This is seriously being sold at Overstock.com.
But what is really funny is that what you see above is shown at the corner as "People who viewed this (Hillary's nut cracker) also viewed this." A five piece knife set with unique holder. What the heck is wrong with you? I don't get it. Maybe someone on your side can explain it to me. By all indications you guys have decided that Hillary is your candidate. Why? Why? Why?
I don't agree with your issues, but let me see if I've got them right. You are totally against this war. You think it we were misled and it is wrong and unethical to continue it and continue losing our young soldiers in a war that makes no sense.
How am I doing? Am I about right there? This seems to be your number one issue. Yet, you continue to support Hillary, who voted for this war. Who will not say that it was a mistake to do so and has admitted that she will withdraw troops only in a timely manner.
Obama, on the other hand, has said he was against the war from the start and promises to bring the troops home immediately.
Hillary is a political machine. Wired into Washington. She reeks of big money donors. Obama promises to bring an outsider perspective. His issues are your issues. He is young, smart, charsmatic with a devoted wife and two young daughters. He doesn't have the hint of scandal. If scandal had a smell, you could sniff Hillary coming from about 3 miles away.
Yet, she is 21 freakin' points ahead of Obama.
Again I ask, why?
Obama is an inspiring speaker. He can get a room rockin with his fiery speech. Hillary is as dull as a doorknob in speeches.
You want universal healthcare? Obama does too. Hillary failed last time she tried it.
How did they both vote in the Senate? About the same. Both Obama and Clinton voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Both voted against an amendment to this year’s Senate immigration bill that would have denied legal status to those who had entered the United States illegally.
So ideologically, you are dealing with the same vision here. But on one hand you have Hillary who is divisive and polarizing. On the other hand you have Obama who brings charisma and a new way forward. He is devoid of the hyper-partisanship that Hillary brings.
Yet, you still support Hillary over him.
This isn't about who I think can win the general election. Since it seems Republicans can't even begin to decide who we want for our nominee, I can't really say whether I think our guy can beat Hillary or Obama.
But this is what I know. The Democratic party deserves a better representative than Hillary Clinton. If Republicans were to lose, I want to lose to someone who I can at least have respect for.
You can honestly tell me that this woman, this brittle, manipulating, power hungry narcissist is what you want for your party????
For once in my life I would like the Democratic party to surprise me. Nominate someone who is at least a decent person.
Can you do that?
.....but it is.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The image of a topless woman that popped up during a state legislator's computer presentation to a high school class had been downloaded by a child of the lawmaker, a state House staffer said Thursday.
The image of a topless woman was projected after Rep. Matthew Barrett inserted a data memory stick into the computer for a Tuesday lecture on how a bill becomes a law. He was speaking to an American government class of about 20 students in the northern Ohio city of Norwalk.
Preliminary results of a State Highway Patrol investigation found that one of Barrett's four children downloaded the embarrassing image, said a House Democratic staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing.
Though she stopped short of identifying the youngster, House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty said in a statement: "This situation is a matter between him (Barrett), his teenaged son and his family."
Can you imagine???? I bet the Dad is still beating his son.
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani.
I've been trying to drive this home over at Ace's and HotAir and all they do is get mad and explain how stupid it is for Christian conservatives to do such a thing. It may be stupid, but that is the reality that I am seeing as well. I believe that 27% won't vote for Rudy even if there isn't a third party campaign. Like it or not, get mad all you wish, but many Christian conservatives are not going to vote for someone who thinks it is just fine and dandy to destroy a child in the womb. They just aren't. They don't care about politics, they care about principle.
My fellow Republicans. Please. Let's let Rudy go and support someone who can beat Hillary. You and I both know we can't win with 27% of us not voting for Rudy.
I'm begging here.
Let me add one more thing. It isn't like Rudy is the perfect or near perfect candidate if not for the abortion issue. He's wrong on immigration, he's wrong on gun rights, he's wrong on campaign finance reform. His personal life is a mess we will all have to live through again and again through the campaign. His New York political scandals haven't even begun to surface either.
