Biased polls or is the GOP crazy like a fox?

Is there really bias in the polls, as team Romney is claiming? Only if FOX News has become a bastion of Liberals.

Here's the real deal:

Gallup has Obama up by 6 points. Bloomburg has Obama up by 6, and they cannot be considered Liberal by any stretch of the imagination. And FOX News has Obama up by 5 points. FOX News cannot be considered Liberal by any stretch of a drug-induced hallucination. Yet Team Romney continues to cry about Liberal bias in polls. They do point to Rasmussen, which has the race tied nationally, but even the House of Ras has Obama ahead in almost all of the swing states, some by comfortable margins. OK, the House of Ras is Liberal too.

How does team Romney get around that? It relies upon a blog that is fudging the data, and claims that Romney is going to win in a landslide. But why? Is Romney desperate? Is he whining? The answer is more straightforward than you might think. It is a fact that, if one side takes a large enough lead, turnout tends to be depressed for the other side on election day. This is something that the Republican Party cannot afford, as this would affect all the close downballot races in the Senate and the House.

So, with all this in mind, here is my own analysis:

1) I think Romney knows the truth regarding his chances at this time.

2) I also believe that team Romney's talk about poll bias, along with the fake polling site, is another tool in the political toolbox, and is being used to shore up support in downballot races.

3) Finally, this election is not over, and if Obama slips up, Romney can come back. But that might be difficult if the party faithful see him so far back that some of them still don't get out and vote, thinking it's a losing cause.

4) And even if Romney loses, there are still downballot races where the GOP needs their base to get out and vote. The Senate, and possibly the House too, are at stake. Although I believe that a Democratic takeover of the House is improbable, Republican chances of a Senate takeover are higher than that.

So, in the end, Romney is acting like he has acted in the past - As a cunning businessman, who is thinking along the same kinds of logical lines that made him successful in business, and not giving up. Romney is playing a bad hand, which he dealt himself, but is playing that hand like a pro. In spite of what I think about Romney, I do like the fact that he does not give up, and keeps on fighting. That, in itself, is not a bad qualification to be president. I still think he is going to lose, but when he goes down to defeat, if the GOP still holds the House, and especially if they manage to take the Senate, Romney will have taken one for the team, and will have taken it well.

Why is George Bush such a dumbass?

Good question. I decided to put this to a scientific test, using the quantum theory as a guide. I did this by creating the following apparatus: I hooked up a device that fired brain cells from a rhesus monkey into an apparatus that split into a right leg and a left leg. I first fired 1,000 brain cells into the apparatus, and it showed that 50% of them ended up in the right side of the apparatus and 50% ended up in the left side. I next tried this with 100 brain cells with the same result. I then did it with 10 brain cells, and once again got the same result. Finally, I did it with one brain cell, and I'll be damned if I didn't get the same result. But how could I see brain cells in both sides of the apparatus if I had fired only one brain cell into it? Turns out that brain cells are so small that the very act of measurement alters the results. If, instead of measuring both sides at once, I measured only the left side or the right side of the apparatus, I would only see a brain cell 50% of the time. So, in measuring both sides at once, I was actually looking at a probability distribution of where, either right or left, that the brain cell would end up. OK, so I had a solid look at quantum weirdness using brain cells from a monkey, but did it apply to humans too? Good question, so I took a brain cell from George Bush, and tried the experiment again. To my surprise, this brain cell did not register in either the left or right leg of the apparatus, neither could I produce a probability wave for that particular brain cell. That's when I realized that the brain cell from Bush was not a real brain cell at all, but a figment of Bush's imagination, so I fed it to Schoedinger's cat. Unfortunately for Bush, that was the only brain cell he had. He was screwed, but his IQ increased by 10 to the minus 4th power points. The cat, however, became catatonic.

10 Things More Popular Than Congress

1. President Obama (46%)
2. The Internal Revenue Service (40%)
3. The airline industry (29%)
4. Lawyers (29%)
5. Richard Nixon at his lowest (24%)
6. The banking industry (23%)
7. The oil and gas industry (20%)
8. BP during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (16%)
9. Paris Hilton (15%)
10. America becoming a Communist nation (11%)
11. CONGRESS (10%)

Today's question - Why is the bubonic plague more popular than Congress? I am looking forward to Democratic and Republican ideologues to start pointing their fingers at each other instead of addressing this issue, and I bet this is one reason why the rating of Congress is lower than that of:

1. Burnt toast
2. Venereal disease
3. Dingleberries
4. Dirty diapers (although Senator Vitter might have a different opinion here)
5. Pedophile priests
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Vladimir Lennin (To balance the ticket - LOL)
8. Cockroaches
9. Rapists
10. Slime molds
11. CONGRESS

Whose Fault?

Am home from my gig tonight, and am ready for another one of my patented rants.

Obama's fault. Bush's fault. Obama's fault. Bush's fault..... Hold it!! Enough of this shit already!!

