I got this in my email today...
business proposition from Secretary Paulson
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:38 PM
From:
"Billionaires For Bush"
To: evicary@yahoo.com
Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We can not directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to http://us.mc302.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may speedily transfer your commision for this transaction. After I receive that information I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson
Also hilarious from the Onion: Point/Counterpoint
Gov. Palin Has No Foreign Policy Experience, Refuses To Acknowledge Global Warming, And Supports The War In Iraq
vs. :
Please Keep Your Voice Down, My Poor Retarded Child Is Sleeping
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I believe there really is an organization called Billionaires (sp?) for Bush. It's a joke; the people in it are lefties who critique the Republicans with lampoons. This sounds like their style.
On a serious note, what is with liberals' COMPLETE AND UTTER INABILITY to explain something using facts? I frequently hear tales of Palin and other conservatives "denying" or "refusing to acknowledge" global warming. What? No one denies that the globe is warming, it's bloody obvious. What we deny is that it's the result of human action. Because it isn't. There's no conclusive evidence. And, yes, I've seen that abomination of a film entitled Triumph of the Wi-sorry, An Inconvenient Truth. Propaganda doesn't work on me, though, because I'm not a retarded liberal.
Anyone who believes that global warming is human-caused, step up so I can shut you up.
I rather wire my money to Nigeria.
Sigh. I realize that you folks on the political left don't like President Bush or John McCain or for that matter any republican but is it really absolutely necessary to make fun of retarded children or, as I saw (elsewhere) last week comedienne Sanda Bernhardt make a "joke" that if Sarah Palin dared go to New York City she would be gang raped (by black men, no less). Good thing she's a democrat otherwise that would be racist.
Class, people, and good manners. They're free; they don't cost you a thing.
It's just sad and mean and petty and I can't believe it does your cause any good either. I guess it makes you feel superior, though, so I suppose that's what you consider to be important.
It's awesome to be self-righteous about other people's self-righteousness.
Ooooooookay.
I don't mind your reducing what I wrote to the simplistic label of 'self righteousness' but, really? You're o.k. with making jokes about the retarded kid? Is that really who you want to be?
It just surprises me, that's all. I'm not entirely sure why.
Why would someone ask a chess player for money? We all know they don't have any.
Oh my goodness. It is difficult for me to care about your vague disappointment in me, Doug, since you are semi-anonymous.
I would say first that I give anything that's really funny a lot of leeway as far as what I'm comfortable laughing at. But the Sarah Palin stuff doesn't even need this.
Sarah Palin made the decision to feature her children prominently in her campaign. That was her own choice, and made only for her political gain. Can you imagine agreeing to be the VP nominee, knowing that the national news media would crucify your pregnant 17 year old daughter? I just wouldn't do that to my kid.
And finally, I honestly question the judgment of a woman who would choose to have a baby with Downs Syndrome. And sure, I understand that some people are morally opposed to abortion, and they have the right to that belief, but I have the right to my opinion that those people are living in a different mental universe than I am. (No judgment necessarily implied. (Although I would note that many of the people in this particular different mental universe do not just believe that I don't have the right to an opinion, they also believe that I will burn in flames for eternity. So please don't tut-tut me on the rules of debate.))
I don't agree that what the press does or says about someone's family should impact one's decision to run for office.
I'd actually find it kind of weak if someone refused to run for one of the most important offices in one of the largest countries in the world because their family might have to face some bad media.
Cmon this is vice president of the USA. You have the chance to impact millions of lives, declining the position when you feel you are the best person for the job, because your daughter's feelings might get hurt by the asshole media, is ridiculous IMO.
Also I'm sure her daughter is doing just fine, and I suspect that the entire thing will impact her life positively in the long run, and not negatively.
Greg Shahade just secured my vote for King of the USCF. ;)
"And sure, I understand that some people are morally opposed to abortion, and they have the right to that belief, but I have the right to my opinion that those people are living in a different mental universe than I am. (No judgment necessarily implied. (Although I would note that many of the people in this particular different mental universe do not just believe that I don't have the right to an opinion, they also believe that I will burn in flames for eternity. So please don't tut-tut me on the rules of debate.))"
I'm fairly sure that not everyone who's pro-life is religious, but what the hell do I know, I'm just a pro-life atheist.
Sorry about the semi-anonymous state but at least I'm supplying enough information for you to distinguish my posts from those of others.
Thanks for the clarifications (sort of). I generally like debating issues with people who disagree with me but in order to do so there has to be some modicum of good will between the parties which there obviously isn't here.
Good luck with your teaching and your writing.
Doug.
I love your implication that all "folks on the politcal left" are of like mind with some wing nut comedienne who makes terrible jokes.
She must have a great deal of influence, given that I've never heard of her.
Way to demonstrate your "good will."
Doug said . . .
"Sigh. I realize that you folks on the political left don't like President Bush or John McCain or for that matter any republican but is it really absolutely necessary to make fun of retarded children or, as I saw (elsewhere) last week comedienne Sanda Bernhardt make a "joke" that if Sarah Palin dared go to New York City she would be gang raped (by black men, no less). Good thing she's a democrat otherwise that would be racist.
