Empire of the Iguanadons

Thanks for this Conner. Been looking for the clip of this for awhile but never knew what it was called. Taken from The Ghost Breakers starring Bob Hope, 1940. Larry Elder uses the audio as an intro clip as part of his rotation of intro thingies.


.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

Always happy to help out where I can.

Despite my inability to watch the videos you've posted (due to using University computer labs), i have found an article quite interesting and thought I'd share it with you.

http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/

Speechless. That article was very enlightening Clyos. Everyone should go read it and think long and hard about it before punching that card or pulling that lever, or touching the screen, or whatever method you're using to vote. Seriously. Go read it.

Incredible. In today's political climate, I'd strongly been very hesitant to directly compare Adolph & Barak, but I had pointed out, by email, several times already in this campaign that what I'd seen in my rather limited research on the man was that he was strongly anti-semitic, which by itself is a deal breaker for me since I'm Jewish. As gravely concerned about the possibility of his being elected next week as I already had been, this is truly discouraging...

Wow. OK. I know this started off as a humor post, but damn. This is really getting scary now: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29263

Anyone remember the "Fairness Doctrine"? Yeah, you know, the one where you're forced to offer "both sides" in a supposed bid to be "fair" in what you present? Apparently fair means whatever the left thinks. This doctrine was rightly eliminated during the Reagan administration, and rightly vetoed by Reagan when the Dems tried to pass it again as law. It's a blatant assault on free speech. And disturbingly fits in with the previous link to the Nazi stuff.

We all better pray hard that McCain wins and all this stuff goes away. At least for 4 more years. I can already predict what will be said should McCain win. "The Republicans stole another one!" or some shit similar to it.

Hmm, that posting says that the FCC is giving these 19 analysts 30 days to respond to the letters, but not what possible outcomes of these letters might be.

But I do have to agree that it certainly seems as though that previous link was far more on target than perhaps even it's original author realized. If Obama becomes our next president (regardless of whether he's actually qualified or not) we, as a country, may be in for a lot more trouble than most folks here have ever dreamed even could take place in America.

http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/ <-- this is nothing but fear mongering propaganda.



LOL you have to be kidding right? words like WE, HOPE, CHANGE, US and the like are called SPIN TERMS, they are used by all sides of politics when they either want to engage an audience and let them own the ideas or when the speaker does not really have a clear policy on that idea.



Obama does not seek to OWN the youth, he does however reach out to the voting audience and the youth sector is but one of them. McCain and Palin like to reach out to Red Neck racist middle, the gun lobby, pro life, evangelicals and plenty of other groups who would like to dictate and force their beliefs over your life.

The rest of that blog is hardly worth debunking and i feel very sorry for anyone who actually believes any of that is the truth. Even the cited sources in that post are fictitious, drop them into a search and they come up with more Race Hate sites and other Obama hate sites, not the quoted source like Jerusalem Post.

It seems you understood the point of the article far more clearly than you realized since you just pegged it dead on. Obama doesn't have a clear policy on any of his so-called ideas other than a mad lust for power.



Nope. Not at all. Except for their incomes that is. He doesn't want the physical human slaves. He just wants their hard earned money so he can give it to deadbeats and illegals. It's a flimsy distinction though because in the end those youth learn quickly that working for a living is bad, government handouts are good, and then ... oh crap. I guess he really *DOES* want to own the youth after all. Sorry, you lose.

Personally I think it's rather disgusting that Obama is reaching out to baby killers, terrorists, traitors, Marxists, socialists, and black racist groups and other folks of their kind who seek to dictate and force their beliefs on our lives. Given the choice, I'd much rather have McCain imposing the 1st and 2nd amendment on me, imposing a love for life and liberty, and imposing honor and dignity on us all. But I guess that's just too horrible to think about for people on the left.

Obama's support for the Fairness Doctrine tells me he's against the 1st Amendment.
Obama's support for massive gun control tells me he's against the 2nd Amendment.
Obama's support for abortion, up to and including partial birth at full term, tells me he supports murder.
Obama's support for surrender in Iraq tells me he supports terrorists.
His association with Bill Ayers tells me he supports traitors.
Obama's support for Reverend Wright for 20+ years tells me he supports black racism. Despite his now not being a member of the church. Something he ceased doing only when it began hurting him in the primaries.
His statements caught on camera to Joe the Plumber tell me he supports Marxist/socialist redistribution of wealth. This position is further confirmed by the tapes that have come out from interviews he held back in 2001.
So by extension it's also clear he wouldn't support liberty either if you disagree with him and dare to call him out for it.

A man like that therefore has no honor or dignity and is merely a powermad megalomaniac. Plenty of folks who could rightly make the short leap to comparing him with Hitler. Especially since the similarities are so alarming.

