 |
Friday, January 13, 2006
How far our country has come
There are times I wonder what it must have been like to live in another time. I know that there is nothing new under the sun and we all believe that today is the worst of times. But there are some differences in life in the past than it is today.
When FDR gave his first inaugural address, he told the nation that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". When Kennedy gave his, he told the nation "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Now, the politicians are constantly reminding us of every little thing we should fear. Terrorist, Aids, Drunk Drivers, Sex Offenders, tax cuts, drunk drivers, car emissions, and for crying out loud, fast food and second hand smoke. Where does the insanity end? The only thing we really have to fear is the everyday encroachments of human freedom by all levels of government combined.
And as for Kennedy's great quote? Yup, that's out the window too. I was in a public library the other day and saw a poster that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you... No, go ahead and ask." Our society thinks Government is supposed to do everything for them and Government practically does.
Remember the "Don't Tread On Me!"? Even that's changed. Now it seems that our motto is "Don't Pick On Me!".This is the story that I am referring to. "Oh no, their picking on me, I'm going to sue them instead of leaving this private chatroom." What kind of thinking is that?
Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."
"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."
Where does thinking come from? Why do people think that they are completely excluded from the rules of engaging the rest of society? Why do people think that when they are around other people that they have a right not to hear fowl language? Or to smell people's cigerette smoke? Or to smell other people's bad body odor? Why are the rest of us subjected to ridicule in chatrooms while this guy is somehow above it? That he's special and if we pick on him, he gets to sue us?
But what his on personal behaviour towards others? I believe it was Ben Franklin that once said "Keep your troubles to yourself because half the people don't want to hear it, the other half thinks you probably deserve it." Well, I'm in the latter half with this fellow, I think he probably deserves it.
It's simply amazing that people think that they have a right to go where they want to go and DICTATE other people's behaviour to them. What if I decided that car emissions bother me and affects my sinuses, and since I had sinus surgery not so long ago, should I be able to sue Wal-mart for having a parking lot near the exit? Or would it just be better for everybody that I just stayed away from Wal-mart? Why do we continue to allow the minority opinion bully our society around with lawsuits and self-centered laws? The answer is because the majority of us still have respect for our fellow citizens.
I opened a door for an elderly lady today and she thanked me and told me how gentlemanly I was. Then she mentioned how we don't see that much nowadays. I responded that we can either complain about how our society is, our simply do our part and lead by example. I chose to do my part. It's simply common courtesy.
When your driving, are you really in such a hurry that you have to stop 10 feet closer to the stoplight? Or that you can't let traffic merge? What's with people thinking the world revolves around them? Do I have a right to sue the people that don't allow me to merge or block the intersection so that I can't go through? Should I just sue the next guy that does that to me?
RECALL WATCH DAY 3
There is some debate going on as to what happens should the Governor get recalled. Many Republicans fear, such as C.B. Forgotston, that if the Governor becomes recalled that Mith Landrieu would become Governor as spelled out in Article 4, § 14 & 16. Then you have people, such as myself, that believe that during a recall, Article X, § supercedes Article 4.
To me, this recall is much more important than who becomes Governor. To me, this is the people's revolution against long standing corruption in the state of Louisiana. It's not Democrats against Republicans here, but rather, politicians against the people. There's a good ole boy network that's solidly in place and it crosses party lines. Many of you are aware that our last Governor (Foster) was a Republican. What most of you don't realize is that he was a Democrat until he set his eyes on the Governorship. If he ran as a Democrat, he was so far down the list that he didn't have a chance. By switching parties, he had a much smaller and less formidable field to run against. By that time, the Republican party of Louisiana was torn apart by the forces of Duke.
Then of course you have our new Republican, William Daniel, who took a part time job with the city of Baton Rouge for $60,000/yr, then contracted it out to somebody else for less. He was a Democrat at the time, but he's a changed man because he switched parties. Come on folks, does anybody actually believe that? That's the unfortunate thing in this state, they'll move across town to run for office, or as Moon Griffon said, wear a dress if they have to just to hold onto power.
Look around our state, the real disaster to hit our state wasn't Katrina, it was Kathleen Blanco, Mike Foster, Edwin Edwards, Bob Odom, and many, many more from top to bottom. Peeople down here accept corruption and insist over and over that it's like this everywhere, just our guys get caught. Why is that? Why, if it happens everywhere else, yet it seems like everytime that some politician is in the news, you have probably a 50% shot that the guy is from Louisiana. Duke went to jail, the previous four insurance commissionars went to jail, Edwin Edwards went to jail. The list goes on and on. Supposedly Walt Disney wanted to build Disney World here in Louisiana but declined when some politicians want WD to WD-40 palms. Florida obviously didn't do that.
