On a whim I decided to drive by Guercio's this morning to see if it was open.
I'm not terribly proud to admit this, but I've lived in Buffalo since the summer of 1996 and I've never been to Guercio's. I know the place by reputation, yet still after checking it out for the first time I was astounded. Really and truly, we have a first class local market... I don't have enough superlatives to accurately describe the place. I suppose the most succinct way for me to put it is that after seeing it first hand, it was plainly obvious to me why the local high end restaurants swear by the place.
Fruits and produce - first class. They have certain things that you'll never find in a supermarket, and in exceptional condition. The things that really stood out to me were some of the hard to find fruits, the pepper selection, the cheeses, the prepackaged nuts and such that you could make trail mix from... and cheap, too. I felt like I stepped back 20 years to the markets that you used to see that have been gobbled up by places like Wegman's. Isn't it ironic that now Weg is being undercut by Wal-Mart? Its like a capitalistic circle of life where the smaller fish are always being eaten up by the bigger fish.
In any case, I'll be going back many, many times. And its actually more convenient for me to go there rather than Wegman's. Granted, there are some things that are missing that I'll still be making trips to the Co-op and such for, but for once its good to know that there are still local, highest possible quality places that charge fair prices and have no fear of survival. After leaving Guercio's (and after grabbing one of those $2 personal pizzas, couldn't leave without one) I felt proud that our city has something like this available to us.
I know that we have some newer residents that have been journaling on the strip... if you haven't yet made it to Guercio's and you need tomatoes, or plan on making fruit salad, or need some good cheese for that pasta, making a dessert, or are simply in need of some basics - or if you want $5 free trade olive oil like (e:paul) mentioned - make an excuse and go check it out. You will not be disappointed, I promise. My only bit of fair warning that I'd dish out is that this morning parking was ATROCIOUS down there. I lucked out so hard by getting a spot directly in front of the store. It was incredibly busy this morning and I can only assume that its always that way. So - be prepared for a hard time parking. Regardless, its still worth the trip. Its on Grant St. between Lafayette and Delevan.
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
08/04/2007 11:16 #40373
Deflowered08/02/2007 09:23 #40352
Testing a digicamHere is our sad candy bowl at our front desk -
This is where I harass y'all from during the weekdays - and yes I tend to work with the natural light only.
Cheers mateys -
Joshy Wishy Washy
This is where I harass y'all from during the weekdays - and yes I tend to work with the natural light only.
Cheers mateys -
Joshy Wishy Washy
ladycroft - 08/02/07 11:51
hi :)
hi :)
08/01/2007 12:37 #40340
Why Celeb Media SUCKS....It really is that simple - if you read celeb magazines you are rotting your brain and are partially responsible for the death of Princess Diana, IMO. Quite literally, paparazzi and the photos that are the fuel for this lower rung on our social ladder are the death of people sometimes.
Yahoo has a celeb site called, hilariously enough, OMG! - omg.yahoo.com. Not that I'm advertising it or anything - you know better coming from me. The implication is that by reading this tripe you are attempting to live vicariously through these celebrities, or perhaps to simply trash the celebs out of jealousy or other petty bullshit. Or perhaps to get fashion tips. Here's a tip for you - oversized sunglasses are fucking ugly on chicks - don't wear them. We are suspicious that you are covering your face for, sadly, a good reason. Stop perpetuating this utterly sad reality... make friends, go get laid, have your own story for crying out loud. Its not that fucking hard!
Anyway, lets have some fun, shall we?
OMG! Here is Courtney Love, looking like a bag lady and bumming a light from, ironically enough, a paparazzo. Not that Courtney Love has *ever* looked like anything but a bag lady.
OMG! Its Justin Timberlake and he's about to pump his own gas!
OMG! Its Britney Spears and, like omg, isn't she so fat?
