Sunday, October 31, 2004
Everyone else is wrong except the Republicans. Man this is way far radical right
You can, and most likely by now have, figured out for yourself whether this is a "way far radical right" blog. Myself, I'd say it's right, but not so radical. YMMV. Whatever it is, it's me, it's honest, and it won't try to fool you into believing something I know isn't true.
But under no circumstances am I any kind of apologist for the republican party, which historically blows goats almost as often as the Dems under normal circumstances. The problem is that while the Repubs have put up an illegal-alien-friendly, spend-like-a-drunken-sailor vote-panderer who supports institutionalized racism (e.g. race quotas, "Affirmative Action", etc.), the Dems have put up a whacked-out, wants-to-get-us-all-killed, flip-flopping, France-loving, sovereignty-hating, no-sf180-signing, no-record-after-20-years-in-the-senate-having, 1000-secret-plans-having, most-likely-dishonorably-discharged freak of nature who supports partial-birth abortion, hates our troops, hates the mission they're trying hard to complete and succeeding at, can't point to a single specific reason why he'd be better than the incumbent and shows a lot of reasons why he'd be a suspect leader.
I'm not a Republicanophile except temporarily, relatively and by necessity. I'm a registered independent, I voted for Dukakis, Clinton twice and then Gore, and voted for a Republican for the first time in 2000, when I voted for Steve Smith (my state representative) and Jim Ramstad (my US House representative). In 2002 it had become apparent that the Democratic party had been hijacked by freaks and/or morons (see McAuliff, Terry) and it was my duty to use the only tool at my disposal to fight them...my vote. I voted a straight Republican ticket in 2002 and will do so again this year. I will continue to do that (with the odd, rare exception PERHAPS) until the Dems (state and national) show they can be trusted to be left home alone by themselves.
In short, I don't love the Repubs, I hate the Dems, because they're stupid and because they seem to think I am. Just so we're clear.
Friday, October 29, 2004
There's a good reason conservatives immediately, as soon as it became apparent that Kerry was the Dems' guy, latched on to the "flip-flopper" meme. They did it because it fits Kerry like a glove. It's true, it's devastating, and if you don't believe that he's a flip-flopper you just have to listen to a whole speech and you'll hear at least a couple of whoppers for yourself.
I'll bet a dollar that before the election, Kerry will be publicly claiming yet again that he's not a flip-flopper. And thus flip-flopping from what we already know about him, making him yet again a flip-flopper.
My head hurts. I'm out of town for the weekend. Have a good one, and I'll be posting again Sunday night or Monday.
Fortunately, the Power Line guys (and a bunch of others, but I'm on a power line kick lately) are on the case, particularly this stupid "missing explosives" red herring. They've been devastating every Democratic twist and wiggle seemingly the instant they come out with some new twist to try and make the story live until election day. Here's a sample, where they rightfully put the screws to KSTP, a station that happens to be local for me and who has breathlessly claimed that they have proof that our troops really did screw up.
Power Line has been following this story closely, and promise to keep doing so. That's a promise I hope they keep.
UPDATE: Speaking of Whack-a-Mole, we just get the last fake scandal throughly shot down, and CBS news gets ready to put out another fake scandal. I guess I'll get to enjoy one more Dan Rather public pants-shitting after all. Cool.
UPDATE: Regarding the explosives, I have no idea what to make of this yet, except to note that if THIS version is true, it pokes all kinds of holes in Kerry's story that those explosives "are being used against our troops".
Thursday, October 28, 2004
All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him.
Mheh. The genius of Lileks is that he uses so few words to say so much...but I suspect you have to share his language, culture, and probably to a degree his political view to "get" a lot of the things he implies.
A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.
Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.
From there, he lists off a dozen bullet points about what happened, who did what, etc.
I've been asked if I could put together a short version of the story of this fake "scandal" cooked up by the Dems' fans in the media in league with the IAEA (and the UN in general). Peters' column is relatively short, hits most of the main factual points, and probably sums it up better than I could. In short, Kerry is attacking the troops again just like he did in 1971 (only less directly this time), and this time around he's getting help from the New York Times.
