Archive for October 1st, 2010
Greta excoriates Gloria Allred on Live TV
Gloria Allred really gets it from Greta.
As we were watching this, we also couldn’t help thinking about something: doesn’t Allred look a lot like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer?
If we had this playing, and 90% of the people we know casually walked by, we bet they couldn’t tell the difference between Allred, Pelosi, and Boxer. It’s like they were manufactured at the same plant on the Island of Unwanted Toys.
There really is something to this, and it’s not just their hairstyles and the way they dress. It’s their attitude, bearing, and soul.
They have the same soul, or lack-thereof, however you want to phrase that. There’s a negative aura to all three of them, and as Greta said, they are delusional.
A good friend of ours wrote us this morning with an anecdote about Meg Whitman that we want to share, from personal experiences she had dealing with Whitman in the early 2000s when she was still CEO of eBay. This is from Kara in Manhattan:
Dear HillBuzz,
I have been watching on TV as that nasty Gloria lawyer woman has been attacking Meg Whitman with that illegal criminal who lied on her employment papers and now they are making up all this to stop Meg Whitman from being governor. I just want to tell you my experiences with Meg Whitman.
In the late-90s/early 2000s, I worked for an investment firm in New York City. The Big Boss of our division covered eBay and was close friends with people like Meg Whitman and Martha Stewart (in fact, she would have lunch with MS all the time and people like this were always in our offices). These were all women I admired and continue to look up to.
Meg Whitman came to our offices whenever she was in NYC and was nothing but kind and polite to everyone on our team. I mean everyone – from the administrative assistant, the associates, to the analysts and vice presidents. Polite, kind, and a ready smile. My big claim to fame is that I got to bring her Diet Coke because Sabrina (Big Boss’ assistant) was not at her desk and I was the first person Big Boss saw when she came out of her office. You also felt power and a cool intelligence emanating from Meg Whitman like nobody’s business – if she can’t kick California into gear, maybe only Zeus would be able to do it – seriously. Not even joking. This is the same person who took eBay from a tiny little website where people who collected PEZ candy dispensers could trade and buy to the GLOBAL powerhouse it is today. Seriously – you can pretty much get eBay in every country, in every language. And that is because of Meg Whitman.
What I find ridiculous is the big deal they are making of “I don’t know you, you don’t know me” – if she even said that, which I highly doubt, that is EXACTLY what I would say or what you would say if you found one of your employees lying about their permanent residence status. This woman LIED to her for years… are you kidding me with this? That Nicky woman is a criminal. She should have the book thrown at her. I’m surprised she didn’t yell at her more, which is most definitely what I would have done – and I am an immigrant myself!!! “You’re fired, and from this day forward, we don’t know each other.”
I know this is not earth-shattering intel, and I am not a friend or acquaintance of Meg Whitman’s, just someone who got to get her a Diet Coke once, but I observed Meg Whitman for several years on her trips to New York. I saw how Meg Whitman treated people. I can contrast Meg Whitman’s behavior and spirit with other big shots we had in the offices all the time (including Martha Stewart), and I can say that Meg Whitman is a good woman, smart as all get-out, and is who California needs to fix its problems.
Kara
Kara moved to California from Europe as a little girl, and her family had to go through the process of getting their visas, their green cards, and then filing for citizenship. Her parents were both professionals when they left Europe, but her dad had to get work in a restaurant when they first moved to California until he could follow all the procedures properly to get a better job. They did everything they were supposed to do, and are immigrants to this country with absolutely no sympathy for Mexicans who lie, cheat, steal identities, forge paperwork, and do all the other illegal things they get up to to scam the system.
Whitman really needs to hit hard with this, and tie Allred to Jerry Brown, because people do no take kindly to the scam artists like Nicky who lie on those employment documents and provide fake materials like this.
This, we have a feeling, can blowback BIG on Democrats if Whitman hits it back properly…because it makes people angry that Allred is using a criminal who falsified documents to attack Whitman.
CNN Fudging the Numbers? Or Just Coincidence?
Hi Folks, apologies for my relative infrequency of posts. Life/work has been so busy these last several weeks, but K. asked me to look in to something and post my analysis here.
