1
Looks more like the semi-stealth modifications proposed for the F-15 than a true stealth configuration. Impressive, none the less.
Posted by: Tregonsee at January 29, 2010 02:13 PM (lSIZT)
2
One military analyst called it, 'A humbug...lacking new engines and radar. It takes new materials to build a 5th generation fighter and Russia lacks them."
Posted by: feeblemind at January 29, 2010 03:09 PM (exMn3)
3
Yeah feeblemind is likely right. Most notable in the vid is that it's all wheels down, which means these are initial test flights. as in INITIAL test flight. They likely employed dampening materials, but the configuration is nothing close to anything that we field.
Posted by: Douglas at January 30, 2010 12:18 PM (uU+Ss)
4
Whether it is or is not a true stealth fighter, we (the US) will still have to fight it. The Soviet Union is NOT going away.
Posted by: Warren Beatty at January 31, 2010 03:57 PM (RKUr7)
5
Trust me! It'll be like all the other Russian "hidden gems": the one they trot out for the international airshows will have all the bells and whistles that make sales to duly-impressed Third World yehoos, easy!
But the planes they pay for and which are delivered will be shorn of the top-notch stuff that's standard on our expensive, top-of-the-line fighters!
Pay for Benz, get an upgraded Chevy delivered---that's the Rooshian Way!
Who created the concept of "Potemkin Villages"? This is Potemkin Jet fighters!
Posted by: Earl T at January 31, 2010 07:54 PM (tbxAn)
6
True enough, but the F-15c are falling apart having far exceeded their original design lifespan, and Obama has cancelled building any more of the replacement F-22.
Odds are that in sheer numbers the top line American fighter for air-superiority missions will remain the F-18G. That is the fighter to which this new Russian plane should be compared.
Posted by: Brad at January 31, 2010 11:44 PM (y0Ulm)
As if U.S. troops and diplomats didn't have enough to worry about in trying to understand Afghan culture, a new report suggests an entire region in the country is coping with a sexual identity crisis.
An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.
The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual." The research was conducted as part of a longstanding effort to better understand Afghan culture and improve Western interaction with the local people.
The research unit, which was attached to a Marine battalion in southern Afghanistan, acknowledged that the behavior of some Afghan men has left Western forces "frequently confused."
The Pushtuns seem convinced that as long as they don't love the men and boys they're having sex with, then they aren't gay. Anecdotes I've read over the years suggest that this is very common in both Sunni and Shia Muslim cultures, with the men in those cultures in equally deep denial about their homosexuality and pedophilia.
These same cultures routine murder gays or have them executed after sham trials... I'm not sure how they reconcile that, and it seems denial is their only mechanism for coping. Kinda makes you wonder the gender of the 72 virgins they dream about, doesn't it?
1
This is pretty much the norm in ALL regressive muslim-based societies. It is brought about by those societies' sequestering of their women after they reach puberty{until they are sold-off(married)}. The take away is that as long as one of the males is older/ wiser/richer/etc than the other, there is no stigma attached to this behavior. It's a lot more complicated then this but that's the simple version.
Posted by: emdfl at January 29, 2010 11:01 AM (SVQAN)
2
It wasn't just restricted to Muslim/Arab societies. Google the Sacred Band of Thebes some time.
Posted by: Stoutcat at January 29, 2010 11:43 AM (8LmGF)
3
I work in Security Force Assistance and I train Afghan infantry companies every day. I work very closely with them and I get to know the people I mentor quite well.
I am here to tell you that the homosexuality is very common and widespread. I cannot tell you how many times my mentors have been propositioned for sex. Or the intances where Afghan company commanders make jokes about buggering their "Chai Boys."
It makes for an interesting work environment... that is for sure.
Z6
Posted by: Zombiekiller6 at January 30, 2010 12:34 AM (p/iUh)
4
The War Nerd wrote all you'd want to know about the Pushtun here.
Posted by: Old Rebel at January 30, 2010 11:14 AM (eTIZJ)
5
Reminds me of a joke I heard in Afghaniston:
Q: Why did the Pushtun general tell his army to cross the river?
A: To get to the boys on the other side.
Also had a buddy who was advising in Iraq. Not long after he joined the unit, he went outside one night to adjust his NVGs. Holy $#*&! He clawed them off in horror at the frenzied activities taking place in the dark.
Posted by: Mike S at January 30, 2010 11:34 AM (dVYZT)
6
Kinda makes you wonder the gender of the 72 virgins they dream about, doesn't it?
I said the same thing to a friend of mine who was raised muslim, and he confirmed my thoughts, he spent a fair bit of time in deeply muslim nations and he said basicaly that sex with men or animals is treated as walking. Something someone must do on the path towards marriage and procreation.
Posted by: Douglas at January 30, 2010 12:22 PM (uU+Ss)
7
You would think they should dress better though.
Posted by: Douglas at January 30, 2010 12:24 PM (uU+Ss)
ANYONE who's been in the AOR knows about it... A very twisted scene here. "Duu-decki" (sp?) is the Iraqi term for a 'silky-boy' so to speak... I routinely interact with LNs (male) who look they bought their clothes from the womans department in Nieman Marcus... Yet another aspect of WHY these guys are so angry/repressed...
Posted by: Big Country at January 30, 2010 05:26 PM (H/RUP)
9
They do get "pearly boys" in the hereafter as well as the virgin girls. (Link might be a little NSFW.)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 30, 2010 06:05 PM (sVzRC)
10
The catchers are gay, but not the pitchers. And youthful catchers can grow out of it. I echo CY's amazement that anyone treats this as a new development. Hussein.... I mean Saddam, almost certainly had some coerced sex in his, um, background along with his dog torturing and cousin killing. Plenty of folks examining the desperate sexual frustration hidden in the repressive Islamic culture; the madrassas, the man-boy relationships, the sequestration of women and eunachism... have made these observations. I think this was well addressed by Hirsi Ali. But better late than never I guess. Seems like even those who are indifferent are getting TMI about our dusty enemies.
Posted by: megapotamus at January 30, 2010 06:38 PM (LWhHe)
11
"The Pushtuns seem convinced that as long as they don't love the men and boys they're having sex with, then they aren't gay."
What's love got to do with it?
Posted by: Thorien at January 30, 2010 10:59 PM (od0G0)
12
It is somewhat ironical that Afganistan is perceived to have a very masculine behaviour due to its culturally strict culture but behind that perception lies the feminine, weak and homosexual orietation. It might not be plausible at first but it is likely happening. I think this is due to the fact that boys have limited contact with girls and those natural feelings towards the opposite sex are diverted into feelings towards the same sex which leads to a homosexual orientation.
Posted by: Mark @ Israel at January 30, 2010 11:51 PM (MI60D)
13
Contrast these Afghan warlord hypocrites with the All American straight and narrow: ArmorGroup corporation's patriotic "operations" in Kabul.
Ahem, "deny, deny, deny." Cough.
Abu Ghraib already repealed DADT.
Posted by: JW Pepper at January 31, 2010 12:19 AM (wRhUB)
14
as long as they don't love the men and boys they're having sex with, then they aren't gay
Isn't that what Westerners would call "empty sex" ?
Sure sounds like they more in common with Western civilization than more Westerners believed.
Posted by: Neo at January 31, 2010 03:25 PM (tE8FB)
15
But I am sure that Afghanistan fully deserves the 500 billion 20 grand that we have spent on each and every Afghan, including all of the gay Afghanis. LET"S SEND THEM MORE MONEY RIGHT NOW !!! And of course Spartans weren't gay or samurai and no one is down low in the NFL that is just manly comraderie and team spirit and love ..... of sport
Posted by: John Ryan at February 01, 2010 04:17 PM (oNpFl)
16
You've got to wonder about "Little Barry's" childhood in Indonesia.