From other reading I've done over the last 24 hours I know that the only reason he's not getting that help from CBS News (again) is because CBS wanted to wait until 36 hours before the election to drop the bomb so it couldn't be checked out before people voted, but the Times got nervous that it was leaking on the internet and ran with it. Other than that, Peters does a very nice job filling us in.
The only problem with how this is working out is that we don't get to see Dan Rather perform another public pants-shitting. That would have been fun.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
But all that aside...If you will just do one thing, I'll mark your name on the ballot. Just one thing, and I'll cast my vote publicly so everyone can verify that I did indeed vote for you.
Sign form 180. Release ALL your military records, and do it by Friday noon so there's time to discover whatever there is to discover before the election. Because after reviewing the available evidence and reading between the lines, I've come to the educated conclusion that you received a dishonorable discharge, or at least not an honorable one.
And if that were to come to light, my vote will be a ferret's fart in the hurricane that will permanently blow away your hopes to be elected, and probably lose you your seat in the Senate to boot.
UPDATE: I'm not the only one wondering about this aspect of the race.
Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgently called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to demolish powerful plastic explosives in a facility that Iraq's interim government said this month was looted due to poor security.
The chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The New York Sun yesterday that in 1995, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq, he urged the United Nations' atomic watchdog to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing.
Mr. Duelfer said he was rebuffed at the time by the Vienna-based agency because its officials were not convinced the presence of the HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives was directly related to Saddam Hussein's programs to amass weapons of mass destruction.
Instead of accepting recommendations to destroy the stocks, Mr. Duelfer said, the atomic-energy agency opted to continue to monitor them.
By e-mail, Mr. Duelfer wrote the Sun, "The policy was if acquired for the WMD program and used for it, it should be subject for destruction. The HMX was just that. Nevertheless the IAEA decided to let Iraq keep the stuff, like they needed more explosives."
Man. At least during the last election cycle when they trotted out Bush's old DUI convictions, the October Surprise had the dual benefits of both being true AND not absolutely demolishing party allies like the UN. As if Kofi and the UN weren't already doing a fine job of demolishing their own credibility by miring themselves in the biggest scandal in the history of scandals (as measured by dollars involved as well as sliminess of individuals involved).
UPDATE: More nails in the coffin of this misbegotten freakshow from Wretchard.
UPDATE AGAIN: More at Dean's World.
The thing is, folks, if not for a relatively few people (Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite and John Kerry leap immediately to mind) we would still be a nation never defeated in war, and Vietnam would be a free country today. And the real parallel to draw here is that the only thing that's going to stop us from winning this war is if the will of the American people fades. Just like in Vietnam.
Ralph Peters (thanks to Power Line) writes of a friend in the army who diagnoses the situation:
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.
Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.
"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."
He goes on to smack around Kerry's argument that Iraq is a "disaster":
Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.
The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.
Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.
Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.
Muqtada who? Who was that guy again? Gee, haven't heard from him in a dog's age. Nor have we heard a lot from the French and some of our other accustomed international critics just lately:
Even the French are uncharacteristically subdued. The serpents of the Seine thought they'd seduced the terrorists with a few anti-American apples. Instead, they've found that they can't even free two kidnapped French journalists.
After their own recent terrorist debacle, the Russians repented their criticism of the Bush administration. The Spanish, too, discovered that appeasement doesn't work any better for them than for the French — an Islamist plot to blow up justice-ministry buildings was recently uncovered. And there's more to come.
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.
Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.
That's all I can really quote without giving the whole thing away and probably getting sued. Go read the whole thing...if you read nothing else this week, this is good enough to hold you until the election. There's a lot to think about.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bottom line this operation would take the resources of AN ENTIRE COMPANY (approx. 100 men) OVER TWO WEEKS, good Intel to know exactly where the "right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching huge steel doors and concrete of an ASP.
