Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
ATTACK: At first, I always thought Kokonutguy was highly intelligent and could debate well. Well, he *was*.
REBUTTAL: Just because if you cannot come up with an alternative argument in a debate, don’t go about using ad hominem attacks as an excuse for what you lack.
ATTACK: Well, the bad news is Kokonutguy is just getting worse and worse. He found a new sport - bashing liberals and using liberals as scapegoats for all the evils in this world.
REBUTTAL: There are evils in both arenas. Just that there are variations and aspects of it. What some people do not get is that they try and portray the Clintons as angels (ie. "His lyings and obstructions weren’t really a crime" and yet compare that to the recent Libby case, yet not even at a trial, and they go nuts over.....Scooter) and that Karl Rove is the eeeeevil Republican masterminding everything in the Bush administration. It’s called turning the table on them. Not only politics do I blog, but technology, deafness related issues, science, national security issues, foreign politcs, etc.
ATTACK: Every time there's a scandal in the White House, he brings up Clinton. He's obsessed with Clinton and his arguments are non-sequitor.
REBUTTAL: Non-sequitor is defined as "a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it” Everything I write has relevancy to it whether you see it or not. It’s like an inside joke sometimes, only you have to know the whole story to understand it. If you don’t, well, just pretend by nodding your head up and down and smile as if you got the joke. Isn’t that what deaf people do?
ATTACK: He whines consistently about Clinton and Liberals.
REBUTTAL: You have to have a baseline comparison to start with. I could go with Jimmy Carter but that’s a bit outdated. Reagan? A hard man to measure up with. Ford? Just clumsy. Nixon. Never did like him. See what I mean?
ATTACK: What Bush administration is doing right (now) has NOTHING to do with Clinton but he tries SO hard to protray the Bush administration as the moral administration thus should not be held accountable for bad ethics.
REBUTTAL: Actually, Bush has a better moral compass than Clinton ever did. Ever wonder why Clinton was impeached? Ever wonder why Bill and Hillary never got together and showed affection with each other like George W. Bush with his Laura? Like here, for example?
What about Bill's affection towards his wife? Not much is there. It’s called public perception. According to me, Bill lacked any real meaningful examples about his own moral compass like here…oops….oops….oopsies again.
Of course, there are human frailties to consider. We all have them. Some more, some less. Hence the comparison between Clinton and Bush is a good start to point out the obviousness.
ATTACK: He argues that Clinton did so many terrible things, it makes Bush look like a saint.
REBUTTAL: Please see my previous reply
ATTACK: Well, he fails to realize that we're concerned about the present problems in the White House, not the old problems that's way behind us.
REBUTTAL: Actually, I am concerned with the present problems such as our leaky borders and national security issues, among other things as well. However, the MSM never (as in very rarely) cover anything good on the progress seen in Iraq. And I remind people often that freedom is never free which is why old problems have a way of catching up to us if we're not careful thinking it'll go away. This is why I say go here for the updated information on Iraq's progress.
ATTACK: The facts are here: Plame was the CIA operative and she was not supposed to be exposed.
REBUTTAL: Glad you brought that up which shows a certain ignorance on your part. If Plame's ID was suppose to be a secret and if Novak "outed" her in his July 14, 2003 article then why did Wilson and Plame have their pictures taken in November of 2003 for the January 2004 Vanity Fair article with Plame in her scarf and dark glasses sitting next to Wilson in a car? If her identity was top secret..shhh...shhh...shhh! would Wilson NOT go ahead and have themselves interviewed and their pictures taken for a NATIONALLY recognize magazine? And reduce the risk of exposing his wife which would be easily connected to the Novak's article? Sounds like Wilson had a plan with this set up from the get go. If so, then Wilson's move with the Vanity Fair interview would have been incredibly foolish, putting his wife in extreme, extreme, extreme danger!! (ok, a little sarcasm there) if she happens to be the top, top secret, ultra-covert CIA operative.
In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA “operatives” who are not working undercover. For example, when one CIA analyst wrote a book called “Anonymous,” it was widely known by that time that "Anonymous" was about the CIA agent/employee Michael Scheuer. Later on the name was revealed in print for a wider audience to find. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed. Go figure. Also, one mustn't forget this and this one, too. And if you think the CPSAG.org was a recent update think again by clicking on the February 2003 archive which occurred way before Novak's article came out.
So much for Wilson's extreme care to keep his wife's top secret identity secret...shh! shh! This is the problem I see here.
ATTACK: Kokonutguy knows NOTHING about her.
REBUTTAL: True. I only know on what I’ve researched so far to come up with a certain conclusion about all of this. It's never final until all of this is truely over. Isn’t this what the Liberals are doing, too, by guessing on the Plame’s investigation on how the indictments (if any) may turn out tomorrow (Monday, October 31, 2005)? Hoping and dreaming that this will open up a hole for a Democratic pre-emptive strike at the Bush Administration in the hope that an impeachment will finally, somehow, come to fruition after seeing the dominos effect? Do you claim that Liberals know something about Valeria Plame? You're quick with your tongue before you can stop it.