Please! Mitt, Fred, McCain!!! We have other choices!
Sometimes it happens.
"Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right."
Here is what brought him there:
"Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.
The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech."
Porn is free speech, abortion is a privacy right, and a hate crime is somehow worse than a crime based on something else. You can't bash gays but feel free to bash Christians. Using kids to implement universal health care. And God forbid you should smoke that cigarette, that pays for the health care, in the bar of your choice. Don't dare mention Christ in a public school at Christmas, but Ramadan is welcome. This is the world of the left.
And now gun rights are being taken away without us even being aware of it.
We need to wake up and smell the liberal coffee.
h/t BigDog
At least it seems that way. One would imagine that a Google party in Manhattan would be a happening kind of place to be.
Not so much.
I don't know why I found this so interesting. But here is a mega bazillion dollar company and they still put on a party that reflects the computer nerds that they are. Not that there is anything wrong with being a computer nerd. I have a son who is one. I feel great affection for them.
I thought it sorta funny/sad/pathetic that the women get all gussied up in hopes of snagging a rich google guy though.
"Five women and one man were riding in the elevator up to last night's needlessly exclusive party "for media" at the West Chelsea Googleplex last night. The women all wore similar, similarly officey outfits: tight black slacks, two-inch heels and shiny blouses accented by conspicuous yet conservative jewelry. They stared at my tattoos, and at my nametag, which read "Kate Appleton, BudgetTravel.com." Uh oh. "You don't look like Kate Appleton," the one man finally ventured. He turned out to be Kate's boss. The women shot me withering stares, clearly displeased that I was resorting to subterfuge in order to gain access to the hotbed of Google bachelors that no doubt awaited us on the 16th floor. And then we got out of the elevator and emerged into what looked exactly like a high school cafeteria."
It seems the party had Kiosks set up to demonstrate "the ways Google is there for you at every stage of your life." They had baby bottles representing childhood and lava lamps representing the teen years.
But surely the food is good? Nah.
"He also apologized for the tragic state of the buffet, which included frighteningly dilapidated sushi, cold mac and cheese, and chicken wings. "The food is usually much better." Maybe Google only had limited resources to spend on the media party. As everyone knows, they are a very poor company."
I suppose I point this out to you so you can relish the fact that the corporate parties you are missing in the Big Apple are just as lame as the ones you go to in middle America USA.
Anyone who cruises the political blogs know about blog fights. Blog fights are when a well known leftwing blogger makes fun of something a rightwing blogger writes or vis versa. Then that blogger strikes back on his blog and the commenters spend their time going back and forth getting in their stings.
I have always found them pretty silly. I've had several leftwing blogs rip on me, but I just ignore them. What good does it do?
What I have noticed lately though, is that the news cable shows are pretty much doing the same thing. I watched Dan Abrams on MSNBC make fun of the new Fox News business channel's anchors saying they looked like the old Joey Lawrence photo shoots.
We have all watched Keith Olberman make fun of Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly firing back. Both of these guys spend half their show talking about how stupid the other guy is.
If an anchor on one cable news station makes some sort of a mistake, the other anchors on the other cable news shows makes fun of it. The equivalent of a blogger fight. Imagine Peter Jennings smugly making fun of something Tom Brokaw said the night before.
Now we have a Senate Majority Leader standing on the floor of the Senate bashing a radio talk show host. The talk show host (Rush) then bashes back. Everyone else writes an article or shows up on cable news to get their stings in. (yeah, I'm guilty)
The Senate and the news have now become the blogosphere.
I don't mean the MTV show that makes anyone who watches it fear for the future. I mean the world outside of this political junkie cyber world.
Since I get my political fix here, I try not to get into politics too much out there. But I was curious about what some of my friends and family thought about the Presidential race so far and other things that have been happening In Washington and elsewhere. So I ventured out and asked them.
