Friend came up for Med Fair, stayed over Saturday night. I had to leave early Sunday for setup, which led to this conversation later:
Me: Did you leave a mess in the bathroom for me to clean up?
Her: ME leave a mess?!? You need to clean in there!
Me: It's clean, there's nothing growing in there.
Her: It smells!
Me: It's a bathroom, not the kitchen, bathrooms always smell different.
Her:.......(disgusted look)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Remember I mentioned that at times I'm sorry
we still don't have a whipping post in the town square?
This is one of those times. At the LEAST the miserable bastard deserves that.
This is one of those times. At the LEAST the miserable bastard deserves that.
Let's see: Obama has made his opinion clear on
people of religious faith and gun owners(like about 2/3 of the people in this state), that he wants to raise taxes, that he wants the government to 'take care of us'(after all, the government can spend your money more 'equally' than you can, so shut up and open your wallet!); he's spent twenty years sitting in the pews nodding at the words of a preacher who despises this country and his wife has made it plain that this is a mean, unfeeling country in her mind, so who does our governor endorse?
Obama, of course.
Both picked up superdelegate endorsements on Wednesday — Obama from Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, who called him an inspirational leader who can unite the United States.
Obama's a uniter. He's 'inspirational'(except when he's not on a teleprompter, or actually admitting what he thinks). Etc.
I have only one question: just what did Obama promise Henry?
Obama, of course.
Both picked up superdelegate endorsements on Wednesday — Obama from Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, who called him an inspirational leader who can unite the United States.
Obama's a uniter. He's 'inspirational'(except when he's not on a teleprompter, or actually admitting what he thinks). Etc.
I have only one question: just what did Obama promise Henry?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Gee, wonder if she'll have trouble filling that order?
Unfortunately, there's a bunch of them out there: they haven't figured out that a man who can and will love, provide for and protect will not put up with being treated like an inferior being.
If this mess is for real
then Britain is screwed. As Kim says, a few weeks earlier on time and I'd think it was a prank. On the other hand, his commenters from Britain seem to think there'd be some bitching but everyone would roll over for it simply because their government doesn't five a flying crap what they think about it. Or anything else.
We'll see.
Update: it's in the Daily Mail, too, pointed out by Theo.
We'll see.
Update: it's in the Daily Mail, too, pointed out by Theo.
There's apparently something about a man in uniform
that brings out the stupidity in these clowns.
I'm not quoting the jerk, just pointing you that way so you can get the full flavor of his contempt. And idiocy.
One of the interesting things about this garbage is that Petraeus uses the language he does because if the spoke to some of these morons in Congress plainly, they- and their buttmonkeys like Cavett- would be having screaming fits because "He's not showing respect for Congress!" But he uses proper language- in a show where some of the morons are desperately hoping to make him look stupid- and they bitch and whine that he doesn't 'speak plainly'.
Arrogant, stupid, unknowing fools.
I'm not quoting the jerk, just pointing you that way so you can get the full flavor of his contempt. And idiocy.
One of the interesting things about this garbage is that Petraeus uses the language he does because if the spoke to some of these morons in Congress plainly, they- and their buttmonkeys like Cavett- would be having screaming fits because "He's not showing respect for Congress!" But he uses proper language- in a show where some of the morons are desperately hoping to make him look stupid- and they bitch and whine that he doesn't 'speak plainly'.
Arrogant, stupid, unknowing fools.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Friend just relayed this to me
From a friend in Europe:
"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an
election.
On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a
lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge
chest who owns a beer distributorship.
Is there a contest here?"
"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an
election.
On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a
lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge
chest who owns a beer distributorship.
Is there a contest here?"
Generally, I like to listen to Glenn Beck,
but on some things he ranges from 'Kind of Irritating' to 'Freakin' Jackass'. Lately he's been at bloody high 'Jackass' level over two things: oil and food.
Oil, he's tended to push things like "The Saudis are opening up their LAST FIELD! DISASTER IS COMING!" and, the one he's really been hitting the last week or so, "Food shortages! Food riots! Stock up NOW!"
I believe in being prepared, and that includes having enough non-perishables to carry you for at least a couple of days in case of weather or other disaster/emergency, but some of the "Get ready just in case of long-term shortages!" stuff reminds me of the people predicting collapse when the clock rolled over to 2000. You know, the people who found themselves with big piles of stuff that some of them had gone into debt to buy?
