The Pe-LIAR-si post from yesterday morning included an embedded video which has been nuked by the source, I have now learned. So, I'm replacing that video with another. Her behavior is despicable on a number of levels, and in yesterday's post I tried to point out how crippling it is to our intelligence community when elected representatives go about playing their (the agents') methods and results, or lack thereof, for political gain. Another facet of how bad this is, is the fact that she uses the CIA as a scapegoat for a manufactured ill of the previous administration, which undermines and erodes their effectiveness. Yet another is that she has the nerve to continually spit her lies in the face of America, pretending that she's above being held accountable. This is where Rush comes in. Accountability. Sic 'em, Rush! Sic balls, boy!
Thanks, Rush.
Also, revisit this video from Miss Ann, who draws similar parallels regarding the Clinton regime's manners of aggressive dishonesty. Let us remember: The actions of THAT administration to weaken our intelligence community and handcuff their effectiveness, created the vulnerability that resulted in 9/11. Cause & effect.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Rules? We don't need no stinking rules.
Our Community Organizer in Chief is apparently torn between...
A) Doing nothing worthwhile at all.
and
B) Doing that which is the most idiotic.
While I was shaking my head over the nomination of Sotomayor to replace Souter on the SCOTUS, I paid a visit to my new BFF, the Conservative Pup. If you want an eloquent and concise report on how disturbingly wrong Ms. Sotomayor's appointment would be, go read the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:
The NY Times quoted her as saying, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life". Which might just boil down to if a radical muslim chooses to behead your daughter as part of his definition of an honor-killing, and the case somehow goes to the supreme court, then her "empathy" for that murderer's social condition may pursuade her to exonerate the bastard.
Sotomayor actually refers to herself as "wise." Pathetic.
A) Doing nothing worthwhile at all.
and
B) Doing that which is the most idiotic.
While I was shaking my head over the nomination of Sotomayor to replace Souter on the SCOTUS, I paid a visit to my new BFF, the Conservative Pup. If you want an eloquent and concise report on how disturbingly wrong Ms. Sotomayor's appointment would be, go read the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:
The umpire calls balls and strikes, no matter the skin color,
religion, or economic status of the batter. He calls them as he sees them,
within the careful guidelines laid out for everybody to follow. The
referee calls an offside penalty in a football game without any thought
whatsoever to the “underdog” status of one of the teams.
Can you imagine watching baseball, football, basketball,
tennis, golf, or any sport knowing that the rules would be adjusted for the
individual teams playing? How much fun would it be to watch a football
game knowing in advance that because one of the teams was heavily outmatched by
the other the refs were going to apply the rules with “empathy?”
The NY Times quoted her as saying, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life". Which might just boil down to if a radical muslim chooses to behead your daughter as part of his definition of an honor-killing, and the case somehow goes to the supreme court, then her "empathy" for that murderer's social condition may pursuade her to exonerate the bastard.
Sotomayor actually refers to herself as "wise." Pathetic.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Nancy Pelosi, hero of fools and terrorists
If you're like me, and you're probably not, because apparently more of you cast your ballots for the hopeandchangeandrainbows crowd, then you've been whistling past the graveyard since November. And hoping that those fearful things which we can't see, can't really harm us physically, or might not...yet. And praying for things to not get too bad to fix once we can boot the bozos out on their asses in 2012. Those few of you who are of that mindset that the biggest electoral con-job of all time has us, America, in the most precariously teetering position in our 233 years understand and worry right along with me. There are others amongst us that had not yet seen the potential calamity toward which those Democrats, if and when they had their way, might guide us.
I still don't know how my friends, relatives, and neighbors failed to see and hear what was so plain-as-day for me: the preference by the Democrat Party leadership that we actually lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I can't grasp how those same people weren't as consequently horrified and repulsed by those "leaders" as I was. And I can't fathom how or why they aren't yet disassociating themselves as I did.