A few waves were made recently when a CNN/Time poll found that Miller only had a 2-point lead over write-in candidate Murkowski in Alaska.
Considering Murkowski is running a write-in campaign it would seem highly improbable that she could be polling so well. A closer look at the numbers may explain why.
I am not an expert on polls, nor am I a statistical analyst. In fact, I mostly slept or skipped my way to a near-four-point in the only college statistics course I took. However, I don’t think you have to be either a pollster or a statistician to notice the obvious.
The one absolutely glaring issue with this poll is that the breakout by age shows “N/A” for the 18-34 age group.
CNN may soon be reporting that people under 35 are no longer eligible to vote
If you examine the trends among the age groups it is clear that Miller does better the younger the voter while Murkowski does better the older the voter. Somewhere north of 20% of the population of Alaska falls into the missing age group, so their absence is clearly no small issue
Along that same path, it appears there is a possible problem with the age distribution of the sample. Unfortunately the data doesn’t seem to include actual counts of the respondents by age. But we are in luck because “margin of error” is a standard statistical process, and the poll does include margin of error for the age breakdown of voter preferences.
I won’t go into the statistical mumbo-jumbo here, but if you’re curious you can check out Wikipedia’s article on margin of error. All I will say is that you have to almost double your sample size for each additional 1% of sampling error you want to eliminate. Thus, a 5% margin of error means a sample size of about 384, while a 4% margin of error means a sample size of about 600.
Note the margin of error for the 50-64 age group: 5%. Now note the margin of error for the 35-49 age group: 6.5%. Using this information we can make an educated guess that this particular poll includes at least 50% (and possibly upwards of 67%) more participants in the 50-64 age group than it does the 35-49 age group. Yet according to data from the last census, 22-26% of the population of Alaska falls into the 35-49 age group, versus only 14-20% of the population falling into the 50-64 age group.
In other words, the poll seems to have way oversampled the 50-64 age group versus the 35-49 age group. Coincidentally, Murkowski does far better vs. Miller among 50-64 year-olds (+2) than she does among 35-49 year-olds (-6).
Another observation is the relative distribution of the sample among the three major boroughs of Anchorage, Mat-Su Area, and Fairbanks. Again, using the margins of error as a guide, we can deduce that Anchorage – where Murkowski fares best – likely accounts for 50-55% of the sample. Yet Anchorage only accounts for about 42% of the state’s population, so again it appears that the poll is giving improper weight to the more pro-Murkowski demographic.
We cannot infer from this data how the poll would look if the rest of Alaska were proportionally represented in this poll, but if the other two boroughs that were polled are any indication, it would seem that Miller is averaging about a 16 points lead outside of Anchorage.
So what do we conclude from this? Even considering the “likely voter” bias (which is not explained in the publication), it seems highly unlikely that the relative age distribution in this poll is representative of actual voters come election day. Add to that the glaring omission of the 18-34 year-old voter group – which almost certainly breaks for Miller by 6+ points – and the possible bias towards Anchorage residents, it would seem that this poll is not nearly an accurate representation of how anyone is actually faring in Alaska (except maybe for McAdams, who seems to be all but forgotten).
But does that mean CNN is fudging the numbers? Or is it pure coincidence? I can’t say. I doubt that CNN’s pollsters would fudge the numbers after the fact, but it is possible that the polling strategy intentionally set out to achieve a sample that was inherently more likely to be pro-Murkowski.
Or, maybe there is a perfectly good explanation for the missing age group, and maybe it was pure randomness that the age distributions don’t match the actual demographics. Who knows. Like I said, I’m not a pollster or statistician. Just a guy who looked at the data and saw some problems. You’ll have to make the call yourselves.
***** UPDATE *****
An astute reader pointed out that the percentages for “Under 50″ segmentation do not match the percentages for the 35-49 age group. If 18-34 year-olds were not included at all, we could expect these two segments to match, since the only folks under 50 would all be included in the 35-49 age group.
Clearly, that is not the case.
