Wednesday, July 28, 2010
* Will Brett Farve quit the act and announce that he's coming back for the 2010 season!? We know you're going to come back, because you're notorious for holding a football team hostage when they've invested time and money into your primadona ass. We've been through one ego-driven player who created a one-hour event called "The Decision" as LeBron James announced that he's teaming up with Bosh and D-Wade in Miami, so spare us "The Decision Part II", get your gear on, go out and win the NFC North division like the analysis expect the Minnesota Vikings to do, then at the NFC Conference game, throw a game-changing INT that the Falcons or the Cowboys will take advantage of and go on to advance to Super Bowl XLV.
* Are we that surprised over Mel Gibson's released racist and misogynist rants to his ex-girlfriend? I mean, the guy did go on an anti-Semetic rant on the Jewish people back in 2007...doesn't that tell you that he's a hateful person, although excellent film director and actor he may have been? The man has been battling alcohol abuse in his private life...should that tell you something about the man who gave us Mad Max, Braveheart, and The Passion of the Christ? Let's not act so shocked that Gibson has been exposed as a man with racial issues and a drinking problem to boot...again.
* Can the assholes in life stop picking on the so-called "outcasts"? If Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Michael Cera aren't examples enough that the losers, nerds, and the other kids that weren't cool in high school always get the money, the respect, the admiration, and the girls in the grand scheme of things, then add to the list, beating hate pastor Fred Phelps and his "God Hate Fags!" tour, at their own game when they came to town at the annual San Diego Comic-Con last week. Instead being prepared to chant "God Hates Dorks Wearing Star Wars gear!", attendees counter-protested the small group of hate-mongers. I'll let the following pictures tell the story:
Bottom line: start being nicer to the least among you in Math class, because the dork with the coke-bottle glasses and a vast knowledge of all things happening in anime, may be your boss in 15 years.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The smearing of Shirley Sherrod ought to be a turning point in American politics. This is not, as the now trivialized phrase has it, a “teachable moment.” It is a time for action.
The mainstream media and the Obama administration alike must stop cowering before a right wing that has persistently forced its own propaganda to be accepted as news by persuading traditional journalists that “fairness” requires treating extremist rants as “one side of the story.”
The traditional media are so petrified of being called “liberal” that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.
If Obama hates the current media climate, he should stop overreacting to it. And the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting upon the difference between news and propaganda.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The man opens the door
dragging his weary feet across
the living room floor
to a house that doesn’t feel
like a home.
The nine-to-five shift
he labors is done
his check’s in the mail
but there’s no satisfaction
no sense of achievement
that his Inner can hail
it’s nothing but a drug
another pill for him to take
to make his Outer happy
it’s there for his dead body
feeling comfortably numb.
He looks into the mirror
vague traces of regret
misery and lost causes
staring back at him
talking without speaking to him
how his future is all but set.
The deafening silence
of his house that’s not his home
slowly kills him
like searing pains of acts of violence
no wife to kiss and hold
no baby to run around and rome
are just as effective
as a gun, or a knife
once these longing feelings take hold.
He lays on his couch
the lights have gone out
nonsensical noise filling the air
of his television set
about he said/she said
and a can’t miss sale
all trying to slay
the empty silence about.
A single tear falls from his face
as he lays down his head
wishing for a way
to escape this isolating place
in a house that’s not a home
a place where there’s love instead.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
I read in the Star-Telegram that henceforth the YMCA would be renamed and identified as the "Y."
I have for some period of time been concerned about the silent and pernicious effects of secular humanism. These effects go beyond removing from the record any trace of Christianity. Most threatening is the fact that secular humanism will take from us God-given rights and substitute the governmental state as our creator and source of authority. It seems to me that renaming the YMCA is like building a mosque next to the 9-11 site. The only difference is subtlety.
Christians need to recognize that they are systematically being redirected to secular humanism and a totalitarian state.
I hate to break it to "Jerome R. Pikulinski," but it looks like the only entity behind re-branding the YMCA to simply the "Y" is....well, the YMCA. I suppose he's upset about their snazzy new logo (above) with its prominent initial.
As opposed to their older logo in which a big initial "Y" was nowhere to be...seen....oh, wait....
Guess he overlooks that the YMCA has been foreshortened to just "the Y" for...well, at least since 1967, when the old logo at left was unveiled.
Just like Jeremiah and the other right-wing nuts so well known to readers of this blog, this letter-writer is scared of non-existent shadows. In fact, he's so terrified that monolithic government entities and groups of (gasp!!) "secular humanists" who don't share his beliefs are going to force him into a terrifying anti-Jesus mold, he's doing his level best to make it sound like those groups are mandating the change to the "Y."
Carry that to its logical extreme, and it's like a fervent monarchist going apoplectic that Dairy Queen has truncated its marketing identity to "DQ."
And I can't begin to address the over-the-top nature of this reference:
It seems to me that renaming the YMCA is like building a mosque next to the 9-11 site. The only difference is subtlety.Well, maybe except to say to Jerome that, when it comes to "subtlety"...in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."
