Since I'm going to be in the air long before you read this, tonight's ONT is going to be a movie night.

And tonight's feature presentation is: Commando.

This 1985 movie features Arnold at his peak with action, adventure, killing, mayhem, more killing, a romantic sub-plot, as well as plenty of snappy one-liners delivered while murder-death-killing, and of course rocket launchers. What more could a bored moron ask for?

Oh and a little trivia: Bennett, the bad guy in chain mail, also played 'Wez', the mohawk guy, in The Road Warrior.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:30 PM | Comments (720)
Post contains 243 words, total size 3 kb.

Cain 27%, Romney 23%, Perry 16%.

After those three, itÂ’s Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 11 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 8 percent, Bachmann at 5 percent and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 3 percent.

In the previous survey, conducted in late August, Perry led the field at 38 percent, Romney stood at 23 percent, while Cain was at only 5 percent.

A PPP poll has similar findings, except in that poll, Gingrich has slipped just barely ahead of Perry.

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (495)
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Scarlett Johansson's hacker is going to jail.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (112)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Pennsylvania is considering this. Now Wisconsin is as well.

CAC ran some analyses that demonstrated if these two states did this, along with (IIRC) Michigan, then the Democrats could not conceivably win a presidential election.

That may be the problem. The Supreme Court has stepped in to change voting plans within in the states, relying on the "republican form of government clause." If voting procedures become too stacked against one party, the Supreme Court may nullify them on the theory that the the Constitution, above all else, guarantees a genuine democratic contest, not an engineered, foreordained outcome.

Although people point to the examples of Maine and Nebraska -- where Democrats were behind the move -- it's different doing this with a big state. Because a big state permits a lot of gerrymandered line-drawing of Congressional districts that a smaller state doesn't. Smaller states can do some gerrymandering, assuming they have more than one Representative, but with a small number of districts, there aren't too many ways to slice up the states.

That changes in bigger states, where there are a lot more possible district-line-drawings, and they can be (and are) drawn for maximum partisan advantage.

In the case of Pennsylvania, one analysis I saw noted that with Pennsylvania's very-favorable-to-Republicans gerrymander, a Democratic presidential candidate could win the Pennsylvania vote and yet still receive a minority of its electors. In fact, that's a fairly likely outcome (because Democrats are "over-stacked" in the super-solid-blue districts). I don't know if the Supreme Court would permit that situation to stand -- losing the popular vote in a state, and yet coming away with the majority of electoral votes anyway.

It's not that I'm against the idea of this. It's that if you get too greedy about implementing such a proposal -- setting up a Kobyahsi Maru scenario for the Democrats -- the Supreme Court may say it's unconstitutional. Elections have consequences -- or, at least, they're supposed to.

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Just saw this mentioned by a Twitterer. I'm looking for details now, but if they were just summoned, they can't even start illegally leaking until it's over.

Will Obama attempt to Wag the Dog by bombing Iran?

Fingers crossed!!!

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, no difference in how the media treats the Tea Party as opposed to these malodorous malefactors. These losers make the Wacky Thieves in The Goonies look professional.

So here we have a reporter declaring her allegiance to #OWS. On camera. Unabashed. Enthusiastic.

Earlier "liberal fossil," as JWF calls her, Doris Kearns Goodwin similarly trilled about this exciting new populism.

Obama will probably lose, she conceded to Imus... unless this exciting, wonderful band of "Democrats and Republicans" changes the dynamic of the race.

The left has all of their eggs in the basket of proto-socialist revolution, then.

This is what they've got left. They see it crumbling all around them. They're desperate. Desperate enough to drop the pretense that they're really sensible capitalists who merely want a reasonable social safety net, and to start unmasking themselves as genuine socialists.

Election Day, 2012 is going to be crucial. America will either stand or fall that day.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

The future of America. A snot-nosed soft-handed pencil-necked punk demands that working people pay for his tuition. When asked Why?, all he can do is reiterate "because that's what I want... why not?"

I was just putting this in the sidebar and saw Ben had it there. On the theory that two sidebars equal a main post, I'm thinking this is something.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (328)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

Why would he say this? Well, he believes it. But he's also a coward who doesn't lead.

He's saying this because Elizabeth Warren said it in her campaign for Senate -- "Mr. Big Factory Man wouldn't be rich without the government protecting him from armed marauders," or words to that effect -- and electrified the leftist base with it.

So now comes Obama, leading from behind.

"Now, I want to be very clear here. Nobody wants to punish success in America. The Republicans talk about class warfare. That’s — our goal is to make success available for everybody. What’s great about this country is you’ve got a good idea, you’ve got a service that nobody else has thought of, you know what, go out there, start a business. Make money. I want everybody out there to be rich. That’s great. Anybody in America should be able to make it if they try."

"But none of us make it on our own. Somebody — an outstanding entrepreneur like a Steve Jobs — somewhere along the line he had a teacher who helped inspire him. All those great Internet businesses wouldn’t have succeeded unless somebody had invested in the government research that helped to create the Internet. We don’t succeed on our own."

Video at the link.

To some extent, this is unobjectionable and irrefutable: The entire point of civilization is to permit things like secure ownership of property and a stable and predictable system of law and so forth, all of which engenders economic activity. Look at failed states, full of civil war and civic violence, looting and shooting, and you'll notice that none of them are prosperous. Their economies are limited to minor agriculture and mining and other fairly basic and primitive endeavors.

But it's clear he means more than that. He means that government directly, by specific intervention, causes people to succeed. (Shouldn't that also mean it causes people to fail? )

This will be a very black-and-white election. This is good.

Assuming we win. If we lose, with the terms outlined so starkly, then it will be disastrous.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

And the media of course will not cover threats of political violence and extremist rhetoric, because they're too busy boosting the Marxists as... well, as what they always boost them as. As practical-minded centrists. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:16 AM | Comments (323)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh she's a genius.

I realize that there's a lot of semantic arguing over whether a president "creates jobs." Whenever I say that, I get corrected. Okay: The president is supposed to foster a favorable environment in which private actors may create jobs.

But the Democrats really do believe politicians -- at least Democratic ones -- actually create jobs.

But not anymore. Because, in order to deflect away from the Democrats' atrocious record on job creation, now asserts that the public does not vote for presidents or politicians to create jobs.

Nope. Her claim is that politicians are put into office to "work together."

So that's where the DNC head's spin is at now: Unable to actually do anything of positive substance, she endeavors to shift the debate to "at least we're willing to compromise and work together," which is a strictly proceduralist concern (who gives a fig if politicians are fighting if things are going well?) and furthermore, of course, is entirely untrue to begin with.

"First of all, Eric, I won."

More: Jammie Wearing Fool finds more. This may not just be an idiot's warbling; it might be the coordinated warbling of many idiots.

Because (same link) he finds Michelle Obama making the same damn claim:

First lady Michelle Obama addressed a DNC fundraiser at a private residence in D.C. Tuesday night, emphasizing the importance of working together during difficult economic times.

Posted by: Ace at 07:54 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.