The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Blaming Dick Cheney as some have is lame no matter how well you spin the political jargon with "sound good" intellect. Cheney will not make or break the Republicans. I would on the other hand be willing to bet that the President Bush's lack of popularity and having crossed his own political base - to the point they want nothing to do with him - will hurt the Republicans far more than anyone or any one thing. Bush is like what the new agers refer to as "bad Karma."

As for the candidates themselves, I take issue with Ron Paul. He comes across like a Democratic mole.

I am not fond of John McCain for matters that go beyond the politics of the day. My issues with McCain deal with how he teamed up with John Kerry in the early 1990's dismissing a bill that would have kept the search alive for missing POWs in Vietnam.

McCain having once been a POW shocked many with his decision to abandon the search, calling it futile. He proved to many that his loyalties lay with politics, not the American people and the families that lost loved ones in another one of America's huge debacles.

I personally have been backing Rudy Giuliani - not because he is some saint - he is far from it. Ronald Reagan once said, "If you can agree with a candidate 80% of the time then you can support that candidate." That is where I stand with Giuliani - right now he is our greatest hope or our worst nightmare. Having said that, it could be worse.

Fred Thompson is a bust - plain and simple. His wife, Jeri, is a real piece of work. The fact that his campaign strategists had to tell her to back off and stop trying to run the show and call the shots was quite enlightening. She is also not First Lady material - far from it. The only thing Jeri has going is being Fred's trophy wife. Thompson himself still has not officially announced that he is running and from the look and sound of things - it is best that he just stay out of the race while he is ahead - and that is saying very little of his weak character.

As for the remaining GOP candidates there is not much to say either way, they are slowly fading out. I will add here, however, that there is a real possibility Newt Gingrich could get into the race this fall. Now that is something that could excite me. It would make for intelligent politics and force the Democrats to use their brains instead of their backsides.

Many of my readers as well as those in the media have been predicting that many Republicans will not come out to vote for the 2008 Presidential race if their candidate of choice is not picked. To not vote, because your candidate of choice was not picked is sheer lunacy.

You have the right to vote as an American citizen - it is a privilege. You cannot decry that the Democrats are insane and then turn around and not vote. This would make you crazier than any Democrat walking.

Not voting in 2008, to prove your disapproval of the GOP's final pick is paramount to giving the White House to the Democrats. All I have to say to you is that if you do not vote, and the White House goes Democratic - I don't want to hear one peep out of you, not one peep. You got what you deserved.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Layla Elizabeth at 12:00 AM | Permalink

There has been a lot of news insanity of late. Hillary is ticked because the Pentagon did not stop, drop, and roll when she wanted classified information regarding an Iraq pullout. Then there are all the unending polls - Hillary tops Obama, and Edwards. Of course then you must know that Giuliani tops McCain, Thompson, and Romney. The lovely polls that are wrong half the time have the election won by Hillary beating out Giuliani in 2008.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media did not know something - just once? But the media knows it all and Fox News has become the biggest culprit all the while claiming exemption because they are "fair and balanced." So much for fair and balanced, I mean if you are fair and balanced that means - that says - you are capitulating with the enemies of western civilization.

There is no longer one media outlet that can be completely trusted and Fox News has blown the trust of many Americans. How many more blond haired - blue eyed bimbos report to us our news before we ask are they all cloned?

Via Media Bias Basics:

The Liberal Media Exposed (PDF Report): Formatted, easy-to-print pages detailing the key results of nearly two dozen surveys about media bias. The report also includes quotes from top journalists denying a liberal media bias, plus comments from journalists acknowledging the problem. Updated May 2007.

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.

Journalists’ Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.” See Section.

How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.

Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section

Denials of Liberal Bias. Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBS’s forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn’t his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. “People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, ‘Because he won’t report it our way, we’re going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,’” Rather told USA Today in September 2004. “They know that I’m fiercely independent and that’s what drives them up a wall.” See Section.

Evidence of Bias in News Coverage. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media’s bias on specific issues.

The insanity marches on.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Layla Elizabeth at 07:42 PM | Permalink

At least, that's the story I'm making up and sticking to after reading The Absurd Report's article on last week's moron, Nancy Pelosi.

