Gotta click on it to get the full effect, since for some reason animated GIF's don't seem to post well. Don't think for a second that I'd congratulate those turds. Not sure what it's an advertisement for (didn't click on it, probably should have, put a couple cents into Matt Drudge's pocket), but I thought it was hilarious.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I LOL'd at this
Gotta click on it to get the full effect, since for some reason animated GIF's don't seem to post well. Don't think for a second that I'd congratulate those turds. Not sure what it's an advertisement for (didn't click on it, probably should have, put a couple cents into Matt Drudge's pocket), but I thought it was hilarious.
Why do I do it?
I've had several friends ask me why it is that I support Ron Paul. Why do I support the man who is also supported by some of those out there on the lunatic fringe so far they need tin-foil hats to keep the government from controlling their brains? How is it that a veteran who loves his country so much that he was willing to put his life on the line for it, can support the same guy that people who deny 9-11 was a terrorist attack support?
While I'd like to say "politics make strange bedfellows" but that simplifies it horribly and completely takes away from what I support about Paul's candidacy.
I don't support the nutjobs who think that 9-11 was a conspiracy by W and Cheney to get us into a war. They're idiots and if you look at my blog and my history you'll see that I have told them face to face as well as in postings here that they're idiots.
I don't support those people who believe in racism and are supporting Paul. I don't believe in racial set-asides or affirmative action, but that certainly doesn't make me a racist. They're idiots.
I don't support those people who say (and Paul is not one of them) that the war is about oil and was all a sham to get control of Iraq's oil. Paul acknowledges that it was a well intentioned war,but has turned into nation-building and has been marred by procrastination and poor planning. While I disagree with his solution to the problems in Iraq, I agree with his analysis. We've f-d it up pretty good and should have done better by our troops. I don't agree with Paul in his stance that we should immediately pull out, but do you agree 100% with everything your candidate says?
McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Edwards, Obama, Clinton are all cut from the same cloth essentially. No REAL change will come from electing any of them. I've been around long enough to notice when change happens and truly none of this cluster of incompetents will make any real change in DC. Sure they'll make subtle changes, incremental changes, most of which won't make any difference in the big picture. But the only candidate that will turn this country back into the Constitutional Republic that it was founded to be is Ron Paul.
While I'd like to say "politics make strange bedfellows" but that simplifies it horribly and completely takes away from what I support about Paul's candidacy.
I don't support the nutjobs who think that 9-11 was a conspiracy by W and Cheney to get us into a war. They're idiots and if you look at my blog and my history you'll see that I have told them face to face as well as in postings here that they're idiots.
I don't support those people who believe in racism and are supporting Paul. I don't believe in racial set-asides or affirmative action, but that certainly doesn't make me a racist. They're idiots.
I don't support those people who say (and Paul is not one of them) that the war is about oil and was all a sham to get control of Iraq's oil. Paul acknowledges that it was a well intentioned war,but has turned into nation-building and has been marred by procrastination and poor planning. While I disagree with his solution to the problems in Iraq, I agree with his analysis. We've f-d it up pretty good and should have done better by our troops. I don't agree with Paul in his stance that we should immediately pull out, but do you agree 100% with everything your candidate says?
McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Edwards, Obama, Clinton are all cut from the same cloth essentially. No REAL change will come from electing any of them. I've been around long enough to notice when change happens and truly none of this cluster of incompetents will make any real change in DC. Sure they'll make subtle changes, incremental changes, most of which won't make any difference in the big picture. But the only candidate that will turn this country back into the Constitutional Republic that it was founded to be is Ron Paul.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
New look
Sorry about the weird look today. Trying to do some changes to the site to make it more readable, but that doesn't seem to be working real well. Hopefully I'll have that fixed soon.
An open letter to Sean Hannity
Dear Sean,
Over the years I've been a regular listener to the Sean Hannity show on 1360am in Kalamazoo. I've supported the causes you've supported such as your Freedom concerts to raise money for the children of slain veterans and others. I've agreed with you on most of your positions, at least the ones that remain true to conservative values.