And all of this would have to be done in an area with numerous intel overflights that would be looking for exactly this kind of activity in the combat zone, and not get noticed at all. Like so much of what the New York Times, CBS, and the Kerry campaign feeds us ... it just doesn't add up.
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that Kerry's campaign has tried lately has turned up snake-eyes.
Unlike my political opponents, I understand that people of the liberal/Left persuasion do indeed have feelings, hopes, and dreams. They're just misguided, and I really have high hopes for their eventual enlightenment.
To them, though, I and all other people who disagree with their views are pure scum who needs to be removed and flushed down the drain:
Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.
Yeah, conservatives are the intolerant ones, alright. I highly recommend this piece as a really good example of the deranged demonization of Bush that has been going on for four years, but that centrists and non-political-junkies may have missed.
Those of us who read compulsively have seen this sort of piece again and again and again (especially in France and some of the left-leaning Brit and German publications, but also Slate, Village Voice and other US rags) until it's almost not even noteworthy enough to post about. But new people seem to be hitting the blogs a lot in the run-up to the election, and maybe it's worth pulling some of these toadstools out into the sunlight. That way, any undecideds can get at least one good look at what Kerry's allies and fellow Leftists really think before they decide to pull the lever for this kind of hatred.
Finally, the Kerry camp may regret calling attention to that McLaughlin transcript. Earlier in the interview--which, remember, took place two months after 9/11, in the middle of our Afghan campaign against the Taliban--McLaughlin asks Kerry "What do we have to worry about [in Afghanistan]?" Here's the last part of Kerry's answer:
I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]
Wait--I thought shifting the focus to Saddam was a "diversion" and distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda! Not, apparently, when Kerry saw an opportunity to score political points by advocating it. [But would he have rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace!-ed. Maybe not. But, given Kerry's recent he-took-his-eye-off-the-ball rhetoric, it's embarrassing that he brought up pivoting to Iraq "now" long before the Afghan campaign was over--indeed, when the Tora Bora battle against bin Laden's men had barely begun.]
Don't shoot, I'm just the messenger. Albeit one who takes great delight in seeing Kerry exposed for the lying, slippery, flip-flopping fraud he is.
Monday, October 25, 2004
But really, 4 freakin' TDs? Was that gaudy crap really necessary? I mean, I could live with it if he was doing it for the Vikings, but the Chiefs not only mean less than nothing to me (except for the fact that I have Tony Gonzalez on my team) but they don't even have a legitimate shot to contend this year. They're the John Kerry of football: all attack and absolutely no defense. Why bother with all those touchdowns when there's no real chance they'll ever amount to anything?
Although we are only a week from election day, events at St. Cloud State are overshadowing the political news in St. Cloud. At homecoming festivities this past Thursday, Fue Khang of Minneapolis was named homecoming queen -- the first male homecoming queen in the school's history. (See "To boldly go where no man has gone before" by our friend King Banaian, St. Cloud State economics department chairman.) Gross adds:
By now, you've heard about the guy elected homecoming queen at St. Cloud State. My best friend's wife was quoted in the St. Cloud Times' Friday edition. This morning, the New York Times called and talked with her. The uproar over this event is huge and one can sense the uproar over this is changing votes daily. The bottom line to all this is that, based on this information, there isn't a snowball's prayer in hell that Kerry wins Minnesota.
Is it possible that St. Cloud State's first gender-bending homecoming queen could boost President Bush's prospects of carrying Minnesota? The theory carries great appeal to those of us in need of karmic relief.
I just really, really like the idea that these people who keep pushing the boundaries of good taste and common sense--purely for the sake of seeing how far they can push them--could end up costing their poster boy the entire presidential election.
That would be karmic JUSTICE as well as relief. I'm very much against gay people being beaten up, hazed, or otherwise singled out just because they're gay. I'm also very much against them shoving their gayness in my face. It's too delicious a thought that Minnesota could end up being the pivotal state in the entire election, and this could be a contributing factor in Kerry getting his butt kicked in a state he should have carried by at least 10%.
Honestly, how is it that there are actually people of good will out there who still can't see that the Democratic party is more like a crime family than anything else?
