superduperandy

OMG! so true! Tragically, whereas conservatives are very easily fooled - I think liberals are more easily offended. (though i'm sure everyone who reads this message is an exception) posted 07/13/2008 at 19:22:14

The sad truth is that professional stand-up comedy doesn't mix with politics. Remember Randi Rhodes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-randi-rh_n_94863.html

Standup comedy is supposed to be outrageous and cutting but with an element of truth, right? That's the whole idea. The audience won't agree with everything, but that isn't the point - it's still funny.

In politics, everything they say must be agreeable to everyone (or at least phrased so that it's hard to disagree with) and though they have to speak constantly, they must avoid any small phrase that can be taken out of context and put in a sound bite that is intentionally designed to misinterpret the message and make them sound like jerks.

But at the same time, politicians needs to connect with the people and looking like a humorless square doesn't help that (in truth, many ARE squares ). So it's a tough game.

So, for some fun, Obama brought in Bernie Mac with the necessary small print "I don't agree with everything this guy says". But then again, it was one event, one audience, and some people who like Obama aren't necessarily comedy aficionados - and would be better entertained by puns and "Laffy Taffy" wrappers. posted 07/13/2008 at 19:10:45

And the best part is that they often pay a premium for such a "luxury". Yes, there are prices to pay to have the latest and greatest but the kinks don't work themselves out. Thank you gadget geeks for the trouble and subsity!

That said, this doesn't sound like a bug per-se. Probably too much load on the servers at the time with all the initial signup transactions. posted 07/12/2008 at 15:36:03

Wouldn't every dem just be delighted if Cheney were on the ticket this year. Talk about a straw man as an opponent - and i'm not talking about his bad health. posted 07/12/2008 at 02:19:17

This is better as an expectation than a wish. posted 06/30/2008 at 01:03:12

Even if Dems don't have the votes to remove him from office, a formal impeachment would have at least some effect. But no, Dems in office aren't doing that and they would have done it long ago if at all. I don't believe it's a matter of them being able to pull it off, I think some Dems in office (think DLC - big business in dems clothing) are not so opposed to Bush's policies as they claim - which is very worrisome. posted 06/22/2008 at 15:04:16

Ah yes, the Flag Lapel issue! I trusted him but then he went and double crossed me by wearing a flag lapel. I've trusted friends in the past who've done the same - they may as well stab me in the heart with a cursid flag lapel! A real candidate would pass aggressive measures on Flag Lapel reform, Flag lapel exports and on using flag lapels as a form of torture. Oh what a significant and substancial issue! Please, let's hear more! Let the coverage continue CNN, I can't get enough on this important matter! posted 06/19/2008 at 14:32:52

Ah yes, the Flag Lapel issue! I trusted him but then he went and double crossed me by wearing a flag lapel. I've trusted friends in the past who've done the same - they may as well stab me in the heart with a cursid flag lapel! A real candidate would pass aggressive measures on Flag Lapel reform, Flag lapel exports and on using flag lapels as a form of torture. Oh what a significant and substancial issue! Please, let's hear more! Let the coverage continue CNN, I can't get enough on this important matter! posted 06/19/2008 at 14:31:30

Such as this one that i'm responding to? Or one of your earlier comments from your profile:

"The HuffingtonPost site has become so overtly biased towards Obama and sooooooooo ridiculously negative towards Hillary...how can anybody accept its content as being objective or viable in any way, shape or form?"

"Just because you're paranoid - don't mean they're not after you!" [Nirvana] posted 06/16/2008 at 16:50:16

I second that motion! As fun as it is to whine about the past, wouldn't it be great to stop intentionally dividing our efforts against McBush? posted 06/17/2008 at 03:07:17

I don't know if that's true or not, but I hope not because that's terrible. If that began some cycle, then it is everyone's duty now to break it and that can only happen if we are diligent from within and without. Naturally, one can only do so much and if a father must chose between starving their children and living with them. But still they could try to be a part of the lives of their children and try to raise awareness of this situation.

And from the outside, to shirk this all off as someone else's problem is equally irresponsible. We all have a duty to eachother, nomatter how far away - even if it's not happening in our own neighborhood and we don't see the consequences first-hand every day.

No one has excuses here and for either side to say "the other is not doing their part so i'm not going to try" - that's BS! Willpower can increase as oppertunities, better parenting, and help from everyone across America increases. posted 06/15/2008 at 20:58:12

But then prices will go down for people who use less bandwidth right? Pshtttt... Yeah right! If you stay under the threashhold in your plan, you'll probably pay what we pay now - BUT if you go over your minutes, just like what happens with cell minutes, you're get raped on per-meg charges and you won't even know when you're over. But it's worse because on a cell phone, a minute is a minute, but it is far less clear how much bandwidth you are using much of the time. We will even be paying for video ads!

