Hey:
Have you noticed politics are always depressing? Yeah, me too. Now, I know I could be just like Glenn Beck and make you grab the pills, but I'm not like that. Sorry, if you're disappointed, and you wanted some hard-hitting news story that makes your jaw drop. Not tonight.
No, tonight I heard Obama's approval rating dropped down to 47%. Wow, there's some change...for him. :)
So, in honor of this unforeseen (bahaha I saw this a looong time ago) drop-age, I have a special song for him.
It is a spoof of the song by the ever-awful Fergie. Now, keep in mind, I've never actually listened to the full song, but have heard my cousin sing it, and looked up the CLEAN (emphasis on clean) lyrics. Not to worry, this song is kid friendly. What now, Ferg? That's more than she and will.i.am can do. haha
Here we blow:
Approval Rating by Conservative Teen
Oh snap!
Oh snap!
Oh snap!
(Are you ready for this?)
Oh snap!
Oh! It’s me ‘Bama
The dem’crat.
‘Bama, what’s up baby?
Come on!
When I come to the House, step aside
(oh snap)
Part the seas, don’t be making me wait
(oh snap)
VIP cuz you know I’m a racist
(oh snap)
All my dems get down in the House
(oh snap)
Passing them bills like fire
(oh snap)
I’m such a liar but I’m acting like a prez
(oh snap)
Cause you know I don’t give a thought ‘bout it
(oh snap)
How come everytime I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
How come every time I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Porkulus start passing faith in me failing
Everybody starting to look real mad
(oh snap)
That Glenn Beck got you feeling good
(oh snap)
Now I’m wishing he weren’t on the news
(oh snap)
It’s like every time I rant on the dude
(oh snap)
CNN put my business on the news
And I’m like hello good people
(oh snap)
Before I go and pass new bill
(oh snap)
Make sure you get my good side
(oh snap)
You got that? I got the face
How come every time I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
How come every time I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
La da da da da doo doo doo doo
Me lies like a waterfall they never stop
‘Bama likes ‘em long strung my libs support, right?
Another ‘Bama Biden callabo
‘Bama and Biden
When I come to the House, step aside
(oh snap)
Part the seas, don’t be making me wait
(oh snap)
V.I.P cuz you know I’m a racist
(oh snap)
I’m ‘Bam ‘Bama and me love your votes
(oh snap)
All my dems get down in the House
(oh snap)
Passing them bills fire
(oh snap)
I’m such a liar but I’m acting like a prez
(oh snap)
Cause you know I don’t give a thought to it
(oh snap)
How come every time I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
How come every time I come around
My approval ‘proval rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Rating rating rating wanna go down like
Well, I hope you enjoyed that, maybe someday I'll sing it. Right...
-CT-
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Politics!
Hm...
President Obama's plans for seeking an international agreement at a U.N. climate change conference next week sound precariously similar to his plans for pitching Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics two months ago.
At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark.
Obama's first visit ended in decisive failure, with Rio de Janeiro winning the bid. So is the president setting himself up for a repeat? Or is he facing down his Denmark demons and looking to get his mojo back?
Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and environmental fellow at the Cato Institute, said he has his doubts.
"The president is carrying nothing credible in his pocket, so how can he compel people to do something credible?" he said, referring to the fact that Congress has not passed its cap-and-trade bill.
Obama has traveled abroad extensively -- to summits and conferences and high-level meetings -- since taking office. Those trips have produced a slew of agreements and announcements, but little concrete action. And on some of the biggest issues of the world stage -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear program among them -- the president's approach has yielded little progress.
Analysts say that while Obama might help strike a broadly worded deal in Copenhagen, a legally binding replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may be just as unlikely after his visit as before.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., reminded the president of his limits in a letter he sent to the White House last week after Obama announced he would travel to Copenhagen and lay out America's goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.
"I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon (in Denmark). ... The phrase 'politically binding' has been used," Webb wrote. "As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."
Michaels said that letter alone hurts Obama's efforts in Copenhagen, since it could confirm delegates' suspicions that the president may not be prepared to hold up the United States' end of any grand bargain.
Heather Conley, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama's travel schedule could also dim his chances of success.
The president plans to stop by on Dec. 9, before heading to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize the next day. But the climate conference lasts two weeks, from Dec. 7-18.
"The timing is off," Conley said. "He's going to be there the second or third day of the beginning of the negotiations. Political leaders are a bit flummoxed because they don't know how to incorporate President Obama's visit to Copenhagen, which they applaud, but it's not quite in the right sequence to make a concrete agreement possible."
She said any agreement would come at the "very end" of the conference, not the beginning.
The White House said the timing of the president's visit is immaterial.
"I think the president believes that that visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Many officials at home and abroad have praised Obama effusively for his decision to attend the climate change summit and lay out U.S. targets.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a statement that Obama's pitch "could be one hell of a global game changer."
"The fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line," Kerry said.
That's a dangerous place for the president's prestige to be, given what happened last time in Copenhagen. The president's other international trips have yielded mixed results.
Obama's eight-day trip through Asia last month didn't result in any concrete victories for the United States, though the president said his talks with Asian leaders could spur economic growth.
In a positive sign, China and Russia -- two nations Obama has reached out to -- later joined the United States and other Western nations in condemning Iran's nuclear activities. But Iran then turned around to declare defiantly that it would develop 10 more nuclear sites.
With Russia, Obama's travels yielded a number of agreements, including a pledge to cooperate more fully on bringing security to Afghanistan and a transit agreement allowing U.S. military equipment and supplies to travel through Russia on their way to Afghanistan.
The two countries also put out a statement setting out target limits for warheads and delivery systems, guiding negotiations for a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
But that effort has slowed, with administration aides now admitting that both countries will probably need a "bridge" agreement because a new deal won't be hammered out before the current treaty expires Dec. 5.
Elsewhere, the April G-20 summit in London resulted in a pledge for more than $1 trillion in financing to the International Monetary Fund and other institutions. And during the summertime G-8 meeting in Italy, industrialized nations pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
But a Kyoto successor is what the international community is focusing on when it comes to climate change. And the split is wide between developed countries like the United States and developing countries like India and China, which are hesitant to commit to binding targets.
The fact that the Senate has not yet followed the House's lead in passing a U.S. climate change bill puts Obama in a potentially weakened position in Copenhagen.
Michaels predicted "a lot of comprehensive hot air" in otherwise chilly Denmark.
"A breakthrough will be claimed when in fact none will exist," he said. source
Well, bet you're happy; I'm political again!
See, the prob with Obama is he's charming but full of confetti. There is nothing to his word. It's like promising you I'll tell you my real name and phone number. Heck no!
He thinks he's so swauve all the time. "I'm a-gonna charm you." He reminds me of a peacock at times. Just flauting his socalist feathers, which he'd deny of course. But, eh.
This is so stupid, seriously, a climate change confrence? Seriously? While we're at it, why don't we have a chocolate chip cookie confrence. Hey, they both matter about the same amount, in my 'pinion, at least.
Like the Olympic bid, I disagree w/ this idea. Hey, what do I agree with Obama about?
Oh, well...
PLC,
CT
President Obama's plans for seeking an international agreement at a U.N. climate change conference next week sound precariously similar to his plans for pitching Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics two months ago.
At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark.
Obama's first visit ended in decisive failure, with Rio de Janeiro winning the bid. So is the president setting himself up for a repeat? Or is he facing down his Denmark demons and looking to get his mojo back?
Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and environmental fellow at the Cato Institute, said he has his doubts.
"The president is carrying nothing credible in his pocket, so how can he compel people to do something credible?" he said, referring to the fact that Congress has not passed its cap-and-trade bill.
Obama has traveled abroad extensively -- to summits and conferences and high-level meetings -- since taking office. Those trips have produced a slew of agreements and announcements, but little concrete action. And on some of the biggest issues of the world stage -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear program among them -- the president's approach has yielded little progress.
Analysts say that while Obama might help strike a broadly worded deal in Copenhagen, a legally binding replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may be just as unlikely after his visit as before.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., reminded the president of his limits in a letter he sent to the White House last week after Obama announced he would travel to Copenhagen and lay out America's goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.
"I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon (in Denmark). ... The phrase 'politically binding' has been used," Webb wrote. "As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."
Michaels said that letter alone hurts Obama's efforts in Copenhagen, since it could confirm delegates' suspicions that the president may not be prepared to hold up the United States' end of any grand bargain.
Heather Conley, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama's travel schedule could also dim his chances of success.
The president plans to stop by on Dec. 9, before heading to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize the next day. But the climate conference lasts two weeks, from Dec. 7-18.
"The timing is off," Conley said. "He's going to be there the second or third day of the beginning of the negotiations. Political leaders are a bit flummoxed because they don't know how to incorporate President Obama's visit to Copenhagen, which they applaud, but it's not quite in the right sequence to make a concrete agreement possible."
She said any agreement would come at the "very end" of the conference, not the beginning.
The White House said the timing of the president's visit is immaterial.
"I think the president believes that that visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Many officials at home and abroad have praised Obama effusively for his decision to attend the climate change summit and lay out U.S. targets.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a statement that Obama's pitch "could be one hell of a global game changer."
"The fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line," Kerry said.
That's a dangerous place for the president's prestige to be, given what happened last time in Copenhagen. The president's other international trips have yielded mixed results.
Obama's eight-day trip through Asia last month didn't result in any concrete victories for the United States, though the president said his talks with Asian leaders could spur economic growth.
In a positive sign, China and Russia -- two nations Obama has reached out to -- later joined the United States and other Western nations in condemning Iran's nuclear activities. But Iran then turned around to declare defiantly that it would develop 10 more nuclear sites.
With Russia, Obama's travels yielded a number of agreements, including a pledge to cooperate more fully on bringing security to Afghanistan and a transit agreement allowing U.S. military equipment and supplies to travel through Russia on their way to Afghanistan.
The two countries also put out a statement setting out target limits for warheads and delivery systems, guiding negotiations for a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
But that effort has slowed, with administration aides now admitting that both countries will probably need a "bridge" agreement because a new deal won't be hammered out before the current treaty expires Dec. 5.
Elsewhere, the April G-20 summit in London resulted in a pledge for more than $1 trillion in financing to the International Monetary Fund and other institutions. And during the summertime G-8 meeting in Italy, industrialized nations pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
But a Kyoto successor is what the international community is focusing on when it comes to climate change. And the split is wide between developed countries like the United States and developing countries like India and China, which are hesitant to commit to binding targets.
The fact that the Senate has not yet followed the House's lead in passing a U.S. climate change bill puts Obama in a potentially weakened position in Copenhagen.
Michaels predicted "a lot of comprehensive hot air" in otherwise chilly Denmark.
"A breakthrough will be claimed when in fact none will exist," he said. source
Well, bet you're happy; I'm political again!
See, the prob with Obama is he's charming but full of confetti. There is nothing to his word. It's like promising you I'll tell you my real name and phone number. Heck no!
He thinks he's so swauve all the time. "I'm a-gonna charm you." He reminds me of a peacock at times. Just flauting his socalist feathers, which he'd deny of course. But, eh.
This is so stupid, seriously, a climate change confrence? Seriously? While we're at it, why don't we have a chocolate chip cookie confrence. Hey, they both matter about the same amount, in my 'pinion, at least.
Like the Olympic bid, I disagree w/ this idea. Hey, what do I agree with Obama about?
Oh, well...
PLC,
CT
Leave the poor man alone already!
You probably heard about Tiger (i always wanna type Tigger) Woods' affair. I should probably rant about the fact that there are barely any sane athletes left, that he's probably gonna lose fans and sponsers, and that he made a bad choice. But I'm not going to.
I'm just going to say one thing: leave him alone. He made a mistake, so let's not meddle in his personal life. Sure, it's interesting, but how does it impact your life?
Just some food for thought...
-CT-
P.S. I have a feeling the global warming is approaching, considering I'm in jeans, long-sleeves, hoodie, socks, and wishing I had on a coat. Wow, great goin', Al.
I'm just going to say one thing: leave him alone. He made a mistake, so let's not meddle in his personal life. Sure, it's interesting, but how does it impact your life?
Just some food for thought...
-CT-
P.S. I have a feeling the global warming is approaching, considering I'm in jeans, long-sleeves, hoodie, socks, and wishing I had on a coat. Wow, great goin', Al.
Ugh, not again
Oh, no! No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!
Wonder what all the fuss is about? Read on...
Adam Lambert wants to get close to Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart and the rest of the "Twilight Saga: Eclipse" cast. The singer tells MTV his song "Suburban Decay" would work for the vampire-werewolf-human romantic drama, though "Decay" didn't find a spot on his first album.
"It's a great song and I hope to perform it someday, and I think it will find a home, on a soundtrack or something ... maybe 'Twilight,'" Lambert said. "It just didn't quite fit [on the album 'For Your Entertainment']. It's very theatrical... It's very campy, and it was just a bit too campy for the album as a big picture."
If you're keeping score at home, that means the "Twilight" series higher on the camp scale than Lambert and his infamous American Music Awards performance.
"Twilight: Eclipse" comes to theaters June 30, 2010. source
Yeah, great timing, dude. You try and jump on the Twilight bandwagon right after you behave like a perverted little boy onstage. Yeah, gee, I wonder if they'll let you.
These are teenagers who like the Twilight series (for the most part) and I don't wanna see him on the soundtrack. Someone I do wanna see? RPattz, and The Mitch Hansen Band.
Everybody wants a piece of the Twilight saga. Haven't you noticed? (Kelly Clarkson, Kings of Leon, Jonas Brothers, etc.) And I didn't want any of them, thank you very much!
People, we like the unknown artists, actors, etc. I don't want already popular people who already have a great career (or a really sucky one and they think getting on this franchise will boost it).
I say big VETO to Adam.
Sorry...or not :)
As well, big head much? "I think it'd be a great song, cuz I'm gay and I wrote it. So, you know it's pretty awesome. And if you don't like it you're a homophobe. Hehehe."
-CT-
P.S. Oh, btw, it's not cuz you're gay, dude.
Wonder what all the fuss is about? Read on...
Adam Lambert wants to get close to Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart and the rest of the "Twilight Saga: Eclipse" cast. The singer tells MTV his song "Suburban Decay" would work for the vampire-werewolf-human romantic drama, though "Decay" didn't find a spot on his first album.
"It's a great song and I hope to perform it someday, and I think it will find a home, on a soundtrack or something ... maybe 'Twilight,'" Lambert said. "It just didn't quite fit [on the album 'For Your Entertainment']. It's very theatrical... It's very campy, and it was just a bit too campy for the album as a big picture."
