|
| HERRY KERRY |
| Tuesday, October 31, 2006 |
| This is hilarious. I don't particularly think that Kerry meant his statement the way it came out, but one just can't help but get a chuckle out of it. This follows in a distinguished line of verbal gaffs.
White House, Kerry exchange accusations - Yahoo! News: "He then said: 'You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'"
Notables:
"I created the internet." - Vice President Al Gore
"You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." - President George Bush
"We are trying to get unemployment to go up, and I think we're going to succeed." - President Ronald Reagan
"It depends what the definition of 'is' is." - President Bill Clinton
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - Vice President Dan Quayle
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" - Senator Hillary Clinton |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/31/2006 10:48:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| POLITICS AND RELIGION |
|
 My brother is a nuclear physicist and I feel very uncomfortable challenging him on his assertions concerning nuclear theory and practice. So I basically keep my mouth shut and listen.
Many people are this way...
...except when it comes to two topics: Politics and religion.
It has often amazed me how quickly one can develop and promote an opinion on any particular religious or political topic and present it with absolute conviction without having a great deal of formal or any other kind of training (or understanding).
Opinions formulated around these topics are usually:
Informed or Uninformed.
-What is interesting is the the informed opinions can change.
-More often than not the uninformed ones rarely do. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/30/2006 11:09:00 AM |
|
|
|
| RESPECT |
| Saturday, October 28, 2006 |
Ordinarily the Snipet would ignore such as this. But it is needful to point out that this is ONLY a symptom of society's problems today. Shocked? I'm not.
Oh my god, South Park mocks Irwin | the Daily Mail: "The creators of South Park have never been afraid to upset celebrities - and many of the show's viewers.
From jokes about religion and homosexuality to four-letter tirades, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have always mixed shock tactics with satire in the hit cartoon series.
But they were accused of hitting a new low last night after lampooning the demise of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin just weeks after his death.
The latest episode shows an animated Irwin in Hell with a stingray poking out of his bleeding chest." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/28/2006 09:26:00 PM |
|
|
|
| ALL'S FAIR |
| Friday, October 27, 2006 |
| When allegations were made against Republican Senator George Allen concerning his usage of the "N" word, his Democrat opponent, Jim Webb was quick to exploit.
Of course, we all know that the worse thing that anyone can ever do is use the "N" word.
Now Jim Webb, with full support of his Democrat constituents, is exposed for writing literature with recurring themes of underage sexual exploitation and women as servile and subordinate.
I expect Jim's support from his constituents to...double. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/27/2006 04:38:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Obama a media creation - The Ralph Bristol Show |
| Thursday, October 26, 2006 |
Obama a media creation - The Ralph Bristol Show
Ralph Bristol
October 23, 2006
You know it's a slow news day when the top story of the day is: a freshman U.S. senator says he might run for President in 2008. I'm betting that if Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said he's thinking about running for President, it wouldn't be the top story of the day.
Barack Obama (D-IL) seems like a nice enough guy (for a liberal Democrat), but he doesn't deserve the rock star status that he enjoys. Where did that come from? Did Oprah do it? Is it because he's young and black? There are other respected young, black politicians who have a much more substantive background, but don't get nearly the same attention. Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee is an articulate, young black politician who has gained quite a bit of respect in congress, but lacks Obama's star power."
Read more... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/26/2006 04:13:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WHY THE BROWNS DON'T TAKE THE GREENS SERIOUSLY |
| Wednesday, October 25, 2006 |
Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas - TMZ.com: "Hybrid cars are all the rage in Hollywood. Celebrities drive them like they're a badge of honor. You save a few gallons of gas, you save the planet. Right? Well, not when you hop on a private jet and burn enough fuel to propel NASCAR through 2050.
Of course, the stars need to go here and there. The location shoots, the fabulous vacations, etc. But that's why God created United Airlines. G-IV's, on the other hand, were created in the image of precious celebs." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/25/2006 09:41:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WE'RE NOT GETTING BETTER, THE COMPETITION IS JUST GETTING WORSE |
| Sunday, October 22, 2006 |
| Barney Frank speaks the truth about the coming elections:
Guardedly, Democrats Are Daring to Believe - New York Times: "Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is in line to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee in a Democratic House, offered wry evidence of the changing perception of the race. His office, Mr. Frank said, has been contacted by a portrait-painting firm offering to talk about possibilities for the traditional committee chairman’s painting, one of those perks of power long absent from the lives of House Democrats.