Ehem, US government, are you tuning in? Could you work in the favor of your constituency and ignore the COMCAST lobbyists for a second? I didn't think so - it doesn't work that way anymore right?

This will stunt the growth of the internet industry so lets stop it in its tracks! Or make bandwidth a public asset and kick the COMCAST turds to the curb! The noise they're making seems like that make be the only longterm way to avoid this sort of thing from happening. posted 06/15/2008 at 22:53:39

Oh yeah - those Obama supporters - which outnumber Hillary supporters btw, are nuts. Everyone who gets excited and hopeful that millions of voices calling for change can actually get us anywhere is just dilusional. The intelligent thing to do is to bury our heads in the sand and try to vote for the crook who will do us the least harm. Then when things go wrong, we can just say "I had no control" - so we are free from any responsibility. posted 06/15/2008 at 21:08:15

Sure there are some Operation Chaos jerks but I think their numbers were exagerated and they only came late in the game.

What i'm worried about are people who agree with these nutjobs to any degree:

http://www.hillaryis44.org/ posted 06/15/2008 at 05:20:00

Not a traitor. Just an overgrown child throwing a tantrum. posted 06/15/2008 at 02:20:43

Exactly. Hillary would have been just fine as far as a typical Democratic candidate goes and although I like Obama more, I would have supported her had she won the nomination - her policies are in line with our party.

I can respect the more reasonable Hillary supporters who still care about the issues enough to stick with our party. But DUDE - what do you think about the sore Hillary supporters who will support McCain and screw our country over it? Many republicans vote against their interests out of ignorance on the ISSUES. But to damn the issues out of spite? Seriously!!! Grow up. McCain will actively work against womans rights and Obama will work FOR them. And that's that. posted 06/15/2008 at 01:05:09

Your blog manners are fine. I would LOVE the song "Yes We Can" that the Black Eyed Peas put together from clips of Obama speaches! It made such a powerful video! posted 06/14/2008 at 23:51:38

Here's a cut-and-paste from the linked main article (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052)

' "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her " that"s by Susan B. Anthony," said Bartoshevich, referring to the suffragist. '

And so then Bartoshevich goes and votes Republican!!! HAHAHAHA

But with that quote, she did show her hand: issues be damned (ironically, some of those issues are for women's rights). She is just pissed that the woman didn't win. Bartoshevich:

1) The choice must reflect the majority in a democracy and Obama did get the majority. If you oppose that, move to a dictatorship
2) People voting for Obama didn't do it because they hate women. Woman-haters tend to support your favorate: McCain. posted 06/14/2008 at 23:40:08

I agree with that sad excuse for a superdelegate on one point: I'm not happy about the nomination process either - we need to get rid of superdelegates! Or at very least, drop the common root that the word 'Democrat' shares with 'Democracy'.

Look at the case in point, Bartoshevich. She has been granted 10,000s times the voting power than us less important voters have during the nomination by the DNC and then she turns around and openly opposes that party for some small reasons. She says that McCain is more experianced? Well even supposing that Obama would be relatively ineffective because of that (which is complete BS), would she prefer an effective enemy to a weak friend? That logic is placeholder-logic because it falls apart after you think about it for more than 10 seconds! If she opposes Obama, then why is she ashamed of her real reasoning?

She's making a protest vote to throw a public tantrum that Hillary didn't win and would sacrifice the future of our country for that. To all the Hillary supporters, I wish that both Obama and her could have won - they're both wonderful but although her name won't be on the ballot - a very large portion of her agenda's will be, especially in relation to McCain's agenda. posted 06/14/2008 at 23:20:44

I wish the truth was the only thing that matters but remember swift boating tactics. Sadly, they worked. There are a lot of stupid people in our country. posted 06/15/2008 at 01:11:24

Ha! Fair game if we want to return the "We've got nothing" message but ohhhh... we've got PLEANTY! posted 06/13/2008 at 19:54:57

It became as issue once the contest turned from the nomination to the general. Trying to win in a two party system means fighting for the middle. Swing voters are niether on the far left or far right so to them "very liberal" may sound iffy compared to "moderate conservative". posted 06/13/2008 at 16:12:21

Hey, give Hillary some credit! She is opposed to the large news conglomerates and doesn't believe that money should control the media because an informed populace is critical to democracy.

Side note: there are threats that work better than just money and by 'informed populace', I don't mean they're necessarily informed with the truth or on actual relevant issues. posted 06/11/2008 at 17:45:23

Recognise this quote?:

"I WILL NEVER SUPPORT OBAMA. I HATE HIM. HE TOOK MY DREAM OF HAVING HILLARY FOR PRES SO I WILL DO ALL POSSIBLE TO TAKE HIS DREAM FROM HIM."

