Log in

No account? Create an account
About this Journal
This is the community that we have all been waiting for. Gather around; unplug yourselves from the Neo Fascist Matrix of the Bush Regime and the pseudo-Liberal extreme Leftists. State your opinions, your gripes, your concerns and your complaints on the way our country is being handled. We've got to take the power back!
Current Month
Nov. 3rd, 2008 @ 05:11 pm Manifesto "Dyudrok" (The new paralell reality)
(New Experimental Art)

1. In connection with the so-called global crisis art movement "POP-REVOLUTION"
(with the partial assistance of ART-REVOLUTION) and the artist Artyom Suslov
as well as several other free artists decided to create and implement the concept of
promotion of new art "Dyudrok."

The essence of this art is to re-establish the own way of avant-garde and surrealism.
Dyudrok included any avant-garde and modern art with blurred boundaries of genres and
unlimited fantasy of the author.

At the moment, the world economic system as well as world political system infringe
on the majority of rights, freedoms, opportunities and even hopes of man.
In this regard, decreasing the creative capacity of most people because
it decreases the level and scope of vision as well as the hope of translating its
into reality. At the time of the current crisis, a simple man forgets about high ideals,
he dreams at a low level. Dyudrok must to protect people from objective reality.
We believe - the objective reality that is at this level of crisis can and should move to
second place. We have the right to push it into second place if we give to the man a
new reality, which will carry the title of "objective". what is now "objective" will take
second place, or just disappear for a man.

Accordingly, we believe that everyone, regardless of his religious beliefs, his status in
the society, and regardless of the sanctions, which in future could be taken against the
"Dyudrok" has the right to go to the new reality at any time, partially or completely .

2. In our view, any human rights organization and any commission or authority that
to deal with human rights have the obligation to protect the right of every adult
in the transition, partial or complete, in a different reality.

3. If the man who entirely gone in a different reality according with the laws of this reality
can no longer be capable - this is his personal decision as the new reality does not contradict
the existing laws and not causing harm to anyone. Neither does the campaign leading cause harm.
No one is obliged to support the individual's life in old reality when he left a letter of
advice (note) with the signatures of witnesses.

4. The departure of a reality, as well as assistance in this, not an injury to humans,
because the only thing involved in this process - the human imagination.
But imagination does not belong to the bodi, as well as the experiments of the imagination
is not harmful for the rights of mental functions.
Accordingly, there is no room for any regulations on the intentional infliction of harm or death to
humans. Also note that imagination is fully subject to his master.

5. Relatives and friends of man who passed away in a different reality have the right to challenge the
decision through the courts or through the human rights organizations and and demand to return
him to the reality in which they are located. In doing so, c. 5 is partly contrary to the core - 1 item,
and further debate on this soil can be resolved only in the mutual agreement of the parties.

6. As Dyudrok is not limited with anything and depends only on the human imagination,
it does not conflict with any law and religious customs.

7. For the same reason (not limited and opportunity
giving own properties) Dyudrok and concept its development
and its veneration is not any organization or religion
nor the political movement. Because Dyudrok do not have its own symbols and beliefs.

The author of the Manifesto is Artyom Suslov.
Art - Movement "POP-REVOLUTION"
About this Entry
Apr. 9th, 2008 @ 06:50 pm Alien fleets are coming to Earth.

In less then 6 months a whole bunch of ships is going to labnd on earth from Alpha-Z or maybe some other planet, populated by greys/Saurians. Reptilian, some nords (lots of them) and odd Martian or two (very odd) are all part of one conspiracy. Jihad seems to be the hand of the whole plot, they are going to weaken us emotionally and spiritually and prepare for beign enslaved by aliens.

Most of the grey aliens are goign to disguise themselves as humans, except when feeding, and pose as Christians, priests and teachers. They already have worked out a very complicated and detailed plan, it is scary how vcarefully orchestrated and rehearsed the whole thign is.

The scary thign is they are gonna be here in less than 6 months, and no one on earth knows about it or believes that it is gonna happen (this+ slavery, degradation, being killed and devoured the way abducted cows are, being cruelly tortured - greys are incredibly sadistic). And the space lizards are counting on us not knowing about them, not talking between each another about them, and being nice and obedient to them when they arrive. That's why I think we should global terrorist-attack idicator to code orange or code red and talk about it, and maybe petition US government to destroy all alien labs on Earth and in US, and end contracts which allow greys to visit earth and occasionally collect experimental material.

there's a text on sacred-texts.com, under ufo, forward slash "conspire.htm"

also, to see what the kizards have been up to between themselves the live journal name of their community is unitarian_jihad .

Please don't just sleep, do something!

P>S. Also, they might blow up continent of America if they manage to lay their hands on the necessary stuff.

About this Entry
Jun. 22nd, 2005 @ 06:34 am The World Can't Wait: Thoughts on Driving Out the Bush Regime
The World Can't Wait

Thoughts on Driving Out the Bush Regime

by Sunsara Taylor

Revolution #007, June 26, 2005, posted at revcom.us

Every day I think of Dilawar. I picture his 22-year-old body chained to the ceiling of a U.S. military prison in Bagram, Afghanistan as the seconds stretched on into days until finally he couldn't wait any longer. Neither can we.

As men are blindfolded and dragged from their homes in Iraq, as Arabs and Muslims are rounded up and detained in the U.S. without charges, and as youth from South Central to the South Bronx are imprisoned in record numbers, brutalized by police, and targetted for correction by Laura Bush: the world can't wait.

As villages are emptied of people by AIDS in Africa and China, as families in the ghettos and farmlands of the U.S. lose children in a war based on lies, and as immigrants are hunted by racist vigilantes on the Mexican border: the world can't wait.