It's a funny bit of news on the bat, so go ahead and mosey on over there.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink

It seems some screwball in Alabama is campaigning on the wacko front.

Loretta Nall has been bulging her breasts for a cause:

Loretta Nall, the Libertarian Party’s write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, is campaigning on her cleavage and hoping that voters will eventually focus on her platform.

“It started out as a joke, but it blew up into something huge,” said Nall, a 32-year-old with dyed blond hair.

Her campaign is offering T-shirts and marijuana stash boxes adorned with a photo of her with a plunging neckline and the words: “More of these boobs.” Below that are pictures of other candidates for governor — including Republican incumbent Bob Riley and Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley — and the words: “And less of these boobs.”

What I don't get is why she's bothering to campaign:

Nall, who spoke in an interview Friday on the Capitol steps, realizes that is about as close as she is going to get to the governor’s office. But her outrageous antics have helped her attract attention not normally enjoyed by write-in candidates.

Ignorant boob.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It seems urination is a hot topic with some Norwegian Democrats, which, I guess, should not be a shocker considering that they're full of it. Urination will go to committee:

A local decision that schoolboys must sit on toilet seats when urinating has provoked political debate.

The head of The Democrats Party, a splinter group of former Progress Party hardliners, Vidar Kleppe, is outraged that boys at Dvergsnes School in Kristiansand have to sit and pee.

Kleppe accuses the school of fiddling with God's work, and wants the matter discussed at the executive committee level of the local council, newspaper Dagbladet reports.

"When boys are not allowed to pee in the natural way, the way boys have done for generations, it is meddling with God's work," Kleppe told the newspaper.

"It is a human right not to have to sit down like a girl," Kleppe said.

I'm sure this is just a lazy way to cut back on custodial employment by making washing around urinals one less job to do.

I'm also sure it's another way for them to cheapen up the schools by only installing toilets rather than urinals and toilets.

Cheap b*st*rds.

Funny thing is that they say "young boys are simply not good enough at aiming", but duh, isn't that what schooling is for... to train them to become competent adults?

Perhaps you don't have to potty train the boys, but the education system is responsible for enabling children to achieve fine motor skills.

Therefore, learning to pee with good aim - a fine motor skill - is an essential learning tool that schools should encourage, not discourage.

Wow, that sounded too intelligent. I'd better dumb it down a bit.

H'yuck h'yuck, boys pee sitting down. That's like having a male dog that squats to pee.

H'yuck.

Hat Tip: Mixolydian Mode

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This article is not typical of Samantha Burns’ site, which mostly consists of witty humour. This is fairly long, but hopefully worth the read.

The left has abandoned this slogan as of late, but they fail to realise just how right they are (although for the wrong reasons). As the story goes, it will all make sense in the end...

Previously I wrote an article 'Everything you need to know about Al-Qaeda'.

To sum up the premise, Al Qaeda has a global ambition of world domination and intends to take over by toppling governments into a state of chaos, thus allowing Taliban-style takeover possible. I gave three choices to survive: partial surrender, full surrender, or fight.

If you haven't read it, now is the time.

However, there exists a threat even more effective at conquering than terrorism. The trouble is nobody can identify this threat without being called a racist, bigot or far worse. Unlike many others, I take the thread of terrorism extremely seriously, and I believe a non-confronted Al-Qaeda could conquer a world of people whom do not rise to the occasion. What can possibly be more effective at conquering than terrorism?

Continue reading "Make Love Not War" »

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Tuesday's Best - Round-Up [by 123beta]
Blogrolling 2006-09-06 [by basil's blog]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by MrBig at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

We all know that the US Mexican immigration issue is a hot topic these days, but I think they might be going to the extreme just a little bit when a GEOGRAPHY teacher is coerced into taking down his classroom flags.

The principal claimed he insisted the teacher take down the flags (Mexican, as well as other countries' flags) or be suspended.

The teacher opted for the suspension.

Good on ya!

What pathetic world does one live in when they can't teach geography or display something as geographically relevant as a foreign flag.

The principal stated that he feared the 7th Grade students would organise a protest.

Hey, "mister no-balls" principal, try using some common sense and supporting your teachers for once.

And, you wonder why teachers feel so disenfranchised these days.

