Permacarn’s Weblog

A Permanent Blog Carnival

Scott McLellan Says Bush Veered Off Course In Iraq

You can expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing happening in the coming weeks and months and years. McLellan says in his forthcoming book that the Bush administration “veered terribly off course” in Iraq. This from the man who stood in front of the press from 2003 to 2006 and defended the actions of the administration. Why would a man who worked so hard and for so long for the Bush administration wait until now to make known his feelings?

Perhaps it has to do with him trying to regain his credibility. In his book What Happened McLellan said that in October 2003 his assertion that Rove and Libby were not involved in the ouster of CIA operative Valerie Plame were untrue and that he had unknowingly provided that false information and points the finger of blame directly at the president and his closest advisors.

Look forward to Scott McLellan’s character assassination.

Advertisements

May 27, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Horrible Blog

I enjoy the fact that I can surf around the community of weblogs on wordpress and engage in discussion and debate with people who share my views as well as those who completely disagree. I’ll even go so far as to put links to their blogs on my page when they reply to my comments, even if they don’t agree with me.

This evening I was reviewing some of the many posts and came across a site that, in my opinion and the opinion of actual sourced documents, had some of their facts wrong. So I went about the process of reading several of their most recent posts and made my comments in the same demeanor that they were speaking in. I responded to their accusations, reminded them of the indiscretion of their own candidates within the Republican party, corrected some of their atrocious grammar, and I even conceded a few points to them. Then the replies came. I though I might be able to evoke a debate that would evolve into something more than outrageous accusations, but the tone they maintain throughout their site remained. They even marked one person as spam just because they didn’t agree with what they had to say. No sooner did I discover this pathetic tactic did I realize that the comments I made on their site disappeared alltogether. I then looked over their site and found that their were actually quite few comments. Which could mean a few things; 1) they are a Nazi or communist and refuse to post comments that go against their political ideology or are weak enough to rebut, 2) they don’t have many people visiting their site (which would give me solace), or 3) people get to the site and because of their horrible grammar and writing ability their visitors are unable read or are given a headache upon doing so. I’m not exactly sure where they are from or what demographic they represent. Their use of the English language is weaker than some of the illegals that I worked with in the kitchens of the campus restaurant as a college student. Anyway, if you feel like getting censored by an ignoramous or reading titles that ALL end in exclamation points go to goodtimepolitics.com.

Ok, so I’m editing this post to include word for word this loons response to me calling him out.

Permacarn said 30 minutes ago:

Deleting comments and marking the comments of others as spam who do not share your point of view is pathetic. I wrote about why you suck at permacarn.wordpress.com

goodtimepolitics said 10 minutes ago:

permacarn your answer and your last answer as you will not be making comments on my blog again!
Good that you did write about your sucking blog! Because I’m not going to sit here and argue with some far left nut that makes a three word comment of nonsense!
You have a good blogging time! )

Judging from this weird and gramatically confused response I can only assume that the person writing this blog is the dog in the picture or an eight year old with an abusive Republican dad who hits him with closed fists and only says the crazy things he does so that he can compete with Rush Limbaugh for attention. “Daddy, I wrote a blog about how Obama is Muslim today!” “Shut up! (slap) Fox News is on!” I am no longer mad at the author of goodtimepolitics.com. I now feel very sorry for him.

Disclaimer- I don’t think all Republicans are this stupid. Frankly, I’ve never come across one more stupid. I am also cognizant of young boys with abusive Democratic fathers who hit them with closed fists and only say the crazy things they do so that they can compete with CNN for his attention. “Daddy, I wrote how McCain had an illegitimate child with a black woman today!” “Shut up! (slap) The Situation Room is on!”

May 25, 2008 Posted by | Horrible Blogs | | Leave a comment

Why Not To Vote For John McCain

In these videos you’ll see the reason why no one should vote for John McCain.

You’ll also see and hear a few other interesting things.

This video shows how much McCain hated Bush after losing to him in the 2000 Republican primaries. But he still goes on to endorse him 5 times in a row. We also hear a familiar theme in the realm of spiritual advisors where George Bush is pressured to repudiate what pastor Pat Robertson was saying about a McCain vice presidency. McCain seemed quite upset when forced to say he wished not to be considered for vice president. I wonder how much different our country would be if McCain had been elected president in 2000, before 9/11. And doesn’t John King from CNN look young?

This video shows George Bush endorsing John McCain and McCain gratiously accepting and looking forward to campaigning with him once again in whatever capacity our busy president can muster. It will be interesting to see how little Bush actually campaigns as John McCain should seek to distance himself as much as possible from George Bush. But that’s pretty much impossible considering McCain endorsed and campaigned for George Bush… twice.

