Here.  If I had the money, I'd buy that poor Town Car, and take it to the crusher to put it out of its misery, what did it do to deserve that? 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Via the Puppy Blender we see this Forbes article on the runaway Toyota Pious from last week.

He talks about how the guy claimed he reached down to try to pull up the pedal but was afraid to take his hands off the wheel to shift into neutral.... errr... was afraid the car would flip if he shifted into neutral.

He also mentions another setting on the Pious, you can shift into "B" and it slows the car down to help your brakes, it's for going downhills.

He links to a Car and Driver article on how to stop your car when the accelerator sticks.
Funnily enough you apply the brakes and your car stops. I know, counter-intuitive.
They did it with a Pious and it stopped fairly quickly. They even tried a supercharged Mustang and it still stopped with the gas all the way down.
It took a long time (903 feet), but it stopped.

Now I was skeptical from the start, the story was a little much, the details looked stupid so it looked to me like scam or his attempt at his 15-minutes.
The Forbes guy finds another data point
Blockquote
Sikes and his wife Patty in 2008 filed for bankruptcy and are over $700,000 in debt. Among their creditors is Toyota Financial Services for a lease on a 2008 Toyota Prius, with value at time of bankruptcy of $20,494....he denied being behind on his Prius payments.
Sikes also has a history of filing insurance claims for allegedly stolen items that are slowly coming to light. In 2001 he filed a police report with the Merced County Sheriff's Department for $58,000 in stolen property, including jewelry, a prosumer mini-DV camera and gear, and $24,000 in cash, ...His bankruptcy documents show a 2008 payment of $7,400 for an allegedly stolen saxophone and clothes.
End Blockquote

Remember, never impute to stupidity alone what can be explained by stupidity and malice.

The ending is what makes it for me,
Blockquote
They have been as determined to not investigate Sikes' claims as Sikes was to not stop his car. It's a Toyota media feeding frenzy and the media aren't about to let little things like incredible stories and readily-refutable claims get in the way.
End Blockquote
Minitru going after Government Motors' competitors. Who's next? I figure Honda. If you can't make yourself better, make everyone else worse. It's the leftish way.

There, I used blockquotes, now leave me alone.

Posted by: Veeshir at 09:39 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Yeah, this should end well.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 12:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I am pleased to say that my state, the great state of Texas, will not be delinquent in delivering my tax refund, as we in the Lone Star State have resisted the siren song of the income tax.

I, for one, embrace Rick Perry's tongue-in-cheek suggestion of secession.  It wouldn't be the first time and this time we'd have a morally justifiable reason.

Posted by: Chuck D at March 12, 2010 05:42 PM (+BqEV)

2 Ditto, no issue in NH, either. (And we also have no sales tax so NH>TX

Posted by: ECM at March 12, 2010 06:38 PM (nYKDd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Back in around '03 or '04 a French restaurant opened in Crystal City (part of Arlington) maybe a week or two after the House voted on "Freedom Fries".
At the time, that part of Crystal City was full of the Patent office and lots of military personnel.

I've always held that up as a Great Moment in Bad Timing (stolen from Mad Magazine circa 1980).


I have a new standard bearer
more...

Posted by: Veeshir at 03:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

I think that conservatives who are embracing him are doing so at their own peril.  Dude's a slug. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 12:08 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I hadn't been aware that anyone was "embracing" him.  When I heard his nonsense "Rahm forced me out", my first thought was, "true or not, you still did it, otherwise he'd have nothing to push you out with."

Lie down with lepers, expect to get up missing some toes (or something).

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 12:39 PM (FkL60)

2 Massa may very well be a flake, but does that diminish his charge? What he's accusing Emanuel of doing isn't out of character. Emanuel has a long history of being an intimidating asshole. He was one of the least liked congressmen during his terms in the House.

Posted by: Go_Fish at March 09, 2010 12:39 PM (rG/Wx)

3 As I always say, the enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy

Posted by: LC Aggie Sith at March 09, 2010 12:46 PM (+bSoE)

4 Go_Fish, it doesn't matter if it's believeable, real, documented or even if you were in the shower with them when it happened.  To take the side of this dickpimple is obscene.  He sexually harassed one of his employees, lied about it, was going to completely ignore it until he was getting investigated.  He then attempted to slip out the back door citing "health reasons" until he found out that doing so would not stop the investigation (most Ethics Committee investigations end immediately if the member resigns as they no longer have jurisdiction, but because Massa harassed a Congressional Staff member, they still have jurisdiction).  So now he cries that it's Rahm's fault he's leaving.

So true or not is irrelevant.  If he hadn't been telling his staffer that they ought to be fucking in the back room, he'd never have been in a position to be forced out.  Period.  Taking his side (much less his word) because it's politically convenient would put us on par with those lefty douchetards who get all orgasmic when fuckers like Bush staffers put out "tell all" books that confirm their wildest imaginings.  You can go down that road if you like.  I'll have no part of it.

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 01:11 PM (FkL60)

5

One thing MikeD, the other side is that he seemed to be having no problems about it until he decided to go against health care.

That's the point.

Not that he's not a piece of garbage, but that it was okay until he went against Rahm.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 01:21 PM (aFnZ8)

6 "the other side is that he seemed to be having no problems about it until he decided to go against health care."

What?!?!  You mean the most Ethical Congress EVAH was ignoring unethical behavior?!?!eleventy!!  Say it ain't SO!