Oh, and while you're at it, "Mr. No-Balls", try standing up to those 12 year olds and letting them know there will be consequences if they choose to protest.

Can you do that, or does that go against your "bend over and take it up the butt" approach to student discipline?

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This article is long and not typical of Samantha's site, but I recommend you read it all.

This is all you need to know about Al Qaeda and terrorists summed up:

"The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires ... . It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahiri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from the country at the turn of the 16th century.

From this one paragraph you can conclude:
1) The terrorists have stated very clearly that a cease fire will not work.

2) The terrorists will continue their terror campaign until one objective is achieved: Islam is installed as the one and only religion and all other religions are completely destroyed.

3) There is no negotiation possible. The only point for them is one world religion - Islam. How can that be negotiated? Anything short of complete and total Islamic domination means the terrorists will continue to attack.

4) Appeasement does not work. If memory serves, Spain was told to get troops out of Iraq or they would be a target. If they withdrew, they would no longer be a target. The Madrid train bombings happened and the Spanish people voted in a government sworn to appease the terrorists. Spain did withdraw from Iraq yet they are still being identified as a target in that paragraph. Why? Simple, the promise not to target Spain was a ruse to stop the Spainish army (and other world armies) from killing the terrorists in Iraq and the real objective of Islamic domination has not been achieved. Thus Spain remains a target.

5) The terrorists use the oppression of the Arabs by Israel and 'evil' US foreign policy as an excuse; their objective is not to change Israel or US foreign policy, but to make Islam the only religion. All these excuses and supposed causes serve to win popular Arab and Muslim support, so the terrorists can operate with impunity within those areas and countries. If Arabs and Muslims can look the other way, the terrorists can operate freely while they train, scheme and attack. The terrorists latch to Arab causes, so their Arab neighbours will passively or actively support and harbour them. Don't be fooled! The terrorists' true and only objective is for an exclusive worldwide Muslim religion.

6) Yes, Muslims had conquered in Spain and they were driven out. Be thankful or history today would be quite different.

With this information you have choices to make:

Continue reading "Everything You Need to Know about Al Qaeda" »

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Terrorist, and what we could do about them... [by http://crabapple.cc]
Democrats Heckle Nobel Peace Prize Nominee [by 123beta]
Sam Get's Serious...About Terrorism [by 123beta]
Terrorism Primer by Samantha Burns [by IntegrateIT - KyleWelsh.com]
OK GO - Useless, Worthless, Un-Islamic Entertainme [by planck's constant]
Samantha Burns [by Stix Blog]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by MrBig at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (24)

*shudder*

Apparently, Sheehan loves Hugo Chavez.

The Sheehag has stated that she'd rather live under Chavez rather than Bush.

I say go for it!

And, I promise we won't miss you either.

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Thursday Round-Up [by 123beta]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

As a result of the hag's hunger strike (and, by "hag", I'm sure you know exactly who I'm talking about), I will be spending my days, starting July 4th and ending September 2nd, eating uncontrollably.

Consider this to be an effort in expressing my absolute disapproval of Cindy Sheehan and her 'tardy entourage. Sure, I support troops coming home when the timing's right, but I certainly don't support the moonbats in any way.

Similar to Sheehag's strategic title, Troops Home Fast, I have titled my engorgement, Poops Come Fast (especially after devouring innumerable greasy edibles and tons and tons of junk).

Okay, well, I probably won't actually be taking part in it, but you get my point.

Besides, I really don't believe Sheehan and the other moonbats will honestly stick to their new diet, either. Something tells me those granola munchers will fake it in front of the public eye every chance they get, but behind the scenes... ya, right.

So, no, I will not be gorging on everything in sight, and I don't recommend it to anyone, but I can guarantee you this - every time I take a bite of something, I will not be thinking of that ugly mug, Sheehan.

*Buurrrp*

Linked to TMH's Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, The Dumb Ox, imaginekitty, Sed Vitae

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For those of you who like 'em at a ripe age of 14 (ick), be aware that you can no longer do it openly in my country.

With internet sexcapades happening more frequently, the Canadian government has elected to raise the age of consent from 14 to age 16.

Like Jim said to me when he sent me this news bit, "I didn't know the age of consent in Canada was 14."

Neither did I.