I fully realize there are problems out there, including the shortages of some things caused by the idiot bio-fuel programs. But I had to turn the guy off today, because I'm flat sick of hearing it.
Oh, the other thing that he's been saying for quite a while was "How much does gas have to cost before it really affects people?" I sent him a quick message on the line of "What the hell makes you think it didn't start affecting people a long time ago? At $2/gallon it affected people; at $2.50 it was worse, and at over $3 it's MUCH worse, so stop asking that stupid question." Now the bit is "How high does gas have to get before the economy collapses?", so maybe enough people hit him on the former to get the point across.
Oil, he's tended to push things like "The Saudis are opening up their LAST FIELD! DISASTER IS COMING!" and, the one he's really been hitting the last week or so, "Food shortages! Food riots! Stock up NOW!"
I believe in being prepared, and that includes having enough non-perishables to carry you for at least a couple of days in case of weather or other disaster/emergency, but some of the "Get ready just in case of long-term shortages!" stuff reminds me of the people predicting collapse when the clock rolled over to 2000. You know, the people who found themselves with big piles of stuff that some of them had gone into debt to buy?
I fully realize there are problems out there, including the shortages of some things caused by the idiot bio-fuel programs. But I had to turn the guy off today, because I'm flat sick of hearing it.
Oh, the other thing that he's been saying for quite a while was "How much does gas have to cost before it really affects people?" I sent him a quick message on the line of "What the hell makes you think it didn't start affecting people a long time ago? At $2/gallon it affected people; at $2.50 it was worse, and at over $3 it's MUCH worse, so stop asking that stupid question." Now the bit is "How high does gas have to get before the economy collapses?", so maybe enough people hit him on the former to get the point across.
Monday, April 21, 2008
I didn't know Bill "I am not terrorist scum!" Ayers
had a blog. No, I'm not linking directly to it. Since Gentleman Cuffy has saved us from having to dredge through the place, I'm linking to him. He's found such gems as:
We went underground after an explosion killed my girl-friend and two other close friends, and we decided to stay free rather get entangled in the criminal justice nightmare. We wanted to survive what we saw as an impending American fascism in order to fight the empire. We wanted to organize the armed struggle.
...
We were never “terrorists,” never attacking people to frighten or coerce them. The US forces in Viet Nam were terrorists. I’m not a tactician, however, and I think tactics always have to flow from the conditions you find, and the goals you have. When we destroyed property, symbolic targets of war and racism, an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the war as thousands of Vietnamese were being slaughtered every week in our name. We were the anti-terrorists.
So blowing up places was not to 'frighten or coerce' people. Hmmmm, can I have a chorus of "Bullshit!"? And the plan to bomb the Army dance? Where many people would have been killed and injured? Doesn't that count as 'frightening or coercing' people?
The fact that so many want to cover up for this terrorist canker sore, and Obama had no problem with associating with him until people took active note of it, is just flat disgusting.
We went underground after an explosion killed my girl-friend and two other close friends, and we decided to stay free rather get entangled in the criminal justice nightmare. We wanted to survive what we saw as an impending American fascism in order to fight the empire. We wanted to organize the armed struggle.
...
We were never “terrorists,” never attacking people to frighten or coerce them. The US forces in Viet Nam were terrorists. I’m not a tactician, however, and I think tactics always have to flow from the conditions you find, and the goals you have. When we destroyed property, symbolic targets of war and racism, an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the war as thousands of Vietnamese were being slaughtered every week in our name. We were the anti-terrorists.
So blowing up places was not to 'frighten or coerce' people. Hmmmm, can I have a chorus of "Bullshit!"? And the plan to bomb the Army dance? Where many people would have been killed and injured? Doesn't that count as 'frightening or coercing' people?
The fact that so many want to cover up for this terrorist canker sore, and Obama had no problem with associating with him until people took active note of it, is just flat disgusting.
Oh Britain, how you have
fallen:
While the French were flying six of the captured pirates to Paris to face trial, the British Foreign Office issued a directive to the once vaunted Royal Navy not to detain any pirates, because doing so could violate their human rights. British warships patrolling the pirate-infested waters off Somalia were advised that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain and that those who were returned to Somalia faced beheading for murder or a hand chopped off for theft under Islamic law.
