The Romans want to vote too

October 26, 2008

David Loepp is brilliant.  I’m going to register to vote in Canada several times and screw with their elections just for kicks.


Ridiculous

October 26, 2008

Some in the media have been fixated on Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe, courtesy of RNC and its donors.  Time Magazine thinks its important that you know she’s committing crimes against fashion.  While I’m no fan of politicians using money for ridiculous things and can’t even conceive of owning a $150,000 wardrobe, I have to say.  That ain’t the only ridiculous thing as what’s gone down this election season.

Remember the Greek temple from which The One addressed His throng of worshipers during the heady days of the Democratic Party’s convention?  Yeah.  $5.3 million for a crime against architecture.

And as long as we’re talking about money, remember the bailout that passed a while back?  The $1.8 trillion bailout, even though people only really talked about the first $700 billion?  Yeah, about that $700 billion.  It seems that nobody is really sure what it’s for.

Moving on to the larger theme of Ridiculous, Bob Barr.  I wish he would win in November.  That’s why I voted for him.  But third-party candidates haven’t won anything in over 100 years.  Realistically, Bob Barr isn’t going to win anything.  But that won’t stop him from offering campaign advice to McCain.  Advice like, “Quit now, because realistically, you’ve got now chance.”  Also, Bob Barr suggests that McCain will lose in Georgia.  This might be a bad time to write LP Central and ask them which states they expect Barr to win in.

The media has been so ridiculous this election cycle that this guy is ashamed to admit his profession to strangers.  He works for ABC.  Ponder it.

Senator Jack Murtha (who has a special category of Ridiculous specially reserved for himself) of Pennsylvania said, quote, “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”  Hey, if we have a representative form of government and Jack Murtha represents a racist area… does that mean Jack Murtha is racist?  Just sayin’.  Oh, and John McCain agrees with Murtha while trying really hard not to.

Some pollster got death threats for running a poll that had McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida.

Okay, that’s enough of a link-dump.  I can only take so much of ridiculous before the sense of impending doom hits.  Various folks of all stripes like to yak it up about how historic this election is, since it’ll either end with a black President or a woman Vice-President.  This is also the most ridiculous election in American history.


Vicious name-calling rhetoric. And DOOM!

October 12, 2008

Behold, o reader, the vigilance of the Thought Police.  Observe the thoughtfulness and wit of Grand Poobah Sam Cook as he tackles racism in its ugliest form:

Sheriff Mike Scott swears he had no ulterior motive.

“I answered a lot of e-mails and signed my middle name (Joseph) on all of them,” says Scott, 45. “I don’t see anything wrong with calling him Barack Hussein Obama.

“That is his name.”

Yes it is. Yet it was much more at Monday’s rally at Germain Arena for vice presidential hopeful Gov. Sarah Palin.

Just in case it’s not clear there, the Grand Poobah is upset that Sheriff Scott used Barack Obama’s full name.  He called him “Senator Barack Hussein Obama” instead of “Senator Obama” or “Senator Barack Obama” or “Barack Obama” or what have you.  Everyone tracking here?

Because the Grand Poobah is just getting started.

When Scott dropped Obama’s Muslim middle name, message boards and mailbag contributors exploded.

“This must be the biggest news in the world. Is there nothing more important going on?” Scott asks sarcastically. “It absolutely shocks me. And I’m appalled by some of the e-mails. They are hateful and spiteful.”

Scott, in an interview Tuesday with news-press.com and The News-Press, says he doesn’t comprehend the commotion his name-calling put in motion.

“I was told to speak three to four minutes and fire up the crowd,” he says. “Help welcome her to Southwest Florida.

“That’s pretty much what I did. I’ve watched that tape over and over. I don’t see any malice. What I said was truthful and accurate. I did not say anything unethical, immoral or illegal.”

That’s a matter of opinion.

O RLY?!?  Which point in particular is a matter of opinion?  Malice?  Malice is pretty concrete.  Either it exists on the part of the speaker or it doesn’t.  You can be offended when someone says something without malice, but let’s be serious for a second.  If you’re offended by your favored candidate’s full name, you should sit yourself down and rethink your life.

Truthfulness?  Accuracy?  Demonstrate that Obama’s middle name isn’t Hussein.  Oh wait, this isn’t about facts, it’s about opinions.  Truthfulness and accuracy aren’t really open to ‘opinion.’  Something is truthful or it isn’t.  Something is accurate or it isn’t.  In this case, it’s 100% correct that Hussein is Obama’s middle.

Unethical?  “In my opinion, it is unethical to use a candidate’s full name.”  That just doesn’t make any sense.  It pales in comparison to this potential gem, though.  “In my opinion, it is immoral to use a candidate’s full name.”  Pardon me while I roll out some fire and brimstone usually reserved for whores and drug pushers.  Somebody used Obama’s full name.  Hellfire and damnation are in late today, but they’ll be here soon.  Can’t have this kind of behavior going undamned.  No sirree bob.