Doesn't change the fact that embracing this fucker as some kinda "moral hero" for "speaking the truth to powah" is disingenuous at best.  He's a corruptocrat who happened to have his own party stop ignoring his corruption when he pissed them off.  So what?  It's not even like he opposed healthcare out of some kind of noble sacrifice thing here.  He feared for his seat (as well he should).  Fine, a broken clock is right twice a day too.  Don't cuddle up to this guy.

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 03:38 PM (FkL60)

7 I don't know who you mean was "embracing him" so I don't know how to respond to that.

Pointing out that he was perfectly okay until an inconvenient vote is what I've seen mostly with a side dish of "Look at his accusations".

I have not seen any righty say, "He's a good man being forced out." I have seen a lot of "He's being forced out."

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 03:42 PM (QvHK2)

8 I was reinforcing the OP's point:

"I think that conservatives who are embracing him are doing so at their own peril.  Dude's a slug."

It was certainly aimed at no moron.

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 03:58 PM (FkL60)

9 I understood that, but I'm not sure how was "embracing him".
Strawman arguments are strawman arguments no matter who'se making them.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 04:02 PM (QvHK2)

10 "how" was a mistake, who'se wasn't.
I'm going to use that for a while, it makes me laugh.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 04:02 PM (QvHK2)

11 Ok, fair enough.  You ask for examples, I shall provide.

Glenn Beck
and
Rush Limbaugh

For two.

But after typing all this, I also realized I was wrong.  The real reason Massa was going to vote against the bill?  It DIDN'T have a single payer option.  Plus, dude's a proven liar.  Sure this time he might be telling the truth.  But if he's not, do we really want a federal case out of it?  It's enough for me that, yes... this is something that Rahm WOULD do.  Will anything come of it?  Of course not.

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 04:22 PM (FkL60)

12 I'm a bad member of the VRWC, I never listen to talk radio and I don't watch Beck.

When I have watched him, I've mostly agreed with Beck, he just doesn't appreciate that we're doomed.
He still thinks we can avoid the endy part of The Funniest End of Civilization Ever so he doesn't focus enough on the funny.
He's wasting the only good part.

There's been way too much outrageously ridiculous funny (Joe Biden is VP, Joe Biden is one heartbeat away from being in charge of the most powerful country this world has ever seen) for us to not have the endy.
Did I mention that Joe Freaking Biden is VP?

Here's how I see it playing out.
Imagine a scene...
The camera zooms around the White House grounds sprialing into windows of the Oval Office and around the office until it's in front of the desk. It focuses on the empty chair behind the desk that's pushed away a little and pauses. We hear a soft sound, not really identifiable. Soft but rising and falling rhythmically.
In the lower left box we see it's early May 2010.
Across the screen, like the news "ticker" we learn:
Russia has just decided to help Ossetia by giving Georgia back its SSR.
The mad mullahs are launching nukes and sending nukular trucks after Israel.
 Gaza and the West Bank step up their missile attacks.
The poofy-haired maniac starts shelling Seoul with his 57 brazillion artillery tubes.
China does something, probably lobs missiles at Taiwan while telling them to come back or get wiped out.

The camera starts to move again, going around the desk from the front to behind the chair. The soft sound gets louder.
We see Obama is under the desk, legs bent, arms around his legs and clasped in front, head just above his knees, eyes unfocused, shivering and moaning. He's obviously unable to even speak, much less make a decision.
We hear a door slam, the camera turns.
In steps our hero, shit-eating grin plastered to his face.
Joe Fucking Biden.
The camera zooms out fast, the White House shrinks, America shrinks, the Earth shrinks until it can be seen as a globe.
As the screen darkens we see mushroom clouds rising from all over the world until clouds cover the Earth.
The last thing we see is just Joe Fucking Biden's grin hanging in the black like some moronic Cheshire Cat proud of dumping tea on Alice's shoes.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 06:59 PM (MX3dk)

13 Sorry, I got on an OT roll, kept with it and forgot to respond.


I guess our definition of "embracing" is different.

I would suggest the word is "using" him, not "embracing" him.

Politico is a lefty hit-piece generator. I'm a little depressed I clicked that link, I prefer the source and they're about as reliable as the NY Times.

They claim Rush said he was going to try to make Massa  a national story, I don't see any claim anywhere that he's a good person. Ditto Beck in the Hot Air piece.
In other words, they're just trying to get the story out.

Getting this story out is just full of Win!.

First, they get his accusations out. They "feel" right. That's all that matters these days.
Just ask all the war criminals in the Bush admin.
 
They also get out that this slimy POS was apparently okay until his no vote.

He's a (D), if Minitru covers this they have to print the homo-groping-accusations and the (D).
I'm sure they'll try to obfuscate it, but it's too big a deal, if they cover it they have to mention it occasionally.

Nope, this is all win so long as they don't say he's anything but a slug of a Dem.
But if Rush and Beck don't get his story out, it won't get out.

This adds to the drip, drip, drip of the Chicago-machine-politics of this admin.
They buy off Ben Nelson and Landrieu openly and proudly.
They give the judgeship to the wavering congress-critter.
Now they "force" out (according to him) a "no" vote.

All while cramming a bill that most of America doesn't want down our throuts.

Drip, drip, drip.
It's not just the answer to "Who are the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader and POTUS?"

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 07:14 PM (MX3dk)

14 Yes, I'm all wound up.

It's a beautiful day and I've been making plans on which machine guns I'm shooting in Vegas next week.

