I have way too much to do at the moment to spend a lot of time blogging, but I want to comment briefly on another aspect of this Arizona bullshit.
I've noticed that the left has taken to claiming that Jared Loughner can be connected to the Tea Party because both are "anti-government."
Really, libs? REALLY? This is the best you sanctimonious fucknuts can come up with?
Allow me to quote from Sarah Palin's recent statement:
In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways.
Yeah, Palin and those crazy teabaggers are so "anti-government" that they actually have a fucking vision of what government should and should not do while still admitting that government itself is necessary.
Oh, wait, that's not anti-government at all, you malevolent motherfuckers.
Claiming that conservatism is anti-government is like claiming that rape laws are anti-sex. For people who consider themselves enlightened and nuanced, you assholes sure seem to have a problem with degrees and shades of meaning.
Of course, you most likely know this already, but you're so obsessed with scoring political points that you really don't care anymore.
Go to hell.
Incidentally, I also find the ridiculous talk of "right wing rage" and "vitriolic rhetoric" somewhat disingenuous. Since I've witnessed, among other things, a guy in a computer lab wearing one of these and a history professor joking about assassinating Bush, I really, really doubt that this so-called "concern" about the tone of our current discourse is sincere.
I'm pretty sure I don't have to provide a link explaining what happened in Arizona yesterday, so let me just offer a few thoughts.
First of all, everything that is known about the shooter adds support to my view that schizophrenia is one of the most terrifying aspects of the human experience. Just imagine not only being insane, but being driven by that same insanity to believe that you're the only person who knows the truth, and everyone else is plotting to destroy you personally. And then witness the results of acting on those delusions. Fucking horrible.
Second, the reaction of some of the more shrill members of the left to this incident (if you don't know what I'm talking about, just go to NewsBusters and read the posts from the last 36 hours or so) reminded me of something I've been meaning to mention. I'm going to put it on a separate line because I think it's just that important:
The surest sign that the Tea Party isn't violent is the fact that every new act of violence is blamed on it and/or Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck.
Think about it. The sick fucks on the left seem to believe that every act of violence or domestic terrorism can be attributed to the Tea Party, but when they do this, they always act like it's the culmination of all prior "eliminationist rhetoric." In other words, every incident is supposedly the first one that involved violence, with surely more to come, but the only reason the Tea Party is even associated with violence is because every violent act is attributed to it before these accusations are inevitably disproven. You'd really think that if there was any truth to this shit, there would be an actual history of incidents to refer back to.
Finally, I think the aforementioned reactions have fundamentally changed the way that I view the most outspoken leftists in this country. I mean, I've been giving these fucking ghouls the benefit of the doubt for years. I've written dozens of posts about how they're really just immature and suffering from projection when they attribute all kinds of evil shit to their political opponents. I really, honestly thought they were just not getting it, but this?
There is no way that anyone capable of getting dressed without assistance can honestly conclude that a paranoid schizophrenic committed multiple murders because Sarah Palin posted a map on the Internet with some crosshairs on it. These motherfuckers have known all along that they were full of shit, and they went along with it anyway because they're so convinced of their own righteousness that they don't see any downsides whatsoever to lying in order to advance their agenda.
Therefore, I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm done saying that they're just naďve and trying to explain why their ideas never work when applied in the real world. These bastards have always been lying. They wouldn't be able to say shit like this with a straight face if they hadn't already had years of practice.
Now, I'm sure that there are plenty of everyday leftists who still believe that they're good people who care more than those evil racist Republicans/conservatives, but those like Kos, Olbermann, Krugman, et al. who have been saying shit like this in the public sphere have just revealed that they never believed a goddamn word of it. And thanks to them, I will now assume that anyone who agrees with them is also aware of this fact.
Just thought I'd clear that up in case the tone around here changes in the near future.
I noticed a while ago that one of my roommates has a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and since I was familiar with the basic premise and its apparent relation to certain events of the present day, I decided to finally give it a chance after years of avoiding it because of, among other things, its intimidating 1000+ page length and the cultlike behavior of some of its more rabid fans.
So far, the score is open-mindedness 1, CD 0. This thing is both genuinely interesting and slightly frightening.
I'm only about 300 pages in right now, so I'll probably have more to say if I ever manage to finish it, but it does contain a few plot points that are disturbingly similar to the current economic situation. For example, in the early stages of the book, the National Alliance of Railroads adopts the so-called "Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule," which limits supposedly unnecessary competition in the name of social welfare and is reinforced by the argument that if a large railroad system cannot survive on its own, it is entitled to public support because of the service it provides to the community. "Too big to fail," anyone?
As you may know, the main thrust of the book, and much of Ayn Rand's work in general, is that altruism is a self-defeating philosophy, and only rational self-interest can propel humanity to its greatest heights. In this case, this is represented by characters who give long, self-righteous speeches about how proud they are of having never made a profit, or of giving jobs to people who didn't deserve them (because hiring someone who is actually qualified is selfish) contrasted with characters who live for their work and actually help thousands of people by using their knowledge and skill to make money and provide goods and services, but who are viewed with suspicion because they didn't "sacrifice" anything in doing so.
Once again, look at this and compare it to our political climate today, with people railing against "corporate greed" and "Wall Street fat cats" while proclaiming that extending unemployment benefits and raising taxes on "the wealthy" is the best way to stimulate the economy.
Like I said, I'll probably have more to say if I actually finish the book, but I do want to point out one rather interesting difference. In AS, the characters who support the altruistic view actually live by their principles. The guy who brags about never making a profit is fucking serious when he says that (he ran a bank and blew all its funds on giving loans to people he knew couldn't pay them back). Another character who rants about the evils of making money has never held an actual job. These are broken individuals, but they are, for the most part, just really, really ignorant while still being fairly honest.
On the other hand, here in non-fictional 2010, the people who seem most obsessed with "greed," etc. are people who already have a fuckton of money. Our country is full of rich people who demand that the rich pay higher taxes even as they do everything they can to avoid paying theirs at all (John Kerry immediately comes to mind). And don't even get me started on people like Al Gore who feel that they're entitled to violate their own standards on economic or environmental concerns because they care so damn much that it's okay when they do it.
Thoughts? Anyone else read this entire book and want to correct me on any misconceptions?
Yes, I realize I haven't posted much. Yes, there is a good reason. No, I'm not going to go into it here.
Anyway, getting back to politics briefly, there's a ton of blog fodder in this article, and I may touch on more of it over the next couple days, but I wanted to focus on two particular quotes for the time being, because they reveal a lot about the mindset of Obama and his supporters. First, there's this:
In their darkest moments, White House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment, they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average.
First of all, this goes back to my previous post about "poligicians." These fucking morons really believe that success means signing lots of bills. Notice that there's no mention of what's actually in said bills. They seem to think that simply passing any law is a success, just as long as it has a name that's good for PR.
I get the feeling that these retards would be genuinely surprised if they made unemployment illegal and people were still unemployed the next day. They have absolutely no understanding of cause and effect. None.
The part about every president being average is equally revealing. Since they see Obama as successful, they wonder why he isn't getting credit for his historic achievements. There's the usual bloviation about how they didn't talk enough about their accomplishments (which is how liberals explain every policy failure, because they don't understand that they have horrible ideas), but there's something else going on here that just occurred to me recently, and is supported by the second quote that caught my attention:
The view from inside the administration starts with a basic mantra: Obama inherited the worst problems of any president in years. Or in generations. Or in American history. He prevented another Great Depression while putting in place the foundation for a more stable future. But it required him to do unpopular things that would inevitably cost him.
This is similar to the recent Rahm Emanuel quote about Obama being "the toughest leader any country could ask for, in the toughest times any president has ever faced." First of all, it obviously reveals that in addition to not understanding cause and effect, liberals have no grasp of history. But it also reveals the incredibly delusional viewpoint of those still defending the narcissist-in-chief.
Think about it. Why are they so discouraged while still believing that Obama has been successful and is a fantastic leader? Why are they still going on about the problems he "inherited" (ignoring, of course, the fact that he was in Congress while they were wrecking the economy) when he's had nearly half a term to do something, anything to mitigate the disaster instead of making it worse?
There's a connection between their view of Obama and their view of the problems he's facing. Quite simply, they're frustrated because if Barack Obama, the best and most brilliant president EVAR!!!1!!!, can't get the country on the right track, then nobody can.
Again, think about it. They just know that Obama is up to the task (except for the whole "talking" thing, which he clearly hasn't done enough), but the economy is still in the shitter, and his approval rating plummets every day. This is why they believe that he's facing "the toughest times any president has ever faced." Lincoln won the Civil War, Reagan won the Cold War, FDR and Truman won WWII, etc., so if Obama, who is a better leader than any of them, can't solve our current crises, then it must not be possible.
I'm pretty sure Obama himself believes this, as well. His solution to every problem before getting elected consisted of a three-pronged strategy: show up, read a teleprompter, and above all, be Barack Obama. This is why he believed that "you've got me" was a way to reassure Democrats worried about a repeat of '94, and it's why he's puzzled that Israel and Palestine still hate each other despite the fact that he's gotten himself involved in the conflict.
If being Barack Obama, the solution to every other problem, doesn't work anymore, then we must be doomed.
I honestly tried to express this better, but you get what I'm trying to say, right?
Ace makes a point that's kind of in the same vein (probably because I found this article through his post about it) and reminds me of something else I wanted to mention:
The aides continue whining that they misjudged the politics. That's all they see this as. When all you have is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.
But Reagan didn't become Reagan because of politics. He became Reagan because of tangible success. Not clever arguments or rhetoric; his policies worked, and not just on paper, but in people's actual lives.
This gets back to those fun liberal blind spots that the right doesn't seem interested enough in exploiting. I've actually seen libs argue that because Reagan also inherited a tough economy and wasn't terribly popular his first couple years, Obama just needs more time. He'll be just as successful, really!
Of course, this ignores an incredibly important detail: REAGAN DID THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE OF JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING OBAMA HAS DONE.
But this doesn't matter to the left. They believe that Reagan was a terrible president who was just such an effective communicator that he made people believe his policies were helping them. This isn't just conjecture, incidentally; I had at least one poli-sci professor in college who more or less said that Reagan distracted people from the damaging effects of his policies by talking about how great America was and making them feel patriotic. Seriously.
You can kind of see what this means to the left now. If Reagan, who couldn't possibly have had a positive effect on the country (since conservatives are Bad People™ who only care about rich white men), was able to leave office with such a high approval rating, all Obama needs to do is talk even more about how awesome he is, and people will start to worship him again. After all, as a progressive, his policies are obviously superior!
No understanding of cause and effect.
UPDATE THE SECOND
Reading through the comments of the AoS post, I see that resident window licker "archie bunker" showed up to make my point for me:
30 months into his first term unemployment hit 10.8%, but Reagan still was able to blame Carter for that, he truly was The Great Communicator
Once again, this completely ignores the fact that Reagan didn't implement policies proven to make the economy worse every time they'd been tried before. Because actual results are less important than words.
Ace had an interesting post yesterday about the Democrats' utter failure to predict the repercussions of Obamacare. Basically, it's not helping anyone, and Dems are actually trying to avoid mentioning that they voted for it.
Some "reform" that was, you fucking shitstains.
But one particular part of the post caught my eye, because it touches on something I've mentioned a bunch of times here:
I asked Michael Barone about the Democrats' full year of denial, about when they finally started to grasp that this was genuine outrage, a citizenry aroused.
He didn't answer that, but he did offer this explanation: The Democrats assumed all the Tea Party rallies and Town Hall confrontations were astroturfed and filled with Republican operatives, because that's precisely how they gin up their public displays of support.
They almost couldn't grasp the possibility that our rallies, unlike theirs, might be real.
This, this, this, this, this. A thousand fucking times this.
I've been saying for years that a large part of liberalism is based on projection, and the idiots just keep proving me right. I know I'm probably wearing out this angle, but it bears repeating every time a new example comes along:
Liberals cannot fathom the idea of someone disagreeing with them in good faith. They just can't. They "know" their policies will work, and they "know" they care about helping people, even if they have to pass a bill before they can find out what's in it, so they just assume that everyone else "knows" these things as well. Therefore, when someone disagrees with a liberal policy, liberals assume that the person secretly knows said policy will have the desired effect, but is pretending to object because he can't stand the thought of anyone other than rich white males being happy. Either that, or the person has been paid off by "powerful special interests" or brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/John Boehner/whomever the Alinskyites are targeting this week.
This also kind of explains why so many left-wing descriptions of the Tea Party can be summed up as "white people resent having a black president." They're not necessarily lying (although some of them probably do know better, as JournoList has shown), it's just that they can't imagine any other reason to object to a socialist utopia. Don't those stupid proles want free shit from greedy rich people?
Getting back to the AoS post, projection is also in play concerning Obamacare. The left got collectively drunk on self-righteousness, and as they do with most issues, they just assumed that the rest of the country agreed. All those town hall meetings, protests, etc. were just astroturfing (another lefty trait they project onto us) to try and keep power in the hands of the insurance industry and prevent poor people and minorities from getting the care they need. Nobody really thought healthcare "reform" would be bad for the country, because liberal opinions are as self-evidently true as grass being green and water being wet.
I don't get why the right doesn't exploit this massive blind spot more. Not only do liberals not understand the conservative thought process, they are quite literally incapable of doing so even with effort, because they lack true empathy (as my metaphor post from a few days ago suggests). The conservative approach to issues is something like "let's look at the facts and see what will work best," while the liberal approach is more like "we're liberal, and liberal=good, so whatever we do will work, and anyone who says it won't is a liar."
This is actually something else I've wanted to touch on for a while. Liberals seem to think that since they're so brilliant and unquestionably correct on everything, they don't need to actually examine the effects of their policies. I will again point out that we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it.
I have coined a term for these types of people: Poligicians.
Catchy, isn't it?
Poligicians reject the idea that lawmaking is about looking at a problem, gathering evidence in support of a solution, and then using that evidence to craft effective policy. Instead, they seem to think that legislating consists of magical incantations and wishing.
You say you want to fix the healthcare system? Well, let's just gather together the most brilliant people in the country (Congressional Democrats) and write thousands of pages of regulations. No, we don't know what they are. That part isn't important. What matters is that it's called "healthcare reform," and it was signed by the Obamessiah himself. It simply can't fail! Look, we even have our own version of magic wands in Pelosi's gavel and Obama's pens!!!
What's that? The economy is a mess? Why, we'll just spend billions of dollars on pet projects! As long as we call it a "stimulus package," it simply has to work! And since our ideas never fail, the following year must include a "summer of recovery!" There's no evidence for that, of course, but...liberals are never wrong, so the magic must be taking longer than we expected.
Want to create "green jobs," but don't actually know how to do that, or even if "green jobs" matter because some pesky scienticians may have misplaced crucial evidence of "global climate disruption?" The solution is simple: Call all federally-funded jobs "green jobs!"
More people need to realize this. When you argue with a liberal, you are often arguing against someone who believes that you are lying about your position. Liberals love personal attacks because they believe the point of a debate is to reveal the bigotry that is preventing someone from supporting what is clearly a good idea. Furthermore, you are arguing with someone who probably believes that opinions and words, rather than facts and actions, can make things real.
They will never understand us, and we need to take advantage of it.
You know, there are some really interesting political stories going on right now that I should attempt to blog about, but as you may have noticed from some of my recent posting, I've come to realize that everything the left does can be explained by Marxism and/or projection.
