Barack Obama's Trip: A Small Child Riding In "Power Wheels" Truck
Lil' Barry Obama, candidate to be the 44th Rich White President in American History, is in Germany playing make-believe.It's sort of a "Fisher Price, My First Presidency" type deal.
This is the only time in American history (although I've only been on Earth since 1983) that a candidate for President has campaigned in Europe.
This reveals much about Obama, and I think, liberals in general.Liberals constantly are talking about how much more sophisticated and evolved the Europeans are than Americans.
To be a liberal is to view roughly 75% of America as pickup truck driving backwoods rubes.To be a hardened liberal, one must believe that you know what is best for your countrymen (to model our government after the socialist European nations).
To be a liberal you must assume the lofty role of a "societal sheppard", leading the unwashed masses to some redemption (usually, a nondescript government building).
Obama is assuming an even loftier role- the Savior of the Universe.
Lil' Barry, in his bizarre and electorally misplaced speech today in Berlin, said, "With an eye towards the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again."
We've learned throughout this campaign that when Lil' Barry says "We" he actually means "Me". Following this logic, it seems that he believes that he is capable of "remaking the world". All I have to say is....WOW.
I think his childish dress rehearsal could backfire on him. McCain is already making serious gains in battleground states. He is also in a virtual statistical tie with Obama in many polls.
If I were to give Lil' Barry any advice, I'd remind him that the battery on my "Power Wheels" always ran out pretty quickly when I was a kid. It is something he should take into consideration. Then again, he probably believes that when the battery does run out, he could make his "Power Wheels" run off of his electric charisma. Should be a fun fall season...
Barack Obama, Candidate For The 44th White President of The United States
This is a momentous occasion for the United States of America. Barack Obama, a white American, is the Democatic Candidate for President. He is one of many in a long line of rich white men who have run for the highest office in the world. This is a great time for white Americans to take pride in their long lineage of world leaders.
Barry has gotten more white Americans involved in the political process than any other white candidate in the history of our great nation.
You may be thinking, "What the hell is this guy talking about?".
Obama is half white and half black. For some reason, half of his heritage has taken over the other half of his heritage. In one of the more curious racial coup d'état's in history, we've watched as half of his genetic makeup is ignored in favor of the other half.
Barry (a white name if I ever heard one) has cleverly used half of his lineage to position himself to be unassaible. He and his surrogates can now cry "racism" at any hint of legitimate criticism. It is actually a brilliant strategy. I just won't accept it.
His dad (if you can call him that) is a black man from Kenya. His white mother, along with his white grandparents, raised him. His father was nothing more than a sperm donor. I find it interesting, as well as insulting, that he has evolved into a "black man".
We (the royal we) here at Panzramic are not going to be duped into this thinly veiled proposition. You should not be either.
He might not say it, but this is exactly what David Stern wants. There will be NBA teams in Europe in the next 5-10 years, maybe even sooner. You heard it hear first.
This is an awesome article about our amazing success in Iraq. Even if you disagree, it is worth reading. Do yourself a favor and get a different perspective.
I find it interesting that Barack Obama (who oppposed the surge before and after it worked) is calling for a "surge" in Afghanistan.
That strikes me as inconsistent. Why would you want to employ a tactic that you thought would not work, only to see it work amazingly (and still oppose it), and then suggest (in a political rope-a-dope) that we employ this strategy somewhere else to quell the violence?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is your Messiah...Barry Obama.
Nobody reads "The Times" anymore. I'll make a guess that this might be the result of the uber-liberal coverage that this rag gives to almost every subject that is "fit to print".
Pair their wimpy editorial stance with the "new media" (the web, AM radio), and "The Times" is cooking with a recipe for disaster.
It also doesn't help when your paper is run by Pinch Sultzberger, a trust fund communist with an entitlment mentality (could that be more redundant?).
"In our own personal lives, common sense leads us to avoid some neighborhoods. If you want to call that "redlining," so be it. But places where it is dangerous to go are often also places where it is dangerous to send your money."