If you're keeping score at home, that means the "Twilight" series higher on the camp scale than Lambert and his infamous American Music Awards performance.
"Twilight: Eclipse" comes to theaters June 30, 2010. source
Yeah, great timing, dude. You try and jump on the Twilight bandwagon right after you behave like a perverted little boy onstage. Yeah, gee, I wonder if they'll let you.
These are teenagers who like the Twilight series (for the most part) and I don't wanna see him on the soundtrack. Someone I do wanna see? RPattz, and The Mitch Hansen Band.
Everybody wants a piece of the Twilight saga. Haven't you noticed? (Kelly Clarkson, Kings of Leon, Jonas Brothers, etc.) And I didn't want any of them, thank you very much!
People, we like the unknown artists, actors, etc. I don't want already popular people who already have a great career (or a really sucky one and they think getting on this franchise will boost it).
I say big VETO to Adam.
Sorry...or not :)
As well, big head much? "I think it'd be a great song, cuz I'm gay and I wrote it. So, you know it's pretty awesome. And if you don't like it you're a homophobe. Hehehe."
-CT-
P.S. Oh, btw, it's not cuz you're gay, dude.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Stephanie Pratt has little chicken legs
Hey again:
Heh, aren't you lucky, two posts in one day!
Tonight, it's reason #568 (or close to it) why I hate Hollywood.
The case: Stephanie Pratt. Besides the fact that her brother is a total ding-dong, have you seen how skinny she is now?
Need evidence?
The pic on the top was in July and the one on the bottom was taken in November.
Her thighs are as big as my sister's, and she's 10!
I get so sick of Hollywood trying to make us feel bad about ourselves if we have meat on our bones. I'm careful what I eat, I exercise, and I'm not stick thin. Pardon me for not wanting to starve myself or purge.
What is with this need to have little stick thin legs? I have this marvelous thing called muscle on my arms. $10 says Stephanie Pratt can't even lift five pounds. If you're that skinny, that's sad. There is no need to be so skinny, unless you have a really awesome metabolism. Then you're off the hook. :)
I really hate these so-called "role models." How about people who A) have contributed something worthwhile to soceity and B) don't dediate their lives to weighing less than 110 pounds.
Ah, just my 'pinion.
-CT-
Heh, aren't you lucky, two posts in one day!
Tonight, it's reason #568 (or close to it) why I hate Hollywood.
The case: Stephanie Pratt. Besides the fact that her brother is a total ding-dong, have you seen how skinny she is now?
Need evidence?
The pic on the top was in July and the one on the bottom was taken in November.
Her thighs are as big as my sister's, and she's 10!
I get so sick of Hollywood trying to make us feel bad about ourselves if we have meat on our bones. I'm careful what I eat, I exercise, and I'm not stick thin. Pardon me for not wanting to starve myself or purge.
What is with this need to have little stick thin legs? I have this marvelous thing called muscle on my arms. $10 says Stephanie Pratt can't even lift five pounds. If you're that skinny, that's sad. There is no need to be so skinny, unless you have a really awesome metabolism. Then you're off the hook. :)
I really hate these so-called "role models." How about people who A) have contributed something worthwhile to soceity and B) don't dediate their lives to weighing less than 110 pounds.
Ah, just my 'pinion.
-CT-
I need to rant bahaha
Hello:
You know what really bugs me, (besides O'l Obama ducking out of questions with no criticism) judgment.
People judge things without really looking into it. Need some examples, oh, baby, I got 'em.
1. Sarah Palin.
Libs judge the heck out of this poor woman for no reason. Actually, wait, they judge her because she's perfect!! They can't try and judge Hilary Clinton, that lady's so messed up, it's just not even worth it. I have a lot of hope for Sarah, and I think she's going places. Sure, they attack her but I secretly think they like her. Yep.
2. Harry Potter. People judge this one without looking into this one either. Everyone's all "Oh, it's magic! Oh, no! Save me! Aaaah!" People: calm down! Sure, it's magic, ooh scary. The fact that they're wizards is almost just a side part. It's more about the characters growing up. It's not like they're worshiping the devil. Please, it's good vs. evil and good wins. I'm not talking about Philip Pullman, here, okay? It's also the maturity of the kid in question. If you think they're going to start mimicking the books, like doing spells and getting into witchcraft, all right, fine, don't let 'em read them. But don't force your opinion on me. I've already read all the books, and seen the movies, and I love them. JK Rowling is a great author, and I hope she writes some other series too.
3. Twilight. Ooh, babe! People, legalistic people especially, like to name this, "a cult" or label it as the devil's books. I hardly see it that way. These are NOT the stereotypical vampires you've heard of it. They live among people, don't drink their blood, and have a loving family atmosphere. Sounds cheesy? Well, it's not. The way Stephenie Meyer develops it makes it almost believable, and that takes a talented author to do that. Yeah, sure it's a romance, but it's not pornographic. Some people call it "emotional porn," and I laugh. Hardly. Yeah, some girls go gaga over Edward and get a little obsessive, but that's not everyone. There are more calm fans, like me, who love the series, think Edward's a fly guy, but know he's fake. And I can comprehend there's no guy as perfect as Edward. But a girl can dream, can't she? :) People need to stop making judgments about it and read the books. Yeah, it's a vampire book, but it's not disgusting, it's not weird, and it's enjoyable. If people would give it a chance, without a tainted opinion, it might not get such a bad rep. It's a good series, so STOP JUDGING it, a'right? good. :)
I know this barely relates to politics, but I've read a few articles of people discussing the Twilight series, making it out to be a devil's cult. I don't see it that way, and maybe it's just me, I don't think so though. :)
A break from politics is always nice, oui? I thought so...
Well, enjoy this cold weather and laugh at Al Gore's global warming theories...
-CT-
You know what really bugs me, (besides O'l Obama ducking out of questions with no criticism) judgment.
People judge things without really looking into it. Need some examples, oh, baby, I got 'em.
1. Sarah Palin.
Libs judge the heck out of this poor woman for no reason. Actually, wait, they judge her because she's perfect!! They can't try and judge Hilary Clinton, that lady's so messed up, it's just not even worth it. I have a lot of hope for Sarah, and I think she's going places. Sure, they attack her but I secretly think they like her. Yep.
2. Harry Potter. People judge this one without looking into this one either. Everyone's all "Oh, it's magic! Oh, no! Save me! Aaaah!" People: calm down! Sure, it's magic, ooh scary. The fact that they're wizards is almost just a side part. It's more about the characters growing up. It's not like they're worshiping the devil. Please, it's good vs. evil and good wins. I'm not talking about Philip Pullman, here, okay? It's also the maturity of the kid in question. If you think they're going to start mimicking the books, like doing spells and getting into witchcraft, all right, fine, don't let 'em read them. But don't force your opinion on me. I've already read all the books, and seen the movies, and I love them. JK Rowling is a great author, and I hope she writes some other series too.
