The third party that's not so green picked former Republican Representative Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate. Bob Barr, who has a wonderous mustache, is polling at 8 percent in Georgia. So if Bob Barr can steal some votes from McCain, and if there are black people in Atlanta....
Sorry, got off track. Here are some fun facts about Bob Barr;
He's a Board Member of the NRA (You know you want to vote for him, Republicans).
Barr thinks that "A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked." Lou Dobbs would vote for Bob Barr. By the way, this is the cause of communicable diseases in the United States.
Bob Barr is afraid of the "Nanny State". We'll smoke some Marlboro Reds to that! Lung cancer is the most delicious type of Freedom.
So the choice is clear, Republicans! Vote for Bob Barr! Libertarianism isn't a simplistic, impractical worldview! Its Freedom-tastic!
Besides, its your turn. We already threw away an election to vote for Nader. Who knew the fat guy cared about the environment?
Anyway, vote Libertarian!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Chris Matthews Eats Right Wing Host
Mmmmm.....tasty.
So the War Criminal violated Godwin's law and compared Barack Obama's desire for diplomacy to appeasing Hitler. Which makes sense if you're a complete moron. Anywho, talk show host Kevin James went on Hardball to defend the War Criminal and attack Obama. He said that Obama was an appeaser, etc. Problem is, Mr. James doesn't know what appeasement refers to. So he made a historical reference without actually understanding the historical context.
And Chris Matthews proceeds to rip him a new orifice.....
So the War Criminal violated Godwin's law and compared Barack Obama's desire for diplomacy to appeasing Hitler. Which makes sense if you're a complete moron. Anywho, talk show host Kevin James went on Hardball to defend the War Criminal and attack Obama. He said that Obama was an appeaser, etc. Problem is, Mr. James doesn't know what appeasement refers to. So he made a historical reference without actually understanding the historical context.
And Chris Matthews proceeds to rip him a new orifice.....
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Three Cheers for California!!!!!
California's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality! In thirty days, gay people can get married in California. The country's most populous state has become the second state to legalize gay marriage. Somewhere, Pat Robertson's head just exploded.
Here's the money quote from the Court's decision:
In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
Here's the money quote from the Court's decision:
In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Reason No. 2
not to vote for John McCain.
Fun quotes from the John McCain 2008 website. Today's topic "Gun Control"!
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.
Its a good point. Why should someone be liable when their product kills people? If an individual kills someone, they're liable, but why should companies have to follow the same rules? Sure, everyday 80 people in the United States die from gun violence and Americans are 16 times more likely to be killed by a gun than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED, but people gots to make money! Thanks McCain!
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.
Sorry John, but no one needs an assault rifle. Apparently, this is a bold position, but you don't need an Uzi or a Kalashnikov. And yes that is what the Brady Bill banned. By the way, an Uzi sub machine gun can fire 600 rounds per minute and there are Uzis that can fire up to 1700 rounds per minute. No one needs that.
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."
Apparently John McCain needs to protect himself from deer. Never having been to Arizona, we'll have to assume that the deer wear bullet proof vests and/or drive tanks.
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
There were 40 gun related deaths in Washington DC in 2004. Those 40 gun related deaths were all children under the age of 19.
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.
Sometimes you've got to shoot someone, er hunt, NOW.
Finally, to switch things up, McCain says something that makes sense.
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.
One can only imagine that Cheney thinks gun locks violates Free Market principles.
Fun quotes from the John McCain 2008 website. Today's topic "Gun Control"!
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.
Its a good point. Why should someone be liable when their product kills people? If an individual kills someone, they're liable, but why should companies have to follow the same rules? Sure, everyday 80 people in the United States die from gun violence and Americans are 16 times more likely to be killed by a gun than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED, but people gots to make money! Thanks McCain!
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.
Sorry John, but no one needs an assault rifle. Apparently, this is a bold position, but you don't need an Uzi or a Kalashnikov. And yes that is what the Brady Bill banned. By the way, an Uzi sub machine gun can fire 600 rounds per minute and there are Uzis that can fire up to 1700 rounds per minute. No one needs that.
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."
Apparently John McCain needs to protect himself from deer. Never having been to Arizona, we'll have to assume that the deer wear bullet proof vests and/or drive tanks.
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
There were 40 gun related deaths in Washington DC in 2004. Those 40 gun related deaths were all children under the age of 19.
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.
Sometimes you've got to shoot someone, er hunt, NOW.
Finally, to switch things up, McCain says something that makes sense.
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.
One can only imagine that Cheney thinks gun locks violates Free Market principles.
John Edwards
endorsed Barack Obama today. Way to be ahead of the curve, John!