ATTACK: He even had the nerve to say that she wasn't even a CIA operative based on unreliable sources.
REBUTTAL: I never made such an assertion. Please provide the quote and reference next time.That’s what good bloggers do. Furthermore, when you say “operative” you are saying she was covert as in top, top, top secret? How do you know? How "secret" is "secret" are you saying? You got the inside scoop, too?
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines about how Tom Delay is being targeted by the liberals.
REBUTTAL: He is being targeted. Plain and simple. What else can you conclude when the Liberal D.A. used 7 different grand juries just to come up with an indictment on the 6th try but was found bogus and hurriedly got the 7th jury to come up with another charge in 24 hours. If that doesn’t sound fishy then I don’t know what is. Outlining discrepancies such as this is all but an observation I am providing and questioning the motives of such moves.
ATTACK: He whines about him (DeLay) getting indicted.
REBUTTAL: I point out irregularities I see in this whole indictment process. See above. Also, many people (ie. reads "Liberals") see this “indictment” process as the automatic equivalency of being guilty. Not so. Anybody who has been charged is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The court of law has barely begun for Tom DeLay and people have already charged him guilty when they try and figure out the size of his orange prison jumpsuit. This is what I am pointing out.
ATTACK: He cheers when Tom Delay grinned on a mugshot.
REBUTTAL: Because I thought it was funny when Liberals were hoping for an unCongressman–like photo mugshot. You know. Like a deer caught in the headlights? Unkempt clothing. Roused hair. Pale look on his face. Etc. But a smart move on DeLay's part for him to smile grandiously with his wrinkle-free suit, sharp tie, lapel pin and the combed hair. You have a problem with Tom DeLay making a fantastic mug shot?
Here's the next closest squeaky clean looking Congressman mugshot, unfortunately for him, a Democrat, who was bonafide convicted and sent to jail.
Now, name another Congressman who smiled fantastically for a mugshot? See what I mean? Priceless of DeLay's smile. Pure brilliance. And much to the disappointment of Liberals everywhere on DeLay's mugshot.
ATTACK: Guess what? Tom Delay admitted that he didn't report the contributions. But I'll bet you all, he'll whine more about it.
REBUTTAL: Actually, you’re twisting things a bit here. He did report it…some days late amid all the activity that was going on. I believe this is what you're referring to? Can't read minds here. See the value in providing links, now?
Dates on federal records filed by DeLay show that Alexander's contribution was received after DeLay was indicted, though Welch faxed The Tennessean a computer printout of Tenn PAC's financial activity that lists a donation to DeLay on Sept. 14. DeLay's campaign-finance report shows the Tenn PAC contribution came on Sept. 30 — two days after DeLay's indictment.
For reporting late, after 48 hours, there is a formula to calculate the amount of fines for late reporting on PAC contributions. It’s common for PAC contributions be reported late. In fact, many, many days late. Hence, the formulas are used to assess the amount of fines to be paid out. Here’s an example:
EXAMPLE 4: Nonfiler of 48-Hour Notice.
A House campaign committee fails to submit a 48-hour notice to disclose its receipt of a last-minute $5,000 PAC contribution. During the current two-year cycle, the campaign has two prior violations under the administrative fine program.
Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x amount of contribution(s) not timely reported)] x
[1 + (.25 x number of previous violations)]
Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x $5,000)] x [1 + (.25 x 2)]
Penalty = $900
Nothing illegal here. And certainly nothing that DeLay will “whine” about either. His PAC organization will simply pay the fine. It’s certainly a common occurrence to report late on contributions to PACs. Here’s from the 2003 report on late fees (and you thought library late fees were bad?) for PAC contribution reporting violations:
Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed
1. Bob Condon for Congress Committee $521
2. Briggs for Congress $9002,3
3. City PAC April Quarterly 2002 $900
4. City PAC July Quarterly 2002 $550
5. Cohen & Grigsby PAC $350
6. Hudson Valley PAC $1,350
7. Keyes 2000, Inc. $9002
8. Maximus Inc., PAC (MAXPAC) $650
9. Montana for Johnson July Quarterly 2002 $9001,2
10. Montana for Johnson 12 Day Pre-Primary 2002 $2,0002
11. Political Action Council of Educators (United Teachers—Los Angeles) $343
12. Raczkowski for Senate $4,200
13. Salt PAC $3,5002
14. Skorski for Congress _____4
15. Voters for Choice/Friends of Family Planning $2,550
No whining here. Everything’s legal. All monies reported that was contributed by Lamar Alexander where he voluntarily gave money to DeLay’s PAC called “Tom DeLay Campaign Committee.” Are you trying to infer is that this was an illegal contribution in this case? No such thing. A nice little Ronnie Earle's move you got there if that was your intention.
