Well, the Democrap primaries are still hot and heavy. It will be fun to watch Tuesday's results. I'll be watching it for you.
Why do we even put up with these people.
I have been saying this for years. Looks like I wll continue for many more years to come.
Iran defiant over new UN nuke sanctions; By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer; March 3, 2008
What am I talking about? The United Nations, of course.
The U.N. Security Council imposed another round of sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, but Iran defiantly vowed Monday to continue its nuclear program despite the nearly unanimous censuring vote.
Now that ought to scare 'em. They sanctioned for Iraq 14 years.
Two previous sanctions resolution were adopted unanimously, but diplomats said this vote still sent a strong message to the Tehran government that there is global concern that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists the program is aimed only at generating power.
I'm sure the Iranians are now changing their underwear. They have another dozen years to think about compliance.
The council calls on all countries "to exercise vigilance" in entering into new trade commitments with Iran, including granting export credits, guarantees or insurance.
Yeah, exercise vigilance here fellas, only the leader of the UN can trade with them now. It's how the previous UN chief, Koffi Annan got rich. He had a monopoly on trade with Iraq when they sanctioned them. Don't you capitalists know how to make a buck?
When is a non-problem a problem?
Like I said, I will be watching the primaries. Take a look at this article.
Few voting problems emerge, even in Ohio; By DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer; March 4, 2008
Anyone besides me see this as a potential problem?
Save for a few sputters in troublesome Ohio, voting appeared to run smoothly in four state primaries that could decide whether Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons her quest to be the first female president.
Definitely a two-edged sword here. Why is that Eye? I thought you knew everything.
Save for a few sputters in troublesome Ohio, voting appeared to run smoothly in four state primaries that could decide whether Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons her quest to be the first female president.
At first glance I thought the article was a no brainer, but after really looking at it I find it cumbersome to deal with.
But election advocates worried that final counts from primaries held Tuesday - also in Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island - could be delayed for hours or days, especially in Ohio, where tallying delays have become all too common, as have long waits to vote.
See the conundrum here?
"They know that they're under scrutiny, so they're going to focus on getting it right," said Doug Chapin, director of Electionline.org, a project of the Pew Center for the States. "Given the choice between slowing down to get it right and going faster to get it done, I think they're going to err on the side of caution."
When you read mass-media articles you have to ask yourself an important question. Who was the article written for? So who was this written for? At first glance I thought it was for the BroomRider. If it was written for her, then the reason is important. That could mean her camp has a voting fix in. You realize that every time a Democrap loses, it was voter fraud. Need I speak of Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004?
But, on second read, I wonder if the article wasn't written for Barack Hussein Obama? What makes you think so Eye? I thought you were the smartest guy in the room? If the article was written for Obama then it was written to NUKE the BroomRider from bringing suit for voter fraud.
So what do you think? I'm leaning towards help for Obama. Why is that Eye? Not to tell him to drop the voter fraud, but to warn him that "We're the Clintons and watch us run you out of town."
Grant's Blog is an original
commentary by Grant Freerks. Copyright (c)2008
Grant Freerks.
