I vote YES! on Funny or Die's marvelously cast, pitch-perfect political ad parodies pegged to the unlikely premise of an election to replace Santa Claus. These spots work on lots of levels, and they're devastatingly great as a unit, skewering just how inane, vacuous and predictable election commercials have become. Seeking your support are four candidates, played by Christopher McDonald, David Koechner, Maria Bamford (Target's crazy Christmas lady) and Andre Royo (Bubbles from The Wire). We've got fake-bearded holiday insider Glenn Fondale ("Unlike other candidates, my belly shakes like a bowl full of jelly"); fake-goateed, hard-charging Mack Henry ("I know reindeer. I know how to control 'em, and God forbid, I know how to kill 'em"); soft-spoken, family-values psychopath Kathleen Heyward (her mantras include "I'm a North Pole outsider" and "No presents for gays"); and best of all, doofus everyman Burt Grumm ("Though I'm not as fat as Santa, I can get fatter"). The latter's ad is filmed in a dingy cubicle with hand-written signs on the walls, but he prevails in a landslide anyway ("85% of Earth picks former grifter!"). OK, I gave away the ending, but this isn't really a case of the press calling a race prematurely, because all four hopefuls are absolute winners. To find more uproarious, absurd election parodies than these, you'd have to cue up Mike Tyson as Herman Cain or watch the real campaign ads of Rick Perry.
thanks
Ghana

How is Ron Paul dangerous? At least he may prevent a violent revolution, is this bad? Ron Paul may be the only hope that the elites have. Wake up!

On Wednesday, Dick Morris said Ron Paul is “the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last 50 years.” Actually, Ron Paul is the most conservative person to run for president in the last 50 years. Understanding this first requires at least a minimal understanding of traditional American conservatism.

Morris made his case for Paul’s “left-wing radicalism” on “The O’Reilly Factor”:

Nobody else wants to dismantle the military, including Obama, but he does. Even Obama doesn’t want to repeal the Patriot Act. But he does. Even Obama doesn’t say that we caused 9/11 and brought it on ourselves. But Ron Paul does. Even Obama doesn’t want to legalize heroin and cocaine, but Ron Paul does. This guy is no conservative. This guy is an ultra, ultra-left-wing radical.

Paul’s Pentagon cuts, which aren’t much different from what Sen. Tom Coburn has suggested, are necessary to streamline our military and tackle our debt problem. Coburn has allies besides Paul in this fight, or as National Review’s Jamie Fly writes:

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that purports to speak for the Tea Party movement, issued its own “Tea Party Budget” containing the recommendations of its debt commission. They suggested enacting defense-spending reforms previously proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn that would result in almost $1 trillion in savings over ten years.

There’s a reason that Paul is the only presidential candidate who has been able to offer $1 trillion in cuts. He is the only candidate willing to address the black hole that is Pentagon spending. After entitlements, “defense” spending is the largest part of our budget. Still, Paul allows for a military budget four times the size of China’s and larger than President Bush’s 2005 military budget.

This is what Morris calls “dismantling the military.”

As a constitutional conservative in reality and not just rhetoric, Ron Paul also believes the Fourth Amendment is as important to protect as any other. He opposes the Patriot Act on these constitutional grounds. His son Sen. Rand Paul along with Sen. Mike Lee valiantly fought against the Patriot Act’s renewal in November on the same premise.

Does Morris believe tea party Republicans Paul and Lee are also “radical left-wingers”?

Ron Paul has suggested that constant American sanctions and military interventions in the Middle East contributed to hostility toward the U.S. which created a more potent environment for 9/11. Who else says this? The CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report.

But since we’re discussing conservatism, let’s take a look at what Russell Kirk had to say about this subject. For those unfamiliar with Kirk (pay attention here, Morris), Bill Buckley once said: “It is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in America without [Kirk’s] labor.” Kirk is the person most credited with popularizing the term “conservative” with his groundbreaking 1953 book The Conservative Mind. In a speech before The Heritage Foundation in 1991, Kirk had this to say about President George H.W. Bush and the possible future consequences of the Persian Gulf War:

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …

“Expect to suffer”? Is Russell Kirk “blaming America” here? Or was Kirk predicting 9/11? Either way, Kirk was making a basic conservative observation about human nature (his forte). Conservatives generally agree that any government intervention — taxes, regulations, abusive TSA agents — affect human behavior in multiple ways. But the most intense action any government can take — the decision to wage war — produces no similar human reaction?

