Showing posts with label americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label americans. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Friday, 17 October 2008
Another graphic.
The US election is nearly upon us and it's looking interesting. Obama is in the lead, but McCain's been the underdog before and still won the nomination to run. Who's going to win? No idea, probably McCain, perhaps Obama. Obviously I'd prefer the latter by virtue of the fact that the current Republican administration has been an unmitigated disaster in almost every way - the economy, foreign policy, domestic security and making the current regime the most invasive, power hungry and in thrall to big business government the US has ever had. For the so-called party of economic growth the following graphic shows succinctly that it's no more than a lie that the Republicans are the party of economic growth and prosperity:
Quite how they managed to pull that lie off is alien to me, but I will say one thing for them, they've got misinformation down to a fine art.
But, there is always room for a chuckle in any election so click on this and then click away to your heart's content. Made me laugh several times.
Quite how they managed to pull that lie off is alien to me, but I will say one thing for them, they've got misinformation down to a fine art.
But, there is always room for a chuckle in any election so click on this and then click away to your heart's content. Made me laugh several times.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Even I'm tempted by this.
Well, apart from the cigarettes. Ooft, can you imagine the carnage in your stomach after some of that? All available from here. I realise as a vegetarian it is probably against my better judgement to advertise that place, but it does look good and tasty. I mean, look how happy this guy looks!
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Isn't Sarah Palin a lovely woman?
I mean really, isn't she?! The first one was the clincher for me. Such compassion.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
It's been a while.
I've not blogged for a wee while now, not because I didn't have anything to say you understand, just because I've been busy. I inadvertently wiped all my work from the PRO off my computer by overwriting it with data from my old computer so I had to go redo all the work again. Bah. Oh well, that learned me good.
But on to a different subject. If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I think I'd wait for whoever it is that gets elected as the Democrat nomination for the US presidency and with the resulting bounce for them, then put my money on John McCain when his odds get lengthened for a short while. I just can't see the US electing either a black man or a woman to the highest office in the land against a Vietnam veteran and former POW. Don't get me wrong, nothing would please me more (in respect of US politics) to see a Democrat elected, irrespective of their gender or race, but I can't see it. I guess the beauty in US politics is that you always get suckered into hoping that something good will happen. Like last time round, there was what was reported as a groundswell of opinion against GWB that people, at least over here in the UK, thought Kerry had a genuine chance of getting in. We all know what happened there, albeit Kerry didn't help himself by not choosing Wes Clark as his running mate which gave the Republicans the chance to pin their 'war credentials' of being an administration that was in the middle of a war (of their own making of course) firmly to the ballot sheets.
The point of all this in relation to my thoughts on Obama and Clinton? As always, it is the older white guys running the show. Say what you like about Michael Moore, and let's face it we all have, but he had a point. Clinton and Obama are on a hiding to nothing unless one of them can pull something big out of the bag. Even then, they have it all to do. I just can't see either of them getting elected. McCain will get one term (due to his age), probably get through an amended immigration bill that he has supported, giving something like 12m immigrants votes in the US (primarily Latin Americans), before getting footed out the door by a few more NeoCons. They will by that point have convinced Jeb Bush that being president isn't such a bad job and that a family dynasty might be the way to go after all. A large number of those extra Latin American votes will likely go to a fluent Spanish speaking, newly devout Roman Catholic Jeb. I can see it all now!
But where will the Democrat nominee come from in the next election? That I don't see. John Edwards has failed twice in a row, first as Kerry's running mate and second in trying to get the latest nomination, so he's likely out. Hilary to run again? I'd be surprised at that, especially if she loses badly to Obama this time round. Obama? Maybe. A little more experience and exposure could do him well in the interim years. Al Gore? If he wants it then I suppose he'd at least be in a position to stand for it. The Clintons would likely be out of the way and he's already being touted as the power broker between Obama and Hilary. In saying that, he does appear to be enjoying his new found eco-warrior status so who knows?
Either way, McCain will win the next election. He's a more moderate Republican and will appeal to a wider audience with his 'bipartisan' approach. Oops, nearly forgot, there is always Nader! Now, where's my cheque book?
But on to a different subject. If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I think I'd wait for whoever it is that gets elected as the Democrat nomination for the US presidency and with the resulting bounce for them, then put my money on John McCain when his odds get lengthened for a short while. I just can't see the US electing either a black man or a woman to the highest office in the land against a Vietnam veteran and former POW. Don't get me wrong, nothing would please me more (in respect of US politics) to see a Democrat elected, irrespective of their gender or race, but I can't see it. I guess the beauty in US politics is that you always get suckered into hoping that something good will happen. Like last time round, there was what was reported as a groundswell of opinion against GWB that people, at least over here in the UK, thought Kerry had a genuine chance of getting in. We all know what happened there, albeit Kerry didn't help himself by not choosing Wes Clark as his running mate which gave the Republicans the chance to pin their 'war credentials' of being an administration that was in the middle of a war (of their own making of course) firmly to the ballot sheets.
