I think you would be a most excellent vuvuzela-er. :)

Michale.....

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100615/NEWS01/306150004/Lightning-fire-destroy-Touchdown-Jesus-statue-on-I-75-in-front-of-Solid-Rock-Church

A giant statue of Jesus (affectionately called "Touchdown Jesus" or "Butter Jesus") near where I live was destroyed last night by lightning.

Oddly enough, a Hustler store across the street was left completely untouched.

I will leave it to the reader to draw any conclusions :)

Now it's computer hackers! :D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/15/clyburn-claims-hacking-greenes-surprise-win-sc-senate-race/

Once again, I have to ask.. What ARE Democrats drinking up there??? :D

Michale.....

Ohmygods, that is hilarious!!! :D

"It's funny because it's true!"
-Homer Simpson

Michale.....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2010/alvin-greene-wins-south-carolina-primary

"This is the political equivelant of running yourself a warm bath, falling asleep next to it with your hand in the tub, wetting yourself, and then BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS."

Maybe you can tap into that? :D

Michale.....

I know they're a local custom, but man are they annoying. It's like having a bee hive next to you while the game is on.

"VuvuZela"... How can you NOT laugh at such a word... :D

Michale.....

Hahahahah. Indeed. I'm sure we'll be back at it soon enough.

Me personally, I'm going to enjoy some World Cup.

-David

Here here!

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?? :D

.......

.....

...........

Er, now what do we do??? :D

Michale.....

Here here!

http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-assaults-student-on-washington-sidewalk/

Democrats are going berserk.... :D

Michale.....

I agree completely...

A more PRO-ACTIVE government is the solution...

BUT...

But being more pro-active is only half the battle.. You have to be pro-active on the things that matter...

Take a look at CW's words here...

Obama also used this crisis to pass his healthcare reform measure, which all but consumed an entire year for him and for Congress.

But Wall Street is still operating under the same rules they were when our economy almost collapsed. It's been almost a year and a half, and we have not changed the rules of the road for Wall Street (or Main Street, for that matter).

An entire year wasted, while Obama and the Democrats were "pro-active" on an issue that was important ONLY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY....

Meanwhile, issues that were important to the entire country, jobs, was being completely ignored...

We DO need a pro-active government. Pro-active in the issues that are important to every day Americans..

Sadly, Obama and his administration has proven time and time again, that they are only pro-active to their own twisted and self-serving agenda, let the country be damned...

And we are....

Michale.....

I think we'd all agree that we'd like to see our President be more pro-active.

This is one of the issues I have with much of the anti-government crowd. (And just for the record, I'm not at all referring to you at all with this comment, Michale.)

In corporate circles, there is a strategy that I've heard referred to as "privatize the profit, socialize the risk".

What this means is that the role of the government in good times is to step aside. And in bad times, government's role is to bail out big business.

What this leads to is a very reactive government.

And this isn't a Democrat-Republican split. Both parties are guilty. But what's driving it is the corporate philosophy of "privatize the profit, socialize the risk".

It showed up in President Bush's administration w/ Katrina and the economic crisis. And now it's true in Obama's administration with the economic crisis and the Gulf oil spill.

The solution to this is a more pro-active and effective government. A government that actually enforces regulations. A government with a vision for the future.

Cheers
David

And then today the word is Obama is going to talk about this tomorrow night.

Once again, we see how the Media is directing the Obama Administration...

Why don't we just eliminate the middleman and put Arianna in as President???

Michale.....

The Times Square Bomber, the Underwear Bomber.. Trust me when I say this.. Neither of those incidents were prevented by the CT prowess (such as it is) of the Obama Administration...

Granted, the shoe bomber would seem to indicate the same dumb luck, but that was too close to 9/11 to be a real indication of what our CT operations would eventually ramp up to.. It's an outlier...

However, I see your point. A logical argument can be made for the same dumb luck I attribute to the Obama administration..

Time will tell if Obama's luck (and our's, incidentally) will run out.. I have a very bad feeling it will and soon.

Why didn't Greene's opponent or the Dem party do some research? That's the truly embarrassing thing. Probably because they took it for granted that they would win. Sad.

A common malady of political critters from BOTH ends of the spectrum.. I just don't understand why the SC Dems just don't let it be.. Like you said, they can't win anyways..

And such vulgar displays are doing a LOT more harm to the DP than if they would just let it go..

Michale.....

Over the weekend I heard how a number of CEOs released a report asking for a new direction on energy research. Bill Gates was one. The CEO of Xerox was another.

And then today the word is Obama is going to talk about this tomorrow night.

I received this e-mail petition to support it today: http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy-EMS

Please sign if you'd like to add your voice.

More and more, I'm starting to think Obama is reading this site!

