Next time I'm having trouble at work I'm just going to ask the next Puerto Rican woman I see how to do my job.
Fuck that activist bigot.
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Did the Tea Parties work?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/obama.cabinet.cuts/index.html
I think, at least superficially, they did.
I think, at least superficially, they did.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Bitch move Barry, bitch move.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html
Apparently the President had Georgetown black out the IHS with a piece of plywood when he was speaking there. I find our new President to be so classless, so careless, so.....pedestrian.
BTW, Georgetown, grow a pair.
Apparently the President had Georgetown black out the IHS with a piece of plywood when he was speaking there. I find our new President to be so classless, so careless, so.....pedestrian.
BTW, Georgetown, grow a pair.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Queen's ipod
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/her-majestys-royal-ipod/
Oh Lord, please tell me this as an April Fools' Joke.
Oh Lord, please tell me this as an April Fools' Joke.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Mr. Holder, you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1
It looks like the price of new M4s is about to go up again.
Eric Holder, the same new AG that called Americans cowards for not hanging out with each other after work, has announced that the Obama administration will be pushing new gun rights restrictions. The most retarded part of this is that the Obama administration is saying the federal government has to take American's rights away because of a civil war in Mexico. Instead of launching off on an anti-gun crusade maybe Barry could, you know ... help the Mexican government out with that or something. I hope this stalls out in Congress.
It looks like the price of new M4s is about to go up again.
Eric Holder, the same new AG that called Americans cowards for not hanging out with each other after work, has announced that the Obama administration will be pushing new gun rights restrictions. The most retarded part of this is that the Obama administration is saying the federal government has to take American's rights away because of a civil war in Mexico. Instead of launching off on an anti-gun crusade maybe Barry could, you know ... help the Mexican government out with that or something. I hope this stalls out in Congress.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Gaza
This is a no-win situation. I blame Hamas for ending their ceasefire (AKA, launching rockets at Israeli civilian areas). What did they possibly think the outcome of that action would be? They picked a fight, now they have it and the people of Gaza will be stuck in the middle. I blame Israel for immediately resorting to bombing civilian targets. I consider myself to be pro-Israel and every nation has a right to defend itself but Israel routinely takes things too far. Their 2006 invasion of Lebanon was a total disaster leaving them less secure and a pile of dead bodies and a destroyed pro-American Lebanese government in the wake of their arrogance. At least they've stopped bombing and are moving in on ground. I blame the people of Gaza for electing a government of terrorists.
I think the best case scenario is that Israel occupies and administers Gaza in an equitable manner for a few years or turns it over to the UN after they've steamrolled Hamas. I suspect neither of these things will happen and that they'll be total jerks if there is an occupation. Hopefully Bush can talk them into leaving after they're crippled Hamas.
Every day I wake up and wonder if today will be the day obama says something definitive, something productive about the conflict. As taking sides in this is not valuable to him and could impact his chances at re-election so I suspect he won't do a damn thing, maybe ask Americans to pray for peace but that will be the extent of it.
I think the best case scenario is that Israel occupies and administers Gaza in an equitable manner for a few years or turns it over to the UN after they've steamrolled Hamas. I suspect neither of these things will happen and that they'll be total jerks if there is an occupation. Hopefully Bush can talk them into leaving after they're crippled Hamas.
Every day I wake up and wonder if today will be the day obama says something definitive, something productive about the conflict. As taking sides in this is not valuable to him and could impact his chances at re-election so I suspect he won't do a damn thing, maybe ask Americans to pray for peace but that will be the extent of it.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Has he really picked yet?
Not that I've given it too much though, but what possible advantage is there to waiting this long? By now potential candidates have built up followings that are about to be disappointed, home states and districts have gotten excited. I see opportunity cost in this play and no gain.
I don't think Obama has made up his mind yet.
I don't think Obama has made up his mind yet.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Man that was a fun Primary!
No matter who you were backing you have to admit – that was pretty awesome. But now to the business end – Conservatives – are you feeling lucky?
The Democratic party had two options; a moderate liberal and a rather extremist liberal. If they had gone with Hillary they would have had a better shot at the 2008 election, the 2012 election and so on but they would have advanced the leftist agenda less. Barack’s Socialism will be unpopular and if he somehow manages to capture the 2008 election he will be packing his bags by 2012, but how much damage can he get done by then?
Barack will play poorly in the polls and if elected will pave the way for a very conservative president in 2012 (it takes a Carter to get a Reagan) but in those 4 years a lot could happen.
So, in the long run are we better off with the moderation of McCain right now or would we be better off with Reagan part II trying to undue 4 years of Socialism in 2012?