I'm not saying that corruption doesn't happen in other places, but it's so common here that people are apathetic towards it. It's a way of life. Edwin Edwards out-corrupted Bill Clinton so much that even Bill Clinton couldn't find it in his heart to pardon Edwards. Let's not forget that Congressman Bill Jefferson's home was wiped out by the feds before Katrina could wash away the evidence.
So it's with that in mind that we can not concern ourselves with the future. This state has had much to many problems to keep worrying about what happens tomorrow.
When I spoke with Kat Landry the last time, I told her that I applaud her efforts and told her that Edmund Burke once said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This state has had both Republicans and Democrats in control, but the problems cease to exist. Hurricane Katrina only shined a light in the dark corners of Louisiana politics, but everybody down here knows that too many things smell fishy and it ain't the Mississippi river.
The New Orleans disaster didn't have to happen had it not been for the long standing corruption that Louisiana is so well known for. New Orleans was no accident, and people in Louisiana can complain all they want about FEMA, Blanco, Bush, Nagin, and anybody else, but the people that are truly at fault are the people of Louisiana. The VOTERS.
Too many people, good people, either voted for, or sat on the sidelines while the corrupt politicians ran. Too many times there were elections where people put thier own self-interest at heart. If the good people of Louisiana don't stand up now, then when? If not Kat Landry, then who? How many times have the people of this state put their own little selfish desires over the good of the state? How many people didn't vote for Jindal, even though they thought he was better than Grandma, because he came in the color package?
Or to throw Buddy Roemer out of office to put David Duke and Edwin Edwards in a runoff for Governor. Now that was a genius move. Marion Barry ought to leave DeeCee and run for office here in Louisiana. He's the right brand of politician, I'm sure the people of this state will be more than happy to vote for him, after all, he is a chickenhead.
One person that I spoke with suggested that if Mitch Landrieu get's in there, we'll lose the Governorship till at least 2015. His reasoning? Well Mitch gets in there and the state will turn around anyway, but he'll get all the credit and then we're stuck with him.
But if this state is going to turn around anywar, regardless of what Mitch does, why should we believe that it's not going to turn around under Blanco as well? It's going to happen anyway, right? What's to keep Governor Blanco from taking all the credit and actually getting re-elected? Two years is still a long way off.
It doesn't matter what happens in the future if we don't act today. We can start to clean house by starting in 2006. There are too many people in office here that don't belong there. We can start by recalling the Governor. A recalled Governor will mean that the people pierced the armor of arrogance these politicians have A good sweep of the legislature in 2006 would be another blow. It's the old adage of 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea being a good start. A recall isn't the solution to this state's problems, but it's a great start.
If not now, when? If not now, won't the politicians only become more arrogant and confident that the people will never stand up to them? This isn't about party lines, this is about the good of Louisiana.
The nation came to our aid when we needed them the most, cleaning house is something we owe to ourselves. If we have another hurricane next year, and the damage is bad enough to set us back, why should our nation come to our aid again and clean up for us, when we won't even clean up our mess called the Louisiana politicians?
Posted at 02:11 am by Avman
| Permalink
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Are you a Liberal that is confused about what to call yourself? One day you're a "Moderate" the next day it's "PRogressive"? Are you disappointed in the kindness displayed by the Senators towards Alito on Monday and Tuesday? Are you a Liberal that still thinks George W. Bush is the Governor of Louisiana?
Are you a Liberal that feels lost because you don't know what your party believes from one day to the next? Are you a Liberal that hates Christianity or Judaism? Do you hate Bush? If so, you have found the right place. We, here at Louisiana Conservative have the medicine you need. Stay tuned because......
THE LIBERAL MESSIAH IS COMING!
Finally a God that you can believe in, a church that you can attend on your time without even having to leave your house. Since Liberals love Europe so much, it's only natural that we give you a European God. In fact, we have several Gods for you and some even walk among the earth with you. Like Jesus, they too are Gods in flesh.
Now you can worship the God of your choice and the best part about it, Bush is the Devil in the flesh! It's everything you could want in a religion. It's a religion where you oppose the death penalty, except for Christians. It's a religion where Republicans are terrorist.
You'll worship sex and lust, earth and sun, war and peace.
Not only is abortion accepted, it's beneficial. The more abortions you have the better career you'll have! You'll understand why some people are born homosexual. You'll understand their plight and will be more compassionate towards them more so than any of your friends. We'll end the 'Insurgent Holocaust' by George Bush together. You can be a part of something bigger than you and most importantly, you'll have your very own messiah that you can celebrate every December 25.
