Is Obama officially being swiftboated? The same dirty underhanded tactics that they tried on Kerry are being tried here, and there was obviously a lot of that during the primaries with Hillary Clinton, but the McCain camp hadn't flamed it. Now they are down in the polls quite a bit, and it seems like a desperate act. But, these types of actions have gotten big results in the past, and I'm wondering if it'll gain any traction?
I think that Hillary might have done him a favor by raising this earlier, because most people have heard this type of stuff before and he has had time to overcome it. Whereas if this was new, it could be quite damaging for him.
|
|
This is a provocative article from a professor of history at my university. I am particularly interested in the opinions of African Americans (who have overwhelmingly supported Obama to date) on their opinions on this piece and the issues it raises. |
|
Obama
|
Feb. 11th, 2008 @ 05:39 pm
|
|---|
|
So Obama has some momentum and it looks like he may pull out the nomination of he keeps going. I'm really scared about this, especially as he'll be a stark contrast to the aging McCain. Hope sounds good in theory, but all he is bringing to the table is bigger government and more bureaucracy. If Hillary wins, I think McCain has the election in the bag..... |
|
|
Mar. 27th, 2006 @ 02:29 pm
|
|---|
WHAT THE FUCK?
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/politics/14177032.htm
The government has passed a bill and called it law.....without approval from the House.
Apparently, President + Senate = Law. |
I am in a pretty good mood right now, as humanity has re-affirmed its stupidity. I now know, that even though I am probably of average intellect, I too can say whatever I feel like and no matter how absurd it is, people will believe it.
For debate: Is there anything people wouldn't believe, if you say it the right way?
My Stance: Nope, and check this for the proof (Removed as per author's request). |
| » Ah, life was much worse in the civil war, then it is now |
|---|
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/12/11/national/a02121105_02.txt
Well, just to state the bleeding obvious: life was much harder during the Civil War, WW1 and WW2. Unless of course you are a 20 year old liberal arts major at a private college.....
"Kristina Hicks, 20, a Siena junior, said that while its true most of todays Americans have not had to sacrifice like previous generations did, she disagrees with the polls findings.
I definitely think today is one of most trying times, she said. When I read about things like 9/11 and the war in Iraq in textbooks, it doesnt actually portray the whole picture of what happened."
Here's a good comment about that:
"Kristina needs to spend a little time in a WWI trench while a rat eats your buddy and the huns lob mustard gas on your head. Maybe she needs to move West and start over farming a locust and dust ridden plain."
Dec. 12th, 2005 @ 08:23 am
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
Here is a transcription of Owens' remarks from his weekly radio show.
Interviewer: "T.O. You are in the media again. It's mushroomed a little bit. How are you doing today?"
Terrell Owens: "I'm doing good guys. First off, I want to ask you, could you guys just refer to me as Javier during this interview?"
I: "Javier?"
TO: "Yeah, Javier."
I: "Okay, is that your nickname, like Kobe [Bryant] wants a nickname? He wants to be known as mambo, the snake that strikes quickly. Javier."
TO: "Yeah, I've been submitted to the Witness Protection Program today."
I: "You're in hiding, and so you're Javier. What's your last name?" TO: "I don't have a last name, just Javier."
I: "Alright, just Javier. He's in witness protection. So, you apologized. I'm not even sure what you're apologizing for. Well we'll let him talk about it. You are apologizing for what today T.O?"
TO: "Honestly guys, I would say of all the interviews that I've done, this is probably one that I regret. And that's not to be spread at Graham [Bensinger], who did the interview. Number one, I guess I would say because of the timing of it. Then through all of those things, we're 4-3 and really that's not a reason for us to go into panic.
"Two, is because I just essentially agreed with the comments of Michael Irvin. And three, is because all I did was express my feelings to a question about my 100 TDs, which was a milestone set by only 5 other receivers in NFL history, which was brought to my attention. It was brought to my attention by people who submitted emails to my website about the situation. And even my publicist [Kim Etheridge], she recognized that it wasn't acknowledged.
"So, other than that I didn't even care about the 100 TDs, but it was brought to my attention and all I did was basically answer the question."