This time, I'm planning on going Saturday instead of Monday so I can be sure to have some money left to be able to pay for it. Last time, I couldn't.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 07:21 PM (MX3dk)

15 Beck responds and apologizes for wasting our time because Massa kept "backtracking" and being an idiot.


I still think getting this guy out is a good idea.

A fine example of a modern  Dem, the more we get him out there in attack mode attacking other Dems the funnier.

I mean, the better.
Well, both.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 07:35 PM (MX3dk)

16 Saw it on Drudge.
Just like the rest of you.
Shut up.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 07:36 PM (MX3dk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I consider myself more or less a First Amendment absolutist. The State cannot limit what I can say. Period.

But. Yeah. I have exceptions.

The Westboro freaks can go fuck themselves.

Actually, my position isn't that inconsistent.  The State cannot stop me from saying what I want.  But that doesn't mean that I can say anything I want with no consequences.  Of *course* those utter fucktards (apologies to the fucking retarded for the comparison) intended to cause emotional distress.  That's the entire point of their acting up.  That they are being held liable for that speech is in no way a state action limiting their speech.  This is a private cause of action being brought by a private person for indignities directed to his family specifically.  This is distinguishable from, say, the Code Pink rally puppetheads because those protests are directed towards either a.  some entity such as the US or b.  a political figure.  The protests aren't against Cheney in his individual capacity but against Cheney as VP and as representative of US policy.

The Westboro "protests" are directed at the most solemn occasions of private families.  Being a soldier should not place one into the same position as a politician.  The soldier enforces state policy.  The soldier does not create that policy.  If Westboro wants to speak, it should be prepared to pay the price.

So.  Were I on the Court the opinion would be consist of the following "The Court hereby reverses and reinstates the award to plaintiff.  The Westboro defendants, individually and in their association, can DIAF."

Posted by: alexthechick at 08:28 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Student protest at University of Washington:



Any bets they're education majors?

(Granted, I make grammatical errors all the time (like the bet's vs. bets one I just caught and corrected) when I am blogging, but come on these are pre-printed signs that should have been proofread)

h/t

Posted by: chad98036 at 10:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

I love it when other people support my long held beliefs. Such as that insane thing women do where they eat nothing on a dinner date to impress the guy is utterly stupid.

I can back this up from both sides of the equation.  I cannot tell you how many guy friends I've gone to dinner with who say something like "oh thank God you actually EAT" when I order a side of cow for dinner.  From the opposite side of it, I've actually told girls on dates that unless they're a vegetarian, ordering only a salad will not impress me. 

The guy in this article is right, do you really want to get involved with anyone who is such an asshole that s/he'll think less of you for eating actual food?  That's a huge warning sign right there. 

Here's the thing, your appetite for food will give me a hint as to your appetite for enjoying other things in life.  Also protip to women:  bones aren't sexy.*  Looking like a woman is.  So eat!  Enjoy!  And make him wonder if you're going to attack him with the same fervor with which you're decimating those ribs.



*I know, I know, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here since my taste in guys is for tall and skinny.  But all the tall and skinny guys I've known need to eat their body weight every day just to stay alive.  Yeah.  I'm not bitter about that.  This is me, sitting here being not bitter. 

Posted by: alexthechick at 08:44 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Amen alex, amen.

Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 09:12 AM (FkL60)

2 Oh yeah, and I'm not a tall skinny guy either, so... I'm not bitter either.

Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 09:12 AM (FkL60)

3

  Christina Hendricks

 

nuff said

Posted by: eddiebear at February 25, 2010 09:31 AM (wnU1W)

4 No eddie, that's not enough.  More Christina is always required:

Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 09:48 AM (FkL60)

5
Also protip to women:  bones aren't sexy.*

Playing to the invertebrate set, are we?

Posted by: geoff at February 25, 2010 10:10 AM (e2RfS)

6

G-d bless the human form in its utter and complete awesomeness

Posted by: eddiebear at February 25, 2010 10:11 AM (wnU1W)

7 I think this commenter in the article put it best:

When women ate like a sparrow on a date, I was always suspicious. I like ladies with a bit of heft (ie. real women, not models) and I know they don't eat like that in real life to look as good as they do.

If a woman is a vegan, she should say so and then we would pick a restaurant where we can both be happy. Eating in a manner to either impress the male with the idea we eat like a small grazing antelope or that we are "dainty" is, as far as i am concerned, a shade toward dishonesty.

Like my first wife, who confessed after we got married she didn't really like giving oral, only taking it. She only did that while we were dating cause she thought I wanted it. Well, I did and still did. Be who you are.

Posted by: conservativeinthecity at February 25, 2010 10:59 AM (i3tSP)

8

I forget where I saw it, but this quote fits conservativeinthecity

Men marry women hoping they won't change.

Women marry men hoping they will change.

Both are disappointed.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 25, 2010 11:31 AM (9u9oT)

9 If  my friend and I don't pack away more food than her husband ever thought of eating, he's looking for an emergency room because something is drastically wrong.   I've always wondered about women that hardly eat anything in front of men...do they go home an binge when no one is around?  And Alex is right; I've heard more than one man say they like something to hold on to.

Posted by: Sisu at February 25, 2010 01:00 PM (3A2ZU)

10 Well, while I certainly don't speak for all men, I think I can safely speak for eddie and myself and say, if you want to see what TWO men like, look above.

Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 01:53 PM (FkL60)

11

No one wants to cuddle up to the comfort-equivalent of a bag of antlers at night, and I very seriously do not want a woman who is so neurotic about her weight and appearance that she will starve herself to look thin - think about it, if she is that neurotic that she'll starve herself, what the heck else is she neurotic about? 