As religious fundamentalism threatens to enslave women, treating them like incubators and denying them the right to make the most intimate and profound decisions about whether or not to have a child, as gay couples are denied marriage and their children are harassed, as the rule of law is replaced by religious dogma and the rule of the Bush regime, and as science itself is suppressed at great risk to the planet: the world can't wait.



Now I know a lot of readers are thinking 'if only we could.' and I can just see some people shaking their heads and saying 'that communist girl has really gone over the edge this time.' But being a reality-based girl— who is coming from a scientific place in terms of how we are going to emancipate all of humanity—I have some reality- based ideas on how this could be possible.

And one of the most important things people need to do in order to even imagine the possibility of accomplishing such a monumental task is to break out of the confines of the political-process-as-usual.

Everyone who does not want to live in the "world according to Bush" needs to break out of the dynamic where the terms and the issues and the leaders are defined and limited by various representatives and defenders of this bloodsucking system. And progressive people and oppressed people really need to break out of the confines of the institutions, organizations, and political thinking dominated by the Democratic Party.

Frankly, too many people are suffering from the disease of looking-for-leadership-in-all-the-wrong-places. And as a result, too many people who want to change the world remain locked in a dynamic that stifles their ability to really see a whole different world, squanders their energies, and channels imagination into dead-end paths of conciliation with intolerable injustices.

And it is so very urgent that millions of people break out of the death-grip of all this politics as usual and come together to do something really unprecedented. Millions of people need to un-clip their wings from the Democrats and from the strategies that give backing to their efforts and take independent historic political action.

Together we need to create a whole new dynamic based on acting on principle, telling the truth, doing what's right and actually mounting a real fight to save the future and the planet!... continue this article here: http://rwor.org/a/007/world-cant-wait.htm
About this Entry
Apr. 10th, 2005 @ 01:19 pm The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era
The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era

[b]by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Revolutionary Worker #1274, April 10, 2005, posted at rwor.org

EDITORS' NOTE: This is part of a series of excerpts on various subjects—drawn from conversations and discussions, as well as more formal talks, by Bob Avakian—which we will be running in this newspaper over the next period of time. This has been edited for publication and footnotes have been added.

Just to be clear, I didn't choose this title lightly or facetiously, but in all seriousness. In speaking to "a coming civil war" I am "drawing inspiration" from Newt Gingrich (the prominent Republican politician who was formerly the Speaker of the House of Representatives), who has made the observation that what's happening now in the electoral arena and the broader things that it reflects in U.S. society is analogous to what was going on in the U.S. in the 1840s and the 1850s, and that this isn't something that will—I'm paraphrasing, but this is the essence—this isn't something that will go away. It will only be decided when one side or the other wins out. While, obviously, we don't take at face value things that representatives of the ruling class say, we do have to think seriously about this, and I do think that this reflects—through the prism of Gingrich's own point of view, it does reflect a very profound reality. We can look at the alignment in society now and see very profound polarization—without reducing things to how things fall out in bourgeois elections, which are shaped by the bourgeoisie after all, and by the very real conflicts within the bourgeoisie. This is shaped not simply through manipulation on the part of some unified bourgeoisie, but by real conflicts within the bourgeoisie—conflicts that do, more or less, correspond to what was said in the piece on "The Pyramid of Power"(1) in terms of what is represented by the Republicans on the one hand, and the Democrats on the other.

So there is something about that Newt Gingrich statement, there is something about the alignment that you can see, there is something about what was represented in the New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskind(2), with its representation of the polarization between "reality-based" and "faith- based" communities—which, once again, in and of itself and in the way that it's expressed, represents the conflicts seen through the eyes of, and more or less proceeding from the standpoint of, the capitalist ruling class itself, but nevertheless does speak to something very real in U.S. society at this point.

You really do have two fundamentally opposed forces in society, in potential; and I'll speak to how we can't leave the alignment and the polarization as it is now—for many different reasons and in many different dimensions and on many different levels it has to be transformed. But you can see that (even while many people are not fully aware of this yet, though many are becoming more fully aware of it) there are two camps in antagonistic conflict with each other. Out of this can arise different kinds of resolutions, representing different interests, and ultimately different classes, going to wholly different places in terms of the future of society and the world.

We have spoken philosophically, drawing from Mao, about how "irreconcilable" is not a correct philosophical concept because the opposite would be "reconcilable," and Mao pointed out that there are no reconcilable contradictions. But nonetheless [ BA laughs ], leaving that aside, these really are irreconcilable world views and fundamentally irreconcilable views on what society ought to be based on and what it ought to be like.

There is something very profound and important going on here, even though—and this is another fundamental reason why there is a need for repolarization—the pole of the revolutionary proletariat, and the forces gravitating to it, are at this present time woefully small, nowhere near as large and powerful as they need to be. That has to change—and that's where we come in. But it is interesting, the comment by this guy Hertzberg from The New Yorker —to the effect that two bad things are going to happen because of the Bush re-election: One, all the terrible stuff Bush and company are going to do; and two, this is going to lead to, or provide an opening for, the revival (if you'll pardon the expression) of the radical left. So what people like that are recognizing, we should not fail to recognize—and seize on.


1) Bob Avakian,"The Pyramid of Power and the Struggle to Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down," RW No. 1237 (April 25, 2004). Available online at: http://rwor.org/a/1269/avakian-elections-revolution.htm

2) "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," The New York Times Magazine (October 17, 2004).

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497
About this Entry
Apr. 5th, 2005 @ 08:25 am Gonzales to Defend Patriot Act Renewal
Current Mood: blank
Current Music: Green Day - American Idiot
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is one among many Bush supporters and aides to his Regime that condoned the torture and unethical treatment of Iraqi POW's by our United States Military!