I: "Is it fair to say, T.O., that you simply can't help yourself when it comes to honesty? That if somebody asks you a question, you don't care how it sounds. You're going to tell people 100 % of the time what you think.
TO: "Basically it was just a simple question and I gave a simple answer. That's it. This is one that I really regret and I realize that I offended some of my teammates because the comments that were shown on ESPN, that wasn't the whole interview in its' entirety.
"Because I went on to say, before I agreed with the comment of Michael Irvin about Brett Favre, I said earlier that if Donovan wasn't hurt our record would probably be better. But nobody has the knowledge that I said that. Everybody is going by what ESPN is showing on TV. So that's why I feel like I probably regret it because of the timing of it, but I don't feel bad because I know what I said and that's not what the media is showing."
I: "An interesting admission by you though because the first time we had you on the show after all the stuff that happened this offseason, you didn't regret anything you said. You're not usually someone who regrets very much of what he does."
TO: "It's sad because I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong and if I've done something wrong. But in this situation here I just feel like it's unfair. The media is taking shots at me for no apparent reason. All I did, honestly, was I answered the question that Graham directed at me, and it was just a mere agreement.
"All the other stuff, they're trying to pit me and Donovan against each other. And I said the same thing earlier in the interview, but nobody had shown it and nobody had said anything about it. The interview will be shown in its entirety I guess next week some time on ESPN.com. But like I said, I already said if Donovan wasn't hurt our record would be better."
I: "T.O, have you spoken to Donovan since you made the comment?"
TO: "No, I haven't. No, I haven't."
I: "Do you feel like you have to or should?"
TO: "They're trying to get me to apologize to him, but my thing is look, this was taken out of context. And I feel like the same transcript that I got this morning, that I read to Brian Dawkins when he came to me with the issue, you can read the same thing. Because I basically said the same thing a few seconds before I even answered the question about Michael Irvin's comment."
I: "What was the meeting like with Brian Dawkins? Was he bringing you the comment because the team was upset about it?"
TO: "Yeah, I think he was really upset about it too. Once he brought it to me, obviously he had seen the interview on TV this morning, so he was upset about it. And then once I showed him the transcript that was given to me, I said, Dawk look. I said the same thing up here. I said if Donovan wasn't hurt our record would be better.' And then he came, he was a bigger man and he apologized for that.
"But at the same time we discussed it and he was like I've got to realize that the media is going to take it and twist it and turn it how they want it to. So that's why, like I said, of all things I regret this interview, but I don't feel bad about giving my honest opinion about something, about a comment that I didn't even bring up."
I: "You respect Brian Dawkins, don't you?"
TO: "I do."
I: "And you appreciate the fact that if he's upset with you, he will come to you and get in your face about it if that's the case."
TO: "We were both men about it. I don't have a problem with him confronting me or we talking about it. I don't."
I: "Was it angry?"
TO: "I think it was more a conversation. Where is this coming from? What happened? He didn't know the entirety of the interview. He just saw what he saw on TV."
I: "We're with T.O here&"
TO: "Javier, Javier."
I: "Javier, excuse me. Javier, no last name. He's in witness protection because he regrets what happened or the timing of what happened and a variety of things that happened with this interview. You've got to stick to this radio show T.O. is what it is. If you go on other outlets you get in all sorts of trouble."
TO: "You're exactly right. I just got to stick to my guns. The only reason that I did that interview with the guy, the kid, Graham Bensinger, is because here is a guy that I met while I was in San Francisco, earlier. He was in school and we talked. We began a phone relationship and he's interviewed me before when I was out there. And so, I just felt compelled to grant him the interview. I felt it was harmless.
"I just felt like what I said was harmless, but the media I feel is taking shots. They're taking bits and pieces of the whole interview out of context. They're just trying to make me out to be the bad guy. I don't have a problem with it. I just take it and go with it."
I: "What has Andy Reid said to you Javier?"
TO: "Basically he wanted me to issue an apology at the press conference and I had no problem with that. And that's what I did. Other than that, I felt like I did what I had to do. If I didn't really feel like I had to apologize, than I wouldn't have done it. But, I believe the apology was mainly [done] because he felt like I lashed out against the organization regarding the 100th TD thing.
