Jabberwocky New

Colin Powell...

2004-11-15T14:55:31Z

Colin Powell has stepped down.

It's a dark day.....

2004-11-03T05:47:21Z

The next four years are going to be some of the toughest the middle class will ever see.

Republican majority in both House and Senate....

(As of now) Bush for Four more years....

My predictions:
2006, or 2007 the Republican Party will denounce Bush as a member of the party while secretly or even publicly (they do tend to do some two faced things...) telling him he's doing great.
Why?

Bush as an unopposed President with his party majority will do such right wing things that this nation will drastically change. Forget about the middle class. Forget about gay rights...

Things are very dark.

PIES MOTHER FUCKER! DO YOU EAT THEM!?!?!?!?!!?

2004-10-23T00:21:50Z

Let me ask you something and be honest with me…

Do you like pie?

I sure do. Here are a few reasons why: Apple, Blueberry, Dutch Apple, sometimes Cherry, Key Lime…
The crust, think about the crust; That sweet crunchy crust. On Dutch pies that graham crust is so sweet and you get some milk with that, maybe drop a few scoops of ice cream!!!!!

DO YOU LIKE GATDAMN PIES MOTHER FUCKER?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!?!!??!

I SURE AS FUCKING HELL DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY’RE SO FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDD!!!!!!!!
With that in mind ask yourself could you hate someone who gave you pie!??! Could you?! I sure couldn’t!

Here’s the point,

Crazy ass Ann Coulter was speaking at University of Arizona when two men came up and delivered her a few pies.

Now look, anyone who has seen Ann Coulter and knows the love of pie goodness feels bad for her. As we all know Coulter doesn’t eat. So, yet another, when these two good civilians came to make a peace offering with Coulter they felt it was needed to put some energy, a positive energy, behind these pies and put them on a trajectory path towards Coulter’s mouth. Coulter being the reluctant eater she is dodged the pie goodness! Shameful waste of pie!

Of course that damn Right-Wing media is saying things like, “Pies Thrown at Coulter!” or “Protesters Throw Pies at Coulter!”

But they were giving pies to Coulter, and much like George Bush, they were using the necessary force to make her eat them. Of course this gets swept under the rug and is spun to make the boys look like hooligans.

However it just goes to show you that Coulter doesn’t give a shit about anyone besides herself. A liberal would have caught those pies! A liberal would have caught them and sent them to starving children. Or at the very least she could have taken a direct shot from those pies and sent her dress to Ethiopia for the children to feast on the soiled garment. Did she even think of those options, of course not, she couldn’t take one for the children you know why?

SHE IS THE DEVIL COULTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the law suit

2004-10-15T02:00:51Z

This isn't real news I know but it's Bill O'Rielly

Read the Suit

The 60 Million dollar Lawsuit: We can make it better, we can make it stronger...

2004-10-14T10:41:11Z

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!

Bill O'Reilly is in a lawsuit for sexual harrassment against a Fox Assisatant Producer, who I asume was female.

This explains that chapter in THE FACTOR: FOR KIDS! entitled, "Women, or OUR PLAYTHINGS!"

Snap On Dat ASSSSSSSSSSS

2004-10-13T17:37:34Z

When Bush claimed at the last debate that, "there would be no draft!" I think everyone sighed in relief.
Then the talk came back up, and mor epeople are talking before.
In Response the Republican party came out and said, "Why is everyone believing this internet rumor?!? We already told you that there will be no draft!"

Then Tim Ryan said, no matter whar bush says the draft ain't out of the question just remember all the other promises we were told.

Listen Here:
Tim Ryan Snap On Dat Ass
Right click to "save target as" or let it stream it's small...

Voter's Outreach of America... THE NEW SATAN!

2004-10-13T15:41:20Z

Voter’s Outreach of America

> Act like a non-partisan registration group

> Occasionally they call themselves America Votes, which is a real voter registration group.

> They do street walk polls asking people who they planed to vote for
* When people said Kerry they nodded and said thanks.
* The people said Bush they asked them to go ahead and register there on the street.

> They also did by phone and in office registration
* They filed correctly registration for people registering as Republican.
* They THREW AWAY registrations for people registered as Democrat.

Now here comes some great news, they’re not just right wing nuts…

THEY’RE RNC SPONSORED RIGHT WING NUTS.

IF YOU CAN WIN FAIR! FUCKING CHEAT!