Seriously. Can anyone think of any common liberal behavior or belief that doesn't eventually come back to one or both of those things?
How many times can I keep pointing it out before it becomes a waste of time?
Speaking of politics, a quick open letter to the left, re: "refudiate:"
- 57 states
- 10,000 people died
- "The time has changed for come"
- "Uh, uh..."
- Lower your premiums by 3,000%
- Iran is a small country
That is all.
You know, I find it kind of funny that Obama and his supporters are still trying to pin The One's utter failure to do anything on his predecessor.
Listen, you arrogant retard, you promised Hope and Change™ repeatedly and claimed you would deliver us from "eight years of failed policies" or whatever bullshit you were spewing, so you don't get to blame Bush for your fuckups. I mean, even if we accept for the sake of argument that the country is in worse shape now than before January of 2009 solely because of the previous administration, that doesn't let you off the fucking hook.
Think about it. If your campaign platform is basically "I will fix all the problems the last guy caused while healing both the planet and your wounded souls," then people expect you to actually, you know, fix shit. Don't write checks your incompetent ass can't fucking cash.
So, all our problems are Bush's fault? Fine. That still means that you're not doing the job you promised to do. Everything you supposedly "inherited" was going to go away because of your unprecedented awesomeness, right?
However, your situation is much more serious, because I'm pretty sure that Bush, even at his worst, was a much better president than you ever have been or will be. In addition, Bush actually knew something about economics, foreign policy, and a little thing called governing, which you've never had to do because you've spent your entire life surrounded by people who have told you and everyone else how great you are without ever asking for evidence.
This actually brings me to another thing that's been bugging me lately. Certain people, faced with Obama's embarrassing actions in the wake of the oil leak, etc., have proven in their search for an explanation that they still accept the fantasy version of him as reality.
"He's clearly brilliant, so why is he taking so long to make a decision? He's clearly a great leader, so why won't he lead? He clearly cares about the American people, so why does he seem so detached?"
Here's an idea, you magnificent dumbshits: Obama isn't brilliant, he isn't a great leader, and he doesn't care about anyone who can't refill his narcissistic supply. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and you ponder the mystery of why it isn't acting all graceful like the other swans, you may not be as smart or perceptive as you believe.
In conclusion, fuck Obama.
There seems to be a theme developing here...
Anyway, today's question is this: Has it occurred to any of the "boycott Arizona" retards that actually enforcing current immigration law is a type of "immigration reform?"
I kind of gave up on updating the Donktionary a while ago, but recent events have reminded me of a definition that isn't in there, but should be. Therefore, here it is:
Controversial: Any law, policy, action, or public figure a journalist doesn't like, regardless of mainstream opinion. See also polarizing.
What do you think?
I'm really not sure how to preface this. Basically, the other day, I was thinking about how the job of most modern politicians is to convince people that they enjoy being financially raped. My mind somehow made the jump from that to Stone Temple Pilots' "Sex Type Thing" (which is about a more literal version of the aforementioned political metaphor), and, well...one thing led to another, and this was the result. For the full experience, listen to the song as you read it, but imagine it in Barack Obama's voice:
Tax Type Thing
I am, I am, I am
I said I wanna bring change to you
I said I'm gonna give hope to you
You wouldn't want me have to fine you too, fine you too
I ain't, I ain't, I ain't
A buyin' into your bags of tea
I'm organizin' the community
You think I care about democracy, democracy?
I know you trust me with your health
I know you want to spread your wealth
I love to talk about myself
I'm O, you know, you know, you know
I am a Dem, a Dem
I'll put your money in the safety net
I said ya shouldn't have achieved success
I said ya shouldn't have achieved success, achieved success
I know just how to run your lives
I know you can't disprove my lies
I'll call you racist if you try
I'm O, you know, you know, you know
Here I come, I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
I am, I am, I am
I said I wanna uh...uh...
Uh...I wanna get...
Uh...let me be clear...uh...
The teleprompter, uh...
It isn't, uh...
It's broken, and, uh...uh...
I don't, uh...can someone...
There we go...
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Uh, I think it's, uh...
I think it's stuck now...
I've also been trying to rework Metallica's "Leper Messiah" as "Obamessiah," but since it's already about a demagogue using religious iconography to fool people into giving him money, I'm really not sure what I could change to make it more appropriate.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.
The Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama showcased his diverse musical taste, ranging from Bob Dylan to Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen, after revealing the playlist on his iPod.
I realize that "iPod" may just be a way of describing the music someone listens to, much like any soft drink can be a "Coke" in certain parts of the country, but at the same time, this fits so well with Obama's pattern of lying even when he doesn't have to that I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just something I thought was interesting. Incidentally, other blogs have more detailed coverage of the problems with Obama's mindset that the first story reveals, so I won't bother with that.
Slightly paraphrased conversation snippet between my roommates just now:
Roommate 1: ...We chanted "no blood for oil" at the protest, because that's pretty much what the war was about.
Roommate 2: Oh yeah, totally.
Have I mentioned that both these guys are in their thirties, and this is what they consider deep political thought?
I love New Jersey/New York.
*WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS EVEN MORE HARSH LANGUAGE THAN USUAL*
I told myself that I was just going to write one post on the shit sandwich that Washington is forcing down our throats and then disappear again, but I still need to vent. I haven't been this pissed off about any political event for a long, long time. Even the election didn't affect me this much, since I knew as soon as McCain got the nomination that we were doomed to at least four years of President "Shut Up, I Won." But I really, truly believed that there was something special about this country that would prevent such a massive expansion of government from being passed against such obvious opposition.
Again, Massachusetts elected a fucking Republican in response to the situation. Think about that.
I realize that instead of sitting here complaining about the state of the world to the two people who still stop by occasionally, I should be spending all my time looking for a job so I can eventually have both money and a way to influence people's opinions on a wider scale (remember, my goal is to become a film editor, and the editor is ultimately the person who controls how the audience feels).
However, I can't just let this go. I'll admit that I'm not an expert on healthcare, and I won't pretend that I can even begin to argue on some of the specifics. I'm not even perfectly clear on shit like premiums and deductibles, and the first time I went to a doctor and was told what my copay was, I just kind of stared and waited for an explanation.
Even so, there are at least two aspects of this thing that even I can disagree with on pure principle, so bear with me.
First of all, does anyone seriously expect legislation that adds millions of people to the system, limits their choices, and adds mountains of extra paperwork from the necessary bureaucratic bullshit to make healthcare more efficient? Give me a break. Most of the supposed benefits of this thing seem to be based on the assumption that people won't change their behavior after it goes into effect, despite the fact that some doctors will undoubtedly refuse to go along with it and look for work elsewhere. And that's just the beginning.
This affects me on a personal level. Thanks to government regulation that already exists, I have to get a new prescription for my ADD medication every month (no refills on controlled substances), and I have to actually meet with my doctor every three months. The last time I had to do the latter, I was in the waiting room for over an hour before I even got to talk to anyone, and then I had to go back out for another few minutes before the doctor was actually available.
And this is under the current system. If this works the way it does pretty much everywhere else government gets involved, I wouldn't be surprised if it took an entire fucking afternoon or evening.
It's not that inconvenient right now, what with me being unemployed and all, but I dread the thought of having to take more time out of an already busy day on a regular basis just so I can get a single bottle of pills that I've been using responsibly for my entire adult life.
Second (and this is the big one), regardless of how supposedly awesome and transformative this policy turns out to be (news flash for you morons: The Soviet fucking Union was also pretty fucking "transformative"), the fact remains that it FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
FORCES. PEOPLE. TO. BUY. HEALTH. INSURANCE.
This cannot be denied. No matter what else is in the policy, it still contains the following:
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
``(a) Requirement To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.--An
applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure
that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an
applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for
``(b) Shared Responsibility Payment.--
``(1) In general.--If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any
calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in
subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to
the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
WHAT. THE FUCK.
Who the fuck do you motherfuckers think you are? Do you see nothing wrong with this at all? Are you still fucking baffled as to why some of us may see you as un-A-fucking-merican? Is it still racist and reactionary to call this socialism?
This is pure, unadulterated motherfucking BULLSHIT. I know you fuckers love being fucking "unprecedented," but using the federal fucking government to compel people to make a fucking purchase, and then dictating the terms of that fucking purchase so they can't even get what they actually want?
I repeat: FUCK. YOU.
What gives you the fucking right to tell people they have to be covered? How the fuck can you usurp people's healthcare decisions and then call it a "victory" for the country you supposedly love so goddamn much?
"Oh, but everyone will have healthcare now! Don't you care about that?"
First of all, you dishonest douchebags, insurance ≠ healthcare. As noted above, giving everyone access to a system that can't handle them only spreads the misery. And that's the best case scenario, since you're too chickenshit to even push for the single-payer plan we all know you have wet dreams about.
But that's not the real problem. The problem is that, even if this does somehow result in every American having health insurance, it will only be because you FUCKING FORCED THEM TO, YOU RETARDS. We could reduce the crime rate to 0% if we threw everyone in prison, but that doesn't mean it's a good fucking idea. If someone would rather pay their own money for treatment, and if a healthcare provider is willing to accept that, who the fuck are you to decide otherwise?
You cocksucking, shitfucking, collectivist cunts, THIS IS NOT AMERICAN.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Stupak (you gullible piece of shit), et al: Go to hell. And while you're there, let ol' Swimmer Kennedy know how his fucking "legacy" is going.
Oh, wait, you won't even be able to do that except through anecdotal evidence, since your plan is so fucking perfect that you've decided to exempt yourselves from it. We wouldn't want our benevolent leaders to rely on the same treatment as the filthy proles, would we? Some animals are more equal than others.
The above paragraph reminds me: Remember when everything Bush did was "Orwellian?" What the fuck do you call this bullshit?
Fuck. Someone convince me that there's hope for this country, because I'm not fucking seeing it.
I'm briefly coming out of retirement to comment on the healthcare debacle we've just witnessed.
I thought of a few ways to go about writing this post. For example, I'd like to point out that the Democrats, in being more concerned with attaching their names to something called "healthcare reform" than with making sure that thing will actually reform healthcare, have revealed themselves to be a bunch of sociopaths who don't give a flying fuck about the people they supposedly represent. They just want some sort of legacy, even if it comes at the expense of liberty.
I also thought about saying something like "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really ashamed of my country." However, as noted above, my country technically didn't do this, since Teleprompter Jesus and his buddies chose to ignore a wave of opposition so strong that it led to the election of a Republican senator from Massachusetts.
In any case, I'm too pissed off to be much more rational than that, so I just have one question:
Does anyone know where Karl Marx is buried so I can dig up his remains and take a massive shit on them? I think it would be cathartic.
On a final note, I'm still unemployed, and I find it rather hard to be motivated to look for work if a large chunk of any future income is going to end up paying for this disaster.
Anyone want to help me pay for a quick trip to London?
Listening to an Obama speech is kind of like being lectured to by a 9 year-old, so I didn't actually watch the "state of the nation" thing, but after reading the transcript, I have to ask a question:
Is it just me, or does The One have an unnerving tendency to state his belief in a given course of action, then follow that statement with a list of ways he's planning to do the exact opposite?
I mean, he starts off the speech by claiming that he doesn't believe in bigger government, then spends the rest of it explaining all the wonderful things government is going to do for us, along with historical examples of government's supposed successes.
Seriously, am I the only one who noticed this? It's like the Pope starting a speech by declaring that he doesn't believe in God.
I know I'm probably spending too much time on this issue, but shit like this pisses me off a lot and makes it impossible to have an honest dialogue on race.
You may have seen that the New York Post apologized for any unintended offense while maintaining that the point of the cartoon was that the stimulus bill is such a mess that it could've been written by a crazed chimp.
Although I hate it when people give any ground whatsoever in situations like this (see my HillTV commentary from 2005), I have to give the Post some credit for sticking to their guns instead of throwing themselves at the mercy of the race hustlers.
However, in reading the comments to the above story, I noticed that people are still completely missing the point:
This issue is not about Rev Sharpton, this issue has to do with the NY Post. This cartoon was so offensive on so many levels. It wasn’t just racist, but it sends a disturbing message to those that are trying to hurt people of color. I will never, never buy this newspaper again. I hope all companies that purchase ads with this rag pull their ads and make a statement the racism, no madder what your skin color is, is unacceptable
The problem isn’t that it’s just a monkey, its that:
(1) its a dead monkey who was killed by two cops, and
(2) it just isn’t that great of a cartoon.The cartoon was insensitive to the extreme, and both the Post and the cartoonist were too immature and self-righteous to admit to it. Not only was the use of the chimpanzee racially offensive, but the suggestion of violence towards government officials in response to the stimulus package is reprehensible.This is just further evidence that the Right Wing and the Republican Party and their mouthpieces — Rush Limbaugh et al — are racist. Another reason why the ugly Americanism of the GOP and their followers is quickly vanishing into irrelevance. Good riddance.
That's it. I kind of reconsidered some of the stuff in my other post, thinking that people genuinely misinterpreted the cartoon. Alternately, I thought that maybe people had become so used to the "Bush = chimp" bullshit that their thought process wasn't "chimp = black person = Obama = RACISM!!!" but "chimp = president = Obama = black person = RACISM!!!"
However, if the Post can issue an apology and an explanation and still get this kind of reaction, then I can only conclude that people are deliberately misinterpreting the fucking thing.
Seriously, how hard is this, you fucking dolts? I'll admit that the cartoon isn't particularly funny, but the joke has been spelled out to you shitwits:
1. A chimp attacked its owner and was shot to death earlier this week
2. Around that same time, Congress wrote a horrible "stimulus" bill
3. Therefore, the cartoonist is implying that the chimp wrote said stimulus bill, which is why
4. The police officer says that they'll have to find someone else to write the next one
Again, it's not that good a joke, but the fact remains that the chimp in the cartoon isn't supposed to "represent" anything except the actual chimp that was actually shot and killed by police officers. Not Pelosi. Not Obama. Travis the motherfucking Chimp.
Getting back to my original point, I really do think that people are deliberately misinterpreting this cartoon in order to deflect criticism of the stimulus. It is fucking impossible for anyone with an IQ higher than 0 to read an accurate explanation of the joke and still attribute racism to the cartoonist, no matter how lame the joke is.
I invite all of you asshats to either admit that you're making an issue out of nothing or explain how an honest person can argue racist intent here.
Not interpretation, which makes just about anything possible (ask Larry the Liberal what he thinks of hockey, for example), but INTENT.
On another note, check out this gem in the City Room comments:I do believe in sarcasm but racism?? Anyone that is attempting to fix the enormous challenge facing the economy should be commended not ridiculed; or perhaps the Post wants to take a stab at coming up with more rigorous stimulus plan..
Oh, look, it's our old friend Good Intentions.
Do I need to refer back to my "putting out a fire with gasoline" analogy to explain why it's the height of idiocy to commend someone for simply making an effort?
By the way, just to make this point once more:
IF YOU SEE A CHIMP, AND THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS A BLACK PERSON, THEN YOU ARE A RACIST.
I hate stupid people so, so, so fucking much. Just die.
I'm not sure why I'm still expending energy on this, but willful ignorance just makes me want to hurt people.
Let me restate my point one final time, along with another invitation to prove me wrong...
Anyone who reads the explanation offered by the New York Post and still says that the cartoon was intended to be racist is either:
A. Hopelessly, tragically stupid
That's it. End of fucking story.