I am not kidding you when I say that many of my friends asked me who was running for President on the Republican side. They say that all they hear about is Hillary and Obama. My older children's friends actually thought that that was who was running for President in the general election. Hillary vs. Obama.
Some of my friends asked if McCain was still running because they liked him, but hadn't heard a word about him on the network news or morning shows. They had never heard of Ron Paul. They did know about Fred Thompson and wanted to know what I thought of him. Beyond his being on "Law and Order" they didn't know much about him.
You know all the things we argue and discuss here? Rudy and his NRA speech phone call, McCain saying he was suddenly Baptist, Hillary's little Hsu problem, SCHIP legislation? They never heard of any of it. Debates? What debates?
They had heard of John Edward's haircut, but not Hillary's healthcare proposal. They knew about Jena 6, but no details. They did know that the President of Iran had said there was no gays in his country, but that was about all they knew about the whole Columbia University's disgraceful mess. I think unless Jon Stewart or SNL makes fun of it, people don't know about it.
I asked about the Rush controversy and all they know is that he called some soldier "phony."
There you have it. No one, and I mean no one is paying attention. They don't care if Hillary took dirty money, they don't care about resolutions in the Senate about Rush Limbaugh (and frankly, neither do I) They don't know who the front runners are on the Republican side (which is not good news actually). They don't know Clarence Thomas wrote a book. They don't know a California elementary school caved and agreed to celebrate Ramadan along with Santa and Halloween. They understand that things are going better in Iraq, but don't know why we have to stay over in that God forsaken place any longer for people who don't even appreciate it.
Now, I am sure that many of you have friends that are paying attention and know all about what is happening in the news, but guess what? I think we can all agree that these people I talked to represent most of America right now. The rural areas, the suburbs, the inner city, the younger generation, the ones working too hard, partying too hard, or who just don't care.
I suppose this is why we have the primaries. I suppose this is why I sit in front of this computer for too long during the day. I have to know what's going on. But I wish I was more like my friends. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Recently John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Jesse Jackson have spoken out about the grave situation of black men in prison. These statements were not only untrue, but in my opinion, insulting to the black community.
Reason Magazine give us this:
"The idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating -- pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."--John Edwards, MTV political forum, September 27, 2007
"We have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America." --Barrack Obama, NAACP forum, July 12, 2007.
Regarding Obama's claim, The WashingtonPost factchecker begs to differ: (emphasis mine)
According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. See table 10 of this report. If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young Black males, or slightly over 10 percent.
According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or twenty eight percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities (including two-year-colleges) in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to thirty or thirty five, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.
So Edward's claim of a future of prison for blacks is simply not true, Will they end up dead? The factchecker once again begs to differ:
As for violent deaths, we asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a list of the ten leading causes of death for black males, aged 18 to 24, in 2004. The top three causes of death in this age group were (1) homicide (2,140 deaths), unintentional injury (948 deaths), and suicide (332 deaths). Deaths from HIV AIDS ranked sixth (67 deaths.) If we add the homicide, suicide, and HIV deaths together, we get 2,539 deaths. That is a combined death rate from violent causes or AIDS of around 0.13 percent for this segment of the population. Hardly an epidemic.
In a blog to the Huffington Post, former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark called for Congress to immediately take steps to remove conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio.
I have an idea. Let's let the armed forces decide whether they are insulted enough to want Rush off the air.
Now, we all know which way that will go, don't we? The Democrats are making fools of themselves and just making Rush more money.
Update: Fox News:
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh "that call into question" the service and sacrifice of troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
"Mr. Limbaugh's comments have stirred a lot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript in question," Mays wrote. "Given Mr. Limbaugh's history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq.
"I hope that you understand and support my position that while I certainly do not agree with all the views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them," he wrote.
Even this morning I still see Democratic Congressmen on TV trying to equate what Rush said about "phony soldiers" to the MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus. Even though it has clearly been shown that Rush was talking about the actual phoney soldiers that ABC had done a special on the few nights before. In even trying to make the comparison the Democrats look ridiculous, but they are hoping to look like they are defending the troops.