Life, what a wonderful bitch.

Garbage

2004-10-09T07:56:29Z

First the offender:
Dems Do Not Have It
After much consideration, I will be voting to re-elect George W. Bush. Why? As anyone who knows me can tell you, I am no Republican--far from it. I have numerous problems with the Republican Party and the Bush administration. Bush, in his attempts to "reach across the aisle," has signed off on too many spending bills. The Republican Party, led by Bush, spends too much time trying to impose its "values" on others. I am completely against legislating morality especially when it tramples anyone's right to choose their own path in life. But I do not take voting lightly. I consider it not only my right, but my responsibility to educate myself about the issues and candidates and pick the best person for the job. In this election, President Bush is that person.

In his 2000 campaign, Bush made several campaign promises, including a tax cut, education reform and a prescription drug plan for senior citizens. They all say what they think you want to hear and then forget about it once they are elected. Surprisingly, Bush has made good on his campaign promises. Congress just voted to renew the tax cut. No Child Left Behind has forced schools to account for their effectiveness, or lack thereof, and given more choice to parents in bad school districts. And senior citizens have the choice to get prescription drug discount cards. Whether or not you like these changes, credit should be given to a person, especially a politician, who lives up to promises made.

Sept. 11, 2001, our whole world changed. We found ourselves vulnerable, which led to fear and anger. Bush, untested thus far, stepped up and proved he was a leader. Behind that leadership, this country mobilized and came together in a way that would have been hard to imagine before 9/11. Our economy, which was taking a down turn when Bush took of office, took a major hit and things have been hard for many people. However, this should not be blamed, as is often the case, on Bush. Our economy is recovering, and we should be grateful it has not been worse considering that, since 9/11, the federal government has had to bail out the airlines, federalize airport security, create an entirely new Department of Homeland Security, and fight the war on terrorism.

Kerry, demagogue of the Democratic Party, tried to impede the free speech of those who happen to disagree with him and threatened to sue TV stations for playing those commercials made by the swift boat veterans. He said his Vietnam service should be beyond reproach. Well, maybe it would not have been such an issue if the Democratic Party had not spent the entirety of their convention trumpeting his service in Vietnam, culminating in his "reporting for duty" speech. Let me say this about both Bush and Kerry's military records. Who cares! It was 30 years ago! We have real, current issues with which to contend. What was Kerry's job before he was elected to Congress? He was a lawyer. And we all know how honest and trustworthy they are. Kerry has spent 20 years in Congress and done what, exactly? He claims to be a leader, but he has led nothing in so many years of Congress. He rarely even attends his committee meetings. In his quest to be "whatever it takes to be president," he has become an indecisive, spineless, effete elitist who cannot really relate to anyone other than his haughty millionaire friends.

His choice of running mates did not endear him to me either. Another lawyer, a personal injury lawyer? How can John Edwards stand there and, with a straight face, talk about bringing down health care costs? Let me see if I have got this. Shyster lawyers, like Edwards, recruit people to claim they have been "wronged" in some way by a doctor. The doctor gets sued, and the insurance company settles because it is cheaper than going to trial. The lawyers get 40 percent of the settlement. The insurance company raises premiums on everyone to cover the cost of the settlement. The doctors then raise the price of their services to cover the cost of the insurance, and the cycle starts all over again. The same is true for drug companies, hospitals and a host of other health care entities, all thanks to Edwards and his colleagues. Yet, Edwards would have us believe the Kerry-Edwards ticket has a plan for lowering health care costs.

Bush is not my ideal candidate for president, but, without a strong, decisive leader, one who is not afraid to stand up to tyrants, socialists and terrorists alike, this great nation of ours could be in serious trouble. Through his passion to defend our country and citizens, his honor in keeping his promises, and his leadership in times of crisis, Bush has earned my vote.