When you can find such things and the evidence to back them up about McCain and Palin, the world is ready to listen. I suspect we'll all have died of old age before that happens though.

Well said, Samson. Especially this part:


That's pretty much my stance. I don't agree with all of McCain's platforms, in fact, as anyone who's followed this site long enough certainly already knows, I don't even feel that McCain is close to being my candidate of choice based on even just those who ran this time. But in the final analysis, we all know one of the two major party representatives will be the winner, and if I have to choose between Obama and McCain, I'll take McCain hands down without reservations or hesitation. So, "Mr. Obama" can feel as sorry for me as he'd like to, but his socialist would-be dictator is not going to get my vote regardless.

This shows me that Obama is like a great number of other people who are sick and tired of gang violence, gun murder and suicides. The USA is one of the only places left in the world without proper gun regulation and the amount of gun violence shows that your freedoms and liberties that you take for granted are the reason your society is killing your own citizens and why your jails are filled to over flowing.



No it does not, this show how forward thinking he actually is and how he does not pander to the pro lifers and the evangelicals. It is about time someone in US politics has the balls to stand up to the evangelicals and pro lifers and pushed for my womanly rights to do what they hell i want with my body. My rights should not be dictated to by religious groups, the concept of separation of church and state is there for a reason, thats to keep ideology out of political decisions. I do not care what they do on Sunday just do not try and dictate to me what i should and should not do with my body.



This tells me that Obama does not support big oil, which is what the was was about in the first place and that pulling out while difficult is the wisest course of action in a war that was based on the lies and deceptions of the Bush regime. Bush should be impeached for the lies he knowingly told the American people.



Palin is the most ignorant and inarticulate person ever to grace the ballot. Her outlandish claims include that the Vice President is is in charge of the senate, that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

When asked she about what books or magazines she reads regularly, she replied she was not interested in such things. For someone who claims be be the vioce of the evangelicals you would have thought she would read her bible, but Oh No No NO, she is not interested in reading. Here is a puppet on a string that will regurgitate whatever is needed to win the minds of the religious without ever knowing who her god is.

The only supreme court decision of importance she knows about is Roe vrs Wade and even people in Guatemala know that one. In unscripted interviews Palin is unable to put together intelligible on topic ranging from finance to foreign policy.

Palin is on the ticket for one reason only, to reach out to rednecks, pro lifers, evangelicals, narrow minded bigots and for this reason alone McCain should lose the election.

If you have not noticed, America is BANKRUPT. Tax reform is going to have to happen and its even going to hurt us all, but our excesses cannot go on forever. Eventually we need to pay back the trillions of dollars of debt we owe, have a balanced budget and a government surplus. And yes Joe the Plumber will have to pay his fair share. Pretty typical of anyone earning over 100K a year to not want to pay their fair share of taxes. The rich in this country do not pay a proportional amount of taxes when compared to what they earn and its about time they did.

Speak for yourself, Ms. Obama. Some of us are most decidedly not BANKRUPT either financially or morally. We may not be doing well financially at the moment, but bankrupt we are not. Taxes have never been, in this country or any other that I know of, handled completely fairly across the board, nor will they ever be, what Obama has been preaching is not fairness in taxation, it's a pipe dream called Marxist Socialism.

I'm going to infer from this utterly ignorant statement that you're not a US citizen, resident, or even knowledgeable enough to comment on this issue. There's numerous studies available to prove that what you just said is complete crap.

In states where people are allowed to apply for and hold concealed carry permits, crime rates have dropped off considerably. Florida, Idaho, and Texas all make for excellent examples of why you have no idea what you're talking about. Washington DC, California, and New York all provide excellent examples of just how ineffective oppressive gun control really is. Violent crimes in these 3 states are out of control, gang crime is through the roof, and it's all because law abiding citizens have had their 2nd Amendment rights suppressed by their local governments. But don't take my word for it: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2149



Nobody is stopping you from doing what you want to you own body. Mark it up with tattoos. Draw green circles on your head. Slice off your fingerprints. Jab needles into your veins. Go right ahead. However according to all that's sane, logical, and right, your right to do all that ends at the point it brings harm to another living human being. It makes no difference to anyone with true compassion and respect for life if that human being is being carried around inside your uterus instead of being pushed around in a baby carriage. There are reasons several states have laws on the books that count it as two murders if someone slaughters a pregnant woman. Stop and think about why that is. Then stop and ask yourself why Obama wants to discard all that and force baby murder down everyone's throats because people like you wake up with a headache two days before full term and decide to snuff out a life before it ever had a chance. It has nothing to do with ideology either.