OMG! Its David Beckham, the single most recognizable face on earth, unless you live under a rock, waiting in line at a coffee shop! You mean to say that he doesn't have some lackey run in for his latte? Oh, and isn't he like, omg, steaming hot? (Tee Hee, forgive the atrocious coffee pun, but it fit in with the absurd nature of these photographs)
No wonder people stereotype Americans as bubbleheads, full of our own shit and know nothing (nor care much) about the world. Given the popularity of this kind of cultural dookie, how could we defend ourselves from such a comment?
Yahoo has a celeb site called, hilariously enough, OMG! - omg.yahoo.com. Not that I'm advertising it or anything - you know better coming from me. The implication is that by reading this tripe you are attempting to live vicariously through these celebrities, or perhaps to simply trash the celebs out of jealousy or other petty bullshit. Or perhaps to get fashion tips. Here's a tip for you - oversized sunglasses are fucking ugly on chicks - don't wear them. We are suspicious that you are covering your face for, sadly, a good reason. Stop perpetuating this utterly sad reality... make friends, go get laid, have your own story for crying out loud. Its not that fucking hard!
Anyway, lets have some fun, shall we?
OMG! Here is Courtney Love, looking like a bag lady and bumming a light from, ironically enough, a paparazzo. Not that Courtney Love has *ever* looked like anything but a bag lady.
OMG! Its Justin Timberlake and he's about to pump his own gas!
OMG! Its Britney Spears and, like omg, isn't she so fat?
OMG! Its David Beckham, the single most recognizable face on earth, unless you live under a rock, waiting in line at a coffee shop! You mean to say that he doesn't have some lackey run in for his latte? Oh, and isn't he like, omg, steaming hot? (Tee Hee, forgive the atrocious coffee pun, but it fit in with the absurd nature of these photographs)
No wonder people stereotype Americans as bubbleheads, full of our own shit and know nothing (nor care much) about the world. Given the popularity of this kind of cultural dookie, how could we defend ourselves from such a comment?
metalpeter - 08/01/07 18:04
First of all I do agree that the paparazzi did have an effect and at least contributed and maybe caused the death of Diana. As (e:ladycroft) said they both do need each other. However I disagree that the famous need the photographers. Entertainers have enough outlets to promote there stuff there are lots of entertainment shows and Magazines that only publish things that are ok'd or matter of opinion. What the gossip rags do is put up pictures and stories both true and false that the famous people don't want out cause they have no way of spinning it. I also do think that you should have some privacy when you are out in public and you shouldn't be harassed and followed. There are these things called zoom lenses. That being said celebs who are allways followed are also never robed. I think being followed should effect what you do and it may. For example if people Followed Vick around he couldn't dog fight and wouldn't be in trouble now. Oh yeah nice melons on brit by the way.
First of all I do agree that the paparazzi did have an effect and at least contributed and maybe caused the death of Diana. As (e:ladycroft) said they both do need each other. However I disagree that the famous need the photographers. Entertainers have enough outlets to promote there stuff there are lots of entertainment shows and Magazines that only publish things that are ok'd or matter of opinion. What the gossip rags do is put up pictures and stories both true and false that the famous people don't want out cause they have no way of spinning it. I also do think that you should have some privacy when you are out in public and you shouldn't be harassed and followed. There are these things called zoom lenses. That being said celebs who are allways followed are also never robed. I think being followed should effect what you do and it may. For example if people Followed Vick around he couldn't dog fight and wouldn't be in trouble now. Oh yeah nice melons on brit by the way.
ladycroft - 08/01/07 15:42
no paparazzi = no celebrities. neither can exist without the other. obsessive fans getting a grip on reality would help curb the insanity, but we know that's never going to happen.
no paparazzi = no celebrities. neither can exist without the other. obsessive fans getting a grip on reality would help curb the insanity, but we know that's never going to happen.
joshua - 08/01/07 15:28
I understand getting sucked in to that kind of thing, particularly if you are traveling and need a laugh. Personally when I was flying all over I must have dumped hundreds of dollars on whatever the local newspaper was (except the NYT - Post all the way, which sadly is a tabloid), Spin Magazine, Weekly Standard, Newsweek, Time - you get the picture.