Posted by: Razorgirl at February 01, 2010 05:12 PM (gHNO5)
When Scott Roeder gunned down late-term abortionist George Tiller in a Witchita, Kansas, last May, shock waves were felt immediately around the nation, and media attention was intense and predictably "front page" in nature.
Now that Roeder is actually on trial for Tiller's murder, the national media is offering much more subdued exposure, still covering it, but relegating the story to the deeper recesses of their news pages and web sites. Do the media simply not care as much about the murder of abortionists any more?
I suspect that the left-leaning media is still strongly interested in seeing Scott Roeder sent to prison for a very long time for putting a .22-caliber bullet in George Tiller's head, but they may concerned about popularizing Roeder's defense, perhaps worried that it might work.
Defence lawyers are expected to seek a conviction for the substantially less serious offence of voluntary manslaughter, defined as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force".
Noting that abortion is legal in Kansas, the judge has told Mr Roeder's lawyers that they must show that the doctor posed "imminent danger" in order to justify a voluntary manslaughter plea.
The judge has yet to rule whether he will allow jurors to consider the lesser charge.
I do not think there can be a valid claim that Tiller posed an "imminent danger" to unborn children at the moment he was gunned down, and my layman's perspective is that the judge will probably not allow the jury to consider the voluntary manslaughter charge because of that fact. That argument seem would have the most weight if Tiller had been gunned down at his clinic prior to killing an unborn baby, but as that isn't what happened, the point is moot.
If the judge does allow the jury to consider the voluntary manslaughter defense, that would presumably set a precedent for allowing such defenses, whether or not Roeder is ultimately convicted of murder of manslaughter.
Is the media concerned that putting a focus on Roeder's trial and defense may inspire the copycat murders of the few remaining doctors that practice late-term abortion? Or are there simply more pressing stories in the news cycle?
01/29 UpdateThat didn't take long. The judge did not allow the jury to consider Roeder's defense, and they quickly convicted him of first degree murder.
Which of course made this the current top story on CNN.
1
The charge is First Degree Murder. The jury must determine if he is guilty of THAT charge or not.
The jury cannot convict on a lesser charge then the First.
He walks
Posted by: serfer62 at January 28, 2010 09:32 PM (HLCnI)
2
Late-term abortion is abhorrent, a liberal protestant church accepting and giving succor to a late-term abortionist is abhorrent, but murdering a man in the vestibule of a church is also abhorrent. Roeder is guilty of murder one.
Posted by: zhombre at January 28, 2010 10:26 PM (FBJBT)
3
The fact remains that Tiller would have in all likelihood gone on to perform numerous late term abortions if he had not been killed regardless of where and when (in relation to the next abortion scheduled) Tiller's life was ended. It's a plausible defense - it is the reason Roeder felt justified in taking Tiller's life, therefore it is his defense.
Posted by: Jayne at January 28, 2010 11:30 PM (dwIL0)
4
"Which of course made this the top story at CNN."
Maybe it's just a placeholder while they follow new leads regarding Obama's birth certificate?
But really, what is your point here? This is not a top story? Is there a bigger breaking news story you feel should replace it?
Posted by: Malthus at January 29, 2010 02:00 PM (BES0Z)
5
Of course, there are some of us who believe that Tiller got just what was coming to him.
In a sane world, Scott Roeder would have been given a medal of honor. But alas, Liberals have made a crime out of killing murderers.
-Pat
Posted by: Patrick at January 29, 2010 04:21 PM (UODJq)
6
Don't believe me, just look at all of the American Military Personnel we've put in jail for just doing their jobs.
All in the name of "We must respect the enemy."
Posted by: Patrick at January 29, 2010 04:27 PM (UODJq)
7
It would appear that the judge sandbagged Roeder.
Kansas Statute 21-3403: Voluntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being committed:
(a) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or
(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.
Voluntary manslaughter is a severity level 3, person felony.
It is KSA 21-3211 that addresses the issue of imminency.
Statute 21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
Roeder was attempting to argue that, in effect what he was acting under was an unreasonable -but honest- belief in the meaning of the word imminent. In order to make this argument he had to take the stand and make statements to that effect - thereby admitting to every other factual element of both crimes. The judge allowed this, but then rather than allowing the jury to judge the factualness of Roeder's 'unreasonable belief' the judge effectively ruled that the reasonableness standard does not apply to imminency, instead ruling on that issue from the bench.
Kansas Statute 21-3403 is bad law (or at least badly written law.) But what the judge did is not good law either.
Posted by: ThomasD at January 30, 2010 12:08 PM (UK5R1)
8
The jury took 37 minutes to return a guilty verdict. DA Nola Foulston is going to pursue a hard fifty on a life sentence. If she had gone after the death penalty, there would have been a media/protester/douchebag circus and or frenzy. Just put the murderer in El Dorado and leave him there.
I purposefully didn't blog last night's State of the Union last night, because I didn't want to miss any of the nuances of President Obama's speech nor the audience reactions looking down at my laptop to type. Instead, I ended up still missing much of what happened during the address as I rolled my eyes.
After waiting through the night and half the next day to digest it all, it still comes back to my gut reaction:
It wasn't a speech. It was an excuse.
The main take away from the SOTU is that Barack Obama is utterly unwilling to give credit for success to others, thinks he can do no ill, and that all the problems of the nation can be blamed upon the previous administration.
When does the buck stop with Obama? When will the Democratic Congress finally take responsibility for its actions? The short answer seems to be "never," as our angry child-president presented us with a world where every problem is a manifestation of Bush's third term.
Real leaders don't make excuses, and they don't make a career out of bashing the men who came before them, by scolding other branches of government (and lying in the process).
Barack Obama spent 90 minutes making excuses for himself last night. I'm still waiting to hear about the state of the Union.
1
I hope you didn't miss the instant laughter at Obama's ClimateChange Ponzi plans, the Chief Justice calling him a liar, McCain mocking Obama's scapegoating by snarking "Blame it on Bush", the stunned military leaders with the hell of "Don'tAskDon'tTell" being unleashed on the military, the hideousness of Nancy, and the ghoulishness of Harry. Good night overall, if you weren't a Democrat.
Posted by: twolaneflash at January 28, 2010 03:09 PM (svkhS)
2
I missed the Chief Justice calling him a liar. Perhaps you were watching a version of the speech that the rest of us weren't privy to. Who knows?!
Posted by: Dude at January 28, 2010 09:07 PM (5gxhz)
3
Dude, he was watching the part of the speech when Alito said "not true" when obama complained about the SC decision, did you miss that or were you nitpicking?
Posted by: MAModerate at January 28, 2010 10:02 PM (nuh/4)
4
Conspiracy to commit fraud. Insurection. I can go on. This stinks. Somebody had better pay. Big.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at January 29, 2010 11:50 AM (brIiu)
5
This was more of a race to see how many lies one can tell and still get the Democrats to stand and cheer. We learned nothing about the union. We did learn that everyone was at fault for something except BO.
Posted by: ablur at January 29, 2010 06:56 PM (Zovd/)
Bush was the master at not accepting the blame for anything.
"and they don't make a career out of bashing the men who came before them"
One of the Bush admin's first acts was to blame the Clinton admin for stealing the W's off all the keyboards. He blamed a recession on his watch on Clinton. You all blame 9/11 on Clinton, even though he had 3 months after the USS Cole the respond, whereas Bush did nothing for eight or nine months.
The market DID melt down under Bush, not Obama. Obama's just cleaning up the mess.
Posted by: Glory Bee at February 01, 2010 11:34 PM (I+nwi)
Climate Fraud Scientists Can't be Prosecuted For Hiding Data
The only thing good that come out of this is that the British may eliminate an absurd six-month statute of limitations on punishing those who violate their Freedom of Information act.
