October 29, 2009
— Ace Gabe, sending this to me, is speechless, except to sputter "Rly? Rly? Rly?."
President Barack Obama says only once since Jan. 20 has White House life annoyed him.
It was the Saturday in May when, trying to be a good husband, he kept a campaign promise to take his wife, Michelle, to New York after the election for one of their "date nights" - dinner and a Broadway play.
"People made it into a political issue," Obama told The New York Times Magazine for an article about the Obamas' marriage, appearing in the Nov. 1 issue. The article was posted on the Times' Web site on Wednesday.
"If I weren't president, I would be happy to catch the shuttle with my wife to take her to a Broadway show, as I had promised her during the campaign, and there would be no fuss and no muss and no photographers," he said. "That would please me greatly."
If you weren't president, I think a lot of people would be pleased, dude.
No fuss, no muss:
— Gabriel Malor Yesterday the President signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was hooked onto the Defense appropriation to ensure its passage.
The new hate crimes law creates yet another specially protected group under federal law. It demonstrates Democrats' disdain for the principle of equal treatment under the law. Like other hate crimes laws it criminalizes having the wrong thoughts rather than wrong conduct. It may subject individuals to double jeopardy. And it is entirely superfluous, as ColoradoPatriot writes:
I, too, am disgusted by the crimes against Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. I am glad that those who perpetrated these villainous acts against Shepard are currently each serving two consecutive life sentences. They will never again see the light of day. Meanwhile, two of the three murderers of Byrd are awaiting their executions while the third is currently serving life in prison.
What must be realized, however, is that the fates of these five men are symbols of how the justice system in America worked without the need for a hate crimes act.
Democrats revel in the game of dividing Americans into groups and doling out special treats for the ones that behave. It's not something to celebrate. It's a disgrace.
— Gabriel Malor
— Dave in Texas From the moment the United Nations approached
us to negotiate with the peaceful Islamic Nation of Iran, its
clear intention was to intrude into our sovereignty and
keep Iran from peacefully developing nuclear energy.
Yet in spite of this unreasonable position we agreed to listen
out of our respect for the world community. It is with this
understanding and goodwill that we consider your proposal.
Could be a rough translation, but I'll bet it's close.
October 28, 2009
— Open Blog Good evening morons!
The Awesomely Honest Mobile Home Commercial
Okay if I ever go shopping for a mobile home, I'm buying it from these guys. Or not. And yeah this video was on Red Eye last week but it's too good not to share.
Plus here's the making-of-the-commercial video which is entertaining as well. I like Robert Lee's policy of not selling you a home if you seem too whiny or stupid.
— Ace Okay, I guess for the World Series a thread is warranted.
— Ace Oh -- even though it's bang-on accurate, it's actually an ad being run by Hoffman supporters, made to look like Scozzofava reaching out to her liberal base.
Eh.... Kinda, yeah. It's not that the facts are dishonest. It's just that it successfully mimics an ad actually in favor of a candidate, and so lets you believe this is Scozzofava's pitch.
Still: Good ad! The controversy over it can only help Hoffman.
Thanks to TimV.
— Uncle Jimbo
And shockingly he decides they violate international law. I am sure there is a law somewhere that they do violate, and shockingly I don't give a rat's ass. I can't say for sure that we have signed any treaty or agreement that requires us to proffer up said ass of rat, but if we did we ought to renounce it. The scary thing is that our soon to be Nobel Laureate gives rat asses by the train load about what the crap weasels at the UN think. Let me give the UN Rapporteur my thoughts.
UNITED NATIONS US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.
"The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.
"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said
Dear Eurocrat weasel,
If there are international humanitarian or human rights laws that you think impact our right to kill terrorist ass clowns anywhere we find them on Earth, then I suggest you print out a copy, roll it up real tight and poke yourself in the eye with it. We do not recognize your right to castrate us, and even though it makes you cry yourself to sleep at night, we will continue to manufacture dead tangos as quickly as we are able. We will fly drones that rain down literal Hellfire and make them explode into their component molecules. We will drop big-ass laser-guided bombs that may even take them down to the sub-atomic level. We will shoot them with sniper rifles ventilating them with .50 cal holes. We will even occasionally scarf one up and render him to certain friends of ours who will be extremely cruel to him, and maybe even waterboard him since we no longer have the stones to do that ourselves.