I guess for me the issue is what the entire celebrity news business represents.... which is a sad, extraordinarily petty and dark element of our society. Keep in mind, I don't feel bad for these celebrities. If you want to abuse the media for your benefit you can't complain when they act like vultures, but honestly if you have 47 paparazzi following you wherever you go (with reportedly is true for Beckham) I think thats something that even the biggest celebs shouldn't have to deal with. That is obviously abusive and industry driven.
I understand getting sucked in to that kind of thing, particularly if you are traveling and need a laugh. Personally when I was flying all over I must have dumped hundreds of dollars on whatever the local newspaper was (except the NYT - Post all the way, which sadly is a tabloid), Spin Magazine, Weekly Standard, Newsweek, Time - you get the picture.
I guess for me the issue is what the entire celebrity news business represents.... which is a sad, extraordinarily petty and dark element of our society. Keep in mind, I don't feel bad for these celebrities. If you want to abuse the media for your benefit you can't complain when they act like vultures, but honestly if you have 47 paparazzi following you wherever you go (with reportedly is true for Beckham) I think thats something that even the biggest celebs shouldn't have to deal with. That is obviously abusive and industry driven.
james - 08/01/07 15:18
Though we live in a OMG-culture, our paparazzi isn't half as bad as the British. Holy cow! Their celeb rags recently had pictures from Prince Charles' colonoscopy.
It is sad that America chooses such dull figures to live vicariously. If only we could emulate the likes of Louis Pasture and play with dangerous spores for giggles.
Though we live in a OMG-culture, our paparazzi isn't half as bad as the British. Holy cow! Their celeb rags recently had pictures from Prince Charles' colonoscopy.
It is sad that America chooses such dull figures to live vicariously. If only we could emulate the likes of Louis Pasture and play with dangerous spores for giggles.
hodown - 08/01/07 14:51
Yeah it seems as of late those mags just keep getting worse and worse. I admit to being sucked in at times, but honestly in an average store I find about zero magazines that I'm actually interested in reading.
Yeah it seems as of late those mags just keep getting worse and worse. I admit to being sucked in at times, but honestly in an average store I find about zero magazines that I'm actually interested in reading.
jenks - 08/01/07 14:43
oh god, those magazines are the worst. yeah I'll read them on the plane for a laugh once in a while, but I'm with you. My "favorite" is the 'OMG! Stars are just like US!" sections, where they have pix like "See! Lindsay Lohan drives a car too! She's just like us!" "See! David Beckham drinks coffee!" "OMG! Ben Affleck walks his dog too!" "WOW! heroin-chic skank courtney love bums lights TOO! She's JUST LIKE you!"
UGH.
oh god, those magazines are the worst. yeah I'll read them on the plane for a laugh once in a while, but I'm with you. My "favorite" is the 'OMG! Stars are just like US!" sections, where they have pix like "See! Lindsay Lohan drives a car too! She's just like us!" "See! David Beckham drinks coffee!" "OMG! Ben Affleck walks his dog too!" "WOW! heroin-chic skank courtney love bums lights TOO! She's JUST LIKE you!"
UGH.
07/24/2007 12:45 #40235
Simpsons Crazy07/25/2007 10:37 #40246
The Political Season - ZZZZzzzzzz.....Category: politics
Whats this - you didn't realize that there were a plethora of polls and debates going on for the presidential election next year? Don't worry - a vast majority of the nation is still asleep on this fact as well. I'm not particularly sure why polls and debates started so early this time around, and to be honest I don't really care. Ultimately, since this has been going on for months now, NONE of what has been going on politically has been compelling on any meaningful level. Democrats have been at this for several months, and nothing has changed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised millions of dollars and in fact Democrats have outraised Republicans to the tune of $100 million - this to me is staggering and reflects the fact that a) Democrats are very committed to winning in '08, and b) Republicans are completely uninterested in the short list of candidates they are left with. Republicans have been left wanting - largely the party faithful has shown lukewarm interest in the candidates presented to them. I think the guy will be Fred Thompson and you'll see a massive numbers spike in polls and donations received.
