Review and Comment on the News 1/25/06

(Jaundiced Caterwauling)


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November

My Links
Global Warming Causes Everything
A democrat that doesn't make the veins in my neck explode every time she opens her mouth.
Analog
Baen Books
Brainchild of a Conservative Anomaly
Lesson along the scenic route through purgatory
How Democrats can get away with this bullshit astounds even me!
BBC
Billings Gazette
Big Lizards
Brain Terminal
Colorado Public Radio
Clinton Iraq 1998
Chaos Manor
Democrats vs. Republicans on race issues
Drudge Report
Fox News
Jerry Doyle
Google News
Junk Science.com
Just Barking Mad
Little Green Footballs
The Montana Misanthrope
Montana Politics
Neal Boortz
NO PC Forums
Opinion Journal
Q and O Newsroom
Rabid Sanity
Random Nuclear Strikes
Reference Desk
Sirius
The American Thinker
Thoolou's Lair
VOA News
Victor Davis Hanson
World Tribune
Zombie Hall of Shame (not for the faint of heart)

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



Review and Comment on the News 1/25/06
01.25.06 (8:09 am)   [edit]

 Bookish Little Snot Merchant Harry Reid (D) Nevada is a hypocrite and a liar, he received Abramoff money ($66,000) and seniors are not begging in the streets for prescription drugs. Not that I've ever seen. What an asshole. I never thought I'd yearn for the days of Tom Daschle. More on the republican "culture of corruption": Pa t Leahy (D) Vermont, labeled "Abramoff Democrat". Useful Idiot goes Global: Cindy Sheehan has taken her sagging, crocodile tear stained countenance on the road to the country that is being hailed by many on the left as the new utopian model... Venezuela:

To the beat of drums and trilling whistles, thousands of activists from around the world showed their opposition to globalization and the Iraq war at the opening Tuesday of the World Social Forum backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The six-day conference got under way in Caracas amid a light drizzle as activists filled a plaza waving banners reading "Stop Bush" and "End the occupation of Iraq" ahead of a giant march. American activist Cindy Sheehan called for a stronger global movement against the Iraq war. "We have to work together as a global community to fight for peace and justice. We're all in it together. It's not just me who has lost a son," said Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Sheehan, 48, of Berkeley, Calif., gained international attention when she set up a protest camp near President Bush's Texas ranch last year. "We really need to stop the imperialist tendencies of countries like the United States and Great Britain," Sheehan told The Associated Press. 

Look for the Chavez countenance to begin cropping up on the t-shirts of hipsters ala Ernesto (Che) Guevara. Even more in the ongoing, burgeoning "Rep ublican Culture of Corruption"...Bloated teen mugs his own grandmother for beer money:

Bradenton, Florida -- Deputies say a 16 year old has been arrested for beating his grandmother with a two-by-four for refusing to give him $100 for beer.

 
$100.00?? All you need is about 10 to get a good buzz. It was probably Abramoff money.The only thing worse than a Senate Republican is a Senate Democrat.

According to Insight Magazine, the Bush administration is preparing for impeachment hearings. Citing unnamed sources in the administration, Insight reports that hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February could serve as a preview for later impeachment proceedings.

The White House consulted with eight members of Congress on the program, including four Democrats.

Sources told Insight that the Judiciary probe will likely include Republicans unaware that they could be advancing a Democratic move toward eventual impeachment.

Goddamned idiots, like I said. Members of the "Spineless Party" probably rolled over in the cloak room because they were afraid a democrat might get angry at them. I can understand something like this happening when the Democrats get their power back early next year. Come on, I mean, what else are they going to do as a majority? Enact a legislative agenda based on ideas? Give me a fucking break! 

Quote of the Day, Halliburton "W" McBushHitler:

"If I wanted to break the law,” Bush asked, "why was I briefing Congress?”

All eyes on the "Carter Party" in the West Bank:

Opinion polls showed President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party with just a slight edge, raising the possibility of Hamas, an Islamist militant group, joining the cabinet for the first time.
Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, has nevertheless largely followed a truce for nearly a year.

Google agrees to censor search results in China:

Google Inc. launched a search engine in China on Wednesday that censors material about human rights, Tibet and other topics sensitive to Beijing _ defending the move as a trade-off granting Chinese greater access to other information.

I thought America or (Amerikka, as I've seen it spelled on many leftist message boards) was the sole remaining police state in the world.



Saddam Lickspittle George Galloway about to be voted off the
island. Astronomy Picture of the Day.  This is far more frightening than the FCC trying to get Howard Stern to stop saying asshole:

The rise of alternative media--political talk radio in the 1980s, cable news in the '90s, and the blogosphere in the new millennium--has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what's going on--and resist it.

It's long been my contention (and observation) that republicans  wa nt to ban (or limit) obscene speech and democrats want to ban (or limit) political speech. Which is the more dangerous to limit? I suppose that's subjective. That is why I laugh when Stern (as much as I occasionally enjoy listening to him) sets himself up as some lofty guarantor of the 1st amendment, (when Flynt does it for some reason, I get insulted) all S tern wants to do is sit around all day sporting wood, there's nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it. 

 


posted by: Matthew (reply)
post date: 07.12.06 (10:28 am)

Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war?
It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it.
We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power.



posted by: Matthew (reply)
post date: 07.12.06 (10:28 am)

Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war?
It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it.
We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power.



posted by: Matthew (reply)
post date: 07.12.06 (10:29 am)

Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war?
It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it.
We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power.



posted by: Matthew (reply)
post date: 07.12.06 (10:29 am)

Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war?
It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it.
We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power.



posted by: Matthew (reply)
post date: 07.12.06 (10:30 am)

Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war?
It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it.
We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power.

Your Name:


Your Comment: