knew exactly where the WMD's were.
I'm upset that the MSM seems to have decided that nothing newsworthy came out of the debate, simply because neither of them cursed the other out, nor physically attacked each other. Just because the MSM can't seem to figure out who won, doesn't mean this was a forgettable debate. It wasn't.
It was an excellent debate, and I'm glad that no major gaffes were made on either side, as to take away from the substance of their points. I, of course, disagree with John McCain's neoconservative foreign policy objectives, but I can't say he didn't make the case for himself. That said, foreign policy is supposed to be Senator McCain's strength, and there was an expectation that Obama wouldn't look as presidential when speaking about foreign policy, vis-a-vis McCain.
A lot of people are hot and bothered over the fact that John McCain didn't act deferentially to Obama-- he didn't look at him once. Who cares? It's a debate STRATEGY that Hillary Clinton used in order not lend any cache or gravitas by simply gazing in Obama's direction. Look how great that turned out for Hillary!
When John McCain mentioned Fannie and Freddie, I initially wished that Obama would have mentioned how McCain's senior advisor still gets a paycheck from them. After it was over, I'm glad it didn't get mentioned, because the whole debate what have devolved into a "you <3 lobbyists! But YOU <33333 Rev. Wright!"
Personally, I came away very impressed that Obama has such a clear understanding of foreign policy. When he was up against Hillary early on, it sometimes looked as though she took him to school.
John McCain made a good point when Barack Obama mentioned how right he was not to go in. It appears that McCain has conceded the point: WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE IN. But that, according to McCain, is all in the past: the next president has to worry about getting out of Iraq, not worry about why we went there in the first place.
However, in one of the most powerful exchanges of the debate, Obama pounded McCain on his past statements on Iraq. Obama told McCain how wrong he was when he told the American people that it would be to go in and achieve victory, and that we knew exactly where the WMD's were.
I'm upset that the MSM seems to have decided that nothing newsworthy came out of the debate, simply because neither of them cursed the other out, nor physically attacked each other. Just because the MSM can't seem to figure out who won, doesn't mean this was a forgettable debate. It wasn't.
It was an excellent debate, and I'm glad that no major gaffes were made on either side, as to take away from the substance of their points. I, of course, disagree with John McCain's neoconservative foreign policy objectives, but I can't say he didn't make the case for himself. That said, foreign policy is supposed to be Senator McCain's strength, and there was an expectation that Obama wouldn't look as presidential when speaking about foreign policy, vis-a-vis McCain.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Bush is more coherent than Sarah Palin
Honestly, this is really depressing. The Couric interview demonstrates why John McCain has kept Palin under lock and key. At first, I thought it was because they wanted to avoid questions about her family, but that news cycle has long passed.
It's because she knows very little about policy. She doesn't really know John McCain's record. Like I said before, she can spout Republican talking points well, but that's about where her confidence ends.
It's because she knows very little about policy. She doesn't really know John McCain's record. Like I said before, she can spout Republican talking points well, but that's about where her confidence ends.
McCain: Can we postpone the debate? Pretty Please?
Goodness. McCain wants to postpone Friday's debate, due to, according to McCain, the bailout.
According to an astute commenter at the HuffPo:
"Perhaps McCain can explain why he didn't postpone his birthday party when Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans? Or is the total destruction of a major American city not enough of a "crisis"?
--Kyuzo
My thoughts exactly.
According to an astute commenter at the HuffPo:
"Perhaps McCain can explain why he didn't postpone his birthday party when Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans? Or is the total destruction of a major American city not enough of a "crisis"?
--Kyuzo
My thoughts exactly.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Comment of the Century
Who is "Ben Ladin"?
by The Termite on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
Some poor bastard who's doomed to riding the bus
across the country from now on.
by iconoclastic cat on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
by The Termite on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
Some poor bastard who's doomed to riding the bus
across the country from now on.
by iconoclastic cat on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
Score! EPA Won't Remove Yummy Rocket Fuel from Water
No, really.
This is fucking ridiculous. Even though rocket fuel is a PROVEN toxin (who'da thunk...), risking the health of fetuses and thyroid problems for the rest of us, it's perfectly okay.
What else can we expect from a country that allowed its citizens to mine uranium without telling them of the health risks?
This is fucking ridiculous. Even though rocket fuel is a PROVEN toxin (who'da thunk...), risking the health of fetuses and thyroid problems for the rest of us, it's perfectly okay.
What else can we expect from a country that allowed its citizens to mine uranium without telling them of the health risks?
The Politics of the Bailout
If there's one thing the Republicans are good at, it's simplifying (read: dumbing down) very complex concepts in order to make their solutions seem as though they follow logically in the eyes of the average voter.
It doesn't take a genius to see that if the Democrats opposed the bailout, the John McCains and Sarah Palins of the world would talk about how the Democrats are playing partisan politics in a time of crisis.
Oh those Democrats, they want to surrender to the terrorists and want to make sure that the economy doesn't get better, so you have to pay higher gas prices, but we're not going to let them do that to you!
A lot of Democrats (especially the netroots) are taking the opportunity to point out the failure of Republican voo-doo economics, pointing out how this bailout betrays core conservative philosophies of government non-interference. Yes, it's true.
Here's the thing: calling Republicans hypocrites actually sort of works in their favor right about now. Republicans get to claim that they're putting their precious ideology on the back burner for the sake of the American people. Because, you know, they're such mavericks.
Politically, Democrats must support the bailout. Of course, I don't like the idea of giving Bush and Co. a blank check for a problem they helped create. However, explaining to the American people that the real underlying causes of this current crisis is due to deregulation and Alan Greenspan's reign, or that Iraq has weakened our capability (from a economic, political, and strategic standpoint) to fix our problems, isn't really a winning strategy.
