Friday, November 12, 2010
For example, 1000 rds of 5.56 ammo by PMC is going for only $360.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Some commentators are trying to pan off Obama's comments as not being related to the post on the official DNC website which referred to Palin as a pig. After all, they argue, hardly anyone, including Obama, knew about this post.
Problem is, Obama's entire Palin/pig commentary was scripted from prior stolen material. It was stolen word for word from Tom Toles September 5 Washington Post political cartoon.
Here is Obama's commentary:
John McCain says he's about change too. Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is - watch out, George Bush - except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington.
That's not change.
That's that's just callin' sumpin' the same thing somethin' different.
But you know, you can't, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
Now here is the cartoon:
The Palin/pig post up at the DNC website was dated Aug. 30th, while the cartoon he copied from was dated Sept. 5th. Both are within a week of each other and it is obvious Obama was trolling for ideas from everywhere.
That's why the audience laughed; they knew what was going on.
Problem is, everyone else knows what is going on and now amount of backpeddling or spin is going to change it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Notice that when Obama made the lipstick comment, the audience laughed. If they understood Obama to be referring to "McCain's continued policies of Bush" with no innuendo or double-meaning, the audience would have applauded. But the audience did not applaud, they laughed.
Why did they laugh? Because they found something funny in Obama's lipstick comment. Obama was making a double-meaning, innuendo that compared Palin to a pig, in light of her own self-depricating humor lipstick comment during her speech. It was an inside joke. Why else did the crowd laugh? They knew what was going on.
Do I have any evidence of this? Yes. On the official Democratic Party website, there is a post entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig. It is dated August 30, 2008, which if after Palin's speech but before Obama's comments. This post compares Governor Palin to a pig.
The post is entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig, located here.
The post was written in such a way as to try to claim the lipstick on the pig is the "continuation of Bush's failed strategies," yet leave the clear innuendo that they are referring to Gov. Palin as a pig in light of her "lipstick" comment during her RNC Convention speech.
This is why the crowd laughed when Obama madehis lipstick on a pig comment. They all knew what he was referring to, the inside joke as you will. Otherwise, why would they laugh at a "non-joke"?
The text of what they said is below. I am adding emphasis to highlight what I mean.
Did the post directly call Palin a pig? No. It created a lot of plausible deniability, yet left the strong innuendo that they were referring to her as a pig.
Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig (the Bush Administration whose failed strategies have wrecked our nation). Nothing has changed except for an exciting and sexy dash of lipstick to freshen up their tired old face of more of the same.
The same people who do not like the Bush Administration for what it has done to this nation are not going to be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. And it they think that the American public are so stupid that they will rush over now and kiss their pig of a platform because it is wearing a fresh touch of lipstick, well I think they will be surprised.
Economically, the majority of Americans are at the breaking point. Most American families literally cannot stand another four more years of the same.
That is exactly why we had so many Republicans giving testimony at our convention as to why they were crossing over. The message was the same: They simply could no longer afford to vote Republican. Palin does not change that message. She is more of the same. Judging from McCains choice, he seems to think that our Democratic Campaign is built on the purpose of electing the first black man as President. That is not, nor has it ever been the purpose of the Barack Obama campaign.
The purpose and message of Barack Obama's campaign has always been CHANGE and it remains so--to change this country before conservatives totally destroy it with their tax breaks for the wealthy and for coporate America; to rebuild this nation by creating new jobs and restoring worldwide respect for our nation; to unite our country in a common purpose; to end our reliance on fossil fuel in the next 10 years--not to drill for more.
Palin changes nothing in terms of what the Republicans are offering. They are still offering a ticket of more of the same: more tax breaks for the weathy, more disdain for global warming, more war, more disregard for rebuilding our educational system in America, more continued privatization of our nation.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND NOT BE THROWN OFF OUR MESSAGE. THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUCH SWELLING SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF ECONOMICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ--Palin represent more of the same. She changes nothing.
In a way a Palin is a good thing because now we can focus on the real issues. The REAL issues for Americans do not include whether we elect the first black president of our nation or whether we elect the first woman vice president .
AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE: CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME.
Democrats offer change. Republicans offer more of the same.
Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart.
Both Palin and McCain think that Americans are whiners. What do you think? Are you a whiner? Do you want more of the same? If you don't, then get out and register at least 5 people and tell them why they should vote a straight Democratic ticket this year.
This was the setup, the background understood by the crowd, for Obama's comments.
Was Obama referring to Palin directly as a pig? No, he left plausible deniability. Did he refer to her as a pig in a not too subtle, innuendo, "wink wink, nod nod" sort of way? Yes, he clearly did.
That is why the crowd laughed.
Here are the screenshots from the official DNC website:
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
If you admire courage, conviction, patriotism, and self-sacrifice, you need to see the documentary The Contientious Objector. Here is a brief clip I found on Youtube.
Friday, June 27, 2008
SCOTUS Blog -- Court: A Constituional Right to a Gun
The opinion can be downloaded here. Relevant quotes from the majority opinion can be found here, and a replay of our LiveBlog can be found here. Tom’s commentary is here.
Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.
The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.” [Read the rest of the article here.]
SCOTUS Blog -- DC v. Heller Roundup
Not surprisingly, yesterday’s decision in DC v. Heller (07-290) has generated a lot of interest in both the media and legal blog communities. Below, we’ve linked to a number of the substantive articles and posts currently available.
Nina Totenberg’s coverage on NPR can be accessed here.
Lyle’s broadcast report for WBUR’s Here and Now program is available here. The Washington Post’s in-depth coverage includes Robert Barnes’ summary of the decision and its implications, as well as this article by Dan Balz and Keith Richburg. Today’s Post also includes a piece on community reaction within the District, as well as this poll indicating that 70% of its readers agree with yesterday’s decision (as of 9:00 am). Monica Hesse offers this recap of the “duel” between yesterday’s majority opinion and dissent authors.
SCOTUS Blog -- Commentary: So What's Next on Guns?
If the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gun rights brings about, as the dissenters said, “a dramatic upheaval in the law,” perhaps that was enough of a task to perform for one day. And, in fact, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the Court conceded that the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was but a first step, saying: “Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” And it definitely did not.
Still, it is remarkable how much was left undecided, and, therefore, how wide-ranging the post-Heller litigation is going to be. It is already apparent, from comments that the National Rifle Association was circulating among the news media Thursday, that the Nation will not have to wait long for those lawsuits — probably a flood of them — to begin. Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s dissenting opinion lists a wide array of gun control laws now in force that, one suspects, the NRA will soon challenge. Breyer, in fact, suggests that “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.” [Link to entire article here.]
Sunday, June 22, 2008
And if thet is not enough to make it perfectly clear what I think of them, you can see where put my money here. Afterall, talk is cheap.