When you came out in support of George Allen for president, I wholeheartedly agreed that he would have been the only Reagan-esque conservative in the group. He dropped out and your support seemed to swing to Rudy Giuliani, someone that would be hard pressed to be called a moderate, much less a conservative. I stuck with you, despite our disagreement there. You continued to call for conservatives to rally around Rudy with your interviews with him to point out his "law and order" values, except when it came to gun control, social values, and other aspects of his personality that you failed to address. You regularly make ridiculous statements in support of your opinions that I tend to overlook because I generally agree with you on most things.
However, yesterday(1/28/2008) was the last straw. You had a caller on the air who was questioning the opinions of a conservative radio host and asked you what you thought. Additionally, he asked you about Ron Paul. You promptly went on a rant about Ron Paul and dismissed all of his supporters as "nuts". I believe your quote was something along the lines of "Listen, if you are a Ron Paul supporter, generally speaking, you are a nut".
Really? A "nut"? A nut because I believe in the constitution? A nut because I believe that under the president I voted for twice, as well as the Republican congress our government grew at a rate comparative to Lyndon B. Johnson's welfare state known as the 'Great Society'? A nut because I believe that the President should actually wield his veto power on occasion and not just as a political weapon but also when he sees more pork than substance in a bill? Am I a nut because I believe in state's rights and believe in the power of the individual rather than the government? Am I a nut because I believe that the federal government has grown vastly out of control and that Ron Paul is the only candidate that will actually fight to change that? I guarantee that Rudy won't. Mitt won't. McCain won't. None of them will work against the power structures that are already in place.
You even mention in your book, Deliver us from Evil, the quote that George Washington used in his farewell address warning America against "entangling alliances" in an effort to persuade people to not support the Democrats and their desire to use the UN (Useless Nations) for support in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you can't see the logic in Ron Paul's position to get out of the UN and begin to take care of things at home instead of abroad?
Honestly, I my patience with your show was growing thin and I'd already heard pretty much all your show has to offer: "3 hours a day, that's all we ask", "make the Bush tax cuts permanent"-(which, by the way, Paul supports), "Stop Hillary Express", "Amnesty yada yada" -(again, which Paul opposes). If you truly ARE a conservative, you will stop with the bias against Ron Paul and begin to LISTEN and READ his opinions. For the most part, you will find that his stance on damn near everything important to America is pretty close to yours.
Speaking of your general ignorance on Paul's positions and your bias against him, I notice on your site today that the poll asking people who they want to win in FL only had three entries. Nice of you to leave Paul off of that and guarantee that your ignorance will continue as far as his grassroots support is concerned.
Sean, don't try to cast this as a liberal masquerading as a upset listener. I'm not a nut, liberal, or even conspiracy theorist. I am a combat veteran who loves his country more than anyone could ever know and am sick of the establishment candidates on both sides running it like it's their own damn piggy bank. By the way, a large amount of Paul's support, both canvassing and financial, is from active duty military. It's too bad that you can't lend a voice of reason to the ongoing bias against Paul, but it sounds like you've already closed your mind. I'm even willing to bet that if you went out and answered a set of questions that asked your opinion on various subjects, you'd find that you agreed with Ron Paul a majority of the time. Just asking for you to be intellectually honest, something that you like to ask people to do on your show.
For America,
Big Johnson
Over the years I've been a regular listener to the Sean Hannity show on 1360am in Kalamazoo. I've supported the causes you've supported such as your Freedom concerts to raise money for the children of slain veterans and others. I've agreed with you on most of your positions, at least the ones that remain true to conservative values.