Enough said. It makes choices easy when the actual issues are an after-thought. posted 06/10/2008 at 23:36:44

I actually like Nader's personality and views but he knows perfectly well that Gore could have won in 2000 if he weren't running then.

He is very forthcoming about his stance on the issues, some of which I agree with, but there is one notable exception: he claims against all the reason and evidence that he didn't hurt Gore's shot for the Oval Office in 2000. Seriously. As if no one knows what splitting constituencies and shifting the middle does in a two party system. Like it or hate it, we DO have two party system - and it is possible that we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bush with all the blood, debt, and freedoms we've lost as a consequence. posted 06/11/2008 at 00:15:05

Oh yes! And why stop there? He's also a reptilian humaniod member of the Babylonian Brotherhood! He transforms into a 9 foot tall lizard person when no one is looking, travels in 7 dimensions, and is part of an elite, masonic conspiracy to control the human cattle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ike posted 06/10/2008 at 19:10:20

Haha! "Sonny, what are these funny and obscure that kids are doing today to express 'groovy' ?"

1) The media nerds at FOX must be squares - that's an ancient expression of 'hello', 'cool', or 'seeya'. I've almost stopped using it 'cause it's been around so long that it's going the way of the high-five to the afterlife of forgotten expressions.

2) How natural of FOX to immediately associate something the don't immediately understand as being terrorist related.

Way to add 'not-hip' and fear-mongering to the good old staple of FOX news - shoddy journalism without even five minutes of research that was only a google away.

Thumbs up, FOX! (that means 'cool!' or 'yeah' or 'way-to-go'!) posted 06/10/2008 at 18:58:55

I'm a fan of Obama but I have pleanty of respect for Hillary and her supporters because, as you know, she had a lot to offer and was a very strong candidate.

Her supporters did very well in supporting her and Obama's guts did a good job as well. Now we need to prove what were made of and show we can all either win or lose with grace. posted 06/10/2008 at 14:03:07

I mean Traffic, not Noise. Not a bad thing. But THIS is a noisy bad thing. posted 06/08/2008 at 21:31:04

Actually, you're sort of right. There will be no more of that from me. posted 06/09/2008 at 23:07:51

Very smart. McCain, lobbyists and the wealthy are counting on you. Don't let them down. With enough Cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face politics, the middle class can lose forever.

Every term, Democrats can chose one favorate at the beginning of the nomination and decide to vote Republican in the general as a sort of retarded revenge if they don't get their favorite. Then most everyone feels like they win:

1) The wealthy, war-monger, corrupted control freaks who benefit from Republican policies
2) The typical republican voter who votes against their own freedom and economic interests because, frankly, they're stupid.
3) The supporters of a Democratic leader who didn't win the nomination and who votes against their own freedom and economic interests (and everyone else's except those in #1) because, frankly, they are overgrown children who will beat other children up and wreak the house if they only get their 2nd favorate flavor of ice cream. posted 06/09/2008 at 05:14:55

Haha! No kidding, by all the "experiance" she was claiming to have gained during "The Clinton Years", you might think she held a formal, elected position during those years.

I would be a little upset to find that my medical physician was only "experianced" in thier discussions and involvement with their spouse who was the one with a real degree and actual, professional, first-hand experiance.

And in defence they might say "oh yeah - well i'm better than that other doctor over there who DOES have a degree and some experiance because they don't have as much experiance as I do... oh, AND I have a record of good work by association with my spouse.

Guilt by association is one thing, but qualification by association is even more silly. posted 06/08/2008 at 20:15:43

TheSphinx's profile is my first big surprise today. From this comment, I was sure I would find loads of the same condescending, "everyone is so gullable but me" trash who says something clearly disagreeable just to get attention - but that wasn't the case. Most was thoughtful enough and not blantently rotten or obnoxious.

However, I do disagree here (and i'm not such a fan of the "Mr. Smarty-pants, better-than-you-fools" tone).

I've seen critisism before that Obama gets loads of money for corperations but as it turned out, those were just aggregates of all the personal donations from employees who work for that corperation.

This particular article isn't specific enough to try to find loopholes - when some info comes in about where they're getting donations and you actually have some hard data to work with, then criticism is fair game. But for now there's no reason to call everyone gullable and why not give the DNC the benefit of the doubt until we see otherwise? posted 06/05/2008 at 21:06:08

No - She's in a tie with W. Bush in a contest of who can deny what is obvious and either believe it or somehow manage to keep a straight face when she says what she does. How did Huckabee do it? I wouldn't vote for him but the way he hung on cracked me up. If you're going down, you may as well make it prank by pretending that everything's fine. If you've already lost, what do you have to lose? (Oh, except if you're risking a loss for the Dems in the general election, but Hillary doesn't care about Dems - she cares about her ego) posted 03/30/2008 at 00:46:42