The Democratic party had two options; a moderate liberal and a rather extremist liberal. If they had gone with Hillary they would have had a better shot at the 2008 election, the 2012 election and so on but they would have advanced the leftist agenda less. Barack’s Socialism will be unpopular and if he somehow manages to capture the 2008 election he will be packing his bags by 2012, but how much damage can he get done by then?
Barack will play poorly in the polls and if elected will pave the way for a very conservative president in 2012 (it takes a Carter to get a Reagan) but in those 4 years a lot could happen.
So, in the long run are we better off with the moderation of McCain right now or would we be better off with Reagan part II trying to undue 4 years of Socialism in 2012?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I was really hoping stuff like this would wait until after the democratic primary
Hillary was caught clearly, clearly lying about her experiences in
BTW, check out the video, just playing this over and over again on TV would be a slam dunk campaign, I hope Giuliani challenges her in NY and uses it.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama's "Dean Scream"?
Say Howard Dean and most Americans will think back to that high-pitched "YeaAHah!!!" he boomed for all of West Des Moines, and indeed, the world, to hear. That was defiantly the moment his chance at the Democratic Nomination took a dive, but I don't believe that was the reason.
People didn't really like Dean all that much; his positions on many areas were bordering on communism, his supporters were creepy and potentially unreliable, he wanted to make national fights out of local issues, he probably wasn't all that viable in a race against a determined Republican president, he didn't know much about international relations and he came off as a bit of a jerk to a lot of people. Wow that was a long sentence, but those were the real, complex reasons behind Dean's downfall. The scream was just the moment, something undeniably tangible that people could easily point to rather than explain all those other reasons that Dean didn't sit well in their guts.
Obama gave a pretty good speech this week, maybe even a great speech. It told us what we should all already know - some ethnic groups in America don't get along all that well and there are sometimes legitimate reasons behind this ill will. Mr. Obama doesn't really have any particular solution for this problem but never the less honestly talking about race in America doesn't hurt anything. So why are people, particularly democrats, reacting to this speech badly? Some will say its racism but those people are silly, any objective analysis says Obama's racial makeup has decidedly aided his campaign. I think this was Obama's Dean Scream Moment.
Obama is in many ways a Democratic candidate flawed in the same ways (though not to the same extent) as Dean was. He has an army of young volunteers who while enthusiastic are often not only poorly informed but also not registered to vote and will probably be made mince meat of by the efficient RNC cadres. His positions are not just left of center, economically they're left of left of left. He has no foreign policy experience. He too is looking to make federal issues out of state decisions. Above all else the Obama campaign of propelled by a naive optimism that more and more democratic leaders are seeing could be less effective than the tried and true Clinton machine.
I thought Obama's speech was at worst empty rhetoric, certainly there was noting bad about it but this opinion is not shared by many influential democratic bellwethers.
After February 4th there was a long stretch when all that was in the news was this unprobable swath of Obama victories which built momentum and enthusiasm. But that is over now, the voters and the Democratic party have a month and a half to sit back and as if they really want a state senator from south Chicago to be running the most powerful nation mankind has ever seen.
Obama is still in this, but after this speech I predict a chilling effect. I think donations will slow, the media will be more critical, he will get rocked in Pennsylvania, Indiana will not look good for him.
People didn't really like Dean all that much; his positions on many areas were bordering on communism, his supporters were creepy and potentially unreliable, he wanted to make national fights out of local issues, he probably wasn't all that viable in a race against a determined Republican president, he didn't know much about international relations and he came off as a bit of a jerk to a lot of people. Wow that was a long sentence, but those were the real, complex reasons behind Dean's downfall. The scream was just the moment, something undeniably tangible that people could easily point to rather than explain all those other reasons that Dean didn't sit well in their guts.
Obama gave a pretty good speech this week, maybe even a great speech. It told us what we should all already know - some ethnic groups in America don't get along all that well and there are sometimes legitimate reasons behind this ill will. Mr. Obama doesn't really have any particular solution for this problem but never the less honestly talking about race in America doesn't hurt anything. So why are people, particularly democrats, reacting to this speech badly? Some will say its racism but those people are silly, any objective analysis says Obama's racial makeup has decidedly aided his campaign. I think this was Obama's Dean Scream Moment.
Obama is in many ways a Democratic candidate flawed in the same ways (though not to the same extent) as Dean was. He has an army of young volunteers who while enthusiastic are often not only poorly informed but also not registered to vote and will probably be made mince meat of by the efficient RNC cadres. His positions are not just left of center, economically they're left of left of left. He has no foreign policy experience. He too is looking to make federal issues out of state decisions. Above all else the Obama campaign of propelled by a naive optimism that more and more democratic leaders are seeing could be less effective than the tried and true Clinton machine.