Critics of the USA Patriot Act want the kind of real debate they were denied when the sweeping anti-terrorism law was passed 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he's willing to accommodate them, but he wants all the law's expiring provisions to be renewed. Gonzales was headed to Capitol Hill on Tuesday no less determined than his predecessor to defend the Patriot Act against arguments that it intrudes into people's lives. But Gonzales is employing a softer tone than John Ashcroft while making the point that the law has helped prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "The attorney general has said before that if there are suggestions that can add to the government's ability to root out terrorists and aid us in the war on terror, he will certainly work with Congress to do that," Gonzales spokesman Kevin Madden said. "He looks forward to a healthy discussion about those provisions." Gonzales was invited to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. FBI Director Robert Mueller, who also wants full reauthorization of the Patriot Act, was to join Gonzales for his Senate appearance. The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress. On the same day Gonzales was to speak to the Senate committee, Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., planned to reintroduce legislation designed to curb major parts of the Patriot Act that they say went too far.

"Cooler heads can now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast and that it must be brought back in line with the Constitution," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. The ACLU is part of an unusual coalition of liberal and conservative groups, including the American Conservative Union, that have come together in a joint effort to lobby Congress to repeal key provisions of the Patriot Act. Among the controverisal provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations. That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans. The Bush administration has acknowledged using it only once. But the criticism has led five states and 375 communities in 43 states to pass anti-Patriot Act resolutions, the ACLU says.

Even some Republicans are concerned. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has suggested it should be tougher for federal officials to use that provision. Gonzales already has agreed to two minor changes to the provision, and was expected to address those Tuesday, a Justice Department official said on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt Gonzales' testimony. He will support giving someone who receives a secret warrant under the provision the right to consult a lawyer and challenge the warrant in court, and will back slightly tightening the standard for issuing subpoenas, the official said. Neither change addresses the central concern of opponents, which is that it allows the government to seize records of people who are not suspected terrorists or spies.

Critics say the law allows the government to target certain groups, but the Justice Department counters that no Patriot Act-related civil rights abuses have been proven. Just in case, Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants — which will not expire in December — allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later. The Justice Department said federal prosecutors have asked for 155 such warrants since 2001. Gonzales also notes that the law has been used in non-terrorism cases. For example, federal officials used it to track over the Internet a woman who ultimately confessed to strangling an 8-months-pregnant woman and cutting the fetus from her womb.
About this Entry
Mar. 28th, 2005 @ 08:12 pm Revolutionary Communists Take on Christian Fascists Over Schiavo
Outside the Florida hospice where Terri Schiavo is dying, supporters of the RCP and Bob Avakian took on the Christian Fascists who have been raving virtually unopposed.

Here is what CNN wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/27/schiavo/index.html

" After remarks by Randall Terry -- an activist against abortion rights who has been acting as a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's family, the Schindlers -- members of a group calling itself the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades seized control of the microphones and blasted Terry as a "Christian fascist thug" trying to interfere in "the most intimate affairs of life and death."

"[Terri Schiavo's] brain is not functional. It's not going to recover. Let her die in peace," pleaded Sunsara Taylor, a member of the group."


More details appear on Sunsara's personal blog: http://www.sunsara.blogspot.com/

Here is what the RCP thinks about these Christian Fascists and the terry Schiavo case: http://rwor.org/a/1273/schiavo-christian-right.htm

Here is where you can find writings of Bob Avakian on religion and fascism in America: http://rwor.org/a/1255/avakian_clinton_right_wing_conspiracy.htm

Here are audio tapes on the Christian Right and communist morality: http://bobavakian.net

Finally here is an online leaflet calling out the current madness and sharply posing the need for a radically different world: " The Battle for the Future Will be Fought From Here Forward"
About this Entry
Mar. 16th, 2005 @ 07:53 pm mr. secret is dead!!!!!
I am a friend of mr. secret and he recently passed away. he wanted all of you to read his final column. Hope you enjoy.


Thanks and, as always, fight for your freedom. or something.
About this Entry
Mar. 2nd, 2005 @ 07:40 pm IM BACK
Current Music: the cranberries, zombie
i know you all wondered where i been well i am back and it wasnt a fun ride as you fellow freedom fighters can read for yourself here,

keep up the good fight!!!!!!!!!!
About this Entry
Feb. 25th, 2005 @ 12:56 pm RW: U.S. Threats Against Iran and Syria
U.S. Threats Against Iran and Syria

Close Encounters of an Imperial Kind
Revolutionary Worker #1269, February 27, 2005, posted at rwor.org

For many months, people across Iran have been reporting unidentified flying objects flashing over their heads. These mysterious UFO incidents have been most intense in the skies over Bushehr and Isfahan provinces and near the city of Natanz.

The Iranian government knew that these were U.S. drone aircraft penetrating their airspace--focusing on areas that have major Iranian military facilities. Fleets of these drones have been launched from U.S. airbases in occupied Iraq. Such aircraft can be used to spy on military operations, launch missiles and test air defenses (in preparation for future military strikes).

Finally, on February 16, the Iranian government went public, explaining that what the people were seeing was military provocations by the U.S.

Iranian Information Minister Ali Yunessi announced:

"Most of the shining objects that our people see in Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire and will be shot down."

Yunesi added that the U.S. would not learn anything through these provocative flights: "Our nuclear activities are open and very transparent. Our military activities are all legal."

These incidents were just the start of escalating threats against Iran. The day after Iran exposed the U.S. drone invasions, Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom claimed that Iran was just six months from knowing enough to build a nuclear weapon.

In Washington, President Bush openly gave Israel a green light to attack Iran. Here is what he said: "If I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well.'' Then he ominously added, "We will support Israel if her security is threatened.''

This is a promise of support before-the-fact for an aggressive military strike on Iranian facilities -- in which the Israeli air force would be acting (once again) as forward agents doing those dirty deeds for U.S. imperialism which Bush would rather not do directly.

