Monday, October 07, 2002

Who Moved My Free Ice Cream?

IMAO has moved! Alert everyone! All other news in unimportant. Make sure everyone knows IMAO has moved. If you have a blog with IMAO linked on it, go update it now. If you have a blog, and, if for some unfathomable reason you haven't linked to IMAO yet, do so now. If the length of the URL was what stopped you, well it's now only six letters:

imao.us

So quick, go make your updates if you have a blog and then head there now.

Sunday, October 06, 2002

We Used to Be Able to Shoot Dead Anyone Who Tried to Steal Our Money

I finally saw that flash movie from the Democrats that's been causing quite a stir. It starts off with some hippy who I guess is supposed to be some cool young adult like in those "Truth" ads that always stir me to violent thoughts. Bush promptly kills him. This reminds me why I voted for Bush: he'll kill hippies without even a moment's thought. Bush then kills an old person. Is this supposed to be an ad against killing hippies and old people? No, it's about social security. That's where the Democrats steal our money for supposedly our own good and do God knows what with it - though I'm sure Satan does his best to keep even God from finding out about it (Satan is a left-of-center Democrat). In the good old days, people who stole our money like that would be hung next to horse thieves, but today they are elected by dumb people. And we get pretty much no return on this stolen money, or, for a young'n like me, I'll probably never see it again.

Bye bye, money. I miss you.

Sorry, I got emotional for a second. So Bush has proposed giving people the choice... no, I hate that word now... the option of investing some of their money. According to the flash ad, Democrats equate having some control in the investment of your stolen money with killing old people. Is this because Democrats are:

A. Stupid
B. Evil
C. Stupid, evil, and goddamn dirty Communists.

The answer, of course, is C. This is why, for the sake of our country, we must chase away all Democrats until the two major parties are just the Republicans and the Libertarians (who can easily be identified by their blue skin; I always thought Smurfs were Communists, but I guess I was wrong). Then we'll attack whatever country the Democrats fled to (probably France) and force them to pay tribute to us. We'll use this money for Americans' retirement. Now, there's a social security plan I'll buy into.

Saturday, October 05, 2002

Link of the Day

Rachel Lucas gets hate mail from some British person who had no clue what he was up against. Foreign people are so stupid.

Frank Discussions

A U.S. envoy had a "frank" discussion with North Korea, which probably means we just told them how bad we think they are and that we hope they change. That's diplomacy, but I guess I'm too simple for that. North Korea is doing evil things now. It's oppressing people now. It's planning to make WMD's now. Plus, they're a big threat to South Korea who animate all the Simpsons episodes, which, in my opinion, is a more important resource than oil. So I wouldn't just tell North Korea I think they're bad and hope they change in the future. Here's how a "Frank" discussion would go with North Korea:

Our envoy meets with some North Korean diplomats for talks. Our people then, without saying a word, kick the crap out of the North Koreans. The president soon after calls up to apologize as sincerely as possible, saying he didn't know who those envoys were that attacked the Korean diplomats and offers to meet with Kim Jong Il himself. Then, at that meeting, the president will thmen kick the crap out of him and promptly leave. He then calls Kim Jong II again the next day, apologizing once more claiming he was drunk and then offer to meet with hi again. He will probably say no at this point. The president should act really pissed, saying how he once smacked around Schroeder and he was cool about it afterwards. When Jong still refuses, we then tell the world that talks with the North Koreans are going no where and that their leader is funny looking so we need to attack them now before... uh... before we forget about it (we're America, the only superpower; why the hell do we need to give other countries cogent excuses for our actions?). We then quickly take out their government using our super-modern weapons against their stupid commie weapons, give food to the people and become heroes, and set yet another example to China that communism doesn't pay.

I guess the plan might work without the severe beating of North Korean diplomats, but that's one of those "why not" sort of things.

Western Culture - Resistance is Futile; You Will Be Assimilated

Muslims like our movies a lot and it makes them mad. Some Muslims just don't make much sense to me. "I don't like Americans, because they oppress the Arabs and Muslims. Unfortunately, all Western culture has been transported to our daily life," says a school administrator from Cairo. Jesus tap-dancing Christ is that guy an idiot! Like Americans could ever oppress Arabs and Muslims more than other Arabs and Muslims; we just don't have the experience at it that they do. And, maybe people wouldn't be so quick to adopt Western culture if the Middle East actually developed a culture worth something; one that didn't just involve being ignorant, oppressing women, and wearing sheets. Now, I'm not going to defend Hollywood culture, but knowing it makes Islamic fundamentalists mad does raise my opinion of it. Also, the fact that people in the Middle East like watching evil aliens ships get blown to smithereens with the help of a Mac computer as much as Americans do show that, deep down, we're all the same. That's something to be celebrated, but it seems that some Muslims are more focused on how movies aren't portraying Islam in a nice manner and make Middle Easterners look like terrorists. The problem is, Islam hasn't been been portraying itself in a nice manner and Middle Easterners have been making Middle Easterners look like terrorists by being terrorists. I swear, if I hear of one more Muslim working more at stopping the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists instead of actually trying to stop Muslims from being terrorists, I'll lobby to make sure that the Middle East only get our independent films imported to them. That'll learn 'em.