It's not very forward looking, and the American people are looking for more leadership than a bunch of losers wagging their fingers, claiming "I told ya so."
It doesn't take a genius to see that if the Democrats opposed the bailout, the John McCains and Sarah Palins of the world would talk about how the Democrats are playing partisan politics in a time of crisis.
Oh those Democrats, they want to surrender to the terrorists and want to make sure that the economy doesn't get better, so you have to pay higher gas prices, but we're not going to let them do that to you!
A lot of Democrats (especially the netroots) are taking the opportunity to point out the failure of Republican voo-doo economics, pointing out how this bailout betrays core conservative philosophies of government non-interference. Yes, it's true.
Here's the thing: calling Republicans hypocrites actually sort of works in their favor right about now. Republicans get to claim that they're putting their precious ideology on the back burner for the sake of the American people. Because, you know, they're such mavericks.
Politically, Democrats must support the bailout. Of course, I don't like the idea of giving Bush and Co. a blank check for a problem they helped create. However, explaining to the American people that the real underlying causes of this current crisis is due to deregulation and Alan Greenspan's reign, or that Iraq has weakened our capability (from a economic, political, and strategic standpoint) to fix our problems, isn't really a winning strategy.
It's not very forward looking, and the American people are looking for more leadership than a bunch of losers wagging their fingers, claiming "I told ya so."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Umm, Barack?
Obama laid out his thoughts on the bailouts, laying out seven conditions in which he would support a bailout:
1) No blank check
Sounds good to me.
2) Tax money should not be used to provide golden parachutes to the CEOs who are partly responsible for this mess
Definitely.
3) Taxpayers should have the opportunity to recoup losses
Sure.
4) Plan must include a way to keep homeowners in their home
I'd like to know a little more about what he means by this. Is this a plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures? Or is going to give a free ride to the people who took out a bad loan? Just as I'm not okay with corporate welfare, I'm also not okay bailing out folks who got in over their heads. Think about it: I don't live in a mansion because I can't afford it. Should someone get to stay in their mansion because there's a gold mine being thrown somewhere in their direction? So, I'd like a clarification.
5) Other nations need to step in since this crisis is affecting their economic health, too
Seriously, good luck with that. On the surface, it's a very common sense proposal--I've thought of this before: why do we have to shoulder the burden and stabilize the global market? It is because the US is the epicenter of the mortgage crisis, so convincing a bunch of other countries-- who also got screwed into buying these bad loans-- to chip in and help, will be a huge waste of time. Unless Obama has a way of securing cooperation from other countries (because if this doesn't get solved, they're all screwed), this point is just wishful thinking on Obama's part.
6) Increasing regulation
While de-regulation is partly to blame for the mortgage crisis, I don't know if folks have enough faith in our government to regulate the financial sector--Republicans and Democrats alike are bedfellows with industry lobbyists.
7) A bailout has to benefit main street
Agreed.
1) No blank check
Sounds good to me.
2) Tax money should not be used to provide golden parachutes to the CEOs who are partly responsible for this mess
Definitely.
3) Taxpayers should have the opportunity to recoup losses
Sure.
4) Plan must include a way to keep homeowners in their home
I'd like to know a little more about what he means by this. Is this a plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures? Or is going to give a free ride to the people who took out a bad loan? Just as I'm not okay with corporate welfare, I'm also not okay bailing out folks who got in over their heads. Think about it: I don't live in a mansion because I can't afford it. Should someone get to stay in their mansion because there's a gold mine being thrown somewhere in their direction? So, I'd like a clarification.
5) Other nations need to step in since this crisis is affecting their economic health, too
Seriously, good luck with that. On the surface, it's a very common sense proposal--I've thought of this before: why do we have to shoulder the burden and stabilize the global market? It is because the US is the epicenter of the mortgage crisis, so convincing a bunch of other countries-- who also got screwed into buying these bad loans-- to chip in and help, will be a huge waste of time. Unless Obama has a way of securing cooperation from other countries (because if this doesn't get solved, they're all screwed), this point is just wishful thinking on Obama's part.
6) Increasing regulation
While de-regulation is partly to blame for the mortgage crisis, I don't know if folks have enough faith in our government to regulate the financial sector--Republicans and Democrats alike are bedfellows with industry lobbyists.
7) A bailout has to benefit main street
Agreed.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Crooks
The same people who campaign on the dangers of "socialized" healthcare and scare the electorate into believing that Democrats are a bunch of commies, are now planning to steal $700 billion from tax payers and give it the banks who fucked up.
"I don't want to pay for the bypass surgeries of people who eat McDonald's everyday, while I make the effort to be healthy. It's not fair." I hear that all the time. I hear that all the time from my friends and random people.
You know what? I don't want to pay for the bailouts of banks and predatory lenders who weren't careful with the loans they were giving out, while I worked hard for my money. I had no part in this mortgage crisis, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
It's not fair.
I have no doubt that this plan is one last-ditch effort to fatten the coffers of some very powerful people, with very powerful friends in Washington. Is this bailout going to help the folks on mainstreet? I don't see how regular folk are going be better off, besides maybe providing some relief at the pump.
"I don't want to pay for the bypass surgeries of people who eat McDonald's everyday, while I make the effort to be healthy. It's not fair." I hear that all the time. I hear that all the time from my friends and random people.
You know what? I don't want to pay for the bailouts of banks and predatory lenders who weren't careful with the loans they were giving out, while I worked hard for my money. I had no part in this mortgage crisis, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
It's not fair.
I have no doubt that this plan is one last-ditch effort to fatten the coffers of some very powerful people, with very powerful friends in Washington. Is this bailout going to help the folks on mainstreet? I don't see how regular folk are going be better off, besides maybe providing some relief at the pump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
