Not So Deep Thought

So this is probably going to be my director's chair for stupid commercial/movie ideas and a soapbox attacking our current government administration and how it's all screwed up. Enjoy!

Warning: All material hereafter is probably crap.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Nov 1st predictions.

So on Nov 1st I'm expecting the following two ads to air on national TV:

1st ad[vert]:
Good Evening America. On the evening of this momentum occasion I would like to empart a few words on you. Three purple hearts. Wrong War, Wrong Time. Bush smells funny when he sweats. He's made some pretty bad decisions. Why is he always falling down? I don't want a president who can't pronounce 'nuclear'. Yeeeha, Howard Dean! John Edwards hair is less of an asshole then Chaney. Lesbians, Lesbians, Lesbians! I'm John F. Kerry, and I was on The Daily Show before it was cool... three purple hearts.

2nd ad[vert]:
Good Evening America, and God Bless. Tomorrow you will go to the schools, with the big yellow buses, which have increased 50-hundred percent since I'm gotten into office because of No Child Left Behind. You'll vote. Please remember, John Kerry is a terrorist. He has voted over 98 times to INCREASE terrorists funds. He's asked America to front the bill for terrorism. His healthcare plan will give terrorists supplies, paid for by you. Look here, you can see a picture taken in 1971 of John Kerry selling wolves to a young Saddam Hussein. And here again, in a dirty three way sex orgy with Saddam, Osama Bin... Bin Laden, and himself. America, it's just that simple. John Kerry is a terrorist. Look again here, we see Senator Kerry catching a pass from Saddam. Is this the kind of man you want running America, a evil-doing terrorist? God Bless Texas! I'm George Dubya Bush and I support this message.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

John Deere Lawnmower flying

I was really confused at first:

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Comments are back!

I don't want to discourage people from critiquing my work, so I've decided to add comments back onto this blog. You must be registered though to post anything. I'm hoping this will keep the "gmail invites" away but allow those of you who want to comment to do so.

UPDATE: Well, this time the comments were back up and running for just above an hour when the script-kiddie came back. I apologize to anybody who likes making actual thought provoking comments since you no longer can.

The internet is a wonderful thing. There is a wealth of information and small people like me are allowed to voice their opinions. Freedom of speech is also a wonderful thing that is often misused. There is a large difference between freedom of speech and spam. Whoever this individual is he/she is incapable of seeing this difference. Many things are pushed under the guise of free speech when in fact, it's just plain spam. Until I can be assured that you will not have to suffer this persons pointless spamming I have to leave comments off. I don't want this blog polluted with "opinions" that are just plain offensive and pointless.

I think it's also interesting that this person, who pushes his spam under "free speech" also posts everything anonymously. I changed the posting settings to only allow those people who are registered to post comments. This was, of course, not effective. The posts he made to were also posted anonymously. I think it's interesting that someone who feels his posts are covered under "free speech" has to post them anonymously, probably for free of retribution. I post my opinions not hiding who I am. he/she must post his/her comments under a shroud of deception because he/she knows it's not free speech, it's just plain, pathetic, weak, spam.

If you have any comments, and wish them to be heard, please email me. I will post them on the blog. Thank you.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

I'm an Intellectual Moron!!!

My friend Matt bought me this book, called _Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas_ by Daniel J. Flynn (author of _Why the Left Hates America_, so the dust cover tells me). See, Matt and I have great respect for each other, but we both feel each other's ideologies keep us from seeing the truth. I told Matt, if I read this, he has to read Al Franken's _Lies and the ..._.

So, here goes. I'm going to read the book at post my thoughts about it here.

10/19/04: Page 1!
Ok, page 1 done, it was short...
There were some pretty harsh words. So, Amazon says Mr. Flynn's other book is _Why the Left Hates America_. Whew, the dust cover didn't lie to me! Also, on the recommendations list is Ann Colter's book. I'm guessing this guy is sorta 'right-wing' but I don't want to label him. Neither do I want to label his book as conservative. Instead, I want to look at what he's saying and see if he makes mistakes in his arguments or if he's trying to pick on one particluar group.

Page 2...