If you look at the 50 and Older segmentation and compare it to the two age groups of 50-64 and 65+, the percentages seem to average out. Once you consider the larger sample size for the 50-64 age group relative to the 65+ group, 39% (Murkowski) is a plausible average between 37% and 43%, and 24% (McAdams) is a plausible average between 25% and 21%.
Note that Miller’s lead among the Under 50 group is actually LARGER than his lead among the 35-49 group. This basically confirms that the 18-34 group must be breaking even more for Miller. Assuming an equal sample size to the 35-49 group, Miller would have to be polling at least 45% to Murkowski’s 33% (+12) among the 18-34 demographic (McAdams would be polling the same: 19%).
But that may not be the end of the story. If you compare the sampling error of the “Under 50″ group to the sampling error of the “35-49″ group, you can see that the Under 50 group has reduced its sampling error from 6.5% to 5.5%. This suggests that the sample size of the entire Under 50 group is at least half again as large as the 35-49 group alone, but probably not fully doubled.
This is relevant because it suggests that the missing 18-34 demographic probably has a smaller sample size than the 34-49 group, which means Miller would have to be doing even better among that group to produce the averages shown in the Under 50 segmentation.
Interesting stuff. Fun to dissect.
A Few Words on Rutgers, and the Road Back to Christ, By Way of Washington and Wasilla
Dear Readers,
Many of you have asked us to comment on what happened at Rutgers University, where a young gay man chose to end his life because two people he thought were friends web-cammed him in his dorm room with another guy and streamed it live to the Internets, humiliating him to the point where he no longer wanted to live.
You can get the facts of what happened anywhere, and all sorts of other sites are covering the legal issues involved, both for the students who betrayed their “friend” like this and for Rutgers, if any liability exists for the school at all. I’m not going to wade into all of this because none of that’s in my area of expertise, if I even have one of those. But, I can tell you what it’s like to be young and gay and attacked and betrayed and on the edge of cashing it all in because I just didn’t want to live another day.
What we thought of last night's Martha Coakley-Jim McKenna Debate
Just to refresh memories for those who might not recall the whole Martha Coakely-Scott Brown race back in December 2009-2010 January, here’s how that all boiled down for us:
(1) Pre-Ted Kennedy’s death: we liked Martha Coakely but knew almost nothing about her. She was a Hillary delegate that refused to give up her support for Hillary all the way up to the convention, and during the primary lead-up to Super Tuesday she essentially told the Kennedy Family to take a flying leap when they pressured her to abandon Hillary for Obama. The Kennedys told her there’d be consequences for her disobedience, and she told them to F-themselves. So, that earned Coakely an enormous reservoir of support from us…which we did not expect to be called into question.
(2) Maybe a month or so before it was obvious that Ted Kennedy would be dying in the summer/fall of 2009, Coakley started putting out feelers letting anyone and everyone know that she would like to be made Senator when Kennedy died. We thought that was in poor taste, but didn’t hold it against her because it WAS obvious for the last few years that Kennedy should have retired so Massachusetts could have two sitting, healthy Senators. Coakley was just sort of stating the obvious. She was pushy, but maybe that’s what Massachusetts needed after having that wimp Kerry and bedridden Kennedy for so long. So, we stayed a Coakley fan.
(3) Sometime after Kennedy’s funeral we started to hear about some of the bad things that Coakley had done both as an Attorney General and as a prosecutor. We became disgusted that Obama’s Aunt Z. was being given all the special treatment she was receiving, and heard some quotes attributed to Coakley that seriously threw her competence into question. After enough of this, we came to the point where we thought it would be nice if she’d be a Senator but decided that we weren’t going to help her campaign and would keep the special election to fill that seat off our radar and focus on other things that interested us at the time.
(4) Getting towards the end of December, we remember Coakley being rude to Massachusetts citizens and making fun of Scott Brown going out and pressing the flesh to campaign in the cold in front of ballparks or wherever he could find people. At that point, we decided we no longer cared if Coakley won, because she seemed like she was no better than a Kennedy with that attitude. That’s when we started to look at Scott Brown and liked everything we saw (and we mean that literally, once we discovered his Cosmo centerfold and realized it was awesome printed on paper then scanned back into digitized awesome for our computer).