A couple days ago CNN hosted a Democratic Party debate with the assistance of YouTube, which I think is an interesting spin on how to take questions. The cynical side of me cannot ignore that in the end these debates always end up the same - the questions are filtered, the candidates won't answer questions directly and as a result nobody learns anything new about the candidates that would help voters make a decision. I'm going to illustrate to you why these debates are useless regardless of the method of asking the question. Watch -
This is a textbook example of what I hate about politicians. When she is asked about the definition of liberal the first few words out of her mouth are straight up, unfiltered bullshit, like taking 3 warm shots of Crown Royal with no chaser. Mrs. Clinton is definitely not alone - all politicians do this regardless of party and I could have easily used a different example. What the fuck is she talking about - "liberal" used to mean the opposite of big government and individual freedom? Did she even think through what she was saying or does she actually believe that liberals used to be more like Republicans? In other words, she answered the question but in doing so used flowery and meaningless language. Following that, some guy with no chance in hell of winning takes a pot shot at Barack Obama, and Obama responds in kind.
I have to ask again - how does any of this help voters make a better decision about who to pick? How relevant of a question was this to ask anyway? This is probably the most important presidential election of the past 35-40 years and this is the type of question that CNN chose to ask the candidates? Another question that boggled my mind - are African Americans going to receive reparations for slavery? First of all, the answer to that question is obvious - no. Secondly, this sort of question is by no means representative of the most important issues of the day. By the way, it was noted that not ONE question regarding how to handle illegal immigration passed through CNN's filter. When the questions are atrocious and the answers are even worse, who cares how "innovative" the questions are delivered? Again, its because these debates are ultimately meaningless. What about asking Democratic candidates about the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, something the influential activists and liberals everywhere are begging for? None of the Democrats will actually answer that question.
It is intriguing to me that in passing recently Mr. Edwards suggested cornering out the weaker opposition to Mrs. Clinton. Hey John, YOU are the weaker opposition. Mr. Edwards' main topic is poverty, aka the class divide known as "the two Americas" that most observers are very familiar with, since it was the exact same topic that lost him the nomination in '04. The problems Edwards faces are twofold - a) he's a fabulously rich guy talking about poverty, and b) his own vanity, which was best captured in the following video -
Stuff like this is incredibly damaging to a politicians prospects. Coupled with the news about how much his haircuts cost, he has absolutely no credibility with the people he is trying to woo for votes. Granted, although rich people are completely oblivious to the needs of the poor, I don't think it should preclude them from shining a light on the issue. RFK and FDR are two examples of rich guys that had credibility with the poor. Unfortunately, John Edwards is no RFK or FDR. To his credit, as a wealthy liberal that lives an astoundingly wasteful lifestyle, he isn't preaching to us about lifestyle changes to curb global warming.
At the moment, Democratic politics are dominated by a cult of personality, obsession with polling results and the desire to see Bush out office, none of which make compelling reasons to vote for a candidate. At the moment, and I can't believe I'm saying this, the only Democrat making any sense at all is actually Joe Biden, one of the most entrenched blowhard Washington insiders in the Senate. Granted, all politicans are basically the same, but Biden, in my view, is the straightest talker and the most level headed. A few years ago Biden suggested what in essence would be a "United States of Iraq" with subregions created based on ethnicity. How badly he was poo-pooed at the time - as time passes by he is looking wiser and wiser.
Get involved - voter apathy, in my opinion anyway, is a mockery of a basic freedom that many in the world don't individually hold. Go get information on the candidates by checking out their web sites, reading their ideas, finding out how they vote on issues that are important to you. Just don't expect to learn much from debates until the nominees are chosen.