When you came out in support of George Allen for president, I wholeheartedly agreed that he would have been the only Reagan-esque conservative in the group. He dropped out and your support seemed to swing to Rudy Giuliani, someone that would be hard pressed to be called a moderate, much less a conservative. I stuck with you, despite our disagreement there. You continued to call for conservatives to rally around Rudy with your interviews with him to point out his "law and order" values, except when it came to gun control, social values, and other aspects of his personality that you failed to address. You regularly make ridiculous statements in support of your opinions that I tend to overlook because I generally agree with you on most things.
However, yesterday(1/28/2008) was the last straw. You had a caller on the air who was questioning the opinions of a conservative radio host and asked you what you thought. Additionally, he asked you about Ron Paul. You promptly went on a rant about Ron Paul and dismissed all of his supporters as "nuts". I believe your quote was something along the lines of "Listen, if you are a Ron Paul supporter, generally speaking, you are a nut".
Really? A "nut"? A nut because I believe in the constitution? A nut because I believe that under the president I voted for twice, as well as the Republican congress our government grew at a rate comparative to Lyndon B. Johnson's welfare state known as the 'Great Society'? A nut because I believe that the President should actually wield his veto power on occasion and not just as a political weapon but also when he sees more pork than substance in a bill? Am I a nut because I believe in state's rights and believe in the power of the individual rather than the government? Am I a nut because I believe that the federal government has grown vastly out of control and that Ron Paul is the only candidate that will actually fight to change that? I guarantee that Rudy won't. Mitt won't. McCain won't. None of them will work against the power structures that are already in place.
You even mention in your book, Deliver us from Evil, the quote that George Washington used in his farewell address warning America against "entangling alliances" in an effort to persuade people to not support the Democrats and their desire to use the UN (Useless Nations) for support in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you can't see the logic in Ron Paul's position to get out of the UN and begin to take care of things at home instead of abroad?
Honestly, I my patience with your show was growing thin and I'd already heard pretty much all your show has to offer: "3 hours a day, that's all we ask", "make the Bush tax cuts permanent"-(which, by the way, Paul supports), "Stop Hillary Express", "Amnesty yada yada" -(again, which Paul opposes). If you truly ARE a conservative, you will stop with the bias against Ron Paul and begin to LISTEN and READ his opinions. For the most part, you will find that his stance on damn near everything important to America is pretty close to yours.
Speaking of your general ignorance on Paul's positions and your bias against him, I notice on your site today that the poll asking people who they want to win in FL only had three entries. Nice of you to leave Paul off of that and guarantee that your ignorance will continue as far as his grassroots support is concerned.
Sean, don't try to cast this as a liberal masquerading as a upset listener. I'm not a nut, liberal, or even conspiracy theorist. I am a combat veteran who loves his country more than anyone could ever know and am sick of the establishment candidates on both sides running it like it's their own damn piggy bank. By the way, a large amount of Paul's support, both canvassing and financial, is from active duty military. It's too bad that you can't lend a voice of reason to the ongoing bias against Paul, but it sounds like you've already closed your mind. I'm even willing to bet that if you went out and answered a set of questions that asked your opinion on various subjects, you'd find that you agreed with Ron Paul a majority of the time. Just asking for you to be intellectually honest, something that you like to ask people to do on your show.
For America,
Big Johnson
Interesting survey
I posted a link to this survey in my open letter to Sean Hannity, but I thought that I'd put an additional post here so that folks could see it and try it.
It's interesting but a bit inaccurate. It has me as a McCain supporter (ewwww), but if you look at the answers it's because I didn't specifically answer exactly as Paul, Romney, or others did. Additionally, there are a few answers where they are very very close to each other and answering one way will give you a match to one candidate and the other will go to another. But it's still interesting and also gives you a central spot to see the candidates positions on several issues.
It's interesting but a bit inaccurate. It has me as a McCain supporter (ewwww), but if you look at the answers it's because I didn't specifically answer exactly as Paul, Romney, or others did. Additionally, there are a few answers where they are very very close to each other and answering one way will give you a match to one candidate and the other will go to another. But it's still interesting and also gives you a central spot to see the candidates positions on several issues.
