Sarah Palin basically blew her chances (as if there is any doubt she had a chance) for running for presidential election by stepping down from her Alaskan governor office.
I love how her responses are so blown out of proportion that she has no awareness other than her self awareness... oh and that Russia is close to Alaska.
Some comments on her responses (responses taken from an article i just read)
"Palin, who was Sen. John McCain's vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election, said she already knew she would not seek a second term and decided against being a lame duck governor for the next 18 months. "
Well, if you said you're a lame duck governor... you are then obviously horrible at your job. If you are horrible at being a governor, a major micromanaging political position... then what makes you so sure you can be representative and successful at the presidency?
"She also complained that too much time and too many taxpayer dollars were going toward fighting ethics investigations and that the mainstream media were continuing with unfair attacks on her and her family."
You're a politician. If you say you're republican, you have left wingers down your throat, attacking every piece of you, your social life, family life, how you are... because you are supposed to represent yourself in every way as someone who is capable of being trustworthy with controlling things that effect everyone that lives in your jurisdiction. Apparently you don't realize this, and think they're just being mean and will eventually right "K.I.T" in your yearbook. Also, unless they do something like eye gouging or stabbing you in the back (literally), they are fighting fair... it's just words. Unless you consider tricking you into showing how ignorant you are on a radio talkshow as "not fair" i can understand, but some people are dumb enough that they believe everything they hear, and they heard that.
Also, the pure fact that you realize that too much time and taxpayer money is going to things you find unnecessary...then why are these unnecessary things not settled yet, and why have you not done anything to prevent / stop this. Oh yea, wait.. you're a lame duck and you said it yourself, nevermind.
"The media, if she wants to run for president, is going to be following her for the next 3½ years," said Rove"
So trying to get out of the spotlight so political talk show hosts and bloggers would stop attacking her family is null and void, smart move.
"The one that rings most hollow is, she doesn't want to put Alaska through the terror of [her] being a lame-duck governor," Will said. "If she is just weary of it, one can understand that. Still, she made a contract with [voters] to serve out her term. And she said, in her own words, she now is a quitter."
Best political move i've ever seen... the quitter planning on running for the presidency, not saving the citizens from the horror.
"Critics are spinning, so hang in there as they feed false info on the right decision made as I enter last yr in office to not run again," Palin's Twitter message said.
This stuff seriously just rights itself. The only false info they feed is the biased opinions and slants on how they report. If it's a true media news outlet, like the one I read this all from talking about how all the republicans are just straight up confused, it just proves you're more of an idiot than you try not to act like. Oh yeah, and the acting is horrible.
"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country," Palin said in a statement attributed to her on her Facebook page. "And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it's right for all, including your family."
This just takes the figurative and literal cake. So, you made a PERSONAL decision because you're a lame duck governor of a STATE as well as to protect YOUR family, and it's about COUNTRY... Let's do this mathematically or logically...
State is in country, but country is not in state. So COUNTRY > but not equal to STATE.
Citizens make up voting population in states and countries, so technically COUNTRY = Citizens...
Family are citizens, but citizens do not equal family (all the single ladies). So CITIZENS > but not equal to FAMILY.
And with this, ones self is part of a group of citizens, but don't make up the entirety of it. SO, CITIZENS > but not equal to PERSON.
So if it's completely about country, then your PERSONal decision would have to be Person = CitizenS = State = Country. This is not the case.. You fail, take the second grade again.
The only decision in this that you have made that could apply to the country, even though it's only the state, is the fact that you're no longer in charge of the state. There is a god. Oh, and God > Country, or so the southerners say.
"And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."
This is laughable. Most people who run for presidential offices either A) keep their positions and have the next in line in charge, or B) their term is up. Anyone who steps down from an IMPORTANT position such as senator or governor to run for a higher office would get critiqued as much as you... Since a higher office is not a higher calling, as those who have stepped down from office to help their family, or because they are ill, or have found a calling that is NOT POLITICAL. You are now defaming any person who has left office for an actual reason other than "I want a better paying / more famous job". That is a disgrace to their honor and being, and shows how unsympathetic you are. And the only standard that applies to the decisions you make and say is the fact that comedians don't have to make up their own punchlines, you hand it over to them.