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
Actually no, we are completely un-onused by the whole situation, you empty-headed, animal food trough wiper.more...
— LauraW Most Of Life Really Is About Showing Up
What's the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it's a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.
Goodness. They must have had an important reason to skip this one, eh.
In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was "so busy preparing for a board meeting," PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.
When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too.
It's so easy for one little detail to slip through your fingers when you have a lot going on...but still.
That's gonna leave an ugly mark on her performance review.
— Dave in Texas Kabuki?
Bayh said he didn't "think that's even worth starting a discussion on" provisions "that would explode the deficit... or would dramatically increase the premiums that ordinary families are paying."
Hell, which provisions don't explode the deficit, or dramatically increase premiums? Or cut care and increase costs (and eliminate the commercial insurance industry)?
At this point it feels more like "what's the minimum we can inflict for the maximum number of bought Democrat voters?"
— Ace He actually said he would have dissented in Plessey v. Fergussen.
The case that blessed the separate but equal doctrine.
Sort of important to get the name of the case down correctly.
This is exactly equal to a man saying he's opposed to serial murder, but being quoted as favoring the hobby.
Whoops! Plessey, Brown, close enough for media work!
But I can't really blame lefty bloggers for assuming that a newspaper can get a simple quote right -- they are alway assuring us they can, which is what makes them so much more authoritative than bloggers, who just make stuff up and invent quotes and never check a thing.
But the truth is: The media gets very little right at all. Even the most basic stuff, they blow. They're no merely biased and partisan, but hapless and incompetent at what is, at the end of the day, a fairly simple job.
— Ace They were introduced, I'm guessing, by their publicists, who thought it would be a lucrative match.
The gossip apocalypse has arrived: Jon Gosselin and Nadya Suleman will be going on a date.
The "Jon & Kate Plus 8" star has reportedly agreed to appear in a cheesy new reality show in which he'll date Octomom Nadya Suleman, former "Cheaters" producer Bobby Goldstein told In Touch Weekly.
"I heard that Nadya has an insatiable desire to spend time with Jon and to put their families together," Goldstein said. "And I had the idea that this could be a very entertaining fiasco."
— Ace Should work.
President Obamas advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.... At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the Taliban is an indigenous force nor does it need to in order to protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that would eventually take over the mission.
In effect, the approach blends ideas advanced by General McChrystal and by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seen as opposite poles in the internal debate.
Andrew McCarthy comments:
ME: Am I missing something here? I thought we needed this new strategy because only it would deny safe haven to al-Qaeda. Now, we are evidently going to do counterinsurgency despite conceding at the outset that it won't really work because the Taliban is "an indigenous force" (translation: It has too much support among its fellow Afghan Muslims); under "Biden for the country," we are going to cede the vast countryside to the Taliban, which will then be free to give al-Qaeda the safe-haven it was purportedly our objective to prevent (and you know that's what we're doing because a "senior administration official" felt it necessary to tell the Times, "We are not talking about surrendering the rest of the country to the Taliban")...
Smart. In other words, Al Qaeda will have free reign to build their bombs in the hinterlands, so they can then transport them to our troops ringed around the "population centers" and murder them.
"Present," Obama voted heroically.
— Ace 43-38, which isn't good, but on the other hand:
A dedicated reader notices that the final Quinnipiac poll of 2008 in New Jersey showed "a huge Democratic landslide in New Jersey, Sen. Barack Obama tops Republican Sen. John McCain 59 - 36 percent while incumbent Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg leads Republican challenger Dick Zimmer 55 - 33 percent among likely voters."
Obama beat McCain 57.27 percent to 41.7 percent; Obama's total of the final vote was 2 points lower than Q's final number and McCain's total was almost 6 points higher than Quinnipiac's final number.
In the Senate race. Lautenberg won, 55.53 percent to 42.49 percent. Lautenberg was just above Quinnipiac's final number, but Zimmer was almost 10 points ahead of Quinnipiac's final number.