Monday, January 28, 2008
And finally, the next logical step
Newsflash from Britain, where socialized medicine is all the rage and has been for thirty-something (or more) years. Queues to see your physician are longer than a donkey's wang, and finally, the physicians in Britain are providing some advice to the British National Health Services to help alleviate the problem: Don't treat the old and infirmed.
Yep, there's your genius solution. Just don't treat the people who actually need treatment. Only see the healthy. That'll keep the lines short.
F-ing idiots.
Yep, there's your genius solution. Just don't treat the people who actually need treatment. Only see the healthy. That'll keep the lines short.
F-ing idiots.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Faux News
In an ongoing effort to defame and besmirch Ron Paul, FauxNews is chasing an old story about Paul being racist. Of course this attack has to happen on Martin Luther King day when folks are most likely to pay attention to it.
The background to this is that Dr. Paul used to have a newsletter published in his name after retiring from Congress the first time, written by ghostwriters. Unfortunately, one of those newsletters included an article with disparaging remarks about MLK jr. These remarks have been claimed to be written by Paul, but a political aid of his, Lew Rockwell, has said on multiple occasions that he wrote them without Paul's permission.
Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts. We got emotion on our side.
However, Paul has had some folks come out on his side, supporting his position that he is not a racist, including the Austin Texas NAACP president, Nelson Linder. He says that Paul is being attacked because he's a threat to the establishment.
Honestly, the best way to show how biased FauxNews is against Ron Paul is to use their own graphic. Ron Paul finished 2nd in the Nevada primary, but yet, the three pictures they have on their screen? Romney (the winner), McCain, and Huckabee. WTF? Don't believe me? See for yourself:
So much for "you decide"
The background to this is that Dr. Paul used to have a newsletter published in his name after retiring from Congress the first time, written by ghostwriters. Unfortunately, one of those newsletters included an article with disparaging remarks about MLK jr. These remarks have been claimed to be written by Paul, but a political aid of his, Lew Rockwell, has said on multiple occasions that he wrote them without Paul's permission.
Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts. We got emotion on our side.
However, Paul has had some folks come out on his side, supporting his position that he is not a racist, including the Austin Texas NAACP president, Nelson Linder. He says that Paul is being attacked because he's a threat to the establishment.
Honestly, the best way to show how biased FauxNews is against Ron Paul is to use their own graphic. Ron Paul finished 2nd in the Nevada primary, but yet, the three pictures they have on their screen? Romney (the winner), McCain, and Huckabee. WTF? Don't believe me? See for yourself:
So much for "you decide"
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Bill Clinton whines again
We all remember the Bill Clinton unleashed video of him getting all red and unhinged at reporter Chris Wallace when asked about Osama bin Laden and his limp-wristed attempts at killing him. Well, here's Bitch Clinton again getting all kinds of fired up over an attempt by the Hildebeast supporters in Nevada to suppress votes using a lawsuit to stop caucuses in casinos. No coincidence that this lawsuit was filed two days after the union that represents most of the workers at casinos who will be voting in those caucuses came out with an endorsement for Obama I'm sure.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Whew, good thing I'm not a bettin' man
Man, I'm glad I didn't lay any $$ down on my predictions. Romney's home-town boy schtick worked in Michigan and got him the victory. However, I also think that the crappy weather throughout Michigan worked against the Dimwitocrats who wanted to throw a wrench in the Republican's plans and get a McCain victory. Those Dimwits who would have voted in the Republican primary rather than make a single choice for the Hildebeast didn't bother coming out because of the weather. However, I did get the top 4 right, just mixed up the top 2 and overestimated the Paul vote.