This tells me you're an ignorant clod who listens to too many MSNBC reports without knowing the full story. The continuation of the Iraq War of 1991 has nothing to do with big oil. It has everything to do with removing a madman from power and his support of terrorists operating within his former country. On this front, I have something you need to read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack

Read those, then come back here and tell us who actually lied about Iraq. Until then, pull your head out of your ass and learn how our Constitution works with regard to presidential impeachment before you start acting like you know something about it.

BTW, if we were there to steal Iraq's oil, perhaps you can explain to me why I'm still paying over $3/gallon for gasoline? I thought stealing free oil was supposed to lower the price?



Clearly you're from another planet. And your Constitutional ignorance is shining through once more.

Article I, Section III: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Palin is entirely correct that the VP is "in charge" of the Senate. The VP is legally in charge of crafting rules for the operation of the Senate, though traditionally they don't usually bother with that and leave it up to the members.

As far as dinosaurs and humans living together, I challenge you to prove to me where she said that herself. Even the Bible never comes right out and says that dinosaurs walked the Earth. In fact, it makes no mention of the existence of dinosaurs at all. Genesis sure as hell doesn't say anything about T-Rex kickin it with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Further, regardless of whether you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, you are aware it's just a book, yes? Written and then later translated many many times by flawed, fallible, human beings? Of which myself, yourself, and Palin all qualify as.

I wonder though what you think of Biden and his lies, misrepresentations, and outright boneheaded statements.



Obama was nominated to the ticket for one reason only, to reach out to socialists, baby killers, atheists, and narrow minded intolerant liberals. For this reason alone he should lose the election.



I have noticed that America is having some difficulty, yes. But bankruptcy carries with it a certain legal definition. A stock market correction does not a bankrupt nation make. Yes, tax reform needs to happen. Income taxes need to be eliminated entirely. A national sales tax needs to exist to take its place. Then Donald Trump, Joe the Plumber, you, me, and everyone else will be utterly unable to avoid paying their "fair share" as you put it. For we will all need to buy things. Even those people right now who pay nothing at all in income taxes. We also need to eliminate the Death Tax, capital gains tax, and taxes on things like gambling winnings and game show prizes. We need to eliminate Social Security ( yes, I said it ) and replace that failed system with a privatized retirement system. If you elect not to do this, tough shit, guess you starve to death after you turn 65. Of course we already have plenty of people who do this now. It's called a 401K.

Right now the rich pay an unfairly large burden of taxes. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 – the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-income-taxes-2185029-pay-rich

A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lowerthan what the rich pay now – both by share of taxes and by tax rate! (from the same article)

Interesting, no? Your DNC delegates seem to agree that rich folk are already paying more than what they should be paying!

The article makes some other rather interesting points about charity and party affiliation too. I bet that's got to burn your butt.

Would you like me to cite for you all economists who state that AMERICA the country is BANKRUPT. This has nothing to do with either of our personal financial states. The US government does not have the ability or income to repay the debts it has, that is called bankruptcy. The excesses of the past 2 or more presidencies have left this country so debt laden (not personal debt, government debt) that it might take generations for it to recover. If you wish to waste your vote on the continuation of the existing regime then that's your choice, however, one day we are going to have to face up to these debts and now is always better than later.

No, not quite. What you describe is called default. And I don't recall saying anything about my personal financial state, nor do I recall making mention of yours either.

If the US government were bankrupt, there would have been a declaration stating such. That hasn't happened. Also, when filing for bankruptcy, one generally eliminates all existing debt owed to anyone with a claim. In some cases though, the debt is resolved at a substantially reduced value, often pennies on the dollar.

Also, bankrupt nations typically are not able to enact legislation to bail out their corporate finance sectors to the tune of $700 billion. The government clearly still has money left somewhere to offer as loans. Maybe we should do what banks do when this happens and consider the $700 billion as taken off the principal balance left on the National Debt. I mean hell, if I owed you $10, and you came and asked to borrow $4 from me, I'd be a fool not to simply deduct that $4 from the $10 I owe and be left with a balance of $6.

And in case you forgot, because a lot of leftists seem to have, the United States was already falling into recession when Clinton left office. Bush assumed an economy already in decline. Then perhaps you recall what happened on September 11, 2001? If not, we were attacked. The effects of which were not good on an already slumping economy. Then maybe you'll recall that we went to war in Afghanistan. And later resumed our war in Iraq. All of this places a pretty heavy burden on an economy that was receding. However, you might also recall that Bush cut taxes. Leftists everywhere said he was insane for doing so in the middle of two wars. Turns out it was the right decision. Our economy grew at the largest rates in the last 40 years. Unemployment was at all time historical lows. Job creation was in excess of 6 million by the time the housing market crashed.