You see, I was registered as a Democrat up until 2002. I hadn't truly believed that it mattered so much as the character of the person you chose for each office. That's when I started hearing, and recognizing, the scuttlebutt from the left, the naysayings of Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons et al. And I thought back ("back" was a shorter distance then, obviously) to our cries of "how did we get here?" that we all felt in the aftermath of 9-11. Y'all remember that? "How could we be so vulnerable?" we all were asking. And do you remember the answers? One of those answers was the realization of how gutted and weakened our intelligence community (read: the CIA) had been effected by the Clinton administration. Billy-boy was the one who started us on that global apology tour and scaled back preparedness for and knowledge of those who would do us harm in favor of a supposedly less-threatening American image worldwide. Cause and effect, assholes, cause and effect.
And when the ACLU and their pals were spouting, "let's not over-react to terrorism and grant carte blanche to the CIA in the interest of national defense" I was all, fuck that. Ramp that sucker back up to the point that the bad guys are known, fucking known down to their dental records, well before they take any flying lessons or get their hands on some Anthrax or even meet up with other bad guys where they think up destructive shit. I mean, come on. How paranoid do you have to be, Democrats, about your little grow-light-cannibis in your closets or your sexual deviances, that you remain willing to handcuff the double-naughts into doing nothing against the real dangers? Your little criminalities and perversions make this country's overall balance sheet of character a weaker one, as it is, without the added vulnerability you bring upon the rest of us. And that is what I despise so much about this bitch...
Pelosi is THE top representative of your party, Democrats. And this is characteristic of her (and their) motives. It is more important to get and maintain political power than to strengthen the security of our nation. She was so wrapped up in A) smokescreening the failures of the current administration and B) casting aspersions and blame upon the President who cared enough about our country to take political risks, that she now sees fit to call those CIA people liars and misleaders. YOU are the misleader Nancy, and the liar. And I think it's time your enablers begin pulling their collective heads out of their collective asses and disowning you.
I'm not necessarily feeling like this post is my best work...the bile that's raging in my gut over how easily Pelosi is prepared to revisit the Bill Clinton Age of Ignorance is choking my brain. And while she and those of her ilk are murdering our national security here at home, the Community Organizer in Chief has allowed (dare I say, fostered) a powderkeg of instability on three simultaneous fronts: Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Go read Scott's essay at Flopping Aces and then tell me you feel good about our country's current footing worldwide.
I changed my affiliation, not because I was fundamentally opposed to the notion of democracy, but because I didn't want to be associated with the weak and those who would engender weakness upon me and my country. I saw then, as I do now, that such association is no different than a welcome mat for the terrorists. Which fools among you are not yet ready to disown the Democrat political machine, its machinations, and its carelessness with our safety? If not yet, then what will it take?
I still don't know how my friends, relatives, and neighbors failed to see and hear what was so plain-as-day for me: the preference by the Democrat Party leadership that we actually lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I can't grasp how those same people weren't as consequently horrified and repulsed by those "leaders" as I was. And I can't fathom how or why they aren't yet disassociating themselves as I did.
You see, I was registered as a Democrat up until 2002. I hadn't truly believed that it mattered so much as the character of the person you chose for each office. That's when I started hearing, and recognizing, the scuttlebutt from the left, the naysayings of Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons et al. And I thought back ("back" was a shorter distance then, obviously) to our cries of "how did we get here?" that we all felt in the aftermath of 9-11. Y'all remember that? "How could we be so vulnerable?" we all were asking. And do you remember the answers? One of those answers was the realization of how gutted and weakened our intelligence community (read: the CIA) had been effected by the Clinton administration. Billy-boy was the one who started us on that global apology tour and scaled back preparedness for and knowledge of those who would do us harm in favor of a supposedly less-threatening American image worldwide. Cause and effect, assholes, cause and effect.