I guess you're making this statement based on the Times Square incident. The funny thing is you could just as equally make the claim for incidents that occurred under Bush's administration.

Take the shoe bomber, for example. This attempt was thwarted because he had to wear his shoes for a second day. And the extra day and perspiration dampened the fuse.

http://www.opensourcesinfo.org/journal/2005/7/25/terrorist-use-of-tatp-explosive.html

That's certainly not the result of any CT ops that Bush planned. But luck.

So it seems both Presidents get lucky sometimes :).

In fact, there's probably just as many examples (if not more) where luck prevented terrorist attacks as any military efforts. It kinda makes you wonder what we're spending all the money on!

Now we see what happens when a Democrat who is not liked wins a primary.

I'm with you here. The Dems can't realistically win this race anyways. It's just really odd that none of this information came out during the primary.

Why didn't Greene's opponent or the Dem party do some research? That's the truly embarrassing thing. Probably because they took it for granted that they would win. Sad.

Cheers
David

It's comical to watch Democrats eat their own...

Now we see what happens when a Democrat who is not liked wins a primary..

They are declared mentally incompetent.

Geeeez, I don't even think Republicans would be that cold-hearted... :D

Michale.....

If you're going to give credit for keeping the country free from terrorist attacks, at least give it both ways.

I just did. :D

But the facts are self-evident. Bush's achievement came from hard work and making tough decisions that were unpopular, but were undeniably effective.

Obama's achievement came from dumb luck and moronic terrorists..

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to say that any one person is keeping us free from terrorist attacks.

Hay, ya'all blame Bush, PERSONALLY, for just about everything, no??

So, if ONE person gets the blame, then ONE person gets the credit, right???

But if you're going to think like that, at least give Obama credit too.

Let me put it another way...

You have 2 people who are millionaires.. One got that way by hard work and building of a business empire. The other got that way by winning the lottery.

Which one deserves the "credit" for the achievement? They both achieved the same result? But one did it by hard work and tough decisions. The other did it by dumb luck.

You see the difference?

Otherwise it just looks like you don't like Obama.

It's worse.. I don't respect him..

I find it even odder that you're going after Obama given that he's pretty much continuing the same foreign policies started by Bush.

That's a very good point and I have no answer for the inconsistency. And you know that I pride myself on consistency.

Why is it that Obama does all the same (mostly) things as Bush did, but yet succeeds only thru dumb luck and not thru actual CT operations?

If you don't like Obama, that's ok. A lot of people seem like they're capable of finding all kinds of reasons for not liking him.

The problem here is Obama gives everyone so many reasons.. I could still respect the man, even if I didn't personally like him..

But he hasn't done anything worthy of respect since April or May of 2009.

But he IS perfecting his golf game so that's something.... I guess...

Mine is because he really wasn't in the "Whoomp, there it is!" video ;).

Did they ever tie that down?? I saw the initial report, but never got around to learning if it was actually Obama or not... :D

p.s. Liz, how do you think Bush helped catapult Iran to a position of power in the Middle East? I'm not sure if I could make this argument or not so it would help to understand where you're coming from.

That's because it wasn't Bush, it was Obama. Obama has been dead wrong about how to deal with Iran since before Obama became president. If Obama had any, I repeat ANY, foreign policy brain cells whatsoever, he would turn Israel loose...

Liz,

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration successfully emboldened Iran by eliminating its great foe in the person and regime of Saddam Hussein.

Like I said.. Tough decisions...

Do you keep a rogue power (Iran) in check by leaving a psychotic madman in power in a neighboring country? A madman that preys on innocent people the way you or I order pizza??

Who knows?? If Bush hadn't taken out Saddam, there might have been (probably would have been) another Iran/Iraq war that would have eventually gone nuclear.

That's why Bush's leadership was a thing to be admired. Sometimes, often times, one has to do the wrong thing for the right reasons to serve the greater good.

Michale.....

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration successfully emboldened Iran by eliminating its great foe in the person and regime of Saddam Hussein.

And, Iran's influence in Iraq has grown by leaps and bounds since the fall of Saddam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/influence.html

Obama's -2 year record of no terrorist attacks on US Proper was the result of dumb luck brought about by incompetent terrorists.

If you're going to give credit for keeping the country free from terrorist attacks, at least give it both ways.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to say that any one person is keeping us free from terrorist attacks. But if you're going to think like that, at least give Obama credit too.

Otherwise it just looks like you don't like Obama.

I find it even odder that you're going after Obama given that he's pretty much continuing the same foreign policies started by Bush.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/25/north-korea-obama-south-korea

If you don't like Obama, that's ok. A lot of people seem like they're capable of finding all kinds of reasons for not liking him. Mine is because he really wasn't in the "Whoomp, there it is!" video ;).

