Obama: Clinton ad an attempt to scare voters

Democrat Barack Obama said Friday that rival Hillary Clinton is trying to scare voters with a new television ad that raises the prospect of a foreign crisis over images of children asleep in their beds.

"We've seen these ads before," the Illinois senator said at a campaign event in Houston, Texas. "They're the kind that play on people's fears to scare up votes.

"Well, it won't work this time," he continued. "Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is: What kind of judgment will you make when you answer?"

The ad, launched Friday in Texas ahead of that state's crucial March 4 primary, shows children asleep in their beds in the middle of the night while a narrator references a potential national security crisis and asks, "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe denounced the ad in a conference call with reporters earlier Friday. And in his comments in Houston, Obama said, "We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

Told you he'd eat that "3am Children" ad that Hillary put up for breakfast.

And of course, he'll come back with a rebuttal that slaps her back:

"When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one – the only one – who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start… Who understood the real threat to America was al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, not Iraq," the narrator continues. "Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe… In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters."

Hillary has had "35 years of experience" by her own account, and she should have known better then to put out a cheap, not well thought out ad like that.  She HAD to have known that it was going to blow up in her face, and here we are, and it did.

She's much better when she attacks him directly on things he HAS done rather than things he said he would do.  For example:

At a rally in Waco, with more than two dozen military veterans and flag officers standing behind her, Clinton criticized Obama for being "missing in action" during key security decisions in the Senate and claimed that he had "no responsibility" when he gave an anti-war speech in 2002 as an Illinois state senator.

Her comments coincided with a new campaign ad released in Texas that asks voters who they want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m. when "there's something happening in the world."

Obama criticized the ad earlier Friday, saying it was an attempt to "scare up votes."

Clinton disputed that notion in her speech Friday, saying, "Well I don't think people in Texas scare all that easily."

In a salvo against Obama that lasted several minutes, Clinton said, "

There's a big difference between giving a speech at anti war rally as a state
senator and dealing with an international crisis as president.""There's a difference between giving a speech when you have no responsibility," she argued, "and having to step up and take charge and take the responsibility for your actions."

She charged that Obama was "missing in action" when he missed a Senate vote last year on a nonbinding resolution in that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (Clinton voted for the measure and faced heat from Obama and other Democratic rivals for supporting a measure pushed buy the Bush administration.)

She also said Obama was "missing in action" by failing in his chairmanship of a Senate subcommittee on Europe to hold a hearing on NATO's presence in Afghanistan, a fact she has emphasized in recent days on the campaign trail.

Directly attacking your opponent for their record as "missing in action" is a much better approach to chipping away at Obama's credibility.

I mean, come on, even Hillary's campaign manager should have known better.  Do I need to give Hillary pointers?  I'm available for the low, low price of $350,000.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Socialism

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

McCain: Renegotiating NAFTA would jeopardize Canada ties

Republican John McCain said the desire by Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement would jeopardize crucial military support from Canada.

McCain used a town-hall style meeting today at Dell Inc. headquarters to emphasize his support for NAFTA. The effects of the 1994 trade pact are still hotly debated, but studies indicate the deal has resulted in record exports from Texas to Canada and Mexico.

Trade and national security are "interconnected with each other," the Arizona senator said.

"One of our greatest assets in Afghanistan are our Canadian friends. We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan," McCain said. "So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA.

"How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?" McCain said.

Canada has 2,500 troops serving in Afghanistan along with 29,000 U.S. soldiers.

Umm...Mr. McCain, parts of the Canadian government are already talking about removing ALL of their troops from Afghanistan.  I don't think that's what I would consider a "good friend". 

If they want to withdraw help from us, I fail to see why we should continue to help them.

I love Canadians as much as the next guy, in fact, most of the people in my World Of Warcraft guild are Canadians, but I certainly would be pissed if they, as a whole, supported removing troops from Afghanistan.

I don't believe that to be true as of yet.  I think it's just the liberal party there in Canada, but if they do manage to remove their troops, I think there should be a fiscal penalty for that.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Oh, and just in case any of you are wondering, I play World of Warcraft with my wife and a bunch of other people from around the world.

I have a 70 warlock, a 60 shaman, a 60 mage, a 60 hunter, a 60 rogue, a 48 warrior, and a ton of other characters that are level 30 and below.

It's amazing that I have any free time at all with all my hobbies and this political site. :)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Is Hillary a Pre-Sore Loser?

The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

So we may NOT know the results of the Democratic nomination for many days or even weeks if Hillary does decide to go this route.  While she may have a legitimate complaint about the process, the timing is suspect at best and reeks of being an upcoming "sore loser".

But we'll have to wait with baited breath to see what happens on Tuesday.

My prediction?  Obama overtakes Hillary, Hillary goes bananas, threatens lawsuits, but in the end, concedes that she has lost.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Is It My Birthday?

My God, the hypocrisy from Hillary today is making me feel all warm inside.  It's not my birthday, but it certainly feels like it.  Hillary has denounced Bush for "fear mongering" more times then I can remember, and we've all come to expect Hillary to do or say whatever it takes to win, so why was I not surprised when I came across this little gem?:

 

Tell me that Obama, if he was smart, wouldn't take this ad and rip it apart as well as Hillary's campaign?  A good campaign manager would bring this to his attention, and Obama would be wise to show that Hillary is in the same league as President Bush.  That's a death nail in any Democrat's coffin.  It's not rocket science people.

Happy Birthday to me....Happy Birthday to me.....:)

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Hillary's Confused

We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush.  When you think about it, we have two wars, not one.  We don't talk about Afghanistan enough.  We've got two wars.  We've got to end one, we've got to win the other.

Ok, we obviously disagree, but I'm willing to put that aside.  You want to focus on Afghanistan; something I can definitely get behind.

We have a war against al Qaeda and the Taliban who attacked us.  And the masterminds of that attack are still at large.  And we're not winning, and I don't think we can let that situation continue.  We have to put our best resources in against those who attacked the United States.  No one can attack us with impunity.  They have to be brought to justice, and that means wiping them out, because until we do, we will remain at risk.

Umm....sweety, the Taliban DIDN'T attack us.  Al-Qaeda attacked us and the Taliban were the ones who were giving them sanctuary.  Whether or not they knew of the attacks isn't irrelevant, but they weren't the ones most directly responsible.

Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

As a side note, let's try not to play the gender card.  It makes you look like Jesse Jackson in a skirt.

Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is.  It's hard.  It's hard being a woman out there.  It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women.

"And I think women just sort of shake their head," Clinton continued. "My friends do.  They say, 'Oh, my gosh, this is so hard.' Well, it's supposed to be hard.  I'm running for the hardest job in the world.  No one has ever done this.  No woman has ever won a presidential primary before I won New Hampshire.  This is hard. And I don't expect any sympathy, I don't expect any kind of, you know, allowances or special privileges, because I knew what I was getting myself into.

"Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field," she said, "but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."

Weren't you the one who said "they aren't attacking me because I'm a woman, they're attacking me because I'm in the lead."?

Well now, you're trying to play the gender card and it isn't working.  If you want to be seen as a "strong, independent" woman, then you have to ACT like it.  For God's sake, you're a 60 year old ruthless woman, stop acting like a teenage girl who's not getting her way.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq if a Democrat Wins

Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November.

In their final push to win the nomination, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York are repeating their vow to start withdrawing U.S. forces shortly after taking office. But both candidates draw a distinction between "combat" troops, whom they want to withdraw, and "noncombat" troops, who will stay to battle terrorists, protect the U.S. civilian presence and possibly train and mentor Iraqi security forces.

Conducting such missions would likely require the sustained deployment of tens of thousands of American military personnel, foreign-policy advisers from both campaigns acknowledge.

"No one is talking about getting to zero," said a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama.

Oh hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

Wasn't it just a little while ago that Barack Obama was voting for withdrawing US troops entirely?  Didn't he co-sponsor a bill that would have meant that ALL troops would have to leave Iraq within 90 days?

Obama is misleading people into thinking that if he's elected, he's going to make everything alright in Iraq and everyone comes home.

Now, they are saying "no one is talking about getting to zero".

It's misleading at best, and lying at worst.  And yet, here we are with Obamamania running wild!  Idiot voters out there aren't bothering to look into what he says and how he backs it up.  Unfortunately, Hillary and I are in complete agreement here:  The guy makes great speeches, but simply put, he doesn't back it up.  He's a bullshit artist similar to televangelist.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

From The "About Damned Time" File

I wrote about "Chemical Ali" back in June, when he was convicted and sentenced to death for his role in the 1988 gas attacks that killed thousands.

Well now he's going to be executed for that crime in the next 30 days.

Iraq's Presidential Council endorsed the death sentence for Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as ``Chemical Ali'' for his role in the gassing of thousands of Iraqi Kurds during a 1988 campaign of genocide.

Al-Majid, a cousin of former President Saddam Hussein, will be executed within 30 days, President Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said today on the party's Web site. Talabani, a Kurd, is joined on the council by vice presidents Adel Abdul al-Mahdi, a Shiite Muslim, and Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Muslim.

In June, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Court convicted al-Majid of genocide and crimes against humanity. The death penalty also was handed down for his co-defendants, former Defense Minister Sultan Hashem Ahmed and the former associate army chief, Hussein Rashid al-Tikriti, who were found guilty of the same charges.

``The individuals in question are still in U.S. custody,'' American Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said in a statement e-mailed from Baghdad after the council's decision. ``We will comply with a request to transfer custody once the government of Iraq has arrived at a consensus as to the legal process that must be followed with regard to these executions. We have not yet received a request in this regard.''

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

IRS to Send Reminders About Rebates

So many of us will be getting that$1,200 check, against my better judgement of course, but I've compiled a list of things you should do to use that money for good, instead of evil:

Invest it:

I have stock in the following companies, with their stock symbols:

APPLE - AAPL

LEHMAN AGG BOND FUND ISHARES - AGG

STREETTRACKS GOLD TRUST - GLD

OCCIDENTAL PETE CORP - OXY

S&P 500 INDEX SPDR - SPY

UNITED STATES OIL FUND LP UNIT - USO

I have made about 3% in the three days I've owned these stocks.  That's 3% I wouldn't have made had I bought a frivolous item.  Most savings accounts don't even hit the 3% mark for the YEAR.

Granted, there is inherent risk when it comes to playing the stock market.  Do your research, talk to a financial advisor, read up on a company before you invest.

But that money will be going to these companies, who will then invest in new technologies, more jobs, and make me money.  It's win-win all around.

Take the money and invest it.  Use it as a nest egg for your retirement.  It's the easiest thing to do.  You certainly don't want to be 65 and staring down the barrel of retirement with no way of paying for anything.

OR

Pay off debt:

Pay down or pay off credit card debt, car payments, catch up on your mortgage.  Really any kind of debt that you have, pay it off or pay it down.

Ideally, what you'd like to do is what I call the "snowball debt".

What that means is say you have the following debt/payments per month:

Visa - 3,000/50 a month

Mastercard - 5,000/$75 a month

Car - 10,000/300 a month

etc.

Take the $1,200 you get, plus any tax rebates you get and pay off Visa if possible.  What you want to do is pay off one debt, then take that "monthly payment" of $50 and put it towards your Mastercard.  Now, instead of paying $75 a month, you're paying $125 a month, but you're not coming out of pocket any more then normal.  Once Mastercard is paid off, take the Visa and Mastercard payments and put them towards the car.

Now you're paying $425 a month for your car instead of $300.

Of course your situation might be a different matter.  Pay off something that will free up money every month, then "snowball it" into other debt.  You'd be amazed at how quickly you can climb out of the debt you've accumulated.

You don't have to take my word for it, but let me ask you this:  What would you do if you were debt free, except for your mortgage of course?  No credit cards, no student loans, no car payments.  Just free and clear money every month.  It's a nice thought isn't it?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

House OKs new taxes on big oil companies

Well, it looks like gas prices are going to go up:

The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.

The money collected over 10 years would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period, according an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee. Those companies earned $123 billion last year.

While I certainly agree that these oil companies don't need the tax breaks that they got anymore, does anyone really believe that they are simply going to eat $1.8 billion a year for the next 10 years??

Personally, I'm wanting to get off of oil completely as quickly as we can.  Electric cars can be a suitable replacement if they are well thought out like the Chevy Volt appears to be on paper.