Of course, they conveniently forget all that when they want to turn a church service into a campaign rally.
Seriously, people, even if you agree with the principles of this so-called "party", given how badly the reality screws everything up for the Democrats, how can you vote for them? The Repubs are sometimes pretty bad, but the Dems make Nixon look like a beacon of sweetness, truth and light.
I want the party of JFK back, so I can have some alternatives to vote for, rather than just a straight Repub ticket. It's been gone for a decade or more, and this is not good for the Repubs OR the country any more than it is for the "progressives".
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Seriously, the whole Kerry machine's wheels are rapidly starting to come off. I've rarely seen (in America) a more transparent attempt to shout down someone because of their political views.
I am pretty well sure that the Dems have saved up some sort of juicy tidbit for this week...although I'm guessing that most of the really juicy stuff (old DWIs, drug issues, etc) regarding Bush have already been used up in previous campaigns. I half suspected the Bushies must have something they've been holding in reserve, and this is the first whisper I've heard that something concrete is coming.
I hope it's absolutely DEVASTATING, and causes Kerry to never be able to show his face in civilized company again. Of course, I would never have been able to show my face again if I had said the things he said to congress in the early 70s, so I suppose that's a vain hope. It's never good to be hoping for shame to humble somebody who lacks any discernible conscience.
Friday, October 22, 2004
I would like to relay to you a disturbing and unsettling incident which happened tonight at the Alverno College debate between Gwen Moore and Jerry Boyle.
Boyle has attended every debate and forum he has been invited to, even ones where it has not been the friendliest of audiences receptive to his Republican message.
Last night's debate at Alverno College was one attended by mostly people which will not vote for him in next month's election, but was a well run and fair debate none the less.
The questions were pointed and thoughtful and the answers were equally to the point. The topics ranged from foreign policy to the economy. The stark contrast between Moore and Boyle was pretty clear to those in the audience. Boyle was to the point and made it evident that although his was not the most popular opinion in the room, this is what he believed in.
Many people approached him following the debate to discuss the topics and their views and several said although they did not agree with his stance, commended him on making great arguments and being forthright in his presentation.
One man, unfortunately took the opportunity to ruin the evening.
As Boyle was walking from the stage to the reception, a graduate student from UWM spit on Boyle as he passed by.
Boyle, restraining himself, went to the restroom to clean up let this incident go.
I, however, did not.
After seeing Jerry wipe the spit from his jacket, I asked him what was going on and asked the young man why he spit on him.
Although it was witnessed by several people (at least five) he denied it and approached me looking for a confrontation. He walked up to me and got right in my face.
I asked him why he spit on Jerry and he said he didn't but should have because Jerry didn't answer his question to his satisfaction.
He called me an imperialistic pig and said that I was a puppet for an imperialistic regime. I asked him if that was a new term he had just learned in school and that I was very proud of him for using it in a complete sentence.
To make a long story short, after a little more verbal back and forth, he was ushered away by his teacher and escorted from the building.
Please be aware that this little pseudo-intellectual shithead is an acolyte of the same putrid movement that Kerry helped found back in the early 70s. He is Kerry's intellectual and political progeny. I want nothing to do with shitheads like this nonthinking cretin who spit on a man whose shoes he's not worthy to lick, and I want nothing to do with Kerry. Ever.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
I followed very much in her political footsteps for about the first 32-33 years of my life. I had it drummed into me in school by my teachers that Democrat = good and Republican = bad, and I never much questioned those equations. I began my first tentative explorations into the conservative side of politics in the summer of '99, and it accelerated with 9/11. Now I can't believe I used to vote a straight Democratic ticket. How stupid was I?
During roughly the same timeframe that I was coming to my senses, the national Democratic party and, to a somewhat lesser extent, our local Democratic party (DFL), has gone completely off the rails. To watch Terry McAuliffe lie, tapdance and slander everybody and anybody he can think of is to wish I had an ice pick so I could gouge my own eyes out.
And now this.
