32 Comments

• 1. SEW  |  August 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am

  Olympic medal count. Let’s hope Canada will win at least one.

  http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/medals

• 2. SEW  |  August 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am

  Obama08

  http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/jsullum/obama_smoking.png

• 3. Rich  |  August 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am

  Whats up with people seeing a chupacabra and bigfoot this week?

• 4. Nevada Pundit  |  August 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am

  seems like Russia is really pushing for a new arms race.

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/15/world/main4352203.shtml#ccmm

  Now this is alarming especially when you take into consideration that most of the EU doesn’t seem to want to stand up to Russia because of economics. Before you choose sides in this one I would urge you to become familiar with Russian military doctrine and soviet government doctrine (please don’t kid yourself saying the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, many players in the Russian government were also involved in the soviet government). I say this because with this knowledge I find it hard not to think that Russia will continue to use its military might against former soviet bloc countries and with no one to stand up to them in any meaningful way we really could be sacrificing those countries to unwanted Russian dominance. This is a problem that won’t go away and the longer it takes before anyone stands up to Russia the more tensions there will be.

• 5. js  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am

  the best thing that could happen…is if the former soviet regimes create a self defense alliance…united against russia…and ask for a mutual defense pack publically agreed to with nato…

  the eu should realise its peril is from russia…who, at the push of a button…could cut supplies of gas for no reason than a power play…a place the EU should consider against its interests….because putin has already show his willingness to do it in the past…

  the only way to deal with these people is to isolate them and let them starve…things are no so peachy keen over there….so many people leaving for greener pastures….putin is nothing more than a new face on the old war horse…

• 6. Retired Spook  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am

  Just checked MarketWatch.com. Oil is down to $111.69/barrel from around $146 just a few weeks ago.

• 7. SEW  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am

  Spook, that’s awesome. And Pelosi still opposed to drilling! Awesome. Obama is on record to dismantle our military. Should be some great “smear” ads coming out with the material being provided by these kooks.

  McCain by default, maybe by McGovern margins. There are a few hippies left, not enough to think we don’t need oil or a military.

• 8. js  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am

  its staggering…24% drop one the world economy…and less than 10% in the cost of gas at the pump….

  thats how the big oil companies make so much money….they give themselves huge profits this way….

• 9. Retired Spook  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am

  js,

  Actually until a couple days ago we had seen over a 20% drop at the pump in northeastern Indiana from a high a couple months ago of around $3.29 to a low earlier this week of $2.62. I noticed yesterday that most stations were back up to around $2.85. Hard to believe that when the Dems took control of Congress just 20 months ago, gas was around $1.75/gallon. It’s absolutely amazing how badly the Pelosi and Reid gang have fu*ked things up.

  The stock market (DOW) has already come back nearly 1,000 points from its low. If oil is back below $100 and the situation in Iraq continues to stabilize between now and the election, I’m going to make a WAP (wild-ass prediction) and say the the Donks are going to get their asses handed to them on November 4th. The biggest thing, though, is if I’m wrong, I’ll come back here, eat a little crow, and life will go on. If I’m right, it’s gonna SUCK to be a Democrat. Well, actually that’s sort of redundant — it already sucks to be a Democrat.

• 10. CanadianObserver  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  1. SEW | August 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am

  Olympic medal count. Let’s hope Canada will win at least one.
  ———————————–

  Thanks, SEW, but so far it doesn’t look good.

• 11. congressive  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  SUPPORT THE TROOPS and support THEIR PREFERRED CANDIDATE:

  Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

  Unless you think those actually in harm’s way don’t really know what’s best for themselves.

• 12. js  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  3.29?

  wow thats low…e85?

  we got to 3.95 down here is central florida…down to 3.74 yesterday…

  your prices are way down there…

• 13. Some Assembly Required  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  CO, I wouldn’t worry about it, no one really expects Kenya to do well in the Winter Olympics either.

  Phelps is something else though. Anyone else thinking the first MARS landing wasn’t a failure, instead they brought him back.

  Bigfoot found, let the exploration of Lockeness begin again!

• 14. Timmy J. Rooter  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  congressive,
  A USA Today article from September 2007?

  Considering the Pentagon doesn’t allow publication of political contributions given by active duty servicemen, all of the estimates are based on inductive reasoning (I met three servicemen and two of them donated to Obama; therefore 66% of servicemen donate to Obama.)

  All of the “surveys” of military contributions published thus far have been by left-leaning Soros orginazations. Suspect at best.

• 15. Timmy J. Rooter  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Or, I guess, it should read that 66% of contributions from servicemen were given to Obama. Still not logical.