Now the retort
Dear Tracy Turner,
I found your Article, “Dems Do Not Have It,” very faulted and somewhat confusing. First you state all your grievances against the Republican Party. While I agreed with you on some of these points I was surprised to see that you neglect to consider a few very important facts about the upcoming election. For starters if Bush is re-elected he will become a, “Lame-Duck President,” meaning that he will no longer have to consider the possibility of re-election or his popularity status nation wide. Thus Bush and the republican majority Senate and House will be free to put in the system any bills that would be, “legislating morality,” and more than likely vote them into existence. Also the next president will be choosing one or more Supreme Court Justices, and a large number of appeals and federal court justices. This means that the next president will persuade the power of the Supreme Court with his choice. This could lead to the Supreme Court supporting bills that, “legislate morality” as opposed to the current court line up that has overruled such bills. Case-in-point: Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003) the Supreme Court overturned a past ruling that stated consensual sodomy illegal (Bowers v. Hardwick). That was one of many rulings that took place in 2003 that were seen as, “liberal,” mostly because they ruled against a social morality. Bush being re-elected could, and probably would endanger the court’s current status of being opposed to supporting morality controlling legislation.

What I found the most disturbing is you cite your reason for re-election of Bush because he has made good on his campaign promises. In reality he has not. To cite you, “In his 2000 campaign, Bush made several campaign promises, including a tax cut, education reform and a prescription drug plan for senior citizens.” He made good… on those promises… and if by good you mean bad. Let’s talk first about some other promises he made. Bush said in 2000 that he would not step up about gay marriage but rather let each state decide it’s stance on gay marriage. However when a bill came up to ban gay marriage nationally Bush sponsored it. Some, not me of course, but some might call that flip-flopping. I’ll settle on just calling it, “Not making good on campaign promises.” The best part of that broken promise is it stands directly opposite of what you said in the first paragraph of your article, you know the whole thing about not liking how Republicans, “legislate morality.” Furthermore, Bush said in 2000 he would continue to keep the ban on assault weapons alive when the 1994 bill came back up for re-submittal. He however did not push to have the bill extended as a law. In fact he just ignored it. When asked about the bill Bush said he would not veto it if it came up to him through the system. Of course what he would have done is pocket vetoed it. So that makes 2 promises Bush has broken. One that stands in direct opposition to your so stated personal beliefs and another that had 70 officials of this nation’s largest police forces begging for its return as a law. If that was unclear the first one was for gay marriage and the second was for ban on assault weapons. I’m pretty sure the 70 police officials were impartial to the ban on gay marriage.

Now for the promises he did make good on. The first one I’d like to touch on is the big tax cut. Well the tax cut was sold to Americans on false pretenses. Bush said in his campaign that the majority of the tax cut would go to the bottom percent of income making families. At the time we could only assume this statement would be correct when his tax plan came into play. However, when he “made good,” on his campaign promise to give us a tax break, which we were led to believe would mostly support the middle class, it actually went mostly to the top 2% of income families. In other words most of the tax break money went to the richest families in America. This economic report isn’t from some liberal think tank but released by the white house itself. While he did give a tax break he broke the promise of giving back mostly to the middle class. You might wonder why I care so much it’s because I’m middle class.

No Child Left behind is an interesting subject. While it did reform the school it created a real problem in lower income areas. Schools that don’t “pass the test,” so to speak come under fire for not meeting standards. However it is a much harder process to teach in lower income areas because those public schools get lower funding and as I write this the Bush administration is still not fully funding No Child Left Behind. Here’s the real issue No Child Left Behind presents it’s causing inner city and even some of the lower end middle class schools to shut down because oh the burden of test meant to be nationally distributed. While it’s easy to point a finger and say the teacher’s aren’t doing their jobs I have to retort with, “Are you a teacher?” You see, I thought about becoming a teacher and actually came to Kennesaw on the understanding that the education program here was excellent, and from my experience it is, but I am no longer in the education program because I realized once I was in the schools that I was just not cut out for the work. If you speak with anyone who is a teacher they will all tell you the same thing, No Child Left Behind has not made the school system stronger or more focused, but just caused more problems. We’re no longer testing the kids. We’re now grading the schools. It’s like you’re a contractor and you’re told to build 4 houses with 100 pieces of wood and 15 dollars, because as I said No Child Left Behind is under funded. You’re also told that if two of the houses meet the requirements but the other two do not then your contracting company will be shut down and your staff fired. So what do you do? You build all 4 houses meeting the bare minimum qualifications and put them on the market. Those houses don’t have the foundation as older houses because these new houses weren’t built to operate in the modern world. They were just built to pass one test. Their only purpose was to pass one singular test. It’s hard being a teacher. When you say, “it makes school accountable,” what do you mean? You think that people became teachers because they didn’t care? They’re just in it for the three months of non-paid vacation that most of them actually go out and get low paying jobs during, or go back and teach summer school. Since you did not graduate from a No child Left Behind School and don’t teach in one where do you find your base of fact that this is an improvement?