But then, I'll get emails about how "we're just moving pollution from cars to the electrical grid", which is semi true, but there's nothing to prevent you from throwing a couple of solar panels on the roof of your house and getting enough electricity for "free" that way.

America is never going to get off of oil.  We could replace every single car on the road today with electrical ones and we'd still need oil.  However, that oil could come from domestic sources instead of terrorist supporting nations.

Cars still need to be lubricated, aircraft still runs on jet fuel, trucks still need to haul freight, the list goes on and on.

Until we've collectively said "Enough!", we're going to see how far oil companies can push the cost of a gallon of gas.

We are smart enough to do it.  We just have to get used to a couple of ideas.

First off, electric cars do have limitations.

Secondly, you have to be willing to put up with those limitations.

Thirdly, and this one is important, you have to be willing to BUY these cars.

If you just look at it and go "ooh", without reaching for your wallet when you need a car again, auto manufacturers won't produce them.  There has to be a demand.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

U.S. denies firing missile that killed 8 in remote Pakistan

A missile strike in a remote part of Pakistan killed at least eight suspected militants and wounded three others Thursday, Pakistan's state media reported.

The U.S. military denied any involvement in the incident, a source told CNN.

Guys, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt 99% of the time, but you can't expect us to believe that do you?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

TV And Your Brain

CNN is running a "What has TV become" kind of segment and I thought I'd comment on it as it's a part of our culture.

Now, I've seen the episode that they are directly speaking of.  Here it is for you all:

Now, I won't ruin it for you, but it is quite entertaining, at least to me it was.

But let's not forget that 50 years ago, people thought Rock and Roll was the Devil's music and that teenagers were going to run wild and have promiscuous sex.  It didn't happen.

So here we are, much later on, and the entertainment is admittedly much raunchier, but the basic premise exists: One man's entertainment, is another man's debauchery.

You can always turn the TV off, or change the channel.  And until people realize that, you're always going to have people who want to regulate what you and I watch and use the piss poor excuse of "won't someone think of the children"?  What they fail to realize also, is that the people who SHOULD be thinking of the children are their parents, and no one else.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

What the fuck has he been drinking?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Thursday that Iran was the world's "number one" power, as he launched a bitter new assault on domestic critics he accused of siding with the enemy.

"Everybody has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to families who lost loved ones in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

"Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and it puts them in their place," he added in the address broadcast live on state television.

You're the number one power in the world?  How the hell did you come to that conclusion?  Nut job world leaders?  Ok, I might give you that one.  Economy?  Medical research? Military might? Amount of Muslims per capita?  You're not even close in any of those areas.

If Iran means a "firm punch in the teeth", then why did you give up your nuclear weapons program in 2003, like the NIE claims?  If that's true, then the only reason would be that you shit yourselves when you saw America coming for Iraq and how we weren't putting up with bullshit anymore.

If that's not true, and you ARE after nuclear weapons, like I personally believe, then why are you not being open about it?  If you were the "number one power in the world", you could just simply come out and say "yeah, we are, so what"?  But you aren't, and that's because you're scared shitless about Israel's reaction and Russia coming around to the side of the US.

Whatever you've been drinking, I'd love to try it.  It sounds like it gives illusions of grandeur, the likes of which the world has never seen.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

When Will Hillary Release Her Tax Returns?

Why I can answer that!  She'll release them once she has the Democratic nomination.  Otherwise, people will find more and more things about her personally that she doesn't want out in the public eye.

It's a classic tactic, employed by John Kerry famously in his 2004 Presidential Election bid. "Elect me and I'll do everything you want".  Same thing here: "Nominate me, and THEN I'll show you my tax returns".

By then it'll be too late.  Besides, why should she open up herself to any more scrutiny then she absolutely has to?  She's already trailing badly and releasing her tax documents will only open up another front of attack on her.

That being said, had she done so long ago, she would be giving the public the illusion that she's being "open and honest".  Now that she's got everyone a little jittery about her, she's not going to take any more risks then she absolutely has to.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ron Paul And The Federal Reserve Chairman

If finance and the fiscal health of this nation aren't your thing, you're probably better off going onto the next story.  However, if you want to know about the inner workings of our economy and how our actions effect it, you'll find no better example then here.  Granted, it's about finances and cause and effect things, so it'll probably be pretty boring to you, but I thought it was important enough to write about. :)

 

Travis

 

Commentary: Clinton at risk of losing Latino vote

Anyone else notice the subtle racism in various voter groups?

If Hillary Clinton loses the Democratic nomination for president, she might be able to trace her troubles back to when she lost her grip on the Latino vote.

Bill Clinton called it. The ex-president may have doomed his wife's candidacy with his meddling but he was right about one thing: Several weeks ago, he told Spanish-language radio host Eddie "El Piolin" Sotelo that Latinos would "determine the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next president of the United States."

So they might. Just not in the way that the former president imagined.

When he made his prediction, Hillary Clinton was leading Barack Obama among Latinos by a 2-1 margin. No mas.

No one would dare say they are courting the "white" vote.  No one talks about how blatantly racist it is to go after voters who are simply one color or another, yet here we are.  Why can't a politician stand up and say "I don't care about the Latino vote, I care about the American people's vote."

Because it's not the politically correct thing to do.  It's fashionable to throw whites under the bus, but not to call out Latino and Black groups for their racist undertones.  If people want to be treated as equals, they have to include people other then themselves in their groups.  Otherwise, it's hypocritical to give them the airtime at all.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Poll: McCain’s hard to beat

A new poll out Wednesday suggests Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will be a difficult candidate for the eventual Democratic nominee to beat in a general election match up this fall.

According to a just released Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, McCain would be in tight races with either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates.

McCain is statistically tied with Sen. Barack Obama, 44 percent to 42 percent, and ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton by 6 points, 46 percent to 40 percent. The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

The poll also showed McCain with a 61 percent approval rating, a number higher than both Clinton's and Obama's in past polls. (A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll earlier this month measured Clinton's approval rating at 52 percent and Obama's at 58 percent.)

A lot of people don't like Obama or Clinton, and yet, they still consider themselves Democrats.  Why?  Because with a few exceptions, such as the war in Iraq, Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records.

People know what they are getting with either of them.  With McCain, people are seeing something different.  They are seeing a guy who will extend his hand out to meet them half way.