I think the whole thing is a warning sign, reading something like the following:

WARNING:  CRAZY, NEUROTIC BITCH.  BED AT YOUR OWN RISK. 

Posted by: Goober at February 25, 2010 06:24 PM (QNRoi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I saw this at Althouse's and was going to ignore it.
It's about "black folks we'd like to remove from Black History".
Including such luminaries as Idi Amin, Mugabe, Flava Flav, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas.

Yawn, "authentic" black folk hate Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele, film at.... ohhh.. all the time.
But then I decided to check the comments to see the hilarity.
So one commenter said this
This all comes down to affirmative action. Clarence Thomas is a brilliant man who grew up poor but managed to gratuate near the top of his class at Yale law completely on his own merits, hard work and intellect. Then imagine the reality faced when faced with the fact that everyone sees your degree as only a product of a goverment program to benefit a minority person who is incabable of achieving that on their own

I agreed, but then I'm not black..
The rebuttal? The reason why he was included?
It's not his conservative views that earned him a place on this list. It is his self-hatred, his vehement support to end policies that helped him get to where he is today, that earned him a place.

AA in other words. Proving the previous commenters assertion.
Yep, his politics make him a bad role model for blacks.
I'm surprised Condi Rice wasn't included. After all, she helped that arch-racist Bush lie his way into a war.
Doesn't that count for anything?

Posted by: Veeshir at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

In what freaking universe is Emma Stone



hotter than


Demise Milani Angelina Jolie


Anne Hathaway or Christina Hendricks

I hereby revoke their hotness rating credentials.

Posted by: chad98036 at 12:04 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Really what more needs to be said?



Jeremy starts at about 1:10

source

Posted by: chad98036 at 06:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Of that 86%, 81% think it can be fixed.  Let's hope that when they say 'fixed', they mean like one 'fixes' a dog.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 12:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Live Avatar Role Playing.
Real or Satire? I can't decide.

Favorite line?
"We're not doing this because it's cool, we're doing this because it's important."
I was with him for the first half of that sentence.
Then he lost me.
If not for all the time to dress up in blue I'd say, "Satire", those two couldn't look any more lame trying to shoot those bows if they tried.
Via Vodkapundit

Posted by: Veeshir at 09:14 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

therefore I declare a bad hippie music death fight



I thought about posting the Slim Whitman version but this was actually worse.

Posted by: chad98036 at 11:40 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Why in hell #CPAC gave this douchetwat a podium to stand on is beyond me.



(h/t Demure Jen)

Posted by: Alice H at 07:19 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't think this'll go anywhere, mugshots are public record.  If I remember correctly, the reason he was brought to rehab in the first place was because a rehab director saw him wandering the streets and recognized him because of his pics on the intarwebs. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

The first YouTube comment beats anything we'll say: "...this is slightly longer than how long the French lasted against Hitler..."

Posted by: Alice H at 07:12 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hipster Puppies. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

If they keep this dumb shit up, *I'll* start calling them teabaggers. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 09:08 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

1

Oh, bloody hell.  I love my old state, but seriously, people?

Posted by: Ember at February 13, 2010 09:16 PM (LdRAG)

2 For fuck's sake.  What are they thinking?

Posted by: Sean M. at February 13, 2010 09:28 PM (rLWHv)

3 Yeah, this is basically my worst nightmare come true.

Posted by: ECM at February 13, 2010 09:36 PM (nYKDd)

4 What part of "Bull Moose" do these people not understand?

"Go Perot!"

Posted by: the botnet at February 13, 2010 09:43 PM (kZzmb)

5 Is the GOP fielding a halfway decent candidate?  If this would otherwise be another McCain vs. Obama scenario, I say go for it Tea Party.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 13, 2010 10:19 PM (WhFvm)

6 It's not too late to call or e-mail whomever's doing this and express support for them, but encourage them not to take this route. Let's find their facebook page and remind them about Ross Perot. Here is the Daily Caller on the candidates:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, has $8.7 million. He also will get a fundraising boost from Obama this week when the president shows up in Nevada on Friday. The closest Republican is banker John Chachas, with $1.7 million. Businessman Danny Tarkanian has about $377,000, and former state Sen. Sue Lowden has roughly $498,000. But the state of this race is more clear than most: Reid is going to need every cent if he hopes to win reelection. Reid’s negatives are sky high in the state, and he trails both Tarkanian and Lowden in most polls."

Posted by: Jane at February 13, 2010 11:00 PM (xSM+b)

7 ugh. Seriously, as angry and dissatisfied as I am with the GOP/RNC, this race is not the place to do it. Knocking off Harry Reid, which was likely up until this news, should be priority #1.

Posted by: eddiebear at February 13, 2010 11:30 PM (c2W0K)

8 What, was Ross Perot too long ago for these numnuts? This run has to be scuttled immediately. 

Posted by: cbullitt at February 14, 2010 12:14 AM (gwh5D)

9 Apparently you guys have forgotten the lessons of 2008.  Absolute ideological purity is so important that it's worth electing Harry Reid (Barack Obama) to send that message.

I knew this would happen which is why I have never been a supporter of the Tea Parties even though I agree with some of their goals.

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 12:23 AM (WNcvq)

10

I remember the lesson of 2008 extremely well.  Obama has been everything I hoped for and more.  He's so incompetent that many more people are questioning The Government rather than one party or the other.