Monday, July 19, 2010
I'll say it on his behalf since Keith Olbermann is away on vacation this week: That Woman Is An IDIOT!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The main goal of liberalism is to take away individual rights.Ah, yes. Of course it is. That's why the GOP is so intent on enshrining specific religious and sociopolitical behaviors - consider the abortion issue, for one - in Federal law. Because you know that mandatory behavior is what the Founders would have wanted.
They want the people to become dependent upon a government, made up of a few privileged liberals. Once the population becomes dependent on the government for its basic needs, they will need to keep the socialist government in power, because they no longer have the means, nor the will to take care of themselves.How much do you want to bet that the writer of this post will defend to his last breath his entitlement to Social Security and Medicare benefits? You know, those things for which he is Dependent On Government? It astonishes me how the GOP persists in making Government the enemy. As if having any kind of a structure at all is de facto wrong.
As strange as it may seem, socialists don't want the masses to have wealth, because that would equate to having power, and only the liberal elitists should have power. Their goal is to take from the rich and keep it for themselves until there are no rich, only the impoverished fighting amongst themselves.OK, here we go. Classic GOP playbook. Prey off the have-nots who are desperate to preserve their dream of having-it-all, rather than embracing general equity, a leveling of the playing field, and the good health of the middle class. I have news for them. Your Corporate Overlords are the ones who don't want the masses to have wealth, or even for that matter fiscal stability. Read my lips. Corporations are NOT your friends. They are the ones hoarding power and influence and keeping you down, not the phantom "liberals" you like to demonize. You are already "the impoverished fighting amongst themselves," except you are targeting the wrong adversary. You've been classically duped.
The reason they will never win is due to a little thing called the United States Constitution. Yes, they have warped its meaning through corrupt and misguided judges. They have hid their true agenda behind its protections. However, the beauty of the Constitution is that it is written in very plain and direct language. Although, they have tried, they can not overcome the main defense mechanism of the Constitution, the Second Amendment.Of course. How could we not have seen this coming? It's all down to the guns. Jeebus.
It is much easier to be lazy and dependent, than risk hard work, effort and money for a better life. However, there is no reward for laziness. Thus, liberals and their followers are never happy and never can understand why. By the way, liberals have called themselves by many different names over the ages: communists, socialists, progressives, greens, etc. They all have the common goal of tyranny over the masses by a privileged few.Isn't it funny how this guy keeps going back to this meme of tyranny by the privileged over the hoi polloi? Has he really SEEN who make up the progressive factions and the green parties and the abhorred liberals in this nation? They are so NOT the plutocracy. That's the realm of the Wall Street fat cats, lobbyists, oil guys and such - Republicans to a man. But his point of view wants desperately to have it both ways. In his worldview, the progressives are the wealthy elites, but they're also the champions of laziness and dependence. They're the snobs at the same time as they're the rabble. Dude, make up your so-called mind! Your cognitive dissonance is all over the map right now.
The question for you is this: Are you going to be part of an unthinking mob driven by emotion or are you going to be an intelligent individual who values life and the pursuit of happiness?TLG Guy has a good point in this statement. Unfortunately, his interpretation is bass ackwards.
Anyway. It says a world about Ralphie that this is one of his go-to sites for graphics. And we owe it to the Count to keep this place lively while he's snooping on Caribou Barbie up in Alaska....
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Iowa Tea Party leaders now say they disagree with the use of the pictures, but not the Obama-is-Hitler message. North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson stated that while the “the pictures might be overwhelming,” the sign “highlights” the right message. Iowa state Tea Party coordinator John White agrees that while the “sign goes” where “the Tea Party doesn’t want to be”, “everything Obama has done is ‘lock-step’ with what Hitler did in his day.”
Until President Obama transforms the military into millions of brown-shirts, chanting "Zeig Heil!" down Times Square, invades a sovereign nation so the "master race" can expand across the globe, starts another World War, and murders another couple million Jews, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, handicapped, and prisoners of war, then you can throw around the Hitler reference as you damn-well please.
Finally, let's be honest with ourselves here: Just come right out and say what you really want to say -- you don't like that nigger in the White House and you want to throw his black ass out because he's not the right skin color.
There is no place in the Bible that even insinuates that Jesus had long hair. Sodomite homosexuals such as Michelangelo painted Jesus to look effeminate and to have long hair in order to make him fit their own queer image.Quick! Someone alert the Vatican and get them to paint over that uber-gay Sistine Chapel ceiling with some Benjamin Moore high-coverage flat white!
These same type of paintings have also given people the idea that “Jesus did not wear pants.” Some have even made utterly ridiculous and bizarre statements such as, “pants had not been invented yet,” or “they didn’t have pants back then.” According to these “scholars,” the men of the past who built the pyramids and Stonehenge just hadn’t thought of pants yet!This poor guy obviously hasn't heard the common wisdom that almost any statement - and especially any Star Wars movie quote - instantly becomes more funny when you substitute "pants" for any noun. My favorite would be Lando Calrissian in ROTJ: "We've gotta be able to get some kind of reading on those pants, up or down!...Break off the attack! The pants are still up!"
What I believe is based upon the Bible, not “historical evidence,” but the historical record also proves that men in the ancient Middle East wore pants. For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!Ignoring for now that he has just as much as said that the Biblical record and historical evidence have nothing to do with one another...how exactly does Genius Boy, here, know what the Spartans were wearing at Thermopylae? Because if he thinks Sparta was a gay haven of some kind, he sure slept through his unit on Mesopotamia.