Class, people, and good manners. They're free; they don't cost you a thing.
It's just sad and mean and petty and I can't believe it does your cause any good either. I guess it makes you feel superior, though, so I suppose that's what you consider to be important."
es, in fairness I wasn't trying to equate all on the left with the rantings of one an insane comdienne (whose name I spelled wrong, btw; it's Sandra Bernhard, who is quite well known on broadway and was for a while in the 90's on the television show Roseanne). If I implied otherwise I apologize.
What I WAS trying to equate were Bernhad's gang rape joke with the so called joke entry that Elizabeth posted (which she admits she finds to be 'really funny') making fun of a baby with Down's syndrome. The point I was trying to make is that there are certain subjects that are just beyond the pale in terms of being used as punch lines in jokes. Rape being one good example, mental retardation being another. My assumption was that all decent people of any political leaning who are older than, say, 14 years of age could agree on this. Unfortunately I was wrong as Elizabeth's response demonstrates. I'm tempted to ask where such outright, unmitigated hatred comes from but I'm fairly certain I know the answer already and I doubt it has much if anything to do with Governor Palin's position on abortion.
Okay, Doug, where does my "hatred" come from?
Please notice that the Onion article is not making fun of the fact that the baby is retarded. It's making fun of the fact that Sarah Palin is completely unqualified and that Republicans are trying to divert talk from that fact by cooing over her baby, which she is choosing to use as a political accessory.
Well, I'm guessing that I probably have more regular conversations with republicans than you do and I've yet to hear any of them cooing over the baby to divert attention from her lack of experience. As to the onion bit I think your interpretation makes sense ONLY if you assume she's exploiting her own diabled kid for political purposes and I see absolutely NO evidence of that. She talked about her family in the convention speech but this was after the press, in all of its glory, spent the previous week raking her family over the coals and treating them like they were extras from the set of Deliverance. She was just fighting back. That's allowed.
As to the lack of experience I can only say this:
1.) I won't pretend that I wish she had more experience but she has been governor of Alaska for almost 2 years which is not nothing,
2.) I honestly don't see how anyone who is supporting Senator Obama can express concern over a lack of experience since he's been in the Senate since only 2005 and has spent the last 2 years or so running for president full time. The man gives a fine speech but his time in the Senate is marked by no particular accomplishments that I am aware of and nothing that could be considered presidential experience.
3.) They're both inexperienced but at least Palin is running for vice presdient; Obama is running for president where, presumably, his utter lack of experience will prove to be a bigger factor.
Look, by my count this is my 5th post in this thread and since I've already posted 4 times more than I should have (arguably 5 times more) I think I'll just stop here and let you have the final word. I'm not sure where this compulsion to post here comes from--you just bring it out in me. The blog is very infectious.
Oh, and as far as my semi-anonymous status is concerned I guess that's the price you have to pay when you have a blog and invite readers to comment. Still I see your point; it is rather one-sided. I play in the big Philadelphia tournaments regularly. Perhaps I'll introduce myself next time.
Cheers,
Doug.
All these issues that supposedly divide us between left and right, republican and democrat are all political footballs used by politicians to perpetuate themselves in office. Meanwhile what's going on in fact during this football game that has become the American political scene? A bunch of unscrupulous and greed people have hyjacked our financial system and created a financial chaos that has (and will continue to) visit great misfortune on many people. It's shocking how wrapped up we are in our own political views and how we have become pawns in this political game. People proclaim global warming as though it was a badge of nationhood, while others decrie its existence with similar nationalistic furor. I wonder if anyone who lost their home or who is facing financial ruin really gives a rats ass about global warming. The time has long since come for this country to put aside these imaginary differences and take notice of what we are sowing.
As to the whole "experience" thing we keep talking about. Please someone tell me a single good thing a politician has done based on his or her experience. And what experience do we really want? The experience of a nation of senators and congressmen who don't see a financial crisis until its nailed like a foreclosure notice to their forehead? Ha! Washington is filled with people with no experience. Neither Lincoln or Truman had more experience than Sarah Palin. Don't get me wrong, I think her choice was a sham and nothing but politics as usuall. But I'm not jumping on the "experience" bandwagon. That's another illusion.
Lastly, Doug, seriously, the retarded child comparison was not an attempt at making fun of retarded children but was obviously meant as a slighltly perverse accusation of pandering on the part of the McCain campaign. Imagine such a thing!
Nothing good can come from bringing up politics or religion. And pretty much for the same reason.
Both Democrats and Republicans are horrible and don't deserve to be in charge of my remote control, let alone the government. Rah-rahing for either team is a sign of ignorance.
Stick to chess.
If McCain and Palin are elected, the American people will get exactly what they voted for and deserve just as they did with Bush and Cheney (of course they really weren't elected in 2000--just ask Justice Scalia).
The question is, if they are elected in November, what's the preference list of countries to emigrate to?
"The question is, if [McCain/Palin] are elected in November, what's the preference list of countries to emigrate to?"
1. USA
Post a Comment