(5) Christmas Eve, 2009: the day every Democrat in the Senate voted to pass Obamacare, under cover of darkness, in top secret, WITHOUT EVER READING IT. WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT. And yet, this legislation (over 2,000 pages long) was rammed through with complete disregard for the will of the people or its impact on the Republic.
(6) 12/24/09 = the day we became Independents and permanently broke from the Democrat Party.
(7) 12/25/09 = the day we started helping Scott Brown because we wanted “The Kennedy Seat” taken away from Democrats to show them that no seat would be safe now that they had so thoroughly spit into the face of voters.
(8) Somewhere in early January we started up the “Hottie McAwesome” meme to counter the Democrats’ attacks on Brown’s Cosmo ads we knew were coming; we also egged everyone we knew to phone bank and donate to Brown to put him over the top
(9) In this time frame Martha Coakley’s goon pushed a report to the ground on 1/12/10 because she did not want to answer his question. This is when we transitioned from wanting to help Brown win to wanting to beat the living daylights out of Coakley for her hubris. Her initial well of good will evaporated to nothing. We really wanted to see her not only lose, but lose big, and be humiliated by how she conducted this campaign.
(10) January 19th, 2010 = Coakley lost, we celebrated for Brown…the next day the Daily Kos and Moveon.org launched coordinated attacks on us for helping and rooting for Brown. We knew we did the right thing and are still to this day thrilled the Kennedys had that seat taken away from them and returned to the people.
(11) Approximately February 1st, 2010 = probably the last time we thought about Martha Coakley for a long time.
This brings us more or less to the present, and the Martha Coakley-Jim McKenna debate…which follows us just figuring out that the new Hilary Swank movie Conviction is actually about Martha Coakley’s wrongful prosecution of a man in Massachusetts decades ago…and that horrifies us.
We went into watching the debate not knowing any of the issues Massachusetts is facing in law enforcement, but having that residual bad feeling for Coakley from the Brown campaign, mixed with disgust over what we’ve seen in trailers for the Conviction movie.
We tried to watch the debate objectively, though, and in all fairness Martha Coakley won — and won big — but not because she was better prepped and had better plans, but just because she is much better suited for public office and being on TV.
Jim McKenna seems like a very nice man. We bet he would do a great job as an Attorney General and he seems immensely knowledgeable. He is not good on television, though, and we actually tried listening to the debate so that his mannerisms and expressions wouldn’t throw us off, but he still lost with his speaking voice. He was clearly very nervous being on TV for the debate. The set for which was weirdly staged so that he and Coakley were sitting right next to each other, which is uncomfortable. With more practice and some public speaking and media coaching, he could be a good — but not great or awesome — candidate. We reiterate that he is a very nice man, but a bad choice for the GOP to run against Coakley.
As for Coakley, she didn’t really say much and we don’t like her attitude that “it’s the federal government’s job so I’m not going to lift a finger on immigration” issue. We really hate this about Democrat Attorneys General…that they overlook the crime of document falsification, lying on paperwork, ID-theft, welfare scams, and all the rest that are committed by illegal aliens in this country. Coakley had a very smug attitude about all this — and if that stuff really bothers Massachusetts voters, then it will hurt her badly. We just don’t know if Massachusetts is that revved up about this stuff. We’ve never lived there.
In terms of her general presence, she is EXCELLENT on television. She could have easily been a movie actress or a TV anchor…she is poised, articulate, and even at times very charming on television. There were long periods of the debate where she made us remember everything we liked about her, before we figured out all the things she was behind that we don’t like. We call that a VERY successful performance.
In any other year, we’d say she’d win this race in a walk, but we have not been following Massachusetts. We’re in fact surprised that Deval Patrick is not 20 points behind his challenger, but the GOP muffed that race up too, running someone who is apparently not very well-liked against a Governor who’s done such a bad job he would be hated if contrasted with someone the public had great confidence in. Massachusetts is a head-scratcher because of Scott Brown’s win and the mood of the country as a whole, though. Have people forgotten the bad thoughts Martha Coakley inspired during her campaign, when she alienated so many people? Like we said, she IS charming when she’s on her game, and even if we don’t like her record, she DOES convey a sense of professional, practiced confidence that we were duly impressed by.