As for the cause of the housing market crash? Well. I'll give you a clue. It was called the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. It mandated that banks loosen credit restrictions to enable low income workers to afford housing. The only way they could afford such things is with loans the banks and Congress new damn well would never be paid back. Pop quiz time. Who was president in 1977? Who controlled Congress in 1977? I'll give you a hint. They're referred to as blue-staters by some. They gave birth to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perhaps you've heard of them?

John McCain made several attempts to get Fannie and Freddie better regulated because he saw the crisis looming. Bad loans had begun to pile up unpaid. The banks had sold junk paper to investors on Wall Street for 30 years. It was only a matter of time before the bubble burst, just like the dot com bubble burst back in 1999. Who blocked regulation from being approved? Barney Frank. What party affiliation is he? Again, I'll give you a hint. Blue stater.

Now, I'm sure I need not remind you of this, but who is currently in control of Congress in the United States? When did things in the economy begin to deteriorate? If you answered Democrats and 2007, you get the gold star. Funny how that seems to work, isn't it?

As long as you know what your voting for.



Even more Palin racism.

And how about McCains flip flops.



Or more of Palins right wind adgenda:


Looks like your team has plenty of skeletons in the closet also, Palin is nothing more than a redneck racist, all she needs is a white hood to Finnish off the ensemble. A vote for Palin is a vote for the KKK, and any other white power terror organization. Are you a racist?

Well, since you can't even get the basics of your argument right, we can safely dismiss the rest of what you followed it with as pure BS.

BTW, what country are you from? That seems somewhat relevant at this point considering you claim to know an awful lot about the US yet have given every indication you don't live anywhere near here.

Thats who your voting for, an American hating, black hating bigot and racist.

Guess im not the only one who sees McCains policies and selection of Palin as being aimed at racist white voters. Don't give anything to those black bastards huh, not even some heath care. Give them more guns to kill each other so that i can wear my white hood down to the 7-11.

Hang out at Daily Kos much? Sure looks like it. Lots of unsubstantiated crap you've found there.

The problem with calling socialism a racist word is that it's got nothing to do with race and everything to do with robbing the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood style. Karl Marx would be proud of your great Obamassiah. BTW, Marx was white, you know that, right? Redistribution of wealth will take money from Michael Jordan just as much as it would from Donald Trump. But I guess you're just so blinded by the left wing propaganda you can't see that.

BTW, answer the damn question already. What country are you from?

Maybe the person posting as 'Obama' really is related to Barak, she's demonstrating a similar style of responding to a direct question which has been asked, in context, with slews of "quotes" cleary meant to obfusicate and distract without any bearing. I was the one who mentioned personal finances in this, but regardless, apparently the answers to "which country are you from?" and "where do you live?" can be paraphrased as 'Palin and McCain are racists'. That seems mildly humorous coming from such a strong supporter of the real Obama who keeps bandying about his black pride and such, despite not really being black himself...

Where i live is non of your concern, nor is my race, my sexuality, my gender, my age or any other demographic type data. Are be debating politics here, or do you want to label me so as to reinforce your narrow minded ideology?

Conner, you didn't really expect someone who supports a socialist to acknowledge that Obama is in fact only 6% black, did you? He's 44% Arab and 50% something else. I forget what the something else is right now. But it wouldn't be hard to find. In order to fit the legal definition of being part anything, you need to be at least 1/8 that thing. 6% isn't 1/8 of anything. 12.5% would be. But I guess we can't hold facts against our left wing comrades can we?

Ms. Obama, I think it's critically relevant to know where you live, what race you are, and what gender you are since you're the one making such a huge issue over Palin being white, female, and Alaskan. And you're throwing around the whole KKK thing rather freely. Keep in mind, you're the only one so far who injected race as a political issue in all this. Seems only fair we know where you stand in that regard. And on where you live, since you seem to think you know so much about the greatest country on Earth.

( I feel sorry for Dwip and Regina when they drop by to check up on things The flood of posts is rather amusing )

Samson: No I suppose I didn't, facts have never stopped fanatics from anything in the past, why start now, eh?

Ms. Obama: The only question actually asked was which country you live in which seems extremely germane to the discussion. But since you mentioned the rest, let's discuss what we've been forced by your statements to otherwise conclude anyway. We already know that you are female since you're concerned about whether anyone should be able to tell you what to do with your own body as you stated regarding abortion issues. You seem extremely worried about only the black (with a minor possible addition of latino interest, if only to attempt to procure partners to your defense) perspective, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that you're black, though why that should be a factor in any real way is outside the scope of my logic. You're obviously democratic, you've made that incredibly clear, and that's a demographc if ever there was one. Your opinions are expressed poorly and supported by highly questionable quotes which certainly suggests youth, or at least poor/inomplete education. ...must I continue? Perhaps you'd prefer to simply answer the one question that was actually asked of you, that of which country you are from since it's fairly clear that it is not the United States.