I thought Obama's speech was at worst empty rhetoric, certainly there was noting bad about it but this opinion is not shared by many influential democratic bellwethers.
After February 4th there was a long stretch when all that was in the news was this unprobable swath of Obama victories which built momentum and enthusiasm. But that is over now, the voters and the Democratic party have a month and a half to sit back and as if they really want a state senator from south Chicago to be running the most powerful nation mankind has ever seen.
Obama is still in this, but after this speech I predict a chilling effect. I think donations will slow, the media will be more critical, he will get rocked in Pennsylvania, Indiana will not look good for him.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The New Cuba?
Yesterday Cuba got a new leader, and with him America may get a new outlook on Cuban-American relations. There has been a lot of talk of normalizing relations with Cuba, it has even been argued at the Democratic debates but I am weary.
Raul Castro is a huge pillar of Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution”, Cuba is still actively trying (and often succeeding in) infiltrating our intelligence agencies and most importantly he is still the leader of a repressive communist dictatorship with a terrible human rights record. We should be willing to negotiate with Raul (we should be willing to negotiate with anyone, if Osama offered to turn himself in for a candy bar we should give it to him) but we shouldn’t expect too much. There is a chance he will give in to democracy but that’s a slim one – let’s make small, limited exchanges before we get our hopes up and put removing the embargo on the table.
On a related note - shame on Obama for pledging to meet with Raul “without preconditions”.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/1998_cr/s980924-cuba-spy.htm
http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/spies11201.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN24114603
Raul Castro is a huge pillar of Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution”, Cuba is still actively trying (and often succeeding in) infiltrating our intelligence agencies and most importantly he is still the leader of a repressive communist dictatorship with a terrible human rights record. We should be willing to negotiate with Raul (we should be willing to negotiate with anyone, if Osama offered to turn himself in for a candy bar we should give it to him) but we shouldn’t expect too much. There is a chance he will give in to democracy but that’s a slim one – let’s make small, limited exchanges before we get our hopes up and put removing the embargo on the table.
On a related note - shame on Obama for pledging to meet with Raul “without preconditions”.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/1998_cr/s980924-cuba-spy.htm
http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/spies11201.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN24114603
Friday, February 22, 2008
HRC – down, but not out
On February 7th 2008 Mitt Romney, knowing his presidential campaign had become a hindrance to the Republican Party dropped out of the race. I was there when he did it, he was magnanimous. He still stood a chance, he still had cards to play but he dropped out for the advancement of what was always his paramount goal; the common good of the United States. Hillary shares no such goal.
Hillary is behind in the national polls by a fair bit but there will be no Mitt Romneyesque bowing out for Hillary. Hillary is, and always has been in it for herself and as long as she stands any chance at all she’ll stay in the race and she still has one hell of a chance. She isn’t too far behind in the delegate count, she is still ahead by a lot in PA, she is making inroads into Barrack’s pledged delegates and more importantly still has Florida and Michigan to play. If Hillary can bring this to convention there is a great chance that she, the bureaucratic in-fighter with years of national experience, will be able to win over more delegates in backroom deals than an inexperienced Illinois state senator can.
The news has been talking about Texas/Ohio a lot recently, saying Hillary will be finished if she doesn’t win at least one of them by a large margin. But they’re doing that because they’re the news – they want you to think this race is as suspenseful as possible so that you’ll watch it. Don’t expect HRC to back down unless she loses by at least 60-40 in both big states.
Hillary is behind in the national polls by a fair bit but there will be no Mitt Romneyesque bowing out for Hillary. Hillary is, and always has been in it for herself and as long as she stands any chance at all she’ll stay in the race and she still has one hell of a chance. She isn’t too far behind in the delegate count, she is still ahead by a lot in PA, she is making inroads into Barrack’s pledged delegates and more importantly still has Florida and Michigan to play. If Hillary can bring this to convention there is a great chance that she, the bureaucratic in-fighter with years of national experience, will be able to win over more delegates in backroom deals than an inexperienced Illinois state senator can.
The news has been talking about Texas/Ohio a lot recently, saying Hillary will be finished if she doesn’t win at least one of them by a large margin. But they’re doing that because they’re the news – they want you to think this race is as suspenseful as possible so that you’ll watch it. Don’t expect HRC to back down unless she loses by at least 60-40 in both big states.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)