It's an exciting time to visit Louisiana Conservative as we have felt your pain and see your need. Now we'll be your one stop shop for your spiritual fix and there won't be a single person more holier than thou once you attend church.
We here at Louisiana Conservative are unable to believe in the new messiah since we already have that position filled with J.C. (Jesus Christ). I don't want to say his name to loud because it my hurt a supersensitive libs ear and violate his free speech if he heard me say Jesus Christ. Oops. Despite that, we understand your need for spiritual fulfillment and are provide a spot right here for church sermons. But wait, there's more!!!!
Louisiana Conservative also understands that you liberals expect us Republicans to give things to you voluntarily at a loss and probably free. Well, we understand your thinking and out of compassion, we do! At no charge to you, we'll donate the space for free! Wow! Free sermons, free church, next we'll have you screaming "FREE BARRABAS!, FREE BARRABAS!, FREE BARRABAS!"
You'll laugh, you'll cry, but more importantly, you have found home.
Posted at 02:32 am by Avman
| Permalink
I warned you about the Health Police.
Warning, this post is a frank discussion about sex
Just when you thought the left couldn't possibly get any dumber. Just when you think you've heard it all when it comes to big government taking control of every little aspect of your life comes this story of a town in Colombia that wants to require everybody over the age of fourteen to carry a condom on their person at all times.
BOGOTA, Colombia - A western Colombian city councilman wants to require everyone in town 14 or older to carry a condom to prevent pregnancy and disease, outraging local priests.
William Pena, a councilman in Tulua, said Wednesday he will present a formal proposal to force all men and women - even those just visiting - to always carry at least one condom. Those caught empty-pocketed could pay a fine of $180 or take a safe sex course, he said.
"Sexual relations are going on constantly," Pena told The Associated Press by telephone. "If you carry a condom, chances are you'll use it during the day. It's not going to be there forever."
What's sad is that liberals in America will hail this as a brilliant solution as soon as they hear about it. They'll give it an overwhelming endorsement and it won't be long before liberals start introducing similiar legislation inside the United States.
The problem I see with it is that not all people cheat, but it is a government endorsement of infidelity. Telling married men and women that they need to carry a condom on them at all times is too suggest that they will, and already do, have extra-marital affairs. Further more, a wife doesn't have reason to question why her husband has bought condoms. He can use them more frequently and the wife would never know the difference.
But I'd rather look at this as an exercise in reality. With the liberal attitude towards sex, sometimes I have to wonder if they ever even had sex. Think back to your younger days, when your virility was at it's all time high. How many times while getting down and dirty did you stop to ask your partner if he or she had a condom? If one of you had one, you probably used it. Liberals seem believe that condoms are just used automatically and that sex fever can be turn off like a light switch.
I'm young enough to remember my youth and I must say, I hated condoms. I could not stand them. Where's the fun in wearing a condom? In fact, I really doubt that any guy really can really appreciate a condom. I don't know how women feel about condoms but from a man's point of view, they leave you so unsatisfied. Let's just say, they ain't no Snickers. If liberal men actually had sex once in a while, maybe they would know that instead of obsessing about sex so much. The guy is probably gonna want seconds. Maybe that's why women don't mind condoms
A guy is going to try to avoid using the condom. He's going to want his satisfaction. That's a simple fact. I've bought them and never used them. I went to planned parenthood and used them for balloons. When I did use them, they would often break. And for you liberal males out there that have had sex, how many times did it just fall off?
So let's take the heat of the moment, you're ready, she's ready, the clothes are coming off and you're going to get some, but oops, there's no condom. Does it really stop you? Let's be realistic here, it ain't going to stop you. Any guy that's has a girl's shirt off isn't going to try and try and try until the girl either gives in, or he gives up. Girls, a little secret here. If he doesn't have a condom, and he keeps trying, just reach down there on him, say "That's it????" and start laughing hysterically. He'll stop, at least I'm sure he'll stop.
Then there's the new problem you have. You're a law abiding citizen of the male species who wants to keep a condom in your possession at all times. You take your girl to the motel and you both have your quota of condoms, but no extra. Do you: Use the condom and take a chance getting fined on the way home? Or do you not use it and save it just in case you get pulled over and the police want to see your license, your insurance, your registration, and of course your condom?
Let's just say they want to abide by the law and not use the condoms. They have unsafe sex, but hey, they obeyed the law because they didn't use the condom and still have it wrapped up in their possession. Now this stupid law encourages unsafe sex.