In terms of what he's actually gotten accomplished (nothing), he's about where McCain would be.  So instead of a one-term dipshit Republican, you've got a one-term dipshit Dem.  Much more importantly, you've got near-certain huge gains in the House and Senate (maybe even enough to overturn majorities), something that would never have happened with a GOP prez.

Here's your sentence reworded a bit:  Absolute ideological party purity is so important that it's worth electing Harry Reid (Barack Obama) to send that message.

Maybe it's the GOP who shouldn't field a candidate.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 14, 2010 12:42 AM (WhFvm)

11 Accomplished nothing?  Really?  the deficit hasn't tripled in the last year.  Unemployment isn't 10%.  The EPA isn't about to start regulating CO2 and Obama didn't piss away missile defense?  Sortomayor isn't a Supreme Court Justice and there wasn't a world wide apology tour.  Seven months in Afghanistan weren't wasted waiting for Obama to make a decision on troop levels?  He didn't order Guantanamo Bay closed and his Attorney General didn't order trials for the 9/11 planners moved to civilian court.  And in a move sure to touch the heart of the Christian Conservatives the US didn't start funding abortions overseas again.

I must have fucking dreamed all that.  Thank the Fucking Lord you woke me up and pointed out that none of that happened and we are now safe to let Harry Reid hold his seat for another 6 fucking years.

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 12:59 AM (WNcvq)

12 If the GOP can't field sufficient candidates, expect this sort of thing to happen.  I think this is partially a reaction to Tarkanian's anti-2nd views.  Tarkanian was endorsed by the Brady Fascists, and has ranged from C to F in his NRA grades.  Republicans would be really stupid to forget 1994 and 2000 and the political problems being anti-2nd can cause.  Harry Reid is a douchebag of the highest order, but he knows his generally pro-2nd record helps him stay in power.  One of the few things that social cons, fiscal cons and libertarians generally agree on is that we all like guns, big piles of shiny guns.  And Nevada is pretty typically pro-2nd.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 14, 2010 01:08 AM (GcfAO)

13 Dave makes a valid point if you're looking at this in the long term.  Rebuilding a culture of opposition to overbearing centralized power is critical to maintaining a free nation.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 14, 2010 01:10 AM (GcfAO)

14 I guess what I'm saying here is you have to weigh the long term goal of changing the culture with the short-term damage Harry Reid can do with another six years in office.  It's a valid question.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 14, 2010 01:28 AM (GcfAO)

15 Except that the damage that can be done in that 6 years isn't short term. As Rush points out pretty consistently entitlements never die, and apparently neither do liberal Supreme Court justices.  They just go on wreaking havoc.  And lets be honest there is no indication that the tea party will be an more restrained or honest than the GOP.  

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 02:29 AM (WNcvq)

16

Dpud has me read correctly.  I did pretty much nail the 2008 election and the consequences thereof.  Point by point:

Deficit and unemployment:  same under McCain.  The prez largely has zero control of economics, unless he's willing to take the Fed head on.  McCain is economically illiterate and would never have done it.

EPA:  McCain the squish might have encouraged bipartisan support, rather than the congressional pushback that's now happening.

SC:  The libs would have hung on for the next prez, so no real change, unless one of them dropped dead.  If one did, good luck getting anyone close to acceptable through this congress.

Worldwide apology tour:  Idiotic but in practice meaningless, just like his Nobel Prize.

Missile Defense and Afghanistan:  Give you this one.  It's not terribly important relative to the economic situation (bankrupt countries can't fund the military), but there would have been a clear difference.

Guantanamo bay and the trials:  Advantage Obama, in that neither one has happened yet (nor will happen), but his administration's idiocy on both has gotten so much push-back that many are now realizing just how feckless the Dems are on national security.  McCain would have kept going in the Bush fashion (right idea, no communication), and just kept getting beat up by Congress and the MSM.

Abortion:  Why are we funding anything overseas given our financial situation?  Relative to the IMF it's a drop in the bucket and most people don't give two shits.

Do I want Reid reelected? Hell no, he's an utter sack of shit.  However, I'm done voting for or in any way supporting the lesser of two evils.  If the GOP can't come up with a good candidate we need a third party.  If they can't nominate someone who is worth supporting, they're the ones who should get the hell out of the way and let's see how the tea party (or other third party) does.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 14, 2010 02:42 AM (WhFvm)

17 Completely OT, but this article needs a huge fisking.  Eddiebear may be the only one capable of doing it true justice.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 14, 2010 04:34 AM (WhFvm)

18 So, I guess it really fucking sucks that Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election.  You know, because Scott Brown isn't the most conservative politician in the USA.  Never mind that it was an enormously fucking symbolic victory or anything.

And if the Tea Party candidate siphons off enough votes from whoever the GOP candidate is and Dingy Harry stays in the Senate, and the GOP doesn't knock off a second sitting Dem Majority Leader in a row, well, at least we won't have a weak-kneed Republican in the Nevada seat. 

Harry Reid will still be in the Senate, but we'll all be able to pat ourselves on our fucking backs about how principled we were.

Yeah.

Posted by: Sean M. at February 14, 2010 06:10 AM (rLWHv)

19

Sean, the Tea Partiers are NOT functionaries of the Republican Party and are NOT under any sort of obligation to insure a Republican candidate gets elected. They want a Conservative candidate, and if the local Republican Party and the RNC refuse to run one it's THEM who should be blamed if the Tea Partiers walk.

Since you conjure Scott Brown, let me respond with Dede Scorfezza: the Establishment Republican candidate, supported by the RNC to the extent of a million dollars, beloved of Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele and other illuminaries...