If the University of East Anglia would like to retain even a shred of credibility and dignity it should terminate all the scientists in the Climate Research Unit that willfully took part in a conspiracy to conceal real climate data that did not support the climate change hysteria they were hyping.
Furthermore, there are U.S. scientists that colluded with the British scientists to subvert the integrity of the scientific process, and it would seem that fraud and racketeering laws could be brought to bear against those who participated in this self-documented conspiracy.
1
Liberals prosecuting liberals? Good luck with that.
Posted by: TimothyJ at January 28, 2010 03:39 PM (IKKIf)
2
It does include federal money, and private actually. Both in grants and legislation on the federal level, and unfunded mandates and changes required by law in the private sector, so I can see where racketeering laws could easily apply. Well, from the stance of a laymen.
The difficulty will be in pushing through the political ideology which still strongly supports the human factor in global cooling, change, warming (pick one). Still, I think they handed over the very club they will be being beaten with.
Posted by: Doom at January 28, 2010 04:58 PM (mvCvZ)
3
Interestingly, this is a topic where we find common ground. After much research I, too, am convinced that man made global warming is a hoax. By the way, I'm not a recent convert to this conclusion, either.
My hope is that cap and trade goes nowhere. It's nothing more than a scam. The scare tactics being used to further this bad legislation is in the same category as the irrational scare tactics used by other people to persuade gullible Americans that we would have more death camps, people dying in the streets, etc. if we were to wisely institute universal health care in America. Of course, we already do have death camps and people dying in the streets because of our current system. We just don't call them by those names.
Oh well, at least we have one thing that we agree on.
Posted by: Dude at January 28, 2010 06:52 PM (5gxhz)
4
Dude, you finally saw through the global warming hoax. Hopefully you'll soon see through the government run health care scam.
Politicians need a crisis to justify their jobs and issues to run on. Always be wary of the politican's crisis.
Posted by: Rick at January 29, 2010 03:50 PM (aWl1j)
5
"If the University of East Anglia would like to retain even a shred of credibility and dignity..."
Too late.
Posted by: Georg Felis at January 30, 2010 09:03 PM (i5bRG)
Correction: Zinn wrote A People's History of the United States.
My apologies, but from where I sit, one fantasy history book is little different than another.
Jacqui Cheng of Ars Technica got some hands-on time with the new Apple iPad and got several pictures of the device.
Everybody and his brother are commenting on it, but I'm stuck with one pervasive thought: "So, what does it do well?"
Don't get me wrong, as I'm certain I would have fun with this new device, but I can't carry it around as easily as a smart phone, it lacks the tactile keyboard response of a real laptop, and the sub-ten-inch screen is pathetically small when compared against the 22"-24" monitors I spend the bulk of my time on at home or at work.
Despite the relatively modest price (for Apple), I can't think of a compelling reason to rush out and buy one when they become available.
Can you?
Posted by: Neo at January 27, 2010 05:13 PM (tE8FB)
2
the $20 unlimited 3G internet access w/o subscription lock-in is pretty nice. So to is the bigger screen for looking @ webpages but you're right. It's too big and the memory is too small. It means one more case & one more thing to worry about finding a place for.
The bigger i-rumor I'm interested in is the substantial rumble of the iPhone going onto ALL cell providers by the end of summer.
Posted by: Slveryder at January 27, 2010 05:47 PM (MfMCT)
3
Don't worry, people were saying the same thing about those funny mice when they first came out as well. It is a paradigm shift. It is not meant to replace your 24 inch screens or systems. But when was the last time you carried one of those over to the dinning room table or library or meeting? The media access possibilities are exciting. But over time the multitouch interface will fundamentally change how we interact with information. It is pretty much that simple. So, yes I am excited and am eagerly looking forward to getting (at least) one....
Posted by: Ken at January 27, 2010 06:50 PM (u0FmQ)
4
Sorry, seems like a much less portable Touch to me and that just isn't that compelling. And you can only run a single app at a time on it.
Posted by: Doug at January 27, 2010 07:41 PM (AH+8i)
Posted by: Attila at January 28, 2010 12:16 PM (7h4uW)
9
Yep, Apple has delivered an overgrown Touch, lacking even the functionality of an iPhone.
What we're seeing is possibly a compromise of functionality for battery longevity, but Apple's hamstringing of the device with a hobbled operating system that only does one thing at a time is particularly annoying, especially to folks that were hoping for a truly independent portable computing device. The lack of a 'multi-tasking' capability is a HUGE miss, and will likely be the epitome of bad moves based upon Apple's insistence on device configuration control. Insisting that the iPad be tethered via another machine (for "updates/synch), while pushing apps that channel people into a content acquisition structure that Apple controls - well, it's nice to want to have it all, Mr. Jobs, but this combo is just a bit too much, resulting in a product that falls well short of the mark labelled 'excellence'.
I think Apple has just released their version of "Microsoft Bob".
Posted by: Wind Rider at January 28, 2010 12:41 PM (3rtHG)
10
I think this might be history repeating itself - think Apple Newton as opposed to iPod.
They're out in front of the market a bit too far, with a product a bit too thin.
The Apps Store conceit will work for a limited device such as a phone. But I do not see big sales for this thing, after the fanboy rush is over.
I suspect the real excitement will come later, when the Lenovo tablet/laptop hybrid hits the market - that has thus far been the surprising item, little-noted by the mainstream press as Lenovo is simply that Chinese conglomerate which swallowed IBM's laptop line...
Color me skeptical.
Posted by: wpw at January 28, 2010 12:46 PM (9OLSg)
People have been trying on and off for almost 20 years now to get the general public to buy tablets. There was a mini-wave of them during the 486 era and they all went down like the titanic.
These efforts have ALL invariably failed because the tablet form factor pretty much blows for anything other than very specialized verticle markets.
You can't push a "paradigm shift" with hardware that makes your life exponentially more difficult and limited than hardware that cost only incrementally more and is vastly more capable.
People (in general) aren't that stupid. Some will be of course, since Apple has following that their own market consultants refer to as being like a "cult" where objective analysys simply isn't a factor.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 28, 2010 09:48 PM (mixgj)
No, that acronym isn't a typo. Tonight, in his first State of the Union message, Barack Obama will try to distance himself from himself, and recast his Presidency as that of a crusading populist, leading a government that's here to help.
Good luck.
The problem with that approach is the condescending nature of it. He's been extremely combative with those who have not bowed down to his radical agenda since the early days of his campaign, and the sudden attempt to transform into something he most certainly is not is insulting to the entire nation.
It is an insult to the fanboys and girls who hang on his every word with rapt adoration, it's insulting to those of us who view him as an elitist schmuck in way over his head, and it's insulting to everyone in between.
I do not see this address satisfying anyone, and quite possibly irritating the majority of those who bother to tune in.
In other worse, a B+.
“I”, “my” or “me”
“jobs”
“hope”
“change isn’t easy” or “change”
“unprecedented”
“anger”
“values”
“middle class”
“let me be clear”
“make no mistake”
“health care”
“Democratic leadership” or “Congressional leadership”
“fighting for you”
“big business” or “Wall Street”
“Bush” or “inherited”
“bipartisan” or “bipartisanship”
“economic stimulus package”
"I know I’m the people’s senator, but do I have to hang out with them?”
winks and/ or points at Michelle
a reference to his faith getting him through tough times
a touching heartfelt story of some poor unfortunate denied health care
either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House gets caught napping on camera
Posted by: Neo at January 27, 2010 05:14 PM (tE8FB)
2
Actually, I think that President Obama hasn't been nearly as combative as he should have been, from day 1 of his Presidency.