But let's just say the guy uses the condom. Now he doesn't have one and is still unsatisfied. Guess what? The guys going to want seconds. So now she doesn't have a condom. So what happens if either one of them gets pulled over on the way home? Now there's even more questions. Does the girl tie it around her third finger on her left hand and show it to the cop if she gets pulled over?
And what about the male? Does he keep it as a souvenier? Does he hang it from his rearview mirror until he buys some more? Or does he just continue to wear it and show it on himself if he gets pulled over?
Quite frankly, I think this is absolutely a big joke and goes to show you how leftist think. I promise you that it is the left that will endorse this law and not the evil Republicans. Yet, somehow the left will tell us how Republicans want to peek into our bedrooms even as they endorse this government intervention in the bedroom.
Once the radical left endorse this idea and start proposing this type of legislation, I'll be protesting. In the meantime, I'll just laugh at the utter silliness of this stupid proposal.
Warning, this post is a frank discussion about sex
These are some liberals that are already endorsing the stupidity:
State of the Qusan
The Locust Fork
More blogs will be listed in the comment section as word of this spreads.
Posted at 02:11 am by Avman
| Permalink
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Kareer-ending KATastrophe? Or Kats.
Recall Watch - Day 1
On August 29 Louisiana was hit with a KATegory 5 Hurricane named KATrina. KAThleen Blanco, hold on, everyday I'm getting emails asking if I am related to her, the wannabe guv. I know this is an obvious part of the thought process and I appreciate the question. Usually, I avoid this question, especially since hurricane Katrina because she is a lot more controversial. But ask yourself this, 'even if Jeff was related to her, do you think Jeff would admit it?' So asking me is kind of a mute point, isn't it? If I were, I wouldn't admit it, if I ain't, you'd still wonder if I was just too embarrassed of her to admit it. I don't find the question offensive and I hope you aren't offended by my answer. But somewhere in the following words, somebody will be offended.
As I was saying, KAThleen Blanco was so inept during the last four months that at least two websites popped up to encourage recalling the Governor. Another to defend Kathleen Blanco by saying that webmaster was really upset with Kathleen Blanco and wanted her impeached but now she realizes it's George Bush's fault and we ought to impeach Bush, Rove, (hint, hint Thuuper-lib), Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, and pretty much any Republican. The site doesn't exist anymore but a quick google search shows evidence of it. It's the fourth link down.
One of the websites was started by KAT Landry, who by the way is a Republican. I know, because the press keeps reminding us that she's a Republican. Still KAT Landry doesn't strike me as a political activist and I am unaware of any political activism that she's been involved in. Also, I had emailed KAT concerning the recall process and she isn't interested in this being a Republican issue. For her, it's a citizens issue.
In the days immediately following the aftermath, we know these things...
That KAThleen's administration encouraged political divisions by getting National Democrats on board to criticize Bush, as was stated in emails by the Blanco Administration.
That KAThleen's administration was more concerned about dressing KAThleen than they were about actually working.
That KAThleen's administration waited for buses from the federal government while she sat on hundreds of buses within the state and didn't even think of using local bus drivers.
That KAThleen's administration was concerned about granite counter tops from Sweden, while many resident had no place to live.
That KAThleen continued to put politics above the people of this state.
In the emails, the Blanco Administration was concerned about making Blanco like John Wayne and they succeeded in making her like Barney Fife. She wanted to be Governor, but was an Interior Decorator instead. She wanted to be the Delta Queen, but was the Court Jester.
The problem with this administration isn't that everybody thinks they are smarter than the Gov, the problem is that they are right, they are all smarter than her, even the interns. Quite frankly, I'm not sure anybody in the administration is smart enough to flip burgers for $5.15 an hour.
As a Republican, I can't support this recall. I don't think the Republican party supports this recall. It seems to me that Governor Blanco is like Bozo the clown and her administration is a bunch of Cookies. Someday, Republicans will sit back and laugh at her but for the time being, Republicans should be licking their chops at 2007.
If one were a Democrat, I don't see how one can't support this recall. She's been so inept that she's bound to lose Democrat seats and lose the Governorship for Democrats. Democrats best hope in retaining power is to have KAThleen recalled.
We, the voters, have to make a decision regarding this, Democrats and Republicans alike should look at this from the best interest of the state and not how we feel about her or our party. We ought to look at this as a business decision. Questions we should ask are:
"Can the state handle another hurricane season with KAThleen Blanco as governor?"
"Has she really put her political interests above state interest during a time of crisis?"
"Would our state be better off by dismissing her of her duties?"