In one case they overstated the Democrats' vote share by almost 8 points, another time by almost 10.
So, Christie's behind by 5, they say?
Well. Then he's not really behind is he?
— Uncle Jimbo MAJ Gant's paper, which has been much discussed here, is an expert look at what should happen in Afghanistan. I agree with everything he wrote and I think it would offer the best possible chance for success there. The problem is he is suggesting creating scores of quasi Special Forces A Teams and that is just something we can't or won't do.
— Ace And the White House itself, of course, though they say the DNC pays for that privilege, so I guess that makes it... what?
High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.
Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president's Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick's Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.
Presidential aides said there has been no systematic effort to use the White House complex to aid fundraising, though they acknowledge the DNC has paid for some events at the presidential mansion.
Paid who? Do these checks go to the taxpayers or... what? Can I similarly "pay" for access in the White House?
These donors getting to bowl at the White House -- they're paying? I, as a taxpayer, get a cut of their rental of the presidential bowling alley?
What's the rent? Do I have to pay for shoes or are they comped?
Many guests at the White House not only had fundraising connections, but also have personal friendships with the president, Mr. Obama's aides said.
I'll bet. Someone gives me $100,000, you better believe I'm their buddy.
Bill Clinton turned the White House into a hotel and coffee shop. Now President Obama has turned the White House into a full service resort complete with amenities for the highest Democrat bidder. The seriousness of this issue requires an immediate investigation looking into the degree and details of fundraising efforts between the White House and DNC, whether there was any quid pro quo offered to donors, and the names of White House officials who were involved in such activities. The White House should also immediately release the names of donors who have accessed these perks or received special briefings from administration officials. Candidate Obama pledged to clean up the muddy waters of Washington, but President Obama has jumped in head first.
Such things only happen when the press is doing its supposed job of watchdog, rather than its preferred role as presidential fluffer. And I'm sure they'll be getting right on that, following up on the Washington Times' story with tough, probing questions.
Right. They won't even do tough, probing Google searches on this stuff.
But have you heard about FoxNews? They "have a viewpoint," it seems.
Really, they do. The White House needs to "speak truth to power" to these viewpoint-type people.
Racist: A cat yowls at Obama for lying about "change."
— Ace Rocco Landesman said that.
This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.
Mm-hm. Except Bill Ayers wrote that book.
Rocco Landesman, of course, has been claiming that the operatives involved in the NEA-grants-for-Obama-propaganda phone conference were just a few loan nuts having nothing at all to do with him.
— Ace Bend the cost-curve so that those paying for insurance will pay more, to cover those currently uninsured.
Of course. Of course. There are no magic beans here. If you're insuring a family of four, guess what? You're getting a new family member or two whose premiums you will have to cover.
The best sort of family member: One you've never met and who then doesn't have to be invited to weddings and won't get drunk at Thanksgiving.
Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint's actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they've waited until they're sick to buy insurance. Then they'll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.
Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%to $737 from $332while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It's true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn't qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don't vaporize. They're merely transferred to taxpayers nationwideor financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.
A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it's important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCarenot including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.
— Ace Okay, he doesn't say that. But it's strongly implied.
He calls out a reporter for failing to get an interview with Jon Corzine, who's apparently not returning her calls, and criticizes her for only interviewing the guy who agreed to be interviewed (Christie).
If he had been in control, he vows, it would not have happened. Presumably he means he would have kept Christie off the air because Corzine himself didn't want to be on the air.
To Shep Smith, "balanced" means that if a Democrat thinks he's ahead, or doesn't want to appear on FoxNews, that means the Republican can't appear on FoxNews, either. The Democrat gets to decide how much media attention a race should have. If he's comfortably ahead, why, Shep Smith sees it as his solemn obligation as a journalist to respect his desire for a media blackout.
And if the Republican feels the same way? Uh, I sorta think in that case, the Democrat would instead find Shep Smith has a different rule -- A man who wishes to be interviewed gets interviewed, damnit!
Allah's suspicious that something was edited out of this, but this seems like pure prissy liberal Shep Smith to me, auditioning for another network, as usual.
— Gabriel Malor
43 queries taking 2.6154 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.