A couple days ago CNN hosted a Democratic Party debate with the assistance of YouTube, which I think is an interesting spin on how to take questions. The cynical side of me cannot ignore that in the end these debates always end up the same - the questions are filtered, the candidates won't answer questions directly and as a result nobody learns anything new about the candidates that would help voters make a decision. I'm going to illustrate to you why these debates are useless regardless of the method of asking the question. Watch -
This is a textbook example of what I hate about politicians. When she is asked about the definition of liberal the first few words out of her mouth are straight up, unfiltered bullshit, like taking 3 warm shots of Crown Royal with no chaser. Mrs. Clinton is definitely not alone - all politicians do this regardless of party and I could have easily used a different example. What the fuck is she talking about - "liberal" used to mean the opposite of big government and individual freedom? Did she even think through what she was saying or does she actually believe that liberals used to be more like Republicans? In other words, she answered the question but in doing so used flowery and meaningless language. Following that, some guy with no chance in hell of winning takes a pot shot at Barack Obama, and Obama responds in kind.
I have to ask again - how does any of this help voters make a better decision about who to pick? How relevant of a question was this to ask anyway? This is probably the most important presidential election of the past 35-40 years and this is the type of question that CNN chose to ask the candidates? Another question that boggled my mind - are African Americans going to receive reparations for slavery? First of all, the answer to that question is obvious - no. Secondly, this sort of question is by no means representative of the most important issues of the day. By the way, it was noted that not ONE question regarding how to handle illegal immigration passed through CNN's filter. When the questions are atrocious and the answers are even worse, who cares how "innovative" the questions are delivered? Again, its because these debates are ultimately meaningless. What about asking Democratic candidates about the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, something the influential activists and liberals everywhere are begging for? None of the Democrats will actually answer that question.
It is intriguing to me that in passing recently Mr. Edwards suggested cornering out the weaker opposition to Mrs. Clinton. Hey John, YOU are the weaker opposition. Mr. Edwards' main topic is poverty, aka the class divide known as "the two Americas" that most observers are very familiar with, since it was the exact same topic that lost him the nomination in '04. The problems Edwards faces are twofold - a) he's a fabulously rich guy talking about poverty, and b) his own vanity, which was best captured in the following video -
- in my best blatantly gay voice* - Just tease it a little, tease it!
Stuff like this is incredibly damaging to a politicians prospects. Coupled with the news about how much his haircuts cost, he has absolutely no credibility with the people he is trying to woo for votes. Granted, although rich people are completely oblivious to the needs of the poor, I don't think it should preclude them from shining a light on the issue. RFK and FDR are two examples of rich guys that had credibility with the poor. Unfortunately, John Edwards is no RFK or FDR. To his credit, as a wealthy liberal that lives an astoundingly wasteful lifestyle, he isn't preaching to us about lifestyle changes to curb global warming.
At the moment, Democratic politics are dominated by a cult of personality, obsession with polling results and the desire to see Bush out office, none of which make compelling reasons to vote for a candidate. At the moment, and I can't believe I'm saying this, the only Democrat making any sense at all is actually Joe Biden, one of the most entrenched blowhard Washington insiders in the Senate. Granted, all politicans are basically the same, but Biden, in my view, is the straightest talker and the most level headed. A few years ago Biden suggested what in essence would be a "United States of Iraq" with subregions created based on ethnicity. How badly he was poo-pooed at the time - as time passes by he is looking wiser and wiser.
Get involved - voter apathy, in my opinion anyway, is a mockery of a basic freedom that many in the world don't individually hold. Go get information on the candidates by checking out their web sites, reading their ideas, finding out how they vote on issues that are important to you. Just don't expect to learn much from debates until the nominees are chosen.
dcoffee - 07/26/07 09:11
This Primary season gets me thinking about Instant Runoff Voting again. I'm glad we're spreading 'democracy' around the world, while in this country 50% of people don't even vote for the president, and 70% don't vote in mid-term elections.
I hope to be posting more often. Glad to see there is still good political discourse going on here.
This Primary season gets me thinking about Instant Runoff Voting again. I'm glad we're spreading 'democracy' around the world, while in this country 50% of people don't even vote for the president, and 70% don't vote in mid-term elections.
