while reading this week's Rolling Stone in a waiting room.
1: For some reason Rolling Stone still thinks Kid Rock is relevant. I mean the cover is so full of cliches that it must be a parody of Kid Rock. He's surrounded by 4 implanted models in black lingerie, two of whom are staring at him with an unmistakable look of lust while the other two models are gazing at the other girls with that same lustful leer. It's really sad and the fact this is the "hot issue" I know I'm not the target audience but I really thought Rolling Stone tried to appeal to most demographics and not just frat types who view this cover as their fantasy and American Bad ass as their theme song.
Due: Sometimes I really don't think about things but just know them to be wrong. Like the Republican mantra " we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" it never really made sense to me, but I never thought about it- it was just one of those things that GWeeB always said so I just assumed it was dumb and wrong. But while reading Matt Tabibi's profile on John McCain's campaign and his questioning about why or how is that true "if the terrorists want to fight us here, how are we going to stop them by going to Iraq? Are we tying up air traffic controllers?" I think I understand the rationale- it's not we fight them over there so they can't come here, it's hopefully we kill them all so they can't, but you can't kill everyone of them and more will grow, and even if you kill all the organizers, you can't kill ideas and, in many areas the youth are more radical and gung ho than the elders. Then I thought, and I may be the only person who wold think this, but that since the goal of terrorists is to kill Americans, to humiliate America and basically destroy removing it from the Middle East, that are fighting them over there is almost a concesssion to them. That we will offer up the 150,000 or so American troops and others who will serve as targets, so that all terrorists or jihadist will come to Iraq seeing it as a hunting ground where they can kill and do their part to humiliate Americans, in a way keeping them busy with abundant targets in a more accessible location so they won't feel as strong a need to satisfy their thirst for American blood by coming over to the states, or attacking other targets. Like a trap, we lure them all there (except our closing mechanism is a little broken) And by offering the soldiers as sacrifices and potential sacrifices it is a very morbid and brutal mutual beneficial deal- regular American civilians aren't being bombed weekly at night clubs (see Israel) in exchange for extremists getting a chance to humiliate us on the world stage, leading to a loss of prestige and power and (probably eventually) driving us from the Middle East. (if that made any sense at all.)
C: i'm horrible at being a guy.
and Four:that Jerome Corsi, who was behind the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, fears John Edwards- though he may not see it that way. When asked to "swift boat" major democratic candidates, he labeled John Edwards as "The Emotional Basketcase"- from his analysis "The obvious thing about Edwards has already been done- the Breck Girl stuff, his vanity. I would go back to his medical malpractice cases and read them all closely; he tends to give emotionally driven presentations as if he is talking to a jury. I would push him to express his feelings. The more he does that the less the American People will trust him"
What? Is he trying to say that John's emotions are phony are that they are too real but Americans don't trust emotions? I am obviously biased and a big believer in emotionality so I don't buy the fact that if he expresses his feelings, and they are genuine that such a thing could hurt him. Sure he has passion but that's what we need- when is passion in pursuit of the right cause a bad thing? I think that Corsi is trying to label John as effeminate, vain and emotional (gay.) Whatever, America loves him and he really is the strongest Democratic candidate- from my Edwards propaganda email: (see video)
Yesterday, in Columbus, Kentucky - a town of 229 people - about 2,000 people turned out to see John speak. That's almost nine times the number of people who live there.
They literally came from miles around for one simple reason - they want change, and they know John is the man to deliver it.
The crowd proved what we've all known all along: John is the only candidate in this race who can compete and win in places like Columbus, Kentucky.
Can you imagine what it would be like to have a Democratic candidate who can compete and win anywhere in the country? A candidate who can connect with people in Columbus and put states like Oklahoma in play?
I can - because I saw it with my own eyes. And I know you can, too - because that candidate is John Edwards. Yesterday, the good people of Columbus, Kentucky proved us right.
Want hard evidence? Look at the facts. Just yesterday, the political website Real Clear Politics ran a story with the headline, "Edwards, Not Hillary, Is Dems' Best Chance." Also yesterday, the polling firm Rasmussen Reports summed up the polling they've been doing since the race started with the headline, "Edwards Strongest Democrat in General Election Match-ups." And the day before, a major poll came out showing John beating all of the Republican candidates in Oklahoma - a state that George Bush carried by double digits in 2004!
I've been in politics a while, and I've never seen anything like what I saw yesterday. Everyone I talked to agreed that this was the biggest crowd Columbus, Kentucky had ever seen.
Damn straight.
and I didn't learn this from Rolling Stone but I'd like to point out that the 2 of the Biggest American Disgraces, and liars of the past year, Mike Nifong and Marion Jones are both Tar Heels. I'm just saying...
Sphere: Related Content
.jpg){kind=link}