re: Much ado about nothing

Dear Michelle, try not to get too worked up about Keith Obermann's rants. See, Michelle, this failed sports reporter has a show on MSNBC and chances are, your HOT AIR segments have much more viewers than any average night on that cable network.

re: Denial is more than a river in Egypt

Dear OJ. Congratulations on finally, FINALLY finding your wife Nichole's killer. I have to be honest, when you said you wouldn't rest until you found your wife's killer, I didn't think you'd be able to pull it off. I mean, having spent over a decade looking at every golf course in America must've been a frustrating search. And who knew that the killer was literally stairing you right in the face every morning in the bathroom mirror? Oh yeah, that's right, the majority of Americans knew.

All it took was finally coming clean, writing a book and getting a Fox News special for you to admit it.

The Glove may not fit, but innocent people don't run either.

re: Just so you know ...

When you voted to oust your Republican or Senator, you gave Speaker to be Nancy Pelosi your wallet and agreed with her that you aren't getting taxed enough.
Just so you know.

When you kicked the bumbs out you gave our enemies hope that more terrorism will cause us to run away in fear. Told our new Iraqi allies they're on their own, slug it out. And our Middle Eastern Allies we'll cut and run like we did in Vietnam.
Just so you know.

When you punted and gave the left back control of Congress, you forgot that the last time it happened, it took us 40 years to get it back.
Just so you know.

When you gave critics of the war on Terror the power of the purse, you agreed with John Murtha, Dick Durbin and Cindy Sheehan that American Soldiers are war criminals.
Just so you know.

When you voted Democrat last night, you told John Kerry you also think our soldiers are stupid.
Just so you know.

When you went into that voting booth and checked the name with the (D) next to his name, you said agreed that the constant drumbeat of criticism was far more important than the lives of our soldiers serving in Irfaq.
Just so you know.

When you "threw a fit" as Peter Jennings called it, and removed good conservatives like Santorum and Allen, you told another 40 million unborn babies that they would die, that judicial appointments that could save them were not as important as proving a point
Just so you know.

When you gave the Senate Manjority Leadership to Hillary Clinton, you agreed with what the definition of "is" is.
Just so you know.

When you gave control of the House to the Democrats, you told Alcy Hastings that it was okay to turn your back on the law and extort people for money and then run the House Intelligence Committee.
Just so you know.

When you put both Pat Lehey and Charles Rangel in charge of the judicial committees, you said that judges weren't really important to you. Never mind that you told President Bush it was when you reelected him. And as such, you forfeited a child being able to say the pledge of allegiance with "one nation under god," but told her she could get an abortion without telling her parents.
Just so you know.

When you made this great point, you took away the tools we use to fight the war on terror. No domestic surveillance. No agressive interrogation. No keeping of the worst of the worst at Gitmo. No letting various government agencies like the FBI and the CIA share information.
Just so you know.

When you took control of the Congress away from Conversatives and gave it to the liberals, you albeit guaranteed illegal immigration would not only continue, but increase. You gave your support to driver's licenses for illegals. In state tuitution for illegals. Free health care for illegals. Welfare for illegals. And you rendered citizenship pointless.
Just so you know.

When you decided to leave the party for one night and give Democrats the controll of Congress, you agreed with them on the Minimum Wage, Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage, the War in Iraq, Higher Taxes, a weaker defense, no prayer in school, legalization of drugs,
Just so you know.

When you refused to vote for the name Foley and his last minute replacement, you told Republicans they would be held accountable while similar Democrat members of the House could get a pass and that's okay.
Just so you know.

When you decided that the GOP was more in need of a good shelakin', to learn a lesson, you abaondoned the principles you believe in.
Just so you know.

When you took the chairmanships away from the GOP and gave them to far left Democrats beholdin to the gang at Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, you put the "I" word in play.
Just so you know.

And worse of all, when you gave away Congress and told Michael Moore he had a point.

Now of course, you don't really support the left's agenda and you don't really believe in their views on taxes, abortion, national security, or even illegal immigration. But last night, you cast your lot with them. You took a step across the isle and turned your back on the Reagan revolution.