Friday, October 04, 2002

Link of the Day

Kim du Toit, a great new addition to my blogroll, analyzes the Maryland shootings and how that state's restrictive gun laws help something like this be possible. I could have taken a job in Maryland instead of Florida, and gun laws were a factor in my choice (they were also one reason I'd never go back to the state of California... one of many reasons).

Enough to Make One Give Up Reading for Good

I found this article on Clinton in the Mirror via Rachel Lucas's website (who fisks it ably), and it is the one of the most horrendous things I have ever read. Actually, do not click on that article; I think reading it actually causes brain damage. What kind of depraved, sick, twisted individuals would praise Clinton so vehemently? If I were living in Britain, that article would cause me to go out and illegally purchase a firearm out of fear I might one day run into those people. Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, but I hope Britain's equivalent of the FBI are watching the writers at the mirror, because it would not be surprise that someone capable of writing that filth could also be capable of becoming a serial killer.

The election of Clinton to the presidency was a travesty. His reelection was one of the worst incidents in America history, an unremovable stain on the pretty blue dress that is America. If we are to ever really mature as a nation, we must all get together as one people and hang Bill Clinton from the nearest tree we can find. Also, we should burn Hillary at the stake for being either a witch or a communist.

Come On; Let's Get Unilateral on Their Asses

We're still negotiating inspections with Iraq, like we really care about inspections. They're just an excuse to kill Saddam, and I hope we have plenty more excuses if they actually do allow inspections. Worst off, we could just kill Saddam and not have some articulated excuse (I mean, other than the "he's evil and a murderer" which used to work before we all became so "sophisticated").

And what's with this Hans Blix character I'm now hearing about? That sounds like the name of a cartoon cat. I can't believe that the grand and powerful United States is waiting on someone named Hans Blix. Let's just drop an anvil on him and get in gear.

And then there's the Democrats (I think they're not interested in the security of the American people). Gebhardt said, "We don't want to do something alone, or with one other country, and bypass the U.N. and then, three years from now, have China or India or Russia or somebody else say, 'You did it, we can do it.''' Little heads up to those countries: you aren't' the only superpower. You can't use our excuses. And one of you - and I'm looking at China - are evil and have an illegitimate government, so you frankly aren't allowed to do anything without getting our permission first.

And the Sen. Carl Levin warned how military leaders think that Iraq will be more likely to use WMD's if we attack without a coalition. That's dumb on so many levels. First of all, we're to believe that military people talked to a Democrat. Military people hate Democrats because all they do is whine and take away funding from the military (if the military had funding, that would help with the security of the America people, and the Democrats aren't interested in that). And, Iraq is rational enough to know that the threat difference between America by itself and America with France behind it is infinitesimal.

I say leave inspection in Iraq to archeologist two thousand years in the future.

Thursday, October 03, 2002

Link of the Day

Misha has made the switch to MoveableType and now resides at nicedoggie.net, and, in celebration, has declared himself emperor. Perhaps soon I will have to succumb to peer pressure and make the move as well.

This Would Be an Even Better Idea If Their Literacy Rate Wasn't 58%

Did I miss something, or are we still not bombing Iraq? I was thinking I just missed it in the news, because it sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me those guys aren't toast yet. I mean, what are my tax dollars paying for? And don't tell me it's poor people.

What I hear the U.S. is doing is dropping leaflets to scare the bajeebus out of the Iraqis so they won't even try fighting back. They explain how, if they try anything, we'll kill them just like we killed their friends. It's a timeless message, but I think we could do better. These guys are pretty ignorant, so we might as well just make stuff up too so we'll be even scarier to them. Here's what my leaflet would say:

"Do not lock your radar on our planes or fire at them. We can easily tell when someone does this, and thus you will be instantly killed. Our planes are top secret, so do not look at them. We have sophisticated technology to tell if someone is looking at our planes, and you will be instantly killed. Do not listen to the sounds our planes make when we fly by - that is also top secret. Make sure to cover your ears when we fly by, or your head will explode. Our new policy is that every time we fly by Iraqis, we will fire one of our anti-anti-American missiles. It can tell when someone is thinking bad things about America and seek them out and kill them. So, if you think a plane is coming towards you or you see something in the air - even if you're sure it's just a bird - always immediately drop straight to the ground, curl up in a ball, close your eyes, cover your ears, and start thinking about how great America is or you will be instantly killed."