Captured pirates. Claim asylum. Thieves and rapists and murderers, and the Foreign Office is concerned about their welfare more than about the crimes they commit. Damn.
In 2007, 433 crew members were either taken hostage, assaulted, injured or killed by pirates. Three seafarers are still missing and presumed dead. According to the International Maritime Bureau, the anti-piracy watchdog of the International Chamber of Commerce, over the past 10 years 3,200 seafarers have been kidnapped, 500 injured and 160 killed.
To that I'll add "that we know of." In the case of smaller boats(awright, 'ships'), if they disappear nobody knows if they were murdered by these dirtbags or lost in bad weather or any of the other things that can kill you at sea(kind of like someone disappearing while diving or fishing and no body found; shark, drowning or what?)
I'll make a suggestion for the navies patrolling out there: pirates, if not shot in taking the ship, are to be given trial and, if convicted, hanged. Or stood on the rail and shot. If there are no hostages on the ship, give them one chance to surrender, and then sink them if they don't. It'd probably make a large dent in piracy pretty damn quick.
For that matter, cruise ships should have some kind of clearance to have some small arms, rifles and a light machinegun and crew trained with them, in any waters for defense of ship and passengers. Of course, idiots like the Foreign Office and various governments that shit bricks at the very thought of armedpeasantssailors not in their navy would have more painful bowel movements at the very thought; after all, better to have a bunch of kidnapped and murdered sailors and passengers than armed sailors and dead pirates.
Right?
While the French were flying six of the captured pirates to Paris to face trial, the British Foreign Office issued a directive to the once vaunted Royal Navy not to detain any pirates, because doing so could violate their human rights. British warships patrolling the pirate-infested waters off Somalia were advised that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain and that those who were returned to Somalia faced beheading for murder or a hand chopped off for theft under Islamic law.
Captured pirates. Claim asylum. Thieves and rapists and murderers, and the Foreign Office is concerned about their welfare more than about the crimes they commit. Damn.
In 2007, 433 crew members were either taken hostage, assaulted, injured or killed by pirates. Three seafarers are still missing and presumed dead. According to the International Maritime Bureau, the anti-piracy watchdog of the International Chamber of Commerce, over the past 10 years 3,200 seafarers have been kidnapped, 500 injured and 160 killed.
To that I'll add "that we know of." In the case of smaller boats(awright, 'ships'), if they disappear nobody knows if they were murdered by these dirtbags or lost in bad weather or any of the other things that can kill you at sea(kind of like someone disappearing while diving or fishing and no body found; shark, drowning or what?)
I'll make a suggestion for the navies patrolling out there: pirates, if not shot in taking the ship, are to be given trial and, if convicted, hanged. Or stood on the rail and shot. If there are no hostages on the ship, give them one chance to surrender, and then sink them if they don't. It'd probably make a large dent in piracy pretty damn quick.
For that matter, cruise ships should have some kind of clearance to have some small arms, rifles and a light machinegun and crew trained with them, in any waters for defense of ship and passengers. Of course, idiots like the Foreign Office and various governments that shit bricks at the very thought of armed
Right?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Jimmy Carter was elected in the first Presidential election I could vote in. I was just getting really interested in some parts of the politics of this country, and I wasn't happy about his winning. Not that I was really happy with Gerald Ford, but I was even less thrilled with Carter.
Then came a whole lot of things that took me from not being happy with him to flat-out disliking him. Two things in particular:
The first was his attitude of "Don't blame me because a bunch of things I've done haven't worked out; if you had the right attitude, things would be fine." His willingness to believe every dictator and terrorist around and smile and make agreements with them- even knowing they'd break them- while, at the same time, crapping on our allies... A while back someone wrote that they thought Carter was the first 'process' President: didn't really seem to matter if the outcome was good as long as he thought the process was properly carried out. Which is one of the most idiotic things I can think of, but it fits*.
The second was the treatment of the Shah of Iran, and his actions leading to, during and after the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. That's been gone over many times, I'm not going to review it here.
I'd not had any opinion of his wife, Roselyn, until one day back in the early 80's when I happened to change channels one day and she was on the 'Donahue' show(I was bored, so shut up). It was kind of amazing. She'd just started in on President Reagan, and the venom that came leaking out was shocking to me. Main line I remembered was her venting on the hostages being released just as Reagan was inaugurated and that it was generally accepted that the Iranian government figured Reagan would stomp on them, hard, in some way. She went on a tear about "Jimmy could have bombed or shot or something, but WE tried to do it the RIGHT way. And then Reagan came in and threatened people and messed things up." Not exact words, close as I can remember. It was just amazing.