Go to hell, shut the hell up, and realize that you're nothing more than a stay at home mom who will amount to nothing, other than ruining your children's lives.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Letters to the Letters to the editor pt.1
Stupidity has no bounds, and at times, freedom of speech caters to this lackluster event of what some might consider "a thought".
Letter to Editor- Title Too bad, atheists: Marriage is out.
Marriage is not just a social union, or legal union, it is a religious union. If the doctrines of the faith set requirements for what marriage is, and who can be married, then the only way to truly be married is to fulfill those requirements. In a relationship between a man and a woman, there are some positives: A man is made to protect a woman and be good to that woman, and a woman is built to produce children, which is why her sexual organs are made to not only allow objects to leave her body but allow objects to enter her body easily as well. A woman born a woman is a woman: a man born a man is a man, no matter what society and people say. In the case of homosexuality it is a deadend relationship; for a man and a man or a woman with a woman can not make a child biologically.
John - ------ (censored to protect the ignorant)
My response title: Who gave you a pen?
Not only is your argument so scattershotted that you start off your 'opinion' - as lightly as i can even consider it a true opinion - remarking to atheists about marriage, but you then set the gender issue back about 2000 years, and then go onto homosexuals.
First, a little history lesson. In the beginning there was man: as in the race, not gender. And man, like other species in the animal kingdom, have to reproduce to survive. Now, eventually man became intelligent, well...it is reasoned to believe. Some people in this species decided it is probably not best to act like a dog and hump everything in sight, be it same sex, opposite sex, a tree, or a leg, but rather to procreate so that the human race can live on.
Second, religion came before any civilized governing body. Religion is the first government, and is more based on a cultures ideas, ideals, and laws than it is actually about spritual development (read the bible some time, i did and it didn't develop me and it won't develop you, but it could cure insomnia for that matter). Now, again with this intelligence in the human race bit, most people in the world are religious, and as i said, that tends to come before any governing body over a civilized people. And what makes up government? People and their ideas and ideals and morals from their own culture. So of course, if they are going to adapt a body of government to their culture, their gonna steal some stuff from religion.
Now that the history lesson is over, on to your 'argument'. One can be married by law, or by religion. If you get married by law, the church, or any church, does not recognize the marriage even though in reality you are married, you can file joint tax forms, claim eachother as beneficiaries, support eachother with benefits from work. If you get married in a church...you're...married in a church and therefore recognized by the religion. What does this give you? Nothing.... Why??? You still have to fill out paperwork to signify to the political body that you are now officially married and some sort of rite has taken place, bringing in marriage by law. It seems as though you don't have to deal with religion at all in this day and age, and if you only get married in church then you really don't reep the benefits and reasons for being married, to support eachother with all that you have because you truly deeply love and care for that person.
On to your second, uh.. point. What a man and woman are meant to be. Now that you demonstrated what men and women really are, men to protect a woman and fuck them to have kids, and women just to have children, then I finally get the point of the mormon church. I'm moving to Utah and sign me up.
If that is all marriage is for you, albeit go out and try to find the right girl for you. Once they hear and understand your view on marriage your phone will be ringing off the hook!
In this day and age, a man can do as many things as women can do, and vice versa. In that statement you set the equality movement back 1000 years and showed how chauvenistic people can truly be. As stated, there's a lot more in marriage than procreation, like living together! Most people can't live together, and feel that because they can't stand the person now - something they should have found out before marriage - they get a divorce. And these are straight couples. Shows how highly the sanctity of marriage is viewed by a populace to begin wiht. Anyway. A man is able to protect and provide for a woman, and a woman is able to do the same. A man, duely, is also able to protect and provide for another man and the same goes for women. How? Well, one, it can be just by being nice, or they truly care for the person, and it doesn't even have to be sexual. Wow, that's something. A relationship without sex involved? Impossible.