Oh, here we go. Oooh! I love this quote:
Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak, they are intellectual weaklings -- joiners -- who defer to systems of belief and charismatic gurus for their ideas.
That's good. Now let's see... which group, right or left wingers "defer to systems of belief" and "charismatic gurus". While I think every man has some amount of faith, I can't help but notice how it seems the right wingers want to push that belief into the system (anti gay-marriage bill). Also, if I had to chose a "charismatic" guru, I don't think Kerry fits. Bush is charismatic though! So wait, is he saying the right wing are "intellectual weaklings"??! No, no, I'm sure he's not trying to label or pick on either group. "Intellectual weaklings" could be either liberals or conservatives, or both! But, if I had to say one group (rights or lefts) "defer[s] to systems of belief" and "charimatic gurus" it would be the righties, but that's just me.

Further down we get into the ending of his intro (last large paragraph before "Systems" on page 2 if you are following along). Here the author typically makes his point, and later proves it right. I love this, he starts with a choice quote from Al Gore. See, in the early 90's Gore was pushing heavily for us to make the world a cleaner place. He wanted to see polution go down since it has shown to produce increases in global warming. Keep the world clean, and you remove a possible threat to everybody's existant (global warming causing climate problems). However, some people like to use this as an attack against Gore himself. I still to this day can't figure out why an environmentalist is a bad thing, but so far Sean Hannity did it and now Flynn is doing it.

Second line... talks about feminist leaders defending Scott Peterson. Wait, what is this "2" next to the sentance. Ah, endnotes, good! Turning to the back he references an article about the Scott Peterson case. Now, I typed in the URL he listed, it's invalid. I had to do a google search to get the article... it's here. Wow, I read the article... and this sentance is VERY misleading.
Why do feminist leaders defend accused wife-killer Scott Peterson against charges of killing his unborn son? - (IM, 2)
Tell you what, before we go more into this sentance, please go read the article. This is important. First off, there is no mention of "feminist". One person mentioned in the article works for NOW, National Organization for Women, but I don't see how that should label anyone an "feminist" (UPDATE: In the respect that "feminist" usually caries with it harsh undertones of extremism... hence "femin-nazi"). Ok, moving on.. "defend accused wife-killer... against charges of killing his unborn son". No, nobody is defending this man. What the article is talking about is the controversy over the "fetal homicide" laws. See, some people believe that since states say killing a woman and her baby is wrong, that killing just the baby is also wrong. We won't get into that argument here, but the "feminist" (if I understand who he's talking about, Flynn never says who the "feminist" is, yet...) was discussing this aparent double standard and how it could affect pro-choice activists (possibly reversing Roe vs Wade). So, to summarize the article:

Woman from NOW says that fetal homocide laws could help back pro-lifers to overturn Row vs Wade.
So, NO, Mr Flynn, nobody is defending Scott Peterson's action, they are talking about the laws involved in the case. What an aweful twist!

He ends the paragraph with a discussion about Peter Singer and his support for beastiality (sex with animals for you intellectual morons). I read the article he points to in the endnotes (this time the link was correct, if not confusing, since it spanned two lines), go read it yourself. If you notice, Peter doesn't really support or not support sex with animals, he just talks about it and it's history. I haven't read the PETA part though yet, so I'm not sure what that will cover. But tonight, I'm stopping here.

So, where did I get? I got two pages in, wrote this, and so far he's in the crapper. He's twisted facts, confused the reader (me! I thought he was going to bad-mouth liberals but it seems like he's poking at conservatives!), and made an ass out of himself. Reading this book is going to be as fun as a colonoscopy, but I promised I'd do it... if Matt reads _Lies..._

Tomorrow I'll read more.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Greatest commercial ever!

"Nuff Said..."

Greatest Commercial Ever!


Hi Everybody,

Last week while crusing my favorite site,, I came across a post that appeared to be for gmail invites. Since these are a high commodity it seemed odd somebody would just give them away. Alas, it was actually a fake link to a site. If you have come by the site lately you will see the same thing in the comments section (or you would have before I turned comments off).

Well, I evidentally pissed off this choad spanking script-kiddie cause he keeps posting these fake links to my comments section. He apparently thinks this is demonstration of "free speech". Which, sadly, it is. It is also a demonstration of somebody who is so pathetically lonely that his only enjoyment from life is pissing off others. I imagine this is one of those guys who gets beat up at school and teased by all the "cool" people and vents by pissing people off on the internet, claiming it under "free speech". That's fine though, cause someday he'll probably take the shampoo bottle out of his (or her) ass, come to grips with the life of a gremlin, and hopefully stop wetting the bed.