• 16. Retired Spook  |  August 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  3.29? wow thats low…e85?

  My bad, js, I meant $4.29 and $3.62. Wishful thinking run amuck, heh. The $1.75 back in early 2007 was correct though — thank a heap, Dems.

• 17. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  August 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  Retired Spook,
  Can’t say I agree with your prediction and here’s why; the more we find out about Obama the less qualified he appears, yet his core support hasn’t significantly changed from the 45%. When Clinton won in 1992 he garnered only 42%, some would argue that the Ross Perot candidacy altered the election trajectory, but GHW Bush had alienated the right significantly with “no new taxes” and squandered his approval ratings to become a middle aged international rock star instead of a conservative leader. He was punished at the polls. The same right will never rally to McCain no matter how inept the opposition is; many I know won’t vote the “top of the ticket.”

  The democrat core will vote for the selected candidate no matter how buffoonish or damaging that candidate might be to their party; witness what Clinton cost them in 1994 and 1996 and 1998 (and beyond). The only thing that may tip the balance is the Bradley effect. Racists won’t vote Obama and have already made that clear. Conservatives won’t vote Obama and that’s not in dispute, hard-core Clintonites won’t vote for Obama (in spite of the “catharsis” proposed for Denver) and will vote McCain or none of the above. The Bradley effect will be the result of the liberals claiming to be post-racial and oh-so-progressive, but won’t pull the lever for that man under any circumstances. They will, however lie about it to anyone that asks; these are the same people that claim they were at Woodstock. Remember? Half a million would become 12 million if everyone of them were to be believed.

  As to down ticket, the stars have aligned for a democrat rout. Only Pelosi, Reid and the democrats can snatch defeat from this upcoming election; and I don’t see them making enough strategic errors to accomplish that; at least the MSM won’t report those errors, so they’re safe.

• 18. Upstart  |  August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  It was a high family value day for wingnut radio this past Tuesday.

  On August 12th Limbaugh was advocating the fault of John Edward’s marital affair rest with Mrs Edwards. A man divorced three times may know.

  “If she (Mrs Edwards) is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn’t shut up? Now, that’s as far as I’m going to go.” Limbaugh later added, “It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.”

  Did you catch that all you GOP wives, mistresses and girlfriends? According to Rush you should be down on your hands and knees facing and worshiping the one true “member” that rules the world.

  Sean Hannity was not to be outdone on conservative radio family value day. August 12th Sean Hannity explains why an adulterer such as McCain should not be trusted to be your President.

  “If you can’t keep a promise to your family, can’t keep a promise to your wife, you’re having an affair; you’re lying about the affair repeatedly. Why should the American people trust you when you say you’re not gonna lie to them? Why should we trust you?”

• 19. robert  |  August 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics study:
  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

  Explain that one!
  Here is a good theory from their boards:

  “Here’s WHY troops DO support Obama 6:1 over McCain

  7/2008: McCain supports rationing healthcare for vets.

  6/11/2008: Republican magazine FORBES reports; “McCain’s top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, says that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% McCain supports.” ie., cut defense spending to cover corporate tax cuts.

  5/22/2008: McCain voted AGAINST the Webb’sGI Bill. [vote 137]

  9/19/2007: McCain voted AGAINST a bill to specify minimum periods of time between deployment of units sent to Iraq. [vote 341]

  5/4/2006: McCain voted AGAINST an Amendment that would provide $20 Million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities. [vote 111]

  4/26/2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote AGAINST $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. [vote 98]

  3/14/2006: McCain voted AGAINST increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. [vote 41]

  3/10/2004: McCain voted AGAINST an increase in Veterans’ medical care by $1.8 billion. McCain loves tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over veterans’ needs. [vote 40]

  10/2/2003: McCain voted to TABLE an amendment by Sen.Dodd that called for additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq. [vote 376]

  4/2/2003: McCain voted to TABLE a vote (never passed) to provide more than $1 Billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests. [vote 116]

  ya gotta ask, “Why does McCain hate our military so much?”"

• 20. bongoman  |  August 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  Deleted - irrelevant.

• 21. David B. Schmidt  |  August 15th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

  Robert,

  Don’t know if you have ever spent any time in any military branch (boy scouts don’t count) but from what I hear (Marines ‘80-’89 plus recall GWI) and several other folks (still on active-multiple branches) chime in with is that 95%+ support McCain (conservative estimate). That is something you can take to the bank.

  I am not saying everyone supports McCain as I have many issues with him; however, if the Dems allow the military vote to count this time around–it will be strong to the GOP. The other options are too putrid to think about.