In previous statements, Condoleezza Rice openly said that Bush has "not taken the military option off the table" in regard to Iran. And also that a military strike against Iran was "not on the agenda at this point."

The crudeness, recklessness and incredible arrogance of these U.S. threats is mind-boggling. It is now considered normal that a country like Iran should live under permanent military threat from the U.S. It is considered acceptable that U.S. allies attack countries without warning, and that the U.S. give them permission in public.

And just to be clear, let's review some basic facts.

Iran (which has an oppressive, backward government headed by religious fundamentalists) has not actually threatened or attacked any of its neighbors, and certainly cannot represent any military threat against the United States.

With now-familiar hysteria, the U.S. (which also, incidentally, has a very oppressive and backward government headed by religious fundamentalists!) accuses Iran of trying to develop "weapons of mass destruction" -- i.e. nuclear weapons. However it is rarely pointed out that both the U.S. and Israel actually already have nuclear weapons, and have repeatedly used them to threaten people of the Middle East, including Iran!

So neither the U.S. nor Israel have any right to speak on these matters--and certainly no right to launch unprovoked military attacks on Iran.
Read more...Collapse )
About this Entry
Feb. 16th, 2005 @ 09:49 pm (no subject)
Current Music: the cranberries, zombie
hello fellow people fighting for their freedom, i have yet another article about someone you should WATCH OUT!!!!!!!! for, i hope you all enjoy and wont let them get to you, remember FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!
your friend,
mr secret
About this Entry
Feb. 9th, 2005 @ 09:52 pm (no subject)
Current Music: the cranberries, zombie
hello, i am mr secret and i know the truth about everything,
read my page on a site that is used as a front because the government keeps shutting my other sites down,
carry on my fellow freedom fighters!!
About this Entry
Feb. 8th, 2005 @ 08:35 am (no subject)
Current Mood: contemplative
President Bush says he has produced a "lean" $2.57 trillion spending plan that would promote his key goals of fighting terrorism and protecting the homeland while seeking to weed out ineffective government programs. But critics are complaining about the president's priorities and charging that the budget is more notable for what has been left out.Setting the stage for months of partisan squabbles in Congress, Republican lawmakers generally praised Bush's budget for 2006 while Democrats heaped scorn on the proposal. Sen. John Kerry, Bush's defeated Democratic presidential opponent, said Bush had reached "new lows of fiscal irresponsibility" by proposing a spending plan that "takes cops off the street, hurts veterans and punishes school children while saddling future generations with record budget deficits and mountains of debt." Bush defended the spending blueprint, saying, "It's a budget that focuses on results." He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." The president was traveling to Detroit on Tuesday to promote his agenda for economic prosperity, which includes budgetary restraint, tax cuts, deregulation and free trade. On Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Joshua Bolten, Bush's budget director, were testifying Tuesday at separate congressional hearings that begin a long legislative process that will stretch into the fall as Congress crafts its own budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Bush sent his massive multivolume set of spending documents, trimmed in bright blue, to Congress on Monday, saying the new budget focused on his priorities while targeting 150 government programs for either outright elimination or drastic reductions, including Amtrak passenger train subsidies and grants to communities for hiring police officers. In the most tightfisted budget of his presidency, Bush proposed giving nine of 15 Cabinet-level agencies less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. And overall non-security domestic spending — excluding such automatic benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare — would be reduced by 0.7 percent next year.

Bush said this was the first outright cut in this wide swath of government programs proposed by any president since Ronald Reagan. "I understand that sometimes it's hard to eliminate a program that sounds good," Bush said Monday at the White House. "I'm saying to members of Congress, show us the results as to whether or not this program is working." Republicans, while generally endorsing Bush's approach, noted that Congress will have its own opinions about what spending priorities to set. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called the administration's plan "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work." Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., conceded that "obviously this is a budget that is going to create some significant angst among my colleagues." But he praised the administration for producing a budget of "fiscal responsibility" that would call Republicans "back to our roots." Democrats, however, were less kind, accusing Bush of budgetary sleight of hand to keep some huge costs out of the budget.

While the administration has said that it will request $81 billion in new spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan within a few days and will have to come back to Congress for more money in 2006, new money for the two military operations in the two countries was omitted for 2006 and beyond. Likewise, the administration's top domestic priority, overhauling Social Security by creating private investment accounts, was kept out of the budget even though the administration has already estimated that transition costs for the first decade will total $754 billion. In both cases, the administration said not enough was known about future needs in Iraq or the ultimate shape of Bush's Social Security proposal to come up with realistic budget estimates. Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. That was $3.4 billion less than he projected for 2006 just a year ago, with weapons procurement among the leading areas feeling the crunch. Bush wants to make his first term tax cuts permanent at a 10-year cost of $1.1 trillion. However, most of that expense will not show up until after 2010, when the bulk of tax cuts are set to expire, and the Bush budget did not provide any deficit estimates past 2010. Bush's spending plan showed deficits totaling $1.8 trillion from the current year through 2010, including a record $427 billion imbalance this year. After this year, Bush's budget projects that the deficits will decline to $233 billion in 2009, the year the president pledged during the campaign to cut the deficit in half, a goal he would achieve at that level in terms of the deficit's share of the total economy. Democrats said if Bush had shown the real costs of the Iraq operation in future years, the transition costs for Social Security and the price of making his tax cuts permanent then deficits over the next decade would total more than $4 trillion.
About this Entry


Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists— dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way— and they are very far along the road to getting it— society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages.

Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the White House.