...pro-abortion, pro-gun control, corrupt... and, in the crunch, she threw her support behind the Democrat to insure his victory.

So let me rephrase your last coment:
"Another statist RINO will be in office, elected by Republican money and time, but we'll be able to pat ourselves on the back that she has an "R" after her name even though she caucuses with the Democrats. Yeah."

 

Why don't you take that bile and apply it to the Utah Republican Party, to insure that they DON'T nominate a candidate so odious that the Tea Partiers can't tolerate him?

Posted by: DaveP. at February 14, 2010 07:22 AM (DXTmU)

20 Scott Brown is a unique situation, is he a bit RINO-y?  Hell yeah, but he's from Massachusetts.  The fact that you could get anything, ANYTHING with an R next to its name elected in Massachusetts is a massive win.  Just getting the reflexively leftist Soviet of Massachusetts to elect something without a D next to its name is a major advancement.

I'd like to see Harry Reid gone, absolutely, it'd be a great symbolic win, but if the GOP can't make it happen in NV, they can't make it happen.  Nevada isn't Massachusetts, one can be fairly conservative there and pull a win.  The GOP knows that the Tea Party set can be the greatest friend, and can deliver you the votes, donations and volunteers to win, like in Massachusetts, or the biggest thorn in their side, like in NY-23.  The GOP stupidly blew millions of dollars trying to prop up Scozzafava, who imploded and turned around and endorsed the Democrat.  Tea Partiers are about advancing liberty and smaller government, you either walk with them, or they'll walk on their own, if you can have a Hoffman but run a Scozzafava, they're going to walk and rebel. 

Chad, that's a valid point, but at some point that notion is going to have to be challenged, or our nation is going to collapse under its own debt.  In the long term, the most important thing in the long term for us is to change the culture to the extent that we can make the changes needed to roll back the size and power of the federal gov't, permanently. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 14, 2010 09:18 AM (GcfAO)

21 Re Scozzafava - you should find some vid of Steele talking about why the national GOP supported her, especially during the race or immediately afterward - it's obvious he wasn't crazy about doing it, even though he tried to put on a good face.  The GOP machine has an obligation to support whoever the locals nominate.  Which is a good thing, because when your guy who is a hardass fiscal conservative but doesn't believe that abortion is something that is covered one way or another by the Constitution and so has no business being legislated out of existence, or doesn't believe that gays should be jailed and forbidden from any sort of job where they come in contact with decent citizens and their children, or doesn't believe that liquor should be outlawed or bars should all be closed down because alcohol is evil, your fiscal conservative candidate will still get the financial support of the party, including the dollars that come from the pro-life faction, the Southern Baptist faction, and the prohibition faction. 

Scozzafava is exactly an example of why the Tea Party needs to turn into a concerted effort, before a candidate is selected by whatever the local parties do to select a candidate, to make sure the GOP is nominating conservative candidates.  Our economy can't survive the election cycles it would take to build a fiscally conservative third party, and it's not likely that a third party would be able to drag enough people away that actually understand the mechanics of how elections and politics work to make a third party effort viable in a hurry. 

The fact that Tea Partiers are not functionaries of the GOP is a fault of the Tea Party, not of the GOP.  Instead of getting in and making sure first-hand that the GOP was electing conservative candidates, they had a tantrum and stormed off, screaming "You're not going to play with my toys anymore!!!"  And it's been happening for cycles and cycles and cycles.  I really don't get this - people who supposedly espouse fierce independence and doing things for themselves think they can sit back and expect others to carry water for them, instead of getting in and doing the hard work of actually getting a conservative candidate nominated.  Blaming 'they' for the candidates that are nominated is so fucking welfare mom, I hope you realize you sound like someone waiting in line for their government cheese when you say that 'they' aren't giving you the candidate you think you deserve without actually lifting a finger to get that candidate.

Posted by: Alice H at February 14, 2010 09:29 AM (qJHYy)

22

Sorry, Alice: When you started stereotyping Christians I stopped reading.

Care to try again, only without the bigotry? 

 

Posted by: DaveP. at February 14, 2010 10:12 AM (DXTmU)

23 There's no reason for me to restate what I said, you're not bothering to actually read.  

Posted by: Alice H at February 14, 2010 10:16 AM (qJHYy)

24 And BTW, screaming "RACISSST!!!" because you can't handle real criticism is so Obama supporter.

Posted by: Alice H at February 14, 2010 10:24 AM (qJHYy)

25 The fact that Tea Partiers are not functionaries of the GOP is a fault of the Tea Party, not of the GOP.

This is a valid point, and I think at some point you'll see that happen.  I think the problem is the relationship between conservatives and the GOP is like that of a bunch of doges hiring mercenaries, only to have the mercenaries turn on them or start playing grabass on the battlefield as arrows are falling from the sky, they expect the mercenaries they hired to be competent professionals.  Right now they're conducting raids on the rebellious mercenaries in the hopes of getting them back in line, but I reckon when that fails, we'll see the Tea Partiers start to merge with the GOP and take over.  Or not, and the Socialists will pretty much own the US.  Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 14, 2010 10:33 AM (GcfAO)

26

If you can't state your opinion clearly and without spleen, Alice, it must not have been worth reading.

It also says a great deal about your character, as compared to those awful intolerant hateful immature Southern Baptists.