And when the ACLU and their pals were spouting, "let's not over-react to terrorism and grant carte blanche to the CIA in the interest of national defense" I was all, fuck that. Ramp that sucker back up to the point that the bad guys are known, fucking known down to their dental records, well before they take any flying lessons or get their hands on some Anthrax or even meet up with other bad guys where they think up destructive shit. I mean, come on. How paranoid do you have to be, Democrats, about your little grow-light-cannibis in your closets or your sexual deviances, that you remain willing to handcuff the double-naughts into doing nothing against the real dangers? Your little criminalities and perversions make this country's overall balance sheet of character a weaker one, as it is, without the added vulnerability you bring upon the rest of us. And that is what I despise so much about this bitch...
Pelosi is THE top representative of your party, Democrats. And this is characteristic of her (and their) motives. It is more important to get and maintain political power than to strengthen the security of our nation. She was so wrapped up in A) smokescreening the failures of the current administration and B) casting aspersions and blame upon the President who cared enough about our country to take political risks, that she now sees fit to call those CIA people liars and misleaders. YOU are the misleader Nancy, and the liar. And I think it's time your enablers begin pulling their collective heads out of their collective asses and disowning you.
I'm not necessarily feeling like this post is my best work...the bile that's raging in my gut over how easily Pelosi is prepared to revisit the Bill Clinton Age of Ignorance is choking my brain. And while she and those of her ilk are murdering our national security here at home, the Community Organizer in Chief has allowed (dare I say, fostered) a powderkeg of instability on three simultaneous fronts: Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Go read Scott's essay at Flopping Aces and then tell me you feel good about our country's current footing worldwide.
I changed my affiliation, not because I was fundamentally opposed to the notion of democracy, but because I didn't want to be associated with the weak and those who would engender weakness upon me and my country. I saw then, as I do now, that such association is no different than a welcome mat for the terrorists. Which fools among you are not yet ready to disown the Democrat political machine, its machinations, and its carelessness with our safety? If not yet, then what will it take?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Sunday Funny
While I'm on the subject of McClatchy propaganda, let's say you live in a city like Charlotte (or Raleigh, or Columbia, SC or Lexington, KY) and you enjoy a good political cartoon. If so, the major papers in your city probably come up short in regards to ridiculing the laughable left. Because I do enjoy some Sunday funnies, I'm glad that I have Flopping Aces to rely on as I laze away with my coffee.
As I am sure there are royalty concerns, I won't make a habit out of pilfering the material for use on my site. But, as a manner of ushering readers on to FA, who do great work by the way (and are folks you should read on a regular basis anyway) I'll inject a couple of my favorites from this morning. If I ever see a way to make a few bucks from this blog-thing, having a similar, regular Sunday Comics post would be something I'd like to do. These artists should be well-rewarded for their talent. Enjoy...
As I am sure there are royalty concerns, I won't make a habit out of pilfering the material for use on my site. But, as a manner of ushering readers on to FA, who do great work by the way (and are folks you should read on a regular basis anyway) I'll inject a couple of my favorites from this morning. If I ever see a way to make a few bucks from this blog-thing, having a similar, regular Sunday Comics post would be something I'd like to do. These artists should be well-rewarded for their talent. Enjoy...
Friday, May 15, 2009
Junior Green says you can keep your job, in spite of your honest opinion...for now
Ron Green, Jr. wrote the other day that David Feherty shouldn't lose his job over a statement he wrote. According to Green, Feherty wrote:
Hoo-aah for David Feherty, if that's what he wrote. It just serves to make me a bigger fan of his and I'm more likely to listen closer to what he has to say in the future. But, boo and double-boo to Green. This is just another case of the lamestream media pretending to some authority over someone else's career and/or livelihood. Feherty has the balls to show his support for President Bush, and you think your job is to insinuate that it's not quite bad enough that he be fired?
Let's check the big scoreboard, Ronnie. Feherty wrote an article (as you admit) for a Dallas magazine...not his day-gig. In that day-gig, he's more successful, influential, and popular than you (or anyone else at the Obscurer) can ever hope to be. That statement isn't an example of "humor" as you said, but sarcasm in reference to Pelosi. You say it was a mistake, as if you ever had the stones to write the truth. You work for the Charlotte Observer, which is a McClatchey vehicle that believes its purpose is to shape the news and call it "reporting." You and your gang have so alienated your readers with your liberal moonbattery, that your circulation has thereby dwindled to the point that you need the gubmint to prop your sorry asses up. Who the fuck are you to say who else should keep or lose his job?
