Tuesday, February 05, 2008


Super Tuesday Smatterings

by Jes

I know, I know, another off-topic bunch of ramblings. I'll get back on topic in my next post. I'm just in the middle of a case of the Hockey Blahs.

So, we had Super Sunday, and now Super Tuesday. Poor Monday was just 'regular', which is fine only if you are an old man who doesn't eat prunes.

  • Why do Amerikans have to draw out the electoral process for an entire year? Why not just have a Super Week of these primaries and get it over with? That way, we can see people vote for their favourite candidate, and not just the one with the momentum.

  • One reason why the Amerikan economy is in the tank: TOO MUCH SPENDING! The gov't spends way too much money on a silly occupation, and ye olde typical Amerikan spends way too much money they don't have on crap they don't need. The level of gov't and individual debt in the USA is already starting to have a major effect. Couldn't you all see it coming? How can Amerikans keep increasing their debt load?

    Meanwhile, how many of the candidates have actually had some concrete ideas on stimulating the economy?

    *crickets chirping*

    No, it's all SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! Until politicians realize that debt is BAD, the Amerikan economy will continue to tank it like the pre-Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins.

  • Speaking of spending, the amount that each candidate spends on simply wanting to be the damn Presidential candidate is sickening. Over $100mil per major candidate? That's all SOFT money that could be much better spent on something more important. Instead of, you know, putting homeless people into shelters or trying to develop cleaner sources of power, you get these assholes spending millions on TV advertisements. Yay for helping people.

  • Don’t expect any real change. Sure, Hilary or Obama winning it all would be a major coup in terms of getting someone other than a rich white man as the President, but it's not going to CHANGE ANYTHING.

    Remember what happened with the last political dynasty? Exactly.

    Does Obama ever take a hard stand on any topic? No. Strip away the gloss and glamour, and you get somebody who really doesn't bring much to the table. What would he do, really, that is so much different than any other president?

    Do you really think any of these candidates won't be a slave to corporate interests? Puh-lease. Once any of these guys (or girl) gets in the Oval Office, they will be the puppet of the masters that got them there.

    The candidates with a real mind for change (Edwards, Kuchinich) were promptly disposed because ye olde Amerikan people can't handle change.

  • One thing that never changes: People prefer style over substance. Hilary sheds some crocodile tears, and suddenly people vote for her? WTF? Are people that easily bought off by false emotion?

  • The average IQ of a Mike Huckabee voter? Probably 69. Anyone who votes for a Baptist minister who doesn't believe in EVOLUTION isn't fully qualified to be a member of the 21st century. What makes the average Huckabee voter different than an Islamic goat herder from Afghanistan? Skin colour, and not much else. I guess it's no surprise that WEST VIRGINIA voted for the guy, given that the state still thinks The Civil War will be re-fought within the next 20 years.

    The fact is, none of the candidates seems truly equipped to deal with the truly most important issues facing Amerikans today: The Economy, the Environment, and Britney Spears' mental health.

    Wayne's World! Party Time! EXCELLENT!

    Our Southern Correspondent chimes in with his Super Bowl thoughts.

    1. I don't get the fuss over whether Bill ("Mr. Warmth") Belichick left the field too early on Sunday; if you look at a replay, the clock had originally hit 0:00, until a second was put back on the clock...Anyway, he did shake Coughlin's hand, so what's the BFD?

    2. Do we really need a flyover of Air Force jets over a domed stadium? Come to think of it, do we need a flyover AT ALL?

    3. Normally, I would've been rooting for the Giants, but I was pulling for the Patriots just to shut up those bitter old bastards down in Miami...I can't tell you the hatred I've had for the Dolphins for the past 36 years (it's a long story)... (Jes: I agree)

    4. It's been 50 years since there were two teams in New York called the Giants; can we (especially The Worldwide Leader) stop using the damn term "New York FOOTBALL Giants"?

    5. I know it's glamorous to give the game MVP to a QB, but I would've given it to Jason (?) Tuck for the Giants, or the entire Giants D; Strahan played like Tom Brady was his ex-wife's divorce lawyer...

