Sarah Connor is on TV this fall

and she's played by the same actress that was Leonidas's wife in "300". And I think that the young girl is the same one from the movie "Serenity"

Classic moments from Ari Gold Superagent

Ron Paul on CNN Sunday Edition

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson

Things to think about

From economist Walter Williams:

Question: What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common?

Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones."

So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

I've always liked him.

Pat Buchanon defends Ron Paul

From Worldnetdaily.com:

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

Is he right?

Breakdancing and Babies

withleather has video of a baby tragically getting kicked when he wanders into the path of a rogue break dancer:




well that wasn't the end of the story. Someone took the footage and edited it for clarity, and I can't... stop...laughing. I'm going to hell.

Ron Paul

I'm posting the comments I've made at www.ace.mu.nu because it's a crapload of typing I did over there in reaction to Ron Paul at the debate. I tried to format it and fix some links that were broken. You can see the whole thread here:


My original comment:

I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict
constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally
declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending
troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be
douched.

It bothers me that we, as a party, want to send judges to the Supreme
Court who will follow the the Constitution to the letter but when it comes to
electing a President or Congress it doesn't apply.
Posted by: Randolphus at
May 16, 2007 03:48 AM (5naUR)

171 I'm putting my
support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I
don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11
against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if
necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.

How do you reconcile that
belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on
foreign policy very clear last night.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007
09:15 AM (R8+nJ)

172 I don't care how
many advanced degrees he has, anyone who believes what Paul said last night, is
a moron. And anyone who thinks that Paul believes exactly the opposite of
what he said, is also a moron. People like Paul, and anyone who plays
apologist for him, should be shunned.And don't bother with the fancy latin words
for name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes it really is that
simple. Truther = Moron.
Posted by: Mob at May 16, 2007 10:19 AM
(f+cPk)

173 I don't think
for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida
Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to
whatever craphole needed to be douched.

So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably
open-ended military acts of war against other powers? I did not notice the
Constitution's required form for a declaration of war. Is it in an
appendix maybe?

As for the "debate" over whether an MD can be a moron, some ideas
are so amazingly dumb they seem to require advanced degrees for people to
promote them.
Posted by: VRWC Agent, BA, BA, JD at May 16, 2007 12:51 PM
(Z3AmO)

174
I'm
putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist"
candidate.

Being a strict constructionist doesn't come close to excusing The
Crazy. I'd love to see the federal government return to performing only
those powers allowed for in the Constitution and the end of the 10th Amendment
being ignored, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it sure as hell
isn't going to happen under Ron Paul.
In closing- Fuck You for supporting
this Blame America First Truther douchebag.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 16,
2007 01:16 PM (plsiE)

175 How do you
reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his
views on foreign policy very clear last night.

I believe that since he's a
strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was
declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as
President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow
the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what
makes him appealing.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007
01:20 PM (5naUR)

176 So exactly what
do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are
unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers?

An abdication of Congress in its duty. By authorizing military force, it gives
Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the
President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no,
not it depends.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM
(5naUR)

177 I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war
if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his
duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't
follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is
what makes him appealing.

Where in the Constitution does it spell
out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a
problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his
refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of
isolationism.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (R8+nJ)

178 By authorizing
military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can
be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to
say yes or no, not it depends.

Huh? Sorry, dude, but
authorizing the use of military force against someone is a declaration of
war. Unless you believe it is possible to blast an enemy's infantry, raze
their buildings and roll tanks down the streets of their capitol without making
war on them. The Constitution does not require a magic phrase to be
uttered when war is declared and no magic phrase would prevent the traitorous
left from undermining any war in which our interests are at stake. Had the
war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.Your
argument is silly.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 16, 2007 08:34 PM (gjy1/)

179 Had the war
resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.

The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's
Surveillance Authority, indicates there is a distinction:
GONZALES: There was
not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an
authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there
are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're
possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is
a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war
declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
force.