The CIA disagrees. So did Russell Kirk.

Morris criticizes Paul for wanting to end the federal war on drugs. Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman also wanted to end the federal war on drugs. Are Buckley and Friedman “radical left-wingers” too?

For basically every position Morris calls “liberal” or “radically left-wing” you can find some of the most prominent and respected names in American conservatism agreeing with Paul.

Morris’s mistake is definitional. What Morris calls “conservatism” is simply the current conventional Republicanism. One does not necessarily equal the other. Ask Barry Goldwater. Ask Ronald Reagan.

Ask Ron Paul.On Wednesday, Dick Morris said Ron Paul is “the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last 50 years.” Actually, Ron Paul is the most conservative person to run for president in the last 50 years. Understanding this first requires at least a minimal understanding of traditional American conservatism.

Morris made his case for Paul’s “left-wing radicalism” on “The O’Reilly Factor”:

Nobody else wants to dismantle the military, including Obama, but he does. Even Obama doesn’t want to repeal the Patriot Act. But he does. Even Obama doesn’t say that we caused 9/11 and brought it on ourselves. But Ron Paul does. Even Obama doesn’t want to legalize heroin and cocaine, but Ron Paul does. This guy is no conservative. This guy is an ultra, ultra-left-wing radical.

Paul’s Pentagon cuts, which aren’t much different from what Sen. Tom Coburn has suggested, are necessary to streamline our military and tackle our debt problem. Coburn has allies besides Paul in this fight, or as National Review’s Jamie Fly writes:

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that purports to speak for the Tea Party movement, issued its own “Tea Party Budget” containing the recommendations of its debt commission. They suggested enacting defense-spending reforms previously proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn that would result in almost $1 trillion in savings over ten years.

There’s a reason that Paul is the only presidential candidate who has been able to offer $1 trillion in cuts. He is the only candidate willing to address the black hole that is Pentagon spending. After entitlements, “defense” spending is the largest part of our budget. Still, Paul allows for a military budget four times the size of China’s and larger than President Bush’s 2005 military budget.

This is what Morris calls “dismantling the military.”

As a constitutional conservative in reality and not just rhetoric, Ron Paul also believes the Fourth Amendment is as important to protect as any other. He opposes the Patriot Act on these constitutional grounds. His son Sen. Rand Paul along with Sen. Mike Lee valiantly fought against the Patriot Act’s renewal in November on the same premise.

Does Morris believe tea party Republicans Paul and Lee are also “radical left-wingers”?

Ron Paul has suggested that constant American sanctions and military interventions in the Middle East contributed to hostility toward the U.S. which created a more potent environment for 9/11. Who else says this? The CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report.

But since we’re discussing conservatism, let’s take a look at what Russell Kirk had to say about this subject. For those unfamiliar with Kirk (pay attention here, Morris), Bill Buckley once said: “It is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in America without [Kirk’s] labor.” Kirk is the person most credited with popularizing the term “conservative” with his groundbreaking 1953 book The Conservative Mind. In a speech before The Heritage Foundation in 1991, Kirk had this to say about President George H.W. Bush and the possible future consequences of the Persian Gulf War:

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …

“Expect to suffer”? Is Russell Kirk “blaming America” here? Or was Kirk predicting 9/11? Either way, Kirk was making a basic conservative observation about human nature (his forte). Conservatives generally agree that any government intervention — taxes, regulations, abusive TSA agents — affect human behavior in multiple ways. But the most intense action any government can take — the decision to wage war — produces no similar human reaction?

The CIA disagrees. So did Russell Kirk.

Morris criticizes Paul for wanting to end the federal war on drugs. Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman also wanted to end the federal war on drugs. Are Buckley and Friedman “radical left-wingers” too?