3. Twilight. Ooh, babe! People, legalistic people especially, like to name this, "a cult" or label it as the devil's books. I hardly see it that way. These are NOT the stereotypical vampires you've heard of it. They live among people, don't drink their blood, and have a loving family atmosphere. Sounds cheesy? Well, it's not. The way Stephenie Meyer develops it makes it almost believable, and that takes a talented author to do that. Yeah, sure it's a romance, but it's not pornographic. Some people call it "emotional porn," and I laugh. Hardly. Yeah, some girls go gaga over Edward and get a little obsessive, but that's not everyone. There are more calm fans, like me, who love the series, think Edward's a fly guy, but know he's fake. And I can comprehend there's no guy as perfect as Edward. But a girl can dream, can't she? :) People need to stop making judgments about it and read the books. Yeah, it's a vampire book, but it's not disgusting, it's not weird, and it's enjoyable. If people would give it a chance, without a tainted opinion, it might not get such a bad rep. It's a good series, so STOP JUDGING it, a'right? good. :)
I know this barely relates to politics, but I've read a few articles of people discussing the Twilight series, making it out to be a devil's cult. I don't see it that way, and maybe it's just me, I don't think so though. :)
A break from politics is always nice, oui? I thought so...
Well, enjoy this cold weather and laugh at Al Gore's global warming theories...
-CT-
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
AMA Music Awards...No worries, this article IS kid friendly. Ha, Take That Lambert
Hey:
Well, you've probably heard about good ol' Adam Lambert... *cough* pervert *cough*.
This is kinda a raunchy topic so just an fyi, I've edited the article bit. But I'm still telling you where it came from and all that stuff. Like the little said, it's kid friendly. Ya might find it interesting, I s'pose.
Adam Lambert admits he got carried away with his sexually charged American Music Awards performance, but he's offering no apology.
The glam rocker from "American Idol" said on "The Early Show" that his performance would not have caused as much controversy if he weren't openly gay. He also said there were other "adult" moments on the show that caused no outrage.
"I admit I did get carried away, but I don't see anything wrong with it," he said Wednesday. "I do see how people got offended and that was not my intention. My intention was to interpret the lyrics of my song and have a good time with it."
ABC received many complaints about the performance and that network's morning show, "Good Morning America," canceled Lambert's scheduled appearance on Wednesday because it said it couldn't trust what he would do.
"The Early Show" on CBS, perennially third in a three-network morning show race, happily gave him a platform -- interviewing him and asking him to sing.
Lambert admitted he didn't rehearse some of the more risque elements of his award show performance -- a point that particularly upset ABC, which said it was taken by surprise by what he did. In the future, he said he'd try to get these issues cleared before the show.
But he noted that Lady Gaga smashed whiskey bottles during her performance, Eminem rapped about rape and Janet Jackson briefly groped a male dancer.
"Janet Jackson, crotch grab," he said. "I haven't heard one peep about that."
He said that "if it had been a female pop performer doing (his) moves that were on the stage, I don't think there would be nearly as much of an outrage."
"I think it's because I'm a gay male," he added.
Offered a chance to apologize, he declined. He said he didn't consider that there may have been children watching because his American Music Awards performance came at nearly 11 p.m., and that it's a parent's job to monitor what their children are watching on TV.
"I'm not a baby sitter," he said. "I'm a performer."
Asked what he'd do differently if he had the chance, Lambert said, "I would sing it a little bit better."
"I guess I have a tendency to divide people," he added. "Apples and oranges -- you either like it or you don't."
Lambert was scheduled to perform two songs later in the morning broadcast. "For Your Entertainment" wasn't one of them.
"Parents, this is appropriate, I promise," he said at the end of the interview.
"For Your Entertainment" is the first single from Lambert's new album, which went on sale Monday. source
Well, let me just start off with...jerk!!!!!
There is no excuse for behavior this explicit. I don't even 1/2 care you're gay, alright?! You're under attack because no one should do that! Yeah, forget all that, "it's okay to be gay" crud. That was beyond revolting. I wouldn't care if Lady Gaga did that, I'd still be ranting about that. You had no right in the world to do that.
And ABC can say it wasn't planned, but something tells me they could be lying... I mean, they sound kinda guilty to me.
I am, seriously, not a homophobe by any means. I do not fear you so don't take it as that. The chances of someone actually being homophobic are most likely pretty minimal. Now you do have more people with these crazy things called...morals. Wow, bet Adam's never heard of those. With him it's all "forget what's right all the time." I mean, he has no limitations. If we tried to tell, like we have been, that it's inappropriate behavior, look at what he fires back with. Again, WHAT WITH THE HOMOPHOBIA THING!!!!!!??
It's ridiculous, seriously.
I am so glad he didn't go on GMA, he didn't deserve the right to be on television in my mind. Now CBS, the little kiss-ups, has him on. Why am I not surprised?
This is going to sound really mean, but sorry, I really hope his cd fails. I do. I think we should boycott him. No, not because he's gay, but because of his responses to the event and the event itself. Like I think we should boycott Kanye West, Eminem, Miley Cyrus....etc. It's not so much them, it's their actions, and what they say. If they'd behave and shut their pieholes we wouldn't be forced to boycott so much stuff. Like Gossip Girl, or 90210, those are revolting shows with no morals that I just stay away from. How does their sex lives change mine? Same goes for Adam Lambert.
Why do celebs (i.e. Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, Ellen Degeneres, Pete Wentz) think we need to know if they're bi-sexual or gay? How does it change our lives? They might lose some fan base, ("homophobes") but really not that much. It changes the celebs lives. Jolie has said she's regretted coming out with the truth, and she should. People now-a-days seem to trust too much. Why do we have rape cases coming out all the time? Too much trust in the wrong people. Anyways, the celebs seem to think the public wants to know about their sexuality, sex lives, who's sexy, how awesome they are, their favorite color...etc.
Part of the reason I hate, literally hate hollywood is the celebs. They're too open, skanky, and full of themselves. The most refreshing celebs at this point are Taylor Lautner and Rob Pattinson. Yes, I know they're from Twilight but stay with me here. Watch interviews of them. Taylor comes across as mature yet he doesn't have a big head. I mean, he dated Selena Gomez, I wouldn't put that on his list of accomplishments. No offense of course. :) Rob, is this goofy, 23 year old dude who can barely dress himself. He is not very well put together, and that's nice to see. Most celebs chalk on the make-up, dress shirts, and slicked back hair. Rob, on the other hand, dresses like a hobo. (My friend thinks he looks like he's been having one too many hangovers :D)
Celebs, though they like to forget it, are human. So why people look up to them annoys the heck out of me. Stop screaming at 'em. You're only encouraging big heads. Why do you think Brad Pitt still thinks he's a sex symbol? He's had girls screaming at him since like, ever. BTW, dude, that beard is not doing ya any favors.
Back to Adam, it is ridiculous that he has not apologized. He should. Most of his fan base, correct me if I'm wrong, was teens, wasn't it?(Truthfully, I liked Kris Allen better. Ooh, I'm such a rebel) So, is he just leaving that nice stuff behind him and moving on? Apparently, yes, he is.
He's gonna regret all this someday, mark my words, he will. He seriously cannot feel proud about the way he behaved up their on stage. I really think this is gonna leave a mark on his career. He'll forever be Pervert Boy. Sorry, the truth hurts, doesn't it, Adam?
Ay yi yi, what has television and people for that matter come to? Adam has this semi-compulsive need to flaunt his gay-ness. (yeah, i kinda sorta just made that word up.)
This is not normal, but I'd be keeping an eye out for this to happen again. Hey, he's gonna be a repeat offender, I just know it.
Ah, well, tanks for reading (yes I mean tanks)
PLC,
-CT-
P.S. You know its bad when he cakes on more make-up than I do...and I'm a teenage girl! Crazy, much?