When wearing a dress or a “tunic” the thigh is not delineated. Clothing that is worn on each “thigh” is referred to as a pair of pants. Therefore it is apparent that Jesus was wearing pants as he rode in on a white horse to defeat the Antichrist. Apparently “scholars” would have us believe that Jesus was riding to battle on a horse in a dress.Funny. As a woman, I have often been told how much one's thigh is very definitely delineated - nay, even compelling - when wearing a dress...
Also, thanks to the Misplaced Modifier, I rather like the image of the horse in a dress. Very anthropomorphic. Mister Ed meets Project Runway.
Anyway, let Jesus' General expound further on all this madness. For my part, I think this Steven Anderson guy needs a Utilikilt like the ones I saw in evidence last week at the Oregon Country Fair (which was, by the way, a blast). And, let me tell you, he would have seen some people there wearing a helluva lot less than pants!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Ok I am going to punk out here and just post Wiki's plot summary because it's pretty spot on...
After expressing frustration over a lack of action after his year-long mission with the Royal Navy (as detailed in Win, Lose or Die), Bond threatens to resign. Instead, M orders Bond to take a vacation. Bond travels to Victoria, British Columbia where he is intrigued by Lee Fu-Chu, a half-Blackfoot, half-Chinese philanthropist who is known as "Brokenclaw" because of a deformed hand.
Later, Bond is ordered to San Francisco where he is tasked to investigate the kidnapping of several scientists who have been working on a new submarine detection system and an "antidote" known as LORDS and LORDS DAY. Bond and CIA agent Chi-Chi Sue go undercover using the codenames Peter Abelard and Héloïse that were assigned to two agents from the People's Republic of China that are sent to evaluate the submarine technology before purchasing it.
Ultimately, Bond discovers that Brokenclaw is involved in this scheme on behalf of China, and also has plans of his own which involve sparking a worldwide economic disaster by bringing about the collapse of the dollar by tapping into the New York Stock Exchange, which would in turn bring down other major currencies worldwide. The plan, dubbed Operation Jericho was a long-term plan initially started by the Japanese, but now believed to have been worked on simultaneously by the Chinese before being acquired by Brokenclaw.
Brokenclaw's hideout in California is raided by Special Forces after he is located by Naval Intelligence officer Ed Rushia who was searching and attempting to help Bond and Chi-Chi while on their mission. Brokenclaw escapes the raid only to be tracked down by Bond and Rushia, off the books, to the Chelan Mountains of Washington where Bond is challenged to a torture ritual known as o-kee-pa. In the end, the competition comes down to a fight between the two using bow and arrows; Brokenclaw barely misses Bond and in turn is shot through the neck by Bond's arrow.
Ok Now for my own thoughts:
The good: Very solid beginning where Bond becomes fascinated by the presentation of Brokenclaw. The books first 4 chapters or so move the reader along briskly and are highly entertaining. Great villain. Brokenclaw Lee is one of Gardner's best. Ed Rushia. Great sidekick and character and the fact that Gardner resisted the urge to have Rushia be a good guy... then a bad guy...then a good guy...etc. Solid ending. The last 5 chapters of the book are build in intensity and excitement.
The bad: Chi-Chi Sue is a lousy Bond girl. She folds under pressure she get's beaten on and abused. Really her only redeeming quality seems to be and this is a quote from James Bond concerning the sexual act they had just consummated. (She knew a whole encyclopedia of ideas the neither hurt her own back or his own bruised ribs.) In typical Gardner fashion he gives us a much more interesting woman than Chi-Chi but she gets beats up, raped and discarded. The first 5 chapters are good and the last 5 are good so that leaves the middle 10. Gardner has a habit of dragging his office and motel scenes on just a little too long. Or in the case of Brokenclaw a lot too long. Office scenes with M should be 1 or 2 chapters tops. 60 or 70 pages of them is just way too much.
Final thought: Brokenclaw wants to kill the US Dollar and destroy the US Stock exchange, A few books back Vladamir Scorpius wanted to destroy the British Pound and the British stock market. it's no secret Gardner had struggles coming up with different plot lines for his later Bond novels. It's has also been suggested that health problems (for both Gardner and his wife) lead to many of the problems of Brokenclaw and Gardner himself often trashed the book. Brokenclaw often gets mentioned as one of the worst of the Bond Continuation novels though it also has it's fans. In my view while it's far from the best James Bond continuation novel it's not as bad as many would have you believe. The book is highly flawed. It slows to a crawl in the middle chapters and Bond should have taken 3 weeks off and rested up instead of saving the worthless Chi-Chi Sue. One wonders if the 4 weeks of leave he gets to spend with her as his prize for surviving the torture ritual was worth it. Personally I do not believe I would have let somebody put skewers in my body for her. The book is also a quick and entertaining read and has a great Villain. Brokenclaw is certainly not the first book I would recommend to somebody just discovering the literary Bond but I would suggest ignoring it completely either.