Sorry, missed that last line, Samson. That's actually what made me come back tonight instead of just my usual one or two visits to the site for the day. I noticed my RSS feed going nuts and was concerned that if I failed to make another appearance I'd never catch back up. *L*

Heh. Yeah. Just imagine if you checked 2 days ago thinking not much would happen over the weekend

And this would be where you should have argued for getting the megalist of recent comments or something.....

That argument's already been made and is now just waiting on the site's management to make their determination. But I do have to agree that today's traffic certainly does speak strongly in favor of it.

I am an American citizen and registered voter, i am neither Republican nor Democrat. I vote for who i believe to be the best candidate irrespective of party. My demographic data really has nothing to do with anything other than to allow you to dismiss my arguments based on preconceived ideas.

My list of seemingly irrelevant quotes was to highlight that there is plenty of innuendo regarding those on your side of politics. They are certainly not the squeaky clean good for all americans that you make them out to be. The Palin's are known associates of white extremists as much as Obama associates with black extremists and their are also plenty of commentators who say that McCains has his own socialist agenda.

And yet you still refuse to answer the question except to claim to be an American citizen and registered voter. Neither claim of which I'm inclined to believe at this stage considering your total ignorance of the Constitution and previous statements you've made in which you criticize "your country" rather than "our country". Gotta be more careful when you slip up like that. You've been watching too many Joe Biden speeches.

As an FYI - when I sarcastically accused our new friend, Ms. Obama, of having been to the Daily Kos because her rhetoric sounded like the things they'd say, imagine my surprise when Google confirmed as much.

Her quotes are all lifted directly from Kos blogs and from salon.com, both of which are deeply left-wing smear houses along the lines of moveon.org and Huffington Post. It pays to know your opponents.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78091
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78810
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79442

In case Ms. Obama shows up again, some light reading. Just want you to know who you're voting for. Assuming you're actually legally registered to do so.

...



Jesus. I realized I haven't checked in in the last 6 hours or so, but...oi.

There's a lot I could say here, but I'm going to pass on most of it, except for two brief comments.

1. We have now come to the point where, with the exception of that actually quite amusing YouTube up there, a fair chunk of what's getting posted right now has now crossed the line from things I merely disagree with to things I find actively meritless and distasteful. That Hitler thing among others is beyond the pale, and I'll have nothing to do with it save for a warning not to go down the path that MoveOn and their ilk have carved out, only on the other side of the aisle.

2. As to Ms. (or Mr. or whatever) Obama, if your aim is to rise above random trollery, I should encourage you to drop that particular name, and use something - anything else. Use of your (dare I say our) candidate's name is scarcely helping you here, nor will it anywhere. Say what you have to say under your own name. And if would, please learn to cite people, and maybe use a few more reputable sources? September and October are full of threads here, of a much higher caliber.

In any event, I'm done with all this. I've a paper to be writing. Which, I might add, has given me a good excuse to take ten odd years of working with MUDs, and apply it to librarianship. The crazy relationship between Diku-based area files and library metadata. Who knew?

There's a lot I could have posted about Obama that you'd probably be entirely correct about crossing the line. Do you see any of that with my byline on it? I realize you think the whole citizenship issue is horseshit, but a federal judge thought there was enough merit in it to allow the case to be heard until he suddenly decided Berg had no standing. After 9 weeks you realize. Something rotten in Denmark.

As for the Hitler thing. I dare say you didn't bother to read it, because if you had you'd know Clyos wasn't entirely out in left field bringing it up. Remember that. Clyos posted it, not me. And while I can and do see the disturbing similarities, I didn't post stuff like that myself because even if it's entirely correct it doesn't really serve much purpose other than to attract trolls. Which I seem to have done a fairly good job of anyway.

Also, on the subject of drive-by anonymous name use, that practice will be ending shortly. Maybe even tonight, as I'm going to implement the first phase of adding registered user accounts here. Anonymous drive-bys won't get the option of picking a name, they'll get stuck with the oh-so clever mark of "Anonymous" unless someone cares to give me something sarcastic and clever to call it other than "Anonymous Coward" which has been done to death.

And Dwip, on a more personal note, despite our obvious disagreements I still consider you a friend. I've gotten the vibe that perhaps that may have been strained lately, but I assure you, my anger is directed at the media and Obama for pulling off what amounts to the greatest scam ever conceived. My apologies if I've said anything to personally offend you.

And yeah, pretty nifty that the Diku based file format has any relevancy in library science Much like the article I emailed you and Cam about that mentioned Alsherok by name.