 

Posted by: DaveP. at February 14, 2010 10:36 AM (DXTmU)

27 Care to try again, only without the bigotry?

Care to try again, only this time with reading comprehension?  You blatantly chose to misread Alice's point and then chose to hurl an accusation of bigotry at a person of faith.  The only person who comes across poorly in this is you. 

I am inclined to support the destruction of the two party system.  I think it leads to the current state of corruption by both parties, not to mention that there's nothing in the Constitution that mandates the current party structure.  I do, however, recognize that the system is entrenched to such a point that the practical effect of running third party candidates is to leave in place politicians with whom I totally disagree.  Thus, I reluctantly agree that running a third party is nearly always going to be a terrible idea.  I do worry that if the tea party succeeds in taking over local precincts then the new boss will be the same as the old boss.  After all, what's to stop the tea party people from being unwilling to look beyond their own buddies to find the most conservative candidate for the district?  On the other hand, no party and no candidate deserves loyalty.  It's the candidate and party's job to win my vote.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 14, 2010 10:37 AM (lvYSc)

28 It also says a great deal about your character, as compared to those awful intolerant hateful immature Southern Baptists.

DaveP, I would like to introduce you to the line since you clearly are unable to recognize it.  Alice made no insulting comments about Southern Baptists or Christians.  You're attack on her character is completely and totally out of place.

Stop.  Now.  And before you even begin to shriek help help I'm being oppressed, this isn't your sandbox and these aren't your rules.   
Please address the substance of Alice's positions rather than making ad hominem attacks. 

Posted by: alexthechick at February 14, 2010 10:42 AM (lvYSc)

29 You're Your - obviously I need coffee.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 14, 2010 10:44 AM (lvYSc)

30 Good morning everybody, did I miss anything last night?

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 11:02 AM (Satr7)

31 I don't think I said anything about Southern Baptists that they don't feel a strong religious conviction about, unless the SBC has done something revoking the resolutions they've passed about sexuality and homosexuality. (Warning for those of you who are conscious about their clicks, those are actual links to the Southern Baptist Convention website.)

Did something happen over the last decade that I've missed, like, say, it suddenly being A-OK by the Southern Baptists for a gay to lead a Boy Scout troop, or for gays to be in the military, or serve as an ambassador, or in any federal position? 

Posted by: Alice H at February 14, 2010 11:10 AM (qJHYy)

32 Good morning everybody, did I miss anything last night?

Nothing at all, you government-cheese-eating welfare mom

Posted by: Alice H at February 14, 2010 11:20 AM (qJHYy)

33 Take that back.
I'm not a mom.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 11:48 AM (Satr7)

34 Re: Scozzafava -  I wasn't a fan of hers, but there is a myth that she  kept Dough Hoffman from winning in NY-23.  The if we only put conservative enough candidates up then everyone will flock to them myth. 

It isn't true. 

If you look at the actual electoral history of the district instead of just going by what some in the blogosphere were spouting that district has gone Dem at least as often as it has gone GOP.  We saw the same thing in Illinois with Kirk and Azebijhan or whatever the other guys name was.

Lets assume however that we get the perfect conservative teaparty candidate into office.  He stands on principle on everything and won't bow to any compromise no matter how small.  What does he accomplish?  Nothing.  We get another Ron Paul who votes No on everything and is essentially ignored until the Daily Kos decides to use him as a spoiler.  Hell if he is stubborn enough he won't even get committee assignments outside the committee of the whole because he won't caucus with those impure GOP types.

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 12:13 PM (WNcvq)

35 @DPUD - 

I agree that the assumption that entitlements need to be challenged and fiscal responsibility enforced.  I disagree that the tea parties as a third party are the way to do it, at least on the state to state level.  Get a national organization together that can do more than serve as a spoiler and I will change my mind.  The problem is though that once these guys start getting elected I think you are going to find they are as corrupt as everybody else.

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 12:19 PM (WNcvq)

36 Hoffman is a red herring.

A very small number of Scozzofava's supporters kept a conservative, not Hoffman but Maroun, from being the GOP nominee.
She was nominated even though the few votes they allowed went against her because she had fewer than 10 supporters who wanted her who were powerful enough to force their choice in.
NY politics at its most yawningly normal.

That's the important part. Hoffman was the protest vote.
And it was a cheap protest. It's only for one year and he only made the unbeatable Dem majority one-more-vote-unbeatable but he sent a message, loud and clear.

Now this year, the GOP knows they can't ram another RINO down their constituents' throats, they have to allow honest voting (a relative rarity in NY) everywhere in NY.

The NY GOP is only different from the Dems because the Albany Times Useless hates them. The NY Times reflexively goes for the Dem when they fight, but they don't really seriously fight all that often. They only fight over which districts get the most vote-buying projects paid for by the shrinking pool of productive people.
 
For the longest time the Senate was GOP and the House was Dem, they got the budget done late probably more than 20 years in a row as they haggled, (blatantly, openly and disgustingly corruptly) over the carcass of a once productive state.