"But on top of that, I went on to mention, okay, well if he's upset about that, what about this summer when Joe Banner went on the air, and he's on record, listen, he called me and Drew [Rosenhaus] an idiot. So what's the difference?"
I: "Good point. T.O, there are rumors swirling that you might get suspended. Do you expect to be suspended?"
TO: "Hey, if I am, I am. That'd be a discredit to the team and obviously it will hurt the team. But, if I am it would be a sad situation. Those guys will do the best they can to try and win the game and I'll be behind those guys 100 %."
I: "Have you gotten any indication that that might happen, other than the rumors?"
TO: "No. As of right now nothing's happened. Unless anything transpires from now until tomorrow morning once I get to the facility."
I: "Is this the first time since you've been with the Eagles where a teammate has come to you and objected to something you've said or done. I know Hugh Douglas went on the airwaves and said some things, but is this the first time that that's happened there?"
TO: "Yeah, I think so. He had every reason to. Just driving to practice this morning, I didn't know what was going on, but once I got there I kind of sensed that something was going on. I went in for treatment and Rick [Burkholder] told me something about what was said on the news because I didn't see it. I didn't see the interview last night. And once I got into the treatment room, Dawkins and I, he pulled me to the side and we talked it out."
I: "What would you say that you regret the most, TO? Is it the fact that you didn't know that the Philadelphia Eagles do not do individual things to celebrate achievements? What would be the thing that you regret most?"
TO: "I would say the timing of the interview, and just probably the misconception that everybody is getting from the interview because of how the media is portraying it."
Nov. 5th, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
|
| » WAS |
|---|
WASHINGTON, after being blown out worse than the Eagles are 1.5 point favorites...............
WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF???????????????
Oct. 31st, 2005 @ 02:07 pm
|
| » Welcome to 1945! |
|---|
Pittsburgh Steelers ran the ball 41 times and passed it 11 times...
As long as Andy Reid is the coach, even if I was his quaterback, I bet we would still throw more than 11 times. Reid is a better coach than Cowher, but its still intresting how different the philosophy is.
Sep. 12th, 2005 @ 08:34 am
|
| » Awesome |
|---|
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Connected--Cheney-F-himself.mov
Check this link out.
You can hear Cheney giving interview while a protestor behind him is yelling 'Go Fuck yourself'.
Sep. 8th, 2005 @ 04:49 pm
|
| » Rome |
|---|
If you get HBO, watch this series. Defiantly awesome. Now, I love Roman History so I have high expectation and I am relieved that HBO finally pulled it off. If you listen to the commentaries and watch the episodes, you can tell they really paid attention to the facts and made the series as accurate as possible (even though it is fiction).
It's not a HISTORY lesson because they are telling a fictional story but even that is quite masterful, such as their depiction of why Pompeii didn't take Rome's gold with him when he retreated (which was a major weakness). In reality, we don't know what happened but the show depicts what happens to it (EP. 3). Its a small thing but its important because it shows that they can tell a fictional story without going against what we know to be historically accurate. Of course, they take a few liberties (such as Caesar riding in front, the fighting in the senate) but overall I am very happy. The main point that they get across very well is what it really was actually living in Rome (something that every other movie/series I have seen has failed to do). Rome was crowded, dirty, and had plenty of violence/political intrigue/lust/greed. When they said 'Rome is a mob', it wasn't far from the literal truth.
Anyway, I am going offtopic but the point I am trying to make is: WATCH THE SHOW. It's very enjoyable and the first 3 episodes are available On Demand if you have it.
Sep. 7th, 2005 @ 03:22 pm
|
| » Jerry Rice retires |
|---|
And the absolute sick thing about him is that if you cut all of his numbers in HALF, he would still be a Hall of Fame player. He would have 775 receptions with 104 total TD's and almost 12000 total yards. And thats his numbers cut in half.
Sep. 6th, 2005 @ 10:55 am
|
| » A nice essay by...Patrick Buchanan???? |
|---|
OK, first of all I want to get this out of the way:
1) Buchanan is a racist and a biggot
2) Do NOT listen to him on social issues
However, when he talks about foreign policy, I tend to agree a lot with him (man, that scares me). Anyway, here is a good article written by him:
Why Are They Killing Us?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
July 13, 2005
Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.
