Skip to main content

NYers for Obama-Palin '08

Interesting little slice of life audio clip from the Howard Stern show.

There is certainly no shortage of uninformed idiots all across the political spectrum. But these examples are particularly-telling, though hardly unique, of how sheep-like and shallow so many potential voters really are.

Of course no voter need be a political junkie to make a competent choice. But when you have self-identified Obama voters heartily-endorsing his running mate Sarah Palin, his support for remaining in Iraq, and his pro-life position, is this really the 'change we need'....or can afford....or even know what the hell we're talking about?

Big mystery a manipulative sloganeering cult of personality is apparently playing out so succesfully in 2008 America. Democrats have certainly perfected their own version of the same type of brainwashing that had large swaths of idiots firmly convinced that Iraq was behind 9/11/01.

Some
uber-self-righteous loony tune Democrats are positively unhinged, consumed that planet earth consist of : THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. Non-Democrats and Republicans are to be crushed until dead.

Yes we can! ....Hope!! ...Change!!! ......Remember 9/11 !!(?)!! ...... something!!!!!.....anything!!!!!!.......EVERYTHING!!!!!!!

Comments

Some uber-self-righteous loony tune Democrats are positively unhinged...

Heh, Tyler you really have a way with words. I had heard this recording before, and as much as I dislike Howard Stern, it was really quite revealing and he had alot of chutzpah to release it (not that he is lacking in that department).

I wrote a piece last week about a friend of mine who told me that people he encounters at work and elsewhere automatically assume that he is voting for Obama, simply because my friend is black. He found this quite troubling and amazing...he said that people don't even give it a second thought, they simply assume.

Now, that's just plain crazy.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...