By the way, a few comments here and there would be awesome. This blog hasn't had any decent discussion for a long, long time, and frankly, I'm more motivated to write when I know that there's a chance someone else will add their own thoughts. Ranting in an echo chamber is for liberals.
If you would spend a little more time learning about how government actually works and a little less time looking for racism around every corner, perhaps you'd realize that Obama didn't write the motherfucking stimulus bill, so there's absolutely no reason to believe that this cartoon was in any way related to him.
You stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid fucks.
By the way, as others have pointed out, if you see a cartoon depicting a chimp and immediately think, "hey, that reminds me of a black person," or vice versa, then you have the damn problem, not the person who drew the fucking cartoon. Some of us have evolved (HAHAHA SEE WHAT I DID THERE?!) to the point where we're able to see people as people and evaluate blatantly non-racial statements on their merits rather than running our reactions through an arbitrary filter such as the amount of melanin in the current president's skin.
Kill yourselves. Seriously. You have no fucking reason to live, and the world would be a much better place without your manufactured outrage polluting the public discourse.
In closing, fuck you. Especially Al Sharpton.
After reading some more reactions, allow me to restate my previous point:
IF YOU SEE A CARTOON OF A CHIMP AND IMMEDIATELY ASSOCIATE IT WITH A BLACK PERSON, THEN YOU ARE THE FUCKING RACIST, NOT THE CARTOONIST.
I fucking swear, it's like some people are actually making a conscious effort to remain stupid.
UPDATE THE SECOND
To restate another point in a way that you dipshits may not miss:
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL
If the cartoon was about Obama, the cop would say "They'll have to find someone else to sign the next stimulus bill," you ignorant bastards.
I'm not sure why I'm surprised that people who may not know who controls Congress are unaware of how Congress operates, but still...
Fuck. Just kill yourselves.
I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I've become quite good at recognizing when people are trying to feed me a load of bullshit, and the abomination of a "stimulus" package going through Congress right now is setting off some alarms.
The main justification coming from The One and His disciples seems to be that the government needs to "do something," and it doesn't particularly matter what that something is.
Wow, what brilliance. I can see why educated people identify with this guy. Really.
These braindead children, who have the nerve to call themselves the "reality-based community" and bloviate about their respect for "science," are relying on a principle that makes absolutely no sense in any context.
Think about it. If your house is on fire, you probably need to "do something" in order to prevent further damage. However, that doesn't mean you should start running around with a can of gasoline and dousing everything in sight. In this case, doing nothing would've actually been better.
The tards are in charge, ladies and gentlemen.
Incidentally, if it seems like my writing has become even more profane and insulting than usual, get used to it. I just can't get over the fact that such an anti-intellectual philosophy has become the mainstream in American politics. Doesn't anyone fucking think anymore?
I guess that only certain people's wealth should be spread around.
Have I ever mentioned my strong support for congressional term limits?
I was going to make a separate post for each of these, but I'll just cover both now.
First of all, Ace comments on an interesting liberal tendency in this post:
The liberal MSM announces categorical rules to explain their decisions when they go against conservatives (as they usually do), and then they quickly forget about such categorical rules when it comes to liberals.
An obvious example is the eight year jihad against "questioning patriotism," at least when a conservative seems to question a liberal's patriotism. When that happens, there's a categorical rule against it, and there is therefore hardly any point in investigating whether the suggestion of unpatriotic conduct has any merit.
When a liberal questions a conservative's patriotism, of course, the rule is much more nuanced, and we can freely inquire into whether, for example, it's "unpatriotic" for Rush Limbaugh to hope that Obama fails.
Another obvious one? Bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is always, categorically, the highest ideal we can aspire to in politics; except, that is, when Democrats control the levers of power, and then suddenly it's a far more nuanced proposition. To the extent it's considered at all.
They employ this deceit in order to claim they're not making political judgments at all; when they refuse an ad or condemn a Republican for "questioning patriotism," they must do so; there is no decision-making involved at all, as the rule is categorical.
These are good observations, and the part about bipartisanship got me thinking once again about the problem of liberals seeing their opinions as truisms.
I've noticed over the last couple years that "bipartisanship" often means "doing whatever liberals want." When they're in the minority, they claim that any attempts to enforce conservative ideals are "divisive," and that we have to strive for "unity," etc. by considering liberal ideals as well. Then, when they gain power, like right now, they change the narrative. All of a sudden, we're supposed to "put politics aside" and go with the flow in the interests of the country.
Again, this goes back to the problem of opinions vs. facts. In the liberal mind, conservatives know what's right and are simply slowing down the process of improving the country because they hate poor people or black people or women or something. Therefore, "bipartisanship" really means "putting aside your ignorance and doing what we all know is the right thing."
Maybe I'm wrong, but considering what we've heard from the Obamabots so far, I kind of doubt it.
Speaking of Obama, I'm still baffled by his ability to get people so excited. It's like when he talks, his supporters are hearing something completely different from what the rest of us hear, which leads to the two sides talking right past each other when discussing his ideas.
While I was watching my Monty Python DVDs, as mentioned in the last post, one sketch in particular reminded me of this dilemma: The Man Who Makes People Laugh Uncontrollably.
If you haven't seen the sketch, it features a man, played by Terry Jones, who makes people burst into hysterical laughter every time he talks. The problem is that he's not actually saying anything funny. However, people are so affected by it that they can't help themselves, even if laughter is completely inappropriate for the situation.
Do you see the parallels here? In the sketch, the guy can say something as innocuous as "good morning" and leave an entire elevator full of people gasping for breath on the floor. In Obama's case, he can make an entire crowd practically bow down and worship him by spouting inane bullshit about hope and change.
In both scenarios, an outside observer can't possibly figure out what people are reacting to, because they're on different wavelengths. The audience of the Monty Python sketch interprets the man's words as everyday banter, while those of us who aren't on the Obama bandwagon are left struggling to find substance in his speeches while others declare him to be the next (insert great political/religious leader here).
I probably could've written this entire post better, but I had to get these thoughts out into the open. Comment if you have something to add.
(NOTE: I know it's a little hard to comment right now with Fluffy roaming around, but any input/discussion would be appreciated on these kinds of posts. I kind of miss the community aspect this blog used to have.)
So...politics! I've decided that with The Obamessiah only a few days away from riding his magical unicorn into the White House to spread the
wealth change, it's time to get back to this type of blogging occasionally. I can't afford not to pay attention for the next 4-8 years.
However, rather than discussing current events, this post is more of a refresher on an issue I've talked about a few times in the past: Far too many liberals have a somewhat unnerving inability to accept the fact that some people don't agree with them.
As I've said before, liberals tend to see their opinions as the truth and go forward from there. Much like children, they believe that everyone sees the world as they do, and that any honest person would therefore share their ideas of how to fix the nation's problems.
For example, it's not an opinion that affirmative action combats racism; it's simply a fact that it does. If you disagree, you may claim that you think affirmative action actually perpetuates racism rather than preventing it, but since that's not true, the only logical conclusion is that you hate minorities and don't want them to succeed.
I've discussed other examples in the past, so I won't take up more space with those. However, this is all relevant because liberals now have a clear majority in our government, and I'm kind of worried about how free our speech will really be once they get their hands on the reins of power.
Allow me to share a couple links that are reinforcing this fear. I realize that these are individual opinions, but they represent a more general belief system, so...yeah. First, there's this thread on the CFI Forum (hat tip to Sublime Bloviations) in which the poster rather awkwardly expresses the following:
I’m sure most people are aware of Right Wing Radio shows.Mostly AM band.How often do you hear this stuff?How often do you encounter someone who’s an echo-box of this dreck. Folks,this garbage must be criminalized.I know that it is in the constitution,it’s in the FCC guidelines.It is an exercize of free speech and press. Loopholes must be found to muzzle these outlets.They engage in flat-out propaganda,which is laced with outright fabrications,innuendo,and hate and fear-mongering.Surely,somewhere,buried in the FCC,or in the laws of the constitution,there must be tools to eliminate this stuff. Have you seen the damage it does?I’m speaking from an unbiased,objective point of view too.I’m not trying in this instance to counteract damage done to the left or liberals. These programs have created thousands of robots.Uninformed people who are completely out of touch. Objecting to this and saying that these people freely choose to listen to it,is not enough.Drug cartels are smashed and their members imprisoned for giving people things that they freely choose to do. The actual damage these programs do is quantifiable and relevant.I thought it was illegal to broadcast lies?
Others try to explain why this is a load of shit:
No, No, No! The First Amendment is absolutely fundamental and under no circumstances should ANY political speech ever be restricted or discouraged.
It’s not illegal to broadcast lies...Censorship is not the answer. Speaking the truth is the answer.
But the poster, undaunted, presses on:
Well if speaking the truth is the answer,then where does that leave speaking the falsehoods?Accchh!I know we can’t muzzle people,the way the FCC did to certain other elements of radio.Afterall the FCC has a partisan appointed leader.And of course I know we live in a perfect society where advertisers have absolutely nothing to do with TV and radio content. I know I’m banging my head against the wall here,in the face of rational people,who cite constitutional points.Even though the constitution is constantly bended and morphed to suit the needs of legislators and activist judges,as well as presidents. I know it’s noble to place fair play in high regards.I like lofty ideas.I respect noble,egalitarianism. Unfortunately,I see the unfair playing field that is set-up by corporate interests and conservative-christian based nazis. To repeat,these radio shows are hindering progress.They are having a noticeable,relevant effect on the populations mind-set.
...The constitution doesn’t have to be thrown out,it could be amended.The Supreme Court could rule in favor of some class action concerning bias/truth in the media. Another 4 years are going to pass.In this time,the propaganda outlets are going to be going full-tilt to destroy the gains made by the Democrats in this latest election.This electorate can easily be swung back by these propaganda outlets,if the new Administration falters in its promise for change and renewal. I’m not being a Pollyanna here.(is that the right word-Pollyanna?)This is a real threat to the democracy that you are defending...
Again, there is a pattern here: This genius doesn't agree with most of the opinions expressed on conservative talk radio, so he decides that the solution is not to counter those opinions with his own, but to simply shut down outlets that have the temerity to broadcast contrary views. The last chunk is especially telling. His justification for outlawing right wing radio is basically that it poses a threat to the new administration's goals. This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense unless you believe that everyone knows Obama will do the right thing all the time, but certain evil people will lie about it in order to put their equally evil party back in power.
Why is this so important to recognize? One* word: Fairness Doctrine.
An example of this point, slightly older, comes to us by way of this post from another blog:
But the right always complains about the proposed "fairness doctrine", because they say that the quality of the product should stand on its own in the free market, and if people want to listen to Limbo, and his ratings are high - too bad, its what the people have chosen. Which would be a fair point if 'the people' could be trusted to choose the right thing. But the people are stupid, and can not be trusted to see through Limbo, and his ratings are a testimony to this fact. We need to enforce fairness - even if "the people" don't want it.
...And YES - we *have* come to the point where radio-broadcast-book-burning is necessary, and censorship should apply to the likes of Limbough. 3 hours a day, 5 days a week - he spews the most vile and offensive racist and sexist garbage, and yet people, alot of people - tune in. He must be stopped.
Once again, we see the true danger in believing that only one set of opinions is valid. It's not just that Rush Limbaugh has a different view of the world. That's impossible! The truth is that Limbaugh knows liberal policies are better (the "right thing," in fact), but because he's an evil racist/sexist/whatever, he chooses to lie about it, and the sheeple believe him. Therefore, he must be stopped so that liberals, who really do have everyone's best interests at heart, can do their work.
This. Is. Fucking. TERRIFYING.
How do you reason with people who have decided, before an argument even begins, that their view is unquestionably correct? How do you present evidence to someone who thinks that the point of a debate is to expose the hateful motivations behind your opponent's ideas, rather than proving that your own ideas are better?
More importantly, can the First Amendment survive in an environment dominated by this type of infantile thinking? We've already seen that, in the eyes of many liberals, criticizing Obama's lifestlye, associations, economic policies, etc. is just a roundabout way of calling him a nigger. What happens when they decide that his critics present a threat to national security?
Keep in mind what's already been said on the issue of "fairness," as well as what happened to a certain plumber who dared to ask St. Hopechange a question.
I hope I don't live to see the day that voting Republican is considered a hate crime.
So, predictably, Obama supporters have decided to focus on Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher rather than responding to The Obamessiah's blatantly socialist comments.
I say "predictably" because this is the kind of stupid shit that liberals seem to pull on a regular basis. Because their worldview places so much importance on good intentions and opinions, they feel that they can alter reality itself by destroying someone's character, even if this has nothing to do with the issue. It's kind of like when John Kerry's campaign responded to criticism of the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" comment by attacking Bush's National Guard record.
Answer me this, morons: Why does it matter if Joe is really his middle name? Why does it matter if he's not licensed as a plumber? Why does it matter if Obama's tax policy wouldn't actually affect him?
Let's take Joe out of the equation entirely and imagine (which liberals love to do) that Obama was asked the following question:
Let's say, hypothetically, that a plumber is getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Is your tax plan going to raise his taxes?
Now let's make some very small changes to the part of Obama's answer that everyone is concerned with:
It's not that I want to punish his success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind him, that they've got a chance at success, too...And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Is it fucking clear now, you ignorant dipshits? Even if Joe doesn't exist, the fact remains that St. Hopechange wants to "spread the wealth around," which, unless he's speaking a different version of English, means he believes in redistribution.
But we wouldn't want to talk about things that matter when it's so much more fun to waste time on character assassination, would we?
I hate people.
Murtha: Western Pa. 'racist' but Obama should win
PITTSBURGH (AP) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha says his home base of western Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama's victory margin in the state by 4 percentage points.
The 17-term Democratic congressman tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site that, as he put it: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."
He says it's taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to liking Obama, but he should still win the state, though not in a runaway.
In a separate interview posted Wednesday on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Web site, Murtha says Obama has a problem with the race issue in western Pennsylvania that could shave 4 points off his lead in the state.
If Obama loses votes, here or anywhere else in the country, it will be because he's a self-fellating, speech-suppressing, terrorist-befriending socialist, not because he's black, you presumptuous prick.
Suck my Western Pennsylvania ass.
I just had an interesting epiphany. There's a slight chance that someone else has said this at some point, but in any case...
You know this mysterious "facist" charge that liberals are fond of using? I think I may have figured out what it means.
Consider this: When a liberal engages in debate, he often spends more time trying to figure out how to insult his opponent than how to argue his point, right? Two of the most common insults are "racist" and "fascist." Maybe, just maybe, "facist" is the result of a moment of indecision when they've narrowed it down to those two but can't decide which to go with.
Just a thought.
If you feel the need to send me an angry e-mail about a post I wrote three years ago, then I can only come to the conclusion that SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU.
Thanks for your time, and please, get help.
I'm ashamed to even be in the same galaxy as these fucking lunatics. The brief comedy (notice the tinfoil hats) they provide is outweighed by the detrimental impact they have on the already dismal collective intelligence of humanity.
Here's a suggestion, dumbshits: Wait until high tide next time. I hear water has magical properties that make your delusional dreams come true...
Man, there are some real winners in my anthropology class. We were discussing imperialism today, and one girl saw fit to mention that when President Bush referred to the War on Terror as a "struggle for civilization" in his speech last night, it made her violently angry.
Does this make sense to anyone besides liberals? I don't get it.