I would say that, were it me in that elevator with bin laden, Pelosi, and Reid, I'd be tempted to pistol whip all three of them to death, and save the bullets for any liberal "reporters". Wanna recommend I lose my job over that?
Too late.
Your spread-the-wealth socialist brethren have already beaten you to that plum.
“if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he
found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden,
there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice and Harry Reid and
bin Laden would be strangled to death.”
Hoo-aah for David Feherty, if that's what he wrote. It just serves to make me a bigger fan of his and I'm more likely to listen closer to what he has to say in the future. But, boo and double-boo to Green. This is just another case of the lamestream media pretending to some authority over someone else's career and/or livelihood. Feherty has the balls to show his support for President Bush, and you think your job is to insinuate that it's not quite bad enough that he be fired?
Let's check the big scoreboard, Ronnie. Feherty wrote an article (as you admit) for a Dallas magazine...not his day-gig. In that day-gig, he's more successful, influential, and popular than you (or anyone else at the Obscurer) can ever hope to be. That statement isn't an example of "humor" as you said, but sarcasm in reference to Pelosi. You say it was a mistake, as if you ever had the stones to write the truth. You work for the Charlotte Observer, which is a McClatchey vehicle that believes its purpose is to shape the news and call it "reporting." You and your gang have so alienated your readers with your liberal moonbattery, that your circulation has thereby dwindled to the point that you need the gubmint to prop your sorry asses up. Who the fuck are you to say who else should keep or lose his job?
I would say that, were it me in that elevator with bin laden, Pelosi, and Reid, I'd be tempted to pistol whip all three of them to death, and save the bullets for any liberal "reporters". Wanna recommend I lose my job over that?
Too late.
Your spread-the-wealth socialist brethren have already beaten you to that plum.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad
One of my favorite bloggers, Lemuel, had this on his site the other day, and allowed me to pilfer it. What a guy!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A thing which is not good
When I first launched the "Good Stuff" player, my introduction said that I challenge anyone to find any duds on it, and this morning thought, "Why not throw in one of the duddiest, awfullest, and worstest ever and see if anyone gags over it?" As a joke, I had searched for and found the world's worst singer/songwriter for inclusion on the above playlist player. I was prepared to pick one of his "songs" and just stick it in there in hopes that everyone would get the rotten apple joke, but for two things: One, as I listened to a couple of his offerings in the playlist files (not the entire things, but as far into a few as I could stomach) I feared the shame I would bring on myself and others if someone mistakenly took me seriously...and Two, I just couldn't keep a straight face.
The FCB and I and a few others, when I last lived in Austin, and during a SouthBySoWhat festival were waiting at one of the venues on 6th street for The Resentments and had to endure this dipshit's repertoire. It's truly awful. So bad, in fact, that a person gets the feeling there's an unwashable stinky film stuck to thier skin after hearing it. You would have regretted that you had been in the same county, much less the same room if you'd have been there.
And now, the only reason that I post reference to it here is for the purpose of redirect. That is, if any of those scat trolls from Kate's Blatherings come around here, the following link will draw them moth-to-flame away from the picnic area. YOU scat trolls will like it, I promise. He will touch you, in a way which you will enjoy, but in a way that makes humans nauseous. My nickname for him was, and is: "my audience has no" as in...
Gentlemen and ladies for your bingeing-and-purging pleasure, I present Steve "my audience has no" Poltz. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Question: If you went there and subjected yourself to the Poltz nightmare, was your reaction more like the 2-word review of Spinal Tap's Shark Sandwich: "Shit sandwich"...or John Belushi's accoustic-smashing response to I gave my love a chicken...?