Again, I can not support this recall as a Republican, but as a citizen of this state, I see no other choice. I believe the need for this recall is urgent and critical. As a citizen of this state, I applaud KAT Landry in her efforts. However, I won't actively search for the recall petition, but if it is presented to me, I will sign it.
Posted at 09:49 pm by Avman
| Permalink
Playoff Football, comments and AV~Picks
Last week I was 3 for four, 3½ for four if you count that I accurately picked the Redskins final score (17). That ought to count for something right? No? 3 out of 4 then? I was right with Pittsburgh, New England, and the Panthers, but the one game that I want to talk about is the one that I missed.
I was really disappointed with the decision making of Jon Gruden. With about 9 minutes left in the game, the Buccs were driving deep into Redskin turf down by 7. On fourth down, Gruden decides to go for it instead of kicking the fieldgoal. They failed to convert. It was an understandable decision since the Buccs were moving the ball and the Redskins weren't but that's exactly why you kick the fieldgoal. Had Gruden decided to kick the Fieldgoal, the Buccs would have been down 17-13 with still plenty of time to go. Regardless of Gruden's decision, the Buccs still needed to score twice to win anyway, and pulling yourself within four points puts you in position to win the game. Either way, your defense still needed to do it's job.
The Buccs did get the ball again and got into fieldgoal range again but the Buccs again turned the ball over on downs. Kicking the second fieldgoal would have put the Buccs down by one with 2:00 minutes still on the clock. Once the Redskins got the ball back, they may have been more impatient with the ball and passed more, stopping the clock on incomplete passes and giving the Buccs more time. Up by 7, the Redskins decided wisely to run the ball and run out the clock.
The point is, take the points. Put points on the board whenever you can because you don't know what the rest of the game holds. The Buccs may have had a better game, but the better team won.
Speekun of the Skins, I'm sure that TJ EVANS will be happy about my picks, since I got the Skins wrong last time. Speekun of mah picks....
AV~Picks Semifinal round Sunday, Jan. 14
Washington at Seattle 4:30
Skins defense was on the warpath against the Buccs, but these Hawks are flying high. Skins shoot last arrow, Hawks escape.
AV~Picks: Hawks 20 Skins 13
New England at Denver
Pats declared war on everybody last week and the Broncos are next in line. As a Bronco fan I ain't gonna lie, we have something up our sleeve. I'm calling in Quentin and whenever I talk to him on Bronco gameday, the Broncs win. It's been our tradition all year long, except against the Fins, the Chiefs, and the Army Ants. Thanks in large part to my phone call, but mostly the Denver D and "No mistake Jake", Broncs buck Pats.
AV~Picks: Broncos 31 Pats 23
Sunday, Jan. 15
Pittsburgh at Indianapolis
The Steel curtain manhandled the Kitties to face the Colts. The Steelers could shut down the Colts but, Bill Coward plays scared in big games whenever he thinks a team is better than his. Will Cowards scared play calling cost the Steelers again? Or will he just play smashmouth all the way through this game? Me thinks, me bets, that Coward calls bad plays. Pittsburgh falls like a ton of steel, Colts Gallop into the AFC Championship game.
AV~Picks: Colts 34 Stunned Curtain 21
Carolina at Chicago 4:30
D-Fence!! (Stomp stomp) D-Fence!!! (Stomp stomp), Blackcats gave Army Ants a big goose egg and a black panther eye. This week, Blackcats maul and claw da Grizzlies from Shytown to the Pacific coast.
AV~Picks: BlackCats 12 Da Grizzlies 10
Posted at 07:19 pm by Avman
| Permalink
From the pages of The Dead Pelican comes an inspiring story of two Kat's. Kat Landry of Recall Governor Blanco Dot Com has officially filed a petition to recall Kat "Blab and No More Years" Blanco.
Oh man, I can't wait til this evening. I have so much to comment on tonight.... stay tuned kiddie kats. This is something I will be watching closely.
Posted at 12:52 pm by Avman
| Permalink
Monday, January 09, 2006
Not a Single Democrat, except for
Howard Dean was on with Wolfe Blitzer and he had this to say.
Dean: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff. Not one. Not one single Democrat. Every person named in the scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal--there is *no* evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. We've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
Poor Wolfe was so stunned by Howard Dean's blatant lie that he didn't know what to say, while Democrats, such as this blogger continue to believe every thing that a Democrat tells them.
But readers of at least Louisiana Conservative already know that Kathleen Blanco's (D) Director of State/Federal Relations, Stephanie Leger worked for Abramoff and WAS INDEED under investigation.