Read more...Collapse )
About this Entry
Nov. 29th, 2004 @ 10:54 pm (no subject)

Seriously, check this out. If you need help or want to give help, it's all good.
About this Entry
shell lei
Nov. 12th, 2004 @ 09:20 am Moore to shoot sequel to 'Fahrenheit'
About this Entry
Oct. 30th, 2004 @ 03:10 pm Bush represents Christian morality?
Current Mood: amused

Watch George W. Bush convey the scruples of Christ. Vote against the antichrist on November 2nd! Bush and his good ol' boys have got to go. Boot out the redneck!

About this Entry
Oct. 26th, 2004 @ 08:47 pm Political Costumes for the Kids
Current Mood: amused

Link borrowed from scifigal's journal.
About this Entry
soap box
Oct. 19th, 2004 @ 11:13 pm Nevada Update
Current Mood: annoyed
Current Music: Air America- Al Franken Show
"DENIED: District Judge Valerie Adair denied a request by the Democratic Party that she order Clark County officials to reopen voter registration. Democrats contend a company linked to the Republican Party trashed voter registration documents completed by potential Democratic voters. The judge said there is no way to ensure those voters affected by the allegations would be the only ones to register if she granted the Democrats' request to reopen voter registration. "- The Norwegian Chef

Valerie Adair is a republican. She suggests that disenfranchised voters file a lawsuit.
This whole thing stinks.
About this Entry
soap box
Oct. 19th, 2004 @ 12:48 pm Sinclair, Clear Channel Fox News, and Infinity owned by GOP?
Current Mood: angry

Yellow Journalism! This is an outrage! We must prevent this from airing! Too many people could view this false information, this vicious attempt to give Bush four more years. The GOP motto should be (whatever it takes to win). Their unethical nature is perverse!Collapse )
About this Entry
Oct. 19th, 2004 @ 10:11 am Your Support Is Needed!

Sinclair Broadcast Group is going to use its television stations nationwide to air an anti-Kerry film shortly before the upcoming election.

Yesterday, Jon Leiberman, the Washington bureau chief for Sinclair was fired for publicly criticizing the company's decision to air the program.

"They're using the news to drive their political agenda," Leiberman said. "I don't think it served the public trust."
He added: "I really feel like I can sleep at night and I can be OK with my decision" to criticize Sinclair publicly. ... I know I stood up for the principles of objectivity. In journalism, all we have is credibility and objectivity."

Sinclair states on their website: "Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies in the country today."

Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting Website
Sign the Petition HERE!

I am asking each of you to please click the link below and copy/paste the code into your own journal.
Please comment.
Thank you.

Please post this and spread the word!
About this Entry
love exists
Oct. 14th, 2004 @ 07:24 am Clapping as she is standing up..and puts fingers to mouth and whistles..
YEAH! once again Hero of the day, William Rivers Pitt cuts through with a scathing editorial...Kerry is a ROCK STAR!

Game. Set. Match.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 14 October 2004

"Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

- George W. Bush, 10/13/04

"So I don't know where he is. Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I...I truly am not that concerned about him."

- George W. Bush, 03/13/02

The third and final debate between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry was slated to be about domestic issues. It finished as a crystal-clear argument about basic American values, and made clear for all who watched or listened where each of these candidates stand.

Bob Schieffer of CBS News, the moderator for this last debate, put a series of questions to both candidates about the minimum wage, about Social Security, about the assault weapons ban, about health care. It must be noted that Schieffer failed completely, demonstrably and shamefully to put a single question to either candidate about protecting the environment and alternative energy, but the questions he did lay out afforded the American people a long, hard look at where Bush and Kerry stand on a number of lynchpin issues..

The words of the candidates speak for themselves.

Schieffer, questioning Bush: "You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?"

Bush response: "I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent -- I believe -- is the number. Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns. To me, that's the best way to secure America."

Kerry response: "I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting. And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, 'See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him.' Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today. And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it."

In this exchange, Bush sided with the National Rifle Association, which has sadly become an institution that supports any and all weapons, up to and including personal rocket launchers and buzz-saw machine guns, in the hands of any American, regardless of criminal background. Kerry, the former prosecutor, injected a strong dose of law-enforcement reality into the conversation. Supporting the repeal of the assault weapons ban is tantamount to approving of cops walking into a spray of 7.62mm assault rounds while trying to do their jobs.

Schieffer, questioning Kerry: "The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?"

Kerry response: "The minimum wage is the lowest minimum wage value it has been in our nation in 50 years. If we raise the minimum wage, which I will do over several years to $7 an hour, 9.2 million women who are trying to raise their families would earn another $3,800 a year. The president has denied 9.2 million women $3,800 a year, but he doesn't hesitate to fight for $136,000 to a millionaire. One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax cut, but people working hard, playing by the rules, trying to take care of their kids, family values, that we're supposed to value so much in America - I'm tired of politicians who talk about family values and don't value families...I think that it is a matter of fundamental right that if we raise the minimum wage, 15 million Americans would be positively affected."

Bush response: "Let me talk about what's really important for the worker you're referring to. And that's to make sure the education system works. It's to make sure we raise standards. Listen, the No Child Left Behind Act is really a jobs act when you think about it. The No Child Left Behind Act says, "We'll raise standards. We'll increase federal spending. But in return for extra spending, we now want people to measure -- states and local jurisdictions to measure to show us whether or not a child can read or write or add and subtract. You cannot solve a problem unless you diagnose the problem. And we weren't diagnosing problems. And therefore just kids were being shuffled through the school."

Kerry spoke to millions of Americans who get paid a minimum wage better suited to the economic realities of the Truman administration. A higher minimum wage lifts those millions of Americans working McJobs, which are the lion's share of the 'new jobs' created under this administration, to a place where they can begin to dream of someday possibly joining the oft-ballyhooed middle class. A higher minimum wage opens the entire economy up to the kind of consumer spending that is the lifeblood of our system. Bush, by comparison, avoided the question entirely and wandered off into a confused paean for his tragically underfunded No Child Left Behind bill. This became his refuge several times on Wednesday night; when he had no answer, he flogged NCLB.