Some of the matters at hand with gay marriage are the fact that outside of this "sacred bond" some couples wish to be able to provide and protect (benefits and benificiary issues) those they truly love, but due to the fact that they are not wedlocked or kin, they cannot legally do the things they wish to do. This is one of the major issues I see raised in this debate, and you put it so bluntly that you summed up how most people who support the religious version of marriage view it, stupidly.
As for your trail off into the absurdity of your argument, a homosexual couple may not be able to produce children, but they are able to adopt and raise a child the way they may deem fitting. And for matters at hand, even without children, it is not a dead-end relationship because if you only see children as the only possible outcome of a relationship then I hope to god you don't reproduce, because that result would be bad.
Letter to Editor- Title Too bad, atheists: Marriage is out.
Marriage is not just a social union, or legal union, it is a religious union. If the doctrines of the faith set requirements for what marriage is, and who can be married, then the only way to truly be married is to fulfill those requirements. In a relationship between a man and a woman, there are some positives: A man is made to protect a woman and be good to that woman, and a woman is built to produce children, which is why her sexual organs are made to not only allow objects to leave her body but allow objects to enter her body easily as well. A woman born a woman is a woman: a man born a man is a man, no matter what society and people say. In the case of homosexuality it is a deadend relationship; for a man and a man or a woman with a woman can not make a child biologically.
John - ------ (censored to protect the ignorant)
My response title: Who gave you a pen?
Not only is your argument so scattershotted that you start off your 'opinion' - as lightly as i can even consider it a true opinion - remarking to atheists about marriage, but you then set the gender issue back about 2000 years, and then go onto homosexuals.
First, a little history lesson. In the beginning there was man: as in the race, not gender. And man, like other species in the animal kingdom, have to reproduce to survive. Now, eventually man became intelligent, well...it is reasoned to believe. Some people in this species decided it is probably not best to act like a dog and hump everything in sight, be it same sex, opposite sex, a tree, or a leg, but rather to procreate so that the human race can live on.
Second, religion came before any civilized governing body. Religion is the first government, and is more based on a cultures ideas, ideals, and laws than it is actually about spritual development (read the bible some time, i did and it didn't develop me and it won't develop you, but it could cure insomnia for that matter). Now, again with this intelligence in the human race bit, most people in the world are religious, and as i said, that tends to come before any governing body over a civilized people. And what makes up government? People and their ideas and ideals and morals from their own culture. So of course, if they are going to adapt a body of government to their culture, their gonna steal some stuff from religion.
Now that the history lesson is over, on to your 'argument'. One can be married by law, or by religion. If you get married by law, the church, or any church, does not recognize the marriage even though in reality you are married, you can file joint tax forms, claim eachother as beneficiaries, support eachother with benefits from work. If you get married in a church...you're...married in a church and therefore recognized by the religion. What does this give you? Nothing.... Why??? You still have to fill out paperwork to signify to the political body that you are now officially married and some sort of rite has taken place, bringing in marriage by law. It seems as though you don't have to deal with religion at all in this day and age, and if you only get married in church then you really don't reep the benefits and reasons for being married, to support eachother with all that you have because you truly deeply love and care for that person.
On to your second, uh.. point. What a man and woman are meant to be. Now that you demonstrated what men and women really are, men to protect a woman and fuck them to have kids, and women just to have children, then I finally get the point of the mormon church. I'm moving to Utah and sign me up.
If that is all marriage is for you, albeit go out and try to find the right girl for you. Once they hear and understand your view on marriage your phone will be ringing off the hook!
In this day and age, a man can do as many things as women can do, and vice versa. In that statement you set the equality movement back 1000 years and showed how chauvenistic people can truly be. As stated, there's a lot more in marriage than procreation, like living together! Most people can't live together, and feel that because they can't stand the person now - something they should have found out before marriage - they get a divorce. And these are straight couples. Shows how highly the sanctity of marriage is viewed by a populace to begin wiht. Anyway. A man is able to protect and provide for a woman, and a woman is able to do the same. A man, duely, is also able to protect and provide for another man and the same goes for women. How? Well, one, it can be just by being nice, or they truly care for the person, and it doesn't even have to be sexual. Wow, that's something. A relationship without sex involved? Impossible.