  In honor of neocon;
  Have a “Semper Fi” day,

  -David

• 22. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  August 15th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  Deleted - irrelevant.

• 23. Upstart  |  August 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  Deleted - irrelevant.

• 24. congressive  |  August 15th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  from what I hear (Marines ‘80-’89 plus recall GWI) and several other folks (still on active-multiple branches) chime in with is that 95%+ support McCain (conservative estimate). That is something you can take to the bank.

  Sorry, bank’s closed. What you hear is made up on the spot and is wishful thinking, nothing more. The FACT is clear, the soldiers prefer OBAMA, and put their money where their mouth is, by a margin of 6:1.

  Support the troops. The troops support Obama.

• 25. Kahn  |  August 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  Upstart, yah that may bhe right. I was doing your mom back then if I recall correctly.

  I mean, as long as you want to play in the gutter. Lets wallow together. You dick.

  congressive, sure. Whatever. Count on the military vote then.

• 26. Jeremiah  |  August 15th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  18. Upstart | August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  Upstart,

  We can trust Obama to do the wrong thing!

  Bongoman 20. Reference to above statement.

• 27. cam  |  August 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  Retired Spook,
  Do you have any proof for anything you say?

  Looking at the price of gas over the past 8 years there has been a steady rise in prices that pretty much follows a straight trend line from early 2004 to the present. There is a dip in prices that occured curiously close to the election of 2006. In early 2003 the price was about 1.40. Over the years, the price of gas typically starts a downward trend as we approach the end of summer.

  Regardless, you have not shown any connection between the election of a Democratic majority and the rise in the price of gasoline. The upward trend started way before the Democrats became the majority. Before the invasion of Iraq the price of gas was at about 1.40. It went up nearly $3 since then before falling the last few weeks to where it is now.

  What you need to do is show a cause and effect before you p to conclusions. Otherwise, your statements sound like the ravings of an insane witch doctor living in the 15th century.

• 28. Mark Noonan  |  August 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  Congressive,

  Yeah, 6 to 1…but the total number of donors for Obama is 134.

  One hundred thirty four.

  Number of US troops deployed abroad?

  250,000

  Two hundred fifty thousand.

  Percentage of troops deployed abroad which have donated to Obama: 0.05% (Someone check my math, ok?).

  Percentage of deployed abroad troops which are in a combat zone who donated to Obama: Unknown.

  Percentage of deployed abroad troops in a combat zone who are in a combat unit who donated to Obama: Unknown.

  Essentially, the Center for Responsive Politics - which does do a great service to our nation of tracking donations to candidates and parties (though I note that looking up info on their website is more tricky in 2008 than it was in 2004) - has placed a bogus story in the election cycle which allows ever MSMer and lefty idiot (I know, same/same) say “deployed soldiers donate to Obama 6 to 1 over McCain” even though we don’t even know, exactly, how CRP ascertained that the donors were overseas, or where they were overseas.

• 29. Kahn  |  August 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  cam,

  http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

  Two words - China and India

• 30. Retired Spook  |  August 15th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

  >i>Retired Spook, Do you have any proof for anything you say?

  Cam, of course I can’t PROVE that the Dems had anything to do with the rapid rise in the price of gas since they took control of Congress in January, 2007. It is a sort of humorous irony, though, that they campaigned on lowering the price of gas, and no sooner were they sworn in that the price took off like a rocket. I’m not aware of ANYTHING the Dems have done since that has resulted in the production of one more drop of oil or the lowering of the price. In fact, Obama has said the only problem with the price of gas is that it went up too fast. Now, in all fairness, the dip down to $1.75/gal. in late January or early February, 2007, was very short lived, and was largely a result of oil dropping to around $50/barrel for a few days. The really interesting retrospective is the drop in price a decade ago. I can recall filling up in Kansas on a trip to visit my daughter in March of ‘98, IIRC, for .779/gallon. Anyone remember how much profit Exxon made then when oil got down to close to $10/barrel?

  Otherwise, your statements sound like the ravings of an insane witch doctor living in the 15th century.

  Now that’s original; a little harsh, but original.

• 31. bongoman  |  August 16th, 2008 at 5:22 am

  Deleted - irrelevant.

  Irrelevant in an open thread?

  All I did was mention that McCain had lied to the public that his divorce with Carol was finalised prior to marrying Cindy.

  Court documents show that the divorce was not final when he married Cindy.

  Irrelevant? Imagine if Obama had done that, we’d never hear the end of it.

• 32. Danish Artist  |  August 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  conregressive and his ilk are just interested in regurgitating talking points and spin. They have no interest in facts that hurt their golden boy.