My other idea is to make the leaflet look like one of those humorous Hallmark cards. On the outside it would say, "We wanted to tell you how great America is and convince you that Saddam is evil and that you should turn against him..." and then on the inside it would say, "but we decided it was easier to just lace this card with deadly poison."

Frank Saves the Democrats

Gore now gave another tirade on the economy, and you can almost hear all the top Democrats cringing. The guy is such dead weight and completely unelectable now, but he'll probably win the primary in 2004 because the Democrats' base is total firck'n idiots. Hey, the Democrats dug their own grave when they decided that was the kind of people they were going to court. Sure drooling morons are great for mobilizing in the general election (even thought a good number of them disenfranchise themselves by going at a punch ballot like a hyperactive monkey), but the Democrats could really use open primaries so that Republicans can save them from themselves like they did with McKinney. The other option is the Torricelli bait and switch, but you have to get the candidate to take himself off the ballot, and Gore is so much a loon that he could be 80 percentage point behind and he'll still be convinced he'll win. So what options are left for the Democrats? Simple, discredit Gore in a way even the stupid can understand. Next time Gore gives a speech, one of the other Democratic hopefuls should walk up to him right in the middle of it and bitch slap him. Who's going to vote for Gore after he's been bitch slapped in front of everyone? And the Democrat who does it will look like a real leader. Hell, I'll switch party registration myself and vote for him. Yeah, you heard me right, and I'll honor that even if it's Daschle who does the deed. Not Hillary, though; I assume she's already done it before, anyway.

Wednesday, October 02, 2002

Link of the Day

Lynxx Pherrett has a nice summary of the arguments about assassination, plus he ends with a very good point of why assassination isn't as big a threat to America as it is to a dictatorship.

Somehow I Knew New Jersey Would Eventually Be the End of Us All

So, if Democrats succeed in replacing Torricelli with Lautenberg on the New Jersey ballot, will this totally destroy our political system leading to complete chaos, the forests burning, the oceans boiling, and the end of life as we know it? Yes, but here's what will happen before then. Immediately, primaries will be shelved since now political parties can switch candidates at will. There will be no reason to do positive ad campaigns, since the candidate being built up could suddenly be swapped at any moment; thus, all ads will be negative. Of course, as soon as a negative ad comes out, the subject of it will be immediately swapped with someone else thus nullifying the ad. Instead, ads will just attack random members of the other party, just in case anyone of them may end up as the actual candidate. Parties will then start switching the candidates to random people registered to their party, and then you shouldn't be surprised if you see a negative ad against yourself. "Bob Johnson doesn't mow his lawn often enough and looks funny, so don't vote Republican or you might be voting for Bob Johnson." As the election nears, candidates will be switched at even faster rates so as to really throw off the other party. Probably some advanced computer algorithm will be used such that candidates will be changed at a rate of one billion times a second. The actual ballot will just say "Unnamed Republican" and "Unnamed Democrat", and it will be near random chance who will actually be the candidate when the election ends. Of course, we'll probably never reach the election end, as neighbor will turn against neighbor, brother against brother, son against father, dog against cat, as, at any moment, they could be candidates running against each other. Violence will erupt, families will collapse, and soon American society itself will be destroyed. And, when America is gone, you know it will only be hours before the rest of the world destroys itself from lack of America's kind guidance. The damn, dirty apes will then take their chance to conquer the humans and make us their slaves, forcing us to toil day and night in their underground banana mines, with the only thing for any human to look forward being their sweet, sweet death. And all of this so New Jersey voters can have a "choice" this election. God, I'm beginning to hate that word.

Are You with America, or Are You with Iraq and the Monkeys?

The president has reached an agreement with the House on an Iraq attack, though Senate Democrats are still opposed since the current wording shows interest in the security of the American people, something of which they are vehemently against. Right now, all it says is that before starting a war Bush has to certify that he had no other option than force (like anyone really cares), and then every couple months he has to give a report to Congress saying something like, "Still kill'n Iraqis."

