Friday, January 28, 2005

Friday Roundup!

Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony questioned! What a total F'ing non story..give me a break!

Love of Beer Free's Avalanche Victim! This was pretty funny and you have to give the guy credit for figuring out a way to get rid of the snow..clearly his love of beer and the given in his mind that it wouldn't go anywhere other than down his throat prevented him from considering just pooring the beer on the snow. Instead he had to wait for the trip thru his GI track! :)

Insurgents warn Iraqis not to vote. It's very important that no matter what the turnout, no matter what technical problems are encountered, no matter how imperfect this vote is, that it happen. People seem to ignore the success of Afghanistan and how truly universal the thirst for freedom and to be represented by those of your choosing in a government structure is. It's also worth noting that prior to voting Iraqis are required to show an id.....it's time we did the same. The number of things infinitely less important than voting require you to prove your identity with a drivers license (or other id) and nobody complains about it! So ask yourself...who opposes having people prove their identity (well, ok this is not a great proof but as least its something) at the polling place? Anybody, anybody know? The DEMOCRATS!!! Why? People show their ids for all kinds of things so the claim that it's intimidating is insane. So what possible argument makes sense? It's pretty obvious why the lefties don't want this simple check to be done...they believe that those who actually shouldn't be voting are likely to vote Democrat. I also completely believe that they also like how easy it is to commit voter fraud today.

Democrats would have everything in Iraq and around the world fail if it hurts Bush! Well, that's at least the headline I create after reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy. Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And I love this in his speech; "The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nation. And as the WSJ's Taranto points out Kennedy doesn't seem to know his century boundaries very well since the 21st century began more than four years ago, when Iraq was under Baathist occupation. If some republican made a blunder like that it would be big time fodder for our biased media.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Afghanistan is successful? I hear Republicans trotting that one out, but come on! What's successful? That Karzai's not dead yet? That at least Kabul hasn't fallen under warlords? That they don't produce ALL the heroin on earth? I hope for the best for both countries, but we'd all better hope that Iraq is more successful than Afghanistan is today.
The British are obviously loyal to us and even their MI reported that Afghanistan was "on the verge of collapse." Don't mistake me for a reactionary liberal. I'm just worried about both nations and I think Afghanistan is in serious jeopardy.

Tiny said...

I also worry and agree Afghanistan isn't perfect. However, if your claim is that the attempt made so far with towards something that resembles democracy has been overall worse for the country or the region then you're smoking crack. Do a Google News search on Afghanistan...there's good and bad...but just like most things that are broken, you often need to completely unravel them and in putting it all back together some new problems will emerge...in most cases the cost of those is worth the reward.

Anonymous said...

Lovely comments Jim. And thanks for pointing out Afghanistan's spatial relationships. Regrettably, most of us (US peeps) would do fairly poorly in any test on geography. Also, "another historic election" is quite an interesting statement. I'm sure proud that we have any kind of government in Afghanistan, but going from voting in the provisional head of the country as the head of the country seems like dubious success.

I'll be pleased and happy when they successfully transfer from Karzai. Lest you think that elections alone assure democracy, take a trip north to Russia. I think most would agree Putin is stretching that political system to its logical limits. Also, he's their third "elected" (in the Western sense) leader.

Like most people, I want the best. I REALLY do. But, healthy skepticism is warranted as history has shown how hard instituted democracy is to develop. Look around the world, and there's Japan, Germany, and India as meaningful post-conquered democracies. Japan and Germany did most of it through strength of internal nationalism and leveraging existing institutions. They were favored by having a strong collective will. Unlike these nations, Iraq and Afghanistan are characterized by intense racial, ethnic, ideological, and religious institutions.
India is lucky and maybe the only time that this gamble has really paid off... and that was a British endeavor. (They do have rivalling religion, ethnicities, ideologies, and hundreds of languages). But, they've nearly slipped into the moor many times.

But look at Kenya, at Nigeria, at Vietnam, at Rwanda. Simply putting the system in is not enough. There's MANY forces at play.

Tiny said...