Unfortunately, too many members of my generation take everything people like this say as at least worthy of further consideration, if not the truth:
Blink 182 Star Latest Celebrity To Question 9/11
Blink 182 star Tom DeLonge has followed in the footsteps of Charlie Sheen by becoming the latest celebrity to publicly doubt the official version of events behind 9/11 and voice his belief that the attacks were an inside job.
Well, that settles it. A dude who has dedicated his life to making shitty pop-punk music and assaulting the ears of normal people with his high-pitched, whiny singing voice thinks that Bush had something to do with 9/11. The jig is up, guys!
DeLonge is the lead singer in Blink 182, a southern Californian punk/pop quartet that has had two US Billboard number one selling albums and whose 1999 album Enema of the State went platinum five times over.
Why do I get the feeling that this fact is somewhat related to the fact that people are dumb enough to believe this "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit?
During a hosting spot on a San Diegoâ€™s KAVA-FM radio station, DeLonge talked with Professor James Fetzer about evidence of 9/11 inside involvement.
"We do know that the buildings came down in a fashion extremely similar to a controlled demolition of a building...
...we do know that expertise that is needed to fly those gigantic planes into that exact location could never have been achieved by someone that just learned how to fly a small plane, said DeLonge."
And how do "we" "know" this, dipshit? It seems to me that pointing a large plane at a large building would be fairly easy if you knew how to control said plane. Apparently, you've never played a flight simulator.
Discussing the failure of NORAD to enact standard operating procedure and intercept the planes and Norman Mineta's testimony about Cheney's orders 'still standing' - DeLonge stated, "Cheney knew that the planes are coming in and he capped the order to leave it alone so it could hit."
Wow, apparently, Cheney is also psychic. After all, hijacked planes are flown into buildings on a regular basis. The hijackers never do anything crazy like diverting to another airfield and then letting the hostages live. You know.
"It's so weird how our own government did it to us, 9/11 was not perpetrated by a bunch of people that just learned how to fly planes," said DeLonge.
It's so weird that anyone could take this, or you, seriously.
Highlighting consistent Zogby polls that show an increasing acceleration of awareness to alternative explanations behind 9/11, DeLonge stated, "We're talking about 60-70% of the American people are actually starting to think that there's a different story, why are we as Americans sitting back and letting this happen to us?"
Of course, polls control reality, so whatever people believe thanks to idiots like you becomes the truth in retrospect, right? And your projection of conspiracy theories onto the populace means that they all question the 9/11 explanations for the exact same reasons as you, right? RIGHT?
"Why would we sit back and let our country be defined this way?," said DeLonge.
Defined what way? As a bunch of brainless buffoons who would rather believe that a huge government conspiracy took place to perpetrate a terrorist attack rather than, you know, the actual terrorist leader who admitted on both audio and video tape to carrying it out?
DeLonge was careful to counter potential accusations that he was simply engaging in partisan rhetoric.
"I want to come out right now and say that I am not for a Democrat or for the Republican party - I want to make this clear right now and say that I don't hate Bush because he's Republican."
Oh, well that's good to know. If it makes any difference, I don't hate you because you're a complete fucking idiot. I kinda pity you, though.
"I believe in the idea of America being as it was set out to be - this great experiment to better mankind," said the Blink 182 star.
Hmmm...my Original Thought Detector isn't getting any reading at all. Weird.
"This isn't about the red or blue, this is about this administration being involved in something that is really really scary and really really dark and deceptive."
"Mommy, I had a nightmare about Bushchimperialist and wet the bed! Can you change my sheets while I write a terrible song about it?"
While clearly not in the same league as Charlie Sheen's courageous high-profile public stance...
BWAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, getting extra publicity and slaps on the back from your fellow morons sure is courageous, Mr. Conspiracy Website Author.
DeLonge should be commended for using his notoriety as a platform for exploring the truth.
Hey, I think I should point out to the author that someone hacked his article and replaced "punched in the face" with "commended," and "paranoid schizophrenia" with "the truth."
Celebrities questioning 9/11 do not give the truth movement credibility, that has already been obtained through the research of people such as Professor Jones, Morgan Reynolds and Andreas von BĂĽlow.
Argument from authority: A favorite logical fallacy of those with no actual knowledge of the bullshit they're spewing.
Celebrities give the truth movement a more vocal platform and a means of reaching a sector of society that might usually be off-limits via the normal reaches of the alternative truth community.
"Alternative truth community." I like it. It pretty much describes your wacky little pastime. At least they're no longer pretending to be "reality-based."
Alright, let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that the Repubs are right, as are most Democrats and the media, when they insist that the election was legitimate. Fine.
Because, as we all know, Democrats and liberals are incapable of being wrong, so the only way Republicans could possibly win an election is by stealing it. Right.
We're going to give them one more chance to hold elections that are credible. We're going to throw ourselves into this next election, getting out as many voters as we can.
Because that worked so well in 2004...oh, right, Kerry actually won the election, but Bush stole it from him.
The turn-out will be huge, especially by the standard of off-year elections.
He has the gift! He can see the future!
Americans will come out to vote, in part, as a way to take a stand on behalf of free and fair elections.
"And as soon as we lose, we'll piss our pants and whine about how evil Republicans are!"
No early voting, and as little absentee voting as possible. The point here is to have a massive turn-out on Election Day.
"That way, it will be easier to complain that long lines somehow violated people's civil rights!"
We'll not only work to boost the turn-out, but we also plan to monitor this thing with an unprecedented thoroughness. We're going to watch the polls, and watch them count the votes.
Yeah, so how about those 2004 exit polls? How did that work out?
We're going to keep track of every wrong or merely screwy incident, every startling trend, every weird anomaly.
"Hey, you, did you just vote for Republicans?"
"He's part of the conspiracy! Get him!"
We're also going to pay close heed to all the relevant statistics: newspaper polls, independent exit polls (we cannot trust the NEP) and so on.
Democrats: When the voting doesn't go our way, we'll pretend that polls determine the winners of elections.
And so, when the Repubs win yet again...
That's the spirit!
...surprisingly maintaining their control of Congress...
Surprising to anyone who believes that the vast majority of voters are insane liberals who keep losing because their votes aren't counted, yes.
...notwithstanding their subterranean approval ratings...
Uh...aren't the Democrats' approval ratings even lower? And isn't Congress as a whole taking a beating in opinion polls at the moment? I'm glad to see that, once again, it comes down to the weird view that whatever liberals believe is the truth, and everything else is just a lie or a conspiracy.
...we will be prepared to note all the anomalies and improprieties -- and, at long last, to SAY NO.
Yeah, and so will we. When we vote to keep your loony asses out of office.
As this will have been the fourth election cycle ravaged by Bush/Cheney since 2000...
I wasn't aware that Bush and Cheney were running for Congress.
Americans must finally go Ukrainian, and just refuse to acknowledge BushCo's latest "win."
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you refer to him as "*" and claim that he's "not my president?" I can't believe nobody has thought of this!
Where that may take us I can't say.
But it is something that, it seems to me, we have to do, or else we don't deserve to call ourselves the citizens of a republic.
I thought you were "citizens of the world" or some shit. I'm glad you've decided to acknowledge that you are, in fact, subject to the rules and regulations of a representative republic. Now, about that electoral college thing...
Check out this pearl of wisdom from the comments. I'm not sure if it's satire or if it really was, as it appears, written by a retarded baboon, but either way, it's frickin' hilarious:
WHAT IS SO INCOMPREHENSIBLE ABOUT ALL OF THIS POWERGRAB BS IS THAT THE COUNTRY WILL BE SO F..KED UP AFTERWARD THAT IT WON'T BE WORTH SHIT HAVING ALL OF THE POWER IN IT. IT WILL HAVE BEEN LIKE THEY SPENT ALL OF THIER TIME AND ENERGY TO END UP STEALING A GARBAGE CAN FULL OF SHIT. THERE WON'T BE NO NFL NO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL NO NBA ONLY NASCAR. NOW WON'T THAT BE A LOT OF FUN?:) EVEN OPRAH WILL PROBALLY MOVE TO EUROPE OR CANADA. No Rock & Roll, no R&B, no blues just Country music and Broadway Shows. ALL OF THE FUN AND SOUL WILL BE GONE OUT OF AMERICA, So that a few clowns can have unlimited power over a bunch of crap. If that is not a flawed plan , I don't know what is. It is just like Martin Luther King said. "I think we are intergating into a burning house" MLK
Bwahaha! I was just reading some comments over at Right Wing News, and I came across a hilarious leftard dropping in this thread:
The right and the media in general are far, far more interested in Hillary as a candidate than anyone on the real, true left. Go check out Dailykos, and what the average person is saying about Hillary over there; ain't nothing good.
Why the disdain? It's pretty simple. She's seen as a warbot-in-waiting, a Bush-heel bootlicker, a finger-in-the-wind hardcore politician, and generally reflecting none of the passionate stances of the left - the desire for no war and transparent government and un-torture and un-warrantless surveillance and compassion at all costs, to name a few.
Again: the obsession with the Clintons - and particularly Hillary - comes from the right and the mainstream media. The left is through with her. It would take so much for her to end up a viable candidate...it's just not possible. She's highly damaged goods. I would say that, honestly, she's only degrees more trusted or respected than Joe "Can I F*ck You, Mr. Bush?" Liebermann.
I repeat: Bwahaha!!!
Looks like Hillary's brilliant "I have to pretend I'm conservative so Republicans will vote for me" plan didn't exactly work out. Instead of convincing conservatives to vote for her, all she's done is apparently convince the crazier segment of the left (i.e. Daily Kos and the moron above) that she's not liberal enough.
I would love to hear her internal monologue if she somehow ended up reading that comment:
"Oh, shit! I accidentally made a bunch of liberals believe that I'm no longer on their side! Well, at least the right wing majority will still...OH, SHIT! The right wingers were too smart to see through my shallow transformation! I'm dooooooomed!"
I've noticed a rather odd discrepancy in liberal rhetoric lately. On one hand, the left seems absolutely determined to create the impression that we've lost the War on Terror if we don't retain the moral high ground, which of course means that our troops can't employ tactics even vaguely resembling torture or humiliation lest they sink to the enemy's level. For example, take this statement by Mike Luckovich:
if we want to succeed in iraq, we have to remember that our most powerful weapon, greater than any bomb we could drop, is our moral authority. with the Bush administration ignoring the geneva conventions and deciding that in some instances, torture is acceptable, abu ghraib and gitmo resulted. we have dealt a severe blow to our efforts to win the hearts and minds of iraqis and of those in the greater mideast. this is in part why the insurgency has grown so strong and made it much harder to positively transform the middle east.
Incidentally, I'm still trying to figure out why the left has such a weird obsession with bombs. But that's an entirely separate topic.
The point is that this sentiment has been echoed by many on the left. Evidently, the only way to truly win a conflict is to use your "moral authority." I always thought that the point of a war was to, you know, kill the enemy, but that's probably one of those barbaric redneck beliefs that only ignorant repukes like myself can hold onto. Or something.
However, when trying to deal with purely political domestic conflicts, liberals will often insist that the only way to win is to match the hatred and anger that supposedly spew from the right on a daily basis, because anything less would make them come across as weak and cause them to lose more elections. A few good examples of this have appeared on the Democratic Underground lately, and thanks to DUmmie FUnnies, we can take a look at them:
Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesnâ€™t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.
... it will force them to deal with issues if we beat them at their own game. I've been saying this for years. The dittoheads and others out there like them who can not think critically only think and believe what the person who screams the loudest says. I agree with the original poster, this is the way to fight back. People won't even remember most of what is alleged but they will remember how confident, strong and uncowardly the screamer appears...We need to do some name calling, screaming, scratching, and bitchin!
Making nice is for the party that refuses to win. America is too dumbed down and has the hots for hate. It's the hand we are playing, so lets play already!
Under normal condition, civil discourse would be appropriate... However, these are not "normal times". We have an opposition that aims to knock you down and grind their boot in your face. We must fight back accordingly.
Obviously, since these are from separate sources, I can't really use the discrepancy as direct evidence of hypocrisy. However, based on the fact that a number of liberals would probably agree with Luckovich and the DUmbasses, I have to ask why nobody else is pointing out the inconsistency.
Apparently, when dealing with terrorists whose only belief in life is "the infidels must die," it's necessary to retain the moral high ground in order to show innocent civilians that we're truly a force for good...but when it comes to simple disagreement over political issues, anything goes! Don't even bother making rational arguments, because the sheeple are too stupid for that! They only recognize strength, so attack, attack, attack, and never bother to explain why you're doing it!
This post rambled a bit, but still...does anyone else find it weird that they don't at least juxtapose these beliefs at some point and apply the "anything goes" rationale to people who are dedicated to the annihilation of non-Muslims?
(Hat tip: Protein Wisdom)
We're currently discussing the media in my Modern Presidency class. Part of this section of the course involves reading one of two books on the media and politics, and the readers of each book will apparently have a "debate" this Thursday. We were given a choice between South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias and Media Spectacle And The Crisis Of Democracy: Terrorism, War, And Election Battles.
Being a big fan of unintentional comedy, I naturally chose the latter. Check out an excerpt (and keep in mind, this is all a single paragraph out of about 250 pages) from the introduction:
Many believe the United States is devolving into fascism under Bush and Cheney, but it is not the sort of "friendly fascism" that Bertram Gross described in 1982, for never has a more vicious bunch occupied the higher levels of government. Like Hitler and the German fascists, the Bush-Cheney clique use the Big Lie to promote its policies, promote aggressive militarism in the quest for world hegemony, and relentlessly promote the economic interests of the corporations and groups that finance it. To sell their program, Bush and Cheney have a media attack apparatus ready to smear anyone who dared to criticize their hard-right and militarist tactics. An ever-growing right-wing Republican media machine, ranging from the Wall Street Journal and the conservative press to the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox TV, talk radio, and the extreme right sector on the Internet, all disseminate propaganda of a scope and virulence never before seen in U.S. history. Expanding significantly since the 1980s, the Republican propaganda machine has cultivated a group of ideological storm troopers who loudly support Bush-Cheney policies and attack those who criticize them. These extremists are impervious to argument, ignore facts and analysis, and demonize as unpatriotic anyone who challenges Bush-Cheney policies. Groomed on Fox TV and right-wing talk radio, they verbally assault anyone who does not march in lockstep with the administration and wage ideological war against the heathens, liberals, feminists, gays and lesbians, and other dissenters. These ideological warriors allow no disparagement of Bush and Cheney and refuse civil dialogue, preferring denunciation and invective.
I think it would be fun to do a thorough megafisking of this thing sometime over the summer. Right now, I only have time to enjoy a hearty laugh due to this author's utter lack of any original thoughts. I suggest you all do the same.
Wow. The rest of the book is just like that paragraph. No. Original. Thoughts. The guy quotes the discredited Lancet study claiming that 100,000 Iraqis had been killed, makes incessant references to Bush's smirking and swaggering (and yes, he does go into the "Mission Accomplished" thing), puts "weapons of mass destruction" in scare quotes every time he uses it, simultaneously criticizes the U.S. for arming Saddam Hussein and claiming that Saddam Hussein needed to be disarmed, claims that the Abu Ghraib incident was the result of racism, mentions "tax cuts for the rich," repeats the blatant fabrication that people booed at a Bush speech after it was announced that Bill Clinton was in the hospital, refers to the "corporate media" on practically every page and calls them "lap dogs" for the administration, insists that there is no difference between saying that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, insinuates that Bush wears a wire so he can receive answers to tough questions from his staff, puts Republicans in the same category as "the Ku Klux Klan and myriad neo-Nazi assemblages," claims that the media is biased to the right because they didn't immediately dismiss the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as "outright lies" (direct quote: "Although the print media had debunked the specific claims of the swift boat veterans, cable networks failed to present the swift boat group as part of the Republican smear campaign"), refers to the forged National Guard memo as "allegedly faked," calls Iraq a "quagmire," goes after the "Republican attack machine," makes numerous comparisons between Bush and Hitler (including the old "Bush's grandfather was a Nazi" story), accuses Bush of stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections...he even goes so far as to criticize Saturday Night Live because he feels their satire of Gore was too exaggerated, but their satire of Bush was brilliant.