And when you do that, what difference does it make what you really believe in? You sold out. In in the next two years, that will have consequences.
Just. So. You. Know.

re: Fumbles and bad timing

Dear Mr. President. I hope to make this short and sweet. I think it's good that you've decided a new perspective in needed for the Secretary of Defense and I give my thanks and appreciation to Secretary Rumsfeld for his service.

However, Mr. President, I just feel the need to point out that in your press conference today, you said you talked to his nominated successor on Sunday about the job and had several conversations with Rumsfeld leading up to it. You know, if you had told America you were making a change and going to the bullpen BEFORE the election, we might have been able to stem the bleeding and hold on to half of Congress. Probably not. But considering how many elections were close, it may have been just enough to keep the Senate.

Now you may have felt it important to keep leadership of the war out of politics for the sake of the troops, and you would be correct in that. But I think it's pretty clear that somewhere, someone "misunderestimated."

re: Congratulations on your Victory, Condolences for your Loss

Dear Senator Clinton. Heartiest congratultions on your re-election victory in the Senate and your party's sweeping victory in the House, and perhaps the Senate. Word on the street is that you are a likely candidate for Senate Majority Leader should the point tip.

But I also want to offer my sincerest condolences on your presidential loss in 2008. While it is the worst kept secret in Washington that you plan to run for your party's nomination for President, it's also the worst kept secret in the country that to run as a sitting Senator and be elected as this nation's president is statistically, and historically extremely unlikely. Since you were born, the following Senators have tried for the White House and failed: Thomas E. Dewey, J. Strom Thurmond, Adlai E. Stevenson, Barry M. Goldwater, Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern, Eugene J. McCarthy, Walter F. Mondale, Robert J. Dole, John F. Kerry. Notice how the lion's share of those are Democrats? In fact, a Senator hasn't won the White House since 1960.

See, as history has shown us, Americans prefer Governors as our presidents and not Senators. Politicians outside the Beltway, rather than political insiders.

So, you may have been better served to inherit the Governor's mansion in Albany from George Pataki and fill out change of address forms instead of running from the Beltway and the Senator Leadership. Being Governor of New York would've afforded you the Rooseveltian street cred you need to establish yourself as a political outsider while preserving your national presence.

But instead, you went chose the Beltway. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, I don't consider you insane, Madame Senator, but certainly choosing a wiser course would've benefited your Presidential hopes much better.

Romney anyone?

Re: Well played.

I noticed no complaints of about disenfranchisement today. Guess voters are only denied their rights when democrats win. Who cares that Ed Rendell had automatic voting in Pennsylvania (which was like Swanny looking up at the scoreboard before the Super Bowl and seeing the Cowboys up by 21), or that some Republican districts only had ballots enough for 10% of their registered voters, or that Republican Candidates offices were padlocked. The Democrats won!

And according to "Speaker" Pelosi, they are "ready to govern in a bipartisan way." Yeah, too bad they weren't ready during the last two years. For if they had been ready to govern instead of ready to campaign, there may have been more done inside the Beltway. Then again, that would've helped the Republicans, now wouldn't it?

But I'm not bitter. Time to look forward, learn the lessons, and get back to our roots. Just like in 1976. So my question is, who's the new Reagan waiting in the wings?

Romney anyone?

But one must remember, the opposite of progress is CONgress.

re:

You may want to, oh ... I don't know, wait until votes are actually COUNTED before you call a winner. I mean, we're talking #88 here.











And yes, he caught it.

If you don't want to go through this again ...



Then by all that is free ...






For as Ronaldus Magnus once said ...

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny ..." and we meet at dawn.

re: More from The Great Communicator

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then?

- Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing

And although this speech was given at the height of the cold war to refer to the evils of Communism, I believe it holds true to terrorism today, and directly confronts the historic blunders that come with appeasement.

For those who want to watch the Great Communicator tell it like it is, here you go.

And before your go to the polls, or choose to avoid them to make a point, I challenge each of you to think of what Ronald Reagan would have us do? Punish the GOP for disappointing you and putting appeasers in power? I don't think so. For to do so, as RR would say, could "or sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

re: You snooze, we lose.

#81. I'm sure you've been watching too much ESPN and starting to feel jealous that Chad Johnson is getting all the love from the boys at Bristol when it comes to commercial time. Sure, "Ocho Cinco" gets a lot of attention these days, but he doesn't drop potentially game winning touchdown passes in the 4th quarter, either.