One mistake that he and his administration have made is not taking seriously enough the damage to his agenda caused by the rabid right wing hate mongers such as Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the many right wing websites who seek to equate patriotism with support of the very people who got us in to this mess to begin with, the corporate thugs who control this country and have for many decades.
The Obama team should have, in my opinion, fought back tooth and nail from the very beginning. You have to fight fire with fire, sometimes. Forget being nice to ruthless people. Call them out for what they are: liars and propagandists.
They have, unfortunately, underestimated the power of the right wing press to fool gullible people.
One of his biggest mistakes was not pushing hard enough for the public option in the health care reform debate. This is, of course, further evidence that both of our political parties are already owned by corporate interests.
My hope is that eventually the private health insurance industry in this country will be, for the most part, a thing of the past.
If you wish to call that a Socialist agenda, fine by me. Count me in as one who supports that. In regards to health care, please, call me a socialist. I'm proud to wear the name.
I've read all of the arguments against socialized medicine in America. I've heard all of the lies generated by the propagandists who support the unsustainable status quo. They simply don't hold up under scrutiny, as proven by the success of the semi-socialist medical systems in Canada and many western European nations, systems that are a combination of free market medical providers working with the respective governments of those countries.
While it's quite true that no system is perfect: never has been nor never will be, there's certainly a more cost effective way of providing health care to our citizens. Sure, you can cherry pick horror stories from other nations. But, when examined honestly the fact is that their citizens are ALL covered for far less money than we are and the statistics prove that the results in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and the overall well being of the people are far better than ours.
Our system of government has been a combination of private industry with aspects of socialism for decades. Some of the largest recipients of that dreaded socialism have been and continue to be none other than huge corporate interests. As Keynes correctly pointed out: "The only type of socialism that is acceptable in a democracy is socialism for the wealthy."
Mr. President, fight back. Take the gloves off.
Posted by: Dude at January 27, 2010 06:23 PM (5gxhz)
Posted by: gDavid at January 27, 2010 08:46 PM (WKL9h)
4
You are not the only one calling his address that...
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/01/26/
And Dude, I have lived with Nationalized Medicine, never again. All I have to do to make my point is to compare the American Air Ambulance and Flight for Life systems with their Canadian counterparts. Or you could compare the number of CAT-scan or MRI machines per 100,000 people in the US and Canada. I believe Natasha Richardson, if she could, would make the difference clear.
As to your "rant" about the right, their shows are archived, quote the "lie", give a date and supporting evidence as to how it's a "lie", and not a difference in politics. I think that what upsets you is that the people you are railing against are doing just that to your hero's. Calling them on their lies, rolling the tape of them saying the lie, and then showing how the statement is a lie and that they knew it was a lie before it ever came out of their mouth.
Posted by: Wildman7316 at January 28, 2010 12:32 AM (BPJNw)
1
John Edwards is a scum bag, in the same sense that Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, et al are scumbags because of their infidelity to their wives. He is among the worst because he betrayed his good wife while she is dying with cancer. Expect no sympathy from me. Period.
Posted by: Dude at January 27, 2010 06:30 PM (5gxhz)
2
I'm with you Dude, but by all accounts, Mrs.Edwards might be an even worse person than her husband, cancer or not.
Posted by: ECM at January 27, 2010 09:53 PM (nYKDd)
1
"Interfering" with the telephone service is what the FBI is alleging....Certainly not a "tap", which requires just a little bit more than a working knowledge of DC electronics and telephone circuitry to pull off. My guess is that these clowns had no equipment that could remotely be described as a "bug" or "tap", otherwise the charges would be upgraded.
Semantics? Perhaps, but it sets the record straight.
No matter what you call it, it's a mighty STUPID stunt that could cost them some time in a Federal pen.
Posted by: Dell at January 26, 2010 08:44 PM (EFDI0)
2
Please correct your story, CF: it's bad enough most of the right-o-sphere has already consigned O'Keefe to a seat under Obama's bus w/o you inflating the hysteria.
Posted by: ECM at January 26, 2010 10:33 PM (nYKDd)
3
I say stick by the Tap story. There is little reason for them to go into the main feed closet for any other than tapping, if they wished to denai her phone service, a simple dialer over load would do it (the original denial of service attacks were well before the intratubes).
The boy got him a big head and it bit him in the arse. The reason it isnt a tap charge is they got caught before getting it done.
Posted by: JP at January 27, 2010 01:54 AM (VxiFL)
4
You know, I don't think I'd mind it if all Congresscritters had their phones tapped.
Not to say that if O'Keefe was trying to what he is alleged to have done that he should not be prosecuted.
Just kind of makes me think what exactly she has to hide. Her Homeland Security committees are concerned with disaster relief, not counterintelligence or actual security. I sure as hell think that the corruption related people at federal law enforcement should be listening in on all these phones. Probable cause? They're politicians and there isn't a clean one in the business.
What if they had pulled off and gotten some absolutely damming recordings? Something truly game changing, something exposing some kind of deep corruption? The goal is not to try the worthless bastards, the goal is to shame them, to show the world how corrupt they are.
He who will not risk, will not win. Mr. O'Keefe, you bit off more then you could chew. Like Nathan Hale, you will pay the price for getting caught. Such is the nature of what you do. Good luck to you, and may sneakier people pick up the torch and discover the deadliest weapon in the world: information. For the truth stands on it's own, and roaches will always scurry when you flick the kitchen light on.
Posted by: Britt at January 27, 2010 02:06 AM (DcWbe)
Regardless of what you think, they have not been charged with wiretapping, so all these stories floating around the web pretending this is Watergate The Sequel are the usual media garbage. And lot's of normally sensible right-wing sites are falling for it.
The reason it isnt a tap charge is they got caught before getting it done.
Attempting to wire tap a phone is still a crime. It's not a crime they were charged with though.
Posted by: flenser at January 27, 2010 10:43 AM (ilqdP)
6
in the end they may be railroaded for being "an enemy of the state" liberal machine but I doubt they were doing anything remotely like what is being alleged.
jp says stick to the tap story.... why? there is no proof being offered of that. instead all ive seen so far is hysteria and innuendo.
Posted by: rumcrook™ at January 27, 2010 11:23 AM (60WiD)
7
Maybe he was just trying to figure out why she won't answer the phone. No one in LA can get here to discuss issues.
Posted by: David at January 27, 2010 11:36 AM (dccG2)
8
Whatever it was he thought he was doing, it was a stupid stunt that probably will earn him a federal conviction of some sort or another.
Idiot. And now the slime at Acorn and elsewhere are baying that this idiotic act somehow excuses their facilitating child prostitution and tax evasion.
Posted by: iconoclast at January 27, 2010 02:07 PM (zKViF)
9
Here is the best hypothesis I've seen, follows along with Davids theory above.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/200687.php
Posted by: Russ at January 27, 2010 03:14 PM (HKz3Z)
10
You actually believe the "grenade launcher" "News", still? *sigh* Go ahead, pout, cry, scream... as for me, I will wait about 5 minutes for the real story to come out. Bah!
I am starting to worry about you.
Posted by: Doom at January 27, 2010 03:45 PM (mvCvZ)
11
from what I see trickling out, I dont see how simple tresspass is a federal beef.
and in the end thats all they have tresspass, and possibly somnething to do with misrepresenting who you are to gain access. none of which rises to a federal level.
Posted by: rumcrook™ at January 27, 2010 04:01 PM (60WiD)
12
I think the far more important question here is: Why can't the people in LA get ahold of their villiage idiot? Is the phone turned off, or set to voicemail? If this is the case, then LA needs to remove the current villiage idiot and replace her with another, thus bring the iq level in LA a little bit higher.
Posted by: TimothyJ at January 27, 2010 04:23 PM (IKKIf)
Perhaps the most interesting part of the Politico story providing this video is absolute conviction of Koop's critics that there simply isn't rationing involved in the various schemes being floated out there as iterations of Obamacare.