If we were pressed to endorse someone in this race, we’d choose neither, because of Coakley’s adherence to Democrat decree to do as little about enforcing immigration laws as possible. That has to stop. Coakley won’t stop it, so Coakley would not get our vote. Since McKenna does SEEM to be very competent, just nervous, we’d bet he’d grow into the role, but he is not going to set the world on fire. So, we don’t feel compelled to root for or campaign for him. We bet we would vote for him, though, only because we are going to vote straight-ticket Republican for the first time ever this year (with the exception of Mark Kirk for Senate here in Illinois, in which case we are going to vote for a random third party person because Kirk is just another Lindsey Graham in the Senate and we won’t be a part of sending him to be a thorn in the nation’s side like that).
We really like watching these debates so we’re glad someone mentioned this Massachusetts AG race was on — we would have missed it otherwise.
Never take the chance that we just know something will be on television, as TV is not a part of our lives anymore so we have no idea what’s on and typically miss this good stuff as a result.
Chime in if you watched the debate or live in Massachusetts and think our take on this is wrong — our opinion is based solely on what we saw last night, and for that we’d have to give the win to Oakley purely on preparedness and experience debating on television.
WOW. Bob Shrum is completely insane. Behold the craziest thing we've ever read. Seriously.
Honestly, there isn’t a lot we can say about this…it’s just that nuts. We’ll say a lot of stuff anyway, because we’re fleshing this out in our heads as we type, but WOW, it’s just so, so crazy.
Bob Shrum, who had a hand in tanking both the Gore and Kerry campaigns, believes Democrats are doing so great in power that they will hold the House and Senate this November.
We’re actually hoping Democrats keep the Senate, by one vote, because that would make it harder for Democrats to try to blame Republicans for anything heading into 2012, but there’s a very good chance (like 80% at this point in our estimation) that Republicans do indeed take back the Senate…because we think Carl Paladino in New York’s Governor’s race is going to hit so hard against Andrew Cuomo this coming month that his coattails are going to knock both Kristen Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer out of office too (provided Paladino makes a big issue of the Ground Zero Victory Mosque supported by Democrats in the last days of the race).
Shrum comes off like that video people like to show of the movie where Hitler’s in the bunker having trouble accepting reality while everyone around him knows they’re walking dead. He’s issuing commands to battalions that don’t exist anymore. He’s directed a navy that’s at the bottom of the North Sea. He doesn’t accept the reality of Normandy or the liberation of France. Part of him’s still hoping that submarine gets back to port with that Ark of the Covenant he sent those creepy dudes after.
In his article, Shrum invokes armies of revved up Democrats who love what Obama has done to the country and are so personally devoted to him that they will leap at the chance of securing two more years of this grief to better bring glory to the Lightbringer!
This is Mao’s Great Leap Forward stuff, where everyone is supposed to be delighted they are being annihilated by economic policies that are destroying our way of life and ruining children’s futures.
This is madness.
Shrum is on ‘srhooms if he buys any of this.
Listen — when we are against impossible odds around here, we cheerlead too because we understand that Eeyorism is a major factor in political losses. If one side believes they are really and truly doomed, they create a blow-out self-fulfilling prophecy that exacerbates the coming losses since so many people just stay home. So, cheerleading we get. We were cheerleaders for like two years from 2006-2008.
But Shrum’s crossed a line into dangerous delusions.
If he really believes what he wrote, then he has a mental illness that precludes him from seeing reality.
We also don’t know, exactly, how an article like this HELPS Democrats…because it keeps underscoring that the House and Senate need to stay in Democrat hands so that more of what’s been happening the last two years can keep on happening.
He’s saying this when up to 80% of the public in polls say they hate what’s happening and want it to stop, NOW. Shrum just shrugs that off and insists people are stupid and Democrats just need to tell them more loudly what they should want and need.
This man is a high-paid political consultant. And he is giving this advice to Democrats.
Who’s paying him — the Republicans?
