http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Funny, yet scary...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Obama on Father's Day
Take a listen to Barack Obama's speech on Father's Day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M&feature=user
The change we need is not just going to come from government, but from each and every one of us. We need individual responsibility, parents that take responsibility for their children.
I love his one quote: "Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father." Go Barack Go!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M&feature=user
The change we need is not just going to come from government, but from each and every one of us. We need individual responsibility, parents that take responsibility for their children.
I love his one quote: "Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father." Go Barack Go!!!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Gates vs. GM
My mom sent this email to me and I couldn't help sharing....
Gates vs. GM
For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on.
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, 'If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........Twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single 'This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation' warning light.I love the next one!!!
7. The airbag system would ask 'Are you sure?' before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10. You'd have to press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off.
Gates vs. GM
For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on.
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, 'If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........Twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single 'This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation' warning light.I love the next one!!!
7. The airbag system would ask 'Are you sure?' before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10. You'd have to press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Stormy weather
I enjoyed watching the storms this weekend, listening to the thunder and lightening. Most of my weekends are spent running around picking out stuff for the new house, seeing friends and family. With the severe storms, we spent a lot of time at home this weekend. It was very relaxing lounging around - I even took a nap! And I got a lot of work from the office done too...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Crappy Car
On occasion I've been told that I'm full of crap, but today, I literally was.
My misfortune with vehicles continues. I was peacefully driving my car 60 mph down the Beltline in the right lane, just 1/2 mile before my exit. Suddenly, the SUV in front of me swerved sharply to the left revealing what looked to be a large patch of mud covering the entire right lane for several yards. I quickly checked my blindspot -- drat, couldn't switch lanes because a car was hovering right behind my bumper in the middle lane. Looked behind, but couldn't slow down quickly because another car is right behind me. I had to drive through it. It was so deep, that it was slippery. Then the wave of stench hit me! That's right -- it was CRAP. A manure truck must have had a mishap on the Beltline.
I literally had to bunch up my shirt and hold it over my face to avoid gagging and vomiting until I could get to the nearest car wash. Two super deluxe washes (with underbody flush) later, my car still stinks. I need a shower - I feel like my hair and skin have absorbed the stench.
I'll chalk this up to the craptastic living that you can only find in Wisconsin.
My misfortune with vehicles continues. I was peacefully driving my car 60 mph down the Beltline in the right lane, just 1/2 mile before my exit. Suddenly, the SUV in front of me swerved sharply to the left revealing what looked to be a large patch of mud covering the entire right lane for several yards. I quickly checked my blindspot -- drat, couldn't switch lanes because a car was hovering right behind my bumper in the middle lane. Looked behind, but couldn't slow down quickly because another car is right behind me. I had to drive through it. It was so deep, that it was slippery. Then the wave of stench hit me! That's right -- it was CRAP. A manure truck must have had a mishap on the Beltline.
I literally had to bunch up my shirt and hold it over my face to avoid gagging and vomiting until I could get to the nearest car wash. Two super deluxe washes (with underbody flush) later, my car still stinks. I need a shower - I feel like my hair and skin have absorbed the stench.
I'll chalk this up to the craptastic living that you can only find in Wisconsin.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
McCain the Copy-Cat
What the F%@K?? Does McCain have one iota of originality??
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has been using the slogan "Change We Can Believe In" since he launched his bid. His rallies began and still use a chant of "Yes We Can". These basic slogans never changed based upon the fleeting public opinion or sound bite media coverage.
Hillary Clinton used slogans of "Hillary Clinton for President", then "Ready on Day One", and finally "Solutions for America". Her rallies even changed their chanting to "Yes She Will".
Then there is good 'ol John McCain, launching his campaign with the slogan of "Time for a Real Hero", which was quickly changed to "Ready From Day One" due to anti-war sentiment. Now, he had the audacity to break out a new mantra of "A Leader We Can Believe In". He's jumped onto the "change" bandwagon and is claiming to be the REAL candidate of change... the right change, not the wrong change. WTF?? I guess he has proven he can change one word of an opponent's slogan and call it his own.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has been using the slogan "Change We Can Believe In" since he launched his bid. His rallies began and still use a chant of "Yes We Can". These basic slogans never changed based upon the fleeting public opinion or sound bite media coverage.
Hillary Clinton used slogans of "Hillary Clinton for President", then "Ready on Day One", and finally "Solutions for America". Her rallies even changed their chanting to "Yes She Will".