So, he could have endorsed a candidate months ago and had an impact in the race. He could have endorsed Obama before North Carolina. What is the point of endorsing him now?
Here are some other bold positions John Edwards has taken:
January 1866- Says slavery is "bad" and Lincoln was a "cool dude"
March 1922- Decides to ride on new fangled "Horseless Carriage"
May 1945- Stops referring to Jews as "Shylocks"
September 1955- Agrees to move away from the gold standard.
December 1972- Adds indoor plumbing and gas stove to mansion. Still unsure of electricity.
June 1998- Vows to look into the "Internets". Wants to buy personal computer but fears that binary code is witchcraft. How can zeros and ones equal letters?
April 2008- Buys iPod.
May 14th, 2008- Endorses the candidate who leads in total delegates, pledged delegates, popular vote, and super delegates. Also, drinks his first Starbucks latte. Wets himself when the espresso machine goes off, but regains composure and declares drink "delicious".
So, he could have endorsed a candidate months ago and had an impact in the race. He could have endorsed Obama before North Carolina. What is the point of endorsing him now?
Here are some other bold positions John Edwards has taken:
January 1866- Says slavery is "bad" and Lincoln was a "cool dude"
March 1922- Decides to ride on new fangled "Horseless Carriage"
May 1945- Stops referring to Jews as "Shylocks"
September 1955- Agrees to move away from the gold standard.
December 1972- Adds indoor plumbing and gas stove to mansion. Still unsure of electricity.
June 1998- Vows to look into the "Internets". Wants to buy personal computer but fears that binary code is witchcraft. How can zeros and ones equal letters?
April 2008- Buys iPod.
May 14th, 2008- Endorses the candidate who leads in total delegates, pledged delegates, popular vote, and super delegates. Also, drinks his first Starbucks latte. Wets himself when the espresso machine goes off, but regains composure and declares drink "delicious".
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Nuclear Energy Article
Discover magazine has a very compelling article about nuclear energy. The basic premise is that nuclear energy is safer, more efficient and less polluting than other forms of energy. The article also points out that solar, wind or energy produced from biomass (ethanol) are damaging to the environment because of the amount of land that needs to be used. For example, to provide our 2005 level energy demand solely with wind power, it would take 780,000 square kilometers, which is the size of Texas.
Nuclear power could provide our energy needs in a safe, environmentally friendly and efficient way. Of course, people are paranoid that there will be a nuclear accident, but the article addresses that as well. Basically, Chernobyl could never happen here, and the Three Mile Island accident never caused health problems for the people around the area. This is a much better record than coal, which releases particulates that cause 24,000 deaths a year.
Plus, with nuclear power, you get this.
Nuclear power could provide our energy needs in a safe, environmentally friendly and efficient way. Of course, people are paranoid that there will be a nuclear accident, but the article addresses that as well. Basically, Chernobyl could never happen here, and the Three Mile Island accident never caused health problems for the people around the area. This is a much better record than coal, which releases particulates that cause 24,000 deaths a year.
Plus, with nuclear power, you get this.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Myanmar Cyclone
Millions of people have been affected by a natural disaster in Myanmar. The U.N. estimates that 1.5 million people have been "severely affected". Aid is getting in at a slow pace, but hopefully it will help. If you have some extra cash, you can donate to either UNICEF or Direct Relief International by clicking here.
One more request. Can we call the country by its actual name? Can we stop calling it Burma? Its not Burma, its Myanmar. What is the deal with this odd colonialist nostalgia? Are we going to start calling Iran "Persia"? Are we going to call Mumbai "Bombay"? Are you going to insist on calling Uptown Charlotte "Downtown"? They've spent millions of dollars calling it Uptown, just accept it.
Um, got a little off track. Again, click here to donate.
One more request. Can we call the country by its actual name? Can we stop calling it Burma? Its not Burma, its Myanmar. What is the deal with this odd colonialist nostalgia? Are we going to start calling Iran "Persia"? Are we going to call Mumbai "Bombay"? Are you going to insist on calling Uptown Charlotte "Downtown"? They've spent millions of dollars calling it Uptown, just accept it.
Um, got a little off track. Again, click here to donate.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Reason No. 1
Not to vote for McCain.
"These judges show little regard for the President, the Congress or the states..." Thus saith Lunatic Man about activist judges. Um, we have an independent judiciary, John. Read the Constitution.
He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, but shouldn't understanding the makeup of the government be fundamental? Can McCain even spell Checks and Balances?
Given his propensity for gaffes, we'll have reason 10,000 not to vote for John McCain by November.
"These judges show little regard for the President, the Congress or the states..." Thus saith Lunatic Man about activist judges. Um, we have an independent judiciary, John. Read the Constitution.