Such a childlike faith is a wonder to behold, isn't it?
1
Of course Sarah Palin is absolutely correct in pointing out that "Death Panels" would play a significant role in ObamaCare.
Democrats refuse to accept that reference but 1) When the budgeted allocation is about to be used up and 2) ten patients are waiting for expensive surgery 3) someone will have to decide just which patients get the surgery and live and 4) "all the rest".
There's no mention anywhere of what happens in this scenario because it has been purposely avoided by the authors of the bill presently in Congress. The fact is, a panel of people will decide who lives and who dies.
"a rose by any other name"...
Posted by: Dell at January 26, 2010 03:18 PM (EFDI0)
2
All you need to know about rationing (in a government-run system) can be found in a quick 'net search for "UK NICE ration".
Posted by: ECM at January 26, 2010 06:09 PM (nYKDd)
3
Rep Weiner (D-NY) was refreshingly honest about this.
There will be no rationing. What they are going to be doing is REDISTRIBUTING health care, as they are redistributing every other erstwhile perquisite of citizenship and a lifetime of hard work. The lucky seniors will die fairly young of something that isn't too painful. The unlucky ones won't.
The takers now outnumber the makers. They are coming to get your life's savings, and indeed your life itself.
Posted by: Jim at January 26, 2010 07:45 PM (1sZ33)
4
Even under the current Medicare system there is rationing. If you preform a procedure, there is every chance that it will be disallowed after the fact. This despite the fact that you have documented the need. The result is that you have spent several hours taking care of someone and the hospital has expended untold resources only to be told that no one will be paid. In addition, with cardiovascular surgeons they are assessing their quality of care by looking at their mortality rates. Now that seems nice until you realize that if a surgeon is taking on the sicker and older people, he will have a higher rate of death. Many surgeons are folding to the pressure by not doing surgery on high risk patients. That is bad as these are the ones with a more significant improvement in prognosis after the procedure.
Posted by: David at January 26, 2010 07:47 PM (ZgM5r)
5
Yeah, and even under the current private system we already have rationing. But, it's not some mean old gubment agency doing the rationing. It's the private insurance industry making the medical decisions that, in some cases, determines if a person lives or dies. If course, I do understand that they have to watch that bottom line!! Sorry, that's just business.
Posted by: Dude at January 28, 2010 07:01 PM (5gxhz)
New Jersey Evacuates Due to Possible Terrorist Threat
A man acting suspiciously in a Branchburg, NJ Quick Chek convenience store led to the entire state state of New Jersey fleeing overnight after authorities arrested the man on weapons charges and revealed that he was wearing a bullet-proof vest and had in his possession a "grenade launcher," a ".223-caliber assault rifle that had been altered to fire .50-caliber ammunition," with "four loaded magazines with hollow-point ammunition" and a ".308-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with a defaced serial number."
Police also recovered maps (including one of a military installation), a police scanner, and "Middle Eastern red and white traditional headdress."
The suspect, Lloyd Woodson, 43, was also suspiciously black.
Further reporting by the always excellent staff of ABC News revealed that the grenade launcher weapon of mass destruction was a "37 mm Cobray grenade launcher." The nefarious weapon is described by the company as a "flare launcher" in a blatant attempt to steer the less-informed away from the blatant fact that it looks a lot like 40 mm grenade launchers used in the world's militaries. No 37 mm grenades were recovered and none have apparently ever been manufactured, but authorities have left open the possibility that someone, someday, could make such munitions.
The .50-caliber "customized assault rifle, whose ammunition is typically used in heavy weapons mounted on military vehicles" found on Woodson proves that the suspect is a well-financed terrorist. The heavy weapons mounted on military vehicles chamber the .50 BMG cartridge, the largest bullet in the U.S. military arsenal not considered a cannon or artillery.
For Woodson to conceal the $5,000 weapon—which is in excess of three-feet long and weighs 33 pounds loaded—under a jacket also suggests that Woodson may only appear to be black, and is in fact a far larger species, possibly a Yeti.
The media, always striving for accuracy, immediately discounted the possibility that the Yeti was not armed with a highly-customized rifle-cannon, and insists he was not using an off the shelf drop-in upper assembly of far shorter size and range.
The Joint Terrorism has been called in to investigate the possibility that Woodson is actually a tea-bagging conservative white person, helpfully noting that most Yetis are believed to be white.
3
ABC was waaaaaay off the mark with that garbage. 2 weapons is a "Massive Weapons Cache". 3 weapons, if they count a flare gun as a grenade launcher.
So, I know they're crazy and dead wrong about that.
But I do have a legit question, CY. Is it even possible to convert an AR-15 style weapon to chamber the huge 50 BMG round? It seems absurd. Were not talking 50 pistol round, or some other weird round. We're talking about an actual 50 cal round that the M2 fires, and what they're talking about in the article.
I know it seems a litte silly to ask, but I just want to check my bases before I do another touchdown dance on those liars.
Posted by: brando at January 26, 2010 10:51 AM (IPGju)
Posted by: David at January 26, 2010 11:13 AM (dccG2)
5
It is not possible to use the magazine well or semi-auto action of the AR without radically redesigning the entire platform, but there are uppers (single-shot) that use the AR-15 lower.
6
Brando:
It would have been a .50 Beowulf conversion. Used for "Door Knocking" by some spec ops. It is an elongated .50 AE with a machined down rebated rim that fits the bolt and sort of considered a carbine round as it uses powder for a longer barrel(14" iirc). isn't a long range round, and is certainly not in the league with a .50 BMG. More on the order of a weak .500 S&W mag. So there is a pistol round more powerful than what he had. . . but never let the facts get in the way of the narrative.
Flare launchers do a good job for starting fires, but a surplus H&K flare pistol or a marine one from any boat store will do the same, but they don't look scary. and are "only" 25mm or 12 gauge.
Posted by: JP at January 26, 2010 11:33 AM (VxiFL)
7
It is definitely getting around. It used to be that left stream media (aka MSM) could say whatever it wished and people just thought, wow, that IS news. Now even their own on-air talking heads snark after reading some of this. Well, they are winding down to nothing. At least they are good for a laugh.
I was in a public place recently, with a tv set to CNN or some awful communist misinformation system "reporting", trying to ignore it until I could leave. I heard a kid, maybe 8 or 9, snark on the report. Oh, the Lord knows, I had to bite my tongue to not burst out laughing. Yeah, the kid was right too.
Posted by: Doom at January 26, 2010 11:48 AM (mvCvZ)
Next time, please post a warning at the top of any post with a joke involving a Yeti.
Currently wiping Diet coke off my monitor.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at January 26, 2010 12:47 PM (prDeJ)
9
We (Zel Custom Mfg) build some .50 BMG conversion kits for ARs. We're among about ten companies that build those. Or should I say, build them until they get banned due to somebody doing something like this.
Posted by: Michael B. at January 26, 2010 03:22 PM (n607/)
10
Just to throw in my 2 cents. As JP stated.. a .50 Beowolf (a 'new' former 'wildcat' round) is out there these days for the AR-Styled build. Haven't gotten to play with one yet, but reviews are that it's a fun round... on the search on gunbroker dot com it shows that price is running about $1400 a throw for an Alexander Arms make, and $2 a round makes it on the really pricey side. Not exactly what I'd call a "Terrorist Gun of Choice." Limited availability/scarcity of ammo plus high price? Add on the mags only hold 11 rounds and the biggest available is a 26 round drum and rare from what I see (pricey too!), so not exactly what I'd be planning to use in a shootout. Especially since he had only 4 mags, so that'd be only 44 rounds, (or maybe 45 if he had one 'up the snout') but either way, you ain't starting no war with only 44 rounds of ammo.
