Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

…but you would think a minister would be more familiar with his scripture:

At that time some people who were present there told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with the blood of their sacrifices. He said to them in reply, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did! Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them – do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!” Luke 13:1-5

Ironically his thoughts about the cause of Haiti’s problems hasn’t stopped him from encouraging his people to contribute money for relief and help for the victims of the quake.

He is rightly going to take some hits for his foolish words, but he has a long history of such idiocy, but I’ll wager the Haitians are going to be a whole lot more interested and thankful for the aid money he will raise than the idiocy that he speaks while doing so.  Mary Katherine Ham’s joke has more than a grain of truth to it.

He is correct about one thing, for a country that has been independent for over two centuries it has been one of the least successful states in history. Considering how well Haitians do when they come to the US it certainly isn’t the people.

After all President Obama is a Chicago Pol. A guy who acts like this is a perfect fit for the broadcast board of governors if you are going to do thing the Chicago way.

This guy has apparently apologized for what the Globe and the AP says is a “stumble

Can someone explain to me why Meehan claimed to have been “a little too aggressive” if McCormick only stumbled? I’d answer it myself but I have a house to pick up with company coming tomorrow.

Vote Brown.

…as a UN Nuclear inspector in Iran, I’m sure her eagle eyes are just what Ahmadinejad is looking for in an inspector; at least that is my thought after reading this:

“I know there were people following, including people from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking. I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred. I’m not privy to the facts. I’m sure it will come out, but I’m not aware of that.”.

I’m not privy to the facts!? Lets look at that picture again:

After that performance maybe the idea that she gets her foreign affairs info from her sister isn’t such a bad thing.

Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise for the democrats, if she continues to act this idiotic in public they can blame a possible Brown win not on a republican surge but on the worst candidate evah!.

Last night was game night and the game was D & D. We had almost the entire crew present much to our surprise. I thought I would see what the general consensus was concerning the election.

Going into the night, I expected one leaning Coakley vote 3 solid brown votes (including mine) 1 likely non-voter and 2 undecided.

When the subject came up, one thing was clear, Coakley is not popular, nobody in the room had a good word to say about her, however one person was very quiet.

When the subject of Brown one of the undecideds (the Marine) announced that he was no longer voting for Brown for two reasons:

1. my leaning Coakley voter said brown had “lied” about something, (I don’t know what) and the deal breaker.

2. George W. Bush endorsed Brown.

He also expressed total contempt for Coakley, it is very likely that our marine friend will stay will stay home.

The leaning Coakely voter is without question not voting Brown although he is a fiscal conservative. He had no good word for Coakley or frankly any pol. I would not be surprised to see him either stay home, If I had to bet the farm I’d say he is a Coakley voter.

The three solid Brown votes remain Brown votes, the undecided appears to be leaning Brown but not a person in that room other than me had no real interest in the election.

Make of that what you will.