Political Reveries of the Insane

Just a Quickie

2004-11-01T23:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I realize that I need to post something relatively quickly, just to update the space.

Ok, boys and girls, we have a piece of suggested reading.

Read it here.

Take the Test (Answers Given, You Can't Lose)

2004-10-31T18:40:00.000-05:00

This was a fun read.

HERE'S a two-part test to determine who will win on Tuesday:

a) Ask yourself: What is the issue we are talking about these days? Are we focused on terrorism and Iraq, or on health care and jobs? The answer is obvious: terrorism and Iraq.

b) Now look at the polls. Not the page that shows who they're voting for. That changes every hour. Look at the page that asks, "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the war in Iraq?"

The answer is always President Bush, usually by 10 points. And right below that, on "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the War on Terror?" Bush leads again, usually by 20 points.

If the issue is terrorism and Iraq, and Bush wins those issues by double digits, then the winner will be . . . voila, Bush!

Read the whole thing, its quite interesting.

Another interesting article from the New York Post.

Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction. Surely not the man whose most important vote in his 20 Senate years opposed using force to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. Iraqi forces had crossed an international border to eradicate a sovereign nation, but Kerry does not regret voting to oppose the forceful reversal of this aggression.

It's final comment, is grand.

So this column's conclusion is: "GEORGE! with all thy faults."

GO NYP!

Go NY!

2004-10-31T18:13:00.000-05:00

The New York Daily News has decided to go against norm for NY, and endorse Bush.

Returning Bush to office is the wise course, The News believes, despite our sharp disagreement with his domestic policies. Those pale in comparison with the overarching challenge of securing the nation and preserving New York's vital way of life. Of the two candidates, Bush has the clearer vision for accomplishing the goal, as well as the greater experience. He gets our endorsement.

Thank God for some common sense.

The Reverse, Is -NOT- True!

2004-10-31T01:07:00.000-05:00

Well, after fussing about Kerry's lack of a visible plan, I decided to go, and look for one on Bush's site.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW?!

Two clicks, and I have a list of his plan, and how he means to accomplish them.

You can read it here.

Hope you enjoy.

An Answer... That Flip-flops?

2004-10-31T01:02:00.000-05:00

Ok. Well, right after posting that last... post(?), I found a half-way section that answered my question, here.

But still, it basically states that he has a "plan".

TELL ME ALREADY!

Help Me Please?

2004-10-31T01:52:00.000-04:00

Ok, I must admit, I've been missing most of the political nonsense thats been going on in this election campaign, coming in, basically, yesterday. So, I need your help trying to find something, or in seeing if it really exists.

I can't find Kerry's plan for the War on Terror.

His site spoke of Bush flip-flopping on the war's ability to truly be won, and stated that America needed a leader who knew how to end the war. My problem is the fact that I can't find his plan anywhere to see if I truly believe his plan has any legitimacy.

I went to the section to find the planks of his platform, but came up empty on National Security.

In fact, that section actually brought up a different question altogether.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

I can't seem to find how he's going to accomplish that either.

All-in-all, Kerry, I think you need to work on your thoughts, and set out a plan, so that if you're elected, America can see how bad you screw things up.

And so I can laugh at your pitiful worthlessness.

You see, Bush actually has an understandable approach to the War on Terror.

If you lightly smack a dog on the nose whilst saying "No!", when it pees on your carpet, it eventually learns. Same way with terrorists.

I want to know, what's your plan?

Kerry's Site Gone Bad

2004-10-31T01:37:00.000-04:00

In an effort to put some comedy into my life, at 1:37 in the morning, I decided to sit back, and enjoy Kerry's site. Actually, I was hoping to find a list of his speeches, like I could at Bush's. I couldn't and was thouroughly disappointed. I mean, it sucks, if you can't find the d--n speeches of the man that you might consider electing president. What's the sense in that.

Instead, I found a little article, talking about Bush flip-flopping. HAH!

Here's a little section:

WE INVADED IRAQ TO ELIMINATE WMD… TO LIBERATE THE NATION … TO FOSTER DEMOCRACY … TO …

Bush has offered continually shifting rationales for the War in Iraq. In March 2003 he said, “Our mission is very clear: disarmament.” By June 2003 it was “to liberate an oppressed people.” In May 2004 it was to “see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic.” By this September our mission was to “help new leaders train their army so they can do the hard work.” [Bush Remarks, 3/6/03, 6/5/03, 5/4/04, 9/4/04]

Hrm. Well, Kerry your one to talk.

I'll throw a little reason at you, that I've stolen from one of your fanatics.

Opinions change with time. Your opinions, the time it takes to change, is measured in seconds. Bush, his is measured in events.

Disarmament was completed by June 2003. People were liberated by May 2004. Iraq was practically self-governing by September 2004.