Granted, things like that have angered the Republican base, and alienated a bunch of people, but Democrats may vote for McCain in large numbers if they see that he's got experience, charisma, and is willing to work with Democrats, instead of SAYING he will. 

Obama has this problem.  He has said many times that he will "unite the country" and "work with Republicans", and yet, he's almost a mirror image of Hillary.  Do you honestly think he'll come through with that campaign promise?

Voters were burned significantly by the 2006 election by Democrats, so I have an inkling they will be taking a harder look at McCain if he wins the nomination.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Russia warns Iran over nuclear program

Well it looks like we have ourselves a standoff.

Russia toughened its stance towards Iran on Wednesday, threatening to back further United Nations sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program unless it halted uranium enrichment in the next few days.

"If Iran in the next few days does not stop the enrichment activities of its heavy water project then yes, Russia ... has taken upon itself certain commitments... to support the resolution that has been drafted in the past month," Churkin told reporters via a video link from New York.

This is big on a few levels.  First off, if it's all true, then we've gotten Russia, one of the key footdraggers for sanctions, back on our side.  Secondly, it lets Iran know that they need to stop enrichment, a key demand by us. 

Thirdly, and this is also important, if Russia backs down, it will make them look weak and hypocritical.  That's something they don't want to do in their scramble to get back onto the world stage.

Of course, I expect Iran to give everyone a big "fuck you", and the sanctions to come into play, but it's at least nice to see that Russia is giving us a decent show.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Poll: Most Israelis back talks with Hamas

Most Israelis think their government should negotiate with Hamas for a cease-fire in Gaza and the release of a captured soldier, according to a poll reported Wednesday in a leading Israeli newspaper.

The poll, conducted by the newspaper Haaretz and the polling company Dialog, found 64 percent of Israelis in favor of talks with the Islamist movement.

"It now appears that this opinion is gaining traction in the wider public, which until recently vehemently rejected such negotiations," according to the newspaper.

"According to the findings, Israelis are fed up with seven years of Qassam rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza, as well as the fact that [Gilad] Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half," the newspaper said.

And then terrorists around the world will see that continued bombing will get your way.  It's an extremely bad idea to negotiate with terrorists.  Let's not forget these are the same people who put bombs on city buses and restaurants, and they didn't care if they killed innocent people.

The American people would certainly never negotiate with Al-Qaeda, so why are 64% of Israel wanting to talk with Hamas?  I guess those 64% are willing to do anything to make the attacks stop, even if it means bowing to terrorist demands.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

McCain apology angers conservative host

A conservative radio talk-show host said that "he's had it up to here" with Sen. John McCain after the GOP presidential candidate repudiated the commentator's remarks about Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at a campaign event.

"John McCain threw me under a bus -- under the 'Straight Talk Express,' " Bill Cunningham told CNN on Tuesday, referring to McCain's campaign bus.

Earlier Tuesday, Cunningham spoke at a McCain campaign event in Cincinnati and called Obama a "hack, Chicago-style Daley politician."

"All is going to be right with the world when the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand, and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing 'Kumbaya' around the table of Barack Obama," the commentator told the crowd.

Cunningham, known for his flame-throwing style, repeatedly used Obama's middle name -- Hussein -- during his remarks, made as a warm-up for the audience waiting to hear McCain speak.

Is it so wrong to want to run a semi-clean campaign?  Was it wrong for McCain to tell someone who's on his side that he's wrong?  I've chided fellow Republicans over spending, abortion, and lesser government values when they were in the wrong.

The only difference is that this happened in a very public arena and Cunningham didn't like the slapping he got.  It sounds to me like Cunningham was trying to insinuate things about Obama that weren't true, such as he's a secret Muslim out to destroy America.

So McCain let it be known that wasn't his style, so where's the big deal?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Guaranteed To Offend

Sometimes I get political pictures and commentary that are offensive.  Most times I post them, other times, I don't.

However, I found this picture and I was on the fence about it.  It certainly will invoke strong feelings and probably will fill my inbox with hate mail, but, in the end, I do owe you all the entire picture, even the offensive stuff sometimes. 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Youssif rubs face with hands, says 'no hurt'

I wrote about the attack on Youssif, a 5 year old boy who was burned severely when he was doused with gasoline and set on fire back in August.  And in such a short time, he went from this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To this:

Certainly, Youssif has a long way to go, but you can see the dramatic difference that his medical care has done for him.

I got an update, so, since I got so much email over Youssif, I thought I'd let you know about his progress.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Montanans insist on gun rights

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.

Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.

"The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.

Let's talk about gun rights for a moment shall we?  We all know it's a subject that's near and dear to my heart. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it.  That's all there is to it.  Some people, I like to call them idiots, seem to think that this allows only for "well regulated militias" to own firearms, and that it is not a right of individuals.

However, if you read the entire line, you'll see that the "well regulated militia" is provided as an EXAMPLE of why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringes.

Yet, here we are, 230+ years later, arguing about the rights of individuals to own firearms.

Why?

A lot of people see gun violence and want to do something to about it, a noble cause.  However, they seem to have it in their heads that if you simply get rid of the guns, you get rid of the gun violence.  The problem is, is that it doesn't work that way.  Get rid of guns, and you'll have a knife problem.  Yet, you hear nothing about people wanting to sue the Ginsu people.

Going after the criminals for their violence involving guns is the correct way to go, but yet, Gun Control folks don't want to do that.  Why not?  It's easy enough to get legislation passed that says if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you get X amount of time added to your sentence.

Problem solved, and you get the added bonus of not infringing on the Constitutional rights of others.

This is the only Constitutional right that people argue about.  Can you imagine the firestorm that would erupt if there were groups out there that lobbied to get laws passed, and SUCCEEDED asking for people's right to free speech or freedom of religion to be scaled back, or even revoked?

It would be on the front page of CNN for months.  The politicians who supported it would have news cameras on their front lawns, and people would be damned near grabbing pitchforks.

But yet, no one seems to see the hypocrisy of Gun Control groups.

Here's a rough draft of the Second Amendment that was read aloud on August 17, 1789 that everyone should take notice of:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

That provides the basic meaning of the Second Amendment.  It boils down to, if you want to keep and bear arms, you may do so.  It is ALSO your right NOT to do so.