I may never vote for a Democrat again after the officially sanctioned things I've seen in this election season. Mom, if you're reading, please follow the link above. You'll see why I've become so disillusioned. Then just look around at the political ads you've been ignoring. These people are not the ones we want running our country. Not until they at least regain their sanity.
For most of my adult life, I was a practicing Moderate Republican. Today, I am homeless, extinct, a dinosaur.
That's because you've been a Democrat all along and never realized it. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
My plight: Nov. 2 ... but not really. Because the positions of Moderate Republicans are being touted and supported by Sen. John Kerry.
Publicly, for now. Later, when he doesn't have to appeal to moderates, we'll find out what he really is...if he wins (shudder).
Positions espoused by such men as Rockefeller, Romney, Lindsay, Scranton; Minnesotans such as Stassen, Judd, Frenzel, Head, Popham, Andersen, Durenberger and Carlson; of social equity and fiscal responsibility;
Sounding very much like a Dem so far anywhere except the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Minnesota (and maybe Massachusetts).
applying the means test to taxes and entitlements; of serving needs of the world at large as well as of our own community;
And "the world at large" can't serve their own needs because...?
of exercising power and might collectively, not unilaterally or peremptorily;
You mean "unilaterally" as in with 30+ other countries? "Peremptorily" as in after 12 years and over a dozen UN resolutions? Sounding more like a Lefty moonbat all the time...
of maintaining the constitutional separation of church and state;
There is no "constitutional separation of church and state", another false Lefty article of faith (pardon the expression). Only a prohibion of establishment of a state religion. When Bush comes out in favor of requiring Americans to convert to the Baptist church, let me know and I'll become a fellow barking moonbat.
of finding international and regional solutions through diplomacy and consultation;
Tried that, didn't work. Why do you think we're having this discussion?
of honoring the dignity of the individual human being to have liberty, good health and full opportunity to achieve.
Nothing Bush's administration has done is contrary to this. In fact, I see the current administration as having been quite helpful in these respects, particularly with regard to providing opportunity to achieve.
So why John Kerry?
I have absolutely no idea, after having searched for many months now.
• He understands the different role the United States must play as the only superpower in a world filled with conflict, hopelessness, bigotry and ancient animosities. You don't turn your back on or abandon friends and allies. And you don't go it alone.
You do if it's the right thing to do. I'd rather not have a president that just rubber-stamps whatever the crowd of dictators and despots that is the UN says.
• He recognizes that life and politics and government are colored gray, seldom black or white. And compromise is the art of the doable; inflexibility precludes modifying your view or position, particularly as change occurs.
Bush could compromise more than he does. Kerry is prepared to compromise us out of existence. I'd rather have not quite enough compromise than way, way, WAY too much.
• He is naturally curious -- why? when? what? where? who? -- an attribute you want in a president to insure that the best decisions are forthcoming.
An attribute YOU want. I can take it or leave it.
• Kerry has unimpugned integrity and character -- not always correct, not always consistent, but whose actions and votes reflect his core values, his best thinking, his legislative experience and sound judgment.
USUALLY not correct, NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES consistent, he utterly lacks any discernable core values, I haven't yet been able to follow much of his thinking for long before he takes a sharp turn (usually Left), and I don't think much of his record-free "legislative experience" or the judgement that led him to tell vicious lies about our troops in Vietnam to congress. Nor do I want a gold digger in the white house.
• His vision for this country: to restore our geopolitical capital that has been almost depleted;
What is this mythical "geopolitical capital" Lefties keep mushmouthing about? I suspect they made it up to have one more impressive-sounding epithet to throw at the administration.
to provide an equal educational field for all children growing up;
As opposed to the current administration, who goes personally to pick out particular children and lock them up to be sure they don't get an education.
to eradicate the anxiety about inability to access the full spectrum of health care without becoming indigent;
That's a nice vision. When Kerry achieves it, he'll be the first president in history to get there...hopefully not by changing us against our will into a full-fledged socialist country.
and to secure a full-employment society in a world of unparalleled change.