But for Howard Dean to be so oblivious to the scandal and excluding every Democrat is simply amazing. Doesn't Howard Dean know what one contributer gives the Democrat National Committee $65, 720. Is Howard Dean as stupid as Kathleen Blanco, or a bigger liar than Bill Clinton? Certainly we can expect Howard Dean to give every penny back, right? Oh wait, they don't have to give that $65,720 back, because they never received it to begin with, even though records show they did get it. Still, 99% of the Democrats that read this will either excuse it, or deny that the DNC ever received the money.
The Democrat Senatorial campaign committee received $423,480 while the Democrat congressional campaign committee received $354,700, yet Howard Dean told Wolfe Blitzer that not one single Democrat.
I guess Howard Dean meant,
Dean: "Wolfe, there wasn't a single Democrat that took money from Abramoff, there was a whole lotta Democrats that took money, such as Charles Rangel, (D-NY), Harry Reid, (D-NV), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), all of which each received more in the past six years from Abramoff organizations than Tom Delay has over that period of time. Wolfe, you and I know the truth, but I'm going to lie to you until you look dumb. A great man once said, 'the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it'. Wolfe, quit challenging me, you know my minions cling on to every word I say and they are going to accuse you of being a Right winger and boycott you."
That's what Howard Dean should have said. There are 105 Democrats listed. Other notable Democrats on this list are Tom Daschle (D-SD), Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo), and John Kerry (D-MA). Louisiana Democrats listed are Chris John (D-La) $15,000, John Breaux (D-La) $13,750, Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500, Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100, John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000, and Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000.
Is it just me, or are Democrats like a religious cult? It's not really a political party, it's a religion. They constantly put down Christianity because they feel like their religion of Deminsanity is a better religion. Have you ever got into a debate with a Democrat and suddenly they changed their views in front of your very eyes? Or how many times have you spoke with a Democrat, they agreed with you, and then the next day their view has changed? Overnight? And I'm not just talking on rare occassions either, I'm mean it's a consistent thing.
I go to church, and I listen to my pastor, but I also open up my bible and read exactly what he's telling me. How can I take his word if he doesn't back up his case with some form of "fact"? Yet, Democrats follow their leaders (Pastors) and swallow every word he says 1% with no source for evidence. Is gullible the appropriate word here? For Democrats to just eat up Howard Deans words and believe him is just incredible. Wolfe Blitzer pointed it out that Democrats did take money, and Howard Dean lied to him. A good Democrat (disciple) will tell you that Wolfe Blitzer is just a Republican Spinmeister. Don't get me wrong, I hope the Democrats keep talking about all the "Right Wing Propaganda" on television, hopefully they will wake people up and people will pay closer attention to the hidden messages being thrown at them. Not just one sides, but all of it.
I suppose for many Democrats it's a lack of self worth and joining the Deminsanity religion gives them a sense of purpose, as if they've found their higher calling. Maybe it's the environment and Gaia must be appeased. Maybe Father Fidel will forgive us if we pray to the doll of Cardinal Hugo Chavez, that he shall striketh downth thy Jew, expelleth thou cruel malicious religion of Christians, and blessedeth thy meek foreth theyth shalt inheriteth the earth.
Remember in 1992 during the presidential debate, the supersensitive ponytail guy told Bush and Clinton to stop fighting, that we are "their children". Doesn't that explain the Deminsanity religion? We Christians and Catholics see God as our father, it would only stand to reason that their father is their "great" leaders. Judging from the Bill Clinton sexual affairs, I'd say, he hath certainly tried to be all of our fathers.
Folks, once you stop looking at the Democrats as a political party and look at them as a religious cult, they begin to make a whole lot more sense.
Posted at 07:06 pm by Avman
| Permalink
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Movie Review - "Brokeback Mountain"
On a scale of 1-5 stars, I give this movie 5 stars, no 6, 7, 10 stars. On second thought, I am going to give this movie 100 and ¼, no ½, no 101 ½. Let's just add all thoses stars up. That's 5, 11 plus 7 makes it 18, then 28. I give this movie 230 ¼ stars. That makes me the most cultured person and also qualifies me as the least homophobic person here to read this review.
With that being said, the movie starts with me going to bed. While sleeping, I dreamt that I went to the theater to see King Kong. I was excited to see how King Kong ended so I sat in the front row with my big Fedora on, like they did in the thirties. Once the movie started, I realized I went into the wrong room. I wondered why there was only two other people in the theater and both of them sat right behind me. Out of compassion, I didn't want to stand up and walk out with my big red fedora and ruin their view, so I sat through the entire movie.