Laying it out on the razor, Bush backed machine guns in our neighborhoods toted by people who take the risk of selling drugs instead of working a counter job, because the counter jobs available to them can't possibly begin to pay a living wage thanks to the currently anemic minimum wage. Kerry, by contrast, would get the machine guns off the streets, period, and at the same time make sure anyone working a minimum wage job will make enough money to feed their family and keep a roof over their head.

Beyond the clear delineation of values exposed in this last exchange is the ugly fact that Bush went out of his way to dodge as many hard questions as he could get away from. How does nattering about NCLB answer the question of the minimum wage? Was Bush afraid of offending his corporate backers on that one? The folks who support him are happy to keep the minimum wage where it is, because it increases their bottom line. It was this exchange, above all the others, that displayed where Bush stands when it comes to the American people. He does not stand with you if you don't have a few million, at least, in the bank.

The NCLB refuge received a direct hit from Kerry at one point, when the Senator said, "Five hundred thousand kids lost after-school programs because of your budget. Now, that's not in my gut. That's not in my value system, and certainly not so that the wealthiest people in America can walk away with another tax cut. $89 billion last year to the top 1 percent of Americans, but kids lost their after-school programs. You be the judge."

Dodging the question is not an American value, Mr. Bush.

Consider the question Schieffer put to Bush on Social Security: "We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up. So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?

Bush's answer? "There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. And if we don't act today, the problem will be valued in the trillions. And so I think we need to think differently. We'll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children and our grandchildren, we need to have a different strategy. And recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow citizens to study the issue. It was a committee chaired by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat. And they came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at. I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust. And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren. I will work with Republicans and Democrats. It'll be a vital issue in my second term. It is an issue that I am willing to take on, and so I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together. And we're of course going to have to consider the costs. But I want to warn my fellow citizens: The cost of doing nothing, the cost of saying the current system is OK, far exceeds the costs of trying to make sure we save the system for our children."

Note well that Schieffer asked a pointed question: "But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up. So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?"

Bush had no answer whatsoever. He gassed. This happened repeatedly throughout the night.

Kerry quoted Bush's bizarre statement from March of 2002 about Bush no longer being concerned about Osama bin Laden. Bush tried to claim Kerry was exaggerating, but the White House website says different. Bush: "So I don't know where he is. Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I...I truly am not that concerned about him." Beyond the glaring silliness of this lie - millions of Americans saw the filmclip of Bush making this statement when they saw Moore's documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' - is the frightening truth behind it. If Bush truly does not care about or worry about Osama bin Laden, as his March statement indicates, he is truly an Army of One, divorced from one of the most fundamental concerns within the American mind.

Bush said Pell Grants had increased under his tenure, and had previously promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. Yet his fiscal year 2005 budget is the third in a row that has refused to increase the value over the current amount of $4,050. The value of the maximum Pell award has fallen dramatically in the past years from covering 94% of the public two-year institution to just 68% today. Kerry did well to split this lie open by stating, "You know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money. But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them. They're getting less money. We have more people who qualify. That's not what we want."

Bush said he supported Mitch McConnell's minimum wage bill. In fact, he supported minimum wage increase by $1.00 per hour, but only if states could opt out of the increase. According to the Associated Press, Bush's qualification for a minimum wage increase was, "a condition that could render a proposed increase meaningless." Bush and the Republicans are rapidly approaching the record set in the 1980s for the longest period without an increase adjusted for inflation. The minimum wage is 24.5% lower than it was 24 years ago and is rapidly approaching an all-time low set in 1989. Bush has not used his influence to pass a minimum wage law in Congress, where the law cannot even get out of committee. This follows a pattern, as Bush, while governor of Texas, resisted raising that state's decade-old minimum wage, which was only $3.35 an hour.

Lying is not an American value, Mr. Bush.

There was a statesman and a salesman on that debate stage on Wednesday night. Kerry, the statesman, was calm and clear, in command of the facts, and not afraid to stare into the camera at the American people and tell some hard truths. Bush, the salesman, left behind the muddled foolishness of the first debate and the screaming histrionics of the second debate, in favor of an aw-shucks smirk and a series of ill-timed snickers that makes one truly wonder if he knows his job is on the line. All the pundits agreed that Bush, having lost the first two debates, needed to dominate during this third and final meeting. He failed completely to do so.

In the end, it comes down to values. When Schieffer asked Bush at one point about the problem of health care for America's seniors, Bush burst into a fit of laughter. If there was ever a moment, in any of these three debates, that let people know exactly where Bush's head and heart and priorities lay, that was it. He laughed.
OOh now those are sobering thoughts for the bushies if they are actually bright enough to understand where their fearless Chimp leader intends to take them..
About this Entry
Coffee strong rich and exciting
Oct. 14th, 2004 @ 08:26 am Kerry brings it home! Round 3 complete.
Current Mood: bouncy

Kerry sitting at 66% in favor after last nights debate!

Behold! President John Kerry. Round 3 complete. We have a winner. Congratulations President Kerry.

About this Entry
Oct. 13th, 2004 @ 06:26 am Voter Registration Fraud? Read this now and take action!!
Current Mood: angry

Read this report and take action now!

Voter Registrations completed by Democrats are getting trashed? This must not happen again! The Bush Administration already did this once and got away with it! We must not stand by quietly! Take action now!

About this Entry
Oct. 11th, 2004 @ 10:35 am (no subject)
I have created a new COMMUNITY

I need 1-2 Co-Moderators, so the first few to Comment/IM me, get it.

I am going to try and use this as my main political update page!!!