The biggest mystery to me is how come I can get 33 results to a search for Steve (that which has no value to mankind whatsoever and is aurally repulsive in every way) Poltz, whereas I get only 2 results for Phil Lee? Very sad state of affairs.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Manny don't matter
Lately, I've been my slackest and least productive in the blog-effort department. Ten days since the last post, and I had been keeping to some regularity. If I were into making excuses, I could dream up a number of them. My greatest scholarly talent during those scholaring years was the manufacture of bizarre and outrageous untruths regarding the absence of any assigned product. In a spastic seizure of honesty, I'll try to spare you that.
It's fair to say, though, that sometimes the potential subject matter is so poisonously, or explosively, or disastrously volatile, that the prospect of dealing with the consequences later stunts any real effort. On the other hand, it could just be that I couldn't think of anything. Let your imagination soar freely with the possibilities!
Sometimes, it's actually much easier to write about things that don't really matter. Like Manny Ramirez. Manny doesn't matter. Perhaps it doesn't even matter anymore the effect his actions, and the actions of those like him, have fostered. The ManRam tested positive for a banned substance. It was first reported that the substance was not, nor had anything to do with, anything "performance enhancing." It turns out, that wasn't so. From what I've read, what ManRam got caught with in his system was for those who have been on steroids and want to mask or reduce the effects of weaning oneself off those steroids.
And his statement suggests that his taking of this stuff was accidental in nature. What I've also read is that the stuff is introduced into a person's body via injection. How "accidentally" do people you know get themselves injected? Not very often in my neck of the woods. And there are very few A) rocket scientists and B) world-class (supposedly) athletes in my neck of the woods. What I mean to say is, how stupid do you have to be to get accidentally injected, for one? And the other, if you're on the pinnacle of your sport, how much gray area is there regarding what substance you would consider being introduced into your bloodstream?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, instead of simply being a very good athlete when I was at the University of Cullowhee Left of Asheville...after I made the school's baseball team as a walk-on and later got cut because there was an abundance of players at my position...could I have accidentally or otherwise allowed myself to be injected with anything other than penicillin? The answer is "not no, but Hell no. That would be cheating." And don't even suggest that we didn't have the access then, because we knew a guy who added 40lbs of muscle-mass between freshman and sophmore years in high school football. Plus, I carpooled that same college year with the former Mr. NC bodybuilder who admitted to using 'roids.
So, the point is it's not a matter of circumstance that I did not take steroids and ManRam did (or Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, A-Rod, Bonds, Giambi, Palmeiro, ad infinitum). It is a matter of choice...It was for me, then, and was, and is, for all of those guys. And it would be a mistake to pretend my choice was made easier by a matter of circumstance. When I left school, I went to work in a furniture factory...loading trucks.
Professional baseball should be populated by those players who are naturally better than I was, not by those who will do anything (including getting shots of juice) to leapfrog those players with real talent.
The organization of Major League Baseball is as culpable as those individuals who cheated, if not more so. And this certainly includes the players' union, and the broadcasting media who pushed the selling points of bigger offensive output. Shame on all you scum-sucking sons of bitches. It is those players who were great without cheating who you deface with casual phrases like, "Manny's Hall-Of-Fame-like numbers" and those others, just below those greatest, real Hall Of Fame players who didn't get to be in the Hall because they weren't (naturally) quite as great as those that were, and those players, like me, who could have been considered "great" by their numbers if they (I) would've cheated, that are cheated by the cheaters.
This is why I can't be a fan of baseball, at the Major League level, anymore. The product is not for me. It is for someone else who has no sense of value, and I do not like those folks. I wish I could be a baseball fan, 'cause the Reds have an interesting gang on the field, as well as in the pitching ranks. But, I read something this morning that just churns up the bile for me: Hal McCoy quoted Reds' Manager Dusty Baker as saying,
For me, if they're unwilling to distance themselves from that which is wrong any better than this, then they're just not worth my time or attention. Manny Ramirez used the juice to get ahead, to get the fame and fortune. If he's a star or fallen hero in Dusty Baker's book, or in the Commissioner's or the players' union, or Torre's and the Dodgers', then those folks are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. And so long as that is the case, the problem shall persist, and I shall withhold my love.