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that MSM doesn't report about the heroic efforts in Iraq. Wah! Wah! (Ok, need tissues?)
REBUTTAL: It’s true, MSM rarely report anything good and when they do there is always something ominous about it. They report the glass as half full but remind you that there is a hole at the bottom of the glass.
Here’s a challenge for you guys out there without doing any Google checking. I doubt you can do it. Name (a very big list here) the things that were done successfully in Iraq that could have only been succeeded with the help of the coalition work. That's your kiddies homework for now.
ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that liberals are babies... ha... just look at his blog.
REBUTTAL: Well, when they say they are for peace and you see these Liberals running amok attacking others who want to also voice their opinions? Sure, many of them are basically babies when it comes to free speech. Just like what you’re doing to me. Attacking me ad hominem style in place of any valid arguments whatsoever. Where's the argument? No arguments but attack ad hominem style nonetheless.
ATTACK: he whines consistently about liberals... nothing intellectual at all.
REBUTTAL: Like what you are doing now? Nothing intellectual to give but attack and no valid arguements? Nice intellectual move there.
ATTACK: Lousy arguments.
REBUTTAL: And what was yours by the way? Again?
ATTACK: Just full of whiney comments about liberals. Oh the horrors!!!
REBUTTAL: I report. You decide. I have opinions, too. But I provide links and references. Yet I don't scream "QUAGMIRE!" at every turn in Iraq. You? Still looking for the links.
ATTACK: He conjures a stupid theory that Bush already expected Meirs to be withdrawn and would nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
REBUTTAL: Her name is "Miers"...not Meirs. Stupid or not, that’s why it’s called a “theory.” You have your own opinion about it. I have others but that’s another story.
ATTACK: He whines about liberals blocking her nomination but never mind that it was the conservatives that literally prevented her.
REBUTTAL: No. I never, not once, ever mentioned that nor implied that Liberals were blocking her nomination. Even Democrat minority leader Harry Reid was happy with the nomination and fawned all over her for the press while many Republicans had question marks over their heads when President Bush announced Miers for the Supreme court. Even I had that question mark.
"I like Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement. "As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."
Haven’t you been following the news at all?? Or even follow correctly my bloggings? This was common knowledge that many Republicans didn’t like Miers nomination. Neither did I. Again, you’re running wild with your imaginations here or at best a selective memory problem.
ATTACK: He whines that the MSM failed to see the possible idea that a bum who put feces in food is a terrorist. Blah blah blah... the FBI said it's not a national security issue but he whines still.
REBUTTAL: I really grate you don’t I? Just…don’t…read my blogs. Simple. But you actually thought that I was serious about that blog piece? If anybody who have known me long enough or know the inside joke about all this then you’d know. Remember, just nod your head and smile like you completely understood the joke here. Remember when I said “Could the FBI elaborate a bit more?” about how they came up with the conclusion about this guy in my blog? You probably missed that one did you? What I wanted was more info on why the FBI concluded that. See? I question things. You misconstrue on a lot of what I say.
ATTACK: He whines about Joel not being treated as a terrorist suspect. (Ok, here more tissues)
REBUTTAL: No. I never made that assertion nor have I implied that. See here, here, here and here. Again, either you are running wild with your imaginations or you are reading my blogs quite poorly and misinterpreting them quite badly. Very, uh, dishonest of you to say that. Very.
ATTACK: He whines about the MSM doctoring the Rice picture. (more tissues, dear?)
REBUTTAL: USAToday is supposed to be a reputable online news organization. This includes ensuring all aspects of editorial control, including what pictures to go in and do a final proof analysis before putting it online. They failed. Not only did Time did this (OJ) as well, so did a few others nationally known MSM magazines and news outlets. Something that many conservative bloggers report but liberal bloggers do not. Photo-shopping anybody, whether a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or a regular schmoe Joe off the street just to make his/her appearance a bit more on the shady or guady side is a no no. Otherwise, it’s being partisanship or trying to cast doubts for the readers. I'm sure you agree but I may be wrong.
ATTACK: Kokonutguy has become a truly pathetic loser. I totally lost respect for him. Because of that, I am removing his link. Bye, Whiny Baby!
REBUTTAL: Well, there are people who cannot or do not have the ability to look beyond my writings and see for what they are whenever I point out certain odd or inequitable things I see out there (e.g. Harry Reid demanding that Bush make a pledge not to do any pardoning relating to the Plame “leak” investigation) where I reiterate or magnify their actions just to make a point. Things like that. Remember, nod your head and pretend to understand the joke or the meanings here. Must act cogent at all times.
