StumbleUpon | fake-redhead's blog posts

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/464494/

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:00:12 -0800

Due to the popularity of the Survivor shows, Texas is planning to do one entitled, "Survivor-Texas Style." The contestants will all start in Dallas, then drive to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, over to Houston and down to Brownsville. They will then proceed up to Del Rio, El Paso, Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. From there they will go on to Abilene, Fort Worth and finally back to Dallas. Each will be driving a pink Volvo with bumper stickers that read: "I'm gay, I love the Dixie Chicks, Boycott Beef, I voted for Al Gore, George Strait Sucks, Kerry in '04, Hillary in 2008, and I'm here to confiscate your guns."

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/445310/

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:49:20 -0700

Compare and Contrast:

Rudolph Giuliani, October 28, 2004: "No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

Dick Cheney, October 28, 2004: "He's never let himself be burdened by the facts... Frankly, I think it's a cheap shot. I personally believe it says something about the character of a man who would make it, who would use his position now as a candidate for short-term political reasons to take that kind of shot at the military, at our military leadership and the folks who are in the field."

Get the feeling they got their signals crossed?

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/427408/

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:07:56 -0700

Go Sox!

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/401106/

Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:35:39 -0700

Ok, WTF was that line about the Dred Scott decision? Has he *read* the constitution? Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, upholding slavery on personal property grounds *was* a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution. And he kept claiming that the Duelfer report supported the decision to go invade Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq wanted to acquire WMDs which it would then provide to terrorists for use against the U.S. But, in fact, the report actually found that Iraq wanted WMDs (whether it could develop them is another matter), not to provide to terrorists or to use them against the U.S., but to use them against Iraq's traditional enemies, Iran and Israel. Of course, if you really want to use the Duelfer report as a post hoc excuse, you could seize on that last fact, Israel being an ally and all. Why invent stuff out of whole cloth?

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/275231/

Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:06:27 -0700

I'm seeing more and more analysis of how the recent "orange alert" may have actually hindered our efforts to infiltrate al Qaeda. And the major selling point for re-electing Shrub is supposed to be that he'll do a better job keeping us safe?

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/234853/

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:37:31 -0700

Where's the flip-flop? John Kerry on the Iraq War Resolution: "The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. ... It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the 'national security' of the United States - a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all 'relevant' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change. In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what 'relevant' U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements. ... Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so I will be among the first to speak out."

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/201493/

Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:55:54 -0700

Ok. I'm not going to put this in the database, since there are probably many people who don't want to unknowingly download a large MP3 file. But I highly recommend checking it out: http://www.tubafrenzy.org/weblog/DJTwombly_EnronsGotThePower.mp3

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/131045/

Sun, 30 May 2004 14:18:18 -0700

http://bilge.seablogger.com/archives/001860.php
From the page: "You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that."

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/131044/

Sun, 30 May 2004 13:58:52 -0700

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/30/bush.motorcyclists.ap/index.html
As if rumbling through residential neighborhoods day and night this weekend with loud pipes wasn't enough, now they've endorsed Bush?!? If "promoting legislation to increase veterans' benefits" is one of their goals, why are they endorsing a guy who has cut veterans' benefits in the past and proposes further cutting them if he is elected in order to pay for his tax cuts?

http://fake-redhead.stumbleupon.com/review/131020/

Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:00:45 -0700

http://www.computex.com.tw/audiotronic/detail_productmain_virtual.asp?index=X106&id=27470&pcode=L0140&show=oneproduct

I want one...