Darn it, and I thought I was doing something criminal with that guy when I was 15. And, here it was, all along, legal. How awful!

"Our goal in this legislation is not to criminalize teenage youth who may be involved in sexual activity with their peers."

Sure, it's going to happen anyways, but does that mean we should just "go with it", and keep it legal and therefore, acceptable?

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 01:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

And, no I'm not talking about those who have erectile dysfunctions.

Nope, there's no bones about it, a mayor in Australia wants to keep prostitution separate from cemetaries.

Sounds reasonable.

Paul Pisasale, the mayor of Ipswich, Queensland believes that brothels should remain at least 660 feet away from all cemetaries.

"There's a lot of families and services that are going on and the last thing you want is someone conducting a spiritual service and a cemetery reflection time for family and a brothel going on next door."

Nothing would be more of a stress reliever for some than to head to the local brothel after a melancholy funeral service.

In fact, having the two places side by side could be the best idea ever. Nobody likes dwelling on the death of a loved one, so why not spice up the event a little?

Heck, have the prostitutes attend the services and put on a little show for the kin of the deceased.

I can picture it now. The pastor (or talking funeral dude, who ever that is for you) gives his speech and ends it...

"Now, turn that frown upside down, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome madame Texxxas Titz to the stage".

The only problem that I could foresee in the whole matter is people offing their friends and family members just so they could hold a funeral service.

"Sorry Johnny, but I need to get laid".

Hat Tip: Thanks to Diane's Stuff for send this article my way.

Some open trackbacks today: The Dumb Ox, Conservative Cat, Right Wing Nation, imaginekitty, Blogging Outloud

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

... well, not all that shocking.

Bloc Quebecois (the separatists) Leader Gilles Duceppe said it all, and for my first time ever, I have to agree with him:

"...the Liberals and New Democrats are incompetent".

What's funny is it takes an accident to get the bloody ball rolling around here.

Legislators were supposed to hold a debate and final vote on the spending plan after Parliament's finance committee completed its review. By remaining seated in the House of Commons, opposition lawmakers allowed the bill to pass.

"Opposition lawmakers were expecting Conservative member Diane Ablonczy to speak in the House. When she didn't show up, the speaker moved on to the budget, and opposition politicians were caught off guard."

"The government is proposing C$29.3 billion in tax cuts and new spending over two years, narrowing its budget surplus to C$3.6 billion this fiscal year, from C$8 billion in the year ended March 31.

That should give a boost to consumer and business spending of more than C$5 billion, keeping the world's eighth-largest economy on course to grow at the fastest pace in four years, economists have predicted."

Had the proposal been opposed, however, we could have been forced into another election.

I guess there's a reason Stephen Harper's Conservatives are in charge, and the idiots (I mean opposition) are not running things (or was that ruining things?).

Hat Tip: thanks, Jim, for sending the link.

Linked to Conservative Cat, Outside The Beltway, Stuck On Stupid, TMH's Bacon Bits

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:04 AM | Permalink

Crack that whip, boy!

Apparently, the Canadian national media is as biased when it comes to reporting as the press is in the US.

No kidding, eh.

Would you expect any less of our media than to follow in the footsteps of almost every other MSM reporter out there?

Harper's smart, though, stating right off that he's not dealing with those cheeseballs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused members of the national media on Wednesday of bias, vowing to avoid them from now on in favour of less hostile local reporters.

Harper told a London, Ont. TV station in an interview that the Ottawa press gallery has decided to become the Official Opposition to his Conservative government, and that he's experiencing difficulty that no Liberal prime minister would ever have to face.

But, I'm sure it is pretty much impossible to ignore the national media altogether, especially when you are the Prime Minister.

And, of course, insulted by Harper's bravery, the press retaliated with comments like,

"When (Harper) doesn't like it and he can't get his way, he walks out of news conferences . . ."

Harper's actually acting as a role model by sticking up for himself and not allowing sh*theads to ignorantly and disgracefully attack him.

Our countries' leaders are not celebrities that the paparazzi/press can trample on and fabricate stories about; they are to be respected.

Linked to free constitution, tmh bacon bits, blue star chronicles, freedom watch, pirate's cove, imaginekitty, nif

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

It seems that Boulder City Council has approved a $16,000 trial run for a hate hotline, which gives residents

"an opportunity to report incidents in which Boulderites use tactless language."