Speaking of the Ron Paul, I think that his supporters are too busy being paranoid of "the enemy" and not enough time rustling up the vote. Seems that a 6% vote total is way less than even the 'pundits' predicted and shows the volatility of his supporters. This weekend there was an activity in Kalamazoo to ensure that there was some organization surrounding getting the vote out. Initially it was advertised as a "Ron Paul Event" which I took to mean that Dr. Paul was going to speak. I was later informed that was not the case, that it was merely a 'get out the vote' event. Knowing that I was unable to volunteer to help on Tuesday due to prior work committments, I didn't bother to show for the event. However, when it was emailed out, the sender didn't use a generic mailing list to hide all our email addresses and one of the recipients did a "Reply to all"(always love that). His reply was as follows:
Now, I'm not a big fan of propaganda but understand that it's part of the political game. But "enemies"? C'mon man, take off your tinfoil hat and come back to us.
Seriously, I love Dr. Paul's stance on gun control, taxes, immigration, economics, health care, social security, the war on drugs, and a myriad of other subjects. However, when the primary season is over and the Republican party has a nominee, that person will more than likely have my vote, due to the complete dearth of competent candidates on the Dimwitocrat side. And, as my brother likes to suggest, if Dr. Paul decides to drop the (R) from his name and become a (L)ibertarian, I may still vote for him, but I would never consider the Republican nominee my 'enemy'.
My enemies tend to wear diapers on their heads, have an overwhelming desire to kill innocent women and children, have sex with goats and camels, and rant about how evil and horrible America is, even when we feed their people because they're too busy having a revolution to actually produce anything. My enemies are also those who would take away my freedoms in the United States, like the right to choose my own physician, the right to choose whether or not to HAVE health insurance, the right to own a handgun, and the right to eat whatever the hell I want, even they have transfatty acids in it. They also don't dare to get into a straight up man-to-man fight because they know they'll never win.
Kind of like the nanny-state Dimwitocrats.
Speaking of the Ron Paul, I think that his supporters are too busy being paranoid of "the enemy" and not enough time rustling up the vote. Seems that a 6% vote total is way less than even the 'pundits' predicted and shows the volatility of his supporters. This weekend there was an activity in Kalamazoo to ensure that there was some organization surrounding getting the vote out. Initially it was advertised as a "Ron Paul Event" which I took to mean that Dr. Paul was going to speak. I was later informed that was not the case, that it was merely a 'get out the vote' event. Knowing that I was unable to volunteer to help on Tuesday due to prior work committments, I didn't bother to show for the event. However, when it was emailed out, the sender didn't use a generic mailing list to hide all our email addresses and one of the recipients did a "Reply to all"(always love that). His reply was as follows:
i'll be there, and i'm bringing between 5-10 undecided. by 2:00 p.m.,
they'll be decided. :) there has been a lot of propaganda used against us.
DO NOT LET THAT DETER YOU!!! STAY FOCUSSED. OUR ENEMIES LIKE TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER. DO NOT ALLOW IT!!!!
Now, I'm not a big fan of propaganda but understand that it's part of the political game. But "enemies"? C'mon man, take off your tinfoil hat and come back to us.
Seriously, I love Dr. Paul's stance on gun control, taxes, immigration, economics, health care, social security, the war on drugs, and a myriad of other subjects. However, when the primary season is over and the Republican party has a nominee, that person will more than likely have my vote, due to the complete dearth of competent candidates on the Dimwitocrat side. And, as my brother likes to suggest, if Dr. Paul decides to drop the (R) from his name and become a (L)ibertarian, I may still vote for him, but I would never consider the Republican nominee my 'enemy'.
My enemies tend to wear diapers on their heads, have an overwhelming desire to kill innocent women and children, have sex with goats and camels, and rant about how evil and horrible America is, even when we feed their people because they're too busy having a revolution to actually produce anything. My enemies are also those who would take away my freedoms in the United States, like the right to choose my own physician, the right to choose whether or not to HAVE health insurance, the right to own a handgun, and the right to eat whatever the hell I want, even they have transfatty acids in it. They also don't dare to get into a straight up man-to-man fight because they know they'll never win.