We will say this, though. A few years ago when we heard about James Cameron making the movie Avatar we thought, “That sounds like the dumbest movie ever”. When we saw the production art for the film, we thought, “This is the biggest pile of crap we’ve ever seen”. When we caught the first trailer for the movie, we said, “Those are giant cat-smurf-people playing out Pocahontas in space. This is going to be a crapfest no one will see…a huge flop”. And then the movie opened and made a lot of money because people were transfixed by the 3D special effects. We saw it in theaters, plunking down $15 a piece to see it in IMAX 3-D at Navy Pier because that was supposed to blow our minds, and we spent close to two hours thinking how stupid the movie was and not understanding what the fuss was about.
When the movie was over, everyone in the audience was all “Meh” about it.
We didn’t see anyone excitedly race to line up to watch it again.
But apparently everyone saw this thing in theaters because it was a spectacle and pop culture phenomenon…that no one is still talking about or going ape over today (as evidence by Avatar being in re-release currently in theaters, and it taking in very little this second time around).
A few years ago, we saw Superman Returns in 3-D and were blown away by that…which had a lot to do with all Brett Ranter’s shots of Brandon Routh in his skintight supersuit floating above our heads being sexy. In 3-D. Which was awesome. So we actually had our “3-D IS SO AWESOME AND MAGICAL” experience like four years before the rest of the country apparently did. By the time Avatar came out, we were over it, and didn’t surf that pop culture waive of excitement.
We were right it was a terrible movie, but we didn’t anticipate the public’s hunger for its novelty (to them).
So, is this coming election an Avatar for us, or for Shrum?
If he’s to be believed, then all he excitement and hopeychangey awe the public had in 2008 was just Coming Attractions for the massive tidal wave of enthusiasm that Democrats are going to show for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on November 2nd…it’s going to be phenomenal!
OR, voters this year are us post-Superman Returns. They’ve seen razzle dazzle. They are over it. No matter how much someone tries to sell them on this garbage, they aren’t buying it, none of the advertising is working on them, and they’ll have to be dragged to the polls against their will and even then won’t like it.
We don’t see HOW Democrats keep the House…and our gut tells us they lose the Senate because of Paladino’s impact on New York (which is a state the GOP wrote off completely, but we think is going to be a monumental surprise of Scott Brown/Hottie McAwesome proportions).
What do you think?
Please read Shrum’s article and tell us if he’s right, or our gut’s right, or maybe it’s a weird cat-smurf amalgam of both.
MOST DISTURBING THING YOU WILL EVER SEE: Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming has new ad that murders people who don't subscribe to AGW hysteria
WARNING: There are graphic images in this video (gore, violence, Al Gore’s call to violence) that are seriously disturbing. Do not watch this while you are eating or just after lunch. It’s seriously creepy, so don’t watch it at 2:00am like we did and then expect to drift right off to sleep dreaming about a Zac Efron/Chad Allen/Jason Bateman/Seth Gabel speedos-only pool party again. Because that ain’t gonna happen tonight, after Al Gore’s cult hijacked your imagination.
If you don’t want to watch the short AGW film, here’s the gist:
* In a classroom, a cultist indoctrinates British children, teaching them they are parasites who are killing the Earth Mother Gaia. She tells them they must de-industrialize and ruin the global economy because if not we will all die. HONESTLY, it feels like that movie “The Village” by M. Night Shalamar where crazy people teach children there are monsters who are going to get them if they don’t stay in the primitive village and not have electricity or modern industry. When some of the children doubt the AGW cult beliefs, the teacher produces a Phillip K. Dick-conceived button and kills the non-believers. They pop like cherry Jell-o filled balloons to the horror of everyone around them.
* Next up is an office vignette. The boss tells his employees, from on high, standing on a ledge Evita-like looking down on them, to cut their carbon emissions or else. When he asks them who doesn’t want to do this, he gets out his button and kills three or four people. POP! POP! POP! POP! Like they were in a post office in the 80s.