I hope to be posting more often. Glad to see there is still good political discourse going on here.
joshua - 07/25/07 21:05
(e:james) - yeah, thats definitely true. John Kerry, President Clinton and I'm sure plenty of other Republicans like Romney are "guilty" of the "sin" of paying bloated prices for haircuts. Personally, I don't really care what they pay... I really don't have much of an opinion on it from a basic level. Like you mention though, when poverty is your main issue, its obvious that if you are spending money like that on a haircut you are going to have problems.
(e:dcoffee) - how is everything - I haven't seen you post much lately. In one sentence you put two words together that I think are magnificent and appropriate when referring to the relation between the media, candidates and elections - overwhelmed and game. To be honest the approach is incredibly offputting to me.
People say that voting for a third party is "throwing away" your vote. I think that is totally wrong because ultimately you are exercising your right to vote and register your own viewpoint... which is what its all about. Voting for a "loser" is better than not voting at all, and I'm at a loss as to why for some people there is a disconnect there.
President Bush is amongst the least eloquent presidents in history, but of course he isn't alone in that regard. My bro and I were watching the Kerry-Bush debates last year and President Bush on two occasions had the most appalling debate performances EVER. Granted we were smoking a little bit so we didn't need any extra help to find some humor in it all - I kept saying "My God he is a beady-eyed motherfucker!" Nevertheless he won the election, so on the other hand it makes me wonder how influential the debates are nowadays. I think the media's next-day reaction to the debates are more influential than the debates themselves.
(e:james) - yeah, thats definitely true. John Kerry, President Clinton and I'm sure plenty of other Republicans like Romney are "guilty" of the "sin" of paying bloated prices for haircuts. Personally, I don't really care what they pay... I really don't have much of an opinion on it from a basic level. Like you mention though, when poverty is your main issue, its obvious that if you are spending money like that on a haircut you are going to have problems.
(e:dcoffee) - how is everything - I haven't seen you post much lately. In one sentence you put two words together that I think are magnificent and appropriate when referring to the relation between the media, candidates and elections - overwhelmed and game. To be honest the approach is incredibly offputting to me.
People say that voting for a third party is "throwing away" your vote. I think that is totally wrong because ultimately you are exercising your right to vote and register your own viewpoint... which is what its all about. Voting for a "loser" is better than not voting at all, and I'm at a loss as to why for some people there is a disconnect there.
President Bush is amongst the least eloquent presidents in history, but of course he isn't alone in that regard. My bro and I were watching the Kerry-Bush debates last year and President Bush on two occasions had the most appalling debate performances EVER. Granted we were smoking a little bit so we didn't need any extra help to find some humor in it all - I kept saying "My God he is a beady-eyed motherfucker!" Nevertheless he won the election, so on the other hand it makes me wonder how influential the debates are nowadays. I think the media's next-day reaction to the debates are more influential than the debates themselves.
james - 07/25/07 20:44
A quick point on the John Edwards hair thing.
Campaign finance records show that a whole lot of candidates spend thousands of dollars in the duration of their campaign on hair and makeup. One session for Romney cost him $300 and was disguised as "Political Consultation"
It is just silly because Edwards' big issue is poverty and because that haircut of his is a $15 haircut. Seriously Johnny, it isn't that fancy, nancy.
A quick point on the John Edwards hair thing.
Campaign finance records show that a whole lot of candidates spend thousands of dollars in the duration of their campaign on hair and makeup. One session for Romney cost him $300 and was disguised as "Political Consultation"
It is just silly because Edwards' big issue is poverty and because that haircut of his is a $15 haircut. Seriously Johnny, it isn't that fancy, nancy.
dcoffee - 07/25/07 19:11
Candidates and the Mainstream Media are overwelmed by the "GAME" of elections. You're right about debates. They're a bit better than 30 second TV ads, but that's like saying "he's more well spoken than Bush" cause 30 second TV adds make a practice of giving you NO information whatsoever.