About this Entry
love exists
Oct. 11th, 2004 @ 08:13 am Poll 2004
I have created an Election '04 Poll, please take a few minutes to fill it out.

Click Here!

Please feel free to comment on any question, regardless of where you stand. I really appreciate any and all input.
About this Entry
love exists
Oct. 8th, 2004 @ 07:47 pm Round 2 complete; Bush gets bombed!

Looks as if Kerry took this one home as well. Round two complete; Round three next.
About this Entry
Oct. 8th, 2004 @ 08:38 am Bush and the mystery buldge.
Current Mood: curious

Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?

Thank you presenttense80 for the info.
About this Entry
Oct. 6th, 2004 @ 11:19 am THIS is funny
A lesson to all candidates to speak more carefully. When Cheney mentioned the website www.factcheck.com what he meant to say was www.factcheck.ORG .
George  Soros caught that, and bought the domain and redirected the address to his site urging voters to vote against Bush.
About this Entry
Oct. 6th, 2004 @ 09:23 am Fuck it
I don't understand why the media doesn't pounce on the innacuracies or just out and out lies that are stated by the candidates. Either side.

The  republicans can say over and over again those four words, "pass a global test" and distort the intended meaning and no one (aside from John Stewart that I have seen so far) is jumping up and screaming, "You silly GITS! you are intentionally ignoring the rest of what he said to distort the meaning"  I am not even going to quote what he really said because we have all heard it and we all know he did not say or infer that he would give veto power to other countries on the subject of a preemptive strike.

I want some one doing an interview or commentary to ask Kerry or Edwards to clarify the 200 billion dollar issue. They keep saying that we have spent 200 billion. We have not and that has been pointed out, but if Kerry/ Edwards would just say, "No it has not been spent yet. We are at 120 billion but the 200 billion includes funds allocated through next year." it would go a long way in not making them look like liars. 

Cheney says that Kerry said " ... when asked if he, knowing everything he knows now, would he have voted the way he did then. He said 'yes'. This morning Diane Sawyer interviewed him on 'Good Morning America,' and asked the same question, knowing everything you know now, would you have voted that way, and he said 'no'. He's changed his mind on many occasions,"

Sawyer asked him if the war in Iraq was worth it, and Kerry said it was a mistake for Bush to start the war. He said that we do have to finish it successfully now that it has started. He has never said that he wants to just say , "fuck it" and pull out. But that is the way it is portrayed.

Cheney has got genormous balls to try to act as if he never said or even tried to imply that he was trying to  make a connection between the 9/11 attack and Iraq. It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base
Cheney said Irq is a
"geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States."

Cheney said at one point that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, and then had to later  say , after 35 major newspaper articles included that claim by him that he really meant reconstituted nuclear weapons programs. Some will say that that is mincing words, but when we are talking about weapons like that, that is a huge deal to let the American people beleive that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons.

I understand that Edwards is inexperienced, but when I look at Cheney's voting record, (yeah yeah yeah.. at least there is a voting record.. shut it!) I am not just having a difference of opinion, I am absolutely freaked out at his position of several issues:

  •  He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.
  • He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women, along with 146 other members of Congress in 1983.
  • On Education, he consistently opposed funding of Head Start and voted against creating the Department of Education.
  • Cheney was raised in Wyoming and opposes, as many Westerners do, gun control limits.
  • He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer bullets.
  • Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security machines undetected. The National Rifle Association did not oppose this ban.
  • Also in 1988, Cheney voted to scrap a proposed national seven-day waiting period on handgun purchases.
  • On the environment, Cheney opposed refunding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions slapped on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards.
  • And he voted against legislation to require oil, chemical and other industries from making public records of emissions known to cause cancer, birth defects and other chronic diseases.

X posted elsewhere
About this Entry
Oct. 6th, 2004 @ 07:48 am because I am a dirty thief
I snatched from User Infomaxomai

He also sat next to him . Lying jackass or addled old fool?

Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: "Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning." [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01] 
Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

Gotta tell you. I have been really having a hard time with the fact that Kerry and Edwards don' t seem to mind missing some voting while senators. It pisses me off that I have to do my job completely to keep it and get paid, and I think they should as well. That being said. I am still voting for them because the idea of voting for Bush and Cheney is nausiating.

xposted to my own journal megerber
About this Entry
Oct. 6th, 2004 @ 08:08 am Edwards vs. Cheney
Current Mood: chipper

Cheney did well; however Edwards prevailed. Edwards held his ground, while Cheney was reaching wildly for straws. Both men did exceptionally well, and spoke eloquently. Cheney may have raised the bar a little too high for Bush in his upcoming round 2 Friday night debate against Kerry. Edwards stood his ground and did not let up. After the first hour of the debate Cheney was obviously becoming fatigued and he began to sputter as he spoke. He no longer formed a rebuttal against Edwards’s statements; he continued to repeat himself and made no valid points. In the end Edwards took this debate home and placed it over his fire mantle for everyone to enjoy.

About this Entry
Oct. 5th, 2004 @ 01:29 pm DEBATE TONIGHT!!
Current Mood: hopeful


About this Entry
love exists
Oct. 5th, 2004 @ 11:41 am Iran announces that they have nukes!!!
Current Mood: pissed off
Current Music: Megadeth "Symphony of Destruction"
Iran has developed a missile with a range of 1,250 miles and is determined to make its armed forces stronger still, a senior official was quoted as saying on Tuesday. The announcement of a substantial increase in the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles, which could now reach southeast Europe, follows accusations by Washington and Israel that Tehran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. "Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km (1,250 mile) range," the news agency IRNA quoted influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. "Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities."

