Ok, I'm just wrong for posting this, I admit it.  I don't really care about the whole controversy and wasn't going to post on it.  And on a Sunday no less... I'm going to hell.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 00:35:46 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Can you spell irony Senator?  Hypocrite.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 17:20:13 | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It depends on how smart the AQ strategists are.    A Republican victory is (in my view) beneficial for them, because Bush's policies give them traction in the Moslem world.  George Bush has been the best recruiter AQ has had in the last eight years, and they are going to miss him.
A Democratic victory, on the other hand, will result in removal of the lot of the irritants that AQ propanganda can fuel itself it on.

Therefore, from the AQ perspective, reduced US combat deaths are good in the short term, and lack of terrorist successes inside the US are good, because that will be seen as evidence the efforts of the Bush administration are actually working.  Best of all will be a terrorist plot interrupted by the Bush administration. (I think it certain the AQ higher ups would purposely betray a cell here in the US if they feel it serves their overall purpose.)  A successful terrorist attack, OTOH, would be a roll of the dice.  It might be seen as proof that Bush has failed in the war on terror; or it might be the catalyst for a response similar to what happened after 9/11,for people to decide they need the Republicans to be sure that the US is tough on AQ;  and it would probably provoke people around the world to turn more sympathetic to the  US, which AQ definitely does not want. 

So I would predict a lull in AQ sponsored terrorism during September or October.  Of course that assumes that the appropriate people in AQ are as intelligent as me

Posted by: kishnevi at 15 March 2008@19:16:56 (bQbts)

2 The "Bush Doctrine as Recruiting Tool" is not an accurate meme.  Yes, they do use it with some occasional success, but far more are turning away from extremism.  Look at Anbar Province in Iraq, the Iranian dissident movement, pro-American leaders elected in France and Germany, and the despairing tone of intercepted communications recently.  They do not want a Republican in office.

Fortunately, they're not as smart as you and are unable to exploit the majority of their strategies.  They lucked out in Spain and Spain is paying the price for that.  Their appeasement of Islamic Radicals was an attempt to avoid further acts of terrorism... it hasn't quite worked out that way.  Look for Spain and most of the EU to become more pro-US because the Islamic Radicals have become a huge problem for them.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 15 March 2008@19:41:58 (Q5ggV)

3 Stash is right, the "Bush is causing more jihadi recruiting" meme is inaccurate, people have to think they have a chance at winning or they're much less likely to go to battle, and the jihadis are aching for recruits.  Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are heavily reliant on a favorable political climate and a large number of willing recruits. 

The crappy recruiting pool the jihadis have is evidence that they are in bad shape.  When they're using children and mentally handicapped people as bombers, most people are going to be horrified/disgusted by it, and the jihadis hurt themselves politically, which then defeats the whole purpose of terrorism/guerrilla warfare.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 15 March 2008@21:49:16 (68v+0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When you see a farce like this, it's not hard to understand why other complaints about elections seem more credible than they actually are.  That it's an intentional strategy to make Democracy seem unworkable seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 16:01:57 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not sure how long it wil be there, or if it constitutes Fair Use, so I'm just going to link to this and say "Bravo!  Well-played!!"

*UPDATE* To heck with it.  Maybe Gabriel Malor will stop by and let me know if commenting that the focus seems blurry to me and the font is a bit small, that constitutes Fair Use.  Probably not since this is an update and the intent to critique the image is now suspect.  If a copyright holder wants it down, email me and I'll take it down (I'll leave the link, you can deal with Engadget on your own) 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 10:21:16 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1

Wow...  Read the text of the ad!  Loads on innuendo.

 

Well played, Virgin Mobile.  Well played.

 

And we'll ignore comments about whores and virgins for the moment. 

Posted by: swj719 at 14 March 2008@15:51:17 (xNyOl)

2 Or "You call the shots."? 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 14 March 2008@16:08:48 (Q5ggV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've always had (and still do have) a great respect for her intelligence and character.  She was a great friend to President Reagan and still is a great friend to America.  Here's hoping her stay in the hospital is short and uneventful.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:48:01 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

When I talk bad about liberals, I should really say moonbats.  I can't stand moonbats.  Code Pink is full of hate-filled, socialist-loving, BDS-afflicted shrews.  IVAW is mostly made up from people who were either screw-ups in the military and have a grudge because they kept being slapped down, people who were never in the military, and maybe 5% who were good soldiers and now have sincere moral objections to the war.  Good on that 5% and I support them even though I don’t agree with them.  Why they associate with the other 95% I don't know.  There are many more examples and listing them would take hours.

(please continue below the fold)

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 00:49:00 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 890 words, total size 7 kb.

As a companion to the earlier post, I was thinking about my memories of JFK and Ronald Reagan.  Specifically, the pride I felt in America and a sense of hope for the future.

How is this different than what we see with Barack Obama?  I think of it as a matter of style over substance.  With JFK and Reagan, there were specific reasons and policies that engendered those good feelings.  Based in reality, they were healthy and developmentally sound.

I don't get the same feeling when I hear Obama.  He's a nanny-stater who has not been very specific in what his vision of the future might be, other than Hope and Change.  The Democratic nomination is (IMHO) still very much up for grabs.  Obama has an almost cultish following with swooning fans.  Hillary has a political machine and a "scorched-Earth" mentality that historically she has used without compunction.

This is Democratic Party politics at its finest.  Identity trumps platform, race and gender are more significant than policy.  "Chickens coming home to roost" is the order of the day and there will be screeching no matter who comes out on top.  If leaving the Republican Party was preferable to supporting a candidate that I can't trust, why would I even consider a political philosophy that is anathema to me?

I've mentioned to my parents more than once, "This is not the Democratic Party you grew up with."  I'm glad to say that they're starting to see the light.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 19:19:19 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Since the National Elections in 2000, has there been any election in the world that has escaped accusations of corruption?  In Mexico, Pakistan, the former Soviet Republic in Georgia, Iraq, Armenia, Russia, Kenya, our own elections in 2004 and 2006, among many others, there have been accompanying cries of “foul”.  While a few accusations may appear credible (or at least sincere), most accusations of fraud or corruption seem to be made without a shred of evidence.  Sometimes these accusations even come before the actual election.  Is this becoming standard practice just because the losing side wants to disrupt or discredit the results?  Do they hope to win concessions from the winners or the courts?  Or is there something more?

Two major systems that hate democracy are the Socialists and the Radical Islamists.  Both are failed systems that promote misery and consolidate power in a select few who have no regard for the freedoms of others.  Is it possible that one (or both) of these groups routinely contest election results in order to undermine democracy as a system?  I believe this is already happening. 

After creating controversy where none rightly exists, Socialists and Radical Islamists then point to that manufactured controversy as proof that Democracy is unworkable.  The other thing we keep seeing is attacks on voters during elections.  Terror, death, and discord all to undermine Democracy.  We will see more and more of all this over the next few years as they continue to attack our government and way of life.  The Socialist and Islamic Radical systems cannot outperform Democracy at any level.  They can only try to tear it down hoping to fill the resulting power vacuum.  Creating discord and lowering confidence in the Democratic process is just one more way of attacking their much-stronger enemies… us.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01:27:00 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," makes the case for extreme liberalism being a mental disorder.

I have no problem with that.

Via The Jawa Report

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 18:27:00 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.