The worst part about it is No child Left Behind is actually making the teaching career a hard thing to get into and hold on to because no school is going to want to hire someone who’s yet to prove they can produce results. This is a serious problem when you attend a school such as Kennesaw that prides itself on its education program.

Now here’s the interesting thing, I was reading your article and jotting down notes on the things I felt you seemed misinformed about. See I was thinking I could show you these facts, and they are by the way facts, to give you idea about why the Bush administration is meeting such aggression from the middle class and why this election has become such a hot topic. I thought maybe with some facts and some logic you could see why Bush was detrimental to the middle class. Then I got to the latter part of your article. I’m specifically speaking about the two paragraphs where you not only bash the Democratic Party’s candidates, and make stereotypical comments, but then to top it off generate this great intensity of hypocrisy.

For some people it’s really hard to be a hypocrite. You, however, do so very naturally. First you come out and say, “He (Kerry) said his Vietnam service should be beyond reproach. Well, maybe it would not have been such an issue if the Democratic Party had not spent the entirety of their convention trumpeting his service in Vietnam, culminating in his "reporting for duty" speech.” Okay, so you’re saying he should not hold his past up as an achieving moment. Fine, I can live with that. You’re arguing that his duty deserves scrutiny because he’s so willing tout it. Okay I understand that too if you’re going make a platform you got to be willing to have people inspect it. I mean that’s what you’re saying right? Well no, because then you say, “Let me say this about both Bush and Kerry's military records. Who cares! It was 30 years ago!” Alright so if you don’t care what happened 30 years ago why did you include it in your article? Why do you feel that you must attack his military record and say he shouldn’t hold it so high if it, in your opinion, doesn’t matter? Let sleeping dogs lie, but let’s move on. The very next sentence you say, “We have real, current issues with which to contend.” Now I agree! I guess I can forget about the whole, “the military thing doesn’t matter but I’ll go ahead and bash him for being proud of it anyway,” and say, “Yes Tracy let us look at the current issues! Let us ask how the government is going to support the people of the nation, pull us together and make us a stronger nation! Let’s look at what going on today! Let’s forget the past right Tracy?” Well no… because you then say, “What was Kerry's job before he was elected to Congress? He was a lawyer.” Well this is the most hypocritical thing you’ve written yet. It’s like the hypocrisy is rolling down a hill growing larger and larger until it avalanches the reader at the end of the article. I mean did you even read your own article? You state one thing then contradict yourself in the following sentence. It’s not like you said something then a paragraph later you contradict it. This one is like a real contradiction in the span of two sentences! In one sentence you say let’s forget the past and look at current issues then in the next you say by the way in John Kerry’s past he was a lawyer. Then you make a comment that is so stereotypical that my mind bent wondering if you had made a racist comment then realizing it wasn’t racist but rather, “career-ist.” I’ll quote you, “He was a lawyer. And we all know how honest and trustworthy they are.”

Okay so I thought to myself, “If she’s saying lawyers are so bad I wonder what she thinks about Bush’s past.” Tracy, Bush had a somewhat assorted past he was a CEO, a business man, and a board member of a few oil companies. Now I don’t particularly trust business men anymore than I trust lawyers…. I’m joking here just kind of playing off that, “career-ist,” comment you made. Now let’s compare shall we, how many times John Kerry was questioned by a federal committee during his career as a lawyer? Oh, well it seems he never was. How about George Bush? Oh, a few times. You see Bush was one of those Ken Lay types. You see Bush sold his stock in companies, ones he was on the board of, when the accounting books came back showing the company was diving. It’s illegal to sell your stock at the market rate to someone when you have inside information that the business it crashing. Bush did this about 3 times. He was questioned and asked to send a few reports about his trading to the federal committee but he never sent the reports and the problem just kind of went away.

Since we’re on the topic of people’s past George Bush has also never denied that at one point in his youth he had snorted cocaine. In fact if you look you’ll find a Q&A session where he says that when he applied for presidential office he was asked if he had done drugs in the last 15 years. He said he could answer that with a positive no, he had not. Then he was asked if he could give the same answer when his father applied for presidential office he replied no comment. You don’t have to be a genius, or a dirty lawyer, to figure out that he had done drugs in or around the 70’s. So with that I say to you this, “A coke-head. And we all know how honest and trust worthy they are.”

