For the Lulz?

Everybody in the media is talking about Governor Palin. If you want Palin, and all the buzz that's with her, turn on your TV and pick a news network. They're swooning over her right now. Let's ignore her for now in order to turn our attention to something a bit more laughable. Just so you know, this is for the "lulz" as the kids are calling it these days. Or laughs, if you're old and getting older.

Cheney Condemns Russia's 'Illegitimate, Unilateral' Aggression

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51035

Now, the very idea that Cheney would condemn anything is analogous to Satan, Lord of Darkness, saying, "Let's think about the children! Won't anybody think of the sweet, innocent children?!?!?"

Yeah, right.

But, apparently, according to a DoD article (link at top), he did. Of course, it is Russia, and I'm pretty sure in the morning glory before old Cheney pulls himself out of bed, he still has playful dreams of going "toe to toe with the ruskies" (sorry, I'm quoting Stanley Kubrick films now). Perhaps he forgets that the cold war is over.

Whatever the case may be, Cheney is condemning the actions of Russia for invading Georgia. I mean, what were they thinking, those silly Russians? Invading a country without thinking, or not even caring what the international community thought? (Maybe they were looking for weapons of mass destruction.) No, actually, it's better than that. There was more of a legitimate reason than any the American government could concoct. (There's a link for the time line at the bottom*.)

In fact, the whole thing seems really hypocritical of Cheney and the government because of what's happened in Iraq. At least in Afghanistan there was a reason why we were over there. But, Iraq, come on. They used a credible source (or at least, a person who came off as non-partisian) such as Colin Powell to start this military action which has claimed (any guesses as to the death toll right now? No?) 4,151** (as of September 4h, 2008) U.S. coliation troops.

Enough of that. It's not funny. We're talking about Cheney, and why he's condeming Russia for it's military action. What could possibly be our reason for giving $1 billion to Georgia? What could we want with Georgia?

Take a look at a map sometime. Where does Georgia lie? Obviously, south of Russia, but also just north of Iraq AND Iran. Okay, so it's not lying RIGHT NEXT to these countries. But, it's within the vicinity. I bet it might not be in the frame of American perspective right now, but the U.S. signed a missile defense agreement with the Czech Republic***.



This has caused some worry from countries such as Poland who feel this "missile defense" into a "first strike" system. Perhaps they do have something to worry about. Doesn't anyone feel like with $1 billion worth of aid that this country might actually be willing to set up missile "defense" against those mean old Russian bullies? And, hey, if American wants to use it sometimes for personal reasons, why not? They foot the bill, right?

It seems strategic, cold, calculating. I wonder how hard Cheney's laughing about this one.

Until we meet again, dears.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war
** http://icasualties.org/oif/
***http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/08/2008-07-08_us_czech_republic_sign_missile_defense_a.html

Joe talks trash.

In response to the article:
"Print media report that Lieberman attacked Obama at RNC without noting he had pledged not to"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809030007


Are you freaking kidding me? I'm surprised about this, but maybe that's just because of the misconceptions attached to Joe Lieberman. Maybe this is a wake up call our stereotypes associated with candidates (that is, how they present themselves to the public) should be re-examined and (possibly) forgotten at the door.

What was I thinking... an independent democrat who was the vice presidential candidate in 2000 (at Al Gore's side) not only criticizing but outwardly attacking Barrack Obama after he said he wasn't going to. Talk about two-faced, but keep your anti-semitic jokes at home on this one. Everybody knows that's not cool. Moving on.

I don't understand why he wouldn't support Obama; why did he even go to this convention? What could he possibly stand to gain? Is it all political intent; that is, does he just pander to whomever is around to get more power over them? Is he a blood sucking lawyer who doesn't actually have a stance on a political party line? Is he just waiting for the "war in heaven" (that's what I've come to refer to presidential elections because people in this country treat our president as though he's god... or, at least, ordained by god) to choose a side?

Even though I'm not a particularly religious person, I get the bitter iron taste of a betraying Judas on the issue. That means he risks losing snap points with democratic voters... this could reflect badly later on (but people often forget about these things that were said years down the road).

Joe Lieberman leans to the liberal side, and that could be the only reason why he would do something like this. He wants to even things out by winning the hearts of some republican party members (as well as voters).

Actually, now that I think about it, Sen. Lieberman has a history of being in bed with republicans because of the infamous presidential kiss during the State of the Union Address?

Joe Lieberman is dangerously close to coming off as an opportunist who only hopes to advance his own political career with people who are willing to play dirty (and downright lie about the issues) to get what they want.

And that is why it's poopy.
Poopy on you, Sen. Lieberman.

Reasoning for the Right 1

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808270024

In a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor, criticism came up against Senator (now presidential contender) Obama for choosing Joe Biden as a running mate. Fox News contributor Dick Morris responded, "No. He'll just talk about what a wonderful guy Biden is. But when you think about it, who's Joe Biden? He ran 20 years ago for president. He only got into the race this time because of a menopausal midlife crisis. He was leaving the Senate, and he figured, 'I'll just do one more shot and run for president before I fade from the scene.'

Later on, Biden speculated that questions as to "Why Biden?" would be more double-talk about how great the candidate is.

Here's the flaw in that logic, and why it's circular.

Let's say that you are in a coffee shop, and you are waiting in line trying to decide what coffee to have. You know that you have a doughnut waiting for you back at your desk, so you have to choose the perfect coffee to complement this breakfast choice. Now, you have several different choices as they all have a good record of satisfying your taste buds in the past, but you decide to go with the aged Breakfast Blend, which has the well-balanced medium bodied taste.

When you go up to the cashier, the guy behind you says, "Why'd you pick that coffee?"

When you say, "It's a great coffee; I mean, it's the perfect coffee for me."

Then, they reply, "That's ridiculous, double-talk banter. What's the real reason?"

It's just like that for Sen. Obama. Biden has the experience that Obama lacks (which seems to cause him to suffer a bit in the polls and is the largest criticism against him). Also, Biden is someone not terribly showy; a guy who wouldn't overshadow the senator. He is the macaroni to Obama's cheese, the ketchup to the mustard, and (yes, absolutely) the black to Obama's white (or vice versa).

So, why didn't Obama choose Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his running mate? First of all, they wouldn't have fit together... two major candidates going together in a contest of egos wouldn't have worked at all. It would have come off as a consolation prize, and it wouldn't have united the party like one would think. Plus, there are a lot of misconceptions and strong opinions against Sen. Clinton.

Besides all that, the camps were at each others throats during the primaries, and meshing the two would be like mixing oil and water. Hillary will probably try again someday to run for president, and maybe the next time she'll be closer than now.

In this blogger's opinion, Sen. Clinton is probably working strategy for her next senatoral election. Maybe she's giving up on politics (though, it remains doubtful). In her address, she seemed like she was ready to be done with the big race, for now.

Who wouldn't be with all the mudslinging in the media, stumping, and campaigning?

However, we've strayed from the point. The bottom line is it can be perfectly acceptable to say the reason you picked a candidate is because they're great. There isn't any circular reasoning to this logic at all. (We'll call it the "He is what he is, and that's great." argument.)