In an act of stark-naked partisanship, the ever unobjective New York Times has refused to print John McCain's editorial that all but dismantle's Obama's Op-Ed from last week.
NYT's Editor's explanation: 'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq
I have posted the text of the op-ed below:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
I think this op-ed shows McCain's "definition of victory" in Iraq. Unfortunately for McCain, his definition does not fit the template of the NYT's definition: Defeat.
This is pretty funny. People (who are obviously more enlightened than those of us who prefer to wear clothes while in public) are dining out and doing yoga in the nude.
I don't personally have a problem with it. I've walked around my house nude before, and it is awesome (especially for anyone watching from outside)
I just don't want this movement to grow into something where it filters down to the lowest common denominators of humanity. I don't want to see a real life Roseanne Barr sitting nude at a Ruby Tuesday's because she "feels comfortable" with herself, or is trying to open up new horizons in her life. This is not "new age" stuff, it is just human beings getting naked because it is kind of exciting for them.
I hope this little fad stays where most little fads live and die (or at least should die)...in Manhattan.
This is a very funny concept. The Palestinian Authority is claiming that Israel is unleashing cages of rats in order to explain why their towns are so disgusting. I think it may have to do with the fact that the PA cannot provide the most basic of services, so the areas that they work in are veritable above ground sewers.
I'd say I'm a moderate fan of The Who. I'm familiar with a good chunk of their catalogue, alot of which was introduced to me (some of the more obscure songs that are not Baba O'Reilly) by Pearl Jam's covers. Here, at the VH1 Rock Honors, Pearl Jam plays tribute to the band that is probably the single biggest influence on the engine that drives this Seattle band, Eddie Vedder.
They play "Love Reign O'er Me" and "The Real Me". When I first heard Pearl Jam's studio recoding of "Love Reign O'er Me", I thought it sucked. It just seemed a bit over produced and, well, not a Pearl Jam song. I saw it played live a few times on this tour, and I've become a fan of the song, or at least Pearl Jam's live cover of it. It has a great energy, although I could do without Mike McCready's on-stage histrionics.
"The Real Me" is also done very well by Pearl Jam. I probably enjoy this song more than "Love Reign O'er Me". I like the bassline as well as the lyrics. It has a good sense of urgency, which is usually very important to me (unless of course, I'm listening to Red House Painters or Sun Kil Moon).
I could have done without Sean Penn's introduction to the songs. Given his deep respect for Hugo Chavez and other communist dictators across the globe, it makes me question whether or not I should think positive things about The Who.
Luckily, I've been able to compartmentalize my musical tastes and political affiliations.
As I told an anti-coporate conspiracy theorist at a Boston Pearl Jam concert a few weeks back (who happened to have the most disgusting primed-for-a-popping whitehead on his left cheek), "If I let my politics dictate my musical tastes, I'd be at a Toby Keith concert right now."
Watch this exchange between Elizabeth Hasselback and Whoopi Goldberg. I find Whoopi Goldberg's argument specious. It really misses the mark. I think the fundamental question here is, "what can be gained by using the term "nigger"?". (This question was posed to me by a good friend)
Whoopi Goldberg, and her sidekick on the show (I don't know her name), seem to think that it is a term of "endearment". I don't buy it. No matter what situation you are in, the term "nigger" is negative. It sets the discourse at a certain level. When blacks self identify with the term (or make it their own or "turn it around", as is their continued argument) they set the bar at a very low level. They identify with the term. Whites see this, and they see where the blacks set the bar for themselves. At the end of all of this, blacks are not advanced, and white's subconscious (or conscious) opinion of them is never raised. The cylce repeats itself. Wash, rinse, repeat...
If someone calls you a moron, and you decide to refer to yourself as a moron (and justify it by saying that you are just turning it around on them to take meaning away from the word), where does that leave you?
I'll tell you. You're a moron.
Perception is reality. When bigots think of blacks as "niggers", and then blacks in turn refer to themselves as "niggers", we are at the exact same place we were at the beginning. Nothing is advanced. Nothing is gained.