Brokenclaw By John Gardner ***/*****
Monday, July 12, 2010
1. Prisoner of Azkaban - After the candy-assed approach Chris Columbus took with Sorcerer's Stone & long-winded Chamber of Secrets, Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron leaves his mark on the series that future directors Mike Newell and David Yates would start from, and it's one of the definitive sequels made in the last decade (right behind The Two Towers and The Dark Knight). Under Cuaron, it feels like we're watching a real movie and not some Hollywood product. The visual effects -- from the way Harry takes off on a hippogriff (cross between horse and eagle), to the frightening nature of the Dementors, soulless creatures that patrol the wizard prison Azkaban -- look and feel as if they're apart of the HP universe; they're not simply there to just to look at them and say, 'wow!' Daniel Radcliffe comes into his own and shows emotional depth and grace into Harry's growth as a teenager, Gary Oldman is both hardened and haunting as Sirius Black, the escapee from the wizard prison and convicted mass murder, and David Thewlis is excellent as Professor Lupin, Harry's personal tutor in fighting the dreaded Dementors, who carries a terrible secret of his own. **** stars out of ****
2. Half-Blood Prince - Don't be fooled by the 6th installment's PG-rating, or the ever-brilliant comedic timing of Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley as he becomes the plaything to a clingy Lavender Brown. Half-Blood Prince brings a new element; something the last 5 Potter movies weren't -- emotionally bleak. In PoA, GoF and in OttP, there was a seamless transition from light to dark. Here, you can't shake this atmosphere of impending doom that will change everyone at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Credit Yates for bringing a more confident feel for J.K. Rowling's vision and story this time around, and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel for his poet's eye for capturing the breaching darkness around the Wizarding World. Harry and Professor Dumbledore (the great Michael Gambon, who resembles Gandalf right down to the beard in this one) are unlocking the history of Lord Voldemort in order to find a weakness that could vanquish the Dark Lord, meanwhile You-Know-Who himself has recruited Draco Malfoy in a sinister plot that could break his soul. All of the British-led cast step their game up, notably Helena Bonham Carter playing Voldemort's right-hand woman Bellatrix Lestrange with equal parts simmering sexiness and menace, the always reliable Alan Rickman as Severus Snape and Tom Felton, giving the rat-bastard bigot a touching vulnerability he never though he had. **** stars out of ****
3. Goblet of Fire - I like to refer to Goblet of Fire as the movie where Harry gets in-touch with his inner Indiana Jones: He dodges the attacks of the Death Eaters, fights a dragon that goes south on his British ass, he rescues his friends from a watery grave, tries to find his way out of a shape-shifting maze without losing his sanity, and duels with the rebirth of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (a scary Ralph Finnes). Most people will refer to this exciting chapter of the Potter movies as the first appearance of Edward Cullen, before he makes the move to Forks, Washington, falls in love with a girl who's just as pale and shallow as he, and rakes in big bucks from teenage girls and MILF's. Rant aside, GoF is the first Potter picture to receive the PG-13 rating and the first to be directed by a former Brit (Mike Newell), but it's the the onset of another villain -- adolescence -- and how Harry, Ron, and Hermione (Emma Watson) deal with it, that makes for great viewing. *** 1/2 stars out of ****
4. Order of the Phoenix - No. 5 gets tons of shit from critics and fans for being less whimsical and magical and for hiring a filmmaker who's previous stints include BBC made to TV films Sex Traffic and State of Play. Fair points. David Yates doesn't completely transfer the political and social mediation of the state of constant panic and fear-mongering after 9/11 Rowling was writing about, imo, but he brilliantly captures Harry's fears, his nightmares of Voldemort and how adolescence continues to fuck with his heart and emotions, and shoots the battle sequence in the Department of Mysteries with flare and excitement. And Imelda Stanton was all parts mirth and menace as Dolores Umbridge, the mole planed in by the Ministry to spy and report to the Wizarding government. *** stars out of ****
5. Sorcerer's Stone - The movie that started it all. Critics say that the first entry joins such classics like A New Hope and The Wizard of Oz of fantasy adventure movies. I'll give 'em that. But essentially the movie drags like it's a Comet 260 instead of soaring like Harry's Qudditch broomstick, the Nimbus 2000. The visual effects look tacky and don't quite blend into the surroundings, and Chris Columbus is too faithful to the material. What saves the day is the charm the three young leads (Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson) have, the magic the film's smaller moments have (Harry looking into the Mirror of Erisad, the Quidditch match between bitter rivals Gryffindor and Slytherin) and John William's now-timeless "Hedwig's Theme", along with the rest of the score. *** stars out of ****
6. Chamber of Secrets - Fans complained about Hermione's House Elf Liberation Front not making the final cut in GoF. I, for one, am happy it didn't because we would have to suffer through the Jar-Jar Binks of the HP universe in Dobby. A jarring, trouble-making house elf was the least of the sequel's problems: It carries on too long (nearly three hours), and Chris Columbus, once again, relied heavily on Rowling's material instead of making it his own, despite a promising 1st half of the movie (darker secrets about the founders of Hogwarts, a more rousing and thrilling game of Quidditch, Kenneth Branagh playing a funny, ego-driven narcissist in Gilderoy Lockhart, one of the best characters in the film series imo, and Radcliffe showing more depth as the title character). Its the Attack of the Clones of the HP movies, but with one distinct difference: for all of shortcomings of Chamber of Secrets, it was still enjoyable and charming to look at, whereas Episode II was just a melodramatic piece of crap. Did I forget to mention that Radcliffe's Harry didn't come off as a whiny bitch, unlike Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker? ** 1/2 stars out of ****
Sunday, July 11, 2010
CHICAGO (AP)—Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James(notes) as a “runaway slave” and that the owner’s comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger.