Is Cook saying that in his opinion it’s illegal to use Obama’s full name?  That makes even less sense than any of the options put forth in the above paragraph.  You take that case before a judge and you’d be lucky to avoid contempt of court.

If Scott didn’t believe name-dropping “Hussein” would create upheaval in Southwest Florida, he isn’t the astute politician who captured 91 percent of the vote in Lee County’s Republican primary victory last month.

Again, Scott says he won’t back down from his comment.

Sheriff Scott won’t back down from using Obama’s full name?  Well, that bastard!  Let’s form a mob and lynch him!  The post goes on in similar fashion, ending like this:

“I’ll tell you one thing,” he says. “If the Democrats do win, he will be sworn in by three names: Barack Hussein Obama.

“I can guarantee that.”

And I can guarantee the sheriff hasn’t heard the last of his name-calling rhetoric.

And there you have it.  Using someone’s first, middle, and last names all at the same time is now officially name-calling rhetoric.  It may or may not also be a federal crime.  Good game, America.  Our chances of survival have just dropped to zero.  We’re doomed.


Indianapolis is 105% ready for November!

October 8, 2008

Yessiree bob, if your county isn’t 105% registered to vote, then your county is 105% incompetent.  No fraudulent registration happening here.  No way you could pin this on any “non-profit, non-partisan social justice group” that just so happened to have donated $832,598.29 to the Obama campaign since February ’08.

If you live outside the Indianapolis area, call your county and complain.  We’re way behind here, non-Indianapolisians.


Too bad this isn’t going to happen

October 8, 2008

Political debate, but where the candidates are hooked up to a polygraph:

JASPER, Indiana – Two challengers for an Indiana congressional seat have agreed to be hooked up to lie detectos during a debate, but an official with the incumbent’s party dismisses the idea as “bizarre.”

After the groan-worthy vice/presidential debates we’ve had this election, I appreciate the idea of hooking the debators up to a lie detector.  That would be more interesting, if not more informative.  But no, we can’t forbid politicians the ability to lie!  That would be like asking Michaelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel without brushes!  Also, if two out of three participants in the debate agree to get hooked up to a lie detector and the third doesn’t, is that the same thing as the third guy admitting that he planned to lie in the debate?

According the the guy that nixed the polygraphs,

“Polygraphs have their use in law enforcement, but I don’t see them fitting in a political debate,” Jones said. “There are plenty of avenues for finding out each candidate’s true position. The votes of both Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel are on record with Congress.”

Translation: “There are plenty of avenues for finding out each candidate’s true position.  The debate isn’t one of them.”  Really now.  It’s almost enough to make one cynical.


Don’t ask where Obama’s money is coming from

October 6, 2008

That’s racist and low and you know it.  So knock it off.  If you even ask about illegal (i.e. unlawful) campaign contributions coming from non-Americans, you’re a degenerate scumbag.  Follow the link and read the comments, you degenerate scumbag.  Then you’ll know what a degenerate scumbag you are.  And also, you’ll be treated this this guy tk and and his great wisdom:

As is the fact that Palin never mentions Ayers by name. she pointedly says “domestic terrorists” conveniently conjuring up Muslim 9/11 terrorists. Check the transcripts and then ask her why she never mentions the word “Ayers” or “Vietnam protest.”. Instead she acts as if the guy is a current terrorist.

Since, y’know… it’s fine if you want to be friends with unrepentant former terrorists, even friends with unrepentant terrorists who later quit being terrorist bombers and become university professors.  Because that’s way different from being friends with a ‘current terrorist.’  And if you have a problem with that, you’re just a tool of the GOP.  You’re practically a sheep.

Also, nothing says ‘degenerate scumbag’ quite like ‘racist,’ so don’t argue against Obama’s presidency.  Don’t you want free fried chicken for everyone?  Except of course a) white people, since white people are the historical oppressors and need their cumupance… the national fried chicken supply will now be paid for by white people as a sort of brown man’s revenge!  …and b) black people, because black people eating fried chicken are just playing into racist stereotypes.

Hat tip: Ace.


Where does the $700 billion figure in the bail-out plans come from?

September 29, 2008

We now have a confession:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

This is supposed to be a loan, as in we’re not supposed to be taking $700 billion from tax-payers, lighting it on fire, and doing an angry monkey dance around the ashes while chanting and genuflecting to icons of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.  We’re supposed to get that money back with interest at some point.  That said, when asking for a huge amount of dollars, you should be able to say where those dollars are going and how you came up with that figure.  “We just wanted to choose a really large number,” is perhaps the worst possible explanation you could give.  Saying nothing at all would have been better, at least from a PR point of view, because while everyone might suspect you’re a jackass, they wouldn’t know for sure.

Why would the Treasury pull such a huge number out of their hats?  I found James Madison hiding in a long-lost corner of the internet and asked him.  He said:

You will understand the game behind the curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government.

Then he tried to sell me a magnet.