Until this little piece of shit (woohoo "free speech") decides to move on I am turning off the comments so you don't have to experiance this little shit's idea of "free speech".

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Shut up Michael!

So as some of you may have heard, Michael Jackson is pissed. Eminems' new video Just Lost It ( has some jokes poked at Michael Jackson. Specifically:

1. Eminem's hair gets caught on fire while wearing clothes similar to what MJ wore in the 80's. This is in reference to a 1984 Pepsi commercial where his hair caught on fire.
2. Eminem is scene dancing when his nose falls off... a poke at MJ and his apparent fake nose.
3. Lastly, near the end of the video Eminem is seen sitting on the edge of a bed sans fake nose with a bunch of kids jumping up and down on the bed. He also makes a few lyrical references to MJ and kids.

Now, as for #3.. the man is innocent till proven guilty. But, it's not like you saw Eminem (as MJ) doing anything wrong to those kids. He's just sitting there on the edge of the bed!

#1 and #2... well, the hair thing is actually pretty funny. It would have been different if he had been hurt. How many times has something happened and you laughed about it later?! As for the nose... well if you don't want people making fun of it then don't have so many plastic surgeries that you go from having a huge nose to NO NOSE! Now if he had lost it in the war, that would be different.

So, Michael, get the FUCK OVER IT! And to Steve Harvey and your 'revocation of Eminem's ghetto card'... you never had that right... and you need to learn how to take a joke. MJ was on your show and you were kissing his ass and standing behind him because he's the King of Pop. Everybody everwhere who has ever claimed to be a comedian has taken a pop at MJ, he's the 90's version of Richard Nixon. GET OVER IT!

Once again, Eminem proves that too many people in this world can't take a joke! If you can't laugh, the terrorists have already won!!!!

So pathetic...

I came across a website a few weeks ago that had questions that the presidential candidates would answer from younger voters. The questions were very relevant for the time, and poked at issues that have not been convered in the national debates. I read the questions, very exicted to see the responses from the candidates. However, what we got is the same BS slinging crap that we've heard during the national debates.

Also, I don't go into analyzing Nader's responses because:
1. Who cares what Nader has to say! Hahah, just kidding. It's very important to pay attention to third party statements about reform. I'm not sure why, maybe they'll have some good ideas, but I don't know.. I haven't read his responses yet.
2. He has no change of winning.

I will at some point go into more depth regarding all of this, adding in comments about Nader's responses as well as a point system (woohoo!). This is just an initial rundown. (Update 10/14/04)

The questions and reponses

I'll go through them one by one offering some commentary. Please note for anybody reading, I am not analyzing the candidates answer, merely their ability to answer the question at hand.


Kerry's response
: Short, to the point. Doesn't answer the question. Notice how it says "and if not, what will you do to change the law?". Kerry says he thinks "the death penalty should only be used for terrorists" but never says HOW he will change the law, just that he will adhere to it. A very short and pointless reponse to a fairly valid question.

Bush's response
: Wow, classic Bush. He pussy-footed around the question, saying how he supports capital punishment when it's "fair and guilt is certain", but like Kerry, he never really answer the question. Like Kerry he never says if executing a minor is OK, which was the question.


Bush's Response
: Nice, at the very end he got the 'no new taxes' part in there. However, he answered the question saying he's in favor of reforms to the current system so it can adapt to the 21st century. Notice though how he just says 'in favor' and never says he'll actually change anything. Great political blow-speech. UPDATE: Looking back at the question and response it appears that Bush does answer the question.

Kerry's Respone
: Meh, sounds like an attack on the administration. "We would have move money if Bush hadn't squandered it" sort of thing. He does say he wants some reform, but the answer it too short to go into detail about the changes.

First off, I want to say, I think this question is of an extreme importance. Why were we attacked on 9/11?? Because someone hated us. So how do we stop the attacks? Well, there is the 'nieve' approach (in the eyes of some Americans) that say you try to get them to stop hating you. There is the other approach that says you go out and kill everybody that hates you. Personally, I'd rather see people stop hating us. So this question is very important, it's basically a "how do you plan to get people to like us again" question.

