Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Wednesday Quick Hits

Well, there's so many things going on, I'm going to have to hit them all really fast.

J Wright Strikes Back - Simply put, Jeremiah Wright is continuing to beat the shit out of Barack Obama by opening his foghorn of a blasphemous voice. From his Bill Moyers interview to his appearance at the National Press Club (courtesy of a Hillary Supporter), Wright continues to remind us why his vision for America is sick. And despite Obama's attempts to distance himself from this verbal suicide bomber, the senator from Illinois is going into the ditch fast. Obama's chickens, are comin' home, to roost.

Hillary Has More Balls than Bill - In his book, The No Spin Zone, Bill O'Reilly included a chapter entitled "It Would Take a Village to Drag Hillary Into the No Spin Zone" where he asks questions of Clinton he thought he would never get the chance to. Wednesday, April 30 (that's tonight), that will change. To her credit, Senator Hillary Clinton will be stepping into the No Spin Zone to face some hard-assed questions. Love him or hate him, Bill is not going to give Hillary a pass. I think she'll be hoping for some sniper fire by the end. More to come if I feel like it.

The Check Is In the Mail - Our "generous" and "caring" federal government, in a bid to make us forget about food and gas prices, has begun shipping out the ill-conceived stimulus checks. I have yet to see mine leap into my account via the wonder of direct deposit. However, I already have plans for it. A portion will go to lottery tickets, the least likely way I can find to stimulate the economy, short of burning cash. Another bit will go to for the sole purpose of getting rid of our current insane tax system. The rest goes to my gas tank.

Surface-to-Air Missiles for Helicopter Moms - The blog is called Free Range Kids. It promotes cutting the apron strings and letting your kids do stuff without a leash or a subcutaneous LoJack. The reason for this is a constant stream of stories from the local news stations and the 24-hour news channels going from stories about serial child molesters eating babies left alone for two whole seconds to warnings about how your child's latest to could KILL THEM!!!! The shit is incessant and convinces us that our children have to be watched and protected every second.

I have taken a slightly different tack, and except for some bumps bruises, cuts, scrapes, and one burn each, my children (3 1/2 and 2) are still alive and enjoying themselves. In fact the older, autistic one, when presented with an opportunity to take care of himself generally will do so.
Obviously I don't let them get that far out of my site at this age, but they haven't been abducted and sold into slavery, or drowned in an inch of water or turned into a braindead liberal by licking too much lead off their toys. My guess is that they'll make it to adulthood without too much permanent injury.

So there you have it, so let me have it.


Toad734 said...

I don't think my check will even fill up my gas tank. If it does, maybe I will buy lottery tickets with the rest.

Wow, I have to watch Hillary bitch slap Oreilly. I hope she puts him on the spot about all the shit he talks about her and then maybe about him trying go have phone sex with that intern.

As far as the children/media/fear thing I totally agreed. You know a child is more likely to be killed by it's parents than the following:

1.Osama Bin Laden or any terrorism
2.Young black inner city youth
3. Pitbulls or packs of pitbulls with rabies
4. Poison
5. Ass rapists
6. Dick Cheney (but just slightly)
7. Influenza & Pneumonia
9. West Nile
10. Cougars (both urban and wild)
11. Suffocation
12. Light sockets
13. Accidental Fire arms
14. Falling
15. Drugs
16. Gay Marriage
17. Howard Stern
18. TeleTubbies
19. WMD's
20. The lack of prayer in the classroom.

In fact, your kids are most likely to be killed while they are with you(parent) in the car, or with you in the house, or by you than any of the things mentioned above.

Patrick M said...

I don't think my check will even fill up my gas tank.

What the hell kind of gas-guzzling piece of shit are you driving?!?!?! An 18-wheeler?

Also, you can't mention anyone without dredging unsubstantiated and old shit? This is why people call you a moonbat.

Also, love the list, although there may be a slight slant there.

Toad734 said...

Just slight.

You mean old shit like something Obamas ex pastor said? Or how he didn't put his hand over his heart during a song? That type of old shit?

I have a Mazda 6, it has a decent sized gas tank and also gets decent milage but my check is gonig to be like $100 if I am lucky. The brilliant minds behind this "refund" or welfare or whatever it is don't take into account cost of living when they decided who qualified for a rebate. If I lived where you lived I would be rich but in Chicago I am still...well, not rich or even well off for that matter.

And to point #3 that isn't even close to being a joke. In fact, you are more likely to choke to death on the cap of your ball point pen than you are to be killed by a pitbull or any dog yet no city has proposed banning pens. More people in the US are killed by horses than by dogs. I think we can both agree that yes, the nanny state has become a problem.

I can't stand having my rights or freedoms taken away because someone elses kid might be stupid or someone else doesn't want to mess with raising or protecting their child so HBO cant show titties until after 9:00.

Patrick M said...

I'll assume you know the difference between one accusation and lawsuit (O'Reilly) and a pattern of behavior over 20+ years (Obama). This is not to defend O'Reilly, but he's just a news commentator and Obama's bucking for the presidency. There's a difference.