By remaining in this place, things are lost.
One of my good friends said something to this effect, "What can possibly be gained by some 15 year old kid walking out of Strawberry Mansion High School shouting the word nigger at his friends?"
What is positive about this? Is the term really turned around? I don't think it is. It just reaffirms negativity and reinforces nihilism in that community. Whoopi Goldberg, and any black who thinks it is ok to use the term as one of "endearment" needs to re-examine their thought process. They are keeping the discourse on a level that suits and encourages bigotry.
If a person's lot in life is already very challenging, what can be gained by continually allowing them to refer to themselves negatively?
Leave some comments. I know you will. Keep the discourse civil, please.
Obama continues to say wildly stupid and childish things when it comes to foreign policy. This man's arrogance is blinding. He feels that during his assumed presidential term, he will rid the world of nuclear weapons.
I guess he's going to go to every nuclear country, charm the pants (or should I say "nukes") off them, and we are all going to sing cumbaya. Maybe some smore's if we are lucky...
This is not a serious man, ladies and gentleman. He does not understand that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. It has been since day one. The fact that he can ignore thousands of years of history is breathtaking.
We aren't going to wake up one day to a world without evil. Evil has always existed, and it will always exist. We can act to hold it at bay, but it will never be stopped. I am flabbergasted at this man's comments. It is also a testament to the stupidity of certain people, namely the ones that are sitting in the crowd nodding and feeling good about the supposed utopia that will come to our world once Obama is allowed to work his magic.
I'm Sick'n Tired of the "Elton Brand Betrayed The Clippers" Narrative
Let me start this post by saying I've had a great time in Corolla, North Carolina. I've abused calories and alcohol as well as my golf handicap. I will be returning sometime on Saturday.
While I was gone, the Sixers picked up Elton Brand. I was initially against this signing (because I wanted another player). I recognized that the Sixers were a team predicated on defense as well as run and gun offense. I thought that a young and exciting player like Josh Smith of the Atlanta Hawks would have been a perfect fit given his defensive prowess and developing offensive skills. I didn't think the Sixers had what it took to make a serious run at Boston's crown in the next 2 years. I thought they should develop a young and exciting team around players like Thaddeus Young, Andre Iguoudala and Josh Smith and make a run when they were ripe in the next three or four years.
Obviously, Ed Stefanski thought otherwise. I'm not going to pretend I know more about basketball and free agency then Ed Stefanski. I never played the sport past a grade school level (although I was a defensive stopper on my 5th and 6th grade CYO Championship Basketball Team at Queen of Peace). I've only been a fan, and nothing more.
But I will accept that the main problem we had with Detroit in our playoff series was that we couldn't compete in a grind-it-out halfcourt game. We didn't have the pieces. Andre Igoudala was exposed for what he is (and what he probably will remain), as an extremely athletic wing player who cannot be counted on as a teams number one option.
I've been paying attention to ESPN (because I don't have access to Comcast Sportsnet in the Outer Banks of North Carolina) and the only narrative that I have heard is that "Elton Brand Betrayed The Clippers". The most dubious claim of this storyline is "With the kind of wherewithal usually deployed by a first-class organization, the Clips worked the back channels of the pending free-agent market and stole away Baron Davis from the Golden State Warriors."
I find it interesting that Elton Brand is being trashed for betraying the "Clippers" (a more pathetic organization with less fans I cannot recall, who do not even have their own arena) and the "Clippers" get off scott-free when they "stole away Baron Davis from the Golden State Warriors".
Quid Pro Quo?
This boggles my mind. I know that ESPN needs ratings, but this stance is more transparent than anything I've read in a long time.
The Sixers will be a markedly improved team this year. They have more dimensions to work with. They will not have to rely on steals and fast breaks to win games (at least not as much as they did last year). They can find other ways to win, namely feeding the ball into the post and watching Elton Brand score 20 points a game from the power forward position.
I just hope ESPN gets a bit more intellectually honest in their reporting. I won't hold my breath.