ATTACK: Any deaf conservatives out there that doesn't whine about liberals?
REBUTTAL: I’m a rarity. A hard of hearing Republican. I’m proud of my political status. But what I do is not about whining because there is this inside story I'm attempting project. Guess you don't see it. But an example of whinning belong to you on what you just did. A classic case without a nary of rebuttal or argument. Just pure ad hominem attacks one after another. Are you sure you're a Libertarian?
What I do is about getting people to look at different perspectives here by presenting my views, my opinions and lay out all of my arguments on the thing that I see using my own special brand of writing style. Love it or leave it. I cannot possibly satisfy every creatures on the planet just so they can be placated and cuddled into having that warm and fuzzy feeling. If you think that's possible, you're nuts.
ATTACK: It'd be nice to have a new link to replace the deranged Kokonutguy's link.
REBUTTAL: It must really be a nice feeling using words like “deranged”, “pathetic”, “loser”, and so on ad nauseum? Not once a rebuttal using proper the arguments, links, or references in a debate you have displayed so well. Well, it's hardly was a debate as readers can see for themselves here. Do what you must. De-link me! I think I'll hang my head in utter shame. Woe is me. Let me play the victim card and get some practice.
Here's the thing. I do get it. However, it is just that I don’t go about the ad hominem style like what you just have done to me. Doing so is just a measure of a person’s own intellectual capacity and capability when they respond in such a way. Much like using epithets all the time thinking it's a yardstick measurement of sort to measure a man's worth. It does get across. Pointless and worthless as though it may be. In a word, for those who insist on ad hominem attacks deserve to be recognized as such even if it they turn out to be a Libertarian. A lesson learned for them.
Ya'll come back, hear?
*Kokonut Pundits is now officially with meritable unmentionable mentions De-linked from Netrox' blogsite.
I am now shamed.
Now, didn't Harry Reid forget about President Clinton's last hour 140 presidential pardons? From Foxnews report,
WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Sunday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should apologize for the actions of their aides in the CIA leak case.
Reid, of Nevada, also said Bush should pledge not to pardon any aides convicted as a result of the investigation into the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
Senator Reid should stick it up his wazoo for making a suggestion like that in his attempt to still paint a picture of guilt among the aides. Again, kiddies, for once get it in your noggin, it is too early to discuss a presidential pardon because no one has been convicted in the investigation!
And, oh, this has nothing to do with the Iraq war. Get that one straight, too. I know Liberals are desperate for some kind of a indictment/conviction. But this is beyond ludicrousness. It ranks right up there with all of Howard Dean's gaffes.
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Robert W. Palmer
Neal T. Ainley
William J. Marks, Sr.
Michael Brown (Ron Browns son)
Sun Diamond Growers
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Patsy Jo Wooten
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)
INDICTMENTS AND TARGETS
Ron Brown (indictment was pending at time of death)
Webster Hubbell, Wife and 2 Others (new charges)
Hillary Clinton (here, too)
Roger Tamraz (France)
CLINTON'S LAST HOUR PRESIDENT WITH 140 PARDONS AND 36 COMMUTATIONS. And because of President Clinton's last day pardoning spree, a hearing took place on February 28, 2001 regarding the potential abuse of pardonings that was discussed before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representative.
Compared to Clinton's last hour pardoning spree, President George H. Bush last hour was 6 pardons. Talk about returning the favors.
See history on Presidential pardons.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Now, let's see if CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS will pick this one up. At least the AP got off to a good start here. What? No outcry from the foreign journalists whose lives were saved?
Friday, October 28, 2005
But remember again, kiddies, an indictment is not a conviction. But of course, you would count them automatically as "guilty" whenever the word "indict" comes across your mouths. Oh, also, "investigation" doesn't mean they're guilty, either.
Here's one crime that came out on January 7, 2005 when Hillary's campaign finance director was indicted that day while earlier another person associated with this finance campaign cover-up was sent to jail for 15 years. And why not hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her actions in the fund-raising fraud?
October 19, 2005 – The California Appellate Court ruled that Hillary would not be dismissed from the caset as she had requested, but also that the case is remanded to the trial court to correct an error -- the trial court had ruled based on the date the anti-SLAPP motion was filed, rather than the date it was served on the parties. Now we will see whether the trial judge decides to waive the 30-day requirement or deny the motion once again. Since Hillary's attorney waited 6 months to file the motion, the date error may not make much difference.
See the October 5, 2005 signing by Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Restoring Protections to Landmark Free Speech Law where the bill was drawn up by Assembly woman Lieber to help ensure that victims of meritless SLAPP lawsuits can seek damages from filers of lawsuits.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation—or ‘SLAPPs’—are lawsuits filed with the intent of stifling a defendant’s exercise of his or her First Amendment rights. Typically filed by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials against individuals who oppose them on public issues, SLAPPs have no merit but the suit instead intimidates opponents into silence, and sends a clear message to others that they too risk being sued if they speak out. The anti-SLAPP law was enacted to allow a court to declare such a suit a SLAPP and dismiss the case at an early stage in the proceedings.