Bush accomplished one goal, and moved onto the next. You, accomplish nothing, and move every .0000001 seconds.

So there, I think I'm done for now.

Oh, and Kerry, next time, get your people to run a spellcheck. In the "WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR, WE CAN'T DO IT OR WE ALREADY ARE?", your people forgot to put a "t" on the word but.

WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR, WE CAN’T DO IT OR WE ALREADY ARE?

In an interview before the Republican convention, Bush said of the War on Terror, “I don’t think you can win it.” Bu the very next day he said, “We are winning and we will win.” [AP, 8/30/04, Bush Remarks 8/31/04]

I've italicized the spelling error for you, considering your lack of concentration skills.

Take That, Kerry!

2004-10-31T01:22:00.000-04:00

Well, Bush has pulled another wig over the liberals heads. Especially over Kerry's. Of course, like there's anything difficult in that. Just use any piece of logic, to destroy that man's world. Or a .45. Either will suffice (I suggest the .45 of course).

In a snippet from Bush's speech with the Governator in OH:

That's why I went to the United States Congress and asked for $87 billion of supplemental funding, necessary funding to support our troops in harm's way. We got great bipartisan support for that request. Only 12 United States senators voted against the funding for our troops, two of whom were my opponent and his running mate.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: When you're out gathering the vote over the next four days, when you're rounding up people to go to the polls, remind them of this statistic: Only four members of the United States Senate voted to authorize the use of force, and then voted against providing the funding necessary for our troops in combat. Two of those four were my opponent and his running mate.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: You might remember the most famous quote of the 2004 campaign. When asked about his vote on the $87 billion, Senator Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Now, I haven't -- I haven't spent a lot of time in Columbus, but I doubt we're going to find many people here who talk that way. (Laughter.) He's given several explanations since about his $87 billion vote. Perhaps the most illustrative one of them all was when he said the whole thing was a complicated matter. (Laughter.) My fellow citizens, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. (Applause.)

Hrm....

And yet again, the President has backed the Kerry/Edwards staff into a corner. I wonder how they plan to wiggle outta that one?

For future reference, any point of logic used against a liberal, will be referred to as Liberalicide. Definition? Killing a liberal by using logic, and reason.

So, Bush gets the first of the illustrious Liberalicide points, which I will now tally (when I feel like it), and update on, at various times.

Oh, and for all you others out there, you can get a hold of the rest of the speech here.

Finally, Some Truth

2004-10-31T01:01:00.000-04:00

For all my fellow conservatives, I have a piece of literature that I've found, sitting on another blog, and decided to share it with you.

Here lies truth, hiding from the most simplistic minded human-esque creatures out there, no names mentioned (coughliberalscough).

So, take a peek. You never know what you may find.

Mongiardo, you "Limp Wrist"!

2004-10-30T16:13:00.000-04:00

Bunning surrogate David Williams, the Kentucky Senate president, referred to Mongiardo as a "limp wrist" several times while campaigning with Bunning this week, including Friday in Hopkinsville.

Williams has said he intended no sexual connotation, but was speaking in sports parlance by saying that Bunning, a Hall of Fame pitcher, is still capable of "throwing that hard pitch from the mound."

Another Republican state senator, Elizabeth Tori, declared Wednesday that Mongiardo "is not a gentleman," and then added of her Senate colleague, "I'm not even sure the word `man' applies to him."

---------------

I don't know about you, but that seems kinda funny to me.

Read more here

Kerry Cut-Off (Finally)

2004-10-30T14:54:00.000-04:00

Kerry was finally cut off in the middle of his damn speech. YES!

As some of you know, I was ill yesterday, so, I took the time to enjoy some news, while trying to hold down my lunch (seeing Kerry was of no help in the latter attempt). Well, while sitting there, I got to watch Bush give like, 15 minutes of a speech in New Hampshire.

After going "yay..." with as much enthusiasm as a nauseous person can muster, it clipped over to a small news brief. We then got to see Kerry for about a minute and a half, and it flipped over to this cool sounding interview with a soldier who removed 200 tons of explosives from a base in Iraq.

It sounded so cool. All those explosives, and the interview was to occur in about a quarter of an hour. I was a little excited.... WAIT! Kerry had come on.

I was actually standing and clapping for Fox News. They had successfully cut-off Kerry after only 1.5 minutes (about a tenth of the time I'd watched Bush, for all you mathematically challenged readers). The best part, they never returned to him. They just kept up with these updates on the upcoming interview, and talking to other reporters about the significance of it during the upcoming election.

Good for you Fox News. Too bad you couldn't rip out his vocal cords, and save us all the trouble of listening to his BS anymore. Still.... Congrats.

You get three cookies for that.