That's what Gun Control groups have failed to do.  They have failed to persuade people not to get guns if they don't want them.  They want to push their view of things onto others who are exercising their Constitutional rights.

It's the same thing when you turn on the radio.  If you find what the person is saying on there offensive, turn it off, or turn it to another station.  You have no right to get that person thrown off the air because others are enjoying the program.

It's a basic, core value of Republicans:  Less government.  If you have lesser government involvement in people's lives, you cannot tell them that they can't own firearms.

Yet, liberals typically want freedom from government involvement in their lives as well, unless it comes to doling out nanny state checks and gun control.

That's not sticking to your beliefs, that's hypocrisy.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Taliban wants cell phone networks shut down at night

The towers and offices of mobile phone operators in Afghanistan are being pressured to shut down operations at night by the Taliban. The former rulers of Afghanistan and current insurgent group held "talks" with the four major mobile companies in Afghanistan today, and gave them three days to go dark for 14 hours per day—or else.

 

The reason for the threat is the Taliban's belief that American soldiers and rebels within Afghanistan are using mobile phones to track down remaining Taliban members. "Since the occupying forces stationed in Afghanistan usually at night use mobile phones for espionage to track down the mujahideen, the Islamic Emirate gave a three-day ultimatum to all mobile phone firms to switch off their phones from five in the afternoon until seven in the morning," Taliban spokesperson Qari Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters, ironically via mobile phone (and presumably during daylight).

In other words, "Waahh!  It's not fair!  We don't like getting our asses kicked, so we'll threaten people who can't defend themselves!"

Idiots.  Do you think that American forces can't find you during other hours?  Perhaps if you had handed Bin Laden over when we asked nicely, you might be in power to this day.  But you made a bad choice.  Never go to war with the United States.  You will lose.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Fun little piece from the Onion.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Dem hopefuls won tax breaks for contributors

Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has accepted $54,350 from members of a law firm that in 2006 lobbied him to introduce a tax provision for a Japanese drug company with operations in Illinois, according to public records and interviews. The government estimates the provision, which became law in December 2006, will cost the treasury $800,000.

In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced legislation at the request of Rienzi & Sons, a Queens, N.Y., food importer, according to company president Michael Rienzi. The provision, which became law in December 2004, required the government to refund tens of thousands of dollars in duty charged on imported tomato products, Rienzi told USA TODAY.

Rienzi gave $110,000 to committees set up to support Clinton's 2000 Senate race, records show. Rienzi family members contributed an additional $52,800 to her campaigns since 2000. Michael Rienzi also said he donated to Bill Clinton's presidential foundation, but he declined to say how much.

Clinton accepts money from lobbyists, but she recently has stepped up her criticism of what she called, in a Feb. 14 speech, "a government of, by, and for the special interests."

Obama touts his refusal to take donations from Washington lobbyists though he accepts money from their co-workers who are not registered to lobby. Speaking after the Feb. 12 primary, he decried a "Washington game" where "lobbyists write check after check and Exxon makes record profits."

Smell that?  That's hypocrisy.  Obama has mislead by not taking money from lobbyists, but he'll take their co-worker's money?  That's RIPE for abuse.  He might as well ask what the definition of "is" is.  He was directly responsible for $800,000 in revenue lost because of a tax provision.  I'll bet the farm that the drug company didn't take that $800k and put it into more jobs for Americans.

Now, Obama likes to talk about helping the poor and middle class of America, yet he just helped a Japanese drug company, whom I could probably safely assume isn't owned by poor/middle class Americans, and put $800k into wealthy foreign hands.  THAT action didn't help anyone BUT the drug company.

As for Hillary?  Who here amongst us isn't surprised she's said one thing and continued to to another?  If you're shocked, SHOCKED by this, you must be new to here.  So, welcome! :)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

OK, that's it. That's JUST ABOUT FUCKING ENOUGH, thank you. - Democratic Underground

Man, the liberals out there just can't stand it if someone else has a differing opinion then the one they all collectively share like the Borg or something.  Take a gander at this:

"I swear it is my great hope tha McCain wins the election"

Your great hope? Really? If so, you need to get out of the house more...so you can find some nice highway traffic to play in, you wretched pathetic pallid pale weak watery shitass excuse for an American.

Second time in 48 hours I've seen this exact sentiment posted ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. And no, it wasn't posted by the same person. Maybe it is only troll shit, but I don't care.

I don't give one wet slippery shit who you support for the nomination.
I don't care if you vote in the general come November, either. If you're so catastrophically fucked in the head that you don't know the difference between the Devil and the deep blue sea come November, well...you represent 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002% of the left-leaning electorate, so we can pretty much survive your masturbatory self-righteous abstinence...just so long as you say thanks once things start getting better, which they will, NO MATTER which of our kids wins the balloon party this summer.

I don't care.

But. I. Swear. To. God.

If I see another poster in this godforsaken testical-kick of a forum say they hope the GOP wins the White House in November, I will personally burn your fucking house down, drive your car into the nearest available bridge strut, ruin your credit, deflower your chicadee, manhandle your couch cushions after eating lye with my bare hands, and make you watch while I sit down in the charred wasteland of your former livingroom and punch myself in the face over and over and over and over and over again, until the chicadee throws in the towel or until you pee your pants and promise never to do it again.

Oh, and FUCK YOURSELF to boot. Yes, you. You're thinking about daring me on this. Don't. I know where you live.

The Supreme Court matters, assbag. Choice matters. Lather rinse repeat.
Gonna be a lot of smoke and sore-ass birds if this stupid idiotic self-destructive garbage comes up again on my watch.

Jesus.

Yeah.

I had to fucking say that.

 

So let's see, ranting, swearing, threats against people that don't share their opinion, riling up the mindless sheep, questioning patriotism, I think he's got it all here.  Sounds an awful like Mrs. Wakely when she wasn't getting her way and was losing argument after argument.

You see liberals tend to get very frustrated, very quickly, if their bullet points are shot down in flames or someone doesn't share their same sheep mentality.

Of course, when they go off the deep end like this, I like to shine a spotlight on them for the world to see what idiots they can become.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Iran weapons project 'continued'

The UN's nuclear watchdog has been told Iran may have continued secret work on nuclear weapons after 2003, the date US intelligence suggested the work ceased.