And here is how it got started with the lawsuit against Hillary. And here is a website called Hillcap - the hillary clinton accountability that has the details on The Hillary Election Fraud Conspiracy: How Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hide it from the Feds, and lots more in this website.
Yet, how come none of this constitute as a scandal while DeLay, Frist and Rove are considered as humongous scandals?
That's because the many of the MSM and much of the looney Liberals hate, hate, hate the Republicans and President Bush and anybody associated with the Bush Administration. Their hate is shown by giving unproportional news coverages when it comes to scandals, or for that matter "scandals."
"I tried to indict Karl Rove and all I got was this Scooter."
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Now, if President Bush nominates Janice Brown, it'd be an excellent woman to have for the Supreme court. I'd imagine with the benchmark already set after Meirs withdrew her nomination it'd be a way to help ensure that the Democrats get themselves pinched into a corner if they are going to be the rabid bunch by going after a 2nd nominated woman. But this time it'd be a first nominated black woman for the Supreme court. What a quandry for the Democrats to face!
Janice Rogers Brown qualifies well to be the next Supreme court judge with her experience in being in the 2nd highest court in the land. She has a sharecropper story and did everything herself by pulling her own bootstrap. She is a woman, and if voted for the Supreme court, she'll be the 1st black woman judge in the Supreme court history
We had the first woman judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, now since retired.
We had the first black judge, Thurgood Marshall. Died some years ago.
We have the second black judge Clarence Thomas.
We have the second woman judge, Ruth Ginsburg.
It is clear, I believe, that the Administration's goal is to have another woman Supreme court judge just to keep Supreme court "balanced" on the judges makeup. Rather than ruin two choices for a woman judge (Miers and Brown in that order), he choose Miers to go first and then, if it doesn't work out, Bush would capitalize on the responses from the Democrats who would not have wanted Janice Rogers Brown in the first place but may acquience so not to look like hypocrites and/or racist by going ahead and vote Janet Rogers Brown for the Supreme court.
Now, what do you think would have happened had President Bush picked Brown first instead of Miers? After the Democrats voted for John Roberts to be the Chief Justice after trying to find excuses not to vote for him, all very weak, no way in hell will they sit back and not have things their way and let President Bush "get away with it" this time around. Here's why.
But for all the accolades and praise from family and friends, her reception in Washington among Democrats in the Senate has not been pleasant.
Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "Her opinions, if they weren't on such serious matters, would be laughable."
Democrats who are blocking her nomination say she is out of the mainstream and a judicial activist. They say her decisions and speeches show her to be opposed to government, abortion and even hostile to civil rights. They say that because she has ruled against affirmative action programs in the past.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) remarked, "We are not going to turn back by appointing judges to lifetime positions who will bring us and return us back to those days of discrimination and prejudice."
In her confirmation hearing two years ago, Justice Brown tried to address the concern of Kennedy and others.
"Probably the most important thing that we have ever done is to try and guarantee people equality under the law,” said Rogers Brown. “And maybe that's because I have lived in a time when that was not so."
Her mom admits that the unfair criticism bothers her, and Janice, too, to a certain degree.
Holland said, "She hides it very well, but I know that it bothers her because it bothers me. Some of it is so negative. They take some things that she says out of context."
She added, "It hurts, but I pray a lot. God does answer prayer."
Part of why Democrats are so opposed to Brown is because of comments in some of her speeches, like this one: “Where government advances and it advances relentlessly, freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized...”
And in another speech, she said, “These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in, and say those things out loud."
Her mom believes that outspokenness does not sit well with her opposition. Holland said, "She tells it like it is. And they don't like it They don't like to hear the truth."
So, Miers was the first on the chopping block. The Democrats had their taste of blood and got what they wanted and got Miers to withdraw her nomination. Now, it would be Brown's turn but there's a problem this time. For the Democrats to try and reject a 2nd nominated woman for the Supreme court, a 2nd black woman nominated for the Supreme court, they would look foolish in the eyes of their black constituents, and their constituents in general, if they try and stop Janice Rogers Brown. Doing this would portray many of the Democrats as just being plain racist and/or hypocrites.
It would have been easier for the Democrats to try and reject Brown had she been nominated first. And then probably easier still to reject Miers as the 2nd choice (rather than the first) because of her background and such. Noticed how weak she was when she presented her case before the Senate Panel? And how the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter returned the committee's questionnaire to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers after many lawmakers found her original answers unacceptable??