I like Biden too. He's straight up, he doesen't search for poll tested language before he says something, and pissed off about Iraq, as he should be.
I think I'm going to register Democrat and vote for Kucinich though. He's the one candidate who's above the corrupt political establishment.
I could go on, but not right now.
You're right, voter apathy is killing this country. I don't care if you don't trust either party to keep their promises. Just be Informed, and Vote. Vote for a third party, and march out of that voting booth with your finger in the air.
Candidates and the Mainstream Media are overwelmed by the "GAME" of elections. You're right about debates. They're a bit better than 30 second TV ads, but that's like saying "he's more well spoken than Bush" cause 30 second TV adds make a practice of giving you NO information whatsoever.
I like Biden too. He's straight up, he doesen't search for poll tested language before he says something, and pissed off about Iraq, as he should be.
I think I'm going to register Democrat and vote for Kucinich though. He's the one candidate who's above the corrupt political establishment.
I could go on, but not right now.
You're right, voter apathy is killing this country. I don't care if you don't trust either party to keep their promises. Just be Informed, and Vote. Vote for a third party, and march out of that voting booth with your finger in the air.
jason - 07/25/07 15:31
Oh yeah, by the way Josh, I used your "give them enough rope to hang themselves" technique on some poor dolt today. Oh you would have given me a standing O. I'll talk to you about it later.
Oh yeah, by the way Josh, I used your "give them enough rope to hang themselves" technique on some poor dolt today. Oh you would have given me a standing O. I'll talk to you about it later.
jason - 07/25/07 15:28
You see some of the comments on the YouTube page for the Edwards video? A few pages in there is a hilariously typical statement from a self-loathing white lib calling a conservative hispanic a "nazi jew" - nothing like racist stereotyping!
You see some of the comments on the YouTube page for the Edwards video? A few pages in there is a hilariously typical statement from a self-loathing white lib calling a conservative hispanic a "nazi jew" - nothing like racist stereotyping!
joshua - 07/25/07 14:48
What I cannot understand about Edwards in this video is this - what is it that he is so unsatisfied with that he looks pouty and fusses with his hair for so long? It looks the same at the end as it did in the beginning.
I wonder what kind of shampoo he uses.
What I cannot understand about Edwards in this video is this - what is it that he is so unsatisfied with that he looks pouty and fusses with his hair for so long? It looks the same at the end as it did in the beginning.
I wonder what kind of shampoo he uses.
jason - 07/25/07 14:41
Oh no! I forgot about that Edwards hair thing! Haha! John, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!
Oh no! I forgot about that Edwards hair thing! Haha! John, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!
jenks - 07/25/07 14:36
Ugh. Now I just hate john edwards even more. what a douchebag.
Ugh. Now I just hate john edwards even more. what a douchebag.
jason - 07/25/07 12:07
In a sense Hillary is correct in her awful parsing of the word liberalism. Liberalism is a big umbrella, with the pseudo-socialists like Hillary residing within a subset of Liberalism.
Regardless, instead of complaining about the word, which is absolutely a ridiculous thing to do, because it is perceived (I think incorrectly) as a perjorative, people like Hillary should "own" the insult, the same way gays have "owned" the word faggot and african-americans have "owned" the word nigger.
You take away the power of someone to use it as a perjorative when you do that, but most people would rather whine like a child about "labelling" someone. No, I prefer another label, "Modern Progressive." Fuck you Hillary! Just say "Yeah I'm a liberal, and I'm proud, so what of it?"
In a sense Hillary is correct in her awful parsing of the word liberalism. Liberalism is a big umbrella, with the pseudo-socialists like Hillary residing within a subset of Liberalism.
Regardless, instead of complaining about the word, which is absolutely a ridiculous thing to do, because it is perceived (I think incorrectly) as a perjorative, people like Hillary should "own" the insult, the same way gays have "owned" the word faggot and african-americans have "owned" the word nigger.