Now, if in fact he was sporting a .50 BMG, like you said, well hell, I've humped and fired a M82A1 Barrett and man, I'm telling you, no way in hell was he slinging that under a coat and dancing around a 7-11. I'm 6'4 and 370 and even when I was in GREAT shape back at Ft Campbell, my most feared day was "Roadmarch with Weapons" as shlepping that 4 foot long 30 pound beast was enough to make me load up on the Bengay for afterwards.
The Cobray Flare Launcher? Please... Like you said, looks good, but ain't worth diddlysquat unless he loaded his own, at which point it'd be more dangerous to him than to anyone else.
My curiosity is that he's stated to be 'former Navy.' What did he do jobwise? Not many Squids with the exception of SEALs and some of the Navy ground forces here in Iraq ever regularly use weapons except in the Annual Qualification.
But, as simple as these facts are to gather, that'd actually be cosidered "work" by the press, and well, we can't be having anything that'd remotely be construed as an "Honest Days Work" from them, as it's a mutually exclusive combo.
Posted by: Big Country at January 26, 2010 04:41 PM (H/RUP)
11
Based upon the snark of this post, I'm assuming that CY doesn't consider there to be any chance of terrorism involved, right?
Posted by: Kevin at January 26, 2010 10:36 PM (FDaFm)
12
Thanks for showing me the 50BMG conversion. I didn't even think that was possible. That must be what he had.
About the "Grenade" stuff. Maybe the MSM is simply using a very layman's use of the word "grenade", meaning anything that it's just some sort object that gets lobbed. I've seen them use that sort of slippery, weasely trash before. It's suits them better than an unconditional surrender.
Just like they claimed that WP is a "chemical" weapon, because technically it has a "chemical", and by deafult it's NBC.
Posted by: brando at January 27, 2010 11:15 AM (IPGju)
13
Some well thought out responses on weapons, but, I think the point of the “story” was, it hasn’t hit the MSM’s. Correct me if I am wrong, but there have been many terrorist attacks in the USA (in my opinion) on civilians from a lone Muslim.
NC Chapel Hill Campus. May 2006. Link Here: http://chronicle.com/article/Indictment-in-Terror-Attack-at/36960/
LA California: Link Here: http://losangeles.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel07/la121407usa.htm
Portland, OR, July 26 2006: Link: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/279302_shooting28ww.html
Guy caught in a Colorado mall, wanting to plant grenades against kids and shoppers.
Another Muslim with the Sears Tower in his sites, another in Texas (blow a building up).
Fort Brag North Carolina…The trio that was plotting to kill soldiers.
The Nicker Bomber, DO I have to go on?
BTY: The Fort Hood Shooter had a FN-FiveSeven, if, you don’t know, it’s a short .223 round. “This is not the ideal weapon to storm an ARMY BASE WITH!!!”
Again, you have to go to the local news sites to see what is really happening.
The MSN’s have failed us. Point blank…
Be aware and vigilant America…
Posted by: DGJ at January 27, 2010 08:43 PM (kNev5)
14
Sorry for this 2nd BTY... The Yeti or Abominable Snowman.
Wiki...but we already knew that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti
Born in Michigan
Posted by: DGJ at January 27, 2010 09:03 PM (kNev5)
15
This was a typical retarded media writeup. It's good to keep an eye on someone suspicious, but his armament sounded like a lot of law-abiding citizens. I mean when the smallest box of .22 ammo is 50 rounds, then having "hundreds of rounds", "hollow-points" even, is just the bare minimum for anyone practicing the Second Amendment rights. "Assault rifle"? They mean semi-auto (oh my God, it's painted black!) which is perfectly legal to all law-abiding citizens.
Posted by: Jim at January 28, 2010 11:40 AM (VZQ7l)
16
You know, from the perspective of someone who routinely shops in that store, and is aware that less than two years ago, in the same area, we went through a massive FBI manhunt after an automatic weapons firing spree during an aborted bank holdup...
I'm glad there was an over-reaction.
The bank holdup gunfight included a dead FBI agent (felled by friendly fire), a lockdown of the college across the street from the store, and a lot of frightened populace. About 50 victims of 9/11 lived in the surrounding area, so perhaps we're a bit prejudiced...
You guys knew all this background, right?
Paper tigers.
Posted by: wpw at January 28, 2010 12:56 PM (9OLSg)
1
There is one thing that I didn't see in any of the comments at PJM. That was the fact that if the company had said to just drop dead, the stupids at the PC Military would have removed all of the sights and cancelled the contract and put our troops in jeopardy. The company didn't just cave to PC, it made a stand to protect our troops from misguided fools and muslims.
And by the way, who is to say that bullets aren't wrapped in bacon before being loaded into the magazines. It would be a good way to minimize rust in the casing. Just sayin. I'd do it with no one the wiser.
Posted by: TimothyJ at January 26, 2010 04:29 PM (IKKIf)
BTW-You only need touch your bullets with pig skin gloves (or rub them on your football) to horribly offend Muslims and keep them from their place in paradise.
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
Posted by: DoubleTapper at January 27, 2010 12:02 AM (oOchC)
3
I just went through my old paperwork from a 2004 deployment, and I had an old manifest where everyone but the SAW gunners had an ACOG. All my old serial numbers were just boring 6 digits. No Ez 25:17 or nothing. The verses must have been non-serial numbers or something.
I'm a little disapointed.
Posted by: brando at February 01, 2010 03:43 PM (LjEkE)
Allah notes that Obama would rather be an awesome one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Of course, those aren't the only choices out there, and not the one way his presidency is currently trending.
I'd like to hear someone question him about the reality of being a mediocre first year president, but suspect any answer he would provide involves the words "alone" and "waffle."
1
To dredge up an old phrase; he's a legend in his own mind. Any question one might ask regarding a "mediocre" anything would instantly result in a twenty minute dialogue which, transcribed, would contain nary a complete sentence. A person so transfixed with "themselves" - an egomaniac - never sees the negative side of anything involving them!
A great speaker? No, he's not. He's a great READER of speeches and has memorized many escape phrases, to be used any time he can't answer a question without using at least five hundred words. What he delivers for answers often wind up having little or nothing to do with the original question. A "yes" or "no" answer is pretty much out of the question.
I often think of Obama as a man who loves listening to his own voice. But, when he listens, he never hears the "uhhhhs" the "ummmms" or any number of other sounds he makes when his mouth hasn't caught up with his brain.
Is he really intelligent? He might be; but we haven't been exposed to any of that intelligence yet.
Does he lie? Yes, he does...But, then again, all politicians lie at some time or other - especially when their campaigning.
Would I vote for the man? Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't vote for him if he was running for Dog Catcher.
Posted by: Dell at January 25, 2010 09:46 PM (EFDI0)
2
lol, is there such a thing as an "awesome", one-term, president? Usually, if you're only a one-termer, you did something that was pretty awful.
Posted by: ECM at January 25, 2010 09:53 PM (nYKDd)
Obama reminds me of Will Ferrel, a guy who thinks he is much funnier and a much better actor than he really is, a guy who has a high opinion of himself that doesn't measure up at the box office.
Or, if we want to use another movie comparison, the Obama admin is the movie Heavens Gate, what was supposed to be a blockbuster became one of the worst bombs of all time. Sure, there were ones that lost more in comparison to earnings, but, the story of how bad Heavens Gate was matches up well.
Posted by: William Teach at January 25, 2010 09:59 PM (7yTel)
4
How about door number three? A one term mediocre President.
Posted by: inspectorudy at January 26, 2010 01:08 AM (Vo1wX)
5
As inspectorudy and Charles Krauthammer pointed out after Obama made the remark, there is, of course, a Door Number Three which is more likely. He could, and certainly is so far, be a mediocre one-term President. I wake up each morning thinking, "Oh Lord, what will Obama do next to protect his ego from admitting a mistake."