Well, you've probably heard about good ol' Adam Lambert... *cough* pervert *cough*.
This is kinda a raunchy topic so just an fyi, I've edited the article bit. But I'm still telling you where it came from and all that stuff. Like the little said, it's kid friendly. Ya might find it interesting, I s'pose.
Adam Lambert admits he got carried away with his sexually charged American Music Awards performance, but he's offering no apology.
The glam rocker from "American Idol" said on "The Early Show" that his performance would not have caused as much controversy if he weren't openly gay. He also said there were other "adult" moments on the show that caused no outrage.
"I admit I did get carried away, but I don't see anything wrong with it," he said Wednesday. "I do see how people got offended and that was not my intention. My intention was to interpret the lyrics of my song and have a good time with it."
ABC received many complaints about the performance and that network's morning show, "Good Morning America," canceled Lambert's scheduled appearance on Wednesday because it said it couldn't trust what he would do.
"The Early Show" on CBS, perennially third in a three-network morning show race, happily gave him a platform -- interviewing him and asking him to sing.
Lambert admitted he didn't rehearse some of the more risque elements of his award show performance -- a point that particularly upset ABC, which said it was taken by surprise by what he did. In the future, he said he'd try to get these issues cleared before the show.
But he noted that Lady Gaga smashed whiskey bottles during her performance, Eminem rapped about rape and Janet Jackson briefly groped a male dancer.
"Janet Jackson, crotch grab," he said. "I haven't heard one peep about that."
He said that "if it had been a female pop performer doing (his) moves that were on the stage, I don't think there would be nearly as much of an outrage."
"I think it's because I'm a gay male," he added.
Offered a chance to apologize, he declined. He said he didn't consider that there may have been children watching because his American Music Awards performance came at nearly 11 p.m., and that it's a parent's job to monitor what their children are watching on TV.
"I'm not a baby sitter," he said. "I'm a performer."
Asked what he'd do differently if he had the chance, Lambert said, "I would sing it a little bit better."
"I guess I have a tendency to divide people," he added. "Apples and oranges -- you either like it or you don't."
Lambert was scheduled to perform two songs later in the morning broadcast. "For Your Entertainment" wasn't one of them.
"Parents, this is appropriate, I promise," he said at the end of the interview.
"For Your Entertainment" is the first single from Lambert's new album, which went on sale Monday. source
Well, let me just start off with...jerk!!!!!
There is no excuse for behavior this explicit. I don't even 1/2 care you're gay, alright?! You're under attack because no one should do that! Yeah, forget all that, "it's okay to be gay" crud. That was beyond revolting. I wouldn't care if Lady Gaga did that, I'd still be ranting about that. You had no right in the world to do that.
And ABC can say it wasn't planned, but something tells me they could be lying... I mean, they sound kinda guilty to me.
I am, seriously, not a homophobe by any means. I do not fear you so don't take it as that. The chances of someone actually being homophobic are most likely pretty minimal. Now you do have more people with these crazy things called...morals. Wow, bet Adam's never heard of those. With him it's all "forget what's right all the time." I mean, he has no limitations. If we tried to tell, like we have been, that it's inappropriate behavior, look at what he fires back with. Again, WHAT WITH THE HOMOPHOBIA THING!!!!!!??
It's ridiculous, seriously.
I am so glad he didn't go on GMA, he didn't deserve the right to be on television in my mind. Now CBS, the little kiss-ups, has him on. Why am I not surprised?
This is going to sound really mean, but sorry, I really hope his cd fails. I do. I think we should boycott him. No, not because he's gay, but because of his responses to the event and the event itself. Like I think we should boycott Kanye West, Eminem, Miley Cyrus....etc. It's not so much them, it's their actions, and what they say. If they'd behave and shut their pieholes we wouldn't be forced to boycott so much stuff. Like Gossip Girl, or 90210, those are revolting shows with no morals that I just stay away from. How does their sex lives change mine? Same goes for Adam Lambert.
Why do celebs (i.e. Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, Ellen Degeneres, Pete Wentz) think we need to know if they're bi-sexual or gay? How does it change our lives? They might lose some fan base, ("homophobes") but really not that much. It changes the celebs lives. Jolie has said she's regretted coming out with the truth, and she should. People now-a-days seem to trust too much. Why do we have rape cases coming out all the time? Too much trust in the wrong people. Anyways, the celebs seem to think the public wants to know about their sexuality, sex lives, who's sexy, how awesome they are, their favorite color...etc.
Part of the reason I hate, literally hate hollywood is the celebs. They're too open, skanky, and full of themselves. The most refreshing celebs at this point are Taylor Lautner and Rob Pattinson. Yes, I know they're from Twilight but stay with me here. Watch interviews of them. Taylor comes across as mature yet he doesn't have a big head. I mean, he dated Selena Gomez, I wouldn't put that on his list of accomplishments. No offense of course. :) Rob, is this goofy, 23 year old dude who can barely dress himself. He is not very well put together, and that's nice to see. Most celebs chalk on the make-up, dress shirts, and slicked back hair. Rob, on the other hand, dresses like a hobo. (My friend thinks he looks like he's been having one too many hangovers :D)
Celebs, though they like to forget it, are human. So why people look up to them annoys the heck out of me. Stop screaming at 'em. You're only encouraging big heads. Why do you think Brad Pitt still thinks he's a sex symbol? He's had girls screaming at him since like, ever. BTW, dude, that beard is not doing ya any favors.
Back to Adam, it is ridiculous that he has not apologized. He should. Most of his fan base, correct me if I'm wrong, was teens, wasn't it?(Truthfully, I liked Kris Allen better. Ooh, I'm such a rebel) So, is he just leaving that nice stuff behind him and moving on? Apparently, yes, he is.
He's gonna regret all this someday, mark my words, he will. He seriously cannot feel proud about the way he behaved up their on stage. I really think this is gonna leave a mark on his career. He'll forever be Pervert Boy. Sorry, the truth hurts, doesn't it, Adam?
Ay yi yi, what has television and people for that matter come to? Adam has this semi-compulsive need to flaunt his gay-ness. (yeah, i kinda sorta just made that word up.)
This is not normal, but I'd be keeping an eye out for this to happen again. Hey, he's gonna be a repeat offender, I just know it.
Ah, well, tanks for reading (yes I mean tanks)
PLC,
-CT-
P.S. You know its bad when he cakes on more make-up than I do...and I'm a teenage girl! Crazy, much?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Obama yep sorry I don't have any title just Obama boring much?
Just out of curiosity, I googled Barack Obama...
So, I scanned the page a couple of times, and at the top, was the link to his official website.
Here's what the synopsis on the google page says:
"Building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about an agenda of change."
What "movement?" It was just a bunch of libs, and people "charmed" by his "charisima."
"Empowering communities?" Oh yeah, if you means the slums in Chicago and the idiots who voted for him without looking at his background. (no offense of course)
"agenda of change?" Well, I see the change and the agenda. But um, I find it kinda strange they don't mention all the hope he promised? Maybe it's cuz THERE IS NONE!!!! maybe, i dunno.
Oh, well, just thought I'd let ya know 'bout that.
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
So, I scanned the page a couple of times, and at the top, was the link to his official website.
Here's what the synopsis on the google page says:
"Building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about an agenda of change."
What "movement?" It was just a bunch of libs, and people "charmed" by his "charisima."
