I admit when I am wrong. In this case, I was dead wrong about my Wolverines. They didn't even show up in the second half. That's just too bad. I was really expecting things to turn out better than they did. I was at least hoping that they could keep it close. But this? Well, Rich Rodriguez better get this program turned around quick. I have plenty of patience, but many do not.
On a sidenote, even State couldn't win on Saturday. What a horrible day to be Michigander.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Go Blue!
Today is the day. We'll see if the Michigan Wolverines can pull out the upset against Joe Pa's white-helmeted squad.
I predict a Michigan victory, but a close one. Go Blue!
I predict a Michigan victory, but a close one. Go Blue!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Governor Palin endorses Doug Hoffman
In this latest news, from the Weekly Standard via the Free Republic, Sarah Palin has announced that she will endorse Doug Hoffman for the New York's 23rd Congressional District.
Hopefully this will be all the edge the Conservative party candidate Hoffman needs to push him over the finish line in order for him to clinch victory over his RINO and Democrat opponent.
Hopefully this will be all the edge the Conservative party candidate Hoffman needs to push him over the finish line in order for him to clinch victory over his RINO and Democrat opponent.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Going Rogue going for $9
According to this report, Going Rogue: An American Life will sell for nine dollars at both amazon.com and Walmart. This is excellent news, as it means that Sarah Palin's book will be able to be read by even more people. I predict it will become an even bigger seller than first imagined. Count on it.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Buyer's remorse?
Fox News has a poll that states that only 43% of Americans are willing to vote for Obama a second time around. To add on top of that, only 49% approve of his job performance. Things just keep trending downward for him.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
An open letter to Jesse Griffin
You think you have something "ginormous" on Sarah Palin?
Bring it on.
You have nothing. You never had anything. The last time you broke something that even made a splash in the blogosphere, you were thoroughly discredited and made to look the fool. Your source in that instance, either directly or indirectly, was Mercedes Johnston, who penned a tabloid article trashing Sarah Palin that was released shortly after your "exclusive." Did it ever occur to you why she only spoke to a tabloid if she had anything legitimate to say? Perhaps any decent journalist would have done some basic investigation and found out that maybe she wasn't telling the truth. Or even more likely, selling a story to the tabloids was a quick way to make a buck. But I digress. Not a single thing in your 08/01/09 post has ever been empirically proved.
Now onto your next revelation that you have within your grasp the knowledge, the story that could finally destroy Sarah Palin forever. I doubt the veracity of your claims. First of all, you claim that your "sources" have access to this secret knowledge, but no one knows who these sources are, or what their motivations consist of. However, since they apparently possess such important information, this begs the question: Why would they share this data with you? You have mentioned that you are helping your contacts get in touch with a "media outlet," which is curiously ambiguous. Evidently, they need your help, which leads me to my next point, that being, if your sources actually have the smoking gun, why do they need your help? Why not go straight to the press themselves? There would be plenty of aspiring reporters that would run with this "iceberg" if the evidence was totally solid.
This brings me to my penultimate point. After asking all the aforementioned questions, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence you mention so frequently, Griffin, either does not exist or is weak, e.g., hearsay. This would make your breakout absolutely worthless, but it might drive readers to your blog, which is what you really want, isn't it?
The end of my analysis reaches this singular judgment, which is based on your prior record, Griffin. I strongly believe, though cannot conclusively prove, that you have caught some advance wind of a sensationalist story about Sarah Palin. I don't know the details, of course, but that's irrelevant. The fact is, you'll be given a heads up by your sources, which will circulate throughout the blogosphere. This will soften up Internet readers and make them more receptive to the "big" story coming out shortly thereafter. Of course, the story itself will blow over quickly, dismissed as gossip by the mainstream media, but your sources will benefit financially from the sale of their "story," and you will move up a notch on the blogging totem pole-you will get the attention you want so badly, the controversy that will fan flames of anger among the conspiracy theorists you feed.