Bush's Response
: There is a very subtle point to Bush's response. I'll let you come to your own conclussions but he still fails to answer the second part of the question, which is how to rebuild the relationships around the world he so subtly tore down during the invasion of Iraq. Once again, didn't answer the question.

Kerry's Response
: Hmm, right away.. nice touch... everybody loved Teddy, he did a great job. Good way to incorporate him into the response. He does seem to understand the point of the question though. For Kerry this is a tough subject. The Republicans have raked him over the coals for saying he wants a 'global test' and wants the backing of other countries, leading people to believe that he wouldn't protect America when neccessary. Kerry seems to touch on each subject possible, which is good. First he mentions historical statements from highly regarded past leaders (Roosevelt) then he goes on to say how Bush's administration has 'bullied' and that "they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore." He goes on to further state how he will fight terrorism and build alliances. Much more rounded and thorough answer then Bush's.

This question is mostly irrelevant since it's pretty clear there will be no draft... the bill was recently shot down some incredible amount... so no comments here.

This is one of my favorite questions because it's both hard to answer for the candidates (who wants to give up power?!) as well as very vital to the future of the "democracy" in our country. I think the sham of the 2000 election will probably happen again (where the people in the US voted in majority for Gore but Bush is in office). Pay very close attention to the question: "What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?"

Bush's Reponse: Bush apparently didn't read the question, or maybe he read the title of the question and that was it. In no part of his answer did he say anything about instant-runoff voting, proportional representation or a greater diversity in the political system (stop this bi-partisan government). If I was giving out scores I would give a F- for having no clue what is going on.

Kerry's Reponse: It's pretty hard to tell what Kerry is saying here (no shocker). He talks about "electoral reform". WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?! He talks about voting rights. VOTING RIGHTS WERE NOT PART OF THE QUESTION! Kerry would also get a F-!


Bush's Reponse:
Woohoo, Bush is in his area and he knows it. So what does he do? He reminds America about his "No Child Left Behind Act". At first I thought Bush was off on one of his tangents, but then at the end, BAM, he answers the question!

Kerry's Response: Kerry's reponse is short and to the point. He basically says he will change the policy, but his reponse just doesn't come off as clear as Bush's


Kerry's Response:
Short as typical for Kerry during this "debate". He basically says that he wants 20% of our energy from renewable resources by 2020. Seems weak and unassured. How is he going to do this? Bills, policies, asking nicely!?

Bush's Response: Good solid answer from Bush. He's always taken heat for his environmental policies and his answer here is showing he wants us to move away from oil.

This question has a sly little hint to it. Look at the second part, "do you believe abstinence is enough?"

Bush's Response:
He talks about dumping more money into abstinence programs, saying it's the only true way of avoiding preggers and STDs. While true, it's pretty nieve to think you can get kids to stop having sex. He never really answers the second part but answers the first part well.

Kerry's Response: Very short, very to the point and answers both parts of the question.


Bush's Response:
I'm not sure about Bush's answer. He makes it clear that he wants marriage to be between a man and woman, which he has always said (no flip-flopping there!!). But look at the question, asking why the candidates won't talk about marriage AND civil unions. Bush never says anything about civil unions. The question has a slight tone of "respect gay people". Bush fails to answer the question.

Kerry's Response: He answers the question.


Kerry's Response:
He touts his healthcare plan but never really firmly answers the question. He talks about lowering the cost by $1000 but never says if he will reform it so that people in her situation (pre-existing condition) get covered. If I was her I would feel like my question wasn't answered, but given some hope my child would be covered.

Bush's Response: Just like Kerry he talks about lowering the costs, but doesn't address the first part of the question. Her son doesn't even GET health coverage because of current restrictions, so lowering the cost for health insurance she isn't GETTING isn't exactly going to make her feel good. So just like Kerry, I don't think Bush really answered this question fully.


Kerry's Reponse:
He answers the first part of the question, but doesn't give an example where he changed his mind. This would have been a PERFECT time to explain why he voted for the 87 million and then voted against it.

Bush's Response: He didn't answer it, he didn't even try! This is not only rude to those who put these questions together, but combined with his response during the second debate to a similar question shows an unbelievable amount of arrogance for a man in his position.