Eh, no, we're cool. If I'm sounding strained, a lot of it's because of the paper I keep mentioning. While cool, it's destroying my life. Hence a certain hesitance to spend hours and hours each day arguing politics here, alas. Too, I think we've reached a point, speaking for the two of us, where we need to agree to disagree for a while on some things. So I'm trying to not talk a lot.

That having been said, a couple other notes:



I think our lines are probably different, and without taking the time to go through a few hundred lengthy posts, I'll say I think you crossed over it once or twice, which is as it is. That aside, I think the true offender here is Clyos' Hitler article, which I did read most of, and which combines being wrong with being constructed badly, crackpotish, and a few other things besides being outright offensive. I'd take the time to rebut it, but frankly I feel dirty just reading it. It's one thing to make equivilencies and do a little bit of political name-calling, although I try to frown on that myself. It's another thing to compare the other guy to one of the biggest villains in history, a man responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of people. Think what you will of Barack Obama, he's no Hitler, and for that matter neither is John McCain or that other man oft-compared to Hitler, George W. Bush.

As to Berg, yes, I do think the thing is pretty much horseshit. I think the factcheck.org page is enough by itself, but I should have more sympathy for Berg if, on this matter, he actually produced the things he said he would produce instead of saying he would, and not on this matter, if he didn't appear to be linked to some sort of 9/11 wonkery, if I can believe my Google-fu.



For the curious, the basic gist of it is here. In my actual paper I'm talking a bunch about the evolution of AFK file formats, and the Silly->SMAUG->AFK adventures in editors and OLC, and how all of that applies to librarians working with MARC/Dublin Core cataloging records, who are pretty much a half-step above scribbling shit in text files. Much like the old days of offline editors, there's supposed to be this magical new era of automated creation that nobody's actually doing.

Interesting stuff, and who knew all that gaming would have a payoff in RL?

McCain is Satan and Palin is Hitler

Its on you tube its gotta be true.

Pathetic, really. Surely even you can figure out that what you just linked is pure hatemongering propaganda, and what I linked from Youtube was noting more than a comedic offhand comment from a 70 year old movie. Neither of which has any bearing on Youtube itself.

Your sites description says to leave political correctness at the door, so i have done just that. I just think you that you cannot accept that my hate mongering is against the republicans where as your hate mongering is for them.

Where's it say that again? (The site's description, as you describe it, that is.)

Just asking, because while I do see a disclaimer at the footer of every page that says:


I don't see anything about political correctness.. at all ...and I was wondering where I'd missed it. Don't get me wrong here either, I fully appreciate and understand that Samson has long since established that political correctness is not needed here and no even likely to be found easily here in general, but I don't recall seeing an actual site description that said that anywhere.

I saw a program on TV about The Galapagos Islands, well to cut a long story short i was searching on google for information about Iguanadons as i found them to be thoroughly fascinating creatures. If you google this site this is the description that is given.

"A blog by Samson. Heavy on conservative values and a strong America. Leave your political correctness at the door."

So its only fair to assume that i should not be attacked for a lack of something that this site advocates. All i have done is offer a balance to the extremes that are advocated here. 1 lefty to a few righty's LOL seems only fair. YES?

You appear to be mistaking the lack of political correctness as a guarantee you won't be attacked. That usually works the other way around. Around here, if you say something boneheaded, like "Sarah Palin is Satan" you'll likely get ripped a new asshole for it instead of gently asked to refrain from being offensive as happens on other puff ball sites you might be used to.

I'm cool with that, just as long as you don't mind being deeply penetrated yourself from time to time because of the lunacy that you subscribe to.

Surely the people who say such a thing would know that's not true. It can't be. Liberals are a Godless people after all.

She is an embarrassment to the USA, foreign media are all over her and her hill billy, radical AOG, gun toting ways. In one article i was reading the other day, they were going hard at the amount of money that the republican party spent on clothes for her and even suggested that she should go and hunt herself some clothes. It is even been suggested that the AOG is a cult.

I don't even know where to start with this hot steaming pile of diatribe.

How about we talk about how much money Barack Obama has spent to get elected? Including superficial things like clothing, stylists, cultural experts, etc. It would make Sarah Palin's "huge amount of money" look very small. The exact amount given to her was almost 100,000 dollars. All unspent money from that budget is getting sent back.

Furthermore, I'm sorry. The united states constitution defines the right to bear arms. It's not "radical" to demand our rights be upholded. She is an american candidate. I know Obama is a "candidate of the world" but maybe he can spend a little more time protecting our treasured rights at home.

A lot of things have been "suggested" as you put it. They have suggested everything but the kitchen sink to try to derail her popularity. The same way you've suggested similar things about conservatives. E.g. Hill billies, racists, uneducated, etc, etc.