Kind of like the nanny-state Dimwitocrats.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Predictions for Michigan
As the election cycle started, I started to get IM's from friends of mine, from whom I've not heard in some time. Most were looking for some insight into what I thought or just shooting the bull about the stupidity of the candidates. It's been nice to touch base with y'all and I'd like to hear from you more than once every 2 or 4 years.
That having been said, here's some insight into what's going to happen tomorrow night in Michigan.
Hillary will win. Duh. She's the only viable candidate on the Dimwitocrat site on the ballot. Due to the fact that Jenny "from the block" Granholm supports Hillary, she worked to ensure that she was on the ballot. The national Dimwitocrat party has taken away the ability for Michigan delegates to come to the convention in the summer anyway, but we're still having the primary, since they want to give off the impression that the people's votes actually mean something. However, Edwards and Obama are not on the ballot. So people's choices are to vote for Hillary or "uncommitted". Or one of the other losers on the ballot like Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.
OR Dimwitocrats who feel like they can't win the election on the merits of their candidate have a third choice. Throw a wrench into the democratic process (note- little d) and vote for the candidate who is least likely to be acceptable to the national Republican party. Last time in 2000, it was John McCain. Yes, there was an orchestrated effort to get Dimwitocrats to vote for McCain because they thought that it would weaken W and Al Gore had the nomination wrapped up.
So, on the Republican side, I predict that McCain will win once again, Romney will finish a VERY close second, beaten only by those jackass Dimwitocrats. Huck will finish a distant third, and Ron Paul will have his best showing yet, beating Thompson AND Giuliani, while garnering about 12% of the vote.
There you go, let's see if tomorrow night I'm feeling as confident about these predictions as I am tonight.
That having been said, here's some insight into what's going to happen tomorrow night in Michigan.
Hillary will win. Duh. She's the only viable candidate on the Dimwitocrat site on the ballot. Due to the fact that Jenny "from the block" Granholm supports Hillary, she worked to ensure that she was on the ballot. The national Dimwitocrat party has taken away the ability for Michigan delegates to come to the convention in the summer anyway, but we're still having the primary, since they want to give off the impression that the people's votes actually mean something. However, Edwards and Obama are not on the ballot. So people's choices are to vote for Hillary or "uncommitted". Or one of the other losers on the ballot like Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.
OR Dimwitocrats who feel like they can't win the election on the merits of their candidate have a third choice. Throw a wrench into the democratic process (note- little d) and vote for the candidate who is least likely to be acceptable to the national Republican party. Last time in 2000, it was John McCain. Yes, there was an orchestrated effort to get Dimwitocrats to vote for McCain because they thought that it would weaken W and Al Gore had the nomination wrapped up.
So, on the Republican side, I predict that McCain will win once again, Romney will finish a VERY close second, beaten only by those jackass Dimwitocrats. Huck will finish a distant third, and Ron Paul will have his best showing yet, beating Thompson AND Giuliani, while garnering about 12% of the vote.
There you go, let's see if tomorrow night I'm feeling as confident about these predictions as I am tonight.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Go Hill
"Bah, that Martin Luther King jr. clown couldn't shine LBJ's shoes. LBJ was da man. Who says everyone from Texas hates black people? Dem colored folks wouldn'ta got no civil rights without us crackas"
Ok, that's not a direct quote, but close enough. Watch for yourself.
Keep talking Hillary. It only helps us.
Ok, that's not a direct quote, but close enough. Watch for yourself.
Keep talking Hillary. It only helps us.
A little insight into Hillary's immigration position
Whilst pandering for the hispanic vote in Las Vegas, The Hilldebeast had a conversation with some folks about the economy and one man mentioned that his wife was illegal. Her response was that "No woman is illegal".
Curiouser and curiouser.
So, what exactly is she saying here? Men are illegals, women are merely inconveniences when they cross the border without permission, breaking American laws. Or is she saying that because she's a woman, she can't be illegal because of some cool genetic thing that only the Hilldebeast is intelligent enough to understand? Remember, she IS the smartest woman on the planet.