Two more things before I wrap this up. John Kerry wasn’t trying to, “to impede the free speech of those who happen to disagree with him,” when he threatened to sue TV stations airing the swift boat ads. He was treating to sue them for libel, if you want to get into the journalism career you might want to make a note of libel. You see libel is when you go on the record, written or broadcasted, and state something that is untrue and defames a person’s character. If you had looked into the Swift Boat ads you would have found that the doctor from the ads who claims to have treated John Kerry’s wound wasn’t on the medical release which would have been malpractice if he had treated the wound, but he didn’t. Also one gentleman was interviewed by his local paper and when asked what it was like to serve with Kerry he said he actually never did. Then he was asked why he appeared on the ad, his response was, “well I knew someone who served with him.” I’m paraphrasing, but then he discontinued the interview. In fact none of the men on the ads were on Kerry’s platoon or Swift boat.

For your comment about Edwards not being able to keep Medicare down because he used to be a lawyer that handled personal lawsuits against businesses I shall point you to this fact: on average for every one personal lawsuit that enters the system there are four that are entered by businesses. So if you want to blame someone for the cost of Medicare due to frivolous lawsuits then I suggest you take it not to the lawyers of personal lawsuits but to the lawyers of businesses. Also if you look back over the last 30 years the ticket for lowering Medicare cost and balancing the budget has always been the Democratic Party.

My reason for writing all this up is not to slam you for an inaccurate piece of journalism. Okay so partially it is, but I realize this was an opinion piece and you stated your opinion but it was based so largely on inaccuracy that at first I felt I could show you how your opinion was based not on facts but spin from other journalism sources and I’m sure some was from the Bush campaign. Then I got to your bashing and name calling of Kerry and Edwards and it became very clear to me that while you open your article up stating you’re an independent it just isn’t true. You are a closest Republican Tracy. You might as well come out and admit it.

Now I’m going to submit my opinion piece right here in the last part of my counter. It is my opinion that if you want to play journalist that you start doing what a real journalist does. You need to check your facts, look beyond one party’s line. Call foul on both sides of the field. What you have done here is made a mockery of intelligent writing and proved among all else you’re a partisan writer in independent clothing. You should restrain yourself from writing political pieces because it is very obvious in what you’ve written you don’t truly follow politics. Also just for the record I’m not some far left liberal but a middle class kid who follows politics so I can make a decision that will best support me and my family, and Bush has not.

Sincerely,
The Staff of Jabberwocky News

Another Interesting Bit

2004-10-06T20:35:09Z

Bush Gets Fact-ified

Debate Notes

2004-10-06T10:07:52Z

www.FactCheck.org pretty much owns Cheney.
While edwards is sighted as being "off a bit." Cheney is usually sighted as: "lying" or well I call it lying they say "inaccurate," or "incorrect," or, "wasn't the case."

so Good Job Cheney for pointing people to FactCheck.org so they can now catch you red handed.

Here's the link

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

During The Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney Said The First Time He Met Edwards Was At The Debate That Night. During the first vice presidential debate, Vice President Cheney said: “In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the senate, the presiding officer, I'm in the senate most tuesdays in session. The first time I met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”

HOWEVER

Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast. Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: “Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.” [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]

Senator Edwards Escorted Elizabeth Dole When She Was Sworn In As North Carolina’s Other Senator. Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as North Carolina’s other senator on January 8, 2003. Gannet News Service wrote: “As per Senate tradition, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., escorted her.” [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

• Dole Took The Senate Oath Administered By Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Gannet News Service: “[Dole] raised her right hand and took the oath administered by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Senate president.” [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

• Dole Was Also Escorted By Her Husband, Bob Dole. Gannet News Service wrote: “Her husband, former Senate majority leader and GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole, also was by her side.” [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

“[Elizabeth Dole] carried her grandmother's Bible and was escorted by her husband and Edwards as Vice President Dick Cheney administered the oath.” [Charlotte Observer, 1/8/03]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Point here is not Edwards attendence (I'm still looking for some facts on that), but simply that Cheney is willing to LIE to discredit his opposition. I mean he sinks so low as to just pull a completly false punch to try to make his competition look bad.
For that I award Cheney the level of:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRAQ

CHENEY: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." – Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

Cheney Made That Claim repeatedly before and after the war

Cheney: “His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” [Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02]