As for the rebate, it's a feel-good solution when real action would be better. You know where I'm going on that one.

I can't stand having my rights or freedoms taken away because someone elses kid might be stupid or someone else doesn't want to mess with raising or protecting their child....

Can't have said it any better than that.

Shaw Kenawe said...

(Obama). This is not to defend O'Reilly, but he's just a news commentator and Obama's bucking for the presidency.

I have to jump in here and say that 1) Obama's ex-pastor did not give haranguing speeches every time he stepped up to the pulpit; 2) Obama has never, never, in speech or action, disrespected his country. Never. You want guilt by association?

No Catholic should ever attempt to run for president unless they left the Church as soon as they found out that the people who are in authority in their church, including the current Pope, allowed felons to move from parish to parish and commit crimes against children and tried to game the system by running out the statute of limitations.

Now if you want to blame Obama for all that his pastor said and for not leaving the church, you must do the same for any Catholic who did not leave an organization, the Catholic Church, that aided and abetted child molesters, felons.

Obama's pastor did some good things for his Church--just as I'm sure the Catholic church has. But if Obama is to be reviled for the words of his pastor (which are completely protected by our 1st amendment, unlike child molestation) then you need to be outraged by any Catholic politician who may some day hope to be president.

IMHO I believe this outrage over Rev. Wright is about something other than his crazy rants.

Shaw Kenawe said...

For further edification on Pope Benedict's involvement in crimes against children:

Failure to report criminal acts to police

From a legal perspective, the most serious offense, aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves, was the active institutional cover-up by the Roman Catholic Church's most senior Church leaders for failing to report these felonies to the police.

In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. An example of this can be found in Massachusetts, USA.[9]

An internal church document called the Crimen Sollicitationis ordered that sex abuse cases fell under the exclusive purview of the Vatican and imposed a code of silence on all involved in these cases- including the victims of rape. Those who reported molestation to the police were liable to be excommunicated. The policy was enforced by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

If you have a strong stomach, you can read the whole document which spells out how the Catholic Church encouraged its bishops and priests to protect the men who molested children.

So to all who believe that Wright's rantings and craziness should be transferred to Obama, I demand the same guilt by association be leveled on every Catholic who did not leave the church and who did not denounce that high Vatican official who aided in covering up these crimes against children, Pope Ratzinger.

Anonymous said...

If the problems of this country are going to be cured we need term limits slapped on congress. The Democrats had plans to get us out of Iraq, bring down gas prices, create jobs etc. etc. etc. Look what happened to the economy with one year of their control. 6 years and out House and Senate.

Dee said...

I will give Hillary credit for finally agreeing to go on O'Reilly's show although, it was only because she was desperate and pandering.

Toad734 said...


I finally watched it and she definitely wasn't pandering.


Good point about guilt by association and sex abuse. If Obama is a traitor because of what his church said then catholics are pedophiles because of what their curch did. Makes sense, well, not really but if you want to compare apples to apples...

Patrick M said...

Shaw: Enough of the moral relevance bullshit. If you call a pedophile priest a spiritual mentor even after finding out about his love of altar boys, then the argument is valid.

And as an extremely lapsed Catholic, any priest that damages kids would become well known.

As for the Church as a whole covering this up, there's a whole psychology behind it that could collapse the church if they don't get their collective heads out of their asses. I'm not going to justify any actions, and every guilty priest should be publicly castrated.

And the Church will be paying for this for a long time....

The J Wright controversy, the flag pin, the Weather Underground terrorist, and Michelle's mouth are all part of judging the character and thoughts of Barack Obama. Therefore, unless there's mindless nitpicking going on, then the case against can be made.

Anon: Amen to the term limits.

Dee: *shudder* I have to agree with Toad. Hillary wasn't pandering. Desperate, maybe. But she acquited herself well and appeared (VERY relatively) honest.

Toad: You know, we Catholics only listen to about half of everything the priests say. Naptime during Mass is always good.

But seriously, my response to Shaw will suffice for you too.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oh hell, it's your blog, so you will get the last say. But I just had to get this in on the subject:

Bill O'Reilly clip: What kind of judgment allows a sitting senator to attend a church that radical? Why is Barack Obama continuing to go to that church?

Sean Hannity clip: He stayed in the church for 20 years. I just don’t know how you could sit there for 20 years. Let's say he went to the church ten years and then left the church. I think people would've said, 'All right, he was showing better judgment.'

Stephen Colbert: Exactly! When you see or hear things that are bad or going on in your church, you get up and you walk out. That's what Catholics like me and Papa Bear and Sean Hannity understand. You leave that church!! Unless it's, y'know, widespread decades-long rumors of sexual abuse. In that case you gotta give it time. ... The point is, all any Catholic pundits and Catholic politicians who may be criticizing Obama are saying is: Do as we say, not as we didn’t!
---The Colbert Report

Patrick M said...

You're right, Shaw I do get the last word. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Okay, now to the serious point. Bill is right, Sean is right, and Stephen merely continues the false moral relevance argument you already started with. I'm not going to repeat myself. Just consider what I said above said again.