Just ask her.
Curiouser and curiouser.
So, what exactly is she saying here? Men are illegals, women are merely inconveniences when they cross the border without permission, breaking American laws. Or is she saying that because she's a woman, she can't be illegal because of some cool genetic thing that only the Hilldebeast is intelligent enough to understand? Remember, she IS the smartest woman on the planet.
Just ask her.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Kerry backs Obama...whoopee
So Lurch came out in favor of Obama. That's an obvious case of pandering, much like the majority of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. And speaking of Kerry/Edwards, it kind of makes you wonder if his endorsement is an indication of how big a putz Edwards is or how much of a disloyal prick Kerry is.
Probably a little of both.
Probably a little of both.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Early primaries
Well Ron Paul has actually done better than I expected in the early primaries, beating Rudy in Iowa and finishing only 1% behind him in NH. Not bad for a relative unknown versus "America's Mayor".
I think you'll see a better result from him in states where he's been working for some time like Michigan and South Carolina. It seems I can't go anywhere in Michigan without seeing a Ron Paul sign or bumper sticker. I just hope that those people who were excited enough about him to order a sign or bumper sticker are still excited about him next week at the primary and frickin show up.
As for the Dimwitocrat side of the primaries, I'm not surprised by the results. Obama winning in Iowa wasn't that big of a surprise as Hillary's numbers have been falling off for a while there and Obama is from the neighboring state of Illinois. I'm sure he didn't play that up at all. And while Hillary did show horrible polling numbers in NH, I didn't think there was any way she was 13 points behind Obama there. I didn't think she'd win there, but I figured it'd be a helluva lot closer than that.
And, as much as the national polling suggests that Hillary would beat most of the Republicans in November, (and maybe this is denial) I just don't see her winning. Her negative numbers are so high that she's going to have a really difficult time overcoming that. The only way she'll pull it off is if she appoints Obama as her VP. Then you'll have idiots voting for that pair of socialists because "I wanted to vote for a woman and a black man", as opposed to the right person for the job.
I still don't understand why it is that no one that she's running against has brought up her lack of experience. She loves to tout her loads of experience on the job, but let's check our facts shall we? Did we elect her to President? Nope, she just slept with him (along with what sounds like a lot of other chicas).
I sleep with an Ob/Gyn, are you going to let me do your Pap smear?
Yeah, I thought not.
I think you'll see a better result from him in states where he's been working for some time like Michigan and South Carolina. It seems I can't go anywhere in Michigan without seeing a Ron Paul sign or bumper sticker. I just hope that those people who were excited enough about him to order a sign or bumper sticker are still excited about him next week at the primary and frickin show up.
As for the Dimwitocrat side of the primaries, I'm not surprised by the results. Obama winning in Iowa wasn't that big of a surprise as Hillary's numbers have been falling off for a while there and Obama is from the neighboring state of Illinois. I'm sure he didn't play that up at all. And while Hillary did show horrible polling numbers in NH, I didn't think there was any way she was 13 points behind Obama there. I didn't think she'd win there, but I figured it'd be a helluva lot closer than that.
And, as much as the national polling suggests that Hillary would beat most of the Republicans in November, (and maybe this is denial) I just don't see her winning. Her negative numbers are so high that she's going to have a really difficult time overcoming that. The only way she'll pull it off is if she appoints Obama as her VP. Then you'll have idiots voting for that pair of socialists because "I wanted to vote for a woman and a black man", as opposed to the right person for the job.
I still don't understand why it is that no one that she's running against has brought up her lack of experience. She loves to tout her loads of experience on the job, but let's check our facts shall we? Did we elect her to President? Nope, she just slept with him (along with what sounds like a lot of other chicas).
I sleep with an Ob/Gyn, are you going to let me do your Pap smear?
Yeah, I thought not.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)