Just...wow. Now I understand why even my ultra-liberal professor said that this was a crappy book. I don't even know if I need to read the rest, because I've probably read it all somewhere else already. The thing is like a really long Democratic Underground post.
It is inspiring in a strange way, though. I think Suspended Agitation is going to have some new lyrics soon...how does "Spectacle" sound as a song title?
UPDATE THE SECOND
Having now read the entire book (okay, I skimmed a few parts because they had nothing to do with media bias), I believe that I have actually lost sevearl (I'm leaving that typo as is to prove my point) hundred brain cells, and I still have not learned anything that I didn't hear about a billion times in 2004.
Congratulations, Douglas Kellner, for providing a 250 page explanation of why I'm still a Republican.
Despite what you may think, this letter to the Daily Orange is not satire:
Inviting Coulter showed a lack of consideration
Recently the Ann Coulter appearance has been gaining much attention. I read today that there was a meeting between students and the College Republicans about this. To me it seems like the Republican club doesn't see any wrongdoing in bringing Coulter to campus. I did attend the speech (a 9-year-old could've said more interesting things), and, granted, she did hold back on her racial speech and homophobia (until the question and answer part). But even though she did hold back, many people take offense to what she has said in the past.
I realize that the Republican club wanted to get someone in here that could bash Democrats as much as Michael Moore bashed Republicans last year, but they should've been a little bit smarter in their decision. Bringing someone such as Coulter to a campus that is trying to be more diverse and accepting of gays and lesbians wasn't a smart idea. They should've gone with someone that could bash Democrats and not raise as much controversy for his or her previous comments. So next year when the Republican club (or even the Democrats) invite a speaker, please take a long hard look at who you're inviting to speak, and think of how other people will react to that speaker's views.
So, let's review:
- Ann Coulter, who has apparently made numerous racist and homophobic statements that these morons seem unable to reference directly (all I can think of is the dumbass "ragheads" thing she pulled a few weeks ago), is too controversial.
- Michael Moore, despite the fact that he essentially declared support for the terrorists and more or less said that all Republicans hate minorities, is not controversial.
It boggles the mind.
NOTE: I'd like to once again point out that I'm not much of an Ann Coulter fan, but these brainwashed morons make her look normal by comparison. It's like that "giant douche/turd sandwich" thing...)
I freakin' swear that if it ends up being John McCain versus Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election, I will write in Rummy's name.
I have to study for my economics midterm...which is a little over an hour away...but in the meantime, you can read about the wonderfully tolerant and open-minded liberals here at Syracuse. I can't remember if you need a registration to read the Daily Orange, so here's the report on the Ann Coulter speech in its entirety (Note: No, I wasn't there, and yes, from the looks of it, Coulter wasn't exactly a shining example of brilliance herself):
Coulter provokes mixed reaction Speaker, protestors throw comments back and forth
The first disturbance came before Ann Coulter could even mutter a word.
"Racist!" one audience member screamed. "You're ugly!"
For Coulter, a right-wing bestselling author and political pundit, it was a preview for what was to come. The College Republicans pegged Coulter's visit as a speech. But before she spoke Wednesday at Goldstein Auditorium, it turned into a circus.
The audience was split about evenly between supporters and protesters. When Coulter first came onstage, half the audience sat silently while the other half gave a standing ovation.
"I dozed off and I was almost late here tonight," Coulter began. "I was listening to that liberal talk radio."
Of course Coulter blasted Democrats and liberals. But more than anything, Coulter's visit was a study in partisan politics, not in any particular message. Quickly, her visit delved into a contest of might. Who could scream louder: the protesters or the supporters? What comment would get the most reaction: Coulter's or a jeering audience member's?
The divide grew wider as the night wore on, which is exactly how Coulter's career continues to thrive.
By the end - during the question and answer session - any hope for viable political discourse had completely evaporated. A number of protesters sarcastically asked Coulter what they could do, as Republicans, to help spread hate and racism on campus, questions which Coulter laughed at and brushed off.
Krychelle Davis, a sophomore policy studies and sociology major, asked Coulter what had personally happened in her life to make her so hateful of minorities and the gay community, to which Coulter responded: "What did it take in your life to become such a sensitive panty-waste?"
Other questions got similar responses from Coulter. Jamar Hooks, a graduate student in the College of Human Services and Health Professions, asked Coulter if she always kept her hood up while delivering speeches, then called her a bitch, flipped her off and walked away.
"His response to me is to yell out curse words and give the finger?" said Coulter, who stood with a bodyguard on stage. "They're doing a fine job at Syracuse University."
Truth be told, Coulter's speech was less outrageous than at other campuses, where she has referred to a student as a "gay boy."
"I was a tiny bit (surprised)," said Tiffany Damick, president of the College Republicans. "I thought she'd say some things that would get people a little more ticked off.
"I was actually pleasantly surprised. There were also a lot of conservative questions and response. I mean, there were some outbursts, but that's what you get when you put a bunch of crazy liberals together."
In between the outbursts, Coulter harped on her typical message. Her targets ranged from current California Sen. Barbara Boxer to former presidential candidate John Kerry to former presidents Bill Clinton and even all the way back to Jimmy Carter.
"Barbara Boxer is a perfect candidate for the Democrats," Coulter said. "She's female and learning disabled."
Coulter's topics swerved back and forth between the War in Iraq, the liberal media and abortion, among other things.
"I wonder why those 'I Heart Partial-Birth Abortion' T-shirts aren't selling," Coulter said. "Must be (the Democrats) are just having trouble getting the message out. If only they had access to some sort of mainstream media."
Most of Coulter's speech focused on liberals and Democrats ruining America with their domestic and foreign policies.
"We have to hit back," Coulter said, "not just the terrorists, but the liberals, too, because they hit hard."
The real story was the protesters, though, as their tactics were diversely applied. Some acted silently, leaving Coulter's speech in protest. Others screamed. Others still tried discrediting her through flattery.
"How much of your success do you think is based on the fact that you're too good-looking to be a Republican?" asked David Shapiro, a sophomore television, radio and film major.
"I'm getting this from you?" Coulter responded, pointing out what she considered his slovenly appearance.
Unlike at other campus speaking events, though, Coulter rarely responded to any jeers or comments. At her Indiana University appearance, for instance, she consistently directed guards to rowdy audience members and refused to continue speaking until they were removed.
Last night, she spoke above them.
One student, who refused to give his name, consistently clapped at inappropriate times, yelled louder than Coulter and, before he was removed, began bolting out, "The Times, They Are a-Changin'" by Bob Dylan.
"Shut up and behave yourself!" yelled an annoyed audience member.
Other protesters were more tactful.
"When was the last time a Democrat won an election?" Coulter asked.
"Al Gore won!" someone screamed out, as a rousing applause broke out.
"No," said Coulter, in one of the few times she responded to jeers during her speech, "he didn't."
David Eye, a graduate student and freshman writing teacher, was one of a handful of audience members to silently leave the circus.
"If any of my freshmen constructed arguments like this," he said, "I'd give them all F's."
Coulter turned a few straight questions into jabs. At one point, a student asked Coulter how she can support a president who has cut student loan programs and forced SU students to pay higher interest rates.
"Answer the question!" came a bevy of screams from the audience.
"We've gotta get these guys down to Guantanamo!" Coulter said. "'Answer the question! Answer the question!' Well, I think you just answered it yourself - there's too many dumb people going!"
"She was funny in the sense that a sick, nasty joke is funny," said Sam Eschenbrenner, president of College Democrats. "It was like the worst moments of 'Jackass' times 10. That kind of funny."
After the show, one student hung a banner that said: "Next week on HillTV: Ann Coulter!"
Still, the protest began before the show even started, as members of the Student Environmental Action Coalition held signs calling Coulter a racist and asking students to fill out bias-related incident forms. After the show, one member estimated that close to 30 reports would be filled out.
Summing up the position of most of the protestors, SEAC member Lauren Winship exclaimed, "I don't think my student fee should be paying a racist."
I don't think I've mentioned this, but Ann Coulter is coming to speak at SU in a few days. As I've said a few times before, I'm not a real big fan of hers (although How to Talk to a Liberal does have its moments), and I think she does a lot to discredit the larger conservative movement, but when I see things like the following letter to the Daily Orange, it almost makes me want to fully support her just to piss off the immature douchebags on the left. I present it here unedited and with little further commentary:
Event will infringe on student rights
Sadly, we must bring to your attention yet another example of offensive and insensitive programming sponsored by our university. On March 8, Ann Coulter will be speaking at the invitation of the College Republicans.
If you are not familiar with her work, a quick Google search will let you know what's up. Ann Coulter's openly racist, sexist and hateful remarks violate Syracuse University's non-discrimination policy. Have we learned nothing from HillTV about respect for our fellow human beings? Evidently not.
This is not an issue of free speech and hearing "both sides" of an issue. Her remarks directly infringe upon students' rights to feel safe and included in the campus community. At this point, we find it unlikely that this kind of oppressive "entertainment" is due to white privileged ignorance and probably has more to do with overt, unashamed racism.
Hey, Kettle, some guy named Pot called. He says you're black.
We in the Student Environmental Action Coalition must wonder how Ann Coulter's paycheck compares to the annual funding for student organizations fighting for the right of respect and dignity for all people. We urge all of you to express your concerns.
As I said, I don't really need to add much. Just keep in mind that this letter is coming from people who most likely supported Michael Moore's visit to SU in 2004. Because, you know, he's never offended anyone.
If you haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend it. The very fact that these morons feel the need to identify themselves and advertise their various causes kind of shoots down the whole selflessness angle.
Hmmm...it reminds me of a song...
Check out this letter from today's Daily Orange:
Is SU really 'No Place for Hate?'
It is absolutely reprehensible that the university would essentially disregard the chancellor's opinion on the bigoted, homophobic and sexist sham of a television station that is HillTV. After numerous student accounts on how they were adversely affected by "Over the Hill's" antics, those concerns were completely dismissed. Chancellor Cantor's stance against HillTV and "Over the Hill" could have been the impetus to social change on campus. To ignore the chancellor's demands to actively embrace the university's colloquialism on "No Place for Hate" is not only disrespectful, but a baffling and a contradictory stance, by those on the HillTV hearing panel. Now, what could have potentially been a drastic change in white supremacy, sexism and homophobia and other ideals of hate on campus has turned out to be nothing more than a university endorsement of such ideals. The decision represents the retrogressive attitudes members of the Syracuse University community have towards a cohesive campus environment for all students, faculty and staff alike. Merely changing the name of the station or allowing a two-month suspension of the station just adds a Band-Aid to an already gaping wound; the history will still be there. The university that proclaims itself as "No place for Hate" should not allow an organization that for months defended members of its organization by saying hateful language was protected by the First Amendment. If it is indeed the case that hateful language is protected by the First Amendment, it is still in direct opposition to the university's diversity compact. Or is the diversity compact, too, just mere rhetoric?
It's like November 3, 2004 all over again!
That's right, cry about it. Fucking oversensitive assholes. If you pompous morons think that exaggerated racial stereotypes, offensive though they may be, qualify as "hate," then you really need to open your eyes and take a look at a little thing called the real world.
And regardless, the fact is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF HILLTV MEMBERS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "OVER THE HILL."
But I guess that acknowledging this fact would violate your nice little collectivist world view, where every member of a certain group thinks the same way.
Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like your definition of "hate" to me...WHY ARE YOU OFFENDING ME WITH YOUR BIGOTRY, YOU BIGOTED BIGOTS??!?!!?!!111/?/!!??
Okay, I'm done.
Check out the e-mail I just got:
HILLTV IS BACK - DECISION OVERTURNED
The decision has been reversed and we officially got our station back
today at 4pm EST. A few structural changes will need to be made. For
now HillTV the institution is temporarily suspended until February
I'm sure the "structural changes" will involve completely unnecessary regulations regarding what's "offensive," but the important thing is that justice has been done for the 200+ people who didn't do anything wrong.
Oh, and by the way...
Suck it, Chancellor Cantor. Suck it long, and suck it hard.
And now, back to studying Marxist/feminist bullshit that somehow relates to television criticism...
Yep, I was right:
...the panel has suspended HillTVâ€™s operations and recognition as a student organization, effective Nov. 30, through Feb. 1, 2006. The panel also ruled that HillTVâ€™s suspension should continue until it fulfills several requirements.
These requirements are as follows:
-HillTVâ€™s issuance of an apology to the campus community;
-a faculty advisor, tenured and schooled in matters associated with broadcasting and its oversight, will monitor and provide consistent guidance and supervision to HillTV staff;
-HillTV will be required to change its name to break its association with discrimination and to signal an improved broadcasting operation;
-The renamed organization must form a â€śCommittee on Cultural Competenceâ€ť by attracting members from all quarters of the University to assist the organization with matters of content, perspective and tone, both in terms of program development and airing decisions;
-HillTV must amend its bylaws with greater attention to content sensitivity, nondiscriminatory actions and practices, program decision-making, as well as procedures and policies for program oversight and cancellation.
It looks to me like this is a roundabout way of doing the same thing Cantor planned in the first place. This puts me in a strange position.
You see, I couldn't work at HillTV this semester because of marching band, but I was going to go back in the spring. However, after Cantor took a dump on the entire station, I vowed not to go back unless it was restored to its original status.
On one hand, the station is technically going to be HillTV, even with the name change. But with all these dumbass requirements, I'm afraid it'll be more like CantorTV. I think it's great that "the nation's largest and oldest student-run TV station" is basically on the verge of becoming another means of indoctrination. I guess I'll have to wait and see if it's worth my time in a couple months...
Incidentally, have I mentioned that I don't like Nancy Cantor? The general atmosphere of this school has taken a fucking nosedive since she got here. I'm not planning to go stand on the quad with a "Cantor = Hitler" sign or anything, but I think the way I feel about her is the way a lot of liberals feel about President Bush...although I don't have to fabricate reasons for my antagonism.
- November of 2004: George W. Bush wins the election with a majority of the popular vote. Liberals claim that the idea of this giving the president a mandate is ridiculous, and he should not try to reward the voters by changing his policies. Others claim that he and/or Karl Rove stole the election.
- November of 2005: Polls show that Bush's approval rating is rather low. Liberals incessantly whine that the American people are sick of Bush and his policies, and this should somehow dictate how he governs. None bother to question polling techniques or reasons for the drop in ratings. All that matters is that Americans hate the president now.
Can anyone spot the problem here?
