Monday, September 21, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Sarah Palin- The Gift That Keeps on Giving.
Vetting for what might be the second most important post in the United States.
A.B. Culvahouse, a powerful Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Reagan, told an audience of Republican lawyers that for McCain, selecting a vice president came down to three questions: Why do you want to be vice president? Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons? And the CIA has identified Osama bin Laden, but if you take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?
"She knocked those questions out of the park," he said at an event held at the National Press Club by the Republican National Lawyers Association. "We came away impressed."
Even now, it's still worrying to think such morons nearly took control of the most powerful country on the planet. Thank their goodness they chose hope over stupidity.
A.B. Culvahouse, a powerful Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Reagan, told an audience of Republican lawyers that for McCain, selecting a vice president came down to three questions: Why do you want to be vice president? Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons? And the CIA has identified Osama bin Laden, but if you take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?
"She knocked those questions out of the park," he said at an event held at the National Press Club by the Republican National Lawyers Association. "We came away impressed."
Even now, it's still worrying to think such morons nearly took control of the most powerful country on the planet. Thank their goodness they chose hope over stupidity.
Labels: Barack Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin, stupidity, United States
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Sarah Palin has dashed to her tame TV station to complain about how mean Katie Couric was to her. Much as each interview she does demonstrates yet another area of life on which she has no knowledge or intellectual curiosity so here she expresses anger that Couric actually asked questions to try and elicit some evidence that Palin ever thinks or what McCain is standing for rather than just standing back and letting her have a go at Obama. To be honest, if she's wanting to go and claim that Obama has crazy mad spending plans after eight years of Shrubya it's probably best for the Republican party that those sorts of claims are restricted to GOP-TV where rampant lying is standard. It is worth remembering that the McCain campaign approached Couric believing her toothless interviewing style was best suited to introducing Palin to the country. To paint Couric as Jeremy Paxman is silly but hey, all politics is 99% farce so it'll probably work.
Talking of farce, Peter Mandelson is back in UK politics. When you've been in power for over a decade it's difficult to find new faces for Cabinet posts but it seems a desperate choice for Gordon Brown to make, maybe he hopes to have some luck by having someone in Cabinet less popular with the British public than him, and a strange choice for Mandelson to accept, what with the imminence of Labour's exile to the Opposition benches, you'd have thought that he'd wait until after that to then come back and start the fight back, much like he did with Blair and Brown in the Eighties.
Talking of farce, Peter Mandelson is back in UK politics. When you've been in power for over a decade it's difficult to find new faces for Cabinet posts but it seems a desperate choice for Gordon Brown to make, maybe he hopes to have some luck by having someone in Cabinet less popular with the British public than him, and a strange choice for Mandelson to accept, what with the imminence of Labour's exile to the Opposition benches, you'd have thought that he'd wait until after that to then come back and start the fight back, much like he did with Blair and Brown in the Eighties.
Labels: media, politics, Republicans, stupidity, United Kingdom, United States
Monday, September 08, 2008
Palin for President!
[via pretty much everyone I know on the intarwebs who doesn't think that choosing some deranged church looney on the sole grounds that they don't have a Y chromosome (and whats more, have you heard all the Fundie Christians start praying that McCain has a heart attack and dies once in office as President, how fucked up is that?) is a sensible basis for selecting a running mate.]
Labels: American Presidency, comedy, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Republicans, YouTube
Sunday, September 07, 2008
If the world could vote?
If the world could vote?
Posted using ShareThis
Posted using ShareThis
Labels: American Presidency, Barack Obama, Democrats, Republicans
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Labels: humour, Republicans, United States, YouTube
Friday, November 02, 2007
Which Presidential candidate best represents your views?
Huh, I get Kucinich with 88%, Gravel with 84% and then Obama with 83%. So Democrats make my top three, no surprise there, I'm 75% with Hillary, which did surprise me as I thought we were a lot different. I am only 44% sympatico with Giuliani.