I think the whole thing was a clever set up by the Administration and Miers agreed to go along with it and wouldn't matter if she won the seat or not since the first objective by the Administration was to get another woman onto the Supreme Court panel. The Administration was banking on the Democrats' reaction toward Miers. And if Miers nomination fails, then Janice Rogers Brown would be next and use the Democrats' past response against them.
Was it all a set-up? Was it a plan for the Democrats to waste their political capital on Miers before moving on to Brown? Was this designed to be a clever fallback tactic by the Administration should the Miers nomination not go through?
Seems like it.
UPDATE: The Anchoress Online seems to think so, too. So does Generation Why? And "Underneath the Robes" gives an example of a decoy used for the nomination of John Roberts and gives names of other potential female judges that could be up for nomination.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
So, sprinkling dried feces on foods in public places where the possibility of human pathogens may exist in the feces is not considered a terrorist threat or a National security issue? Can the FBI elaborate a bit more? Say, that Behrouz was just a nutball but with a suspicious sounding name?
Screen Capture. USAToday
Click for larger version
Michelle Malkin has more. Don't forget OJ. And the John Kerry thing, too.
UPDATE: USAToday corrects photo "error".
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
For those of you who are frowning about this clip, lighten up! For those who are wearing cochlear implants, this is a good time to improve your hearing by watching this clip to try and listen and follow the lyrics. You'll really enjoy this comedy routine. I promise you that. For those who wears a hearing aid, it's funny and try and follow the lyrics as you watch. Now, for those who are Deaf/deaf it's still funny if you watch the performance since it follows the stanza ("breaks") in the lyrics.
Guess what the sign is for "man" ?
It's a comedy fer Pete's sake! Lighten up, dudes.
This guy a genius. He's going to go places and people love his performance "Torn." Already this is being circulated all over the internet passing around this very funny clip.
The vote on the constitution was 78.59 percent in favor of ratification and 21.41 percent against, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said. The charter required a simple majority nationwide with the provision that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces rejected it, the constitution would be defeated.
The referendum results, announced after a 10-day audit following allegations of fraud, confirmed previous indications that Sunni Arabs failed to produce the two-thirds "no" vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat the constitution.
The charter is considered a major step in Iraq's democratic reforms, clearing the way for the election of a new, full-term Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15. Such steps are important in any decision about the future withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Iraq.
Congrats to the Iraqi people. Proof of concept that democracy does work whether if the referendum passed or failed. Of course, there will be naysayers, doomsayers and people who just drip with venom that'll come out of the woodwork everytime something successful happens.
I wonder if the Sheehan crowd will make a note of the successful Iraq constitutional referendum vote? For democracy to gain a foothold requires time, committment, faith and blood. As always, freedom is never free. Sacrifice is what it takes. Sheehan forgets that very readily just to make a buck and a shot at momentary fame and recognition defiling and embarrassing the memory of her dead son. She even has an excuse for that, too.
UPDATE: Sheehan, despite her pathetic excuse, smiled all the way to the police's paddy wagon along with other women sitting there, glumly and not looking too thrilled about getting arrested. See the video. Kudos to Sheehan on exploiting capitalism via politics and recognition.
More glummy article about the Iraq Constitution (before the successful passing of the referedum) by Sheehan and misses wildly the whole concept of freedom and democracy. Freedom is never free. We're there to help. Any step toward a more democratic and free country is always a success for the horribly oppressed people rather than be under the iron fist of tyranny and despotism and not have a voice.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Here are some Ft. Myers cams. Some working, some not.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
If there is one sport that I find interesting it's the Strongman games. Try and pick up a round, heavy concrete/stone ball. If you thought a medicine ball was heavy, you haven't picked up a stone ball before. Tire flips and farmer's walk are usually standard fares in a strongman games. There are numerous other events, and the one who completes all of the events with the most points wins the competition. Each games are not the same and most events are usually standard with some additional ones added.
In the past these games were reserved only for the heaviest and strongest persons but now there are more of these strongman games in the lighter weight category with the lightest category being under 200 lbs for men. At least the under 200lbs is much more palatable to work up to than to getting up to 231 lbs just to take advantage of the extra weight and strength gains. Usually these strongman events have only just two weight categories such as 232 lbs and over, and under 231 lbs.
Whatever the weight category, I think it's a fun sport to watch or even more so to participate in one. And over the years these strongman events have become more popular (thanks to ESPN) just like poker tournaments have gotten popular over the years. In fact, there is one deaf person that I'm aware of that have participated in a strongman event. And that would be Andy Medak.
Are you a deaf or hh strongman, powerlifter, or an olympic lifter?
"U.S. confirms killing"? And how exactly did the Washington Post ensured that it was confirmed? Because the Daily Telegraph says so? Didn't John Ward Anderson and Steve Fainaru from Washington Post Foreign Service who wrote that in yesterday's article ever tried calling a few military people just to double check on the Daily Telegraph's supposed "confirmation" ?