Cheers
David

p.s. Liz, how do you think Bush helped catapult Iran to a position of power in the Middle East? I'm not sure if I could make this argument or not so it would help to understand where you're coming from.

What did the last administration do to effectively address national security concerns?

Oh, let's see.. Rendition, warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo, and so much more. All of these contributed to the Bush Administration's stellar record of ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper Post-9/11..

You know, above and beyond catapulting Iran to a position of influence in the Middle East.

One can thank Obama for that....

David,

Why do you think his foreign policy approach is a failure? Has anything happened as a result of his foreign policy approach to make you think this?

Well, Liz had part of the answer..

I could also point out that the Obama administration has thrown Israel to the wolves time and time again with regards to the UN..

Yet, Obama **AND** the UN are completely silent when North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship and killed 46 sailors...

Get that??

9 scumbag thugs are shot and killed in self-defense in a legal action on a legal blockade... And the UN, with the tacit approval of Obama and the US, go hog-wild, accusing Israel of War Crimes thru having an overdue library book and everything in between...

Yet, an allied ship is torpedoed resulting in the deaths of 46 sailors... And Obama and the UN are like a traffic cop on valium...

"{{Tweeeet}}... Stoooppppp... Stoooppp...."

Let's face it...

Bush's 6+ year record of no terrorist attacks on US Proper was the result of real CT efforts combined with an uncanny ability to make the tough decisions and make them right.

Obama's -2 year record of no terrorist attacks on US Proper was the result of dumb luck brought about by incompetent terrorists.

Our luck is going to turn and turn soon.. You can bet there will be a successful terrorist attack on US Proper within the next 3-6 months...

Take that to the bank.

Michale.....

Why do you think his foreign policy approach is a failure? Has anything happened as a result of his foreign policy approach to make you think this?

What did the last administration do to effectively address national security concerns? You know, above and beyond catapulting Iran to a position of influence in the Middle East.

There is no doubt in my mind that Republicans would continue to totally screw up the domestic scene.. But, probably less so than the Democrats have done..

But at least, with Republicans in power, National Security concerns would be addressed and covered.

Let's face it. Obama's agenda of "diplomatic engagement" (IE bow, surrender, capitulate and bow some more) is a complete dismal failure..

Michale.....

Yea, thereby once again, employing the very definition of insanity.

Doing the same thing again, expecting a different result.. :D

Michale.....

The Republican party doesn't face this challenge to the same extent because their big donors are corporate and their populist support has adopted a very corporate agenda.

So Republicans can please both their base and their corporate donors with one message (except on certain issues like immigration).

Democrats seem to try to split the difference and that seems to me to be what's happening with BP. Obama is trying to be tough in public while at the same time reassuring BP and the British government that we won't put them out of business.

I'm with you, Michale, that the whole bloody situation ticks me off. But so far the only solution you've suggested is to put Republicans back in charge.

Here's what would happen with Republicans in charge. Republicans would use the opportunity to blame the government and push for more deregulation. Then they would write a big check to BP (see John Boehner's recent comment) even though they're supposed to be against bailouts.

What's even odder than both Democratic and Republican jockeying is watching the corporate media going through contortions trying to cover this mess. They a) want to be tough on someone, b) don't want to offend the corporate world with any type of actual coverage of the event, and c) can't seem to figure out the narrative they want to follow. Or maybe I'm just not watching enough network coverage. But what I've seen so far has been pathetic.

Cheers
David

No "mah.bels"...

First we have the Left Wing Media briefing our DHS Sec and our AG as to how to respond to issues with lawsuits and the like...

Next we have the MSM telling Obama how to act...

The press states that Obama doesn't act like he is in charge, the next day Obama does a presser stating how in charge he is..

The press states that Obama is not getting angry enough, the next day Obama starts swearing it up in interviews, acting like a Chicago thug...

Tell me honestly?? Is THIS the president you voted for??? Seriously???

The next thing I am demanding from Congress is that they, within the next two weeks, pass a bill to revive the Depression Era "Civilian Conservation Corps." This will not cost the taxpayers one red cent, because the entire cost of this operation will be billed directly to BP.

And, when BP doesn't pay and the Obama runs away with it's tail tucked between it's legs, like it has run from North Korea and Iran, guess what???

Either the US taxpayers will foot the bill or those people simply won't get paid...

And all along, the Obama administration will be whining and crying, "It's all Bush's fault!! We really really HOPE'ed we could CHANGE."

How long are ya'all going to sit and make excuses for your Democrats and the President and actually do something about it???

The very definition of insanity.

Doing the same thing over and over, voting for the same cowardly and corrupt politicians over and over and HOPE (there's that word again) for a different result...

Michale.....