Usually, when I link to a DU thread, I exaggerate the main idea of the discussion for comic effect, but that's the actual fuckin' title of this thing. Check out the brilliant literary accomplishment that's been spewed into cyberspace by a mental giant calling him/her/itself "texpatriot2004:"
Republicans killed the forests
Republicans killed the seas
Republicans killed Alaska
and they killed the air we breathe
Republicans killed America
Republicans killed Democracy
Republicans killed our country
and they killed our economy
Republicans killed our elderly
Republicans killed our children
Republicans killed our Gulf Coast
and they killed our family
Republicans killed the truth
Republicans killed morality
Republicans killed all justice
and they killed equality
Republicans killed it all you see
and they killed it all for money
But the best part is the responses, which demonstrate the firm death grip of hysterical emotionalism on these exceptions to survival of the fittest:
I am so sick of this. I can't sleep. I finally lay down to try to sleep and I cry. I cry for the environment. I cry for the economy. I cry for the fraud. I cry for my country. I cry for my own financial fears. I cry for the fears and worries of others who are struggling, especially those that have it worse than I do. I cry for worry that it won't end. I cry for it to end. I cry for the wildlife. I cry for the Earth. I cry from the stress and worry. I cry, I weep, I sob...and still no sleep.
Awwww, poor baby. Here, have a nice warm glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH SHIT.
(Yeah, I'm in an obscene mood tonight. Can you motherfuckin' tell, bitches?)
...I cry for all the murdered Iraq women and children. And I pray that karma really exists.
This confused poster apparently doesn't realize that the bullshit idea of "karma" contradicts any mainstream philosophy that relies on prayer, so if it is real, you're talking to the ceiling. Isn't this fun?
(Second parenthetical note: Have I mentioned that karma is bullshit? In case I didn't...karma is bullshit. Thank you.)
Fortunately, I live in Allegheny County, PA. close to Pittsburgh - and MOST of us have the brains to see through this slimebag's bullshit...No offense to slimebags, of course...
And whatever knuckleheads I run into, I try to convert with the facts...
It is actually kind of fun, when you see the light dawn on these morans, when they realize how badly they have been taken...
Hey, I live in Allegheny County in the summer. And after reading this, I'm glad that I don't live there more often.
I think even many Republifascists, although they may not admit it, would see the plain truth in your lines.
Well, this "Republifascist" does see the plain truth in those lines. And that truth is "texpatriot2004 is fucking insane."
Oh, look, another comment from texpatriot:
I have had a knot in my stomach for weeks now. It feels like I have been kicked there over and over.
You know, I've heard that years of seething with rage can cause stomach problems. I think BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is your culprit.
Republicans killed public faith in an impartial judiciary. Republicans killed national unity. Republicans killed decades of social progress. Republicans killed balanced budgets.
"Republicans stole my bong!"
...Oh, wait, that's Frank's line.
And yet another comment from Texpatriot:
Republicans killed our civil rights.
I'll believe that when you're dragged off to...wherever it is you fucktards think dissenters are being dragged off to.
The dirty,dirty, dirty evil bastards they are killing the world.
"Bush-Cheney Clan ain't nothin' to fuck with!!!"
...Oops, my mistake again. That's Old Dirty Bastard, not Dirty Evil Bastards. I'm so scatterbrained tonight...
And now, a comment that has to be from a right-wing spy:
Babie baking...I hear they bake liberal babies in their bread too.
Go here for some intelligent, well-researched, and thoughtful commentary from the party of peace and tolerance.
I had a revelation of sorts this morning, and I thought I'd share it.
You see, the communications professors here at Syracuse have offices in Newhouse II. A few of them like to put anti-Bush material on their doors, and I pass it whenever I go to my screenwriting class.
Do you think that if I went to Nancy Cantor and told her that, as a Bush voter, this material makes me "feel excluded and unwelcome," she would disband the Newhouse school?
Probably not. That would be taking things too far, wouldn't it?
I'm working on another post now, but I had to blog about something that is pissing me off a lot.
Remember HillTV, the student-run television station I used to work with?
As of today, it no longer exists.
The situation began on Tuesday when the Daily Orange ran this article:
Recently an episode of HillTV's comedy show "Over the Hill" was removed from the station's Web site due to concerns about offensive content.
For the last year, the parody news show, modeled after "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," has been filming and broadcasting on the station's Web site and the Orange Television Network. While the original premise of the show was to satirize campus and national news, it has since deviated into segments about "smelly Indian kids," jokes about mentally retarded people and Chancellor Nancy Cantor's desire for "thick black sausage."
"Over the Hill" and all HillTV programming is funded through a significant portion of the Student Activity Fee.
In the removed episode, anchor Shawn Abraham, one of the co-creators and producers, jokes about September's Student Association-University Union conflict about the possibility of bringing Kanye West for a benefit concert. He says "Well, I guess this confirms what we already knew: President (Travis) Mason does not care about black people." [note from CD: Travis Mason is black. That's part of the joke.]
Former HillTV General Manager Chris Milkovich, whose term ended about one month ago, and his staff removed the show by choice because they felt the comment could be offensive, he said.
"There were no implications there, no harm," Abraham said.
There's more to that article detailing the other "offensive" content of the show, so follow the link to read the rest.
Anyway, HillTV first dealt with complaints by, as the article says, taking the offensive episode off the website. However, that apparently wasn't enough for the PC Police, and after a series of meetings about the rampant racism on campus and the need for tolerance and diversity, "Over the Hill" was eliminated entirely. As much as that sucks, you'd think it would be the end of the problem, right?
Not on Nancy Cantor's watch.
People were still complaining about being offended, and "students of color" claimed to feel "unsafe" on a campus that allowed that kind of content. So what happened next? This:
HillTV disbanded: Chancellor revokes student group status, vows to create new TV station
Syracuse University Chancellor Nancy Cantor disbanded the student-run television station HillTV on Thursday.
Cantor spoke to former HillTV General Manager Rich Levy, the department heads and the former sports director at 4:30 p.m. to tell them of her decision to disable the station. Cantor also told the HillTV representatives of the administration's decision to create a new student-run television network on campus.
The HillTV Web site, HillTV.com, was removed Thursday evening.
Cantor did not allow the former HillTV members to speak in defense of the station.
"The meeting was organized so she could tell us her decision, so no, there was no room for discussion," said Emily Wasco, former HillTV entertainment director.
Cantor delivered the same news to the campus community at "Speak Out," the open meeting designed to address the recent HillTV content issues in Hendricks Chapel at 7 p.m. Thursday.
Cantor began her speech by saying she felt personally wounded as one of the many victims of the "Over the Hill" entertainment show.
"Others who were disparaged live on this campus," Cantor said. "They've been made to feel excluded and unwelcome ... This is unacceptable."
She explained how the Office of Greek Life and Experiential Learning asked "Over the Hill" to desist, but it did not comply.
Students on other HillTV shows do not hold the same mentality as "Over the Hill" and have been doing good work, Cantor said. She said she does not want to take the experience of working at a television station away from those students, so she is forming a committee to create a new student-run network.
"She is very adamant about us being part of the committee," Wasco said. "We all appreciate that."
In addition to the new network, Cantor said the former HillTV studio, located in Watson Hall, will still be open for student production use. With the supervision of Orange Television Network General Manager Andy Robinson, students will still be allowed to use the equipment and studio located in the Robert B. Menschel Media Center.
"I do (think the disabling of the station was too harsh) to some extent, but I can understand where the chancellor and the community is coming from," Wasco said.
Cantor said she encourages all students to get involved with the new station. She said she wants to build television shows that represent everyone on the SU campus and wants to take the opportunity to "build a better community."
So, there you have it. One show produces content that a few oversensitive assholes find offensive, and the chancellor disbands the fucking TV station.
This is what happens when you bend over and take whatever the Thought Police demand of you. The station complied with every request to alter their content, and nothing was good enough except punishing over 200 people for something that only a dozen or so had anything to do with. Sure, they're forming a new organization, but after this, I doubt that any "offensive" (read "entertaining") content will be allowed.
Hey, Nancy Cantor, guess what? Since this blog isn't connected to the university, I actually have the right to say things here that some would consider offensive. With that in mind...
...In any case, this debacle proves my new theory that liberals are not capable of being "anti-establishment" anymore, because they are the establishment.
I won't go into detail about how I found this, but...I think I've located Larry's long-lost brother.
Be sure to check out the rest of that site, too. Hi-larious.
I'm not going to try and explain the ADD-induced tangent that led me to this, but I found a great way to observe groupthink with Google. It's very simple:
Step 1: Click this link.
Step 2: Read the first result.
Profit! Read a few of the other results.
Step 4: Laugh...on into the night.
And speaking of night...I should be going to sleep now.
(Extra credit: There are two quotes from two separate TV shows in this post. Try to find both and name the shows. Hint: They're both cartoons.)
Republicans showered scorn upon Howard Dean when he said in recent weeks that the GOP is "pretty much a white Christian party," that many of its leaders "never made an honest living," and that a key Republican "is corrupt" and should "start serving his jail sentence."
Dean: The gift that keeps on giving.
Some Democrats publicly disavowed the remarks by Dean, their own party chairman.
But Dean did not back down.
Of course not. After all, cornered animals tend to fight back for the sake of survival.
"We need to be blunt and clear about the things that we're going to fight for," he told Iowa Democratic leaders Saturday, according to the Des Moines Register. "People have criticized me for being blunt. I do that on purpose. I am tired of lying down."
Keep it up, man! Every time you spew irrational bullshit in front of the press, more people leave the Democratic party!
So is it a strategy?
I guess it could be...in the same way that intentionally walking a batter with the bases loaded is a baseball strategy...
If so, it's misguided, said analysts contacted by ABCNEWS.com -- unless it's part of a Republican strategy.
Aha! KKKarl Rove is to blame for the idiocy of Mad How! He must be a cyborg built by the VRWC to trick the Sheeple into thinking that the Democrats hate them!
"The Republicans are attacking Howard Dean more than Howard Dean is attacking Republicans...
I believe it's called "retaliation."
...but the way the stories are being handled in the news media, everybody is assuming the opposite," said Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," and a psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz.
Wait a minute...let me see if I understand what you're saying...Republicans are attacking Dean more aggressively, but the media just happens to be there when he delivers such delightful nuggets of wisdom as "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," so everyone thinks he's the bad guy? Wow. That's amazing...I mean, who knew that proclaiming your hatred of half the country could get people's attention?!
'Republican Message Machine'
Experts on propaganda and political branding declared Republicans the winners of the dust-up over Dean's comments, calling Dean's attacks imprecise, poorly targeted and open to mischaracterization (Dean was forced to clarify several remarks once they were reported).
Let me translate that from Moonbat to English: Dean said a bunch of mind-numbingly idiotic things, and when he realized that most people didn't agree with them, he had to pretend that he meant something else. As a result, other liberals must find a way to blame Republicans.
There. That's more like it.
The result is little surprise to George Lakoff, a linguistics and cognitive science professor at the University of California-Berkeley...
Yeah, there's a bastion of unbiased wisdom.
...who said "the Republican message machine" has been far more effective than Democrats in recent years at framing the opposing party through disciplined message management, repetition of phrases and other techniques. Democrats, he said, can't currently match the GOP's level of organization.
It's a new meme! First, there was the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Then, there was the Digital Brown-Shirts. Now, we have...the Republican Message Machine. The most devastating collection of right-wing propaganda in the history of the world.
Here, we once again see the main problem with modern liberalism. They cannot...CANNOT accept the fact that people don't agree with them, so they have to rely on these cute little conspiracy theories to explain why their batshit insane messages can't get out.
"The reason for this [Dean flap] is that you have Republican media people putting this stuff out -- combing through the speeches, taking out a quote and taking them out of context..."
Excuse me a moment while I enjoy a hearty laugh at George Lakoff's expense.
All right, where were we? Ah, yes. The "Republican media people." Notice the complete lack of context or examples? I love how these morons think they can conjure up imaginary demons without having to explain what the fuck they're talking about. If he's trying to suggest that the media is dominated by conservatives...no, I don't have time to laugh that long. Let's just move on.
...said Lakoff, a self-styled "progressive" Democrat who was in the audience for Dean's "honest living" remark and feels it got mischaracterized in the media.
I'm sure he didn't feel that way when he heard it, but now that he's seen its less than stellar reception, he has to pretend that everyone made a mistake. Hindsight's a bitch, ain't it?
Whether the Dean controversy was fueled by Republicans framing Dean's comments or by the comments themselves...
Is it even necessary to consider the first explanation?
...the attention paid to it may have revived a media portrayal of Howard Dean as a loose cannon, at a time of falling poll numbers for President Bush and the Republican agenda.
It just so happens that the "media portrayal" of Dean seems to be one of the few things the media has gotten right lately. I'm sure he's a wonderful human being, though...when he's not busy calling all Republicans dishonest criminals.
In other words, Pratkanis said, just as they stumbled, Republicans may have pitched a psychological message to future voters that, "We're all that keeps you from Howard Dean."
Or Dean may have pitched a psychological message to future voters that "the Democrats are the party of hatred, and if you don't agree with us, you deserve to be in prison." You know, something like that.
'I Hate Republicans'
Dean's recent remarks seemingly elaborated on his quip earlier this year that, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
In late May, Dean said embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence." DeLay has faced questions and investigations over campaign finance matters, but has not been accused of a crime.
Just think about how many Nazi comparisons would be flying around if a Republican had made that statement.
Then, in a June 2 speech to a Washington conference sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future, Dean suggested Republican leaders could not identify with the common working-class voter.
"You have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida," he said. "There's something the matter with that. And Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
Only Howard Dean could find a way to insult Republicans based on the incompetence of polling place workers.
'Ranting and Raving'
That week, a storm erupted around the man already derided -- some have said unjustly -- for his campaign trail "scream" after the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses.
"He's ranting and raving about Republicans not having held real jobs," Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist, told USA Today. "It's hatred, hatred and more hatred."
And I encourage him to keep it up as much as possible. For example, he could paraphrase many racists and claim that all Republicans look the same to him...oh, wait, he already did that.
"Watching a Howard Dean speech is a little like people who go to a NASCAR race to see a crash," Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman, told the same reporter.
Insert Howard Dean here: "Only a stupid redneck Republican would think about NASCAR at a time like this!"
Tracey Schmidt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said the comment, "makes it clear that Dean's priority is to generate mudslinging headlines rather than engage in substantive debate."
If he was capable of engaging in substantive debate, he wouldn't be a Democrat, after all.
Even fellow Democrats lashed out.
"He doesn't speak for me, with that kind of rhetoric," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said June 5 on ABC News' "This Week." "And I don't think he speaks for a majority of Democrats. I wish that rhetoric would change."
When Joe friggin' Biden isn't on your side, you should probably tone it down a bit.
However, a new Dean lightning bolt came the very next day.
"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," he told a political forum. "They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much, they all behave the same and they all look the same. And they all, you know, it's pretty much a white Christian party."
Guess what, idiot? The United States is "pretty much a white Christian country" based on your standards, so you probably insulted a lot more people than you realized. But again, don't stop now. Why don't you just go all out and say that Republicans are evil?
...Oh, wait, you also did that already.
Republicans seemed to crow openly as the controversy crested.
"I think he's probably helped us more than he has them," Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview on the Fox News Channel show "Hannity & Colmes" taped June 10, in which he also called Dean "over the top."
Dang it, man, don't give away our secrets! Are you trying to shut him up?
...Oh, wait, he wouldn't watch "Hannity & Colmes," so we shouldn't have a problem. Listening to other opinions means instant death to the liberal.
On the other hand, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz wrote June 14 that "it's not quite clear Republicans should be gleeful." The volatile Dean, he speculated, might be just the person to keep the most partisan, angry Democrats fired up for coming election cycles. Plus, he could prove valuable to moderate Democrats who scold him, "by defining the outer limit of his party."