Aw, you called me a doodie head. I'm going to report you because that was tactless.

Whatever.

Way to get people focusing on the negative rather than living for the positive.

And, one American Civil Liberties Union chairperson adds,

"Certainly, if it just provides an opportunity to call and have a welcome voice and some kinds of soothing response to their concerns, that would be fine. Speech is good."

You know, when I first started reading the article, I was thinking cool, this could be a story about a hotline where you could be berated by the person on the other end.

I was wrong and disappointed.

But... I guess you could pay a sex line to do the same thing for you, eh ;-D

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Good Stuff! [by 123beta]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Yes, of course I'm talking about Cindy Sheehan.

Who else would fit that description so nicely?

Heck, her face already looks as if it's half melted.

*shudder*

Here is yet another reason to despise the witch: she has yet to bother supplying her son's gravesite with a headstone.

Thanks to Moorewatch, we learn that two years after her son's death, Sheehan has still neglected Casey's grave by not getting him a proper headstone, "despite the fact that the Dept. of Defense will pay for it."

And, what's worse is she, apparently, doesn't plan to do anything about it at all since she left the whole responsibility in her ex-husband's hands.

Her claim is that she's still in grief and still unable to accept Casey's death.

Bullsh*t.

By the sounds of it, she didn't accept his life either, so I can understand her decision to ignore his death.

Apparently, it's more fun to hobknob with celebs and other anti-war scum than to respect her own son.

Gosh, I'm disgusted.

I couldn't ever imagine my family neglecting my grave in such a deplorable way. I wonder if she's ever even bothered to visit his burial site (without the press coverage and her anti-war bootlicking followers).

Of course, Sheehan has a number of excuses for not honoring her son, all of which you can find here as well as those who have exposed her lies.

"I'll get you my pretties, and your little war too."

Previous/Related:
So there, Cindy
moonbat
MOTY winner
Moron #7

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Cindy Sheehan [by Capital Region People]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Of course, I'm speaking to Cindy Sheehan and every other "freedom fighter" supporter out there.

And, this is regarding the fact that some Canadian soldiers kicked some Taliban a$$ by capturing some of their fighters.

Suck that! Boo-Yah!

Lol.

The 10 prisoners were apprehended earlier this week in a compound near Gumbad.

"In summary, we've taken some bad guys off the streets, and Afghans are safer because of it."

Okay, let's not.

The question at the moment is how far will the anti-war freaks go after the photos of the captured murderers are released.

Military lawyers in Ottawa debated for hours Thursday over whether photographs of the operation and detainees should be allowed to be published.

The photos show detainees with plastic ties around their wrists and blindfolds. But McHugh said he believed they were being treated well.

What bullsh*t stories will they make up now?

Linked to Comedian Jenée, imaginekitty, Cao's Blog

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

...is now profiting off Canadians at a tune of $20 a head while on a four city rampage tour through the country - all in the name of her made up organisation Gold Fish, I mean Gold Star Families.

Great, first we have the blimptacular loud mouth, Michael Moore speaking for us, then Mr. Al "make up the facts" Gore, and now we have *shudder* Sheehan.

Thanks, but no thanks to the lot of you.

While talking to Canadians, Sheehan made claims about the war like,

"It's never about spreading freedom or democracy or making the world safe, it's about lining the war profiteers' pockets."

Okay, first off, as if a war is a cost effective procedure, numbnuts. How many billions have already been spent on this war? Sure, profiting.

Uh huh.

There's a reason Sheehan won the MOTY last year, and it's not because she's honourable or a genius.

She also stated, "Canada's deployment of 2,300 soldiers to Afghanistan simply 'frees up more soldiers to be in Iraq'".

Your welcome. I'm glad our troops are being useful over there.

After reading this story, I've been held up in the shower. I feel so dirty knowing that Sheehan was in my country, and worse yet, she was within an hours drive time of where I live.

Clean. Clean. Must get clean.

The air is so toxic and rank with anti-patriotism (ok, I may be overexaggerating a bit, but you get the point).

And, Sheehan says she was here to support other anti-war nuts who want us to open the border to US lowlifes, I mean traitors to their country, I mean military deserters.