Cheney: “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” [National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04]

FACT: 9-11 Commission Report Said No “Collaborative Operational Relationship” Existed Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. “We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cheney is actually partially correct. It's a loop-hole you see. Cheney is ignoring the mathmatical chain link of A = B = C. Cheney never said 9-11 was brought on by Iraqies, or Iraq, or Saddam, but he did say Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we know Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. So what cheney says is, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11," but in factuality he has stated before (now follow my math): Iraq (has in it) = Al Qaeda (who where responsible for) = 9-11 (therefor we must get Saddam).
Pretty sly, but not quiet evil enough so I give him: One "Lame/Gay" point and close to "Vader Evil" status for a total of the mixed Evil/Gay score of:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHENEY: “Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”

REALITY: Cheney’s Halliburton Did Business With Iraq, Iran; Both Were State Sponsors of Terrorism

While Cheney Was CEO, Halliburton Acquired Companies That Held Contracts With Saddam. Despite the fact that Cheney claimed that we've not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions are imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that, under Cheneys leadership, Halliburton acquired two subsidiaries which had signed contracts to sell more than $ 73 million in oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program. The subsidiaries, based in France, sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. The subsidiaries traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before Cheney sold off Halliburtons stake in the subsidiaries. [Washington Post, 6/23/01; Petroleum Economist, 6/93; ABC News, This Week, 7/30/00]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the imperalistic nature and greed of the Cheney monster I award him the level of:

Get it? Cause he was an emperor!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For taking the heat from lie-o-matic Cheney bot and flashing that creepy smile often I award John Edwards with:

Now that I know Cheney's daughter is gay I award her with:

As for Bush's responses during his debate I award him with:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And here are the high lights from the first debate in picture form:

"IT'S HARD WORK!" X 7

Okay, just for a record a black guy came over and made that one so it's cool. I didn't do it... a black guy did... so it's not racist.... cause a black guy did it.... Look at the time!

J'

It's only Jabberwocky if you're not part of the crowd!

.... and a black guy made that picture.

Also when I said black I meant African American.

Cheney scores for the GOP

2004-10-06T05:06:16Z

Tonight Cheney said, "You can check www.FactCheck.com to see the facts on money spent and casualties on iraq."

Well actually two things:

One) The site is www.FactCheck.ORG, which was a big mistake seeing how usually Bush's and the GOP's lies out number Kerry's (usually Kerry misquoting Bush) three to one on the front page.

Two) The Site www.FactCheck.com is a large anti-bush site By George Soros, who has been quoted as saying, "I would pay any amount of money to remove George Bush from office." The heading on the intro to the site is such:

President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values.

Just goes to show you the GOP has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to... well, anything.

I think Edwards did very well and as of right now is leading by a far gap in the VP Debate Polls.

Also just so everyone can shed a tear, Rodney Dangerfield died today at 82.

Let's give him some respect.

J'

Thanks CBS.... And Thank you!

2004-09-22T05:47:42Z

Thanks CBS!
If you have yet to hear of this, “scandal,” I’ll do a slight recap. CBS (reads: Dan Rather) received documents that contained information about President Bush’s time in the military. Basically the statements made in the documents entailed that Bush never really showed up. These were the documents that would solidify the argument that Bush never showed and received special treatment in the guard.

Were the papers news? No. These “facts,” were the unspoken truths. Everyone knows Bush was given special treatment and skipped Nam. Truthfully it’s not a big deal, most senators got their kids out of the draft back in the day, and so did rich people. In fact the only people who were still in the draft were...

…Okay, do I really have to say this? We all know right? Well for dramatic sake here we go…

THE LOWER CLASSES!

Whoa shocker there! I know you’ve all heard this before but it makes my point. We, the poverty to middle class, are always taking the burden of the rich, from their wars to their taxes, we carry their load. But I should get back on topic here.

The papers turned out to be forgeries. CBS and Dan Rather officially apologized and then, well to put it as politely as possible, the shit hit the fan.

Fox is on the POWER PLAY!