What, you didn't actually expect me to spend money on this movie, did you? Call me what you want, it does not interest me and I am not going to go see it. For you libs that saw it, 'Ah don care an ah ain't gonna go watch me it!". Seriously, whenever a movie gets the rave reviews that Bareback Mountain has recieved, the movie usually sucks. Trust me on this one. Besides, I gave the movie mega stars, called it Ang Lee's best movie, and boasted about Heath Ledger's acting ability, so I am not a homophobe!
So here come the credits, Heath Ledger, oooh, he's good, I saw him in the Patriot.
And the other guy, never heard of Jake Gyllenhaal.
IN BAREBACK MOUNTAIN
Okay, the movie starts out kind of slow, two very young male sheepherders, in their "Manly Man moustaches" are tending their sheep, and other stuff. Poor Heath was caught between his love for his friend and the Catholic Priest who molested young Heath. Heartbreaking stuff! From the beginning, Ang Lee makes his best film yet. Astounding, go see this film!
Both the cowboys, ahem, I'm trying not to ruin the movie for you by giving away to much information, but they are actually sheepherders, which probably explains why they turned to each other. Anyway, both the cowboys marry women and find theirselves unhappy with their marriage, as they long for each other (the other sheepherder). Heath Ledger does a tremendous job acting and this has got to be Ang Lee's best job ever directing!
Their love for each other becomes so strong that they can't resist each other, it moved me. (It almost moved me out of the theater). Then comes the most powerful love seen I've ever witnessed. Powerful stuff, Heath Ledger pulls off one of the most romantic moves ever on screen and Ang Lee does a tremendous job of directing.
I don't want to give you too much information so I am not going to tell you who gets to be the sheepherder and who gets to be the sheep. I'm not even going to tell you if he says "Oooh", "Aah", or "Baahaaahaa". But for those of you who are curious, I will tell you how they decided who gets to be the sheep. It's the one wearing 100% wool clothing. I hope I didn't give away too much of the movie! Heath Ledger is at his best and Ang Lee does a tremendous job of directing.
One scene that really broke my heart was when Heath goes to the drugstore to get 'protection' so his wife doesn't get pregnant again. While deciding which condoms to purchase, he sees 'sheepskin" and the memories of his youth come back to him. Powerfull stuff!
There is some other powerful acting in the movie and Ang Lee does a tremendous job of capturing this all on film for our enjoyment. I don't know who the other actors are but they are just tremendous. Watch out for the 'Family Values Christian Scene"or Catholic, I wasn't sure which, I was falling asleep during my dream of this movie. Powerful stuff, Ang Lee in perhaps his best direction yet! And of course a stunning portrayel by some actor who plays the "Anti-Gay" Republican. Powerful and heartbreaking. How can those Christians and Republicans be so mean?
"Bareback Mountain" is worth every quarter of those 230¼ stars that I had to give this movie. Incredible!!! Did I tell you that this is Ang Lee's best job at directing yet! And watch Heath Ledger, powerful stuff!
It's got me excited about other movies coming out such as one about two lesbian women in the military titled 'NORAD MOUNTAIN', and another about two lesbians that pretend to be married to two gay men while working for a Christian Republican President. Exciting stuff!
Posted at 09:26 pm by Avman
| Permalink
Saturday, January 07, 2006
No Iraq connection to terrorist?
Think again...
The Weekly Standard has a story out concerning evidence that The former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein trained terrorist. Read the entire article here
The former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
Posted at 12:32 am by Avman
| Permalink
It may seem strange that out of the blue, I began to post a lot about the so-called Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen "Blab and No Ethics" Blanco. Please allow me to explain because in a moment, I'm about to drop some unbelievable information. Immediately after Katrina I was astonished, blown away by the liberal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. I could not believe that while reports were on the media about New Orleans flooding, women being raped, people being shot, looting, lack of food, and more. Through it all, the only thing Liberals could think to do was blame Bush? Despite that, I had decided that I was going stand with our leaders, at least until the end of the year.
From August 29th on, it has been especially difficult to support Blanco with gaffes and missteps over the last four months. It was next to impossible to blog about anything other than Katrina and impossible to open my mouth concerning the aftermath without being critical. I wanted to give them my support and the best way for me to do that was to keep my mouth shut, hence the lack of posts since the Hurricanes.
But it's a new year and I have kept my word to be as supportive as possible till the end of the year. I haven't even began to start on Kathleen Blanco's performance as Governor over the last three months and already she's dominating 75% of my YTD blog posts.