For basically every position Morris calls “liberal” or “radically left-wing” you can find some of the most prominent and respected names in American conservatism agreeing with Paul.

Morris’s mistake is definitional. What Morris calls “conservatism” is simply the current conventional Republicanism. One does not necessarily equal the other. Ask Barry Goldwater. Ask Ronald Reagan.

Ask Ron Paul.On Wednesday, Dick Morris said Ron Paul is “the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last 50 years.” Actually, Ron Paul is the most conservative person to run for president in the last 50 years. Understanding this first requires at least a minimal understanding of traditional American conservatism.

Morris made his case for Paul’s “left-wing radicalism” on “The O’Reilly Factor”:

Nobody else wants to dismantle the military, including Obama, but he does. Even Obama doesn’t want to repeal the Patriot Act. But he does. Even Obama doesn’t say that we caused 9/11 and brought it on ourselves. But Ron Paul does. Even Obama doesn’t want to legalize heroin and cocaine, but Ron Paul does. This guy is no conservative. This guy is an ultra, ultra-left-wing radical.

Paul’s Pentagon cuts, which aren’t much different from what Sen. Tom Coburn has suggested, are necessary to streamline our military and tackle our debt problem. Coburn has allies besides Paul in this fight, or as National Review’s Jamie Fly writes:

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that purports to speak for the Tea Party movement, issued its own “Tea Party Budget” containing the recommendations of its debt commission. They suggested enacting defense-spending reforms previously proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn that would result in almost $1 trillion in savings over ten years.

There’s a reason that Paul is the only presidential candidate who has been able to offer $1 trillion in cuts. He is the only candidate willing to address the black hole that is Pentagon spending. After entitlements, “defense” spending is the largest part of our budget. Still, Paul allows for a military budget four times the size of China’s and larger than President Bush’s 2005 military budget.

This is what Morris calls “dismantling the military.”

As a constitutional conservative in reality and not just rhetoric, Ron Paul also believes the Fourth Amendment is as important to protect as any other. He opposes the Patriot Act on these constitutional grounds. His son Sen. Rand Paul along with Sen. Mike Lee valiantly fought against the Patriot Act’s renewal in November on the same premise.

Does Morris believe tea party Republicans Paul and Lee are also “radical left-wingers”?

Ron Paul has suggested that constant American sanctions and military interventions in the Middle East contributed to hostility toward the U.S. which created a more potent environment for 9/11. Who else says this? The CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report.

But since we’re discussing conservatism, let’s take a look at what Russell Kirk had to say about this subject. For those unfamiliar with Kirk (pay attention here, Morris), Bill Buckley once said: “It is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in America without [Kirk’s] labor.” Kirk is the person most credited with popularizing the term “conservative” with his groundbreaking 1953 book The Conservative Mind. In a speech before The Heritage Foundation in 1991, Kirk had this to say about President George H.W. Bush and the possible future consequences of the Persian Gulf War:

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …

“Expect to suffer”? Is Russell Kirk “blaming America” here? Or was Kirk predicting 9/11? Either way, Kirk was making a basic conservative observation about human nature (his forte). Conservatives generally agree that any government intervention — taxes, regulations, abusive TSA agents — affect human behavior in multiple ways. But the most intense action any government can take travel career — the decision to wage war — produces no similar human reaction?

The CIA disagrees. So did Russell Kirk.

Morris criticizes Paul for wanting to end the federal war on drugs. Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman also wanted to end the federal war on drugs. Are Buckley and Friedman “radical left-wingers” too?

For basically every position Morris calls “liberal” or “radically left-wing” you can find some of the most prominent and respected names in American conservatism agreeing with Paul.

Morris’s mistake is definitional. What Morris calls “conservatism” is simply the current conventional Republicanism. One does not necessarily equal the other. Ask Barry Goldwater. Ask Ronald Reagan.

Ask Ron Paul.