Some of the matters at hand with gay marriage are the fact that outside of this "sacred bond" some couples wish to be able to provide and protect (benefits and benificiary issues) those they truly love, but due to the fact that they are not wedlocked or kin, they cannot legally do the things they wish to do. This is one of the major issues I see raised in this debate, and you put it so bluntly that you summed up how most people who support the religious version of marriage view it, stupidly.
As for your trail off into the absurdity of your argument, a homosexual couple may not be able to produce children, but they are able to adopt and raise a child the way they may deem fitting. And for matters at hand, even without children, it is not a dead-end relationship because if you only see children as the only possible outcome of a relationship then I hope to god you don't reproduce, because that result would be bad.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Warning: Sensory overload
So, i was drinking tonight, and am ultra tired, but i need to write this. This has been a month in the making.
I had another blog before this and the reason why I ended that one was due to the fact that while I write blogs to show my friends what is going on with my life and what I'm feeling, I use it to vent about the things i'm frustrated with in my life. When it comes to needing to vent about the people who tend to read my blog, then it becomes an issue with social politics, something of which i'm never fond of doing, yet do it anyway.
As my one friend has put it, I have few friends and it seems as though some don't get close to me because I have something called "Blunt honesty"... Meaning that I have an unbiased opinion of someone, as opposed to the opinion of why I hang out with said person, and on topic will say this opinion, not to demean them in anyway but to bring it to their attention. What people of course can't understand, and will never be able to, is the ability to seperate the REALITY of something with the situation, since such things will put a person in a defensive situation since it will be perceived as an attack on them rather than constructive criticism. I have this flaw too, but I'm able to fake anything, feel anything, be anything, so as much as I would want to be on the defensive if something is brought up to me in a similar situation, if put in the right context i can throw it under the rug and move on with it and just keep it in mind.
This blog right now is to bring this to attention to everyone, since I'm now officially making it known that this blog exists, not just to DMI (dundermifflininfinity) people and to officially get this shit off my chest, since it's been a month in the making.
The reason why i shut down my last blog was due to the fact that my small group of friends that i TRUST had gotten smaller in reality, even though they probably have never noticed it in reality. The sad fact is, they have a high opinion of me in some ways, but tend to underestimate me in many other things. Such as things they would assume not being noticed that are behind my back, or the assumption that they can manipulate things with me, or just the presumption of how i would react to things. I get very offended when people just automatically assume that I would object to things, or the fact that I can't handle what is considered "The truth" from them. I appreciate honesty and truth. I give it to anyone because I loathe the fact that i was brought up to show that I was something I wasn't, that i was lied to because "i couldn't handle it". I can, and i will, and other people can too, they just don't like hearing it.
The sad fact of this all is that they are the ones that supposedly know me best, and yet they still don't know me at all. And i'm sick of this. They sugarcoat things just to stay away from the "awkward" situations since them saying what they feel won't change a thing. As if their opinion of a matter wouldn't change a thing and would only bring an awkwardness between us. When if they knew me they would know that i would appreciate knowing how they feel about things rather than just have a feeling of them just being an asshole.
I actually asked a friend this weekend on one of these issues, knowing that he would actually be fucking honest with me, and i got what i wanted, and technically what i knew already, but i heard it from him. The rest of them would not give me in a million years the reasonable truth behind this. No, it isn't changing a thing, but i know where people are coming from.
I'm honestly sick of people. I want to call everyone out on all of their misfortunes of their behaviors due to the fact that I'm generally least looked to in any situation ever. I am probably the most esteemed person in their lives that they overlook the most often. Yes this sounds like an ego, but these same people have given me this ego. I have been told I am a friend they can always fall back on, a friend who is always there, a friend who looks out for others, a friend to everyone, a friend that through thick and thin will do anything. And what do I get in return? I end up getting a feeling of not wanting to stick my neck out for everyone. Not killing myself for a situation where i get nothing in return. I'm sick of being a martyr for my own right of saying "Oh you'd do the same for me" cause most of them wouldn't. A martyr of "I would want the same" because I wouldn't put myself in such a situation. A person who knows better overall.
I have so much to say and yet not enough words to say it in. Considering this is a month of thoughts thrown into one blog that is long overdue.