It's fair to say, though, that sometimes the potential subject matter is so poisonously, or explosively, or disastrously volatile, that the prospect of dealing with the consequences later stunts any real effort. On the other hand, it could just be that I couldn't think of anything. Let your imagination soar freely with the possibilities!
Sometimes, it's actually much easier to write about things that don't really matter. Like Manny Ramirez. Manny doesn't matter. Perhaps it doesn't even matter anymore the effect his actions, and the actions of those like him, have fostered. The ManRam tested positive for a banned substance. It was first reported that the substance was not, nor had anything to do with, anything "performance enhancing." It turns out, that wasn't so. From what I've read, what ManRam got caught with in his system was for those who have been on steroids and want to mask or reduce the effects of weaning oneself off those steroids.
And his statement suggests that his taking of this stuff was accidental in nature. What I've also read is that the stuff is introduced into a person's body via injection. How "accidentally" do people you know get themselves injected? Not very often in my neck of the woods. And there are very few A) rocket scientists and B) world-class (supposedly) athletes in my neck of the woods. What I mean to say is, how stupid do you have to be to get accidentally injected, for one? And the other, if you're on the pinnacle of your sport, how much gray area is there regarding what substance you would consider being introduced into your bloodstream?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, instead of simply being a very good athlete when I was at the University of Cullowhee Left of Asheville...after I made the school's baseball team as a walk-on and later got cut because there was an abundance of players at my position...could I have accidentally or otherwise allowed myself to be injected with anything other than penicillin? The answer is "not no, but Hell no. That would be cheating." And don't even suggest that we didn't have the access then, because we knew a guy who added 40lbs of muscle-mass between freshman and sophmore years in high school football. Plus, I carpooled that same college year with the former Mr. NC bodybuilder who admitted to using 'roids.
So, the point is it's not a matter of circumstance that I did not take steroids and ManRam did (or Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, A-Rod, Bonds, Giambi, Palmeiro, ad infinitum). It is a matter of choice...It was for me, then, and was, and is, for all of those guys. And it would be a mistake to pretend my choice was made easier by a matter of circumstance. When I left school, I went to work in a furniture factory...loading trucks.
Professional baseball should be populated by those players who are naturally better than I was, not by those who will do anything (including getting shots of juice) to leapfrog those players with real talent.
The organization of Major League Baseball is as culpable as those individuals who cheated, if not more so. And this certainly includes the players' union, and the broadcasting media who pushed the selling points of bigger offensive output. Shame on all you scum-sucking sons of bitches. It is those players who were great without cheating who you deface with casual phrases like, "Manny's Hall-Of-Fame-like numbers" and those others, just below those greatest, real Hall Of Fame players who didn't get to be in the Hall because they weren't (naturally) quite as great as those that were, and those players, like me, who could have been considered "great" by their numbers if they (I) would've cheated, that are cheated by the cheaters.
This is why I can't be a fan of baseball, at the Major League level, anymore. The product is not for me. It is for someone else who has no sense of value, and I do not like those folks. I wish I could be a baseball fan, 'cause the Reds have an interesting gang on the field, as well as in the pitching ranks. But, I read something this morning that just churns up the bile for me: Hal McCoy quoted Reds' Manager Dusty Baker as saying,
“Fifty days is a long time and that’s really going to hurt the Dodgers and it is
going to hurt his reputation. I just hate it that another star goes down. We
sure can’t afford to have any more heroes go down.”
For me, if they're unwilling to distance themselves from that which is wrong any better than this, then they're just not worth my time or attention. Manny Ramirez used the juice to get ahead, to get the fame and fortune. If he's a star or fallen hero in Dusty Baker's book, or in the Commissioner's or the players' union, or Torre's and the Dodgers', then those folks are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. And so long as that is the case, the problem shall persist, and I shall withhold my love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)