No thanks; we don't want your trash here.

Her reasoning for why Canadians should allow US military deserters into the country is because

"the soldiers are within their rights to desert because many are 'lied to' by U.S. military recruiters who tell them they won't have to fight in Iraq. 'My son was an honourable, honest person lied to by his recruiter'".

Ya, he CHOSE that.

A person doesn't CHOOSE to re-enlist if they were tricked into joining in the first place.

Not only that, but nobody with any sense of mind joins the military thinking they are completely exempt from ever taking place in any military-type activities.

And, if they join merely looking for a free ride from the government, then I really don't sympathise with them at all. Being a soldier is an honourable decision to protect one's country, and to use that position merely for a paycheck or free education is pitiful.

I can't believe people ignorantly support this "lady" who spews lies. They should be ashamed.

Linked to freedom watch, common folk using common sense, the median sib, planck's constant, imaginekitty, third world county, blue star chronicles

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Miscellaneous Moore/Moonbat links [by MOOREWATCH]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

Apparently, a man is looking to sue a woman who had his child.

The woman sued him for child support, and now he's suing with the claim that men have a constitutional right to 'avoid procreation'.

Ya, you can 'avoid' it by keeping it in your pants, dumba$$.

Some are hoping the claim will bring forth the issue that men should have the same ability as women to decide whether or not to have children.

However, many legal experts state that the case doesn't have a leg to stand on. They argue that having sex is risky and the only way to enforce a man's right not to father a child is to compel the woman to have an abortion, which the courts are obviously not going to agree to.

What it all comes down to is

"the child's interest in receiving support overrides any interests the father may have".

Cheap, son of a !@#$^, cotton pickin' !##$%@&.

Ya, I can see how 'deadbeat dad'-like the country would be if the judge made the wrong decision.

Dumbnuts needs to realise that if he's willing to take the risk, then he'd better be willing to face the consequences.

I'd almost say this f*cktard could be a perfect candidate for being the next Bobbitt (but I'm not encouraging that).

Irresponsible twit.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Hat Tip: Thanks to Committees of Correspondence for informing me of this news.

If you haven't heard, The Western Standard - the only Canadian magazine with balls enough to publish the Mohammed cartoons - is being sued.

Presently, the magazine is seeking donations and subscription support to subsidise their legal fees, and they have emailed their subscribers in an attempt to acquire more help. Although I will share the web address to help them, this article is not about that.

I'm merely writing this to show you all that apparently Canada has 'tards who sue for no reason, too. (Or, at least it appears to be for no reason. I don't know the other side of the story to be sure).

I would hope to some extent that The Western Standard had prepared for this, because if it were me, I would have seen it coming a mile away, what with it being such a controversial subject and all.

Although, with my wages and debts, my attorney wouldn't be costing me $75,000; I could only afford to hire a Lionel Hutz-type attorney, or worse (Hutz: I move for a bad court thingy. Judge: You mean a mistrial? Hutz: Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy. Judge: You mean the lawyer? Hutz: Right).

:-D

Anyhow, what this is all about is some guy, Syed Soharwardy, or as The Western Standard calls him, a radical Calgary Muslim imam, or as I ignorantly refer to him as Snidley Whiplash (its just easier that way for me), wrote a complaint letter to the magazine suggesting that he was not only insulted by the Danish cartoons, but he was upset that the Western Standard defended their position in publishing the cartoons.

The Western Standard's defense:

"the cartoons were the central fact in one of the largest news stories of the year, and we're a news magazine. We publish the facts and we let our readers make up their minds."

"In Soharwardy's view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too."

So, the guy moved on to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which has taken the case more seriously (for some stupid reason) and now there is a lawsuit.

So, great, does this mean we will begin to have more wackos up here suing left and right for no frickin' reason, too?

I really hope the Canadian government thinks hard about this and is determined to uphold all the freedoms of our country, and don't back down to some sniveling human rights committee like so many others have done thusfar.

For more information on wimps who won't stick up for freedom, check out Daimnation. To read the full Western Standard email to its subscribers, check out AbbaGav. And, Michelle Malkin has more on the topic.