I mean, that little stunt you pulled in the end zone, pretending to go to sleep with a football as a pillow would've made Joe Horn proud, but it could've been disasterous had the Redskins been able to take advantage of the field position you handed them.

But then, the very next pass you get - a wide open touchdown pass that would've put the kabosh on the game - you drop it. You had six, and and all you needed to do was keep your eye more on the ball and less on where the TV cameras were in the end zone. Instead, the Skins get the ball back and tie the game.

Leon, you don't get to the Ring of Honor (or Camden for that matter) playing shut-eye with the football, you get there catching game winning passes. So, do us a favor, spend more time on the basics, and less time on the theatrics.

re:

You may have wondered why I've posted handwriting here. Well, that's the handwriting of none other than President Ronald Reagan. He gave us some very wise words back in 1964 in dealing with another totalitarian threat during an election year.

And with a choice to be made in the ballot box, I can think of no better words for voters to consider than those of the Great Communicator.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

So, before you go to the polls on Tuesday, read one of the greatest speeches ever written by one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had ... A TIME FOR CHOOSING.

re: Webster said it best ...

I always thought that your mission was to promote your industry and protect your artists. But you seem so obsessed with legalities these days, that you have forgotten that you need to promote the business end of your industry. And you aren't doing it by losing on a mother and going after her children out of spite.

I think Webster said it best ...

1bul·ly
Pronunciation: 'bu-lE, 'b&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bullies
Etymology: probably from Middle Dutch boele lover; akin to Middle Low German bOle lover, Middle High German buole
1 a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker b : PIMP
2 : a hired ruffian

Forget about the fact that the most prestigious business school in the country released a study finding that bad music and overpriced albums has more of an impact on sales than filesharing does.

Good luck certifying gold and platinum record sales in the future. You obviously don't have time for it.

re: Numbers don't lie

Dear Ms. "Nice,"

On The View the other day, in a sad attempt to be a "moderator" between vicious Joyce Behar (who wouldn't know a fact if it hit her in the face) and survivor Elisabeth Hasselbeck, you stated:

"In October, we lost the most American troops ever ... 101 Americans were killed in a civil war in another country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and had no weapons on mass destruction."

I had no idea you were so up on US military combat casualty figures, Rosie. Because you stated it with so much passion and certainty, you had to have done some homework, right? Well, point in fact, what you said was unabashedly WRONG.

According to the Department of Defense, casualty figures for Iraq are amoungst the lowest of any war in our history. In fact, the US military casualties in Iraq are lower than one branch of service endured in World War II, much less the entire force.

In fact, Army Air Corps casualties for any one day in the Daylight Bombing campaign over Germany could easily number 10 times what happened in October in Iraq. We lost nearly 100,000 air crew from that campaign alone in an attempt cripple Germany's war machine.

In the Civil War, the combined casualties for one day of Gettysberg numbered in the thousands. And more died outside of combat from the Spanish American War than have in the entire Iraq conflict.

There are more soldiers listed as MIA from the entire Vietnam conflict and 1/4th of those MIA from the Korean action, than have died in Iraq.

In fact, from the just ONE DAY in World War II, D-Day, the conservative estimate of US and Allied Casualty figures were 8,443. FOUR TIMES as many as have died in 5 years in Iraq. More died in the Airborne offensive that day than on Omaha beach.

And finally, the American military looses more personnel every year to accidents in time of peace than have been lost in the entire Iraqi conflict.

So, when you spout off such epithets as "we lost the most American troops ever," you really should have your facts straight. Because while you may sound empassioned, you look awefully silly.

UPDATE: I think this video says it perfectly:

re: Opportunity Knocks ...

Dear Bill, now that you've turned the day to day operations of Microsoft off to others and are devoting your time to other things, it's time to have some fun. And fun can be had, and promote Microsoft's XBox at the same time.

Finance the Halo Movie, Bill. Peter Jackson wants to direct it. He's got Oscar cred. Halo is Huge. And people want well made Halo movies!



And when you make it available exclusively for Windows Movie Player download along with extra gaming features, you'll drive ... DRIVE people to XBox Live.

If you make it, Bill, they will come.

re: a Picture is worth a thousand words ...



Oh, and they would like to apolgize for having "botched the joke ..."