In the dog and pony show that some people call the U.N., France and Russia still need some convincing. China says they'll abstain from the vote since they're evil and there government is illegitimate. Good for them. Of course, the vote doesn't matter since we're going to go attack Iraq anyway, but, if they don't want to come along, more cheap oil for us (this war is all about oil, if you didn't know; don't let anyone outside of the right-wing conspiracy find that out, though).

There were some protestors outside the front gate of the White House, and, giving further evidence that protestors of the war with Iraq have thought processes similar to monkeys, one climbed to the top of the gate. She was arrested, but, because she came back down on the outside of the fence, she avoided a felony charge. Good to know. Next time I'm in D.C., if I see a protestor climbing the fence, I'll have to remember to throw a rock at him to knock him down on the other side. I'll just tell the police, "I thought a monkey was going to attack the president." We'll all have a good laugh and then the guy will be sent to prison for a long long time, which is also funny.

The 'ole Bait and Switch

The Donks are trying to get Frank Lautenberg's name on the ballot in place of Torricelli. Republicans are crying foul, saying they should have replaced him a long while ago if they wanted to do this, but the Democrats claim that they didn't realize until now that the public wouldn't elect a total scumbag. Frankly, they said, it was a bit of a shock, and they felt misled. When the Dems announced their plan, Lautenberg gave a little speech and sounded like a confused old man they just woke up as he ineptly strung together a bunch of Democrat cliches.

"We will fight against the... uh... my opponent... who want to stop us from... uh... aborting... uh... starving children..."

Someone get the man his pills!

The absentee ballots with Torricelli's name on it have already been sent to military personnel overseas, but the Democrats don't think that should be a problem since they can just throw them out like they did in Florida. To be on the safe side with their scheme, though, they're also trying to disenfranchise anyone with a high school education.

I just remembered: my dad voted for Torricelli back in 1996 (protest vote against Republican Dick Zimmer for his over the top negative ads). I should call home and make fun of him.

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

Link of the Day

Does the U.S. Navy's new sonar cause whales to beach? I think it would be kind of cool if it did, but Bill Herbert says no.

Red Dot Diplomacy

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Ari Fleischer mentioned in a press conference how things would be cheaper and easier if Saddam were just assassinated. Now that's good policy to me: We don't like someone, we kill the mo'fo'. Why go into some full scale war when its just one bastard we don't like? It's so simple, of course the Euro-weenies will throw a hissy-fit if we do it; I'm almost convinced they like things complicated with lots of people dying. You're probably now saying, "Well, then let's assassinate the whole lot of them. That will teach them to be European." Yes, but, when you assassinate lots of people, it kinda loses its charm. The more compassionate idea is to just freak the hell out of them. When we want to assassinate some evil dictator, we wait until inevitably a European leader goes to appease him, and blow the dictators brains out just as they're shaking hands. That will put the fear of God in them, and, more to the point, the fear of America.

Anyway, when the U.S. government gets serious on this assassinate Saddam thing, they have my e-mail. My rates for heads of state are a bit higher, but I will give a patriotic discount. Frank's gots to eat, though, and he likes the prime rib.

The Sky is Un-Falling

They say the hole (or thinning, to be more exact) in the ozone over Antarctica is now shrinking, but I never understood why to care much about it. For a long while, they played this up as some huge threat, so I was all like, "Let's threaten to bomb the Antarcticans if they don't cut down their CFC usage," but then I found out all that's there are penguins and scientists. I don't know what they did to make that hole, but, as long as the hole stays over Antarctica, who cares. The only ones who will be getting skin cancer are birds so stupid they can't even fly and scientists so unliked that they were banned to Antarctica. To hell with them all, I say.

And, in attempt to head off my arch-nemesis Scott Ott, check out ScrappleFace for a related parody.

I'm Strong to the Finish, 'Cause I Drinks Me Guinness; I'm Frank J. the Blogging Man (toot) (toot)

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has threatened to boycott Guinness if Ireland doesn't join the EU (thanks to Amish Tech Support for the Link). This seems like a hollow threat, because I can't imagine a EUnik drinking Guinness on account of it being a man's beer. That dark, black liquid would be too scary for the average whiny European; a Frenchman would probably surrender if a pint were placed in front of him. And what does Ireland need from the EU anyway when they already have Guinness? Just ask yourself what would you rather have...

...close association with all European countries or a pint of Guinness?
...a stable, widely accepted currency or a pint of Guinness?
...national security or a pint of Guinness?
...the respect and admiration of France or a half ounce of Guinness?

I think the answer to each of those is pretty obvious, and it's not alcoholism - it's national pride!