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Although Where I stand and others out there are disturbed by a recent survey, I thought it was a pretty moronic to evaluate political knowledge in relation to social knowledge.

What I'm speaking about is a survey in the papers lately weighing the knowledge people in the States have regarding the US Constitution in comparison to the knowledge they hold relating to the tv show The Simpsons.

The article states that only 1 in 4 people can name more than 1 of 5 freedoms in the First Amendment, whereas more than half can name at least 2 family members from The Simpsons.

First off, do people out there read the Constitution once daily, sometimes more often?

H*ll no.

Does that make them bad people, or lacking in knowledge about their country?

Again, h*ll no.

It makes them normal. Personally, I think they'd be wackjobs if they did otherwise.

On the other had, do people out there watch The Simpsons daily, sometimes more often as a way to relax at the end of the day or to spend some quality time as a family?

H*ll ya.

Does that make them bad people?

Again, h*ll ya.

(tee hee, kidding of course)

See, that's just the thing. You can't expect people, kids and adults alike, to know bits of information that are not engrained in their daily lives and that are not generally entertaining. (Unless, of course, you're a history buff or poli-sci freak, and for some reason, you get off on that stuff - to each his/her own).

And, what disturbs me about Where I stand's position on the matter is that JHWhicker believes it is a fault in high school education that is the cause of this "societal breakdown".

Sure the education systems are faulty (as with all occupations), but this can hardly be to blame in this case as the people being surveyed are adults, not teens presently in the school system.

If anything, we would have to blame the education system of 20 or 30 years ago for not teaching the US Constitution more thoroughly.

And, come on folks, as if any of us remembers sh*t we learned in high school. That was a time of rebellion and making out with strangers (if we were lucky enough).

But, really, what it comes down to is repetition. We see a heck of a lot more social entertainment in our lives than we do politically dry documentation.

Although relevant, it's just not captivating. [The survey pdf report]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I never thought reality tv could take an even sharper turn for the worse, but it has done so.

Enter the world of politics to reality programming.

Imagine some of your dry, boring, ex-leaders judging a new Idol-like political reality show. Yup, that's what we have to endure here in Canada starting February 4th.

The Next Great Prime Minister will have 4 Canadian ex-Prime Ministers - Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, John Turner, and Joe Clark - judge some young political hopefuls to see who will win the coveted prize.

The illustrious prize being an internship in a Canadian public policy think tank.

Some of the awe-inspiring events that will take place on the show are public speaking and debate challenges.

So, how will the show end every night? Will it be similar to the popular game show catchphrase, perhaps with Campbell shouting, You ARE the weakest politician!

Or, perhaps they'll do a spin on Trump's "you're fired" by saying, "you're not hired".

Ya, it could be that lame.

What's worse is that they are planning a season two of the show for 2006/07.

Oh geez, if I'm so bored just sharing this news, imagine how the show will be.

*yawn*

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Yesterday marked the end of a Canadian legacy as the infamous Hudson's Bay Company was taken over by a US corporation.

So, does that mean that Canada will be officially renamed America Jr.?

The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) is a Canadian icon and was one of the main foundations that built this country. From sea to sea to sea, the HBC was created as a trading post company for furs and other goods that helped start the economy of this great white north.

The HBC was established in 1670 and is, today, Canada's largest department store and oldest corporation.

So, is this recent transaction a telling sign of Canada's state of affairs?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But, as it stands, South Carolina businessman Jerry Zucker (and his patriotically disguised Maple Leaf Heritage Investments) has taken over the last piece of living Canadian history to the tune of C$1.5 billion.

In my opinion, it's a chinchy amount compared to true potential value of the company (although, it would look good in my pocket). The takeover comes as a result of the HBC/Zellers corporation's inability to compete with Sears Canada and Walmart Inc.

Does this move mean that we will no longer have the privilege of purchasing overpriced items?

Will we not get the chance to pay for the name brand HBC and their importing costs?

Although the HBC (and just about any other Canadian company that you can think of) has been primarily backed by US investors for a long time now, this switchover of power suggests to some that Canada no longer has any control over its own affairs.

And, the moonbats thought this would be a safe place to hide from the US.

Lol.

So, now with the Conservatives in power (and if you believe Al Gore's loony opinion, the win was a result of shady oil financial backing) and the last standing Canadian symbol in the hands of the States (aside from Tim Hortons, of course), where will the moonbats go?