President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."
"Many terrorists who kill ... on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."
Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.
But is this true?
Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.
"Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells the American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."
But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:
[S]uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.
Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled ... Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."
Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.
The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."
Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide-bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide-bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.
"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies ... is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."
What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.
Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.
How would we defend our vital interests in the Gulf?
Answers Pape: As we did in the 1970s and 1980s. By getting our troops out, removing the cause of suicide-terror, leaving behind stocked bases and putting U.S. carrier and air forces over the horizon to ensure the Gulf oil flows. But unless and until American troops are withdrawn from the Middle East, the suicide attacks continue.
The American Cause
Jul. 13th, 2005 @ 10:45 am
|
| » Classic |
|---|
The emminent domain ruling pissed me off. I love this response.
[quote]
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
[/quote]
Jun. 28th, 2005 @ 03:02 pm
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
"The letters Ramanujan wrote to Hardy in 1913 had contained many fascinating results. Ramanujan worked out the Riemann series, the elliptic integrals, hypergeometric series and functional equations of the zeta function. On the other hand he had only a vague idea of what constitutes a mathematical proof. Despite many brilliant results, some of his theorems on prime numbers were completely wrong.
Ramanujan independently discovered results of Gauss, Kummer and others on hypergeometric series. Ramanujan's own work on partial sums and products of hypergeometric series have led to major development in the topic. Perhaps his most famous work was on the number p(n) of partitions of an integer n into summands. MacMahon had produced tables of the value of p(n) for small numbers n, and Ramanujan used this numerical data to conjecture some remarkable properties some of which he proved using elliptic functions. Other were only proved after Ramanujan's death.
In a joint paper with Hardy, Ramanujan gave an asymptotic formula for p(n). It had the remarkable property that it appeared to give the correct value of p(n), and this was later proved by Rademacher.
Ramanujan left a number of unpublished notebooks filled with theorems that mathematicians have continued to study. G N Watson, Mason Professor of Pure Mathematics at Birmingham from 1918 to 1951 published 14 papers under the general title Theorems stated by Ramanujan and in all he published nearly 30 papers which were inspired by Ramanujan's work. Hardy passed on to Watson the large number of manuscripts of Ramanujan that he had, both written before 1914 and some written in Ramanujan's last year in India before his death. "
Doesn't that make you feel insignificant?
Mar. 25th, 2005 @ 10:42 am
|
| » So |
|---|
A quote from someone posting on Amazon.com:
" Today's college history text is to Gibbon as the latest Spice Girls
album is to Mozart. "
So true. I am about a third of the way through the History of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon (its like 3000 pages,
1.5million words). It is by far the best history book I have ever read.
It's the shakespeare of history.
I am very intrested in Roman history, and I am kicking myself in
the ass for not reading the unabriged version sooner (Though I've read
one of the abriged versions, which is about 1200 pages).
Anyway, if you are intrested in Roman History or history in general,
you MUST read either this book (even if it is the abridged version, in
which case I recommend this.)
Mar. 20th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
I am 20 years old. I never never felt this bad...ever.
If I die without seeing a superbowl win, I will haunt every last player on that field yesterday, with the exception of Owens, who was the only one who did what he was fucking supposed to do.
Feb. 7th, 2005 @ 11:32 am
|
| » Two weeks |
|---|
FINALLY. I am still alive.
In two weeks we find out whether I can die a happy man.
Jan. 24th, 2005 @ 09:41 am
|
| » Hah |
|---|
Has there ever been a crappier playoff matchup than Rams vs. Seahawks? I think not. The worst part about this game is that someone has to win.
Jan. 3rd, 2005 @ 09:12 am
|
| » WHAT? |
|---|
St. Louis is favored against Philly next monday night.
Yes, a team that just got blown out by the Arizona Cardinals is a 3 pt. favorite. Now, of course the game means nothing to the Eagles, and the spread probably exists because they are counting on the starters being rested. But what do you think the spread would have been if TO had not gotten hurt?
Dec. 22nd, 2004 @ 03:14 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mshah's journal