How do I know this? It is simple enough to answer. You did it over two months ago, with the "Splitsville" fabrication, and you will try to do so again. I stand here to tell you Griffin that you mislead your readers. You lie to the world. You have no "iceberg" that will ever undercut Sarah Palin and bring her down, because there is none. You can wail away all you want, but the facts shall remain untainted, and the truth will be unscathed.
You wish to talk about vindication like you spouted about before? The only vindication here will be mine, as Sarah Palin will be standing tall a year from now, and you will be a laughingstock who failed in every attempt to destroy the Alaskan Governor. You may even become a hero among the circles you run in, but that is no title to be proud of.
And for the record, I use my real name and don't hide in the shadows of anonymity, unlike you.
Bring it on.
You have nothing. You never had anything. The last time you broke something that even made a splash in the blogosphere, you were thoroughly discredited and made to look the fool. Your source in that instance, either directly or indirectly, was Mercedes Johnston, who penned a tabloid article trashing Sarah Palin that was released shortly after your "exclusive." Did it ever occur to you why she only spoke to a tabloid if she had anything legitimate to say? Perhaps any decent journalist would have done some basic investigation and found out that maybe she wasn't telling the truth. Or even more likely, selling a story to the tabloids was a quick way to make a buck. But I digress. Not a single thing in your 08/01/09 post has ever been empirically proved.
Now onto your next revelation that you have within your grasp the knowledge, the story that could finally destroy Sarah Palin forever. I doubt the veracity of your claims. First of all, you claim that your "sources" have access to this secret knowledge, but no one knows who these sources are, or what their motivations consist of. However, since they apparently possess such important information, this begs the question: Why would they share this data with you? You have mentioned that you are helping your contacts get in touch with a "media outlet," which is curiously ambiguous. Evidently, they need your help, which leads me to my next point, that being, if your sources actually have the smoking gun, why do they need your help? Why not go straight to the press themselves? There would be plenty of aspiring reporters that would run with this "iceberg" if the evidence was totally solid.
This brings me to my penultimate point. After asking all the aforementioned questions, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence you mention so frequently, Griffin, either does not exist or is weak, e.g., hearsay. This would make your breakout absolutely worthless, but it might drive readers to your blog, which is what you really want, isn't it?
The end of my analysis reaches this singular judgment, which is based on your prior record, Griffin. I strongly believe, though cannot conclusively prove, that you have caught some advance wind of a sensationalist story about Sarah Palin. I don't know the details, of course, but that's irrelevant. The fact is, you'll be given a heads up by your sources, which will circulate throughout the blogosphere. This will soften up Internet readers and make them more receptive to the "big" story coming out shortly thereafter. Of course, the story itself will blow over quickly, dismissed as gossip by the mainstream media, but your sources will benefit financially from the sale of their "story," and you will move up a notch on the blogging totem pole-you will get the attention you want so badly, the controversy that will fan flames of anger among the conspiracy theorists you feed.
How do I know this? It is simple enough to answer. You did it over two months ago, with the "Splitsville" fabrication, and you will try to do so again. I stand here to tell you Griffin that you mislead your readers. You lie to the world. You have no "iceberg" that will ever undercut Sarah Palin and bring her down, because there is none. You can wail away all you want, but the facts shall remain untainted, and the truth will be unscathed.
You wish to talk about vindication like you spouted about before? The only vindication here will be mine, as Sarah Palin will be standing tall a year from now, and you will be a laughingstock who failed in every attempt to destroy the Alaskan Governor. You may even become a hero among the circles you run in, but that is no title to be proud of.
And for the record, I use my real name and don't hide in the shadows of anonymity, unlike you.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Does Shannyn Moore understand victory?
Shannyn Moore just posted over on her blog about how Sarah Palin once flip-flopped about Afghanistan because early in 2007 the Governor once called for an "exit plan" from that country for the military. However, that's not really a problem when your exit plan is total and complete victory over the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)