U.S. Confirms Killing Of Contractors in Iraq - Four Were Slain by Angry Mob Last Month
It is interesting, however, that the Daily Telegraph wrote that story on October 22, 2005, a few days after the burning of the Taliban dead bodies was reported by the media. Either they were careless in their reporting, or there is an agenda here to mislead others with disinformation. Either way, it was poor journalistic work. Even many of the bloggers can do better. This is little comfort coming from the MSM outlets on hoping that they follow a bit of proper journalism protocol seeing how big a boo boo they both made.
Here's the actual confirmation as reported by the Associated Press today:
BAGHDAD, Iraq The U-S military is denying a newspaper report that the bodies of four American contractors killed in Iraq were set on fire by a mob.
The military says all four were in their vehicles with bullet wounds and one of them was burned from a vehicle fire. It says another one was injured but later died of his wounds.
What will Washington Post (and the rest of the MSM) do to ensure that they follow through with the proper journalistic protocols on ensuring that the story they have is correct and not just hearsay?
Both WaPo and DT need to do some answering here.
Ok, how many of you bloggers out there were duped by this and ranted over the fake reporting by WaPo and Daily Telegraph?
And, no, this isn't the result of "global warning," either. It's the same trend that we had 1950s and 1960s when we had a rash of hurricanes. Oh sure, we had more Cat. 5 hurricanes in one season in the past but the frequency of Class 3 or higher hurricanes is mimicking the trend back in the 1950s and 1960s. Must've been some serious global warming then. And then it got relatively "quiet" after that only to get cranked up again, from th e mid-1990s onward.
Oh, btw, Greenland's ice sheet has been thickening up (here and especially here) and if all of that ice melted, it would raise the sea water level about 15 to 20 feet. If we're in a "global warning" as so many chicken littles are saying, then why are the ice sheets of Greenland have been getting thicker every year?
*Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)
• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and
1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.
• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere.
Others (a great source of info!) have noted elsewhere that ice and snow are accumulating as well as changes in avg. temperature which in many places have gotten colder.
Go ahead and play the chicken little game while feigning ignorance my little chickadees.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Time Magazine reported yesterday that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan had to burn the bodies of dead Islamic terrorists because they were BLOATED and they STANK under the 90 degrees plus heat! Well, have you ever smelled dead but obviously bloated bodies rotting under the sun for a few days? It isn't air freshner that's for sure.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation may have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan, had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont. Instead, when the footage aired on Australian TV on Wednesday, it unleashed world outrage. A Pentagon spokesman described the incident as "repugnant" and said that the army was launching a criminal investigation into the alleged desecration of the corpses, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention on human rights.
Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."
Well, that's a new new insult, "Lady-boys." Must be a slight derivative of Arnold's smack, "Girlie-men." It's all part of the Psy-Ops on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq by American forces. Surely, more Hand Wringers of America will step forward and do some more analysis claiming that by taunting Islamic terrorists with such insults as "Lady-boys" will be damaging to their psyche and well-being. And giving an excuse to handle this war with kids gloves thus leading to a more "sensitive war." Pink bonnets and flowers for the terrorists.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Burn 'em, boys! Burn the Lady-boys.
And, a Semper Fi, too!
Most of the civilized world recognizes Robert Mugabe as a brutal tyrant responsible for transforming what was once the breadbasket of the African continent into a place of destitution, and dependence on the West.
The United States alone has donated nearly $300 million worth of food to Zimbabwe since 2002, and it's hard to see how a single penny of that aid did not go to waste.
This is a country where government-sanctioned theft of land from white farmers has led to black starvation, and where information about the regime's grain reserves are guarded from the U.N. and the Zimbabwean people in the way terrorist states keep secret their weapons of mass destruction programs.
Someone naive to the U.N.'s ways might expect to see sanctions imposed on Mugabe's regime. Instead, Mugabe was invited to speak to the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome — in spite of a European Union ban on Mugabe's travel.
If you support the U.N. you also support Islamic terrorism, despotism, tyranny and dictatorship. It's time to weed out the vile and corrupt U.N. once and for all.
Hey, I have no qualms about burning them up. It's no different than Taliban fighters getting caught in a burning hut caused by the Coalition weapons. Or a 500 lb bomb ripping through their "secret" headquarters blowing them up into several thousand pieces. How many of those Taliban fighters had to abandoned their brothers to rot under the sun? This is war. What do the Australian journalists want? A more sensitive war?
Haven't we forgotten what the evils of Islamic terrorists have done when they also multilate corpses?
Remember this one?
3000 dead. Burned. Crushed, Dismembered.
Many of them unaccounted for. We can't
account for them. Why should the Talibans?