"Empowering communities?" Oh yeah, if you means the slums in Chicago and the idiots who voted for him without looking at his background. (no offense of course)
"agenda of change?" Well, I see the change and the agenda. But um, I find it kinda strange they don't mention all the hope he promised? Maybe it's cuz THERE IS NONE!!!! maybe, i dunno.
Oh, well, just thought I'd let ya know 'bout that.
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
French are Helicopter Parents
Howdy:
PARIS — A French lawmaker says she has proposed a bill to ban corporal punishment, including spanking of children.
National Assembly member and pediatrician Edwige Antier says she believes spanking makes children more "sly, lying and aggressive."
The lawmaker says that after 38 years of medical practice she believes that "children who have never been spanked are better behaved, listen more to adults and are more respectful of their authority."
Antier, a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative party, says 18 European countries already outlaw spanking. Her comments appeared Sunday in Le Parisien newspaper.
French schools are banned from using corporal punishment, but no law prevents parents from spanking their children. Source
Yes, French nannies.
Good gosh, can these governments stop being parents to everyone? I find this ridiculous.
If children are naughty, they need to be punished. Now, I can testify spankings hurt, but it kept me from putting gum in my sister's hair.
I mean, kids already cannot play tag at recess, because they're party poopers. Not really, but their reasons are faulty and not very well supported in my mind. :)
Does the government just wanna adopt these kids? Uh, I'm sorry, but no way in heck, could you force me to go live w/ the government. Cuz, the truth is, if they're ruining our country, why in the world would we trust them with children? yes, i know this is in France, and they're already corrupt enough, but u never know what Houdini-bama's got up his sleeve...
So, happy Sunday!
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
PARIS — A French lawmaker says she has proposed a bill to ban corporal punishment, including spanking of children.
National Assembly member and pediatrician Edwige Antier says she believes spanking makes children more "sly, lying and aggressive."
The lawmaker says that after 38 years of medical practice she believes that "children who have never been spanked are better behaved, listen more to adults and are more respectful of their authority."
Antier, a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative party, says 18 European countries already outlaw spanking. Her comments appeared Sunday in Le Parisien newspaper.
French schools are banned from using corporal punishment, but no law prevents parents from spanking their children. Source
Yes, French nannies.
Good gosh, can these governments stop being parents to everyone? I find this ridiculous.
If children are naughty, they need to be punished. Now, I can testify spankings hurt, but it kept me from putting gum in my sister's hair.
I mean, kids already cannot play tag at recess, because they're party poopers. Not really, but their reasons are faulty and not very well supported in my mind. :)
Does the government just wanna adopt these kids? Uh, I'm sorry, but no way in heck, could you force me to go live w/ the government. Cuz, the truth is, if they're ruining our country, why in the world would we trust them with children? yes, i know this is in France, and they're already corrupt enough, but u never know what Houdini-bama's got up his sleeve...
So, happy Sunday!
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday Evening Rant: 9/11 Trials
Hello and all that stuff:
So, once again, I'm sorry for not writing on my blog. School's just crazy as heck, no kidding.
Before I jump into this messy gack, let me say that, if Steven Crowder ever *shakes head* reads this, this is for you: YOUR TWEETS ARE HIL-AR-IOUS. (yes, I did separate them, so read it as you see it.)
Anyways...
Michael Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.
Mukasey, in an interview with Fox News, called the civilian trial announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder "the wrong place, under the wrong circumstances, in the wrong forum."
"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case and noting that they have been used since the Revolutionary War and during and after World War II.
"There are forums that allow the presentation of evidence in a controlled atmosphere, where you can limit access to classified information, and where you can receive evidence gathered on the battlefield, not necessarily under the kinds of conditions in which police gather evidence in a conventional case," he said. "That's not true in federal court."
On Friday, Holder announced that the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in federal court in New York for their alleged role in the attacks that killed 2,976 American civilians -- saying the U.S. will seek the death penalty against the defendants.
Holder said he decided to seek justice against the suspects in federal court rather than a military tribunal because the attacks targeted civilians on U.S. soil. But Mukasey and other critics say the attack was an act of war that should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.
Mukasey said it's unlikely that Mohammed will be acquitted because of his confession and other evidence linking him to the attack. But he added that same evidence could present problems in federal court.
"The real problem is that there is other evidence that may very well come from classified sources, that would be easier to handle in a military tribunal, much harder to handle in a civilian tribunal," Mukasey said.
He added that the trial also puts the terrorists on the kind of stage they seek.
"They want to be on a big stage and there's no bigger stage than New York," he said. source
Now, I have to admit, I actually had to *gasp* think on this one. So that's what my brains for... just kidding... I'm finally on the same level as most libs. No offense ;)
I agree w/ the fact that they deserve the death sentence, I do not know how I feel about the whole "trial thing." These dudes obviously want attention, I mean, ya don't just go killing Americans so no one will ever know your name. And apparently, they have a deep, festering (that word always reminds me of Fester Addams) hate towards America. Which, fine. If you wanna hate America, sadly, I cannot stop you. And, sorry Obama, resoning with them about that hate is like resoning with a 2 year old right before bath time.
I say, which the liberals are gonna freak out about this, that we skip the whole trail and just give 'em the death sentence. We know they commited this crime, so why are we having a tea party in court? Hm? The libs seem to think resoning (ha) with mental people (seriously, these dudes aren't far from it) is gonna work. Yeah, along with giving them lollipops. Seriously, why do they think these people even wanna talk to us? Hm? You dunno, do ya? CUZ NO ONE DOES!!!!
That's just it, no one, I repeat, no one can understand the libs. Maybe themselves, but even then, they're still afraid of the big bad monster named Limbaugh/ Beck who lives in their closet. (If you wanna see something that'll give you nightmares for a month, watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSytKst4ZM It probably won't scare you, but it could. :D)
I'm sorry, but, this isn't a good idea. If we know they're guilty, why put 'em on trial? It's like giving your kid a lollipop when he deserves a good spanking for biting his little sister (we'll name her Sally)
Well, then, that's enough ranting for a Saturday night. Until tomorrow, or probably next week...if I have time, so it could be a couple of weeks, maybe months...
Nah, I'll try and update this thang more.
So, uh, live long and vote Conservative!
Palin, love, and Crowder...
-Conservative Teen-
So, once again, I'm sorry for not writing on my blog. School's just crazy as heck, no kidding.
Before I jump into this messy gack, let me say that, if Steven Crowder ever *shakes head* reads this, this is for you: YOUR TWEETS ARE HIL-AR-IOUS. (yes, I did separate them, so read it as you see it.)
Anyways...
Michael Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.
Mukasey, in an interview with Fox News, called the civilian trial announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder "the wrong place, under the wrong circumstances, in the wrong forum."
"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case and noting that they have been used since the Revolutionary War and during and after World War II.
"There are forums that allow the presentation of evidence in a controlled atmosphere, where you can limit access to classified information, and where you can receive evidence gathered on the battlefield, not necessarily under the kinds of conditions in which police gather evidence in a conventional case," he said. "That's not true in federal court."
On Friday, Holder announced that the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in federal court in New York for their alleged role in the attacks that killed 2,976 American civilians -- saying the U.S. will seek the death penalty against the defendants.
Holder said he decided to seek justice against the suspects in federal court rather than a military tribunal because the attacks targeted civilians on U.S. soil. But Mukasey and other critics say the attack was an act of war that should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.