This question was asked by people of non-voting age. I think it's important though because it addresses a large concern from the people who are against the gay-marriage constitutional amendment, which is, do you think it's ok to legislate faith. Notice too it's from someone in Colorado... booya, rock on the Big C-O!

Bush's Response: A solid response that ties in well to his image. Faith is a large part of people's lives and it's impossible for a man raised on faith to ignore his beliefs when making important decisions. He makes this point very well in his response. However, he never mentions anything about any other faiths, he was asked specifically " it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity.. when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?" He never answers this question directly, so I'd say he half-answers it, but half-answers it well.

Kerry's Response: Again Kerry shows his ability to provide short, ambiguous answers during this "debate". He talks about moral guideposts but it just doesn't come across as well as Bush. He does do a subtle job at answering the second part of the question, I got a very "it doesn't matter your faith as long as you have it" sorta vibe.

So some notes about the "Debate" in general:

I have to question the responses. During the live debates we can SEE the candidate answering the question. As much as I want to think Kerry and Bush took the time to answer the questions I have to question if they really did or if some intern on their campaign staff did it. Bush's responses are long, thoughtful, but sometimes off topic. This gives credibility to Bush since his responses are similar during live debates. Kerry's responses are often short and to the point. It makes you think he's answering them in a car as a intern dictates his answers while traveling from event to event. Adds credibility that he actually answered them himself, but you would hope he would take more time to thoroughly answer the questions. After all, it's not like these guys only had 90 seconds! Why are they off topic, why aren't so many solidly answered?!!?

I'm curious to see the rebuttals. This gives the candidates a good chance to THOROUGHLY answer the questions this time around. I'm curious to see how Bush and Kerry rebuttal to #11, since Bush didn't even answer.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Just a thought...

This is just a thought, and one that may go under some revising... but:

If the Whitehouse was so sure that Iraq had WMD, and they knew that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, and organization that was known to have infilitrated US soil in the past, then what was the tontingency plan if going to war against Iraq would cause an unleashing of all these WMD against US soil?

See, the way I see it is that before going to war there were two things known (since then have come into question):
1. Iraq had WMD
2. Iraq had terrorist ties to Al-Qaeda and others.

Now, if I'm Saddam and I got all these WMD, and my buddies Al-Qaeda are there by my side, I'd tell them to run these things into NY harbor and wait for the invasion. As soon as one solider laid foot on Iraq soil, BOOM!

Now, if me, a retarded 24 year old with no political or military training can come to this conclussion, did our own country come to this conclussion before invaded?

If not, why not?! Seems like a pretty big hole to miss, especially after 9/11.
If so, what in the world could have been the contingency!?

In the end, I ask, what kind of administration would lead an attack against an enemy known to have WMD, the will to use them, and the ability to get inside our borders (it's not hard folks)!? Unless of course either one of those two points, the ability to use them, or the actually HAVING them, was in question at the time.... hmmm...

Who's next? Hugh Homo?!

I feel bad for this guy. Not only is he dead, but he's got the worst name in the world! Please post your choice for worst (real) name possible. No "Giant Assnuggest" cause nobody would name their kid "Giant".

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


Want to see Harrison Ford say "Whadup BEOTCH!" while wearing a stupid hat and driving a bus like a friggen hobo!


and yes, that is him.. he's only in the first 3 seconds and it's his son's snowboarding video (if I understood correctly...)

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Here comes the politics...

So I was reading Colorado's Ballot. The following is my take on each point that I will probably get to vote on. I may not get to vote on some of these and I'm sure I get to vote in more then just these... but these are the ones I especially care about:

Amendment 36

This one was the biggest shock to me. Let's say some states start adopting this. All states, same wording. A candidate needs 270 votes to win the presidency. NOT THE MAJORITY! If our current 3 candidates were running in an election that had a few more states with this provision, it's conceivable that no candidate gets over 270 electoral college votes. If that happend it would go to the house of represenitives. Now though, each state gets ONE vote! OH SHIT! California, a huge state, gets the same voice as Montana. This is farther away from election by majority popular vote then our current system! Now, it's quite likely that there are now 50 people in the country who choose the president, instead of 6 billion. That's far from a democracy!

I'll post more later!