A US National Intelligence Estimate released last December said Tehran had frozen its atomic programme in 2003.

But documents presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggest the work continued.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, angrily dismissed the documentats as "forgeries".

Simon Smith, Britain's ambassador to the IAEA, said material presented to the IAEA in Vienna came from multiple sources and included designs for a nuclear warhead, plus information on how it would perform and how it would fit onto a missile.

"Certainly some of the dates that we were talking about... went beyond 2003," he said.

I can hear the Democrats now: "But, but, the NIE said that mean old USA and George Bush were lying!"  Sadly, with a long range missile program, enrichment facilities even though they got their fuel from Russia, and a host of other bits of evidence, shows that Iran has the desire for nuclear weapons.  Looks like old Georgie Boy wasn't lying was he?

The IAEA released a report on Friday which said Iran was being more transparent, but had not given "credible assurances" that it was not building a bomb.

AND they're being secretive?  Say it ain't so!

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I'm Back

Yeesh what a weekend.  I went up to see my friend fight at Bodog fight's event at the Tacoma Dome on Saturday night.  I had my motorcycle have the tread get down to the steel bands, so that had to be replaced asap.  Then, that put me really far behind on schedule, so I didn't get home until late last night.

You don't even want to know how fast I had the bike at one point in time. :)  Let's just say that this should have happened:

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.) made an arresting claim on the campaign trail last week: If elected president, he would issue no signing statements reserving the right to disregard parts of laws passed by Congress.

Asked by my colleague Glenn Kessler whether he would ever consider issuing a signing statement as president, Sen. McCain was emphatic: "Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it."

The comment brought to life the question of whether President Bush's aggressive defense of presidential prerogatives will outlast his administration. Bush has been heavily criticized by lawmakers and others over his extensive use of signing statements, in which, rather than veto a bill, he makes it clear he will not be bound by what he considers unconstitutional provisions included by Congress.

 

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."

In her own Globe questionnaire, Clinton made a similar point about legal issues. "I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution," she wrote. "My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk."

Now McCain could be lying, but I find it rather funny that Hillary as well as Obama chided Bush for his signing statements, and yet, they are willing to say "sometimes".  Well is "sometimes" once in your term, or hundreds of times out of thousands of bills that come through?

You can't have it both ways though.  Don't chide someone for doing something that you would do, even if they do it more often then you would.

For example, if you cheat on your wife, and then you denounce a buddy who does it all the time, you're still no better then your buddy, you're just "less guilty" then he is in your eyes.

If you can't see the difference, then don't bother running for President.  I don't need a hypocrite in power.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

A Spry Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praises

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Why is this fucker still alive?  Why has God not struck him down as he rightfully deserves?  Obama has denounced Farrakhan before, and he really can't control who endorses him or not, but if I were Obama, I'd make it very clear that I wasn't going to accept his endorsement.

Next up, the KKK endorses Hillary Clinton!

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ahmadinejad: US Should Apologize to Iran

Yeah, good luck with that.  There's ample evidence that you're still trying to get things going, and if the US was dumb enough to apologize, it would take away all momentum for sanctions.  It would also make it look like Iran was right all along.

The issue is the enrichment, which Iran has admitted already to accelerating.  They have no other reason to do it other than the intent to get nuclear weapons.  It's as simple as that.

How about Ahmadinejad apologize to Israel for his comments and support for Hezbollah?  No?  Then don't expect an apology from us.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Nader's In It

Ralph Nader lashed out at the Democratic presidential candidates Monday after they said he could hurt their chances of taking back the White House.

The longtime consumer advocate announced Sunday that he will launch his fourth consecutive White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Nader accused Illinois Sen. Barack Obama of name-calling and challenged him to "address the issues."

"Above all, explain why you don't come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos: payday loans, predatory lending, rent-to-own rackets, landlord abuses, lead contamination, asbestos," Nader said.

"There's an unseemly silence by you, Barack -- a community organizer in poor areas in Chicago many years ago -- on this issue," he said.

Nader called Sen. Hillary Clinton the Democrat "most loved by big business," referencing a Fortune magazine article from last year.

Clinton also said Nader "is responsible for George W. Bush" and called his candidacy "regrettable" during a Boston, Massachusetts, fundraiser Sunday night.

"We can't assume that we're going be able to win overwhelmingly," she said. "We're going to have to fight for every state, and Ralph Nader is a problem."

His candidacy is "regrettable"?  I've been poking around a lot in Democratic forums and they almost all say that Nader shouldn't run.  This, of course, is from the same people who screamed about when Kucinich was excluded from some debates.  They cried about how anyone should be able to run and get the same amount of airtime.

Yet, they want to exclude Nader.  How very odd of them to be so hypocritical so quickly.  I say, if you have the will, you're welcome to run for President.  Anyone can become President, and that includes Ralph Nader.  So don't exclude him.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

We will live to regret the day we never impeached that son of a bitch.

Wow, such strong angry words from a member of the Democratic Underground.

Now, I read that he's going to re-instate the existing eavesdropping law and the telecoms are agreeing to assist him? Why wasn't it re-instated before now? Because that son of a bitch would rather play politics with our national security and score a political point than to tell the people the truth. I will always hold this Congress in the lowest regard because they did not have the courage to impeach this President. No excuse they can use is valid under the circumstances. This moron, this embecile, this son of a bitch has broken our laws, pretending to be a dictator, and should be imprisoned.

Well let's face it, most Democratic politicians are completely spineless.  I'm not trying to make a blanket statement here, but when you have such an overwhelming majority who talk the talk, but never walk the way, you tend to form that opinion.

But that's ok, because the ordinary Democrats in the American public will agree and have some great ideas right?  :)

TheGoldenRule (1000+ posts)
Sun Feb-24-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #4

51. No-We need to be like the French. We need to watch V for Vendetta.

We need to see how defeating the powers that be was done in the past.
You forget that people hold the power in their hands, they just aren't using it.
Hillary, Obama & McCain wouldn't be trying to ki$$ everyones a$$ like they are doing right now if we didn't have power.
It just hasn't gotten bad enough yet for the people to say "ENOUGH!".
WW 3, The Draft, The Great Depression 2-that's what it is going to take for the people to say "ENOUGH!"

Yep, their idea of a "revolution" is to watch a movie.  God how I wish I were making that up.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Hillary's Hypocrisy - Part 386!