'I've acquired a lot of new friends this year,' Mr. Frank said. 'And I haven't gotten any nicer." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/22/2006 08:35:00 PM |
|
|
|
| THE NEW LEFT |
|
I posed a question to some of my friends over at Neo-libs (which are exempt from this analysis, because I would not characterize these gentlemen as your garden-variety "progressive liberal"), "Have contemporary liberals become what they once hated?"
The reason I did, is that I know many good self-proclaimed "liberals" or "leftists" who may be willing to begin disassociation from what the "left" is fast becoming; just as many of us on the "right" have distanced ourselves from some of the extremism being promoted there.
Consider the following about the *neolibs:
Disregard for advocacy and due process
Once vocal critics of clandestine and heavy handed government, they have empowered government to the point of tyranny and supported the elimination of individual rights in the name of social collectivism. For example, here are liberals proposing Nuremburg-type trials for anyone who disagrees with the psuedo-science that drives the current global warming debate.
Censorship
From employees hiding conservative books at Barnes and Noble to left-leaning websites banning differences of opinion, contemporary liberals are leading the charge on censorship and against freedom of speech.
Here is You Tube censoring out a mock ad critical of the Clinton Administration
A Doctrine of Hatred/Intolerance
Ethnic slurs an racism through patronizing white elitism, calls for the death of President Bush, and the promotion of special interest in the name of "multiculturalism" are just some of the examples of the new racism/intolerance/bigotry/hatred that seeds the contemporary liberal population.
Lanny Davis, confessed liberal, finds the hatred of his own kind reprehensible.
Even the children are being taught violence and hatred for those who think differently than they do.
"Religious" Zealotry/Extremism
Blind devotion to an unproven global warming "science", unyeilding faith in theory-based secular social sciences (with a propensity to censor opposing ideas), and the willingness to throw self on a sword for the preservation of human abortion, euthanasia and irresponsible sexuality coupled with the refusal to acknowlege the figurative "pedophilia" within their own ranks of leadership while condemming those without. Spend some time browsing:
www.democraticunderground.com
Is there a whole lot of goose-stepping going on?
Or am I the only one who sees it?
*Disclaimer: This term used as an equivalent of the term "Neocon" but has nothing to do with my friends over at "Neolibs.com"--these guys are not "Neolibs, more accurately they may be "Classical Libs". |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/22/2006 07:07:00 PM |
|
|
|
| PRINCIPLE VS. PARTISANSHIP |
| Sunday, October 15, 2006 |
The problem today is that many people cannot differential between partisanship and principle.
Take the Republicans for example. Although most of us never heard about it, the Clinton Administration was guilty of wide use of warrentless wire taps. There wasn't a peep from the "freedom-loving" Democrats at the time, and it was never challenged in the Supreme Court. There were MANY Republicans against it, but there was no "conservative media" so their voices went unheard.
Fast forward 10 years, and we have Republican's supporting warrentless wire taps and all of the sudden Democrats opposing them. Now why is that? Have Democrats become more "conservative" and Republicans more "socialistic"?
No, the answer is simple partisanship--not principle. If Clinton were currently president in 2006 and he wanted to install cameras in each of our homes you could bet that the outcry would be loud from the Republicans and Democrats would lockstep right behind him in support.
Another example would be the silence of opposition to Clinton's warmongering. I would bet that 98% of the liberal Democrats today have no idea what moral wrongs were committed in Bosnia or the illegal nature of many of the Iraqi bombings and other unsanctioned invasions of that time, but each of them know the exact body count and time to the minute that we have been in Iraq. Of course the Republicans back during that time were opposed, but largely impotent and voiceless (except for a few like Newt Gingrich, and others).
The sooner you realize that the decisions made by those on Capital Hill have nothing to do with principle, but rather partisanship, the more independent of thought you will be.
Submitting to partisan "thought police" makes you a victim of the "Anybody but Bush" or "Anybody but Clinton (Hillary)" mentality, something we DON"T need as we move forward into the next election cycle.
We need Americans of principle, not partisanship. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/15/2006 09:43:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Why WHO you vote for in 2006 is the least important decision you will make this year. |
| Thursday, October 12, 2006 |
 Most of us are looking forward to the 2006 elections with fear and apprehension. The following are several reasons why WHO you vote for in 2006 is the least important decision you will make this year - The money machine is already in place for the two parties and has been for a century. America has not been hurt enough by the two parties to give strength to the rise of a third--yet.