He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, but shouldn't understanding the makeup of the government be fundamental? Can McCain even spell Checks and Balances?
Given his propensity for gaffes, we'll have reason 10,000 not to vote for John McCain by November.
It's Over
Obama wins by 14 points and 220,000 votes in North Carolina, loses by two points and 20,000 votes in Indiana. He's only 150 delegates away from winning the nomination. HRC is still 300 delegates away.
The contest can continue, but the results aren't in doubt. Obama is going to win the nomination.
Time to focus on McCain.
The contest can continue, but the results aren't in doubt. Obama is going to win the nomination.
Time to focus on McCain.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Hillary's Filly
Hillary Clinton wanted everyone to place bets on "Eight Belles" the only filly in the Kentucky Derby. Those evil male horses! Anyway, the whole thing is harmless enough. HRC wants the filly to win, its a great metaphor, the filly is a long shot, blah blah blah.
So what happened? Did the filly win? Did Eight Belles pull it off?
Um, no.
Eight Belles finished in second, then collapsed, broke her legs and was euthanized.
Oh, and who placed in first? Big Brown. Seriously.
Stop laughing, John. You're a bad man.
RIP HRC, er Eight Belles.
So what happened? Did the filly win? Did Eight Belles pull it off?
Um, no.
Eight Belles finished in second, then collapsed, broke her legs and was euthanized.
Oh, and who placed in first? Big Brown. Seriously.
Stop laughing, John. You're a bad man.
RIP HRC, er Eight Belles.
Friday, May 2, 2008
What if We had a President
who didn't ruin the economy or wage an unethical war? And a President who didn't treat gay Americans as second class citizens?
Is that really too much to ask?
Is that really too much to ask?
If He's an Elitist.........
is it okay to say she's a moron?
It may be a little harsh, but this doesn't help.
Clinton and her drankin' buddy, John McCain, both want to have a "Gas Tax Holiday". Hooray!
Lets see, gas in Charlotte right now is 3.60 a gallon. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents. So gas would only cost 3.42 a gallon! So if it takes 20 gallons to fill your tank, it would be 72 dollars with the gas tax in place and 68.40 without the gas tax. FANTASTIC!!!!!
Oh, and the government would lose 10 billion dollars. 10 billion dollars dedicated to infrastructure projects. But just remember, when that bridge collapses and you plunge to your death, at least you saved four dollars when you filled up your gas tank. You'll probably be fine though, because, as of 2003, 27.1% of the nation's bridges (160,570) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which really isn't that bad. Who cares about "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" bridges? With four dollars, you can buy a pizza like substance from Dominos.
But wait, people are saving money. Isn't any bit of extra cash a benefit to hard pressed Americans? Um, yeah, but lowering the gas tax won't lower gas prices.
Why? Here's a quick lesson in economics. Price is effected by supply and demand. High price = low demand, low price = high demand, low supply = high price, high supply = low price. So by cutting the gas tax, demand will rise, lowering supply and increasing prices. Does anyone else think this? Only these guys.
Don't click the link, Clinton supporters. The people quoted in the article are all Economists which is pretty close to Elitists. And really, what would they know? Its not like their job is to study these things. What? It is? Oh. Maybe politicians shouldn't pander, bankrupting the country to score a few votes.
It may be a little harsh, but this doesn't help.
Clinton and her drankin' buddy, John McCain, both want to have a "Gas Tax Holiday". Hooray!
Lets see, gas in Charlotte right now is 3.60 a gallon. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents. So gas would only cost 3.42 a gallon! So if it takes 20 gallons to fill your tank, it would be 72 dollars with the gas tax in place and 68.40 without the gas tax. FANTASTIC!!!!!
Oh, and the government would lose 10 billion dollars. 10 billion dollars dedicated to infrastructure projects. But just remember, when that bridge collapses and you plunge to your death, at least you saved four dollars when you filled up your gas tank. You'll probably be fine though, because, as of 2003, 27.1% of the nation's bridges (160,570) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which really isn't that bad. Who cares about "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" bridges? With four dollars, you can buy a pizza like substance from Dominos.
But wait, people are saving money. Isn't any bit of extra cash a benefit to hard pressed Americans? Um, yeah, but lowering the gas tax won't lower gas prices.
Why? Here's a quick lesson in economics. Price is effected by supply and demand. High price = low demand, low price = high demand, low supply = high price, high supply = low price. So by cutting the gas tax, demand will rise, lowering supply and increasing prices. Does anyone else think this? Only these guys.
Don't click the link, Clinton supporters. The people quoted in the article are all Economists which is pretty close to Elitists. And really, what would they know? Its not like their job is to study these things. What? It is? Oh. Maybe politicians shouldn't pander, bankrupting the country to score a few votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)