Take a gander:

She sounds pretty pissed right?  But if you've even been to this site only once, you'd know damned good and well she's denouncing the same tactics she's used hundreds of times.  She's even got the gall to talk about "Republican tactics", when she's right in the middle of doing the same type of attacks:

 

Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.

In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial.

But you can see by Barack's reply, that he's not comfortable in his response to her:

This lends more evidence to my theory that Obama simply is a good public speaker with a great rap about "change", even though, if you investigate, that his idea of "Change" is voting along Democratic party lines almost every single time.

Is that what you want in a leader?  Do you honestly think he'll "united Democrats and Republicans" if he's voted almost entirely along party lines?

Why do you suppose John McCain is such a pariah in the Republican party?  Because he votes against them from time to time.

I'm not saying that McCain is an ideal choice for me for President, but I'll certainly vote for him way before pretty speeches or Hillary.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Iran fails to answer weapons questions: IAEA

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday it confronted Iran for the first time with Western intelligence reports showing work linked to making atomic bombs and that Tehran had failed to provide satisfactory answers.

The United States passed the intelligence, which came mainly from a laptop spirited out of Iran, to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 but out of fear for its spies only authorized the IAEA to present it last month, diplomats said.

The IAEA said Iran had dismissed the intelligence as "baseless" or "fabricated", but had provided increased cooperation on other issues in the past few months.

Iran's increased transparency amounted to a doubled-edged sword as it reaffirmed Tehran was forging ahead with uranium enrichment in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands to stop all proliferation-sensitive nuclear activity.

The IAEA findings, which also said Iran had failed to clear up all outstanding questions by an agreed February deadline, may spur the Security Council to adopt a third round of sanctions against the Islamic Republic as early as next week.

But that's not th e  "bombshell" so to speak.

In unusually strong wording, the IAEA said in a report Iran had not so far explained documentation pointing to undeclared efforts to "weaponise" nuclear materials by linking uranium processing with explosives and designing of a missile warhead.

Publishing details of the intelligence, the IAEA described tests on a 400-metre (1,300 ft) firing shaft seen as "relevant" to atomic arms research and a schematic layout of a missile cone "quite likely to be able to accommodate a nuclear device".

That is.  Iran may have indeed "publicly" abandoned it's pursuits of nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence that they are simply doing a better job of hiding it.  Now, with the IAEA finally getting off it's ass, at least a little bit, it puts China and Russia in a tough spot.  Do they risk a known terrorist sponsoring nation to gain nuclear weapons with hard evidence, or do they end up looking like they only care about their economies.  If it's the latter, then perhaps they shouldn't be permanent members of the UN Security Council, because they cannot keep up with their responsibilities.

One crucial requirement was for Iran to implement the IAEA's Additional Protocol, which allows snap inspections that could verify that Tehran is not engaged in secret bomb work beyond declared civilian atomic energy sites.

Without that there could be "no confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the program", said the IAEA.

Keep painting, the corner is right over there.

But Iran, the world's fourth largest crude oil producer, said the IAEA report had reaffirmed its program was for peaceful purposes.

"I congratulate the Iranian nation for this success and victory which was a result of their resistance on (the country's) nuclear rights," chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said. "From our viewpoint this issue has ended."

I wonder if the Iraqi Information Minister has gotten himself a new job in Iran as public relations?  You all remember him right?  "The American's aren't within 100 miles of Baghdad".

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

The Best Cover Of "Hey Jude" Ever

This is completely off topic, but I ran across this video and had to share it with you all.

 

Travis

Writers Wanted!

Since I enjoy a healthy debate and want to include everyone, I thought I'd open up the writers spots here on the site.

If you wish to become a writer, whether it's a one time only shot or on a regular basis, that's ok, but I have a few guidelines.  Please note, the only one I really care about is the libel one.  All the others are merely guidelines and can be ignored if you wish.  If you are interested, email me on the link to the left titled "Writers Wanted!"

You can write about any topic that you wish.

You can be any political ideology that you want and can write from that point of view.  In other words, if you're a liberal and want to write about how piss poor George W. Bush is, that's ok.  I'm all for open debate and that includes opposing viewpoints.

I will correct spelling mistakes, however, your article will be posted as is.

You cannot libel someone else (obviously).  You can write about things that are true, or things you have backed up with evidence.  But you can't come out and say random things like "Hillary Clinton once molested 20 children on a school bus" without backing a statement like that up.

I don't care if you write something "controversial", however please be adult about it.  If you write something and believe those words, don't offer an "apology" when the heat gets to be too much.  You can if you'd like, but it's my own personal belief that if you say something and mean it, don't apologize for it.

Try not to give away too much about you personally.  You can if you'd like, that's up to you, but I just want you to be comfortable about what you write and what people know about you.

Yes, you can swear as much or as little as you'd like.  I don't believe in censorship and I certainly don't want you to feel like you're being censored.  However, if someone is "offended", you can bet that you'll probably hear about it in the comments section. :)

Your article will likely be seen by thousands of people, so you can bet that if you say something that's wrong or misleading, you'll be corrected by someone out there.  Lord knows I've had my fair share. :)

If you are interested, feel free to contact me and/or send me your article.  I will then post it on the front page. 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Presidential Paintball

Not everything I write is all serious and downtrodden, so I went searching around and found a few politically themed online flash games.  Here's Presidential Paintball:

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Iran testing advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment: IAEA

Iran has launched the development of advanced centrifuges for faster uranium enrichment, a U.N. nuclear watchdog report said Friday.

The report, obtained by Kyodo News, said, "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities" and "has started the development of new generation centrifuges."

The report, circulated by Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to all 35 board members, is likely to prompt the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new sanctions resolution against Tehran next week.

Hmm, let's see now.  Iran is advancing their nuclear enrichment program, yet they get their nuclear fuel for their "peaceful" reactors from Russia.  They have launched and are testing long range missiles.

Nah, nothing to see here, I'm sure it's all a big misunderstanding.

That whole "Israel will cease to exist" was probably a translation issue.  Well, that's what Democrats would have you believe.  I'm sure Iran has nothing but rainbows and sunshine for us and the Israelis....yeah, that's the ticket.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

ABC News: Is China Losing Its Edge?