The point of all this in relation to my thoughts on Obama and Clinton? As always, it is the older white guys running the show. Say what you like about Michael Moore, and let's face it we all have, but he had a point. Clinton and Obama are on a hiding to nothing unless one of them can pull something big out of the bag. Even then, they have it all to do. I just can't see either of them getting elected. McCain will get one term (due to his age), probably get through an amended immigration bill that he has supported, giving something like 12m immigrants votes in the US (primarily Latin Americans), before getting footed out the door by a few more NeoCons. They will by that point have convinced Jeb Bush that being president isn't such a bad job and that a family dynasty might be the way to go after all. A large number of those extra Latin American votes will likely go to a fluent Spanish speaking, newly devout Roman Catholic Jeb. I can see it all now!
But where will the Democrat nominee come from in the next election? That I don't see. John Edwards has failed twice in a row, first as Kerry's running mate and second in trying to get the latest nomination, so he's likely out. Hilary to run again? I'd be surprised at that, especially if she loses badly to Obama this time round. Obama? Maybe. A little more experience and exposure could do him well in the interim years. Al Gore? If he wants it then I suppose he'd at least be in a position to stand for it. The Clintons would likely be out of the way and he's already being touted as the power broker between Obama and Hilary. In saying that, he does appear to be enjoying his new found eco-warrior status so who knows?
Either way, McCain will win the next election. He's a more moderate Republican and will appeal to a wider audience with his 'bipartisan' approach. Oops, nearly forgot, there is always Nader! Now, where's my cheque book?
Thursday, 2 August 2007
STOP PRESS!
Aw naw! I've just been informed by the BaptistsforBrownback2008 website- a presidential campaign website for Sam Brownback the Republican senator for Kansas- that apparently wearing a kilt is not as innocent as I've been led to believe all my life...
You can read what these lovely people have to say about Scotland's national attire here. Be warned, don't have any foodstuffs or liquids in your mouth when you read it as they will inevitably end up all over your computer screen and keyboard as you laugh at what they've written, and of course I don't want to be responsible for your cleaning costs.
Obviously not willing to take this lying down, Scots and defenders of the kilt the world over left them numerous comments letting them know exactly what they thought of their assertions and accusations, resulting in a retraction. Of sorts. You can read about it here.
Now as you are all busy people I'll leave you some of the choicest cuts from their words of wisdom regarding the kilt:
"The kilt, long associated with those ghastly Scots, has seen a drastic increase in popularity among the jet-setting homosexual crowd. One manufacturer of this perfectly obscene item, Utilikilts in Seattle, was recently interviewed and subsequently featured prominently on the front page of Yahoo News. " Charming. Ghastly eh? Perhaps they've see the pubs at kicking out time?
"It is understood, that while the sodomite would unnaturally embrace the feminine attributes of a man-skirt or kilt, the main purpose is that it grants them easy and quick access for fornicating." Hmm, does this extend to women who wear skirts? THEY MUST ALL BE SODOMITES TOO! Quick, get the emergency trousers on everyone!
"No real man, not a heterosexual one with a shred of self-respect, Scottish or not, would permit himself to be caught dead in a skirt, unless he was playing the bagpipe while in Scotland, at a historically-themed wedding. Even then I find his heterosexuality suspect at best." Ooh, get her! I have to say I am deeply concered that somebody somewhere in the US finds my hetereosexuality deeply concerning at my choice to wear a kilt. I think I'm going to readdress my whole belief system in light of what I've just read. Done, I'm sticking with the kilt.
Their retraction begins- please, no foodstuffs or liquids, this is an absolute belter:
"Dear Angry Kilt-Wearing Men,
Obviously, many of you feel very strongly about your right to wear “kilts” based on the responses as seen in the post titled: The Sissification of Seattle. Regardless of how foolish a man looks in a skirt, I have spoken to several of your women via email who have convinced me that they believe you to be completely heterosexual. Having faith that a percentage of women, albeit a small one, possess the intuition to discern whether her husband is not taking her for a fool, and not out having abominable same-sex relations, I will agree to believe that some of you are not sodomites. That said, there arises an equally as disturbing of an issues, if you are not in fact a homosexual then why would you want to wear a skirt, or kilt if you will. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that the freedom of not having slacks with sippers and belts, grants you easy access for spontaneous fornication. Providing that all intimate relations occur solely between yourself and your legal wife, this may not be a mortal sin, as is the sin of sodomy. However, this opens the door to instances of carnality that lay outside of the golden rule: Sexual relations between a man and his wife are for procreation, not recreation. Additionally, there is the problem of what does a man wear beneath his “kilt” which would deter him from self-abuse and abnormal excitability."