You take away the power of someone to use it as a perjorative when you do that, but most people would rather whine like a child about "labelling" someone. No, I prefer another label, "Modern Progressive." Fuck you Hillary! Just say "Yeah I'm a liberal, and I'm proud, so what of it?"
mrmike - 07/25/07 11:57
That is an interesting thread to this early season. I agree with you, even the sparring in the debate is staged and pointless. The more telling thing is the headlines the trickle out after. Hillary saying it's going to be done by late February, her and Obama taking some swipes at each other (like the other guys don't matter, which is probably true).
Nothing new is going to happen for awhile and I think that is going to contribute to more voter apathy.
Makes me wish Bloomberg gets in just to shake it up in the fall. Don't know if he'd be good, but it would be interesting to see what a development like that does to both parties
That is an interesting thread to this early season. I agree with you, even the sparring in the debate is staged and pointless. The more telling thing is the headlines the trickle out after. Hillary saying it's going to be done by late February, her and Obama taking some swipes at each other (like the other guys don't matter, which is probably true).
Nothing new is going to happen for awhile and I think that is going to contribute to more voter apathy.
Makes me wish Bloomberg gets in just to shake it up in the fall. Don't know if he'd be good, but it would be interesting to see what a development like that does to both parties
joshua - 07/25/07 11:42
Good point James - they are already talking about "debate fatigue." If they are talking about it now, what about next summer when its going to be critical?
Good point James - they are already talking about "debate fatigue." If they are talking about it now, what about next summer when its going to be critical?
james - 07/25/07 11:32
Not only are Rep. unhappy with their candidates a poll recently showed that 'none of the above' was by far the most popular GOP candidate. That is pretty sad.
Debates themselves are silly. The answers have been polished months in advance. They are all just slight nuances on their opponents (in primaries). It should all be decided with an arm wrestling match.
John Edwards, while a second tier candidate might actually do it. He is kicking ass in Iowa, which is how Kerry managed to get his nomination instead of Lieberman.
But you are right, we had candidates announcing in December, over a year before the first primary. It seems like a Dem strategy to keep focus on the president and away from a nominally controlled congress. But at this rate I am going to be exhausted and disinterested by the time January rolls around.
Not only are Rep. unhappy with their candidates a poll recently showed that 'none of the above' was by far the most popular GOP candidate. That is pretty sad.
Debates themselves are silly. The answers have been polished months in advance. They are all just slight nuances on their opponents (in primaries). It should all be decided with an arm wrestling match.
John Edwards, while a second tier candidate might actually do it. He is kicking ass in Iowa, which is how Kerry managed to get his nomination instead of Lieberman.
But you are right, we had candidates announcing in December, over a year before the first primary. It seems like a Dem strategy to keep focus on the president and away from a nominally controlled congress. But at this rate I am going to be exhausted and disinterested by the time January rolls around.
ladycroft - 07/25/07 11:08
hahahahaha, i feel pretty....
hahahahaha, i feel pretty....
i feel fortunate to live so close, down on Bird Ave., not too far a walk and an even closer bike ride.
they also have a parking lot across from the store, beside the church if the street is full. up or down a single block, or Lafayette, there is always parking.
I have been in Buffalo for a month now and I have been to Guercio's every single week and sometimes twice a week. I am addicted to their produce and I always meet so many interesting people there! I have learned of 3 new recipes for banana peppers, spinach and zucchini in this past month from poeple I have randomly met and started talking to. I love the place. It is easily the best local market I have seen here in the States. Buffalo is indeed unique in having such a wonderful store to shop in.
I went there for the first time two weeks ago and have been back three times since. So delicious. So good!
Please check out there Gondola brand pasta products. They are made in Buffalo and are so freakin' good. The Ravioli is the best 15 minute meal, and Rachel Ray can just shove her crap. The saffron noodles with a little sliced beef and a touch of cream sauce and makes my heart explode with delight (and saturated fat). I have a package of their pepper noodles I can't wait to try.
I think I now go to Wegmans for asprin, mescaline salad mix (the loose is organic and cheaper than the convention packaged, awesome).
Glad you finally went.