This reminds me of an old children's song, only re-created...

Where, oh where, will the lit-tle moonbats go?
Oh, where, oh where, will they flee?

Thanks for the Al Gore news:
A North American Patriot
Angry in the great white north

PS - Harper started his role as leader of Canada on a fine note. Thanks to one of the AGWN commenters for this article

After the disgusting display of smear campaigns brought on by Paul Martin's Liberals, it's refreshing to know that someone who ran a clean, straightforward campaign actually won it. You know, I actually might have had more heart for the Liberals if they weren't so appalling over the last few years and this pathetic attempt at another political win.

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Best Of The Blogroll - Jan. 29 [by Point Five]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Al Gore, the loser from the 2000 US elections, is looking to score some moonbat points at the expense of us dear Canadians.

So it seems that Al Gore is accusing Steven Harper of taking oil money and using it towards the campaign re-election. What does Al Gore base this pointless accusation on?

a. Hard hitting investigative reporting?
b. A whistler blower coming forward and revealing information?
c. Stephen Harper’s Tourette Syndrome kept blurting the word oilsands?
d. A defector from the conservative party?

Can you guess which one? Answer: Some Sierra Club lunatic who forgot to take his morning moonbat paranoia medication.

"They've talked about the need for a made-in-Canada plan, which is exactly the terminology Stephen Harper used," Bennett said. "They've talked about targets for Kyoto being unreachable -- that's similar."

Despite strict laws in Canada strongly limiting what corporations can donate and requirements that amount greater than $200 be announced as public information, Al Gore and his cronies decide that they have similar outlooks and therefore Stephen Harper is mind-controlled by oilsands giant Suncor Energy,.

Let me make a few points to you Mr. loser-2000-elections. In case you might have missed, the Liberals in Canada took our Canadian taxpayer money and funnelled it to their buddies and themselves in the millions of dollars. They didn’t just award some lucrative contract to some crony, they took the money outright just like the UN took Saddam’s money in the oil-for-food program.

The difference between the UN and Canada is we can choose to vote out our corrupt leaders and Canadians did exactly that, whereas in the UN, the corrupt get a post on the Security Council.

Continue reading "SHUT. YOUR. PIE. HOLE. (take II)" »

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
Remind me not to tick her off… [by The Flannel Avenger's Blog]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by MrBig at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Harper wins it!

Yup the Conservatives have won over the Liberals.

Although it is a minority government, Canadians made it clear that this is the time for change.

What will happen for Canada?

My guess is not too much, at least not to start. We still don't know who's going to form alliances with whom, and how the next 18 months will be as there is still a possibility of another election if things do not go well.

I don't see that happening, though, because the new government needs a chance to grow rather than having opposition jump the gun on that one. Plus, there will be a new Liberal leader, which means that that person will have to prove him/herself before trying to defeat the Conservatives.

No matter what, I'm sure we'll see a lot less corruption and scandal unless the Conservatives find more tidbits from the previous leadership hidden in the books.

Let's hope the past Prime Ministers didn't screw us that much.

And, if so, let's hope this government can fix things properly.

Cheers!

The following articles have trackbacked this article:
The Age of Right Thinking [by Committees of Correspondence]

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Ancient question: what do you do when you're a politician with nothing to do? Answer: Lower public urination laws.

Yes, an alderman in St. Louis, who also happens to own a bar, is hoping to reduce penalties on public urination prior to the upcoming Mardi Gras parade.

His bill would hand out different citations depending on the discreetness of the incident: if the urinators are discreet, they may get off with a lighter penalty than, say, someone who p*sses on people's shoes publicly.

"There's a difference between going in the middle of the street, in front of God and country, and somebody who is behind a Dumpster."

Presently, the maximum penalty is 90 days in jail and/or a $100 to $500 fine. The bill would not change this, but define better which penalty to hand out.

And, of all the gall. Citizens remain offended by such behaviour.

"That's what portable toilets are for," resident Mary Linden said. "We don't appreciate going out and seeing it the people are often belligerent."

Who's crazier, the politician lowering the urine law or the neighbour who chose that neighbourhood to live in?

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Samantha at