Then Carter started working with Habitat for Humanity, which was a good thing. Then came Nixon's funeral and after that he seemed to be driven to DO SOMETHING. So he got in Bill Clinton's face, and George Bush's face. He started 'certifying' elections, as we saw in Venezuela he was on camera saying "This election was fair and open" while the other international observers were comparing notes on what a crooked election it was and their statement on it; from what I understand, they were seriously pissed at him for it. Which didn't matter, because he got his picture with another dictator who said what a fine fellow he was, and every jerk around the world who hates the US could point to Carter saying how we'd messed up the world, etc.
And now, on top of everything else, this clown goes to meet with terrorists. Despite damn near begging from various people not to. And he lays a wreath on the grave of one of the worst terrorists of modern history.
I don't have great hopes, but it'd be really nice if he was censured by Congress. And his passport yanked. Most likely won't happen, because Pelosi & Reid & Co.(Flying Monkeys Inc.) don't seem to have a real problem with what he's doing.
But this idiot needs some kind of a kick in the ass.
Thanks to Theo for the cartoons
*Lady I used to know had much the same mindset: she thought Carter was one of the greatest presidents we'd ever had because of 'all the international agreements he signed'. Didn't matter that they were generally broken right after- sometimes during- the drying period of the ink; I actually asked her if it bothered her that they'd been broken: answer was yes, but at least he did sign agreements. Freakin' insane.
Then came a whole lot of things that took me from not being happy with him to flat-out disliking him. Two things in particular:
The first was his attitude of "Don't blame me because a bunch of things I've done haven't worked out; if you had the right attitude, things would be fine." His willingness to believe every dictator and terrorist around and smile and make agreements with them- even knowing they'd break them- while, at the same time, crapping on our allies... A while back someone wrote that they thought Carter was the first 'process' President: didn't really seem to matter if the outcome was good as long as he thought the process was properly carried out. Which is one of the most idiotic things I can think of, but it fits*.
The second was the treatment of the Shah of Iran, and his actions leading to, during and after the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. That's been gone over many times, I'm not going to review it here.
I'd not had any opinion of his wife, Roselyn, until one day back in the early 80's when I happened to change channels one day and she was on the 'Donahue' show(I was bored, so shut up). It was kind of amazing. She'd just started in on President Reagan, and the venom that came leaking out was shocking to me. Main line I remembered was her venting on the hostages being released just as Reagan was inaugurated and that it was generally accepted that the Iranian government figured Reagan would stomp on them, hard, in some way. She went on a tear about "Jimmy could have bombed or shot or something, but WE tried to do it the RIGHT way. And then Reagan came in and threatened people and messed things up." Not exact words, close as I can remember. It was just amazing.
Then Carter started working with Habitat for Humanity, which was a good thing. Then came Nixon's funeral and after that he seemed to be driven to DO SOMETHING. So he got in Bill Clinton's face, and George Bush's face. He started 'certifying' elections, as we saw in Venezuela he was on camera saying "This election was fair and open" while the other international observers were comparing notes on what a crooked election it was and their statement on it; from what I understand, they were seriously pissed at him for it. Which didn't matter, because he got his picture with another dictator who said what a fine fellow he was, and every jerk around the world who hates the US could point to Carter saying how we'd messed up the world, etc.
And now, on top of everything else, this clown goes to meet with terrorists. Despite damn near begging from various people not to. And he lays a wreath on the grave of one of the worst terrorists of modern history.
I don't have great hopes, but it'd be really nice if he was censured by Congress. And his passport yanked. Most likely won't happen, because Pelosi & Reid & Co.(Flying Monkeys Inc.) don't seem to have a real problem with what he's doing.
But this idiot needs some kind of a kick in the ass.
Thanks to Theo for the cartoons
*Lady I used to know had much the same mindset: she thought Carter was one of the greatest presidents we'd ever had because of 'all the international agreements he signed'. Didn't matter that they were generally broken right after- sometimes during- the drying period of the ink; I actually asked her if it bothered her that they'd been broken: answer was yes, but at least he did sign agreements. Freakin' insane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)