Shortly after James announced his decision last week, Gilbert fired off an incendiary letter to Cleveland’s fans, ripping the 25-year-old and promising to deliver a title before James wins one. He called James’ decision “cowardly” and later told The Associated Press he believes James quit during a handful of Cavaliers playoff games.
“He has gotten a free pass,” Gilbert told the AP in a phone interview late Thursday night. “People have covered up for (James) for way too long. Tonight we saw who he really is.”
Jackson said Gilbert’s comments were “mean, arrogant and presumptuous.”
Funny Jesse I think comparing a slave to a man that makes millions is "Mean. arrogant and presumptuous"
tell cnn to stop reporting a story? really?
I've been on the fence on the "controversy". Is there really anything behind it? Honestly, I was leaning towards "No", there really wasn't much too it. But now that ColorofChange says there is nothing to it, I'm pretty positive that there probably is something to this. Thanks Van
Ellen, do you have any evidence that CNN has NOT done any real reporting on this case. Honestly, I don't see CNN echoing Fox unless they had some evidence to back it up, or at least some pretty strong evidence to back up their reporting.
And What exactly is "Real Reporting"? Would that be reporting that presents the facts, or just reporting that agrees with you?
Ah Aria Baby, when have I ever said that I am the only person on here who is capable of of being fair to both sides?
And "show us your idea of journalism backing yourself up?" What the hell does that even mean?
As for badmouthing Ellen, I really don't think that's what I'm doing. Ellen made a comment that CNN was echoing Fox and didn't do any "real reporting", and I responded "Ellen, do you have any evidence that CNN has NOT done any real reporting on this case" That's Badmouthing? I think we all need to pool our money and get Aria a dictionary.
"Oh, and while your at it, how about you also provide a credible case for your assertion that Van Jones taking an interest in the level of race-baiting included in the media coverage somehow adds credence to the accusation?" Well, let me put it this way. If someone out there made an Accusation about.... really I guess just about anything, and you weren't sure if it was right or wrong, and then Glenn Beck came out and said "Oh, it's definately the truth, would you in your heart automatically know it wasn't true. Well Ditto on Van.
One last thing: Fox/CNN reporting on this story is "Race-Baiting", huh? Then what is calling for the killing of "Cracker Babies"?
Prove CNN is not doing any "real" reporting.
Funny how the Foxbots suddenly love CNN.
Why should I have to prove it? You guys made the accusation. Didnt you guys say the burden of proof was on FOX to prove the allegations against the DOJ?
Prove your allegation.
She has NO PROOF that CNN is not doing their own reporting. Absolutely NO PROOF AT ALL. At what point do I have to prove that a news organization is doing its own reporting? Thats just idiotic.
You and Ellen are mad because the story you dont want anyone talking about is being talked about. And not just by the right-wing "nuts" anymore. You guys have gotten so scared of this thing that you are signing petitions to get CNN to stop reporting on it. How insane is that?
So Corey (and me too I guess) have to prove our accusations, but Ellen, who made her accusation first, doesn't have to prove it.
Get it straight Aria. First Fox had to prove thier accusation because they made it first, and you and the others asked them to back it up.
But if the liberal makes the accusation first, and the conservative asks them to prove it, then the person asking the person who made the accusation is now required to prove it.
Boy, and I thought it was hard enough playing games with my four-year-old nephew because he changes the rules a dozen times during the middle of the game. Looks like je has a promising future as a liberal pundit.
Aria, you are asking me to PROVE that CNN is investigating this story? Sure, I could make a comment about what a brain-dead asinine suggestion that is, but I'm going to let your challenge go out. Oh, it will go out unchallenged, because of course there is no way for me, Corey or any other person not associated with CNN to "prove" anything, just as there is no way anyone at Media Matters, MSNBC, Newshounds or any other organization can prove that CNN is not doing any investigation.
Oh sure, there's common sense, but since when have we ever let that get in the way of the "Facts" that are presented here at Newshounds.
Sure, there's the fact that one news organization that basically presents an opposite model of the other is reporting a story that, if in fact they haven't checked into, means that they are freely giving thier competition even more credibility. Hey, that happens all the time.
But Aria, I'm going to let your chalenge stand, because now you have set a new standard for Newshounds.us: From this point forward, no one can make ANY statement unless they themselves can personally, 100%, PROVE IT.
They cant do that Bob. They'd have to shut the site down.
I'm sorry Visitor, I wasn't aware that you were a senior producer at CNN and were aware of exactly what they were and were not investigating.
If you are so thick to think that a major news organization would "echo" what another organization was saying without taking any effort to verify those facts, then you are..... No, you really are that dumb.
Seriously guys, I am not saying that Fox is 100% right on this, or even 50% right, but the way you folks report it is that anything Fox says... and now I guess CNN says, is 100% false. And your proof? See, that's the rub, you have no proof, it's just more "I don't like what you are saying so I'm taking my ball and heading home" bullshit.