Overall, it comes down to this....
I don't care about burning bridges anymore, they still stay afloat when the ash hits the water.
I dont' care about crossing a line, cause it's just a perception of boundaries one overvalues.
I
Don't
Care
"you're answer is in there just stare down the barrel
you're sincerest apologies won't write you out of this one tonight
you'll find the right
in the pull of the trigger now bite"
I had another blog before this and the reason why I ended that one was due to the fact that while I write blogs to show my friends what is going on with my life and what I'm feeling, I use it to vent about the things i'm frustrated with in my life. When it comes to needing to vent about the people who tend to read my blog, then it becomes an issue with social politics, something of which i'm never fond of doing, yet do it anyway.
As my one friend has put it, I have few friends and it seems as though some don't get close to me because I have something called "Blunt honesty"... Meaning that I have an unbiased opinion of someone, as opposed to the opinion of why I hang out with said person, and on topic will say this opinion, not to demean them in anyway but to bring it to their attention. What people of course can't understand, and will never be able to, is the ability to seperate the REALITY of something with the situation, since such things will put a person in a defensive situation since it will be perceived as an attack on them rather than constructive criticism. I have this flaw too, but I'm able to fake anything, feel anything, be anything, so as much as I would want to be on the defensive if something is brought up to me in a similar situation, if put in the right context i can throw it under the rug and move on with it and just keep it in mind.
This blog right now is to bring this to attention to everyone, since I'm now officially making it known that this blog exists, not just to DMI (dundermifflininfinity) people and to officially get this shit off my chest, since it's been a month in the making.
The reason why i shut down my last blog was due to the fact that my small group of friends that i TRUST had gotten smaller in reality, even though they probably have never noticed it in reality. The sad fact is, they have a high opinion of me in some ways, but tend to underestimate me in many other things. Such as things they would assume not being noticed that are behind my back, or the assumption that they can manipulate things with me, or just the presumption of how i would react to things. I get very offended when people just automatically assume that I would object to things, or the fact that I can't handle what is considered "The truth" from them. I appreciate honesty and truth. I give it to anyone because I loathe the fact that i was brought up to show that I was something I wasn't, that i was lied to because "i couldn't handle it". I can, and i will, and other people can too, they just don't like hearing it.
The sad fact of this all is that they are the ones that supposedly know me best, and yet they still don't know me at all. And i'm sick of this. They sugarcoat things just to stay away from the "awkward" situations since them saying what they feel won't change a thing. As if their opinion of a matter wouldn't change a thing and would only bring an awkwardness between us. When if they knew me they would know that i would appreciate knowing how they feel about things rather than just have a feeling of them just being an asshole.
I actually asked a friend this weekend on one of these issues, knowing that he would actually be fucking honest with me, and i got what i wanted, and technically what i knew already, but i heard it from him. The rest of them would not give me in a million years the reasonable truth behind this. No, it isn't changing a thing, but i know where people are coming from.
I'm honestly sick of people. I want to call everyone out on all of their misfortunes of their behaviors due to the fact that I'm generally least looked to in any situation ever. I am probably the most esteemed person in their lives that they overlook the most often. Yes this sounds like an ego, but these same people have given me this ego. I have been told I am a friend they can always fall back on, a friend who is always there, a friend who looks out for others, a friend to everyone, a friend that through thick and thin will do anything. And what do I get in return? I end up getting a feeling of not wanting to stick my neck out for everyone. Not killing myself for a situation where i get nothing in return. I'm sick of being a martyr for my own right of saying "Oh you'd do the same for me" cause most of them wouldn't. A martyr of "I would want the same" because I wouldn't put myself in such a situation. A person who knows better overall.
I have so much to say and yet not enough words to say it in. Considering this is a month of thoughts thrown into one blog that is long overdue.
Overall, it comes down to this....
I don't care about burning bridges anymore, they still stay afloat when the ash hits the water.
I dont' care about crossing a line, cause it's just a perception of boundaries one overvalues.