Huh, I get Kucinich with 88%, Gravel with 84% and then Obama with 83%. So Democrats make my top three, no surprise there, I'm 75% with Hillary, which did surprise me as I thought we were a lot different. I am only 44% sympatico with Giuliani.
Labels: Clinton- Bill or Hillary, Democrats, Republicans, United States
Monday, May 07, 2007
This am your news
Let's ease in to this gently by going with The Sun, always trying to position itself as The Onion for urban Conservatives: Paris Hilton scared of prison lesbians. Elsewhere, Pete Doherty has apparently been caught with drugs again but no doubt the trial judge will find some way to see this as proof that he's trying to stop taking drugs and he'll get off scott free.
In real news The Times reports Cameron's Conservatives finally ready to start explaining what they stand for, which is handy just after a national round of local elections which were seen as a referendum on the Labour Government. Seeing as the Murdoch stable seem happy to big up Blair while giving Brown any number of paper cuts it seems the first principle of Cameron Conservatism is to get News International onside, hence the fact that The Times seems to have been told what will be said tomorrow. There's still some scepticism apparent, as we wait to see whether Tories are desperate enough for power again yet that they are willing to go with Dave.
The Guardian has an article on New Atheists, they loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it, apparently. Google currently gives 'about 44,000' results for a search. The claim that Richard Dawkins goes too far in attacking religion is not a new one, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The problem is that by trying to grab a bunch of authors who have nothing in common other than having written books attacking the religiosity most commonly typified by the Conservatives of the United States and the Conservatives of a number of Muslim countries < pause for breath > and calling them The New Atheists makes it seem as though they sit together in their secret volcano base plotting each day how to defeat religion.
"What are we going to do tonight Richard?"
"The same thing we do every night Dennett, try to vanquish the religions of the world!"
Also, by ignoring completely what may have caused this small spate of anti-religious books (and their apparent popularity) Madeleine Bunting gives the unfortunate impression that religion of various denominations had been pootling along for the last decade minding it's own business and hurting no-one.
I've never really understood religious anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism, I'll admit I haven't read On the Origin of Species but I have read the Bible and, while it's true to say that it doesn't say that God creates evolution it says nothing to deny the possibility and would also suggest that God is a non-omnipotent being, with limits, who needs six days to make a planet and who needs a day to rest up. I haven't got a copy to hand so I'm not sure if it explicitly states that God creates the passing of time or the ability to reproduce through the interaction of people's naughty bits. Anyway, this is just a long preamble to a link to an article in the NYT in which Conservatives are battling the ultra-religious elements in their own ideology over Darwinism. I've always assumed that the urge to oppose Darwinism was no more than the desire to oppose what the Religious Right assumed the scientists stood for, birth-control, abortion, separation of church and state and so on. Can the Conservatives take the Republicans back from the Christians? Could they still have power if they aren't following an unreconstructed two-thousand year old ideology?
In real news The Times reports Cameron's Conservatives finally ready to start explaining what they stand for, which is handy just after a national round of local elections which were seen as a referendum on the Labour Government. Seeing as the Murdoch stable seem happy to big up Blair while giving Brown any number of paper cuts it seems the first principle of Cameron Conservatism is to get News International onside, hence the fact that The Times seems to have been told what will be said tomorrow. There's still some scepticism apparent, as we wait to see whether Tories are desperate enough for power again yet that they are willing to go with Dave.
The Guardian has an article on New Atheists, they loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it, apparently. Google currently gives 'about 44,000' results for a search. The claim that Richard Dawkins goes too far in attacking religion is not a new one, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The problem is that by trying to grab a bunch of authors who have nothing in common other than having written books attacking the religiosity most commonly typified by the Conservatives of the United States and the Conservatives of a number of Muslim countries < pause for breath > and calling them The New Atheists makes it seem as though they sit together in their secret volcano base plotting each day how to defeat religion.
"What are we going to do tonight Richard?"
"The same thing we do every night Dennett, try to vanquish the religions of the world!"