Then there is good 'ol John McCain, launching his campaign with the slogan of "Time for a Real Hero", which was quickly changed to "Ready From Day One" due to anti-war sentiment. Now, he had the audacity to break out a new mantra of "A Leader We Can Believe In". He's jumped onto the "change" bandwagon and is claiming to be the REAL candidate of change... the right change, not the wrong change. WTF?? I guess he has proven he can change one word of an opponent's slogan and call it his own.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The "Popular Vote"
Last year, Hillary Clinton's team adamantly stated "its about delegates, not the number of states, not the popular vote, not how many caucuses you win... it's about getting the right number of delegates". Hmmm, really?? Now, it seems the Hillary camp is all about asserting the idea that she should be the democratic nominee because she has "won the popular vote". When you look under the covers, Camp Hillary doesn't quite count all of the votes in her calculation of the "popular vote".. including seven primaries! Below is a copy of Rachel Maddow's recent blog... (She can be found on 92.1 FM in Madison or at http://airamerica.com/maddow)
I'm so TIRED of our politicians and media skewing information so that the mass population is kept uninformed and confused...
******************************************
Maddow: Popular Vote
By Rachel Maddow
One of the potential outcomes from yesterday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting was that there would be doubt cast on the "magic number" of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. That didn't happen. There is an agreed-upon magic number: 2118.
If there hadn't been a new agreed-upon magic number after yesterday's meeting, the Clinton campaign could argue that she should stay in because no one has clinched the nomination.
Now that there is an agreed-upon magic number, will Clinton agree to leave the race after Obama reaches that magic number?
No.
Clinton adviser Harold Ickes on Meet the Press this morning would not agree that if Obama achieves 2118 delegates, Clinton will concede. He said instead that he does not believe that Obama will achieve that milestone (I don't believe in smaller-than-standard spare tires, but apparently they do exist).
Now the campaign has unveiled their new ad -- about how she's winning the popular vote.
I'm at MSNBC and am having trouble with html here -- the link to the ad is here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/new_hillary_ad_i...
The Clinton Campaign spokespeople are in lockstep explaining how Clinton's winning the nomination because she's winning the popular vote. They're apparently going to keep claiming that even after Obama reaches 2118 delegates.
Here's my question.
If a popular vote victory is going to be considered important enough that it precludes a concession from Clinton even after Obama apparently clinches the nomination (by winning 2118 delegates)... then, um, I think I have to raise an uncomfortable fact about how the "popular vote" is being tallied.
Chuck Todd just explained on MSNBC that the tally being used by the Clinton campaign to explain its popular vote victory... does not include:
GUAM
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DEMOCRATS' ABROAD
WASHINGTON STATE
MAINE
In addition, the popular vote tally only includes estimates of the vote total in:
NEVADA
IOWA
For the record, Obama won six of those seven contests (Clinton won the Nevada caucuses).
How on earth can you justify a popular vote "victory" that includes vote tallies from Michigan, but not six within-the-rules, legal contests that Obama won?
I think it's hoopty to accept the popular vote as ar elevant primary measurement anyway -- but to buy the *tally* that doesn't count six contests that Obama won? That's honestly bizarre.
Rachel
I'm so TIRED of our politicians and media skewing information so that the mass population is kept uninformed and confused...
******************************************
Maddow: Popular Vote
By Rachel Maddow
One of the potential outcomes from yesterday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting was that there would be doubt cast on the "magic number" of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. That didn't happen. There is an agreed-upon magic number: 2118.
If there hadn't been a new agreed-upon magic number after yesterday's meeting, the Clinton campaign could argue that she should stay in because no one has clinched the nomination.
Now that there is an agreed-upon magic number, will Clinton agree to leave the race after Obama reaches that magic number?
No.
Clinton adviser Harold Ickes on Meet the Press this morning would not agree that if Obama achieves 2118 delegates, Clinton will concede. He said instead that he does not believe that Obama will achieve that milestone (I don't believe in smaller-than-standard spare tires, but apparently they do exist).
Now the campaign has unveiled their new ad -- about how she's winning the popular vote.
I'm at MSNBC and am having trouble with html here -- the link to the ad is here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/new_hillary_ad_i...
The Clinton Campaign spokespeople are in lockstep explaining how Clinton's winning the nomination because she's winning the popular vote. They're apparently going to keep claiming that even after Obama reaches 2118 delegates.
Here's my question.
If a popular vote victory is going to be considered important enough that it precludes a concession from Clinton even after Obama apparently clinches the nomination (by winning 2118 delegates)... then, um, I think I have to raise an uncomfortable fact about how the "popular vote" is being tallied.
Chuck Todd just explained on MSNBC that the tally being used by the Clinton campaign to explain its popular vote victory... does not include:
GUAM
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DEMOCRATS' ABROAD
WASHINGTON STATE
MAINE
In addition, the popular vote tally only includes estimates of the vote total in:
NEVADA
IOWA
For the record, Obama won six of those seven contests (Clinton won the Nevada caucuses).
How on earth can you justify a popular vote "victory" that includes vote tallies from Michigan, but not six within-the-rules, legal contests that Obama won?
I think it's hoopty to accept the popular vote as ar elevant primary measurement anyway -- but to buy the *tally* that doesn't count six contests that Obama won? That's honestly bizarre.
Rachel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