The problem is that their party is now defined by people like him, so "moderates" really don't have much of a place anymore. As loud and obnoxious as they are, Deanocrats are still the minority in this country, and as long as they pretend to be mainstream, they'll keep losing elections. Therefore, I encourage them to keep making crazy speeches and playing dress-up games in basements. Let the adults handle things from now on.
"By talking crazy, he makes everybody else seem sane," Podhoretz wrote.
But that's exactly what we want. If he can convince voters that people like him represent mainstream Democrats, Republicans will control the government for the next few elections.
But such a strategy might target too few voters, said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and author of "The Art of Political Warfare."
"You could argue that he's trying to â€¦ keep the Democratic base energized," Pitney said. "That's strategy, but not necessarily a winning one. In 2004, the Democratic Party got about as energized as they could and they lost. If they want to win, they've got to pick up some Republican votes, and Howard Dean's comments are not a good way to do that."
But don't you see? The Republican Message Machine just tricked people into voting for Bushchimpler! Americans really do want to vote for Democrats, and if Dean screams loudly enough, it'll eventually be impossible for "Republican media people" to distort the truth of the liberal message! It's brilliant, I tell you!!!
For one thing, Dean seemed to target Republicans generally with some of his comments, rather than focusing his fire on specific issues or individuals -- as Republicans did to the Democrats by attacking Dean.
"He says, I hate the Republicans, without making a distinction," Pitney said. To ordinary Republicans, "the obvious conclusion is, Howard Dean hates me. That's not a good way to build support."
Of course, we stupid Republicans aren't nuanced enough to understand what he really meant, right? When he says "I hate the Republicans," what he's really saying is "I love the Republicans, but it's tough love. You know, the same kind of love Michael Moore has for America."
Some said Dean may have goofed further by, as Pitney said, "choosing his words carelessly" -- leaving them too open to misinterpretation.
See my earlier comments about hindsight.
"Here's a man who said, A: he hates Republicans and everything they stand for, [and B:], Republicans are white Christians," ABC News political analyst George Will said on "This Week" June 12. "It's almost a syllogism that Dean, therefore, hates white Christians. Now, he doesn't, but that's just the nature of the man. â€¦ He's impatient, and he's angry, and he's carrying on."
Of course he doesn't hate Christians! He's already told everyone that he reads the Bible. His favorite book of the New Testament is Job! And he couldn't hate white people either, since he is white! Remember when he said that "We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms?"
In fact, Democrats have sought to target the white Christian demographic for political conversion, perhaps by reframing "moral values" against care for the poor and issues where Democrats are strong.
"All we have to do is fool them into thinking we don't hate them! It's simple!"
In an interview with National Public Radio broadcast June 3, Dean himself said, "We'd like to get some evangelical Christians and we'd like a big chunk of the Catholic vote back. â€¦ Our values, I think, are more in sync with most evangelicals than the president's values."
Right. Because "most evangelicals" believe that it's okay to hate people who don't agree with you. Good luck on that one.
Still, though Dean may have misstepped in the message war this time, it might not matter in the long run.
"The key time period is the mid-term in 2006," Pitney said. "If Dean is still talking like this a year from now, then the Democrats are going to have some real problems. â€¦ If he minds his tongue starting today, then the whole issue recedes."
Based on the last two years, that isn't going to happen. And frankly, I'm glad that someone is finally standing up and making people realize why Bush is president.
Remember, kids: Republicans distance themselves from crazy people. Democrats give them positions of authority.
I mentioned in my brilliant Grand Theory of Leftism that mental immaturity is one of the key characteristics of the modern liberal. Today, there's more proof than ever that I was right. Let's find out why.
You see, a few Washington lefties decided to hold a mock impeachment trial of President Bush yesterday:
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the behavior of mature adults. This is the behavior of people who should be under constant supervision. The usual delusions of grandeur were there as well:
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered."
Seriously, someone needs to give them some shiny objects to play with so they'll calm down. Unfortunately, nobody thought to do that, and the fun continued:
The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Aha! I knew it! Just like all other bad things, the war happened because of the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!! But guess what? That's still not the end of the hilarity! Check out what else happened:
Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!
Awwwww. The poow widdle wibewals. They're just so damn cute when they're angry.
Incidentally, that comment about someone accidentally turning off the lights reminds me of elementary school. Remember when the teacher would turn off the lights to show a movie? The usual response was for everyone in the room to go "OOOOOOOOOOOO!" I can just see the Democrats reacting that way...and it's a hilarious mental image. Come on, try and picture it without laughing.
Naturally, other bloggers are talking about this as well. For example, John Hawkins of Right Wing News:
The Democrats haven't just gone "round the bend," they've gone round the bend, down the street, and off to fairy land, where the moonbats dance and play in the dappled moonlight while everyone dances around in their pretty tinfoil hats.
It starts with the Democratic equivalent of a little girl's tea party with her imaginary friends, a mock impeachment hearing for Bush. Now, you'd think that no one but the "Michael Moore crowd" would attend something that ridiculous and you'd be right. But unfortunately, the "Michael Moore crowd" now includes plemty of Democratic Congressmen and Senators.
Exactly. This is why Democrats aren't getting votes. Every time they lose, they manage to convince themselves that it was because they "couldn't get their message out." It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're fucking insane. No, it was only because the mean Republicans wouldn't allow them to explain their nuanced plans to the Sheeple. So what do they do? They act even crazier. After all, they're liberals, so they must be right, and as soon as they manage to break through Karl Rove's smoke screen, they'll have the support of everyone in the country.
Jeff Larkin of Football Fans For Truth reminds us that the party leadership is also to blame:
The Democrats are so frustrated their venom is ooozing from their eyeballs. Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean has excoriated Republicans as a monolithic, white Christian party whose members don't perform honest jobs. To Dean, the GOP is a party that looks and talks the same (unsaid is that presumably, it burns crosses and hundred dollar bills the same as well). Republicans, Dean admits, are the the sort of people he hates.
Later, he notes that this has been going on for quite a while:
This ain't new. In 2004, Al Gore went mental in a barely coherent speech before Moveon.org wherein he alleged that "Brown Shirts" were aiding the administration, that Bush was incompetent and that everybody from Rumsfeld to Cheney was to be placed in stocks immediately.
Once again, this is why Democrats are the minority party. They can't possibly accept the fact that people don't agree with them, so they resort to the only other explanation they can think of: Republicans are evil and have tricked people into voting against their own best interests. The anger is spewing left and right (but mostly left), and the liberals continue to believe that Republicans are the party of hatred and intolerance. They project so much that they could be working at a fucking movie theater (think about it for a second...).
In a way, you have to feel kinda sorry for them. Their worldview has been crushed over and over again in the last five years (and long before that), and the only way they can deal with it is by convincing themselves that they're right, and the eeeeeeeevil VRWC is preventing The Truth from coming out. And it follows that if the right is evil, there's nothing wrong with comparing them to Nazis and dictators, accusing them of war crimes, and calling for their impeachment based on one paragraph of a memo that only makes sense if you already believe that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.
But at the same time...someone really needs to offer the Dems a warm glass of shut the hell up. For all their blathering about how Bush has ruined our image in the eyes of the rest of the world, they can't be helping much by making it look like half the country is composed of children trapped in adult bodies.
If you need even more proof that the left is collectively hyperventilating about nothing over this Gitmo BS, check out one of the chillingly gulag-like tortures inflicted on a poor prisoner:
...not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before...
Hey, that reminds me of dorm life! I'm going to demand that Syracuse University be shut down for human rights violations!
(Hat tip: LGF)
The endless source of hilarity known as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has provided another great letter to the editor today. I can't believe they actually published this. Check it out:
Move to Alabama
So, letter writer Bob Stamer of Baldwin Borough believes that calling our city a "welcome and diverse place for people with alternative lifestyles" is a disgrace? ("Not Welcome," June 2 letters). I do agree with him that our city has enough problems, starting with the close-mindedness that Mr. Stamer so proudly displays.
The "disgusting and abnormal behavior" that my children should not see is the blind hatred shown by this man.
As opposed to "keeping it in California," as Mr. Stamer so wittily suggests, how about him moving to Alabama? His brand of bigotry would fit in quite nicely in the Deep South!
As you can probably guess, this person was responding to a letter criticizing the gay population of Pittsburgh. That letter was actually pretty over the top, but this response is...baffling. The dude condemns bigotry by making a bigoted suggestion.
I guess that's okay, though, because everyone knows that Southerners are all racist rednecks, right?
Army NCO Guy, you might want to comment on this one...
In the spirit of the memetastic Post-Gazette letter I pointed out a few days ago, I'm going to fisk another one dealing with the same issue. Here we go:
For troops, not war
I was surprised to learn from his letter to the editor ("Liberal Scare Tactics" May 18) that Richard Guardiani thinks that "liberal Democrats" are against the war in Iraq -- surprised as much by his apparently sudden realization as by the idea that he thinks only "liberal Democrats" are opposed to this war.
First of all, it is mainly "liberal Democrats" speaking out against the war, and the person in question, Rob Rogers, is clearly a lefty. In addition, the letter you're referring to did not say that "only" liberal Democrats are opposed to the war. Step away from the straw man.
He asserts that "liberal Democrats" want us to fail in Iraq. Funny, I consider myself and many of my friends to be liberal Democrats, and at no time has any of us expressed a desire for failure in Iraq.
Have you heard the term "useful idiot?" Just because you don't know you're doing something doesn't mean you can't be doing it. And even if you don't want the U.S. to fail, a few of your fellow "liberal Democrats" have all but admitted that they'd rather see Bush humiliated than see our military win.
Our desire is to get out of a country we should have never invaded in the first place. Under false pretenses, no less.
Meme Numero Uno! "False pretenses!" Crap, these things are predictable. At least get a new slogan or something.
Mr. Guardiani questions the support liberal Democrats have for our troops and our country. I can say without hesitation that we support our troops and love America.
Meme Numero Dos! "We support our troops and love America!" Did you ever stop and think that it wouldn't be necessary to constantly point out this "fact" if you actually did something to prove it?
What we don't support is the war. There is a difference. If we were really in Iraq or Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," as Mr. Bush claimed, there would probably be much greater support for the war.
Can you say "short-sighted," boys and girls? It's been over 3 years since 9/11, and these idiots still think that OBL is our only concern. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The human race is doomed.
I'd like to know how Mr. Guardiani knows that most potential recruits are "mainly conservative." Did I miss some national survey that was taken or is that an assumption on his part?
"The 2003 Military Times Poll reveals a military more conservative, more Republican, and one that considers itself to be morally superior to the nation its serves."
Does that answer your question?
If military recruitment is down, it could be because potential recruits, like many "liberal Democrats," see no end to this war.
Or it could be a combination of factors that includes the two already mentioned. I thought only conservatives saw issues in black and white.
Mr. Guardiani should be reminded that many "Liberal Democrats" and others opposed to the war are veterans who proudly served this country.
Congratufuckinglations. Have a cookie.
He should also remember that some of the greatest patriots in our history opposed government policies. Perhaps he never heard of the Revolutionary War.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that this person is citing a war as a reason to oppose a war? It just strikes me as ironic.
Feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments. Because...that's what they're for.
I've spent considerable time criticizing the left side of the political spectrum for relying on memes and repeated slogans instead of engaging in rational discussion. One of the letters in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides an excellent example of this. I'm going to quote the letter in its entirety, then add some thoughts. Check it out:
I am writing in response to Mr. Richard Guardiani's May 18 letter titled "Liberal Scare Tactics."
It is ludicrous to think that Rob Rogers' cartoons have anything to do with the downturn in military recruits. Perhaps the American public is waking up to the fact that our entry into the Iraq war was initiated by a pack of lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Guardiani needs to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others of that ilk and read the Downing Street memo ("Staying What Course?" May 17 Paul Krugman column) and he will feel that he has been duped as well.
I am a liberal Democrat, support our troops, have always supported our troops and I am proud to be American. Frankly, I don't know of any liberal Democrats who feel the way that Mr. Guardiani claims in his letter. I was delighted that free elections were held in Iraq and see it as the beginning of a process that will allow our troops to return home. Mr. Guardiani's letter is just another piece of neo-conservatism that arouses anger and serves to further divide our country.
If you've forgotten, Rob Rogers is the PG's resident Ted Rall wannabe. His most recent cartoon compares Bill Frist to Kim Jong Il, and a cartoon from a few days ago compares President Bush to Darth Vader. The cartoon in question, however, is this one, showing a military recruiter/automobile salesman trying to get recruits into a hearse.
This letter is like a lesson in moonbattery. Let's count the memes:
1. "Pack of lies"
2. "Non-existent weapons of mass destruction"
3. "Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others of that ilk" (I guess he forgot Ann Coulter)
4. Reference to Paul Krugman
5. "I...support our troops, have always supported our troops and I am proud to be American"
6. "Allow our troops to return home"
8. "Arouses anger and serves to further divide our country" (So a cartoon does nothing, but a letter is capable of polarizing the nation? Nice.)
It's amazing that they're able to fit this much unoriginal thought into such a small area, and that the PG is willing to print it. The stupidity of the human race continues to astound me.
I'm studying for my History final (which is hard to do when your roommate spends half the night talking on the fucking phone and doesn't have the sense to fucking go somewhere else), and I'm in the Vietnam part of the book right now. One section talks about the Tet Offensive and aftermath. Check out an excerpt:
Television and press coverage--including scenes of U.S. personnel shooting from the embassy windows in Saigon--dismayed the public. Americans saw the beautiful ancient city of Hue devastated almost beyond recognition and heard a U.S. officer casually remark about a village in the Mekong Delta, "We had to destroy it, in order to save it."
Now, the challenge: See how long it takes you to locate the blatant lie in that paragraph. I'll be here...studying more.
Fucking bullshit semester...
Also, just for fun, here's another quote from the book, this one talking about LBJ's War on Poverty:
...the root cause of poverty lay in unequal income distribution. The Johnson administration never committed itself to the redistribution of income or wealth.
This doesn't have anything to do with bias, but I was reading through the New Deal section, and I came across a reference to the Southern Tenant Farmers Union.
Heh heh. "STFU." It would be funny if there was another organization called NOOB (National...something...something...Board), and the two combined to form STFU/NOOB.
...This exam is going to destroy me.
UPDATE THE SECOND
Wow. I just filled up an entire Blue Book (literally, I used every page) with essays. My writing hand is not happy with me right now.
Oh, well. That's one exam down, and...four papers to go.
I have to research media trends for most of the day, but before I get to work, I'll leave you with some entertainment from our old friends at Democratic Underground.
(Usual disclaimer: I'm mocking DU specifically, not the left in general. Thank you.)
Cancer isn't a good thing, but it's her problem. I fell no obligation to pray for people who make the world worse.
Lucifer has cancer...please include him in your prayers. David Duke has cancer please pray for him
I can't pray for her either. She has to muster what few shreds of her life are not based on lies and evil and fight this on her own.
She's another Ann Coulter David Brock wrote much about Ingrahm in "Blinded by the Right." She is part of everything evil in the GOP since the revolution in the late 80s.
Fuck Laura Ingrahm. Fuck her.
I will save my compassion for those who truly try and bring good into the world and I will support social darwinism and justice for those that promote those same principles on others less fortunate, like Laura Ingraham has promoted on her show, promoting misinformation, demonization and exclusion of those who do not support the misguided and dishonest policies of this administration.