I
Don't
Care
"you're answer is in there just stare down the barrel
you're sincerest apologies won't write you out of this one tonight
you'll find the right
in the pull of the trigger now bite"
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tipping should just be a city in China
Everyday going into work I pass by 3 Dunkin Donuts, one near my house, 2 within a blocks spit from eachother when I get off the train. The one by where I live is normal, even is half joined by a Baskin Robbins (yay ice cream and cold weather). The other two are less than normal, considering the high volume of traffic passing by their location (center city Philadelphia train station, yea, that busy). They always cram their worker numbers during rush hour in the morning, because hey, when else are you gonna get a coffee and donut. But there are two things that bother me.
One being that they are Indian... not the native to america kind. No, I am not racist. It's more that they are given a limited English vocabulary other than donut names and "Decaffe". I ordered a coffee once, actually Vanilla cappucino, just to not be straight coffee... A medium as well... she didn't quite get the hang of it. I got basic coffee. I was kind of annoyed but didn't bother.
The other though doesn't deal with the ethnicity or anything else, this is possibly an issue with management though, but here it goes.
When you are working behind a cash register, as in do nothing but take an order, grab prepared food, hand it over, take cash, etc. You should not be putting out a tip jar. Why is there a need to ask for tips for "Exemplary service" when you are doing basic duties, as rushed as you may be, but you do not necessarily need tips. You don't really even deserve to be tipped. Ringing an order up is not tip-worthy.
Bar-tenders and waiters get tipped... why? They have to deal with a person for more than 25 seconds. They have to talk to the people, maybe strike up conversation, make their stay while eating or drinking enjoyable if it calls for it. That is tip worthy because not only do they pay attention to you, they pay attention to other customers equally. Cabbies get tipped too. Because again, it is a longer ordeal than a 25 second drive and also have the need to possibly strike up conversation... and if a consumer is getting a cab for a 25 second drive, go ahead, tip the driver and be glad that Darwin Theory doesn't apply to humans...
I digress.
What it comes down to is no, you Dunkin Donuts people do not deserve tips, and get rid of those tip jars. You don't even pay attention to my order for more than 10 seconds - maximum 10 seconds if you are unsure about my order (they go as far as into the third person in line with an order and then you pay, hardly talking to the person handling your cash). So do as you should, bring back the "Give a penny take a penny" jar, which is more necessary of a thing in dealing with random taxes making the total $2.01 and stop asking for the change people don't want.
Seriously.
One being that they are Indian... not the native to america kind. No, I am not racist. It's more that they are given a limited English vocabulary other than donut names and "Decaffe". I ordered a coffee once, actually Vanilla cappucino, just to not be straight coffee... A medium as well... she didn't quite get the hang of it. I got basic coffee. I was kind of annoyed but didn't bother.
The other though doesn't deal with the ethnicity or anything else, this is possibly an issue with management though, but here it goes.
When you are working behind a cash register, as in do nothing but take an order, grab prepared food, hand it over, take cash, etc. You should not be putting out a tip jar. Why is there a need to ask for tips for "Exemplary service" when you are doing basic duties, as rushed as you may be, but you do not necessarily need tips. You don't really even deserve to be tipped. Ringing an order up is not tip-worthy.
Bar-tenders and waiters get tipped... why? They have to deal with a person for more than 25 seconds. They have to talk to the people, maybe strike up conversation, make their stay while eating or drinking enjoyable if it calls for it. That is tip worthy because not only do they pay attention to you, they pay attention to other customers equally. Cabbies get tipped too. Because again, it is a longer ordeal than a 25 second drive and also have the need to possibly strike up conversation... and if a consumer is getting a cab for a 25 second drive, go ahead, tip the driver and be glad that Darwin Theory doesn't apply to humans...
I digress.
What it comes down to is no, you Dunkin Donuts people do not deserve tips, and get rid of those tip jars. You don't even pay attention to my order for more than 10 seconds - maximum 10 seconds if you are unsure about my order (they go as far as into the third person in line with an order and then you pay, hardly talking to the person handling your cash). So do as you should, bring back the "Give a penny take a penny" jar, which is more necessary of a thing in dealing with random taxes making the total $2.01 and stop asking for the change people don't want.
Seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)