There is absolutely a difference between an AUMF and a
declaration of war (which grants much more power to the Executive
branch). One of the biggest being that Congress doesn't have as much room to
politicize the prosecution of the war. If you look at our declaration of
war against Germany in 1941, you can see that the language has no caveats.
Compare that to the AUMF in Iraq. I would argue that with a formal war declaration, criticisms such as warrantless wiretaps, and holding terror suspects in Guantanamo would have been neutralized to a certain extent because there is justification in doing so http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF see page 3. Posted by: randolphus at May 17, 2007 03:03 AM
(5naUR)

180 Where in the
Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign
policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I
have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the
luxury of isolationism.

I don't think that non-interventionist and
isolationism are synonymous. Isolationism to me means we don't trade or have
contact with anyone outside of the US. Non-interventionist means to me we don't
get into places like Darfur, or Somalia, or Kosovo because it's none of our
business. We get our troops out of Europe and Japan and Korea and let them pay
for their own defense. We get out of the UN and kick them out of Turtle Bay. If
you want to trade with us, then lets trade. The other (and more
important) part of a non-interventionist policy would be to make it clear
that if you fuck with us then we turn into Denzel in "Man on Fire" and tear
apart who ever it is and their families piece by piece. The failure of
Clinton's foreign policy was that terror groups thought they could strike us
(and they did) and our response would be weak (and it was). So much so that on
9/11 there was footage on the news from some country (in the Middle East) where
people were out in the streets cheering. If there were any other blatant sign of
our foreign policy shortcomings at that time I can't think of it. The only
reactions that I should have seen on the news that day were expressions of
sympathy and allegiance with us. Or, silence because of the collective worry
and "oh shit we shouldn't have done that" that was going through the minds
of our enemies from what our response was going to be.

The Debate

Sean Hannity is a douche bag - the debate is for the candidates to go after each other...

Governor Thompson sort of has a "deer in the headlights" look in response to his question, his answer not so great...

Dr. Paul hit it on the head with his response "why didn't we declare war?"

McCain reused his drunken sailor joke, it got a better reaction this time...

"Congress spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop." Huckabee has the line of the night so far...

Congressman Brownback gives an impassioned plea against abortion...

Is there really such a thing as "tamper proof ID card?"

Ron Paul has his Achilles heel with the Iraq war at least within the GOP...

Tancredo is looking for Jack Bauer, score. A lot better showing for him than last time.

Overall, a much better debate format from FOX than MSNBC. You could see the candidates really go after each other.

Michael Moore vs. Fred Thompson

Michael Moore challenges Law and Order actor (he hasn't declared yet) Fred Thompson to a debate. From Drudgereport

Fred Thompson responds

The McLaughlin Group

I can't belief that this show is still on. McLaughlin is still bombastic, bullying, and right about 80 percent of the time.

Ron Paul for President

Why Ron Paul? Because he's the strict constructionist candidate with the track record in Congress that doesn't make me wretch. 2008 is going to be the election that will be a milestone for the GOP. Is the idea of individual freedom dead? Is out of control government spending and intrusion into its citizens lives the wave of the future? Are Romney, Giuliani, and McCain really what the mainstream of the GOP really want? Stay tuned.
My prediction is that Congressman Paul is going to make a lot of noise over the next year.

Watch this video:

Graduation Day

With the $80,000 drinking binge that was your college career now in the
rear-view mirror, you're looking forward to your new adult life with hope in
your eyes and a freshly-printed diploma in your hand.

courtesy of Cracked magazine

Check out the rest of the article here

20 Best Nike Commercials

Parlayer has a nice compilation of Nike commercials. Here's one of my favorites that didn't make the list:

More Yoga by Models

Jewish Girl Prank Calls Parents

This is pretty funny:



Jewish Girl Prank Calls Her Parents - Watch more free videos

Classic Video

Why? Because what is old is new. Milton Friedman is the man whose ideas relegated Keynes to the ideological and historical dustbin. We need to keep Keynes there.