These individuals promote hate and/or bring harm to others by their dishonesty and harmful actions and words. Yet they want mercy when something happens to them. My compassion and/or mercy will be saved for those who deserve it.
...when a person has that much hatred, it often manifests itself in physical ailments. For example, my first wife had so much hatred against me and resentment against society in general for the way she was treated for being a lesbian, she died of heart and kidney failure at age 46.
I hope she gets better, but I hope her career is ruined by this... She is scum.
I Hope She Goes Into Remission and fucking chokes to death.
DU: Wishing death on people who disagree.
Way to go, you ignorant fucktards.
It's been a fun couple of weeks in history. In the last few lectures, we've covered 1980 to 1993. Good times.
Check out a few "facts" my professor has decided to enlighten us with:
- People voted for Ronald Reagan because he sounded good, not because they agreed with him.
- Reagan's economic policies were responsible for the recession in the early 80s.
- Iran-Contra was the most important event of Reagan's presidency, while his role in winning the Cold War is worth two Powerpoint slides at the end of class.
- The "Willie Horton" ad in the 1988 presidential election was racist, and Dukakis had nothing to do with the policies it was criticizing.
- The ad mentioned above demonstrated "some of the tactics used by Fox News."
- "Liberal" became an insult during the '88 election.
- George H.W. Bush didn't know about supermarket scanners.
- Bill Clinton exaggerated an answer in the 1992 town hall debate, but it was okay because he "meant well."
Incidentally, the professor revealed today that she's a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Ain't academia grand?
So, Terri Schiavo is as good as dead at this point. Are you happy now, "right to die" assholes? You managed to sentence an innocent woman to slow starvation. Congratufuckinglations.
I want to talk about another aspect of this travesty today. Apparently, the Schiavo case has caused some sort of divide between the "religious right" and...well, pretty much everyone else.
I'm calling shenanigans.
This is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy, ladies and gentlemen. The media decided that they could use this as an opportunity to try and cause a split in the Republican Party, and certain people (I won't name anyone, but they know who they are, and they probably aren't reading this) took the bait.
The media would have us believe that the people who wanted Terri kept alive were simply doing it for religious reasons, and that many of them just wanted to use her as a pawn in their eeeeeevil plan to take away women's right to murder their unborn children. I'm now seeing the old "theocracy" meme from people on both sides.
Since when does a movement to keep a brain-damaged woman alive signal a push for a Christian dictatorship? Why are people who want Congress to intervene accused of also wanting the "American Taliban" to take over? This is Maureen Dowd territory, but Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and many others seem to have fallen for it.
Look, very few people want a Christian theocracy in this country. Those who do have little to no influence, and I don't even think they have a voice. Furthermore, supporting Terri Schiavo's right to live doesn't automatically make someone a Bible-thumping fundamentalist who would support a Falwell/Robertson ticket in 2008. There are plenty of non-Christians, including atheists, who didn't want the feeding tube removed. It had nothing to do with religion.
For me, at least, it was never a religious issue. It was an issue of letting an innocent human being starve to death for the horrible crime of not being able to speak for herself. There was no record of her wishes, but for some reason, this country chose the irreversible option. Do you fucking self-righteous pricks understand that? She's going to die. That's it. You don't come back from that. If you let her live, there's always a chance that something can change. But once she's dead...game over. It makes no sense whatsoever, and that's why it doesn't surprise me.
But in any case, that's the fucking issue. Not religion. Not abortion. Not "theocracy."
It's about LIFE. Period.
When will people learn not to trust the media? I'm guessing about a week from next never.
More thoughts on this issue over at Right Wing News.
When did the entire left wing decide that the only appropriate response to criticism of a Democrat is to point out an instance of a Republican doing something similar? It seems like it's all they have left, other than calling them "liars."
Liberalism = Immaturity. I've been saying it for over a year, and they just keep giving me more evidence to work with.
This is disgusting. That's all I have to say.
As of February 2, 2005, Semi-Intelligent Thoughts officially supports Howard Dean for DNC chairman. We're talking serious entertainment value here, people.
And now, I'm off to the weekly College Republicans meeting, where we'll probably be discussing this issue. Heh. I leave you with this blast from the past:
There seems to be a new talking point spreading through the left now that Iraqis have voted. You may have seen something like this:
"Sure, it's great that Iraq is free, but we didn't go there to liberate people! We went looking for weapons of mass destruction! That was the only reason we went to war, and Bush lied!!!"
To that, I say:
The war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Unless that meant that we were going to "free" the WMD, I'm pretty sure we invaded with the intention of eliminating Saddam so Iraqis could have a democratic country.
I mean...come on. I'm probably one of the most cynical, pessimistic people on this planet, and even I think the neolibs need to lighten up.
Yes, I really am so cynical that I see nothing wrong with laughing at the despair of the neolibs. If they have nothing better to do than hold signs and cry, they deserve to be ridiculed.
I just saw the following signature on Daily Kos:
It is no accident that Liberty and Liberal are the same word.
Uh...actually...I hate to burst your bubble, but...they're not the same word. On the other hand, the fact that you don't realize the difference may explain why you're commenting on one of the most hate-tastic blogs the left has to offer.
(No, I'm not giving that b@stard a link. Go find it yourself if you must.)
You know, I've noticed that a lot of neolibs immediately call Bush a liar for saying that we went to Iraq in order to keep weapons out of the hands of dictators/terrorists and promote democracy. However, when someone like Osama bin Laden claims that he attacked us because of U.S. foreign policy, many of those same neolibs start whining about how we need to cease all involvement in the Middle East before we can be safe.
So, my question is this: Why do you constantly second-guess the president of the United States while taking a fanatical murderer at his word?
I'd really like an answer, but I don't think any moonbats actually read my blog. I have a guess, which I will include in a "Grand Theory of Leftism" that I've been formulating lately. Expect it to be posted sometime over Christmas.
And while you're at it, libs, would you please tell me why you oppose the War on Terror because it would create a "cycle of violence," but you support programs that try to end racism by discriminating on the basis of race?
The amount of ignorance contained in the first few posts of this thread alone should be enough to create some sort of singularity of stupidity and destroy the entire universe. I don't understand how humans haven't wiped themselves out yet.
(Cynicism: It's what's for lunch)
You know, maybe the Democrats keep losing elections because they're associated with f**king douchebags who churn out hateful crapaganda like this on a daily basis.
You've gotta love the "tolerant" left.
(Hat tip: IMAO)
Actual quote from my TRF professor:
"Not all Republicans are evil."
That doesn't necessarily sound so bad until you realize that she could've said "Most Republicans are evil," and it would've meant the same thing.
I won't even go into the rest of her 45 minute long election rant. The Kool-Aid was flowing like a waterfall.
OPEN LETTER TO THE REST OF THE WORLD
Your anti-Bush frothing only makes his victory that much sweeter, and the more you complain, the more pathetic you sound. As soon as you start voting in our elections, your opinions will gain an iota of relevance. Until then, kindly f**k off and leave us to control our destiny. Thank you.
-Your (self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-neck) pal,
I just read the most thoughtful, logical, and rational post I've ever seen on Democratic Underground! This was written in response to a College Republican on CNN. Check it out:
man...what a fucking bitch ass motherfucker. Why dont you go back to your bitch ass job at abercrombie you spikey haired sissy boy.
Wow! The left sure is full of intelligent people! How could anyone not vote for Kerry when this guy supports him?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! There's an even better response later in the thread:
What is with these people? If they aren't sneering at Democrats, they've got nothing to say. How can somebody so young be so venomous? What kind of responsible adult would encourage that behavior in a kid? It's unbelievable. We're going to be dealing with these people for a long, long time.
Can you say "ironic," boys and girls?
If you were expecting a fisking...tough luck. I've still got filmmaker stuff to do.
(Don't worry; It'll be worth it in a few years when I join the effort to take back the Left Coast from the neolibs)
Look at a couple excerpts from today's letters and see if you notice what I did:
Vice President Dick Cheney is quoted as raising the specter of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city and suggesting that John Kerry would not be strong enough to prevent such an attack...
Dick Cheney once again conjured the specter of nuclear terrorism to frighten people out of voting for John Kerry.
Two different letters. Containing the exact same opinion. Using almost the exact same words. And they printed both of them.
...I'll have more NYT opinion page goodness later this morning, but I must sleep now.
I would take liberals a lot more seriously if they criticized Bush for things he's actually done, rather than crapping out lies and flinging them at him.
I just read the following comment on Trying to Grok:
If Bush in particular and conservatives in general want to stop the comparison most people make betweem them and Nazis, all they really have do do is stop acting like Nazis.
I wish I had time to write a long rant about how mind-numbingly stupid that sentence is, but I have to sleep at some point, so here's my commentary...
You have no idea what you're talking about. You are delusional with hatred, you have no sense of history, and you probably don't even know what "Nazi" means. People like you are the reason I have no faith in humanity. Remove your vacant skull from your hindquarters and get some perspective, you freakin' tard.
Okay, that's enough of that.
If any of you don't want to wade through the cesspool of attempted thought that is the latest Paul Krugman column, I'll summarize it for you:
George W. Bush often says things that aren't 100% true. This is because he is a liar and a terrible president. John Kerry also says things that aren't 100% true. This is because he tends to be careless with his words and doesn't always say what he means to say. If anyone calls John Kerry a liar, it's the fault of the right wing hate machine.
There. What would you do without me?
I don't think I need to blog about the debate, because Bush and Kerry both said the exact. same. things. they. always. say.
However, here's some personal stuff related to the subject: At the beginning of the debate, someone came by and started writing something pro-Kerry on one of the Bush signs on our door (I think he said he was trying to write "Kerry, bitches," but I didn't catch all of it). However, NS heard him, opened the door, and caught him in the act, which pretty much scared the crap out of him. We had a brief discussion about why we support Bush, and he said that he didn't even know why he was writing pro-Kerry stuff, since he doesn't like either candidate. He also said he wanted to get together sometime and talk about politics. Weird. I just told NS that he should've used the situation more to his advantage. After he caught him, he could've said "Go make me a sandwich! I own you now!" He was probably frightened enough to do it.
THEN, 5 minutes after the debate ended, someone else came by and ripped down the sign. This resulted in me replacing it with an identical sign, and putting up a brand new one, bringing the total to 3. Bwahaha. What's even funnier is that as I was taping up the new one, someone came by and said "Oh, man, they're putting up more signs already!" I think we've found the culprit.
On a positive note, if the morons are resorting to vandalism, it means Bush may have won the debate. But in any case, if this happens again, I may have to put up the Ashcroft sign.
You know, John Edwards is known for saying that there are "2 Americas," but based on last night's debate, he apparently sees 1.5. The 1 consists of "the American people," and the .5 consists of corporations and businesses. Look at a direct quote from the debate:
They had a choice on allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada, of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.
They had a choice on negotiating discounts in the Medicare prescription drug bill of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.
They had a choice on the patients' bill of rights, allowing people to make their own health care decisions and not having insurance companies make them, be with the American people, be with the big insurance companies.
They're with the insurance companies.
John Kerry and I will always fight for the American people.
Just look at that for a second. Notice that Edwards draws a clear distinction between drug and insurance companies and "the American people."
I don't get it.
Are those companies not financed and run by Americans? Do they not do business in America? What aspect of drug and insurance companies makes them different in the eyes of Waffles Jr.? They're composed of American people, so why should they not be considered part of that group?
Kerry/Edwards: Because financial success is un-American.
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of these are pure
CBS? Let's take a look at a few (I wish I could go in depth, but I have to leave for band practice in half an hour):
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.
â€śWe found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,â€ť Mr. Bush told Polish television. â€śFor those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: â€śI recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.â€ť
And the flip-flop is...where? We did find some weapons, but we haven't found any stockpiles, most likely because they were moved to Syria or some other country. Even an out-of-context quote makes it clear that he's not suggesting that we've found nothing.
Nation Building and the War in Iraq
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
You see, there was this little incident called "9/11" that changed the way Bush saw foreign policy. It's not a flip-flop if it's triggered by different circumstances.
Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks
In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, â€śyou can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.â€ť
In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: â€śWe've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that â€śthere's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,â€ť the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were â€śequally bad.â€ť
"Seemingly belied earlier assertions?" That's a load of crap. Saddam and Al Qaeda were involved with terrorism, therefore, they're the enemy in the War on Terror. No flip-flopping here, either, unless you believe that Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization on Earth.
That's all I have time for, but here's another observation: A lot of the so-called "flip-flops" involve Bush changing his mind once and never looking back. Kerry, on the other hand, is now contradicting himself several times within the same interview.
Nice try, CBS, but you're still full of it.
I love the NYT letters. Look at an excerpt from this one:
Look at what the Bush campaign operatives have done to John Kerry. They've created the perception that he is an equivocating elitist who changes his positions daily.
No, dips**t, I'm pretty sure Kerry did that all by himself.
...I have a shorter fuse than normal at 1 in the morning. I should go to sleep now.
I do have a political rant in mind, but first, a little more film theory commentary:
Vsevolod Pudovkin + Sergei Eisenstein = Pounding headache
There. Now, with that out of the way, I want to talk about the Democrats and their reactions to various stages of the campaign. I've noticed a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from the left. Obviously, these aren't direct quotes or anything (feel free to use Google if something looks wrong), but all of the following sentiments have been expressed by the Dems since the presidential race began:
- Questioning Kerry's patriotism is un-American and, in fact, unpatriotic.
- It's wrong to question Kerry's Vietnam War record, especially since there are still lingering questions about Bush's Vietnam War record.
- It's wrong to say that Kerry would make us more vulnerable to terrorism, especially since Bush has made us more vulnerable to terrorism.
- We should be looking toward the future, not dwelling on the past. When John Kerry was in Vietnam, he never worried about the past.
- It's wrong to politicize the War on Terror, and to prove it, we're running an ad that politicizes the War on Terror.
- It's wrong for Republicans to insert religion into their messages, especially since Jesus was a liberal.
- You shouldn't call Kerry's constant indecision "flip-flopping," especially since Bush has changed his mind on a couple issues since he was elected.
- It's wrong to criticize CBS for relying on forged documents, especially since Bush may have relied on forged documents.
- It's wrong to campaign with scare tactics. By the way, if you re-elect Bush, he'll draft your children.
...Are you seeing a trend here? They're relying on both the "you can't do that, it's unfair" technique and the "I know you are, but what am I?" technique. I'd expect to see both of those coming from the Party of Immaturity from time to time, but using both of them at once should really create some sort of cognitive dissonance singularity. It's amazing that they can pull it off, but they have.
Over and over again, we see a tendency for those on the left to define something as taboo or off-limits, and then immediately do the thing they just spoke out against. For example, it's "despicable" for an independent group to run an ad asking if John Kerry can fight terrorism effectively, but there's nothing wrong with Ted Kennedy saying that Bush has made us more vulnerable to a nuclear attack. It's "un-American" to question Kerry's actions during and after Vietnam, but Bush should really prove that he wasn't AWOL. Does any of this make sense? I guess it does for neolibs.
Once again, they just need to pick one. Either stick with the "you can't do that" defense, or switch over to full-time use of the "no, you are" defense. When you use both at once, it destroys what little credibility you had to begin with.
Oh, and remember this one:
It's wrong for Arnold Schwarzenegger to call people "girlie-men," and to prove it, we're making an "Arnold is a Girlie-Man" doll.
See what I mean?