* The last scene is a soccer field. A new coach has arrived and thinks his team is a bunch of pansies. Which they are. And there’s an 80 year old goalie so it’s no wonder they needed a new coach. He asks the team what drills they have been running and instead they start telling him about new flourescent lightbulbs installed in the stadium. He tells these hosers that he’s the coach and wants to hear about soccer, not nonsense, and the old guy whips out his…wait for it…button, pushes it, and murders the coach. Problem solved! All non-believers am dead now. Drink Kool-Aid, cult happy!
Great Merciful Zeus, these people are insane.
They have no idea what they are communicating in this commercial.
It’s SUPPOSED to be a commentary on people who don’t believe in AGW killing themselves because the planet is supposedly doomed if we have lightbulbs that work and enjoy life and all its wonders to the fullest, instead of taking civilization back hundreds of years for no reason.
What it achieves, instead, is the solidification of our beliefs that these AGW cultists are not just mentally ill, but a danger to themselves and others.
This video is like the crazy fan mail that singers get, that’s supposed to be all lovey-dovey and romantic (to the stalker), but reads like very well-thought out death threats to the entertainer. In the late 80s, our friend Abbey was a teen singer in northeast and central Ohio, doing the mall circuit, belting out covers to old songs as well as her dance hit “Pancake Emporium”…it was the 80s, she was trying to be New Wave…don’t ask.
Abbey actually stopped performing because one fan, a man in his 60s, started following her from mall to mall, sending her creepy cartoon drawings of the two of them together, on their wedding day, with Abbey’s eyes bleeding “because she was so happy”. Somehow, he found her parents’ house and would camp out in the bushes waiting for her to return from her gigs. He hid under her tour van once and waited there for hours in the hot parking lot one summer, just so he could grab her leg when the door opened and she stepped up into the back.
He stole her shoe with that grab, and probably to this day keeps it in a bell jar by his bed.
CREEPY.
DISTURBED.
BEYOND HELP.
This is the same obsessive, deranged, mental illness the AGW cultists have.
“Now, you are going to listen to the insane, irrational, and creepy things I have to say. If you don’t like them, and if you disagree with me, I am going to kill you. Only then can you be free and happy because I will kill you to save you, as you will just die anyway”.
It’s like these commercials were directed by Susan Traversy, they’re so crazy.
Man alive, if this isn’t the absolute zenith of mental illness in the Left, we sure hope never live to actually see THAT.
******************************
UPDATE: Apparently, these people didn’t much like what we said about them. They took the video down.
QUESTION: in the future, the next time we see something this vile that we know the Left will take down, how do we preserve it?
(1) Should we take massive amounts of screen grabs of it frame by frame?
(2) Should we take our cellphone and video it on the computer screen while it is playing?
(3) Is there a way to download a video like this so we can save it for later when they remove it?
Can people with good tech skills chime in?
***************************************************
UPDATE: These loons keep taking this down, so here’s a screengrab storyboard of that classroom scene.
I was in college when Columbine Happened. They showed all of that on TV, the kids running from the building, people covered in blood. Seeing this AGW cult use this classroom scene has inspired me to run all the lights and noisy appliances at Buzzquarters all day today. I wish I had a model train set because I’d keep that on nonstop, just racing around in circles for hours and hours. I’m going to use the blender to crush all the ice the freezer can make…then I’m going to use the garbage disposal to crush the ice some more and waste all of it. I’m making toast from all the bread in the kitchen, just for the Hell of it. I don’t really like toast. It’s fall in Chicago, but I’ve got my winter coat on and have turned up the air conditioning to 50 degrees. I don’t care about paying the electric bill. I just want the nuts who made this commercial to know that they have so sickened me that I endeavor to be more wasteful just to cancel as many of their sacrifices out as I can.
Sick British commercial promoting AGW cult
Friday Open Thread: October 1st, 2010
What’s on your minds this Friday?
What are people talking about in your part of the country?
******************************************************
It’s the leadup to Halloween, so all month we’re going to show you a different favorite costume of ours to give you some Halloween ideas. Above is probably our favorite of all in the last few years..so cute.
Add links to this thread for any good costumes that you have seen that struck you as particularly clever…we have 30 more days to fill, so give us some great ones!