They need to be smacked down and shut out. Scozzofava was the shot across the bow.
There's a compact between corrupt politicians and voters. So long as they do it competently then people have no problem with corruption (see, Boston), but the NY pols are not competent and the rate is accelerating.
NY was a manufacturing powerhouse for a long time, the Erie Canal was there and the Hudson and Mohawk rivers provided transportation and, before electricity, power to factories. So once things electicized the Erie Canal factories were already set up so they stayed because of the ease of transporting goods to both the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes. Stuff from Pittsburgh went to Utica and then went back to Ontario.
Now? Oneida silver is made in China, IBM is mostly gone, GE is in China and Mexico and all the little companies that made stuff for IBM and GE are gone too. In my area, IBM was big, there was a smaller company that made fans for computers, Rotron. Their factory was a fixture in Ulster County for the first 25 years of my life. Gone.
The only thing they make in NY anymore are some gov't stuff and beer and wine. I think even Corning moved to China.
Corning.
From the wiki page on Carrier
It was Central New York State's largest manufacturer. In recent years, Carrier has substantially downsized its presence in Syracuse, with manufacturing work being moved to a variety of domestic and international locations. Meanwhile, managerial employees were relocated closer to UTC's Connecticut corporate headquarters.

(Funny tidbit, Carrier makes HVAC stuff, the Carrier Dome in Syracuse does not have a/c).
NY is primed to start electing conservatives.

Most of upstate is pretty conservative.
NY is a series of cities on the Hudson and Mohawk surrounded by farms and mountains. The only difference between some places and the most rednecky parts of Georgia you can find are the flannels are thicker, the accents are different, they own fewer pistols and smaller magazines and the trucks with the gun racks and Confederate flags have more rust in NY.
The populous cities, NYC, Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Albany, Amsterdam, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and a few others, are pretty lefty but even they have some conservative areas.

And now, people are discovering that it's almost socially acceptable to elect conservatives instead of the plunderers they've been electing.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 12:49 PM (9nacF)

37 Another thing I forgot to mention, all the railroad tracks in NY.

NY has more railroad tracks than most other states I've seen. As much as in Italy. It was normal to be stuck at a few crossings as mile-long trains went by.
Now?
Rusty rails and weeds that people are probably mining for scrap metal.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 12:57 PM (9nacF)

38 I am not going to dispute the bit about Scozzafava's nomination.  The point was that if you listen to Glenn Beck and Rush (especially Beck) they maintain that all that has to happen is conservative candidates appear on the ballot and the heavens will open and they will be magically elected.

 It isn't true. 

I'm not saying that conservatives can't win, especially on the local level, I am saying that a conservative that appears on the ballot with out considerable party support for a congressional, Senate or Presidential race only serves as a spoiler.  Just like Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000.

In my opinion the thing to do is stop with this idea of a "Tea Party" and start taking over GOP precincts and running candidates in local elections.  Build a base and expand it.  If I remember correctly that's how Reagan won in 1980 and Obama in 2008.

Posted by: chad98036 at February 14, 2010 01:01 PM (WNcvq)

39 I do miss one thing about living in upstate NY, I used to get Canadian channels that showed curling from the Olympics. 

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 01:13 PM (9nacF)

40 See, that's my point. Maroun had considerable support, but the GOP poobahs decided they wanted their friend to have the seat.

That's the lesson from Scozzofava/Hoffman.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 01:16 PM (9nacF)

41 Remember, NY politics is corrupt as corrupt can be.
You know how your vote is supposed to be secret?
I had a friend who was a "journalist" for some news service, Scripps I think. A leftist in very good standing, she probably still has her Cuomo campaign sign in her window.
I'm not joking, she still had it in 1999 when last I saw her house.
She was "downsized" so she got a job in Pataki's press relations dept., so she had to vote GOP or she would lose her job.

That's normal in NY. I talked to a girl whose father was NY Democrat Royalty (she dated a friend who was cool enough for her, I was too lowborn for her to act anything but condescendingly to, I mean, I didn't know one 12th Century French poet!!!! True story, my friend knew a few and even had a favorite and was deemed "okay")
and she acted as if that was just the way it was, she was surprised I was surprised.

She was just out of school, Cornell I think, and was moving her way up the political appointee ladder. Heck, she's probably been elected by now to some safe seat.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 01:23 PM (9nacF)

42 Veeshir - you keep thinking NY voters would actually vote anyone out of office?  anyone that would already left the state out of frustration or because their job moved elsewhere...I have too many friends that will never vote for anyone with an R after their name...it's frustrating as hell...even going back to Hevesi running for state comptroller and WINNING even though it was known if he won, he will be replaced...NYS wouldn't even vote for the R candidate and he lost - and it wasn't that close.

I don't have the faith you have in the NYS people...it seems that state or union people vote for D's since they will never make cuts or reduction in employees...even the rabble that so far have thrown their hats into the ring for the Gov and both Senate races are enough to give me a headache and hold my nose while voting...

Posted by: cobbfan221 at February 14, 2010 11:40 PM (cw0Xq)

43 See, I'm thinking it's becoming almost socially acceptable to vote R in NY.
I have two aunts who think I'm making my immigrant grandma spin in her grave by voting (R).
They both voted for Bush. They deny it in public, but in private, they've told me.
They probably voted for Obama, but now they're feeling had. Bamboozled. Run amok.

Even my hard-core, angry leftist cousin is on the defensive with me. She wanted Clinton but she goes (D) no matter what. And now she's actually trying to defend that to me instead of just laughing at my stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 15, 2010 09:45 AM (7IwFA)

44 FWIW, Bob Owens posits that this may not be a very serious endeavor

Posted by: eddiebear at February 15, 2010 03:46 PM (wnU1W)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

so today I bring you another installment via Topless Robot

I am not going to say much about it and will instead let this quote speak for the story:

Sorry to break it to you, Harry, but you lost your pride the minute you agreed to give Hermione a blowjob so she wouldn't cry. Getting annally violated by Hermione's magically enlarged penis is just a bonus.

Posted by: chad98036 at 08:28 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.