Of course the news company to make the most fortune out of CBS’s failure of judgment is good old Fox News. In 15 minutes I saw Brit Hume, his panel group, and in Studio B failed Stone Phillips clone Shepard Smith talk about CBS’s misleading information and often saying things like, “we wouldn’t do that here.” This of course is coming from the station that popularized the phrase, “Many people say,” to submit a false, “factoid” or, “social belief,” in order for viewers to believe the information, “some people say,” is factual. However, I must give credit where credit is due and admit that ploy works incredibly well. I wish I had thought of it. Actually I’m just jealous because it looks like so much fun… well I guess I can at least try it out. Here we go:

Some people say, “Fox News is a right wing propaganda machine owned and operated by rich elitist only out for profit and the propagation of their agenda and therefore report in a bias and slanted fashion, also known as feeding the populous bullshit.”

Oh wait… people do say that… because, well because it’s true.

Anyway, my point earlier was that in 15 minutes two programs on FNC reported the same story with the very same spin. Normally on a 24 hour news channel top stories are repeated or touched on every 30 minutes, not as often as possible.
This is Fox fashion though. They find a target and assassinate. It should be no surprise they want CBS sunk, I mean it is one of their competitors. The derailing of CBS News and head-man Dan Rather has been coming for years and I’m sure one of the leading “Anti-CBS-ers,” Bernard Golberg ejaculated in his pants when the news broke of the forged papers,

Goldberg, by the way, is the author of a book entitled, “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News.” He has a lovely analogy in that book that goes along the lines of, “if CBS was a prison then everyone there would be Dan Rather’s bitch.” That is a paraphrase because that book isn’t allowed in my home, but is for the most part it’s an accurate representation of Goldberg’s intent. I know “CBS,” “prison,” and “Dan Rather’s bitch,” are verbatim, it’s really a question of how the sentence was structured. You see, I structured that sentence with my personal style. I said to myself, “If I wanted to communicate that everyone at CBS takes it in the ass from big Dick Dan Rather, how exactly would I put it?” So that’s my version of what Goldberg said. For all I know though he put it completely different you see, “liberal-ish” writers like myself and die hard conservative writers like Goldberg have different ways of writing things. You want an example? Sure!

I would say something like this, “Many economists and even a White House study have shown that the tax plan put in place under the Bush administration has given the largest returns to the top 5%, and the majority of the overall money from the tax cuts has funneled its way to the top 2%. While the burden of taxing has gone solely to the middle class, and programs used by the lower classes suffer from decreased funding in order to support the large amount money in the tax returns, these programs being road construction and repair, public schooling, Medicaid, and Social Security.”

The conservative writer might structure that sentence like so, “The majority of the Bush administration’s tax cut go to the bottom of the economic ladder.” Basically, they would just reprise what the Bush administration said on their election campaign.

While Goldberg might say, “If tax cuts were prisons then the upper class would be the lower classes’ bitch.” See not only is it not true it’s also uncalled for and rude, and not funny like the things I write. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

CBS Gets a “Two-FER!”

CBS made two mistakes. First the real mistake: going to press with documents that were forgeries. They should have checked the sources and put the documents under real tough scrutiny. They should have not rushed to be the first with the story and they should have asked themselves, “Is this news?” No, it isn’t. As I said earlier, a lot of senator’s kids did the same thing. Hell, Clinton ran to Canada and he was president twice! If you’re going to stick Bush with being amoral and a liar you got a lot to choose from besides something that went on thirty years ago.

The real mistake CBS made: not making it clear that the information in these forged documents was probably pretty accurate. When the White House was asked if the documents were faked they never said yes, but they never said no. They said, “uhm, could be.”

Woot, woot! Here comes the logic train:
If the information on the forged documents was outlandishly off, or completely fake the White House would have totally denied their authenticity.
For example if the documents said:
“Bush and Cheney secretly own Halliburton and this is the reason why Halliburton has been given the right to develop businesses and oil fields in Iraq during the occupation.”
Well the White House would have openly and out right denied this because it would be so untrue… I hope.

The point is the White House stalled, the accuracy of the documents was so close to truth it installed the seed of doubt. The White House had to wonder, “Maybe the information is finally out.” Now that the documents have been exposed as fakes the Whites House is saying, “We never agreed the documents were authentic.” Hindsight is 20-20.

Well Dan I guess all that can be said is, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

The Problems this will Cause

Here’s the real issue this scandal will cause. This will fuel the eternal debate that the media is biased towards liberals. Folks it ain’t. Did you feel that? The tracks are rumbling here comes the return trip of the: LOGIC TRAIN!