But hey, if we don't like the message, lets see if we can intimidate them into shutting up. Hmm, It seems like you guys did learn something from the panthers afterall, didn't you?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
EON Productions suspended active development on the next sequel in April due to MGM's ongoing financial crisis. But now, if reports from across the pond are to be believed, the project -- which was to have been directed by Sam Mendes from a screenplay by Peter Morgan -- has been scuttled altogether.
British tabloid The Mirror claims to have "confirmed the movie has been axed – and it could be years before the secret agent with a licence to kill is back on the big screen."
The paper quotes an unnamed "insider" as saying, "Members of the production crew have been told the Bond film has been canned. There is a lot of bad feeling as a lot of time, money and hard work has already gone into this."
What's worse is that we might have seen Daniel Craig's last role as 007, who was brilliant in Casino Royale and, to an extent, in Quantum of Solace.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
LeBron James put the NBA on notice Thursday night, joining Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami.
Ending weeks of silence and drama, the two-time MVP said on his ESPN special from Greenwich, Conn. on Thursday night that he's decided to join the Miami Heat and leave the Cleveland Cavaliers after an unsuccessful seven-year quest for the championship he covets.
"The best opportunity to win and to win now and to win in the future also," James said. "Winning is a huge thing for me."
It's a huge victory for the Heat, who got commitments from Wade and Bosh on Wednesday. That duo, along with James, formed the upper echelon of the most-celebrated free-agent period in league history.
Something left out of this story: ESPN dedicating an hour-plus of time dedicated to a guy who hasn't even won a title yet! Was it worth it, ESPN? Whoring yourselves for an overrated, Michael Jordan wannabe?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
You can see the the ungodly thing behind olsteeen's eyes. He has an enemy critter in him. He is keeping people out of the Kindom by the thousands. There is no belief, no repentance from transgressing Gods laws (sin), and no Baptism for the remission of sin in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38, aka the blood of Christ, even mentioned like most "judeo-xtian" churches. They like the idea of an efiminent Jesus, but they don't follow Jesus at all. They don't obey his commandments "Laws" or feed his sheep. Homosexuals and interracial fornication is sin and in open rebellion to Gods original plan. There is a war against God's plan, and there are pure enemies of God in government powers around the world. Get ready. Time is short. Come quickly Christ.
July 7, 2010 2:23 PM
Since this comment was left on a Jeremiah thread the question is was it left by Jerry or one of his minions?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
No really she said that.
Monday, July 5, 2010
My friend Kerri Greene and I were talking about positive and negative energy in the Universe and how she does her best to throw out positive vibes rather than negative. For the most part, I'm trying to follow her lead:
* Guys like Sean Hannity and Mike Galllagher, and Bill O'Reilly who I hated with passion; now, whenever I see those clown on TV, I just change the channel. It's just not worth the energy to yell when I already know their shtick is to appeal to the lowest common denominator and exploit the viewer's negative-held beliefs on anyone and anything that maybe different that them or how they think, or look, etc.
* The Los Angles Dodgers, our rivals in the National League West are just that: our bitter rivals in a hotly contested divisional race. I'll be disappointed if the Padres don't win the West and L.A. does, but I won't lose sleep over it.
* Not being the jock or the cool kid who got the super-cute girls in high school, adding my insecure nature and struggle to be just like I am, drove my depression in my Junior and Senior years, and i'm now beginning to realize that all of that shit doesn't matter, that traits like that don't really help in the real world (unless you're an athlete who's banging a underwear model or a porn star, then you suck even more!)
Sarah Palin, though? I have to give her credit: when she spouted her foreign policy, "Peace Through Bombing the Shit Out of Anyone Who Fucks with Us" agenda, she set off a nerve in me. Here's some of her bullet-points:
On Defense Spending:
Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.
This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.
First off Sarah: the Obama administration is actually doing what you propose, by way of a spending freeze starting in 2011, where just about everything but defense is cut.
Second: We did reduce spending the "American" way. It was in the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. years, and now we're in the "Great Recession" because of the policy that Big Business and Corporate America can be trusted to regulate itself, when in fact, they can't.
Furthermore, what's the point of our military might if citizens at home are falling through the various cracks? How we claim to defend the interests of America and her allies abroad, if we're behind the ball on universal health care for all citizens, or clean energy jobs?
On the War on Terror:
When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.
And who, pray-tell, was in charge of the country, months before the devastating attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? Who was handed a memo that read "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.", one month before 9/11, and still did nothing!?
If you mean "winning" by bribing the Sunnis and the Shi'ite not to kill American ground forces, then i'll gladly give you that one, but let's not kid ourselves on the former president and allies and alliances. Our only major partner in this nightmare was Great Britain, as the rest of the world opted-out of joining W. down a quagmire of epic proportions not seen since Vietnam. Oh, and Obama is still committed to the War on Terrorism: we're escalated troop levels in Afghanistan, and the use of drones is becoming a big factor in our approach to taking out terrorist leaders.
When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances...their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror...Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security.
On Dealing with Less-Than Likable Leaders and Nations:
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.
