Many of you are aware that the mass murdering communist ketchup slatherer John Kerry gave people the ability to add pages to his main web site.
Well, as usual, the Republican Communists are the foremost supporters of the Democratic Communist party and their ideals.
So all the "independent thinkers" collectively get together and put up pages on the Kerry web site. We can see John Kerry the communist being supported by Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Commies, Adolf Hitler, etc.
Notice, there is no VLADIMIR PUTIN in that list. Everyone knows Putin supports W.

Dear readers, I do not waste my time by insulting commies. I respect commies. BY STABBING THEM. The Commie-Bad-Commie interaction involves only one thing. STABBING. No talking, no thinking, no insulting. STABBING.

Anyway, I don't understand the supposed irony in making all these web pages. The Communist Party of The USA actually is for Kerry. Let me repeat that. The "independent" communist political party thinks there is a very clear choice between the two candidates. And they whole heartedly support John Kerry and they tell their members to vote FOR John Kerry. Not Dennis Kucinich. Not a commie who says he is a commie. But a commie who PROVES he is a commie. With great deeds. A Communist Murderer like John Kerry. So, where is this supposed irony so I may beat it with a stick? Boy, the republicans are stupid.


Some of you may ask why the Republican Communists are the foremost supporters of the Democratic Communist party and their ideals.

I say this because I am quite sure that with all the:

1) "voting in 'the other guys' primary" and with all the
2)"giving money to extremist candidates of 'the other guy'"

it is quite clear that the biggest backer of the Democratic party is the Republican party. It is simply crystal clear. And probably also the other way around. After all, capitalism is good for communism too.


As you can see, American political life is very confusing. Maybe I should just start calling everyone wetbacks since they came over the ocean from Europe anyway.

Anyway, moving on, The Wall Street Journal has some interesting quotes:

How come when someone expresses an anti-Muslim opinion, liberals who delight in "understanding" our foes never blame it on Muslim terrorists for provoking it by killing innocent people? Quite the opposite, they explain away terrorism as being provoked by American foreign policy, Israel's self-defense, etc.

To the Krugmans of the world, Americans and Jews are responsible for their own actions as well as the reactions of Muslims, who in turn are responsible for nothing. This sort of "liberalism" condescends to Muslims rather than treating them as fully human.
...
Anti-Americanism has ascended from its former status as the preoccupation of a relative handful of Jurassic Marxists, professional victims, Third World whiners, and Islamo-fascist troglodytes to the level of a major new global religion. Like any religion, it has its saints (which include the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh), its martyrs (the Rosenbergs, the Guantanamo Bay detainees and Saddam Hussein's sons), its high priests (Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Abu Bakar Ba'asyir), and its desperately over-eager wanna-bes (eg, Asia Times Online's very own Pepe Escobar, whose viewpoint on any issue can be predicted with absolute accuracy by simply asking "what interpretation of this situation will put the United States in the worst light?").

Curiously, however, while the religion has a hell (America), and a devil (George W Bush), it lacks both a heaven (the collectivist pipe dream having been found wanting) and a god (since the anti-Americans consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need for a deity--save their Islamist faction, which wants to impose its religion forcibly on everyone else). Still, the anti-American cult provides its legions of drooling adherents with the crucial element of any faith: the illusion of meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. That priceless psychological salve, in this case, is the comforting delusion that, no matter how hypocritical, backward, bigoted, ignorant, corrupt or cowardly the cult's followers might otherwise be, at least they are better than those awful Americans.

Some other great ones there on the same page too:

"Good for Sam Walls! There's no reason to think this will hurt his political future. Texans are very open-minded, so much so that the state already has a U.S. senator who routinely appears in public wearing women's clothing."

In other news, the Iraqis are desperately trying to correct the terrorists running their media, or is that our media? I get so confused.

Do you think looting and burning of government buildings after the collapse of Saddam's regime last year never happened before? Let me correct your information. It happened during the Shia's uprising in 1991.
I think it's the Iraqi's interpretation of freedom. The uprisers burned government buildings and took control of public transportation. The funniest scene occurred when people tore the roof off a bus (why? Could someone tell me why?). They rode the bus and kept driving around our neighborhood while screaming and holding their green flags.

Oh wow, Iraqis being stupid? Who would have though. I never saw anything it the last 30 years to indicate that.

The old guy is rambling on about republics and empires and their imperial cities again:

I could continue. Examples of imperial control in the name of doing good are endless. The results have been the utter destruction of what had once been a splendid education system, increasing costs of local law enforcement, increasing imprisonment, inability to treat local problems with local remedies, and an enormous increase in the bureaucracy that oversees compliance with the will of the Imperial City (which is of course the real point to begin with; aristocracies always seeks to multiply their perks, and having subordinates is one of the most important perks).

Empirial pork vs Local Pork. Could local pork actually win?

Even by the standards of Alaska, the land where schemes and dreams come for new life, two bridges approved under the national highway bill passed by the House last week are monuments to the imagination.

One, here in Ketchikan, would be among the biggest in the United States: a mile long, with a top clearance of 200 feet from the water, 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and just 20 feet short of the Golden Gate Bridge. It would connect this economically depressed, rain-soaked town of 7,845 people to an island that has about 50 residents and the area's airport, which offers six flights a day (a few more in summer). It could cost about $200 million.

But as a transportation solution, the Ketchikan bridge is seen as something of a joke. It would replace a five-minute ferry crossing.

"Everyone knows it's just a boondoggle that we're getting because we have a powerful congressman," said Mike Sallee, 57, whose mother homesteaded here and who now runs a small timber operation. "That ferry of ours has been pretty darn reliable."

...It calls for a span that will be longer than the George Washington Bridge, over the Hudson River, and will connect to Gravina Island through a middle island. Builders will be cutting into the flank of a mountain to anchor it.

Yet the bridge may make for a longer trip to the airport, people here say. Anyone driving from Ketchikan to catch a plane will have to head south of town, move past a main drag frequently clogged with tourists, ascend a mountain, cross the mile-long bridge westbound, then circle north around the back of Gravina Island to reach the airport. In addition, the airport will have to build a parking structure, at an estimated cost of $11 million.

"The funny thing, when that big bridge is done, it will take more time to get to the airport than it does now on our little ferry," said Dale Collins, a mariner who heads the ship pilots association here. "But it sure will be big. It's unbelievable, the size of that bridge."

-posted by Bad Commie @ 10:56 AM