- The two parties are essentially the same ideologically. They just differ in rhetoric. Unfortunately, their constituents are not intelligent enough to judge their actions, but continue to listen to their words.
- The two parties do not care about you--they are just fighting for who gets to control you. Don't take it personally--you're just a social security number.
- On issues like taxes, terrorism and trade (or if you like, pick any issue) both parties are moving the same way, so no matter who is in control, our taxes will get higher (already 1/2 our income for median income families), the war on terrorism will become more poltically correct, and every politician in Washington is Keynesian in philosophy, which means that we, the consumer, will eventually get screwed one way or the other.
- And, as the old saying goes, it doesn't matter who you vote for because the government always gets elected.
Want some peace and objectivity? - Stop looking at government as a solution to problems and start planning for your own future and security. Think the government is in "control"? Why do they spend most of their time reacting to "crisis".
- Stop looking for government to do what you should be responsible for yourself--people around you need help? HELP them! Too much crime on the street? Learn how to arm and protect you and yours. Waiting for government to solve the problems around us is what has gotten us into this mess to begin with.
- You only have ONE vote. That is little or NO control over the outcome. Not saying that you shouldn't vote, but quit thinking you're going to change the world every time you enter a voting booth. You got your "I voted" sticker--that should be enough.
SO CHILL. Invest your time, energy and emotion into things whose outcome you can influence. A trillion dollar government with tens of thousands of employees is not one of those things. (This post dedicated to my friend ChickenHawk) |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/12/2006 06:46:00 AM |
|
|
|
| NEO LIBS |
|
| Things are once again cooking over at one of my favorite sites, Neolibs. Drop over for some enjoyable discussion.
www.neolibs.com |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/11/2006 05:25:00 PM |
|
|
|
| THE COMMIE SCARE! |
| Saturday, October 07, 2006 |
| WSC, a friend of mine, and I discussed web content, and I mentioned that I hit Democrats a lot because they make of themselves such easy targets. Here are Republicans that deserves derision. Goes to show that idiocy does not go down party lines...
QCTimes.com / News / TV spot links Braley to Communist Party: "A new Republican television ad links Democratic congressional candidate Bruce Braley to the Communist Party and says he’s supported by “ultra liberals.”" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/07/2006 05:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| OK, TIME TO FORGIVE MARK FOLEY |
| Wednesday, October 04, 2006 |
| Mark Foley's lawyer just announced that Mark is gay and was molested as a child.
That makes everything he did ok, doesn't it? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/04/2006 08:06:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FOLLOWING TED'S ADVICE. Part 2. |
| Tuesday, October 03, 2006 |
| President Carter, Bush and Clinton spent millions of dollars and hundreds of hours "negotiating peace" in the Middle East. Total return on investment: ZERO.
So, we should remove military support from those mean 'ol Jews because we know that Iran, Iraq--oops, maybe not that one, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia just wanna' live in peace with their troublesome neighbors. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/03/2006 06:44:00 PM |
|
|
|
| FOLLOWING TED'S ADVICE. Part 1. |
|
| Please refer to the post: ?????
Those poor Palestinians, they should really have their land back. It was taken from them by those mean 'ol Jews.
So, in order to set a good example for those mean and stingy 'ol Jews, the Snipet is going to provide an address for any honest liberal in our land who would like to stand on their principle and send the title to their property (or if you are mortgaged to the hilt, sell and pass along any equity) so that we can give the land back to who it rightfully belongs. We will make sure that the appropriate Indian tribe gets the title or money. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/03/2006 01:06:00 PM |
|
|
|
| ??? |
|
| During an interview aired Friday on CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, when asked by host Deutsch how he would go about fighting terrorism, CNN founder Ted Turner argued that "you don't win people over by bombing them, you win them over by being friends with them," and soon recommended giving Muslim extremists what they want as a solution to terrorism. Turner, who in 2002 claimed that Israelis were guilty of "terrorism" against the Palestinians, on Friday's show advocated "being more even-handed in our dealing with the Palestinians and the Israelis," negotiating peace in the Middle East "so we can stop at some point furnishing military aid to Israel," and "pulling our military forces out of the Middle East." Turner labeled these moves as "things that they've asked of us" and "things that the Muslim extremists and a lot of other Muslims, too, would like to see us do." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/03/2006 09:13:00 AM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