The teddy bears selling for $1.40 in Shanghai's IKEA store may be just about the cheapest in town, but they're not made in China they're stitched and stuffed in Indonesia.

The fluffy brown toys reflect a new challenge for China: Its huge economy, which has long offered some of the world's lowest manufacturing costs, is losing its claim on cheapness as factories get squeezed by rising prices for energy, materials and labor.

Those expenses, plus higher taxes and stricter enforcement of labor and
environmental standards, are causing some manufacturers to leave for lower-cost markets such as Vietnam, Indonesia and India.

Costs have climbed so much that three-quarters of businesses surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai believe China is losing its competitive edge.

Wait, you mean to tell me that if China doesn't have access to near slave labor and corner cuts that they may *gasp* be less competitive then we previously thought?  Perish the thought!

Couple that with it's 1.5 billion citizens, and you have a recipe for disaster.  Everyone knows that China cuts corners everywhere and makes shoddy merchandise. 

What manufacturers would be smart to do is open up a plant in the middle of nowhere inside the USA, hire a bunch of workers at a slightly better then average wage, and slap a Made in the USA sticker on their product.

People still remember the fiasco of China's lead paint incidents, so if you push out your product, hike the price up slightly to avoid the pinch, I'm quite sure that people would be a lot more receptive to buying your product knowing it was made in Alabama or Montana, rather than Beijing.

Don't believe me?  Then why is Google, which employs some of the smartest people on the planet, building a datacenter in The Dalles, Oregon?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Democrats Around The World Just Pissed Themselves

Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.

The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show.

Yes, everyone's favorite election monkey wrench thrower, Ralph Nader, is going to announce whether or not he's going to run for President.

Go for it Nader, I'll even be nice enough to throw a couple of bucks your way.

But don't take my word for it, check out the reactions on HuffPo:

Politiking (See profile | I'm a fan of Politiking)

This clown is out again. He wants people to contribute not to his election campaign but to his retirement fund. He was the one who screwed with Al Gore, what the sock is he running for? 2 Screw with the Dems again? Go back to your consumer advocacy job Mr. Nader, we have enough people.

 

Dandy12 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dandy12)

Go away you spoiler! If it weren't for Nader, we wouldn't have gotten Bush! These days, he'd get a lucky 1% maybe!

novowel4me (See profile | I'm a fan of novowel4me)

I view Nader with a mixture of sadness and revulsion. Has anyone heard of the Green Party since he discredited it by helping Bush to victory in 2000? Has he wondered why all his major donors are Republican. Maybe he's feeling lonely and ignored. Maybe he should get a pet.

 

 

Welcome back Ralphie boy.  We missed you. :)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Male Reporter Hits on Westboro Church Male Member

I can't tell whether this guy is English or Australian, I'm betting Australian, but regardless, you've got to see this video.  I've written many, many times about the "God Hates Fags" guys who protest soldiers funerals, so it's nice to see them at the very least uncomfortable.  Take a look:

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Officer in Clinton motorcade killed in accident

A police officer was killed Friday morning in a motorcycle accident as Sen. Hillary Clinton's motorcade made its way through downtown Dallas, police said.

The Dallas Police Department said Senior Cpl. Victor Lozada-Tirado was traveling southbound on the Houston Street viaduct when he struck a curb, lost control of the motorcycle and went down.

Lozada-Tirado was transported to Methodist Central Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

A Dallas police officer since December 1988, Lozada-Tirado was married with four children, according to police. CNN affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth reported he was 49.

Unfortunately, I get a lot of emails denouncing police officers when one of them goes rogue and does something wrong.  Yet, after this weekend, how many of us are going to remember Officer Lozada-Tirado?  It's because of officers such as him, that we live in relative peace and bad guys go to jail.  Sure, there's a few bad apples, but you'll find that in any profession.

Yes, he lost his life to an accident, but it's important to remember to say "thanks" to an officer.  They need support as well.  Too many times people will think everyday heroes as firemen and soldiers, but the cops tend to get the shaft in that area.

They get crazies, armed to the teeth monsters, meth addicts, and the occasional speeding teenagers.  These are problems that we normally don't have to worry about.  Why?  Because of officers like Officer Lozada-Tirado.  So, the next time you see a cop, how about a healthy "thank you" to him/her as well?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Feds: Renzi made $700,000-plus in deal that led to indictment

U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi has been indicted on charges he promised to support legislation in exchange for a land deal that netted the Arizona Republican more than $700,000, the Justice Department said Friday.

In a 35-count indictment unsealed early Friday, Renzi, 49, is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud.

Also named in the indictment is Renzi's former business partner and real estate investor, James W. Sandlin, 56, of Sherman, Texas, and Andrew Beardall, 36, of Rockville, Maryland.

Renzi's attorneys, Reid Weingarten and Kelly Kramer, denied their client had done anything wrong.

"We will fight these charges until he is vindicated and his family's name is restored," the attorneys said in a statement.

I have said it before, and I'll say it now.  I have zero tolerance for public officials who are corrupt, regardless of political affiliation.

I've said it about Republicans, I've said about Democrats, and everyone needs to have full faith in their government.  When they see corruption, they have zero faith and unintended consequences happen.

If he's guilty, he deserves to be put in jail and removed from office, just like everyone else.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Can't Depend On The Canadians?

Canada's prime minister unveiled a proposal on Thursday to withdraw his country's forces from volatile southern Afghanistan in 2011, a move that largely accedes to opposition demands amid threats of an early election.

Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government is trying to extend past February 2009 the military operation in Kandahar province, a region that was once the Taliban's stronghold.

"It seems clear that we have moved significantly toward the kind of bipartisan consensus that can be presented to Parliament for ratification," Harper said.

Harper's government has been under growing pressure to withdraw Canada's troops as the death toll increases, now at 78 soldiers and a diplomat.

79 people dead and the Liberal Party (why am I not surprised), of Canada wants to withdraw from Afghanistan??  This is the war that everyone supports.  This is the one against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  Yet, with a mere 79 people dead, the Liberal Party in Canada wants to withdraw?

What kind of cowardly bullshit is that?

Well, I guess next time that the Liberal Party of Canada needs help from the US, we should tell them "No". 

I expected better from you guys.  Even liberals here in America want to keep after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  They at least have that much of a backbone.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com