A friend of mine wrote to me and asked me what I though about PUMA's - (site link below ) I read their 'credo', perused a few of their blog entries and marveled as I read the comments, looking for one that criticized their confusing political stance and their rambling and unfocused commentary. I found nary a one!
Last night, being the Grinch that I am, I added one. The subject of my comment was simply that I could find no negative comments and, as impressive as that might be, it also seemed quite improbable. To my surprise, they posted it. But when I checked again this morning, they had pulled it. Mystery solved!
I agree with them on one point only: Blindly voting along party lines without examining the candidates, or the issues they support and/or oppose is the sheerest of stupidity, Beyond that,...........I think they're nuts!
(Linda, this is the website to which Richard is referring:)
What is their basic agenda, do you think? Are they pushing for Hillary in 2012 or do they hope to override the results of the National Convention and get Hillary on the Democratic ticket for the 2008 election? (Three weeks from now.) Or maybe they're trying to organize a massive write-in campaign for Hillary for the 2008 election. Or maybe they're Republicans dressed in sheeps clothing. (I must be getting a migraine, because I keep smelling Karl Rove.)
I quote a blog entry concerning Barack Obama by 'riverdaughter' posted Oct 16th, entitled "Amok Time" (Clearly a 'Star Trek' fan-fiction writer.).
"He has ruined Hillary Clinton’s political career. It is time we faced up to this fact. She could run again but doing it a second time will be very difficult. A lot of people supported her and donated money to her only to see her undermined by her own party. It was just too close, too heartbreaking to want to experience that again. We don’t really understand the dynamics about why the party turned on her in the first place, at least not completely. Obama decided to run and he wasn’t too concerned whether he was ready or whether Hillary was the better candidate. He exercised his male prerogative to go for it (Editorial Comment by Maggie: What sort of horseshit statement is that?) and the rest of the party fell in line. The rest of the country may be ready for a female president but it is becoming more and more obvious that the (Democratic) party is not."
WTF???? He ruined Hillary's career because he won the party's nomination? And why on Earth would Obama consider Clinton to be the better candidate after she supported the Bush Administration's illegal and immoral war time after time after time?
I could spend all evening criticizing this site, line by line. And I would too, except I want to send you this picture.
I would have taken a picture of the actual tennis courts, but they've been swallowed up by a giant sinkhole! Apparently, some youngster who worked on them back in the '90's ('Rickie' or 'Richie Simmons', or something like that) spent so much time smoking doobies and chasing surfer girls, that he got the clay mixture all wrong, and the tennis court surface just liquified when the LIRR train vibrated past it once too often on it's way out to the terminus at Montauk. Ah well....
We had a lovely time in Montauk by the way. Under the influence of way too much wine and cheese, Linda and I have decided to start a new project; one that focuses on taking our flag back from the Republicans and giving CPR to the Constitution. We've even thought of a name for ourselves, though we would never stoop to calling ourselves PUMAs. (I think that whole 'Puma' and 'Cougar' thing has gotten a little stale, don't you?) When we've created our manifesto, we plan to run it by you so you can pick out the stupid parts. I'll bet you can't wait!