Or, what normal, sane leaders would call, diplomacy. Before the Republican Party abandoned rationality and reason for quick, knee-jerk action in the international arena, President Nixon actually used it to cool off tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. You see, Sarah: even Nixon, paranoid crook that he was, understood that the continued arms race between the two nations would lead to the tipping point that neither side would be able to contain, so he introduced the SALT I and SALT II treaties to reduce the no. of stockpiles of weapons both sides would build to avoid plunging the world into a nuclear holocaust. Hell, now Nixon would've been considered a "pussy" by arrogant, trigger-happy morons in this day and age because he favored avoiding war.
On Obama's "Differing Views of America"
When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.
I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience?
Bullshit, Sarah. On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama stated many times how his story and his rise on the national stage wouldn't have happened anywhere else but in America. Oh, and when you have a white mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, and when you travel beyond the borders of the United States for a good portion of your life, you tend to see the world and your country in different-colored lenses, which is well-needed clarity for this country.
At this point, anyone who's read her policy carefully, pretty much understands what the former Governor of Alaska is about: she's a Bush Jr. clone who prides herself on not-knowing jack. She doesn't know and understand complex foreign policy issues, and frankly, she doesn't want to know. To her, if the discussion doesn't include "U.S.," "America," "United States," "Americans," "U.S.A." or some combination of the words, then she doesn't give a damn. To her, its our way or its gonna rain bombs over your neck of the wood, diplomacy be damned; plus only pussies try to "reason" and "negotiate," because might always makes right. Sarah Palin and the new trigger-happy members of the Republican Party are the textbook example of Jim Rome's take on "Likes to Fight Guy", but on an international stage.
Going back to Kerri and throwing out positive energy in the Universe, I was about ready to write a short post, and just blast her away, as i've done in some posts in the past. As I read her piece, I had a change of heart: like getting worked up about the right-wing clowns, and the Dodgers, and what i'm not when I attended Otay Ranch High School, it's not worth the energy. Plus, its more therapeutic for me to write out lengthy pieces on, as disheartening many liberals and progressives are with the change (or lack thereof in the eyes of some) President Obama is administrating, that the other alternative the GOP is proudly suggesting, is a no-brainier: we'll stick to fighting for the change he promised on the campaign trail than resort to cynicism and apathy, allowing their brand of insanity to return to the White House.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A few nights ago, I make a quick run across the street to Vons off on Canyon Plaza. As I'm putting my items on the conveyor belt, I scan the pop trash mags next to the M&M's and Trident gum packs.
One mag headline had the star of The Bachelorete, Vienna, talking about how much of a jerk the winner and "lover" (allegedly) Jake was towards her once the cameras stopped rolling. I guess someone forget to tell her that actually falling in love with the "winner" is a no-no. I mean, the big-wigs at ABC have to keep the reality series going with the likable jilted lovers looking for happiness, and the stuck-up fame whores looking to keep their faces on E! News every night.
Another mag had one of the stars of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse on the cover, and when I read the captions Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson, I almost immediately looked to the next mag on the stand. I'm sure Lautner is a pretty cool dude, and i've seen some interviews of him on late-night TV where he comes off as a charming guy, but I can't wait until this whole Twilight-fad joins Pokemon, Hannah Montana, boy bands, and Heidi and Spencer in the trash bin of pop culture history. I've had enough about hearing endless debates between Team Edward and Team Jacob and whether or not Pattinson and his co-star, Kristen Stewart are dating.
The last magazine I skimmed over is something I still can't fully comprehend: a magazine devoted to Canadian teen sensation Justin Bieber. From which celebrities find him adorable, to his secret tattoo, to his clothing style, it covered just about every aspect you could think of on the kid. And then there was this section I found honestly pathetic: how your boyfriend can look like Justin......page 72. Am I the only person who finds that disturbing? Why would you want your boyfriend to look like male jailbait?
More to the point: why do we, as a society, place so much emphasis on popularity, on who's "in" or what's "out"? Allow to steal a quote from the Denver-based folk/alternative band DeVotcKa: "If you win the rat race, if you come in first place / Then a rat is all you will be." If we're this shallow and vapid, that we have to look a certain way to impress groups of people, or believe that if we just do this we'll feel accepted amongst the sea of same, then we're only lying and deceiving ourselves, and effectively, slowly destroying our individuality for the sake of vanity.
Many people - my self included - used to be very tolerant of homosexuals - I knew it was disgusting and weird and sinful, but had a “live and let live” attitude. I worked with one, had a friendly relationship, I figured his life was his business. (I was also accosted twice by homosexuals and the experience was utterly repellent and disgusting, but I did not hate the individuals. I just said “NO!!!!” very emphatically.)
Until the mid 1980s, when I learned about the homosexual agenda. I started reading books, researching, and learned from others via newsletters and so on. And everything I feared has come to pass.
The homosexual agenda is pushing and promoting via the courts and legislation “Homo-Leninism” - forcing people against their will and against their moral values - to hire, associate with, allow fostering and adoptions, marriage and so on - homosexuals. Hate speech is against the law - many places you cannot say anything even “homosexuality is dangerous for the health” or “homosexuality is condemned in all the scriptures of the world”. Children are force-fed “gay is good” in schools and clubs.