First, I wasn't referring to the dictionary version of "independent" you arrogant ass...read the sentence the word is in again. I don't question the guy with the giant head in Mass. questining our motives and or what has gone on so far in Iraq...I question his, and those like him (Polesi, etc.) constantly doing at pivotal times to the point that is clear they TRULY hope for failure. In the end they need to balance criticism of their government and leaders with the proper amount of support and PATRIOTISM. Kennedy is a complete ass, he proves this over and over. Read his speech...DID YOU...even when he says he hopes for the best he immediately follows it with a hint that success can't come. He spouts statistics of the dead infinitum, we all know...he just wants to stir up the Bush hating troops. My point is many liberals truly want failure at the expense of lives of Americans and others if that will guarantee a Democrat is in the White House next time around.

Geography....You apparently think its very important what the rest of the world thinks of Americans geography skills or general intelligence. First I think you have no clue if the "rest of world" sees Americans as some caricature. But you surely believe they do, so why don't you leave the best place on earth and go help fix that misstaken impression they have. OH WAIT, you don't think they're misstaken do you??? No you don't. You're what makes this country unsafe and what makes the truly patriotic Americans sick to their stomach. Why go on like this about your picking on my calling Afghanistan in the middle east? Because you don't see the big picture. If you don't think everything that borders Iran or even India is part of the middle east equation you're smoking crack.

Finally, I'm sure Kennedy (like all the Kennedy blood line to screw up since Chappaquiddick) had no help in dealing with his mess! So you throw out we don't know that Bush didn't kill someone while drunk. We don't know that you're not a wife beater and child molestor do we? One thing all liberals deal in is duplicity, you're just another proof point.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy is a complete ass - I am willing to forgive that because it was probably due to his dad giving him too much of the alcohol that he illegally made his fortune on.

More interestingly it is the followers of his that are the real idiots.

He family made their money with bootlegging.
Rigged the election via the purchase of the Illinois vote.
Sired a drug addicted mafia consorting womanizer who almost started WW III - (but he looked good, so that was okay).
Had a woman killed and then covered it up.
- Ted Kennedy had a record of serious traffic violations. Their nature formed a pattern of deliberate and repeated negligent operation. Particularly bothersome was a June, 1958 conviction for "reckless driving."

- On March 14, 1958, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Whitten had been on routine highway patrol outside Charlottesville, Virginia, when an Oldsmobile convertible ran a red light, sped off, then cut its tail lights to elude pursuit. A license check revealed the car belonged to Edward M. Kennedy, a 26-year-old law student attending the University of Virginia. Kennedy had previously been fined $15 for speeding in March 1957.
- Whitten was on patrol at the same intersection a week later, he testified, "And here comes the same car. And to my surprise, he did exactly the same thing. He raced through the same red light, cut his lights when he got to the corner and made the right turn." Whitten gave chase. He found the car in a driveway, apparently unoccupied. Looking inside, he discovered the driver, Teddy Kennedy, stretched out on the front seat and hiding. Whitten issued a ticket for "reckless driving; racing with an officer to avoid arrest; and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license (Mass. registration.)"
- Kennedy's attorneys were able to win numerous postponements, but eventually he was convicted on all charges and paid a $35 fine. Court officials never filed the mandatory notice of the case in the public docket, however, and Kennedy's name had not appeared on any arrest blotter. Instead, a local reporter discovered the case when he spotted 5 warrants in Kennedy's name in a court cash drawer.

- Three weeks after his trial, Ted Kennedy was caught speeding again, and still operating without a valid license.

- In December 1959, Kennedy was stopped again for running a red light and fined $10 and costs. In Whitten's view, "That boy had a heavy foot and a mental block against the color red. He was a careless, reckless driver who didn't seem to have any regard for speed limits or traffic ordinances."


Bashed in the head of another woman with a 9 iron and is now finally coming to justice

So this bloated alcoholic whiner is telling people that it is the fault of the troops (oh, yes he did! read his statement).

So the Libs tried to bounce Bush because of a DUI, but support this slim ball? The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that you are caught up on geography and you are missing the larger picture.

How about instead of mid-east, west-east, east-east we just call it for what it is - wackjob muslim extremists? There, feel better?

If you don't think the world is in better shape than it was 3 years ago, then you are nuts and there is no sense in arguing with you.

Germany, Japan, France weren't built in a couple of years. The only difference was that after the wars were won there weren't the nambsy pambsy wimps worrying about hurting people's feelings: carry a gun, get killed. Guess what, people stopped carrying guns and got on with the business of building their country.

Anonymous said...