A full-employment society like the Soviet Union or Cuba, you mean?
• And finally because this country, as it has from time to time, needs a strong but thoughtful constitutional check upon the legislative branch, which today is a Republican-controlled Congress.
That last is the one and only reason I've found to vote for somebody other than Bush, but it sure as hell wouldn't be Kerry. Maybe the Libertarian. But the current situation is too precarious, with too many Judicial appointments and other stuff in the next 4 years at stake, to spend my vote on Gunz-n-Drugz-R-US.
Do I have reservations about John Kerry? Of course! Shouldn't I?
Only if you love your country.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
I don't think this is by accident.
This is a point I happened on during the Democratic primary season as I was wondering why the Dems seemed to refuse to put up a centrist candidate that I could at least consider as an alternative to Bush. Bush would not necessarily have my vote locked up if the Dems had put up Lieberman, for instance...but Joe never had a chance.
The Dems used their primary not to find the best candidate for the presidency, but to find the candidate that would pull the country as far as possible to the Left while still having a chance of winning. Lieberman was out from the get-go because he's far too much of a centrist for today's wild-eyed Democratic party. Howard Dean would have been a dream come true, but there was just no way that, when push came to shove, enough sane people would pull the lever for the man.
So they gave us the man who can instantly adjust his opinions and positions to fit ANY circumstance, with a constant tug to the Left in the absence of a reason to stay put.
Thanks for nothing, Dems.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Yes, Bush lost the first one, and rather badly. He was really off that day, though I've wondered if it wasn't deliberate in order to show a progression through the debates of getting better and better. Regardless, the first one went decidedly to Kerry.
The second one was about a tie. Both scored points, both got scored on. Bush showed a little more balance and a lot more fight. Yes, he "bullied" the moderator. Absent from Democratic critiques, and most Republican ones that I saw as well, is the point that such a biased, snotty moderator should be bullied. I would have done worse with that little twerp.
The third debate went hands down to the prez. He mopped up the stage with Kerry. No contest. Kerry was shown for the drooling moron he is by the end of the bout. The only question is whether Bush beat him worse than he was beaten in the first one, and that's not a question I can address with any confidence.
I'd say overall the debates as a series of events came out as a tie...which is only fitting for a set of events that have no meaning and never had a chance to affect the outcome much in the first place.
As a final note, Den Beste has (sort of) come out of retirement with some interesting observations regarding poll numbers and such.
I think Bush is really going to win this thing. And that, should it actually happen, is a very good thing.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
OH MY GOD YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT!
Kerry was all "whatevr, u r a faygz" and Bush was all "U R A L4MERZ" and Kerry was all "STOP CAMPING foo" nd Bush nailed him with the sniper rifle and scread "H34DSH0T!"
After Kerry re-spawned, Bush was all "i pwn3d ur ass" and Kerry was all "my mouse is slow" and Bush was all "shut up fag no excuses u r teh l0s3r."
Then Kerry cried and threw up in his mouth a little.
Ben, Jo, get your asses to work and entertain me.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
UPDATE: Whoops. Link overloaded. But if you go here and weed through enough moonbat-blather, you'll come to this:
anyway, I am new tonight... as you may not have seen me before in here.. just a FYI that I am deaf here and can read lips okay..
at the end of debate where Kerry and Bush shook hands.. Bush was asking Kerry, Can I talk to you later tonight? Kerry said sure then Bush said where would you be? I missed what Kerry said.
Oy, would I love to have been a fly on the wall during a conversation like THAT.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Officers were called about 11 a.m. Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (search) hall in this Twin Cities suburb, where they found a man dressed as Elvis on the ground outside. He appeared to be in convulsions.
When the officers arrived, the man stopped, jumped up and yelled "Viva Las Vegas!" and began singing show tunes.
"It's one of those things that you stop and scratch your head, and you think that 'Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?'" Oyaas said.
It happened about a 10 or 15 minute drive from where I live. Heh. Usually this sort of thing doesn't start happening around here until around the beginning of March, when cabin fever hits its high note for the year.