"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on "Space and Stable National Security."
Tehran says its missiles are for defensive purposes and would be used to counter a possible Israeli or U.S. strike against its nuclear facilities. In recent months, Iranian officials have frequently trumpeted their ability to strike back at any aggressor, and in August they announced they had successfully tested an upgraded version of the medium-range Shahab-3 missile. Military experts say the unmodified Shahab-3 had a range of 810 miles which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel. Shahab means meteor in Persian.

Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said last month that a new "strategic missile" had recently been delivered to the armed forces, but did not give its range. Israel has long accused Iran of working on a long-range missile, the Shahab-4, which would be able to reach Europe. Iran denies any plans to build a Shahab-4 missile. Tehran recently announced plans to launch its own satellite into space next year. Military experts say a satellite launch rocket could easily be adapted for military purposes. "We are very happy that our Defense Ministry ... will take us to the stage that we are able to use independent satellite technology in the fields of building, launching, positioning and receiving," Rafsanjani said.

Which begs the question: "WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ? WHY DID WE GO TO IRAQ?" This is severely f***ed up! We are fighting the right war in the wrong damn country!
About this Entry
Oct. 4th, 2004 @ 10:45 pm random..
a nod to the king of free speech..

i love you michael moore for bringing the truth, showing americans what they never see, and politics aside, being a great filmmaker.
you rock...
About this Entry
Oct. 4th, 2004 @ 04:56 pm It's a mad mad world...
Current Mood: stressed
Here my friends, are my moments of Zen for the day.

Four more years??? LET US OUT!

Kerrys week summed up.


I thought Fox was a Republican, oh that is FOX NEWS!

Those pumpkins SCARE even me.

About this Entry
love exists
Oct. 4th, 2004 @ 04:52 pm Fox news in hot water!
Current Mood: annoyed
An official at Fox News Channel said that one of its political reporters has been disciplined for posting a fake news item on its website about Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network, said Fox's chief political correspondent Carl Cameron had been disciplined for posting an item on FoxNews.com that included several made-up quotes attributed to Kerry. "Carl has been reprimanded," Schur said Sunday, defining further comment. The article alleged to cover a post-debate rally by Kerry at which the Massachusetts senator was purported to gush over his "metrosexual"appearance. "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate! My opponent what's his name must have checked his brain at the door, American President my ass!" the article by the Cameron read, purportedly quoting Kerry after the event.

"Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quotes Kerry as telling the crowd. The article also has the Democratic candidate contrasting himself to US President George W. Bush "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy, so what if he's macho, I'm obviously smarter" Cameron quoted Kerry as saying. Officials for Fox, which has been criticized for being biased towards Bush's Republican party, decline to explain how the spoof article ended up on the network's website. A statement by Fox on the website Sunday apologized for the article, saying it was a joke. "Foxnews.com erred ... on Friday, posting an item purporting to contain quotes attributable to Kerry," the statement read.

"The item was based on a reporters partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. Foxnews.com also regrets that error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." US media quoted a statement by the Kerry campaign's spokesman, Phil Singer, saying Fox was right to own up to the gaffe. "Fox is doing the right thing by admitting its mistake and correcting the record," Singer told the New York Times in an article published Sunday. "George Bush would be well-served to heed the lesson and admit to his own mistakes," Singer said.
About this Entry
Oct. 4th, 2004 @ 04:41 pm Priceless...............
Current Mood: creative
About this Entry
Oct. 3rd, 2004 @ 10:27 pm (no subject)
I thought you guys would find this amusing...

In highschool when prop 22 was being passed [a ban on gay marriage], me and a group of girls went up and down the streets of our town, and stole each and every yes on prop 22 sign out of everyone's yard. we had hundreds. we all took our clothes off and pasted all the signs all over our bodies and went marching down the street. i have a picture of melissa [deadheadmel] naked, only wearing ripped prop 22 signs, getting the mail.

anyway, i went looking around the internet, and found some pictures!!!

from left to right; that's me, melissa deadheadmel and lexi lexibeatle

lame and totally ridiculous??? of course!!!
but it was still fun.. hey, we were in highschool.

i can still here us yelling NO ON PROP 22 as we ran down the street..
About this Entry
Oct. 3rd, 2004 @ 04:00 pm America's new nuclear weapons plan!
Current Mood: angry

During the debate between President George W. Bush and his opponent Senator John Kerry it was brought to the attention of the world that the Bush Administration is permitting and funding a program that is in the process of creating and possibly using a new type of nuclear weapon. This new weapon will be 100,000 times more powerful and deadly than the nukes used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Ironic considering that we used brute force without proper reason to invade Iraq, and collect their weapons. However Iraq never had weapons at that point and time, only remnants of former weapons programs. We are in the middle of creating new, even deadlier weapons; more gruesome than anything we have ever seen. North Korea is in the process of creating new weapons, Iran is in the process of creating new weapons, the former Soviet Union is literally tripping over nuclear weapons components and we take it upon ourselves to invade a sovereign nation that was rumored to have been creating weapons of mass destruction. After the fog lifted we were left with the harsh reality that we made a major miscalculation by our actions. Now we find out that the entire time we are the ones who are creating weapons of mass destruction and we illegally invaded a country that posed as no real threat to the world at that time. America's new nuclear weapons program conveys an entirely new level of global hypocrisy. We need to disarm along with the rest of the world!

About this Entry
Oct. 1st, 2004 @ 12:53 pm Debate Pictures - CAPTIONS FOR FREE

Bush is thinking, Where is this North Korea they keep speaking of?

"Well, actually, he forgot Poland."

Kerry thinking, Who's my bitch, Who's my bitch? After the debate.

Whew. Thank goodness they didn't let the public see that Bush is 4 inches shorter then Kerry.

In Bush's head "Row Row Row Your Bo--WOAH he just said something about my daddy!"


If anyone finds anymore amusing pictures, please send them my way!!
About this Entry
love exists