Almost anything, it seems.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at January 26, 2010 01:05 PM (Aaj8s)
1
And I'm just real sure they will tell us where all those jobs promised are.
With the use of all that money to boondoggle, bribe, punish enemies and reward friends, I'm convinced this administration and their lackeys believe in "trickle-down" economics - anything that happens to fall off the plate served to the rich by the donkeys is fair game for the rest of us, but nearly everything in all the bills is intended for the administration's rich friends to begin with.
Posted by: Carlos at January 25, 2010 03:12 PM (E+dz4)
2
Mr. Klien needs to go back to 3rd grade math class. The 288 Billion in so called tax relief amounts to only about $20 per month per employee and if you are fortuante enough to be in a 2 income household, your going to have pay back at least one person's relief.
Posted by: Ron O at January 25, 2010 03:16 PM (/dNZA)
3
That 60 -80 extra in my check is just an adjustment in the withholding tables and will be reconciled at tax time!
Posted by: Richard G McColl at January 25, 2010 04:16 PM (mQbeG)
4
That was a stupid jerk, I still haven't seen any extra monies in my pay.
Posted by: gDavid at January 25, 2010 04:21 PM (FDQZ2)
5
The refunds were structured so they did the least amount of economic good. Better to have made the Bush tax cuts permanent and add to them.
As for the government union funding (oops), kicking that can of useless slop down the road did a lot of good, didn't it? It isn't the firehouses that are breaking the bank. And a lot of teachers SHOULD be fired. It also is all of the extra intrusive and micromanaging government that needs to be fired.
Posted by: iconoclast at January 25, 2010 07:56 PM (O8ebz)
RealClearPolitics posted an article by an Obama-voting independent yesterday who says she now regrets casting her vote for our under-performing President.
Predictably, some of my peers are hammeringher like they purchased an hour of her time, and not without reason.
But as self-centered, ignorant, and easily led Jill Dorson proves herself to be be then and now as a voter and media consumer, the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions of Americans that would write an almost identical piece if given the pixels, and millions more who have even less understanding of how they were taken in.
1
It's fairly easy to understand. The country took a flier on an unknown quantity rather than opt for another four years (or more) of George Bush...or anything named Clinton. Now the bill comes due. In one year the people have learned what a fraud this empty suit really is; how beholding he is to George Soros and MoveOn.org and his Union and Hollyweird cronies and they've rebelled.
The only thing modern day politicians understand is the ballot box totals and, therefore, that's the only place where we, the people, can exert any force. If they refuse to listen (and they all do) they need to be kicked to the curb in November. Is it November yet???
Posted by: Dell at January 25, 2010 11:36 AM (unQuQ)
2
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views,” Mr. Obama wrote in “The Audacity of Hope, his I’m-running-for-president book. “As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”He's right on track
Posted by: Neo at January 25, 2010 11:47 AM (tE8FB)
3
I didn't vote for Obama but I sure didn't want to vote for McCain. That is the problem in the US. Bush really did suck. Yet I voted for him twice and would do so again as there was no one else. Our politicians are really and truly stuck on stupid, and that is both parties. All of us want something to happen with health care, yet none of us can agree that the main problem is the fact that the government is the issue. They are the ones that have increased the cost of everything and reduced the quality by trying to make us follow their regulations (which boil down to nothing but paper work). If the government got out of the health industry, the cost would go down in one year and the system would work far better (both state and federal). But our great leaders feel that on state and federal levels they can do much better than us peons. Both parties have spent money to the extent that the dollar is worthless and our economy is on the brink of being bankrupt. Yet none of our leaders even address the problem. I considered running for office but my wife freaked out as she does not want the exposure. And that is the problem. Good people can not run as the system tries to distroy them personally. The only answer is to clean house, and not at the ballot box.
Posted by: David at January 25, 2010 12:22 PM (VpBDM)
4
I really don't care if anything is done on health care because I know they will screw it up.
The search for a "Free Lunch" is frustrating
Posted by: Neo at January 25, 2010 01:48 PM (tE8FB)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2010 03:08 PM (+2Sr1)
6
I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
Illustrating once again that people who define themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals are (a) not too bright, and (b) easy pickings for the left.
Posted by: flenser at January 25, 2010 04:25 PM (/1aQX)
7
I'm of the opinion that she should be accepted at face value, but humiliated for her past stupidity. If she votes for obama again because people all her stupid, for being stupid last year, then she is a small petulant little girl who can't be trusted anymore than her chosen candidate.
Posted by: Douglas at January 25, 2010 08:18 PM (uU+Ss)
Simply a must-read from the USNS Comfort. Please keep these wonderful men and women in your prayers as they show the best of humanity in the worst of times.
I supposed that in a few days the newness of Senator Scott Brown will begin to wear off and we'll all go back to our normal routine of utterly ignoring the families of politicians when the aren't:
doing something scandalous
campaigning
dying
some combination of the above
In the mean time, though, it appears we'll have to deal with the faux outrage of left-wing bloggers who are going through the trash of the Brown family, attempting to find something, anything scandalous to diminish his current political rock star status.
They've gone after Senator-elect for posing nude in Cosmo, hugging his bikini-clad daughters, and found out his wife looked great in a bikini in an 80s music video.
As Meep notes at POWIP, it doesn't appear that anyone pushing these stories is actually offended by the unobjectionable actions and images of the Brown family, but instead seem to be hoping that independents and conservatives will be shocked and appalled by what they've found.
What these stories instead go to prove is that liberals are attempting to market to a caricature of conservatives and independents, and that the oppressive "Christian Taliban" strawman they've created only exists in their insular community-based realities. It's a flawed assumption, and an example of the kind of groupthink that may cost Democrats even more seats in the 2010 midterms.
1
Hahaha. I love how the libruls try to slur ordinary people for doing ordinary things, if they are conservatives. These slurs only serve to make more enemies for themselves.
An overly short quick list: pickup owners, Cosmo magazine, fathers of daughters, parents of Downs syndrome kids, Moose hunters (or any other hunters for that matter), investors in stocks and bonds, employees of insurance companies, doctors.
Pretty soon the only fans they will have left are illegal immigrants and spongers off government programs.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at January 22, 2010 12:18 PM (Vv5f0)
2
Man, it's a darned good thing that none of this was discovered prior to the election! Lord only knows what might have happened if it was discovered that Scott Brown's daughters wear bathing suits!!
In a related story, the AP is about to unearth a series of "shock and awe" tin types of Helen Thomas, cavorting on what would later become the Boardwalk, in a daring outfit that can only be described as "naughtie"! Despite her bulbous nose, offset eyes and quadruple chins, Ms. Thomas turned many a dreamy-eyed male head in her day!
Film at 11:00!
Posted by: Dell at January 22, 2010 12:30 PM (unQuQ)
3
Around 1:48 to 1:53 (or so) of the video I was expecting some other song (as she's being helped into the boat), but I just can't put my finger on it. Can anyone help? What's that sound like?
Posted by: 24AheadDotCom at January 22, 2010 12:32 PM (CmcMj)
4
The moonbats are gonna need a new chicken, this one is looking pretty worn out.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 22, 2010 01:10 PM (b9fd7)
5
As a dyed-in-the-wool Reagan conservative, it it incumbent upon me to say: I most heartily approve of attractive bikini-clad females.
That is all.
Posted by: Russ at January 22, 2010 02:25 PM (UHp/e)
6
Fred Beliot, "Pretty soon the only fans they will have left are illegal immigrants and spongers off government programs."
Unfortunately that is (example Calif) becoming a majority.