Luckily the foreign media don't get to vote in our elections. I doubt they gave George W Bush the nod of approval 4 years ago, either. In fact, I think they called it for Kerry before the votes were even counted.

So now the Assemblies of God is a radical organization? Where the hell does it end with you people?

I spent 6 years in the AOG as a deacon and an elder, i would call them a cult. Start a different thread and i will tell you all about my experience with the AOG.

I think it's kinda funny how i posted the Hitler comparison just for giggles and a little reflective thinking and how the leftist persist in defending their messianic figurehead despite his shady past and questionable values. In any event, it must remain clear that in order for an economy and social order to progress you must separate the wheat from the chaff. This means leaving the markets free and keeping government as small as humanly possible. Neither candidate will do so, but McCain will at least keep the damage under repairable control. Obama... well I'm just saying that he doesn't know what he's going to do, how he's going to do it, or with who's money. Just remember if you vote Obama you'll get change all right, just the change left over from the government taking most of your money.

This year they've already declared it for Obama days ago, hopefully they'll be just as accurate this time, though ABC seems to be thinking Obama's much more likely to win so far... but it should still be hours yet before we know for real.. assuming Florida doesn't require a recount again.

Oh, CBS has just declared their projected winner as Obama with 45 electoral votes in McCain's pocket and 102 in Obama's.


You don't seriously believe that the liberal leftists know how to stop, do you?

Sorry, I meant to type CBS rather than ABC up there.. I used to watch CNN's coverage each election, but I'm not sure that I really want to hear their excessive slant all night tonight. Even CBS seems to be determined to declare that McCain's losing tonight because Sarah Palin was a drag on his campaign. :sigh:

CNN has been talker Palin up as a force for the future and at sometime in the future she might lead a more righting fascist dictating republican party.

So my question to all the posters here is, Seeing that it looks like we have an Obama presidency with a very strong mandate being that both houses are going to be democrat, are you going to get behind and support him all the way with JFK, or are you going to be anti American and be subversive and derisive.

It hardly surprises me at all that CNN would call her a fascist right wing potential future dictator since they're so far in the tank for leftists it's not even funny.

And you're deluding yourself if you think I'm just going to cast aside my distaste for Marxism just because the Marxist won the election. I'm afraid you've been watching too many left wing newscasts where the whole country lays down their differences and sings kumbaya after it's all over.

And you need to realize something else. JFK had more in common with conservatives views than Obama ever will. JFK was a tax cutter and a capitalist through and through. Your assumption that anyone who fails to toe the line and fall into place is anti-American, subversive, and derisive is exactly why most people despise the ultra-left. The hypocrisy is like a rushing river.

You mean I should get behind Obama the way all of you liberals got behind Bush after he won the second time?

Don't make me laugh.

Huh? We're all supposed to get behind Obama now? Um, okay.. where are we shoving him again?

Oh, btw, for any who might still be curious about the actual vote breakdown (which as of this time only has 80% of the US precincts reported, I've been watching the map over at AP's 2008 General Election Returns and it's not a bad site. Nice and official and self-updating... you Democrats don't seem to realize with Mr. Obama's eloquent victory speech saying something about the American people have spoken that if the electoral college was proportionate to the popular vote instead of being totally arbitrary winner takes all per each state's individual taste we'd still all be waiting around for the final few states to come forth (along with the other fifth of American precincts reporting) to determine the actual election outcome, right now the popular vote is still pretty darn close.

Only half the population didn't think you are qualified to be president? That's a mandate if I ever heard it.

All hail Czar Obama. Magistrate of the United Socialist States of America.

Blah. I'll probably have something in a new post to say about this later. It's all just too sickening to think about anymore now. Guard your wallets everyone, they're about to be picked from your pockets. I was hoping to wait out the results on some stuff here in CA, but the big one - Proposition 8 - is "too close to call". Poor media bastards. Called the state for Obama with no votes counted at 20:00:01 but are unwilling to concede defeat because the voters have once more spoken and said no way to gay marriage when it's currently 54% in favor of the yes vote with 98% precincts reporting in.