 

 

May 22, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , | Leave a comment

McCain (Finally) Rejects John C. Hagee’s Endorsement

So after actively seeking controversial pastor John C. Hagee’s endorsement, then regretting doing so but being glad to have it, John McCain has decided it’s time to reject it. I wonder what exactly it was that drove McCain to do so? Hagee’s recent acknowledgement that Katrina was punishment brought down upon the people of  New Orleans for a gay parade of large scale (Gee, I didn’t know God had collateral damage when he’s divying out his wrath)? Or was it that Hagee believes Hitler was a messenger of God and killed all those millions of jews so that they could be sent back to the promised land of Israel?

I suspect this is going to upset a lot of Evangelicals who are fans of Hagee’s. I wonder how McCain is going to go about courting the Evangelical vote now. Maybe some other “agent of intolerance”?

Apparently it has upset Hagee enough to say “You can’t reject my endorsement… because I withdraw it!” He released a statement soon after CNN reported McCain’s rejection saying that he would remain outside of the 2008 election.

May 22, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , | 2 Comments

Crap Videos

This video finally explains in a soft and fuzzy kinda way the malicious reason Clinton is still running.

I never thought I would see a video of Michelle Obama with Metallica playing in the background. But, there it is. True Republican BS.

May 22, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Supporters And The Tale Of The Three Candy Bars

So if you watch CNN or any other news network for that matter and have been paying attention to the Democratic Primaries in any way you’ve probably heard pundits report that alot of Hillary Clinton supporters are saying that they wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama if he were the nominee. So I wanted to come up with a way to explain to those people why they should just chillax for a minute and change their eagerly and overly resentful attitude. I doubt it will have much of an effect but perhaps will give pause.

So you’re in a group of people who combined have just the right amount of money to buy a candy bar and you’ve got a choice between three kinds. There’s the one you really like thats got all the good stuff in it you like. Then there’s the one thats kinda similar to your favorite, a few ingredients are different but the basic formula is still there. Then there’s the one you’re allergic to. You ate one a while back and you had a severe reaction to it. So you vote for the one you really like. But there’s a split decision in the majority of the group between your second favorite that has a few different ingredients and the one you really don’t like. Your favorite candy bar is no longer a choice and you’re foced to recast your vote for the two remaining. One of your friends whom you most recently got into a tiff with is on the side that wants your second favorite and is trying to convince the group to go for that one. They really don’t want that third candy bar. So out of spite you forget your allergic reaction and vote for your least favorite. The group that wanted the bad candy bar won it with your vote and you were stuck with a candy bar that makes you sick.     

So here’s the breakdown. Hillary Clinton is your favorite candy bar. Barack Obama is the candy bar that has a few different ingredients but has the same basic formula. Politically, the two are similar except on a few issues like Health Care and foreign relations. John McCain is the third candy bar that you had an allergic reaction to. The metaphorical allergies of which I speak are the policies of a Republican administration. The last eight years have been a true test of our nation and of its leaders and it appears our leaders have failed our nation. A John McCain candy bar (administration) would no doubt bring on the same allergic reaction you experienced in the past.

The tiff spoken of in this parable that you had with your friend was the Democratic Primary. Its been hard on all of us as Democratic voters to see the candidate we love to be spoken of badly. But thats no reason to go voting for the completely opposite thing that you know is bad when it comes to politics or candy bars.

May 21, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Chris Matthews Schools Kevin James

Usually I can’t stand the sound of Chris Matthews’ voice. After about three minutes it begins to sound like nails on a chalkboard. But seeing what he did to conservative commentator Kevin James on Hardball tonight brought a smile to my face and I was able to deal with the chalkboard for the rest of the evening and I will no doubt be replaying the clip over and over.

It all started when Kevin James came on and began saying that Obama’s suggestion that he would engage in diplomatic discussions with Iran was comparable to what Neville Chamberlain did prior to WWII. I expected alot more out of Kevin James. I know a lot of conservatives who just walk around repeating what they hear on Fox News or their favorite conservative radio talk show. Apparently Kevin James is just as ignorant. When asked what it was Chamberlain did that would provoke such a comparison, he merely repeated over and over “he was an appeaser.” Matthews didn’t necessarily disagree that Chamberlain was an appeaser, but he put James to task so that we could better understand just how engaging in discussions with Iran was like giving Hitler half of Czechoslovakia. Apparently James had absolutely no idea what Chamberlain did, and thank goodness Matthews was intelligent enough to call him out on it. But the three people were referring to different dates and presidents when it came to the attack on the USS Cole one year before 9/11. Factually, it occurred under the last two months of the Clinton administration in October of 2000. But when Kevin James states that 9/11 was a result of inaction on the part of the Clinton administration, the USS Cole argument is weak. The effort in response to the USS Cole would have ultimately fallen in the hands of the Bush administration.

So what exactly does this word that everyone’s been throwing around, appeasement, mean? In the instance that Bush used it, I would prefer to use the first two definitions. They’re warm and fuzzy like “bring to a state of peace” and “relieve.” But the third definition is a nasty one; “to yield to the billigerent demands of a nation in a cinciliatory effort, at the expense of justice or other principles.” Definitely the definition Bush and James were using.