Actually, Obama DID inherit a hell of a problem, and it's not a problem we can easily pull out of. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it did not reach that level again until 1953. However, I believe that Obama is doing a few things right, and is also doing a number of things wrong. I am not going to listen to talking heads from either the right or the left, but will do my best to think independently. Would Romney be a better president than Obama. I honestly do not know, but I do know something else. If Romney takes office in 2013, things are still not going to right themselves. It will take pretty close to a generation for that to happen, no matter who is in office. Americans right now have way to short an attention span, and want it now. Problem is that it isn't going to happen now, nor will it happen any time in the near future. It is going to take many years.

In addition, this is not Bush's recession alone. It was under Bill Clinton that laws were changed that allowed this mess to happen in the first place, and it was especially the gutting of the Glass-Steagal Act that armed the time bomb that eventually went off. Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for this mess, but you wouldn't know it by looking at some of the responses you see on "Talking Head Assholes TV". And the responses vary, depending whether the asshole doing the talking supports the Republican party or the Democratic party. Yes, I AM making an accusation here. I am accusing Democrats and Republicans both of putting party ahead of country. There is a word for that, and it's not "Patriotism". "Douchebaggery" does come to mind. So, to the Network Douche Bags, I have a short message for you:

Dear Douche Bag, Go fuck yourself!!

If you want the truth, you can start by turning off your TV set, then taking a sledge hammer to it. After that, it is only necessary that you open your eyes and look.

/rant (Thanx for reading)

So Who Shops at Wal-Mart?

I have a question for Liberals: Do you shop at Wal-Mart?

I will make a point.

1) I agree with you that billionaires don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Economics 101. I understand that.

2) However, if you shop at Wal-Mart, which outsources jobs to China, then you are not practicing what you preach, because you are not helping to create jobs through consumer demand. If enough people refused to shop at a chain that helps to destroy jobs here in America, then we wouldn't be in the economic pickle we are in. But you have to practice what you preach.

3) While it is demand that creates jobs, where do you want to create them? Here in America, or there in China. While there is demand here, I see a lot of that demand being shipped THERE. and that is part of the problem. In America, we get what we deserve, but if you are willing to give it all away to China, then you deserve what you get.

4) If we all really put America first, we wouldn't be arguing over taxes at all. Taxes would be low, and unemployment would be less than 4%. There would be enough prosperity to go around, and there wouldn't be camps of Democrats and Republicans that are always at each others' throats.

5) But you have to act like an American for that to happen. That means buy American and not set your foot inside stores that don't give a shit about anything but profits, at whatever price has to be paid, whether it is in the blood of Chinese slaves or whether it is in money.

6) You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you are certain that it is demand and not billionaires that create jobs, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.

So who shops at Wal-Mart?

(Dana puts on his flame proof suit)

Do I miss George Bush?

From the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON - In a rare public tribute to his predecessor, President Obama unveiled the formal White House portrait of George W. Bush on Thursday, praising his "strength and resolve" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama recalled the sight of Bush standing atop the rubble at ground zero, "bullhorn in hand," conveying strength not only to the American people but, on behalf of the country, to the wider world.

Yes, it is nice to put politics aside, but we all know the real reason Obama is praising Bush. It's because Obama and Bush are much alike. It might have been Bush who began to break our Constitution, but it is Obama who is putting the final touches on that dastardly deed. Call Obama whatever you want. Some call Obama a Liberal, some call him a centrist, and a few crazies even call him a Kenyan who stole the office. But they are all way off the mark. Barack Obama is really George W. Bush on steroids. Bush might have gone to extremes to twist and mangle the Constitution, but Obama has taken it to new heights that Bush would never have imagined, not even in his wildest wet dreams. When Bush was in office, I often said that he represented all that was wrong with our government. Now that Obama has had a 4 year track record in that office, I can say with confidence that he has definitely outdone Bush when it comes to erosion of our civil liberties.

Remember the poster of George Bush that says "Miss me yet"? Oh yes, I remember it, and guess what? I do miss Bush, not because he stood for the Constitution, but only because he mangled it less than Obama has done.

Scott Walker's Impending Demise

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Gov. Scott Walker's campaign has transferred another $100,000 to the defense fund used to pay his pricey criminal defense lawyers in the lengthy John Doe investigation into activities during Walker's time as county executive.

Newly filed campaign reports show Walker's campaign transferred $70,000 to the Scott Walker Trust on May 3 and another $30,000 on May 17.

That bring the total the first-term governor has put in the defense fund to $160,000 in the past six weeks.

State law requires that the campaign get prior approval from donors before shifting their money to a legal-defense fund. Walker's campaign has declined to identify the contributors who OK'd the transfers.

And here is the key to knowing what's up with Walker in Wisconsin. According to Wisconsin law, a governor, or any other public servant in the state of Wisconsin, may have a legal defense fund if and ONLY if.

1) He has been charged with a crime.

OR

2) He is under investigation for a crime.

Any other use of a legal defense fund, such as the one Walker has set up for himself, would be a felony. So Walker can state all he wants that he is not under investigation for criminal activity. The mere existence of his defense fund says that he is lying, but if by chance he is telling the truth, then he has committed a serious crime nonetheless. Either way, he loses.

As I have said earlier, I still predict Walker to win his recall election, but I am now certain that Walker's career could very well end in a prison cell, just like Blago's career ended in Illinois.