Thanks

Admin of agenda software

Thanks for sharing the post. The challenge is always battling between making it easy for real people and challenging for spammers.
Lowell Locksmith
Medford Locksmith
Locksmith New Bedford MA
Methuen Locksmith
Locksmith Natick

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

Reality is, Ron Paul is not only anti-American but anti-Semitic and anti-humanity. His core followers also tend to be the most vile of individuals and conspiracy theorists including such radical and fanatics as the Nazi Stormfronters, the 9/11 truthers, the Islamic terrorists and their supporters, the Libertarian advocates of child molestation and hard drug legalization, and other enemies of western civilization. I personally hope he wins Iowa so the media finally starts to focus on his fringe and wacky conspiracies, positions, and fanatical ideas and beliefs.

The fact is that Ron Paul was one of two congresspersons to vote against funding for malaria immunization and prevention in Africa which saves millions of lives a year is also "wise". Away from the vital humanitarian concerns (as we are a hope and beacon for liberty, freedom, and human rights) imagine the void that this would create in which Islamicists would quickly fill without avoiding an eyeblink. And then, Islamicists would control and run a new terror haven called AFRICA.

Don't forget, that during the height of the Green Revolution, Paul was the lone House member to vote against a resolution "expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."

I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on "why won't he come out on the truth about 9/11". It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8

This is to announce the 2012 election of OpenID Foundation community board members. The Foundation plays an important role in the evolution of Internet identity technologies. Those elected will help determine what role the OIDF should play in helping facilitate faster and broader adoption of open standard identity systems.

Last year four community board members were elected to 2-year terms and so are not standing for election:
• Nat Sakimura
• Mike Jones
• John Bradley
• Kick Willemse

Other current community board members may seek re-election. They are:
• Allen Tom
• Axel Nennker
• Chris Messina

Brian Kissel has indicated he will likely not be a candidate. This is a good time to thank Brian, and all the current board members, for their time, attention and leadership over the last year.

For the purposes of the 2012 election, there are 5 confirmed sustaining members: Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Ping Identity, and Symantec. Thus, we will be electing 2 community members to the Board of Directors for 2-year terms. In order to be eligible for election, your candidacy must have been seconded by at least three other members.

The election will be conducted on the following schedule:
Nominations open: Monday, January 9
Nominations close: Monday, January 23
Election begins: Wednesday, January 25
Election ends: Wednesday, February 8
Results announced by: Wednesday, February 15
New board terms start: March 1

Times for all dates are Noon, U.S. Pacific Time.

All members of the OpenID Foundation are eligible to nominate themselves, second the nominations of others who self-nominated, and vote for candidates. If you’re not already a member of the OpenID Foundation, we encourage you to join now at https://openid.net/foundation/members/registration.

Voting and nominations are conducted using the OpenID you registered when you joined the Foundation. Log in at https://openid.net/foundation/members/ with your OpenID to participate in the nomination and voting. If you are already a member, you will receive an email advising you the election is open and how to participate. If you experience problems participating in the election or joining the foundation, please send an email to help@oidf.org.

Board participation requires a substantial ongoing investment of time and energy. It is a volunteer effort that should not be undertaken lightly. Should you be elected, expect to be called upon to serve both on the board and on its committees where the work of the foundation is conducted. If you’re committed to OpenID and advancing digital identity and are a person who works well with others, we encourage your candidacy. The OIDF’s Executive Committee has suggested a few questions candidates may want to publicly address in their candidate statements:

1. What is you view of the opportunity of the OpenID Foundation?
2. What are the key opportunities you see for the OpenID Foundation in 2012?
3. How will you demonstrate your commitment to the work of the foundation in terms of resources, focus and leadership?
4. What would you like to see accomplished over the next year, and how do you personally plan to make these things happen?
5. What resources can you bring to the foundation to help the foundation attain its goals?
6. What current or past experiences, skills, or interests will inform your contributions and views?

Candidates can address these questions in their election statements on various community mailing lists and at http://openid.net – especially openid-general@lists.openid.net, and via blog@oidf.org. Please forward questions, comments and suggestions to me.

Don Thibeau
Executive Director
The OpenID Foundation
thanks
professional web design