Also, by ignoring completely what may have caused this small spate of anti-religious books (and their apparent popularity) Madeleine Bunting gives the unfortunate impression that religion of various denominations had been pootling along for the last decade minding it's own business and hurting no-one.
I've never really understood religious anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism, I'll admit I haven't read On the Origin of Species but I have read the Bible and, while it's true to say that it doesn't say that God creates evolution it says nothing to deny the possibility and would also suggest that God is a non-omnipotent being, with limits, who needs six days to make a planet and who needs a day to rest up. I haven't got a copy to hand so I'm not sure if it explicitly states that God creates the passing of time or the ability to reproduce through the interaction of people's naughty bits. Anyway, this is just a long preamble to a link to an article in the NYT in which Conservatives are battling the ultra-religious elements in their own ideology over Darwinism. I've always assumed that the urge to oppose Darwinism was no more than the desire to oppose what the Religious Right assumed the scientists stood for, birth-control, abortion, separation of church and state and so on. Can the Conservatives take the Republicans back from the Christians? Could they still have power if they aren't following an unreconstructed two-thousand year old ideology?
Labels: atheism, atheists, Conservatives, David Cameron, Evolution, Fundamentalists- Secular, Islam, newspapers, politics, religion, Republicans, Richard Dawkins, science, United Kingdom, United States
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
In Summation...
I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. Back in Spring 2001 I didn't think that the Dems policy of not being George W. Bush was the right path to take. I thought they could try something fiendishly clever like actually having policies or something. But clearly, I wasn't watching for the long game. The Democrats had their eyes on the prize, why else would they field John Kerry in 2004? Many other parties would have fielded a human being as Democratic nominee, rather than the Mahogany Table That Walks Like A Man. But now it seems obvious, the Dems appreciated that it was important not to rush things. So, now I have a very good feeling about the Presidential election. Oh yeah Republicans, if you are still capable of bending at your corpulent midriffs you can kiss your own mountainous arses goodbye, the Presidential Election of 2016 belongs to the Democrats!
Labels: Democrats, politics, Republicans, United States
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thanks for the card Patrick. It turned up today, how appropriate!
MP vote against holding an inquiry into the Iraq War.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett warned it was "not the time", as an inquiry could undermine troops' morale... Mrs Beckett warned that agreeing to either inquiry now would send the wrong signal "at the wrong time" to Iraq.
Because heaven knows the one thing that stops the British troops from despairing at the fact they are being killed every day is the fact that at least the Labour party supports them being there if no-one else does.
Meanwhile, in another faraway land, Michelle Malkin is doing her bit to try and prevent people from realising that the Republican Party is fucked by engineering a controversy over John Kerry.
She reports Kerry as saying: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Now, that doesn't look to me as though he's saying the troops are stupid, more the current inhabitant of the White House. Of course, that doesn't stop a large number of people who are stupid and, co-incidentally Republican, bay and scream for John Kerry to apologise for insulting the troops. So, it seems that no-one has a problem with Shrubya being called dumb, not even those that would claim to support him.
It gets really funny when Malkin moves on to complaining about why isn't the media reporting something that wasn't said?
But most importantly, this week is British Sausage Week. Woot!
MP vote against holding an inquiry into the Iraq War.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett warned it was "not the time", as an inquiry could undermine troops' morale... Mrs Beckett warned that agreeing to either inquiry now would send the wrong signal "at the wrong time" to Iraq.
Because heaven knows the one thing that stops the British troops from despairing at the fact they are being killed every day is the fact that at least the Labour party supports them being there if no-one else does.
Meanwhile, in another faraway land, Michelle Malkin is doing her bit to try and prevent people from realising that the Republican Party is fucked by engineering a controversy over John Kerry.
She reports Kerry as saying: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Now, that doesn't look to me as though he's saying the troops are stupid, more the current inhabitant of the White House. Of course, that doesn't stop a large number of people who are stupid and, co-incidentally Republican, bay and scream for John Kerry to apologise for insulting the troops. So, it seems that no-one has a problem with Shrubya being called dumb, not even those that would claim to support him.