Hey, I'm for burning up the bodies of Taliban fighters if it necessary on war against terrorism as part of their psychological warfare tactics. Now, if the Taliban fighters had enough sense to stop their 14th century backward thinking maybe they (and the women) would be better off in today's society by stopping this nonsense. Remember, we are at war and the battle field is not a playground. Many do go MIA. We're not playing Guatanamo Bay here handling the Koran with white kids gloves and give jailed Islamic terrorists the 5 star spa treatment at Club Gitmo. This is a battle field. A completely different scenario here. I'd say that once these Islamic terrorists get killed in action, bury them all in pig skins. Burn 'em. Let them rot under the sun for months. Or let the vultures eat the corpses and turn them into vulture droppings. If the Taliban fighters want to claim the bodies, they'd best surrender first. Simple as that.
My first blog was called "Opening salvo against Kerry's grab."
It happened. Finally happened when a Democrat deaf and hard of hearing American group called "National Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans for Kerry/Edwards Steering Committee" (a mouthful!) was officially endorsed by the Kerry/Edwards in their website as the lay claims to 28 million deaf and hard of hearing Americans as their own. Needless to say they do not represent me, nor to the million others deaf and hard of hearing Americans who support George W. Bush
Thus began my foray into the world of other people's ludicrousness by pointing out their inanities. Their creativity of it. Or simply because I found them interesting enough to blog the details on my blog site. Of course, you wouldn't want to forget my famous Bush rally pictures. That was some classic pictures I took.
My blogsite "Kokonut Pundits" was referred to a few times in Michelle Malkin, Iowa Voice. Blogs for Bush, and Captains Quarters, for example. Plus numerous other lesser known Conservatives (and Liberals) that have linked to my blogsite to reference my articles.
As for sizing up my blogsite with others, here they are:
On the Technorati scale, my blog is now ranked at #4,968 with 798 links from 202 sites. The number of blogs that Technorati covers stands at 19.9 million blogs.Now, what will the 2nd year bode me in my continued blogging while I cover politics, deafness issues, Republicans, Liberals, sensitive Democrats, national security, technology and so on? Only time will tell. This blogging is a hobby (out of few others I do) of mine since I do enjoy writing like so many others out there.
My "Average Per Day" hits currently stands at 101.
My "Average Vist Length" has gone up remarkably over the last several months with average visit length of exactly at 4:00 (4 minutes).
So far, over 26,000 hits or the number of times people have visited my blogsite. Although two months went missing when I took the Site Meter button off but later I decided to put it back up again. I joined the Site Meter on December 11, 2004 versus starting my blog on October 22, 2004. So the number should be a little bit higher, probably close to 30,000 by now. But hey, 26,000 is fine.
Are you going to blog or what?
Friday, October 21, 2005
Now you people, get back into your shelters! This island is going to get destroyed and will feel the economic impact with destroyed infrastructures and no tourism for years to come. Cancel your 2006 spring break, folks.
Monster storm taken at 2 PM Mountain Time
(or 4 PM Eastern Time) October 21, 2005
The Texas Republican is smiling, dressed in a suit and wearing his House pin.
Unlike most mug shots, the photograph being circulated on the Internet does not include written information at the bottom, so it looks more like an ordinary snapshot than a mug shot.
That bothers many of the bloggers on the Democrat's "Kicking Ass" website.
Some complained that the official mug shot "doesn't look real -- no ID markings, no booking numbers, etc." Others wanted to see the profile shot."I want a copy of the warrent [sic] for the back of a t-shirt and his mug on the front," one Democrat wrote. Others indicated they'd like to wipe the smile off DeLay's face.
Ha ha! Outwitted. Ever see a movie called "Dumb and Dumber" ?
Curses, foiled again! So desperate are these Liberal nutballs they decided to produce fake mugshots instead for their own T-shirt. Even a sorry Liberal radio station tried their hands at photoshopping using Nick Nolte's own mugshot and his famous disheveled look with Tom DeLay's face.
Next, maybe they'll try and look for a Texas statute buried somewhere that specifically forbade any smiling (only if you want to leave the country) for those arrested and booked when they get photographed.
Free Democratic Party seal is now
available for sensitive Democrats.
Call me and get yours today!
Hat tip: Mizhko
Deafreedom is starting to have its members put their names on the map. Deaf America has one, too. Cochlear Implantees are making themselves known. There is even a Deaf Bloggers map that's starting. Then there's this "Deaf Gang" and "Deaf Climbers." And finally there is a "Gallaudet Alumni" map, apparently very new for those who graduated from Gallaudet University. Here's another one.
Check out the search result on "deaf" every so often and you may find more deaf groups that are added to the "deaf" Frapper! list.
Hey, if you have a particular interest, hobby or an affiliation and want to know where those people are? Create one! It's easy. So, start your Frapper! today.
UPDATE: Here's a weird one.
Thanks for the info Mizhko.