Michael Ledeen at NRO puts it best:
It's interesting that the Dems' attack against Rush is taking place at the same time Clarence Thomas's riveting autobiography hits the bookshelves, because both illustrate one of the central features of contemporary politics: the Left's loss of intellectual coherence and confidence, and its consequent turn to the vilification of individuals. Unable to deal with Thomas's arguments, his political enemies—just as they had done with Bob Bork—went all out to destroy the man, seizing on a flimsy pretext to assault his character. They failed then, and they are going to fall again today in their primal whine against Rush.
If you are willing to do anything to look patriotic, including smear someone who is innocent, then I call that phony patriotism. The Democratic leaders, as usual, should be ashamed of themselves. But I think they left the ability to be ashamed somewhere back in 1998.
Kaus at Slate found this site listing who Bill has dated. Since 2000? Elizabeth Hurely, Heidi Klum, Belinda Stronach, Naomi Robson, and Maria Furtwangler.
I checked the other Presidential candidates. Republican and Democrat and all the ones they have dated in the past that we already know are listed. No surprises. Now, this isn't the WaPo, but if this were a Republican with his wife running for President, wouldn't the MSM be looking into this?
Btw, did you know that Hillary dated Robert Reich in 1965??? Ewwww......
When things were going badly we had daily updates in the MSM. So you know when you aren't hearing about Iraq on the news, things must be going well.
Investor's Business Daily gives us this:
Media And War: Ever since the Sept. 10 testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, we've heard less and less from the mainstream media about the war in Iraq. The old adage "no news is good news" has never been truer.
• On Monday came news that U.S. military deaths in Iraq fell to 64 in September, the fourth straight drop since peaking at 121 in May and driving the toll to a 14-month low.
• Civilian deaths also have plunged, dropping by more than half from August to 884.
Remember just six months ago all the talk of an Iraqi "civil war"? That seems to be fading.
• The just-ended holy month of Ramadan in Iraq was accompanied by a 40% drop in violence, even though al-Qaida had vowed to step up attacks.
• Speaking of al-Qaida, the terrorist group appears to be on the run, and possibly on the verge of collapse — despite making Iraq the center of its war for global hegemony and a new world order based on precepts of fundamentalist Islam.
• Military officials say U.S. troops have killed Abu Usama al-Tunisi, a Tunisian senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq who was responsible for bringing foreign fighters into the country. Not surprisingly, the pace of foreign fighters entering Iraq has been more than halved from the average of 60 to 80 a month.
• Last month, 1,200 Iraqis waited patiently in line in Iraq's searing heat to sign up to fight al-Qaida. They will join an estimated 30,000 volunteers in the past six months — a clear sign the tide has turned in the battle for average Iraqis' hearts and minds.
• Finally, and lest you think it's all death and destruction, there's this: Five million Iraqi children returned to school last week, largely without incident, following their summer vacations.
None of this, of course, is accidental. The surge of 28,500 new troops announced by President Bush last February, and put in place in mid-June by Gen. Petraeus, seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida, though still a potent foe capable of committing mass atrocities, has been backpedaling furiously.
"They are very broken up, very unable to mass, and conducting very isolated operations" is how Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson described al-Qaida's situation in comments this week.
Things have gone so well, in fact, that leading Democratic contenders have stopped calling for a "timetable" for withdrawal and can't even promise they'll remove all the troops by 2013.
In short, the U.S. is — yes, we'll use the word —winning the war against al-Qaida. And not just in Iraq. In fact, the only way we won't win is if we do something very stupid — such as letting the overwhelmingly negative media convince us we can't do what we clearly are doing.
The TimesOnline even has this article titled "How we've won the war in Iraq" byBartle Bull who has spent time living with Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq and writes for The New York Times and Washington Post. Read the whole thing. Here is a snippet:
Three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide and antiShi’ite apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis.