Milton Friedman:




Gore Vidal vs. William F Buckley - A discussion about the Constitutional right to assembly turns into Vidal calling Buckley a "crypto nazi" and Buckley in turn responding by calling Vidal a "queer" Hat tip "Hot Air"

Why not a Strict Constructionist for President?

The candidate labelled by Peggy Noonan as "obscure but intellectually serious" Ron Paul has hit a chord with the political junkies who pay attention to debates conducted 18 months before an election. His message, based on initial readings of an informal poll by MSNBC after the Republican debate last Thursday by supporters of the Congressman (including this blog) and others, show that a campaign run on adherence to the Constitution might have resonance for members of the party that had lost majority control in Congress in 2006. From the Ron Paul for President blog:

Paul realized a massive decrease in net negatives (a favored indicator early in the Primaries). This places Paul's negative rating the lowest among ALL CANDIDATES by far and his positive just ahead of 2nd place candidate Romney.

McCain and Giuliani both got hammered good on their positive rating 11% and 13% with Giuliani registering 5% more negatives than before the debates.

Romney seems to have helped himself improving both his positive and negative rating but these numbers indicate a coming out party for Ron Paul.

The Drudge Report had the Reagan Derby Poll that showed Congressman Paul came in 3rd place behind Romney and Giuliani after the debate. The gap between Giuliani and Paul in this vote was 2 percent (out of 102,805 votes)!

His message, and his voting record in Congress, appeal to the strict originalist that the conservative base looks for in Supreme Court nominees. Which begs this question: Why shouldn't our expectation of all branches of government be fidelity to the Constitution, especially from the Republican Party? Why isn't there more campaigning for strict constructionist Presidents and Congressman?

Take a look at some of the reaction from other conservative blogs on Ron Paul at the debate:

Ron Paul: Someone needs to be a friend to this man and tell him to go home
now.
Heading Right

Ron Paul also showed that he should depart the race as quickly as possible.
He gave one-note answers about federalism and the original intent of the
founders for every question asked of him.
Captains Quarters

Ron Paul… sigh, yes, thank you for telling us how a libertarian idealist
would do it.
National Review Online

Based on those reactions, mainstream conservative blogs weren't too impressed by the Congressman from Texas. To which I would say, "If its good enough for the Supreme Court, it should be good enough for the President!" (I give permission for the Paul campaign to use that as a blurb)

Yoga, models, and the internet

Ford Models has a youtube channel that has clips of models doing various things. Anyway, I found three that have a model doing yoga. She's cute in a goofy, nerdy, sort of way. But you can see she's very flexible. Also, as someone who is also a model and into yoga, I can tell you that the handstands are tough. Good job!

So, aside from the mental and physical benefits that yoga can deliver what else can yoga do? Why fight off two highly trained kung fu masters of course:

The MSNBC "debate"

Reaction! I want to hear from you:

The questions that were asked of the candidates for the most part were dumb. Especially the ones that were read from the website politico.com

Chris Matthews was the worst choice possible as moderator. Keith Olbermann doing the post debate show? Ridiculous. Lucianne.com had quoteworthy commentary:

The democratic candidates wouldn't go on Fox because they said Brit Hume is
biased. But, they have no problem whatsoever with letting Chris Matthews host
the republican candidates who had the decency to appear on MSNBC.

Here was one of the last questions that Matthews asked last night at the Republican debate: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” No bias at all. At the next debate, the moderator should ask the candidates "Would it be good for America to have Carter back living in the White House?"

Mitt Romney came across as very presidential, but he reminded me a little too much of George Hamilton: a little too polished and too slick.

Ron Paul is the dark horse candidate, a lot of his positions do not hold sway with the social conservatives of the Republican party, however, his stances appeal to the activist/internet generation. Which skews, I believe a lot more libertarian anyways. The war in Iraq would be the achilles heel for obtaining the nomination for Dr. Paul in the sense that most of the Republican party is wedded to staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. Dr. Paul's position on leaving immediately could be labeled as "cut and run" by his opponents.

No questions on nominating justices to the Supreme Court? If there were any comments about it I missed it.