Let’s say hypothetically you owned a large news network, obviously you don’t or you would have hired me by now… I jest, but if you did you would probably be a corporate fat cat. Since people just don’t own news networks they own whole syndicated television networks. So you’re probably making quite a bit of money every year. Let’s guess around 4 million, that’s low for a communication company CEO, well I got news for you pal! You’re now the top 5% and Bush’s tax cuts are going mostly to you! Bush is your man! He totally endorses free trade, hates unions (your camera and lighting men), and wants the deregulation of FCC ownership laws. You know that way you can own as many communications as you want! Just like Clear Channel!

See the media is not biased towards the liberal side of America. The conservative agenda works much more in your… I mean their favor. Everyone who is on the air, or owns the air is in the top 5%, and yes that includes Mr. “Watching Out for You,” Bill O’Reilly.

The problem arises though that now the conservative media and the far right are going to charge most media outlets, besides Fox News, with being liberal. Attaching a negative connotation with the world liberal isn’t the worst thing to happen, but the issue is now that people are going to feel liberals are out to ruin the presidency, also every time you stand up for poverty, or the middle class expect to be called a liberal and for the intent to be an insult.

In other words, expect something similar to when we questioned the reasons for the Iraq war and got charged with being unpatriotic.

What We Need

So what can we do? Well right now nothing but what we need sometime in the near future is something similar to Britain’s BBC. We need a public owned and operated 24 hour news network that has no connection to liberal, or conservative media, no party that favors it, or party it favors. For now however all we can settle with Is NPR, C-Span, Air America (I’m know its heavy liberal but trust me they’re good), and last and definitely least (only for now hopefully) this page right here.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Let me apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors. I had no time to edit tonight. I might post the great conspiracy theories that have come from this "scandal." However I'm not sure I should give them light, but I think I could destroy one while strengthening the other...
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Finally thank you to everyone who has added this site to their Friend's page. We need all the support we can get and 14 in under 24 hours is a great start! Please draw as much attention to this site as possible. The more we have on board the louder we can yell.

And remember, It's only Jabberwocky if you're not a part of the crowd*

J.

*or team... we need better PR

Welcome to a new start: Jabberwocky News

2004-09-21T04:36:13Z

Jabberwocky Mission Statement:
Right now, at this very moment the nation is divided. No matter how many SUVs sport a five dollar bumper sticker that reads, “We stand united,” it is not true! The nation is embroiled in a mud-slinging contest where one side is pulling dirty tricks and lying, while the other is just kind of taking it occasionally swinging pillow wrapped open palms at the other!
This site is mean to change that! I am not rich, I will never be rich, and by all means I am part of the struggling middle class, and guess what so are you! Even if your household is making a combined income of $280,000 a year you’re still a part of the middle class.
For too long the middle class has been tricked into believing we can become the big guys by buying into their plans, by voting them into power. This isn’t true! Unfortunately, the buck stops at the top and never trickles down to the American lower class! You won’t get rich, be smart, or sexier because you voted republican!
That’s the point of this page, to provide a voice of the middle class and a youthful perspective on the events occurring today. I am not a politician. I am not a political science major. I’m just a guy sick of the sack of shit being fed to us. I wanted to know more and now I want to share what I’ve found. I want to have talks. I want to bring people together, not apart. I want to call out lies, not call names. I want to know what people think about what I say, about what goes on. Communication has been the only bridge to understanding to unity, not war.
This is a place to laugh, think and get active. Today, right now is your chance to start working to make America the country that used to be respected for being ballsy, strong, independent and intelligent.
What do you hear on news these days, what does the current administration say to the American people? They’re telling us to just blindly follow what the current administration has in store. However, this is not the heritage of America! We have always been people to question and fight the power when it oppresses us. Don’t believe we’re being oppressed? We have a war based on false pretenses, sexuality discrimination, and every time you fire up the TV what do you hear? “TERRORIST AND FREEDOM!” Like it’s the new Yellowcard single.
Well this is the time and the place we put this to an end. Right here on this page we have something no one on TV does and that’s real freedom of speech! Forget the fucking partisanship this is Jabberwocky and you have entered:

A NO CORPORATE ZONE

______________________________________________________________________________
Tomorrow: Thank you CBS!
CBS fucks the bucket and Fox news plays the offensive advantage
______________________________________________________________________________
Please add Jabberwocky News to your Friend's list and spread the word.
Want to get involved? Comment and we'll see about getting a Jabberwocky Team together.