Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Bill Almighty!

O'REILLY: So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?

That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.

Now, is that the kind of country I want for Iraq? No. But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going. So, any area that is giving you trouble, you have a 7-to-7 curfew. And you can't come out of your house. That's it. And if you do, we shoot you. That's how you control it. All right?

Lord Amighty.

So we went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqis from Saddam... so that they could be enslaved by... Bill? W? Exxon?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Brotherly Love

Ok… I’m going to try and frame this OFFENSIVE quote the best way I can. I read this on Media Matters, as I try not to go looking for the beast.

"Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others."

When I read this, my first thought was- there the right goes breaking logic circuits again. I can go to Media Matters and find all sorts of quotes about her putting down Islam- like this one or this…. Heck I could most likely find another dozen or so of her putting down Muslims and Islam…
Which I find ironic, in the way I find most of what comes out of Fox to be ironic.
You see- Muslims, like Jews, follow the “God of Abraham”. The difference is a) Muslims are the descendents of Esau, instead of Jacob (both of whom are Abraham’s grandkids) and b) Muslims have added the Quran to the Torah… in much the same way that the Christians added the “new testament”.
So using logic- if Jews = Christians because they both believe in the torah then Muslims = Christians as they also believe in the God of Abraham.
Which isn’t that surprising, now that I think about it, as I find both Osama and W. to be annoying religious figures who are doing their darndest to make everyone ELSE live by their “moral” laws.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Interview Aptly Done on 6-6-'6

For the full story on Ann Coulter's most recent appearance on the today show, head over here.

While there's obviously a lot about her book and her viewpoint I disagree with, there's only one thing I want to wax poetic on here (and frankly, I'm thankful our free speech applies to her as well; it's unfortunate she seems so unwilling to hear the frank responses she's given over her use of it).

From page 7 of her latest book:

"Environmentalists' energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing."

Wow. Seriously, I'll give major brownie points to anyone who can show me Biblical proof that the Christian destiny involves any of these material rewards, even metaphorically. Where in the Bible does it say that the meek shall inherit the earth and the righteous shall be given unlimited lift tickets for Shasta Ski Resort?

Whatever your religion, bless you for it. While I'm agnostic, I'm inclusive. Are there seriously any Christians out there who think Coulter isn't being sacriligious and/or hypocritical when she makes statements like this and (regarding 9-11 widows) "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" [p.103] as well as any number of the other hare-brained things she writes?

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Nothing to bomb here.. move along.. move along.

Can someone explain to me how, according to the Department of Homeland Security, New York City has NO national monuments or icons????

I mean I guess after 9/11... which the right mentions 5 times a day... that there are no more buildings in New York City that non New Yorkers would know. Unless you listen to a New York Jew Mayor Bloomberg who responded to this news that
"All I can tell you is if you look at their worksheets, and it says that New York City doesn't have any high visibility national icons ... I mean, I don't have to list the Brooklyn Bridge, the United Nations, Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building and the Stock Exchange,"

Then again it's not like the repugs CARED about any of the 3,000 people who died before they died.

Edit: wanted to update this to show WHERE the terrorists seems to want to strike. Indiana.
The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.