That's because she consistently remains in negative news, even on the national level. NOT HURRICANE RELATED STORIES but the ABRAMOFF STORY. Let's go back to Kathleen's testimony in front of congress on October 18, 2005
"First, during my administration, the financial operations of the state of Louisiana have been highly rated for governmental accountability. But I want to emphasize that the financial affairs of Louisiana will be transparent and wide open. I believe that we will stand well to the expected scrutiny by the public, the Congress and the media."
And yet the Governor retained a potential witness (Stephanie Leger) in the Abramoff scandal, despite the absolute necessity that our state be more than ethical? According to
Sourcewatch.org, Stephanie Leger Short is Lousiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's Director of State/Federal Relations. Though I provided a link, there are some key things that I want to point out.
In March 2002, "Breaux, whose legislative aide, Stephanie Leger Short, had just gone to work for Abramoff as a Coushatta lobbyist, sent [Secretary of the Interior Gale] Norton a stack of anti-Jena constituent mail. Breaux received $14,250 from the lobbyists and their tribal clients," Susan Schmidt reported in the March 13, 2005, Washington Post.
Since March 13, 2005? Kathleen Blanco doesn't see the problem with this? The problem was glaring enough for Sourcewatch.org to pick up this post from Politicsla.com
As cited by Sourcewatch.org
On March 25, 2005, a poster on the Politics LA Forum wrote:
"In an AP story today, the Louisiana Democratic Party talked about glass houses. The sound that you are hearing now is the Democrats and their Governor's glass house breaking. What they neglected to tell the AP reporter was the fact that the real Abramoff tie to Louisiana is Governor Blanco's top Washington, D.C. staffer, Stephanie Leger.
It was obvious enough for the Louisiana GOP chairman, Roger Villere to make that statement. Mr. Villere pointed out that it couldn't possibly be good if Stephanie Leger is under investigation.
While some might dismiss her ties to Mr. Abramoff as past history, it is clear that the cloud over his investigation is continuing to follow Ms. Leger. Despite telling the Baton Rouge Advocate on March 6th that she was never brought into Mr. Abramoff's inner circle, the Washington Post reported differently a week later. The Washington Post cited emails between them showing a clear and direct link to each other on behalf of these clients.
Why did Governor Blanco hire someone who is involved in so many investigations? How can this be good for Louisiana?
To remove all doubt in the State's credibility, I call upon Governor Blanco to place Stephanie Leger on administrative leave until all federal investigations and Senate investigations are complete.
stated Roger F. Villere, Jr., Chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana
That statement was on March 23, 2005. Despite that Kathleen Blanco chose to retain Stephanie Leger, even through the aftermath, while our state was being called corrupt by national figures, and through the escalation of the Abramoff story.
"Four former Greenberg Traurig lobbyists besides disgraced former colleague Jack Abramoff took improper side payments in violation of company policy and have been referred to the Justice Department, a top law firm executive has disclosed," Julie Kay reportedNovember 17, 2005, for Law.com. "The four other lobbyists now being questioned" are Kevin A. Ring, Jon W. van Horne, Michael D. Smith and Stephanie Leger."
To quote Kathleen's in front of congress once again....
"I believe that we will stand well to the expected scrutiny by the public, the Congress and the media." -- Kathleen Blanco
Despite her promise, and despite the ineptness and inability of her administration to get their act together and get the state back in order, she keeps Leger in a major position on her staff even though she's a part of a federal investigation. Isn't an investigation just an added distraction?
The Indian Affairs Committee's next hearing on Abramoff, slated for Oct. 26,
is expected to focus on the lobbyist's dealings with the Coushatta tribe of
Louisiana. A principal lobbyist working on the account with Abramoff was
Stephanie Leger Short, a Democrat married to Toby Short, a legislative
assistant in Dorgan's personal office. *Source
My gut instinct is that the Abramoff story will slowly fade away as the press realizes that this isn't just a Republican scandal, but rather a DeeCee scandal. The press and the politicians are a strange couple, they love to hate each other but they won't burn any major bridges.
As for Kathleen, is it any wonder why her administration screwed up so bad? I'm sure this will somehow be Bush's fault because she's a woman. There is one more story that I just would love to comment on but I can't take it anymore...
Blanco complains again. This time she's complaining about how much the federal government sent her. I guess the federal government doesn't pay for granite countertops from Sweden?.
I don't know what Kathleen is planning on renovationg next, but I think it has something to do with the kitchen. Her administration asked "FEMA do everything possible everywhere" and made a point to "ask for the kitchen sink,".
Posted at 12:21 am by Avman
| Permalink
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|