Well, it sure looks like, from the AP map I linked here last night, as though Proposition 8 got the vote by a 52.4% to 47.6% as of 99% of precincts reporting in at this point.. I'm not so sure what the terms were on some of the other state initiatives that got voted upon yesterday nationally, but in Michigan the people have apparently decided to allow medical marijuana and in Massachusettes they voted to decriminalize it altogether. Missouri & North Carolina are listed as 100% of precincts having reported but are still not declared yet for their electorl votes. Missouri's showing McCain leading the count by 0.2% and North Carolina's showing Obama leading by 0.4% so I suppose I can see how they'd both feel that it's tight enough to merit some scrutiny before calling it. It's a shame that the national, or even that most of the other states don't handle it as democraticly, at least Virginia waited til we had some ~90% of precincts reporting before they called us a blue state, despite the indvidual counties being overwhelmingly red. *grumble* ...on a side note, I think it's interesting to note that, nationally, with 97% of precincts having now reported, Nader managed to get a full half of a percent of the votes and Barr wasn't far behind him, even McKinney grabbed a full tenth of a percent of the national vote, and there were others running too. Yet, with whooping 52.4% of the vote, the democrats feel that we the people all spoke resoundingly for Obama... quite the landslide victory, wouldn't y'all say?

And thus you see the inherent flaw of the Electoral College process. States where 200 voters can swing an entire block into one candidates camp. I am fairly confident in asserting that Virginia is *NOT* a blue state in the liberal sense. But that's how the media spun it last night at 8pm when they called it for Obama there. When you can have New England and California determine the fate of the world, something is fucking wrong with the system. At this point it hardly matters that NC and MO haven't been called. They could both flip for McCain and Obama still wins.

Michigan is currently undergoing the same kind of liberal shift we had here in California 10 years ago when Wilson left office and was succeeded by Gray Davis. Oi, Davis. What an absolute disaster. It's no coincidence that most of the problems we have now were his fault and we're still trying to dig back out of it. Arnold isn't helping. So I'm not surprised to see Michigan making all of the same mistakes we did. It's going to lead them into the same state of ruin we're in now.

Massachusetts no longer surprises me. They're becoming The Netherlands. Gay marriage, legalized drugs, the whole bit. Probably won't be long before they decriminalize prostitution, and only a short hop from there to legalizing pedophilia. If you think I'm crazy, take a long hard look at the people they elect to office and their complete lack of a moral center. I'd be surprised as hell if they haven't adopted the same sort of restorative justice as exists in Vermont where apparently raping 5 kids gets you 60 days in jail and free rehab for life.

No, I dare say I don't see my home state as blue in that regard at all, even the numbers don't support that, the problem we had this year were the numbers of democrats who've converged recently upon our state capitol and the DC Metro area, you can see it quite clearly when you click on our state on that map. I have to agree that California's 55 electoral votes are just staggering and more than a little mind boggling, especially considering they don't even bothe counting the popular vote before deciding who gets all of them. The mere fact that McCain delivered his concession makes Obama's win complete regardless of how the vote may have turned out, but for the sake of history it's nice to see that half of the country saw through Obama's rhetoric

Michigan.. I harbor no ill will particularly towards that state, but no love either. If they want to do everything you say to themselves, more power to them. *shrug*

Massachusetts.. I don't honestly care either way about gay marriage, I have gay friends and don't have a problem with their choices. I happen to support the ideology of decriminalizing marijuana (don't really care about decriminalizing prostitution either way), as long as it's not extended to other drugs, I've never felt marijuana was nearly the threat the government tries to make it. Pedophilia and restorative justive are the opposite end of the spectrum for me though, but we'll see where they end up in a few years. (Does The Netherlands also have this restorative justice thing going on too?)

Drawn child pornography is illegal in the Netherlands, while I assume it falls under the 1st amendment here. In my opinion it would be, no matter how repulsive, be a thought crime. Restorative justice isn't a Dutch concept, as far as I can tell they're too indifferent to care.

Both the left and right have stopped making sense to me a long time ago, conservative social values of the right are as laughable and impractical as the socialist policies of the left. In my opinion nationalistic libertarianism is the only political course worth a try.

National Libertarianism.. now there's a mouthful for you.
Why don't we create a new party altogether to place in power here: Librarians, they'll make a good coalition with the book makers and they can rely upon the world's authors as advisors.. we could do away with political divisions (and postal codes and area codes) in exchange for the dewey decimal system and card cateloging... we'd need no new taxes, and maybe several fewer existing taxes, once the new system of late fees and fines was in place..

So we can just check out the person we want and then return them when we are tired of them?

Not sure about that. Would need to look into it more to find out just where the legal distinction is since possession of child pornography in the US is most definitely illegal. So it would come down to what that definition means in a particular state since it's not a national law. It only gets dealt with by the FBI in most cases because of the internet, which brings it under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce.

Sure, why not? We already have such a system in place currently, it's called dating (or to some folks it's called marriage, returning the person is called divorce)... just under the Librarians, there could be late fees imposed if you didn't renew your checkouts frequently enough.


Don't be too surprised to find that the distinction is more than a little blurry gray and may even still be awaiting court decisions at the supreme level since it does raise the obvious issue of 1st amendment protections, especially if it's claimed that it's done in the name of art.