It gets really funny when Malkin moves on to complaining about why isn't the media reporting something that wasn't said?
But most importantly, this week is British Sausage Week. Woot!
Labels: Government, Iraq, Michelle Malkin, Republicans, United States
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Daily Telegraph claims John Reid is burying bad news while reporting John Reid declaring Al Qaeda is winning the battle of ideas with the British Government*. Meanwhile the Observer reports John Reid is planning to prevent Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants from coming to this country in January and The Sun goes with the news that John Reid is looking for ships to use as floating prisons.
John Reid, lest we forget, is NOT running for Deputy Prime Minister when John Prescott rides off next year. He must be mightily confident that Gordon Brown is going to lose the next General Election though.
* I'm struggling to remember a time when the British Government won the battle of ideas with anyone over anything. It failed to convince people that the Millenium Dome wasn't going to be a load of crap, that the War in Iraq was a good idea for the region or that David Blunkett wasn't an evil-minded shower of shit. Way back in the late nineties Tony Blair said that the Government were going to persuade the British people of the wisdom of joining the single European currency, then never spoke of it again. The only arguments the Labour party wins are those that Tony Blair has with the rest of the party, by frightening them with the bogeyman of losing power.
The American mid-term elections don't seem to have come up much in the UK News, except for the whole thing with Foley talking dirty to teens thing. But when I look at American media the common refrain from Republicans is that whether some guy fiddled with kids or whether that Republican was a crook that embezzled tons of money or whatever, the only crime is that the Democrats are trying to take advantage of it. Puh-lease! I think, when it comes down to it, the guy that committed the crime is probably worse than the guy who talked about the guy who committed the crime. I don't think anyone suggested that Moses was worse than Pharoah for writing how he persecuted the Jews. And I suppose that whole thing of Shrubya standing on the boat in front of the 'Mission Accomplished!' was a genuine excited declaration and not about PR at all? Look at Patrick, who will probably end up voting for a party he doesn't like, because the only thing going for them is that they aren't called 'The Democratic Party', despite okaying massive increases in spending, on the military, and increasing the power of the Government to spy on and harass it's citizens. Rolling Stone has a pretty damning report on the corrupt crooks of both parties who run the United States.
John Reid, lest we forget, is NOT running for Deputy Prime Minister when John Prescott rides off next year. He must be mightily confident that Gordon Brown is going to lose the next General Election though.
* I'm struggling to remember a time when the British Government won the battle of ideas with anyone over anything. It failed to convince people that the Millenium Dome wasn't going to be a load of crap, that the War in Iraq was a good idea for the region or that David Blunkett wasn't an evil-minded shower of shit. Way back in the late nineties Tony Blair said that the Government were going to persuade the British people of the wisdom of joining the single European currency, then never spoke of it again. The only arguments the Labour party wins are those that Tony Blair has with the rest of the party, by frightening them with the bogeyman of losing power.
The American mid-term elections don't seem to have come up much in the UK News, except for the whole thing with Foley talking dirty to teens thing. But when I look at American media the common refrain from Republicans is that whether some guy fiddled with kids or whether that Republican was a crook that embezzled tons of money or whatever, the only crime is that the Democrats are trying to take advantage of it. Puh-lease! I think, when it comes down to it, the guy that committed the crime is probably worse than the guy who talked about the guy who committed the crime. I don't think anyone suggested that Moses was worse than Pharoah for writing how he persecuted the Jews. And I suppose that whole thing of Shrubya standing on the boat in front of the 'Mission Accomplished!' was a genuine excited declaration and not about PR at all? Look at Patrick, who will probably end up voting for a party he doesn't like, because the only thing going for them is that they aren't called 'The Democratic Party', despite okaying massive increases in spending, on the military, and increasing the power of the Government to spy on and harass it's citizens. Rolling Stone has a pretty damning report on the corrupt crooks of both parties who run the United States.
Labels: Democrats, Government, immigration, John Reid, Republicans, The War Against Terror, United States