    6. Remember the old joke about the definition of "mixed feelings" was seeing your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your new car? Think how Giant fan feels today, when he came THIS close to getting rid of Tom Coughlin...

  • Labels: , , , ,

    Just change the name of this site to (i hate americans/everything america).
    1) Just a thought: We wonder how the Canadian economy would be doing without the US? For one, perhaps they'd have to spend a tad more than 10 bucks on national defense? Again, just a thought.
    "Does Obama ever take a hard stand on any topic? No. Strip away the gloss and glamour, and you get somebody who really doesn't bring much to the table."

    Roseanne Barr/Arnold/Whatever was right when she called Obama an "empty suit"...and she caught holy hell for it.

    Obama reminds me of Gertrude Stein's great line about Oakland, California: There is no THERE there...

    Obama reminds me of David Dinkins, the mayor of NYC before Giuliani...he swept into office amidst a backdrop of racial tension in New York (see "Do The Right Thing"), and both crime and taxes rose in his politically-correct "beautiful mosaic".
    Somebody needs a hug.
    Obama doesn't take a hard stand on any topic? May I kindly ask what you (Wayne and Jes) are talking about?

    At the very least, if you're going to say there's nothing to him (or any other candidate), expand on your thoughts a little bit. You know, so there will be something to your claim that there's "nothing to" this candidate or that candidate.

    There are plenty of things to disagree with Obama on. Choosing the one candidate who has taken a harder, more consistent stand on topics from Iraq to education just because (I'm guessing) your sense of cynical fairness dictates that you have to say something bad about everybody is not the way to go. It is apparently easy to confuse one's own ignorance with a candidate's positions.

    Not convinced? Take a look at this waffler -- one day he might take a hard stance on something in his life:

    Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

    Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)


    How about this one: he's a political newcomer whose inexperience could very well mean that he isn't prepared to become President of the country. Does that make a little more sense than he never "takes a hard stand on any topic." What a joke.
    Hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors are apes that's fine with me, but I prefer to think a little more highly of myself. Since "anyone who votes for a Baptist minister who doesn't believe in EVOLUTION isn't fully qualified to be a member of the 21st century" does that means I'm also not qualified to visit your blog each day? I mean, will I be able to grasp and fully comprehend each post? Me and my "Islamic goat herder" friends "from Afghanistan" (who, by the way, are young, white, successful small business owners in America so definitely all with an IQ lower than 69) will be anxiously waiting for your insight on that one. God bless!
    www.IHateAmerica.com is already owned by somebody named S. Hussein in Karachi.

    And if you're going to take shots at the candidates, for the zero dollars per column you're paid to produce this blog, please spend thousand of hours of research on your topics so that political hornblowers like the anonymous
    poll-smoker above isn't offended by your lack of effort.

    As for JRed's ancestors being apes. Um, we are apes. Us. Humans. Homo Sapiens sapiens. That means you, JRed. No amount of Sunday school mumbo-jumbo can change that reality. Don't believe me? Check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Humans
    It's like a book, except in the forms of 1s and 0s. Invented by other apes, not created by Allah on the 8th day.

    Meanwhile, how many of the candidates have actually had some concrete ideas on stimulating the economy?
    Well, Ron Paul favors getting government the hell out of the way. That's a start.
    1) Wow Jes, might say ya hit a nerve here. LOL
    Hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors are apes that's fine with me

    You're not helping your case much with this fine understanding of evolution.
    "Just change the name of this site to (i hate americans/everything america)."

    Yes, except he spells it "Amerika," for added Nazi-esque flavor.

    Also, he is obsessed with Amerikan kulture, and deeply-upset by Canada's role as "Our Hat."

    You are the only one who has ever thought that the way I spell Amerika has anything to do with the Nazis. I have no idea where you get that from, although perhaps it's a feeling of shame about your own country.

    Apparently you've embraced the punk rock attitude without knowing too much about it. Depicting Americans as Nazis is a tired trademark of that "movement".

    We agree about the campaign process, but not much else. You can always bring this kind of political discussion over to my web site...unless you don't want rebuttal.
    Post a Comment

    << Home

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?