Posted by: Ray R. at January 22, 2010 03:07 PM (LJNzk)
7
Bob, you notice that the anti-Christian bigotry brigade won again? The biblical references are being removed from the rifle sights.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 22, 2010 06:36 PM (MxQFN)
8
I guess the scandal is that none of that involves other peoples' wives, animals, women their wives didn't know about and so on.
Too bad it is a just good clean fun.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at January 22, 2010 06:38 PM (OmeRL)
9
I am not worried about what his daughter or his wife wore back in the 1980's.
What I am looking is his policies,his actions or lack of actions as a statesmen. That is what I care about, not the nuance.
Posted by: Michael at January 22, 2010 07:54 PM (LW8CE)
10
It's like in 08 when 30 years of feminist doctrine was discarded to attack a woman who dared to have a career and a family because said woman was a threat to the liberal agenda.
All of a sudden, good women stayed home full time. Now all good women wear prim and proper clothes. Or something. Not really sure what exactly the Left is going for here.
"People of MA. Your new Senator is pretty handsome. His daughter? Hot. Very hot. See, look how hot she is. Wife? Also good looking. Vote for the dried up lemon sucker AG."
Or is it just pure bile overcoming their limited intellect?
Posted by: Britt at January 22, 2010 11:07 PM (DcWbe)
11
He has 3 beautiful women in his family and democrats hate him? Now that's a suprise.
Posted by: ck at January 22, 2010 11:23 PM (FilQu)
12
You know, I really do have reservations about posing nude and having ones family seen in bathing suits. However, I understand that those are not issues Brown is running on, for one thing. And, I see my issues as my own (unless they fall within my religious grouping, and there are other ways to deal with that). Further, these are past actions. They, if they have any bearing, must fall into forgiveness and that is, mostly, a private issue.
What bothers me most, however, is having people who support legalized pedophilia, legalizing drug use, denouncing any moral bars whatsoever, and who support the most vile of things legal or not in any case, trying to proselytize... THAT is evil, it is current, and it is ongoing. They have no idea how stupid they look as an atheist type front trying to take Christian ethic out of context and then trying to use it to further their truly evil agenda.
Yes, we do see.
Posted by: Doom at January 23, 2010 03:07 AM (mvCvZ)
Posted by: Dude at January 23, 2010 12:10 PM (5gxhz)
14
Lefties have never come to grips with the fact that honest or intelligent people could fail to share their values. They do not know any real conservatives and don't want to. In place of us they create a parody of conservative values that they proclaim represents the real person of the right. The parody is so real to them that when conservatives don't act the way they expect it must be hypocrisy. Their imaginary conservative is a religious bigot who is offended when women don't wear burka style coverings. Since that actually applies to a minute number of people of any persuasion, and a tiny fraction of one percent of conservatives, we don't react as they expect. They are shocked that we don't denounce the Brown family for betraying "conservative" principles and conclude we must be hypocrites because we don't go all Pavlov on the provocation.
The inability of liberals to understand the opposition will cause them to overreach every time. It is perhaps the most powerful tool we have in
Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 24, 2010 02:52 PM (U77Ma)
15
Sorry, should be we have in ending the current situation.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 24, 2010 02:53 PM (U77Ma)
16
My response to any suggestion along these lines is: "And do you remember Mary Jo?" That usually shuts them up.
Posted by: Razorgirl at January 25, 2010 05:16 PM (gHNO5)
I would have said they finally failed, but that would have erroneously implied that they were successful at some point, at some iteration, under some management. They never were.
The company, which was founded in 2004, never found a substantial audience or sound financial footing. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, but managed to stay on the air at that time. The network churned through several owners and several attempted reinventions, with little to show for it.
&qout;The fact of the matter was, it was always a very challenging business proposition, and it never had the right management," said Sam Seder, who hosted programs on Air America until last year.
The headwinds were enormous, he said, adding, "Radio is a dying industry."
I suspect that the growing stable of conservative talk radio personalities that emerged over the same time period would scoff at Seder's self-denial. America doesn't seem to have the first problem supporting long-time talkers like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and they've found that there is plenty of room for other center-right stars to emerge in recent years, such as Mark Levin. The simple fact of the matter is that the nation isn't nearly as liberal as the majority of the media/infotainment industry is, or as liberal as the media/infotainment industry would like America to be.
If they had ever been honest about that fact, Err America would have never gotten off the ground.
1
I really think that there could be a successful liberal talk radio business. The problem with Air America was that so much of the programming and what was said was crap and rediculous ranting. There simply was a huge lack of common sense. The appeal to common sense is what I think makes the conservative shows appealing and successful.
Posted by: Titan Mk6B at January 22, 2010 11:38 AM (xgti0)
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 22, 2010 11:51 AM (3BHyc)
3
Oh, and add in that the Catholic and many of the more solid Protestant radio stations are doing well and growing. If I can't find my preferred, I can often find the other whether I am in the boonies or in urban areas. Err America, how right you are.
But let me ask you this, what company in it's right mind would pay someone to attack any company that makes profits? Just think about it... what exactly is used to pay advertising? Uhrm, did anyone actually think this station's stances through before setting it up?
I did consider it a religious station, of sorts. I call these "liberals" the new age Pilgrims. They want privation, not for themselves mind you. One sheet of toilet paper (for you), bicycles and public transport (for you), turning down the furnace or turning of the a/c (for you), but of course for your (and their) own, supposed, good. But they offer nothing that religion offers. Sounds like a religion straight from the book of "The Wit and Wisdom of Charles Manson" to me.
Posted by: Doom at January 22, 2010 01:34 PM (mvCvZ)
4
I've been saying for years that there's simply no market for liberal talk radio. We have better things to do with our time.
Conservative talk radio is a huge success simply because the people who listen to the various con men who host these shows are unable to think for themselves. These shows have no substance at all. They deal in sensationalism. It's kinda like watching a "pro wrestling" match.
Just goes to prove what a nation of gullible people we are.
Posted by: Dude at January 23, 2010 12:05 PM (5gxhz)
5
Dude, it proves that you can fool MOST of The People SOME of the time, if you have a a couple of generations of government "progressively educated" voters, a Progressive media flooding America with leftist propaganda and heavily biased editing, billions of dollars of foreign and diverted-taxpayer dollars, and an entrenched network of bought and paid-for gangs. SOME of Us The People are not and have never been ignorant or blind to what has happened to The Republic. SOME of us know that the dynamics os history portend a Humpty-Dumpty episode for the tyrannical hoard of bureaucracies that has become American government. Humpty might need a little push.
Posted by: twolaneflash at January 23, 2010 12:32 PM (svkhS)
6
Liberal/Progressive talk radio will always fail. During an hour or more their ideas are discussed in depth, they cannot use those juvenile sound bites and personal insults to effect, so the senselessness of their proposals are exposed.
Posted by: Rick at January 23, 2010 01:51 PM (JtfPD)
Too funny. You try and explain why a company fails at attempting to indoctrinate by saying that you and yours do not need indoctrination (except in forced education, government subsidized education, government panels, and government intrusions). But this is not about indoctrination, it is about business. And the business by the left in the form of indoctrination failed so you try to switch in an apple for an orange. So very typical and why your businesses will fail every time.
As far as Rush being indoctrination, all you have to do is prove that what he is saying is not true. Take your pick, do it via theory (though you need to show some kind of proof, like a communist nation that worked or a socialist one that actually offers freedom to it's citizens), or through functional data. Since you can't, then what he is saying is not indoctrination, it is education. Further, it is education which is directed at a freer, richer, better nation. Which, in the end, is why he is still successful and why Err America is dead.
No, you probably cannot follow that. And, it most likely hurts your feelings. Whatever. So long as a Democrat holds office, you have a shot at a job, or at least a handout. Don't worry. Well, actually as of the late developments... do worry.
Posted by: Doom at January 24, 2010 07:19 AM (mvCvZ)