And finally Victor David Hanson sums it up:
The United States must put its financial house in order, curtail its imported oil, stabilize Iraq, prevent somehow Iran from getting a bomb, find ways to continue to support democratic reform in the Middle East without providing one-vote, one-time plebiscites to radical Islamists, and explain all that we are doing — and why — far more coherently and eloquently to the American public.
But the current orthodoxy that America is losing the war on terror inside and outside Iraq, while bereft of allies, is simply not true. Instead we are winning — it’s ugly perhaps, but winning nonetheless.
Let me know when the NYT's does this story.
h/t to BigDog
First Harry Reid says this ridiculous rant on the Senate floor calling for Senators to condemn Rush Limbaugh for "attacking our troops" (with the 'phony soldier" statement) How much of joke is that? Anyone who listens to Rush for even a little bit, knows how much he supports the troops.
Here is the last line:
“I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers. Anything less would be a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate. I ask my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriotic attack by calling upon Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve.”
Yeah, well, maybe you shouldn't have been so confident there Harry.
Republicans offer a resolution COMMENDING Rush Limbaugh for his unyielding support of our troops.
Heh. You just have to love it.
Newsweek takes us through his life, his accomplishments, and his religion. I think he would make a great President. I just don't think he can beat the HillaryMachine.
I can tell you one thing though. You won't find any personal scandal on this man. And that is something important.
Update: Hugh Hewitt has a statement from Romney on the Supreme Court. It's excellent.
Wired Magazine:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton dominates the airwaves, the Sunday political talk shows and the polls. And it turns out she's also dominating one of the hottest new media platforms in politics -- but not in a way she would like.
The largest pro- or anti-candidate group on the popular social-networking site Facebook is an anti-Clinton cluster named Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary), according to Facebook statistics.
At midweek, the group boasted nearly 425,000 members. It's growing 10 percent a month, says Micah Sifry, co-founder of TechPresident, a blog that covers the interaction of presidential candidates and the web.
Hmm...interesting.
Yeah, I'm a member.
The truth about healthcare. Excellent.
via Ace and Stop the ACLU
There was a time in the recent past when none of us would have been surprised to wake up and read this headline in our newspaper about a city in the United States. We expected another attack. It was a matter of "when" not "if."
But that isn't what happened. The 19,000 dead are not us, but our enemies.
USA Today has this:
More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military statistics released for the first time.The statistics show that 4,882 militants were killed in clashes with coalition forces this year, a 25% increase over all of last year.The increase in enemy deaths this year reflects more aggressive tactics adopted by American forces and an additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by the White House this year.
19,000 enemies that will never make it to our shores to kill Americans. 19,000 that will never breed and teach their children the hate that drove them.
I'll take a moment and thank our military for this. We are safe because they are there.
via Gateway Pundit (who should be a daily read for everyone)
Defending his multiple marriages, adultery, and his strained relationship with his kids:
Comparing himself to the accused adulterous woman whose life was spared by the intervention of Jesus, Giuliani cited the Biblical story in an apparent jab at presidential rivals who subtly raise his messy life.“I’m guided a lot by the story of the woman that was going to be stoned, and Jesus put the stones down and said ‘He that hasn’t sinned cast the first stone,’ and everybody disappeared,” Giuliani said.“It seems like nowadays in America we have people that think they could’ve passed that test,” Giuliani said. “And I don’t think anybody could’ve passed that test but Jesus.”
I am always amused when people use this story to defend their sins. It's true that Christ was showing mercy and teaching us to do so, but whenever anyone brings up this story in the Bible, they always leave out that last thing that Jesus spoke to the woman.."Go and sin no more."That's the problem here. We all sin and we all make mistakes. But Christ asks us to move on and sin no more. Maybe we won't be able to do that, but we should be trying.
Rudy has hardly tried. Rudy did what Rudy wanted when he wanted to. He didn't care who he hurt. And he didn't do these things just once, but over and over. He reminds me of Clinton in that way. All of us could have forgiven Clinton or Rudy for a mistake, but there is a big difference between a mistake and a pattern of behavior.
Nice try Rudy, but I'm not buying it.
