January 20th, 2012

Albert thinks ur funny.
  • mahnmut

LoLoLs -- Wiki-wha??

OK, fine, Wikipedia made a point the other day. Wikipedia was down for 24 hours, OMGZ! And we're still alive? How come we're still alive??


Frankly, I'm glad my other Source of Truth™, the more favorite place, didn't get affected. I'm talking of Conservapedia. Apparently it didn't care to make a point. What, you haven't heard of Conservapedia? Bunch'a ignoramuses, that's what you are!

Funny what Wikipedia has to say about Conservapedia, what Conservapedia has to say about Wikipedia, and all that stuff. And why stop there, let's throw some other Sources into the soup and make it spicier. Like... Rational-Wiki. Also, that awesome thing called Uncyclopedia! The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!

Collapse )

The Fallout of Childhood Memories

This is how I grew up, with "fallout drills", until I got into a school system with small out-buildings. I think they realized by then ducking under a desk in a prefabricated class room was fairly moot. I actually thought a newspaper covering my head would keep me from being burned.

There is some really creepy pedo shit in there as well. And a lot of "obey the older people" advice, as if they would not be insanely running in circles during such ordeals.

We were typing earlier in the month about how we perceived each other (East and West) as 'good guys vs bad guys'. Too many of you are too young (shakes fist!) to remember growing up in the early 60's, but some may be able to contribute their home countries propaganda-inspired Bert the Turtle.
  • Current Mood
    blah blah
  • Tags
Magical Wes Animated

An appeal to stupidity...

Source: http://nation.foxnews.com/john-king/2012/01/20/hurt-why-use-despicable-clueless-left-wing-media-moderate-gop-debates

HURT: Why Use ‘Despicable,’ Clueless Left-Wing Media to Moderate GOP Debates?

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — There is growing consternation in Republican circles and among conservatives over why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates.

The ickiness of Diana Sawyer asking questions in her cloying voice is more than most can bear. The utter cluelessness of the questions these people think actual American voters care about is mystifying. The shameless and ham-handed pandering to conservatives by the networks is revolting.

Indeed, the entire phoenix rising candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich can be attributed to America’s abject hatred of the left-wing media. He was destitute and written off by the press when he tapped into one of the most visceral political reactions coursing through the veins of regular Americans. And once be began beating up the media, America gathered around him.

Last night, we saw once again why Republicans need to keep allowing fakers and Communists to moderate their GOP debates. Because without the leftist, elitist snobs to beat the ever-living crap out of every couple of weeks, the debates would be so much less fun.

COMMUNIST television networks? Diane Sawyer is anti-american? People support Newt because they hate the liberal media? How can people read this kind of crap and not die from hyperbole poisoning?

The simple fact is that the GOP cannot exist as an island. Without appealing to the moderates, they will most likely never have enough support to win the presidency. And despite what the pundits would have you believe, our media is moderate.

SOPA dead. For now.

“It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.” - Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of SOPA.

I'm glad to hear this, obviously as are most of us here who have been posting on, and discussing this over the last few weeks. But the end of the article raises the specter that it won't be too long before they come out with a replacement bill, and while I never put it past Congress' ability to repeatedly manhandle laws that require a more deft touch, it at least affords us the opportunity to discuss what people here think such a law tackling the same issues should look like, and how it should operate. Better yet, let us ask the question of what it is about the current law that is lacking, and the technical issues at play with the internet that you think makes the current law insufficient, if you think it is at all.

Is defense spending a threat?

So the big looming budget debate in the run-up to the election will likely center around Obama's proposal to cut military spending. Many right-wing commentators are criticizing what they see as a retreat from a viably-funded military, that Obama has "decided to budget only enough for some threats." Of course, every defense budget we've ever had only budgets enough for "some" threats (did we ever budget enough to take on all of Europe, China, Russia AND the slavering Canadian hordes in multi-front wars simultaneously?), but here they're likely talking about Obama's decision to derail the long-term DoD policy of being able to win two wars simultaneously. On the left, others have said that the defense budget itself is a security risk if it stays as high as it is now.

The question I have is, how much should the US be spending in a time when it's the only global superpower, and its security interests are primarily threatened by small, isolated regimes and guerrilla/terrorist groups? Collapse )