So, now that kilt-wearers are no longer all sodomites (although there is still the belief that at least some are, naturally), there is at least the very good chance that that they are probably sexual deviants who at the drop of a hat, or should I say lifting of a kilt, will inevitably indulge in 'spontaneous fornication'! I guess now we all know why ceilidhs are so fun! Not to mention Scotland international football matches, Scottish international rugby, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Highland Games, formal occasions and so forth. What sexually charged occasions these all are and poor little naive me didn't even realise. I'm getting a kilt ASAP, what a world of deviant pleasures I've been missing out on all this time! Oh wait...
You can read what these lovely people have to say about Scotland's national attire here. Be warned, don't have any foodstuffs or liquids in your mouth when you read it as they will inevitably end up all over your computer screen and keyboard as you laugh at what they've written, and of course I don't want to be responsible for your cleaning costs.
Obviously not willing to take this lying down, Scots and defenders of the kilt the world over left them numerous comments letting them know exactly what they thought of their assertions and accusations, resulting in a retraction. Of sorts. You can read about it here.
Now as you are all busy people I'll leave you some of the choicest cuts from their words of wisdom regarding the kilt:
"The kilt, long associated with those ghastly Scots, has seen a drastic increase in popularity among the jet-setting homosexual crowd. One manufacturer of this perfectly obscene item, Utilikilts in Seattle, was recently interviewed and subsequently featured prominently on the front page of Yahoo News. " Charming. Ghastly eh? Perhaps they've see the pubs at kicking out time?
"It is understood, that while the sodomite would unnaturally embrace the feminine attributes of a man-skirt or kilt, the main purpose is that it grants them easy and quick access for fornicating." Hmm, does this extend to women who wear skirts? THEY MUST ALL BE SODOMITES TOO! Quick, get the emergency trousers on everyone!
"No real man, not a heterosexual one with a shred of self-respect, Scottish or not, would permit himself to be caught dead in a skirt, unless he was playing the bagpipe while in Scotland, at a historically-themed wedding. Even then I find his heterosexuality suspect at best." Ooh, get her! I have to say I am deeply concered that somebody somewhere in the US finds my hetereosexuality deeply concerning at my choice to wear a kilt. I think I'm going to readdress my whole belief system in light of what I've just read. Done, I'm sticking with the kilt.
Their retraction begins- please, no foodstuffs or liquids, this is an absolute belter:
"Dear Angry Kilt-Wearing Men,
Obviously, many of you feel very strongly about your right to wear “kilts” based on the responses as seen in the post titled: The Sissification of Seattle. Regardless of how foolish a man looks in a skirt, I have spoken to several of your women via email who have convinced me that they believe you to be completely heterosexual. Having faith that a percentage of women, albeit a small one, possess the intuition to discern whether her husband is not taking her for a fool, and not out having abominable same-sex relations, I will agree to believe that some of you are not sodomites. That said, there arises an equally as disturbing of an issues, if you are not in fact a homosexual then why would you want to wear a skirt, or kilt if you will. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that the freedom of not having slacks with sippers and belts, grants you easy access for spontaneous fornication. Providing that all intimate relations occur solely between yourself and your legal wife, this may not be a mortal sin, as is the sin of sodomy. However, this opens the door to instances of carnality that lay outside of the golden rule: Sexual relations between a man and his wife are for procreation, not recreation. Additionally, there is the problem of what does a man wear beneath his “kilt” which would deter him from self-abuse and abnormal excitability."
So, now that kilt-wearers are no longer all sodomites (although there is still the belief that at least some are, naturally), there is at least the very good chance that that they are probably sexual deviants who at the drop of a hat, or should I say lifting of a kilt, will inevitably indulge in 'spontaneous fornication'! I guess now we all know why ceilidhs are so fun! Not to mention Scotland international football matches, Scottish international rugby, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Highland Games, formal occasions and so forth. What sexually charged occasions these all are and poor little naive me didn't even realise. I'm getting a kilt ASAP, what a world of deviant pleasures I've been missing out on all this time! Oh wait...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