Ever seen footage or photos of “Gay Pride” parades? There are some on FR - just yesterday or the day before. You think that should be on teh public streets? Sodomy in public? You think the promotion - by law - of homosexual depravity is equivalent to people eating too much or arrogance?
Do you see “Gluttony Pride” or “Adultery Pride” or “Lying Pride” parades? No? Are there hate speech laws or “senstivity training” about overeating? Mrs. 0thugga has a campaign against over eating - aka gluttony - so it’s okay to condemn that behavior. There are laws against muder, rape, slander - but homosexual behavior and those who practice and promote it have special protection under the law, to the extent that our freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, and association are getting torn to shreds.
little jeremiah, Free Republic 42 Comments [7/4/2010 10:48:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
Did anybody else read this...
(I was also accosted twice by homosexuals and the experience was utterly repellent and disgusting, but I did not hate the individuals. I just said “NO!!!!” very emphatically.)
And translated it as ( I approached two other people of the same sex and when they just said no!!!! very emphatically I became a repressed homosexual)
Atheists put billboard on Billy Graham Parkway (OneNewsNow.Com)
CHARLOTTE, NC - A statewide coalition of atheists and agnostics has placed billboards in six North Carolina cities, including one along the Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte.
That sign, according to The Charlotte Observer, pictures an American flag and the words "One Nation Indivisible" -- omitting the words "Under God," which were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
Of course, if a Christian group were to erect a cross beside one of the billboards, the atheists would demand that it be removed.
Actually, Jer, the billboard company would probably demand that it be removed. They're the ones who have an agreement with the landowner to erect the billboard, not your hypothetical cross-building trespassers. You want a rebuttal? Buy your own billboard placement. I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't have endorsed vandalism. Even though the crowd you ostensibly run with seems to think it's a solution.I don't know about you, but I thank God for our country and the godly, Christian men and women who founded it.
Oh boy. Here we go. Ever read up on Deism, Jeremiah? Most of those founders - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison - held Deist beliefs. Their supreme being created the universe and then essentially recused him/herself, leaving natural laws to be the default operating system. Educate thyself here and get somebody to help you with the big words you may not understand.Man had, and has no say in the founding of our nation. It was entirely a process directed by God Himself.
I think the bit about how strongly Jefferson was opposed as a candidate by clergymen speaks pretty directly to his beliefs being anything but the "godly, Christian" ideal you have in mind. Bear in mind that he drafted the Declaration. You know - about as founding a document as you can get.
(Assuming the tone of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler) Really? Nothing to do with us humans. All God's doing. Really, Jer? Really??John Adams said...
This is so nakedly ridiculous and lacking in even a semblance of documented justification that I am literally speechless.
Except for these two queries. One, if this was what God Had In Mind All Along, why isn't there a book in the Bible about America? (And don't do me a "Book of Mormon" tap-dance, here - that's a whole other bowl of Jell-O...) And, two, what was God up to before 1954 and the relatively late addition of "Under God" to the Pledge?...under pressure from the Knights of Columbus and during the McCarthyist communism frenzy, if I remember correctly. Was he playing tiddlywinks with an alternate universe somewhere? Getting together with Buddha, Allah and Zeus for boys' night out at poker? Grazing cows on the Milky Way? That Jeremiah can't answer either of these questions with anything but non sequiturs tells you everything you need to know about his ham-handed attempts to try to join government and religion at the hip. All rhetoric, no substance. He's a one-man "Christian" Taliban.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams was also a Unitarian and espoused a number of Deist principles, including a conviction that God did not intervene in individuals' affairs and excluding the notion of the divinity of Christ. I feel reasonably sure that he would be horrified at your attempt to co-opt his statement and pretzel it into your Bible-thumping totalitarian vision for national government and, indeed, the whole world.And that meant that our Founding Fathers who created the document were a God-fearing people, and that the people must likewise be God-fearing people to keep voting God-fearing people into office.
Er, no. It meant that the Founding Fathers had a much more common-sense approach to life and much more of an Enlightenment sensibility than you have ever or will ever have, Jer. Adams eschewed fear as a basis for faith in favor of the preeminence of the human conscience. You exhibit exactly the "spirit of dogmatism and bigotry" that Adams would have loathed. Read up on the man on the Unitarian Universalist Association's web site.So, I'm not about to change to suit the wishes of unbelievers to try and force me to think otherwise. They are more than welcome to change their way of thinking, and it would better for them if they did change to the Truth.
Oh, how ever shall I sleep soundly at night, knowing that Jeremiah continues on his unblinkingly ignorant, smug, intolerant and closed-minded path through existence??
Actually, now that I think on it...without a whole lot of difficulty.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
When the interviewer points out that the footage he has seen reminds him of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," Nolan heartily agrees. "I think, 'Her Majesty' Secret Service' would be my favorite Bond. It's a hell of a movie, it holds up very well. What I liked about it that we've tried to emulate in this film is there's a tremendous balance of action, scale, and romanticism and tragedy and emotion. Of all the Bond films, it's by far the most emotional.
Friday, July 2, 2010
"Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, alright, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed," Steele continued.
Steele also extended his criticism of the War in Afghanistan to the mission's strategy, addressing the recent dismissing of General Stanley McChrystal.
"The [General] McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical," he said. "I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders has with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan."
Now the prick tells us!