Mukasey said it's unlikely that Mohammed will be acquitted because of his confession and other evidence linking him to the attack. But he added that same evidence could present problems in federal court.
"The real problem is that there is other evidence that may very well come from classified sources, that would be easier to handle in a military tribunal, much harder to handle in a civilian tribunal," Mukasey said.
He added that the trial also puts the terrorists on the kind of stage they seek.
"They want to be on a big stage and there's no bigger stage than New York," he said. source
Now, I have to admit, I actually had to *gasp* think on this one. So that's what my brains for... just kidding... I'm finally on the same level as most libs. No offense ;)
I agree w/ the fact that they deserve the death sentence, I do not know how I feel about the whole "trial thing." These dudes obviously want attention, I mean, ya don't just go killing Americans so no one will ever know your name. And apparently, they have a deep, festering (that word always reminds me of Fester Addams) hate towards America. Which, fine. If you wanna hate America, sadly, I cannot stop you. And, sorry Obama, resoning with them about that hate is like resoning with a 2 year old right before bath time.
I say, which the liberals are gonna freak out about this, that we skip the whole trail and just give 'em the death sentence. We know they commited this crime, so why are we having a tea party in court? Hm? The libs seem to think resoning (ha) with mental people (seriously, these dudes aren't far from it) is gonna work. Yeah, along with giving them lollipops. Seriously, why do they think these people even wanna talk to us? Hm? You dunno, do ya? CUZ NO ONE DOES!!!!
That's just it, no one, I repeat, no one can understand the libs. Maybe themselves, but even then, they're still afraid of the big bad monster named Limbaugh/ Beck who lives in their closet. (If you wanna see something that'll give you nightmares for a month, watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSytKst4ZM It probably won't scare you, but it could. :D)
I'm sorry, but, this isn't a good idea. If we know they're guilty, why put 'em on trial? It's like giving your kid a lollipop when he deserves a good spanking for biting his little sister (we'll name her Sally)
Well, then, that's enough ranting for a Saturday night. Until tomorrow, or probably next week...if I have time, so it could be a couple of weeks, maybe months...
Nah, I'll try and update this thang more.
So, uh, live long and vote Conservative!
Palin, love, and Crowder...
-Conservative Teen-
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Happy Vets Day!!!
Hello:
Unless you've been sick (I hope not) or just frightfully unobservant, you would know that today is Veterans Day. Hooray! A day to honor the beautiful men and women who have served our country, making it the secure place it is. If it were not for them, who knows how our country might be. Our president could be even more extremist...crazy thought, huh? I mean, for all we know, we could have Kim Jong as our prez. Scary thought, huh?
'Thanks to our men and women we are not an extremist country with leaders in military uniforms. That is a sign of dictatorship, and each day we creep scarily closer to that. That's gonna bring worse nightmares than horror movies, huh?
Seriously, I know Veterans Day may not mean much to libs...(I mean, all of sudden Obama's all "thank you *pause* men *pause* and women. Sorry *pause* about the pauses *pause*, my teleprompter *pause* was acting rather funny *pause." If ya catch my drift...) (Yes, I know he really didn't say that, I'm not that stupid."
So, take today to pray for our veterans and thank them for all our their services to our great country. Really, it is. The surface may not be looking so bright right now, but it will get better. Know that, cuz I do...I think. jk jk why do you think I watch funny vids all the time? Uh, cuz I hate being depressed...that's the truth. You watch the news, it's calling, "Shooting, killing, murder, hostage, war, racist, homophobe...etc..."
So, HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!!!
P.S. If you wanna read Obama's Vet Day speech here it be... Speech
Unless you've been sick (I hope not) or just frightfully unobservant, you would know that today is Veterans Day. Hooray! A day to honor the beautiful men and women who have served our country, making it the secure place it is. If it were not for them, who knows how our country might be. Our president could be even more extremist...crazy thought, huh? I mean, for all we know, we could have Kim Jong as our prez. Scary thought, huh?
'Thanks to our men and women we are not an extremist country with leaders in military uniforms. That is a sign of dictatorship, and each day we creep scarily closer to that. That's gonna bring worse nightmares than horror movies, huh?
Seriously, I know Veterans Day may not mean much to libs...(I mean, all of sudden Obama's all "thank you *pause* men *pause* and women. Sorry *pause* about the pauses *pause*, my teleprompter *pause* was acting rather funny *pause." If ya catch my drift...) (Yes, I know he really didn't say that, I'm not that stupid."
So, take today to pray for our veterans and thank them for all our their services to our great country. Really, it is. The surface may not be looking so bright right now, but it will get better. Know that, cuz I do...I think. jk jk why do you think I watch funny vids all the time? Uh, cuz I hate being depressed...that's the truth. You watch the news, it's calling, "Shooting, killing, murder, hostage, war, racist, homophobe...etc..."
So, HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!!!
P.S. If you wanna read Obama's Vet Day speech here it be... Speech
Monday, November 9, 2009
SESAME STREET!! OMG!
Hey:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of seeing Sesame Street on my Google page. Especially after finding out about the Fox News jab...sweet libs, aren't they?
-CT-
Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of seeing Sesame Street on my Google page. Especially after finding out about the Fox News jab...sweet libs, aren't they?
-CT-
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sesame Street?! Seriously...yeesh
Oh good grief!
“Sesame Street” producers are getting criticized for a parody that appears to take a stab at Fox News, and the ombudsman for the show says that the criticism is justified.
In a two-year old episode that was rebroadcast on October 29, the 40-year-old PBS children’s show features Oscar the Grouch making the decision to star his own news network, called the Grouch News Network, or GNN. The skit features CNN’s Anderson Cooper filling in for Oscar as he chats with “Walter Cranky” and “Dan Rather-Not,” parodies on Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather.
But when a muppet caller decides that the news is not grouchy enough, she says she is changing the channel to Pox News.
“I am changing the channel,” the irate muppet says. “From now on, I am watching ‘Pox’ News. Now there is a trashy news show.”
Immediately following the re-broadcast, viewers wrote in to both FoxNews.com and PBS, complaining that the skit was a thinly-veiled jab at Fox and was hardly appropriate for “Sesame Street’s” extremely young audience. The fact that PBS is federally funded prompted viewers to express concern at the shows possible push of a political agenda.
Hours after the broadcast aired, FoxNews.com received e-mails from readers insisting they heard “Fox” and not “Pox.”
A West Virginia viewer told FoxNews.com that her "jaw dropped" when she heard the skit's "inappropriate" material.
"I want to let my son continue to watch the show," Melissa Elam said. "But at the same time I feel a call of action to stop it ... I'm going to be watching a lot more closely now.
The next day, a blogger for Breitbart’s Big Hollywood column slammed “Sesame Street” for its “clear” political message.
“I can’t even sit my kids in front of ‘Sesame Street’ without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority,” the blogger known as Stage Right wrote.
Sesame Workshop Vice President of Corporate Communications Ellen Lewis told FoxNews.com that the show was merely a parody and would never mention Fox News directly.
And while the script sent from Sesame Workshop’s public relations’ team to FoxNews.com read “Pox,” even the PBS ombudsman Michael Getler said he thought he heard “Fox” as well.