Wait! WAIT! WAIIIIT! I thought gun ownership was essential to the defense of the public? I thought that the NRA was the only thing standing between America and complete chaos? And now we're saying disarm them? You talk funny. My head hurt.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy

you wrote: The United States economy will entirely collapse within 3 to 5 months if there is a sustained breakdown in the state of relations between the USA and the oil-producing nations.


That is laughable for 2 reasons. 1. If the US economy collapses, you can kiss goodbye all the economies that so depend on the US. (oh, and kiss goodbye all of the AIDS money, support during Tsunami's etc).
2. But before that happens, the US would just wipe out a couple of countries, take their oil, split it with China and a couple of friends in the ol' USSR and be done with it.

That should be done anyway since those countries are completely squandering the worlds resources through their politics.

Anonymous said...

You wrote: "Uh-huh. And...? How is that a reason for what I said not happening. It's a consequence of it. I'm assuming that you do have a basic grip on the notion of causality?"

Try reading what I wrote - the idea of casuality is obvious - the clue is the word "IF". I assume that you are familiar with the notion of READING and understanding the word IF.

(repeated below for your shopping convenience: That is laughable for 2 reasons. 1. If the US economy collapses, you can kiss goodbye all the economies)

On your second point, you wrote: I should first ask you about the "couple of other countries" thing.

What other countries? Are you proposing genocide in Africa? Europe? Asia? or South America? But before you answer that, first take a look at the oil usage statistics. You say this about that "couple of other countries":

Since I never wrote "couple of other countries", I have no idea of what you are saying. Must be the reading thing again.

But of course I am not proposing genocide - just a good ol' take over of the country.

You wrote:
What in the name of all that's holy are you talking about? Which countries? Do you think Saudi Arabia or Iran or Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates or Nigeria or Venezuela actually use any oil? I assume those are the countries you're talking about "doing away with".

I said they are squandering through politics, I did not say usage.


How can the same people who criticize drug companies for making profits on drugs and especially AIDS drugs not gang up on the oil countries for how they use oil in the world economy (sure, the run up of oil prices before Bush's election was just a coincidence)?

you wrote:
I assume those are the countries you're talking about "doing away with".

Geez, always the extremist view and improper quoting to try to make a point. I am not doing away with anyone - just make them the 51-56 states.

I do get a kick out of seeing liberal bumper stickers on SUVs and Minivans.

Tiny said...

Jim, et al.

While we obviously all don't agree it's enjoyable to have the dialog. Jim, I think you blew it in one of your first comment posts where you claim you're not American...but honestly I can't imagine a non-American using the grammar you did "But I ain't a liberal"

Anonymous said...

Actually Tiny is a hoot at social functions but he's even funnier on the golf course!
MG

Tiny said...

Jim, ok your not American, I ain't gonna argue that point. And, I will agree with a statement you made that most Tiny-like-thinkers would take issue with, you said "policies of Bush are increasing global tension and making the problems of international terrorism worse whilst at the same time destabilising geopolitics as a whole." I think as soon as the muslim extremest (and every other American hating extremest) saw that America wasn't going to cower in the wake of terrorism hitting us at home. That we, under Bush's leadership (yes leadership!) would take the fight to the bad guys made these guys step up their terror in an effort to try and get public pressure to change our stance. No way in hell. I realize you and others here have expressed your desire for things to go well (as in Iraq) but you can clearly see that's not the case for many Americans who have a very big problem with their loyalty to America. I head a quote on talk radio this morning that the caller attributed to Golda Meyer which went something like "until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews we will not have piece". Now, I'm not taking a position on Palestine and Jews with this, I just want to use this quote as a framework for one here in America with the two parties. Until Democrats start loving American more than they hate Bush we will not make the progress a powerful unified nation can make both here and abroad. You could insert Republican and Clinton a few years ago and it's still valid. Too many Democrats/Liberals made it very clear, right up to the vote in Iraq and still today that they hope for failure. They hate Bush so much they will hope for failure...they can't stand the idea that a policy or action attributed to Bush might be successful...they need to love America more and first!

Anonymous said...

I'm astonished how Jim knows exactly what the Chinese and US governments are thinking.
MG

Tiny said...

Hi MG, it's simple..you see Jim is not American...everyone who isn't American is all knowing about the world and how the world sees us. They're all on the same page while we live in a clueless bubble!...Ok I joke!