It’s interesting to see how conservative bloggers are defending James. Take a look around at some conservative blogs. When you watch the video, its hard not to feel sorry for anyone trying to defend Kevin James. Oh, and be careful when you search for Kevin James, the guy who played Doug on The King of Queens shares the same name, but probably not the same ideology.

May 15, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan tonight said that the only reason Barack Obama is close to clinching the nomination of the Democratic party is because he’s black. “If Barack Obama were not African-American, John Edwards would have defeated him. Geraldine Ferraro, while taking a lot of heat, was right in what she said. She spoke the truth.” What is it about Obama being black that people feel has been so key to his success? Is it the fact that he’s received a huge majority of the black vote? Because black people have been voting for white people for years and to say that they would have all gone to someone else is not realistic. And who is ANYONE ANYWHERE EVER to say what or who someone would be if  their races were reversed? We should put Black Like Me on Pat Buchanan’s “to read” list.

Buchanan also rambled about how the media coverage has been unfair to West Virginians, “you’re sitting here calling them poor and uneducated or half-educated…” In fact, in comparison to the rest of the country, WV is last in everything good (literacy rates) and first in everything bad (poverty). It’s funny that Buchanan demands the “truth” be spoken with something as unknowable as who or where Barack Obama would be if he were white, but when it comes to the facts of the state of WV, he demands a level of courtesy that Clinton refuses to extend to states she lost to Obama. I recall her campaign saying things along the lines of “those states that Obama won are small and don’t matter. We’re looking at the big states that matter in the general election.” Maybe they should have run their campaign like they were in a primary and not a general election like Obama did. Sure he won small states that aren’t huge players in the general election, but Clinton’s argument that she won states vital to the Democrats in November and she should be the nominee because she did good in those states is weak and has been weakening since Indiana and North Carolina. But we’re reminded of the same point made before; this is not the general election. More and more people are beginning to see through the parallels that Clinton is trying to draw between what happened in the primaries to what will happen in November.

 

May 14, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , | 1 Comment

John Edwards Endorses Obama

CNN is reporting that John Edwards is set to endorse Barack Obama. It will be interesting to hear the reaction from the Clinton campaign. Recall James Carville’s likening Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Obama to Judas’s betrayal of Jesus. There are no holidays in coming days that would allow for a convenient metaphor, but then again Edwards doesn’t have the history with the Clintons that Richardson did so betrayal is not the word. Perhaps the Clinton’s will say it just makes sense. Despite having been defeated by Clinton in W.V. by a huge margin, Obama still has more pledged and superdelegates. Oh, and she still thinks that MI should be seated the way the votes came in even though Obama wasn’t on the ballot. Has anyone told her that she still wouldn’t win even if they were seated the way the votes came in?

In Republican news 15% of Republicans in W.V. voted for someone other than John McCain even though he is the Republican nominee and none of the other candidates are campaigning and have all endorsed McCain (except Ron Paul). Personally, I think this is much more interesting than Edwards’ endorsement.

May 14, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Windows XP SP3

I read about Microsoft’s Service Pack 3 in a few blogs and they say that you won’t not notice much difference in performance. But I wasn’t sure what kind of Service Pack I was running and if it might do me some good to get one so I went about downloading SP3. Here’s what happened.

After I completed a backup of my files I proceeded to complete the download and followed the command to restart. My computer successfully shut down and began to restart. A command prompt appeared telling me that Windows failed to start successfully and gave me instructions on how to choose between starting Windows normally or starting windows with the last known configuration that worked. After staring at the screen in confusion for the thirty seconds thats allowed to select a command my computer restarted again. “OK,” I thought “I’d better select one of the two commands.” So I started Windows normally and my computer restarted and came back to the command prompt telling me that Windows failed to start successfully. So I chose to start Windows with the last known configuration to work successfully. And my computer restarted again bringing me back to where I started. In shock and hoping my backup was completely successfull and staring at a half empty glass I allowed my computer to restart a few more times as I reviewed my options.

There were three safe mode options; safe mode, safe mode on network, and some other one I can’t remember. In haste and desperation I chose the first option, safe mode. Windows successfully opened with a larger pixel size and gave me the option to restore my system. I followed the prompts to restore from the date and time of the Windows XP SP3 update and after my computer shut down I crossed my fingers. Once my monitor adjusted I watched with my heart pounding in my chest as Windows finally opened as usual. No where in Microsoft’s tutorials do they say a system restore is necessary.

I defragmented my drive about two weeks ago but wanted to see how fragmented my C: drive became after the update. It took just about as long to defragment my drive as it did a couple weeks ago to defragment after a years worth of Word documents and music downloads. Now I hope to reap the rewards of a safer and faster system after having gone through such a traumatic experience involving unguided system restoration.  

Read a similar horror story at undisputedtruth.

May 7, 2008 Posted by | Technology | , , , | Leave a comment