“Everybody who wrote to me heard this as ‘Fox News,’ and I can’t really blame them. When I went and watched the tape for the first time, I thought I heard “Fox” as well, perhaps because of the association one assumes when you hear “news” right after the word. However, when I watched and listened more carefully a second time, it was clear that the character said ‘Pox’ and not ‘Fox’ and the closed captioning that runs across the screen when the sound is muted also stated ‘Pox News.’”
Getler went on to criticize producers for allowing the segment to air.
“I don’t know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn’t do it through the kids.” (source)
I swear, nothing ever surprises me anymore. I half expected them to do this, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because liberals like to attack us at any and all costs. Never, ever underestimate them. Sesame Street? Talk about indoctrinating at a young age. I thought that's what public schools were for ;)
How dare they? True, this clip is two years ago, but still, it just goes to show what thes people have up their sleeves.
Do they not care that there are some libs/more liberal people on Fox? Bill O'Reilly is kinda in between, does that not suffice? Apparently not...
Wow, just wow, PBS is quite a conniving station...wow :)
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
“Sesame Street” producers are getting criticized for a parody that appears to take a stab at Fox News, and the ombudsman for the show says that the criticism is justified.
In a two-year old episode that was rebroadcast on October 29, the 40-year-old PBS children’s show features Oscar the Grouch making the decision to star his own news network, called the Grouch News Network, or GNN. The skit features CNN’s Anderson Cooper filling in for Oscar as he chats with “Walter Cranky” and “Dan Rather-Not,” parodies on Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather.
But when a muppet caller decides that the news is not grouchy enough, she says she is changing the channel to Pox News.
“I am changing the channel,” the irate muppet says. “From now on, I am watching ‘Pox’ News. Now there is a trashy news show.”
Immediately following the re-broadcast, viewers wrote in to both FoxNews.com and PBS, complaining that the skit was a thinly-veiled jab at Fox and was hardly appropriate for “Sesame Street’s” extremely young audience. The fact that PBS is federally funded prompted viewers to express concern at the shows possible push of a political agenda.
Hours after the broadcast aired, FoxNews.com received e-mails from readers insisting they heard “Fox” and not “Pox.”
A West Virginia viewer told FoxNews.com that her "jaw dropped" when she heard the skit's "inappropriate" material.
"I want to let my son continue to watch the show," Melissa Elam said. "But at the same time I feel a call of action to stop it ... I'm going to be watching a lot more closely now.
The next day, a blogger for Breitbart’s Big Hollywood column slammed “Sesame Street” for its “clear” political message.
“I can’t even sit my kids in front of ‘Sesame Street’ without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority,” the blogger known as Stage Right wrote.
Sesame Workshop Vice President of Corporate Communications Ellen Lewis told FoxNews.com that the show was merely a parody and would never mention Fox News directly.
And while the script sent from Sesame Workshop’s public relations’ team to FoxNews.com read “Pox,” even the PBS ombudsman Michael Getler said he thought he heard “Fox” as well.
“Everybody who wrote to me heard this as ‘Fox News,’ and I can’t really blame them. When I went and watched the tape for the first time, I thought I heard “Fox” as well, perhaps because of the association one assumes when you hear “news” right after the word. However, when I watched and listened more carefully a second time, it was clear that the character said ‘Pox’ and not ‘Fox’ and the closed captioning that runs across the screen when the sound is muted also stated ‘Pox News.’”
Getler went on to criticize producers for allowing the segment to air.
“I don’t know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn’t do it through the kids.” (source)
I swear, nothing ever surprises me anymore. I half expected them to do this, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because liberals like to attack us at any and all costs. Never, ever underestimate them. Sesame Street? Talk about indoctrinating at a young age. I thought that's what public schools were for ;)
How dare they? True, this clip is two years ago, but still, it just goes to show what thes people have up their sleeves.
Do they not care that there are some libs/more liberal people on Fox? Bill O'Reilly is kinda in between, does that not suffice? Apparently not...
Wow, just wow, PBS is quite a conniving station...wow :)
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
Celebrities how sad
Celebrities...
here we blow...
Here are some celebs and their quotes about their views...
Kanye West (ew): What Kanye West regretted when Barack Obama became the Democratic party's presidential candidate: That his mother, Donda, hadn't lived to experience it.
"It's an incredible time to be around. I wish my momma could have seen this day," the 31-year-old rapper told a crowd gathered for his performance early Thursday morning. source
Perez Hilton (no surprise here, huh?: The beauty queen's response to a question from openly gay pageant judge and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has received more attention than the winner, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton.
Hilton, who also appeared on the "Today" show, said his question was relevant and that Prejean should have "left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans." source
Blake Lively: (I so did not know she was liberal) Penn Badgley and Blake Lively, have taken it to the next level — they've teamed up with MoveOn.org to get kids to get their parents to vote. For Obama. "Mom, Dad? I found this in your room today," Penn (a.k.a. Dan) says, brandishing a "Drill, Baby, Drill" trucker's hat. The ad is actually kind of funny, stealing the patronizing language parents use to talk to their kids about drugs and alcohol. "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting for John McCain, just call me!" Blake (a.k.a. Serena) says. "I'll pick you up." source
Now, before anyone tells me I shouldn't be making a big deal out of these celebs exercising their "right to free speech," and what not, I only have a problem with them forcing their opinions on us.
Guess what? I don't really care that Kanye West's mom should of seen Barack get sworn in. Again, I don't care about Perez being gay and whatever with that. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I do not approve/reccommend the gay lifestyle, but I cannot tell you how to live your life.
If you go to the site in which I have posted these links to, you can find lists of celeb libs and republicans.
There is something that bothers me in the pit of my stomach about the Blake Lively thing...
I just have a big problem with kids trying to tell their parents what do. Is it just me?
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
here we blow...
Here are some celebs and their quotes about their views...
Kanye West (ew): What Kanye West regretted when Barack Obama became the Democratic party's presidential candidate: That his mother, Donda, hadn't lived to experience it.
"It's an incredible time to be around. I wish my momma could have seen this day," the 31-year-old rapper told a crowd gathered for his performance early Thursday morning. source
Perez Hilton (no surprise here, huh?: The beauty queen's response to a question from openly gay pageant judge and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has received more attention than the winner, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton.
Hilton, who also appeared on the "Today" show, said his question was relevant and that Prejean should have "left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans." source
Blake Lively: (I so did not know she was liberal) Penn Badgley and Blake Lively, have taken it to the next level — they've teamed up with MoveOn.org to get kids to get their parents to vote. For Obama. "Mom, Dad? I found this in your room today," Penn (a.k.a. Dan) says, brandishing a "Drill, Baby, Drill" trucker's hat. The ad is actually kind of funny, stealing the patronizing language parents use to talk to their kids about drugs and alcohol. "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting for John McCain, just call me!" Blake (a.k.a. Serena) says. "I'll pick you up." source
Now, before anyone tells me I shouldn't be making a big deal out of these celebs exercising their "right to free speech," and what not, I only have a problem with them forcing their opinions on us.
Guess what? I don't really care that Kanye West's mom should of seen Barack get sworn in. Again, I don't care about Perez being gay and whatever with that. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I do not approve/reccommend the gay lifestyle, but I cannot tell you how to live your life.
If you go to the site in which I have posted these links to, you can find lists of celeb libs and republicans.
There is something that bothers me in the pit of my stomach about the Blake Lively thing...
I just have a big problem with kids trying to tell their parents what do. Is it just me?
Luv, Palin, and Crowder...
-CT-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
