September 29, 2008
What follows in the extended entry is a long, meandering, barely coherent rant. Due to its level of quality and length, it should not be read by anyone.
I quote Billy Madision, "Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response did you even approach what could be considered a correct answer. The audience is dumber for having heard it. I award you no points and my God have mercy on your soul."more...
September 28, 2008
Yes, KMOV Channel 4 TV ran with the story, and it has been covered via the online version of the St. Louis Post-Dispach, but so far, the 50,000 watt blowtorch radio station in St. Louis, KMOX, has been eerily silent about this story in contrast to their wall to wall coverage of stories that are against Republicans (such as attacking Governor Blunt on an almost daily basis). And that station, and its local shows, has an oversized impact on local (and by proxy, much of Missouri) politics. And what's worse is that the station, except for the three hours Limbaugh is on the air, is very liberal. And in 2006, they all but became campaign HQ for Claire McCaskill in her bid to take Jim Talent's Senate Seat with their spiking of any and all gaffes McCaskill made, so their bias and agenda is nothing new.
Why not use a few KOS-like tactics on them and suggest that they cover a story?
Here is the website.
Here are a few of the shows:
Total Information AM: email@example.com
Charles Brennan: 9-11AM: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mark Reardon: After Limbaugh until 6PM: email@example.com
Carol Daniel: Big Time Obama Supporter: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fred Bodimer: One of the big producers there: email@example.com
The general switchboard number: 314-621-2345.
It's about time we start flooding the Obama camp's enablers in the media, especially influential ones, with our opinions. Keep it clean and free of naughtiness, but these fools need to be reminded that media outlets cannot get away with spiking or spinning news if it helps their side.
September 25, 2008
Ignoring the 800-lb. gorilla in the room of media bias, this guy tries to explain the gaffes as just "Good Old Joe" being himself. All well and good, but this line hit me:
Please. Biden's blunder couldn't matter less. Not because gaffes never matter—they can, if they play into public perceptions of the candidate's character—but because Joe Biden is gaffe-proof. Whatever traps he sets for himself, however many minorities he offends, he always seems to wriggle out. It's almost as if, by committing so many gaffes, he has become immune to their effects.
Kinda reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns went to the Mayo Clinic, only to learn that he had every disease known to man, yet was immune to them all for that very reason.
In a way, this may be true, but I would really wish the media would hold Biden as accountable for his goofs as they do for Gov. Palin. But, I'll be a size 2 before that happens.
September 16, 2008
September 05, 2008
I know this is mostly Ace and Allah's thing but I can't help but get in on the action. Check this shit out:
A poignant column today. Boy, oh boy, do I wish Sarah Palin was chosen because she is the real embodiment of Republican "reform". And I'm sure that was one argument that persuaded John McCain to pick someone he didn't know and who hadn't been vetted in anything but an almost comically amateur fashion. As David concedes, the reason we don't have Lieberman is because David's party is a religious organization that would not accept a pro-choice Jew on the ticket. So the first reason we have Palin is the Christianist veto, not some reform fantasy that exists in David's and Ross's and Reihan's brilliant heads.1
I didn't know they made tin-foil hats in pastel.
Some readers of this site may wonder how the magnificently facecockable Andrew Sullivan has escaped my wrath for so long. Simply put, he loves the cock. Loves it. Can't get enough. Any cocking of his face would only seem to him like winning an award. In fact, while looking on the internet I was unable to find a single image of Andrew Sullivan without a giant cock in his mouth2.
Exit question: What is with Andrew Sullivan's obsession with baby Trig? Is it because he is desperately sexually attracted to infants with developmental disorders? I'm just asking questions.
1 - Due to DPUD publishing guidelines, no link to Andrew Sullivan will be provided.
2 - Actually, there were several with a certain Presidential candidate's taint in his mouth but I figured it was six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I hear you won't interview Sarah Palin because you're a partisan hack. I know what I must do.
I once caught a facecock this... big...
In a previous post, DPUD points out a silly British twat that says America is on the brink of a civil war that can only be avoided if conservatives cave in to liberal demands. Once again, we are informed by our intellectual superiors that we should learn to compromise.
Before I continue, let me bust out my Moron Political Dictionary (Liberal Edition) and provide the definition of "compromise":
Compromise comp • ro • mise: noun - To completely abandon your gun-clinging, racist hateosophy and embrace* extreme liberal beliefs without reservation.
*-Note, it is not enough to tolerate things which are different than you would prefer but necessary to celebrate them with pride parades, patches and bumper stickers involving double entendres and 10th grade wit. Ex: You can't hug your children with nuclear arms. Genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111eleventy
Short answer: Suck the barbed cock of Satan.
I hate to be the one to distract your cranial atom-shasher but I'm kind of at a loss as to how the prospect of a 'civil war' with the left would motivate me in any way to change my behavior. I'm significantly more worried that my shoe might come untied, honestly. In fact, a civil war with the left rests somewhere below pillow fight with Kiera Knightly on the terror scale.
You know why? Because your entire fucked up ideology is based on believing that nothing is worth fighting for. Certainly worth organizing hunger strikes and spray painting government buildings but not violence. That's for barbarians!
An aside: Once I was in a bar and some stupid hippie talked shit about 9/11 so I responded by talking very loudly about what a stupid fucking worthless hippie douchetool he was. My friend warned in hushed tones that the guy in the burlap sack could hear me so I just looked the hippie straight in the eye and said, "What's he going to do? He's a fucking hippie."
This is the problem with your pacifist ideology. It broadcasts its inability to defend itself to those that oppose it. If you loudly and repeatedly proclaim that you won't fight to defend your beliefs as a central tenet of your ideology, how do you expect to deter people that disagree from simply forcing you to do the opposite?
Of course, you realize this. This is why you are all so opposed to the 2nd Amendment. You know that in the final equation, the fact that the majority of Americans have guns means that no matter how much control you get over the political system, we can still just tell you no. That must really rankle. No matter how much you lie and weasel your way into power, a full conversion to Soviet communism would still be blocked by the simple will of an armed population.
Yeah, we know that too. That's why we won't let you take our guns. It makes you powerless. And in the end, that's where all of the leftist anger and paranoia really comes from. You believe you are right and good but for some reason no amount of chanting and creative bumper sticker design will turn America into a socialist paradise. Why do they insist on controlling thier own lives? Why do they keep voting for the GOP? This just can't be! It must be because the Rethugglikkans are cheating.
Your world view depends on your enemies being either stupid or dumb or stupid and dumb (Bush is both retarded and the greatest criminal mastermind in Earth's history, apparently) but really, we simply disagree with you. We aren't planning some diabolical fascist takeover of the country and deep down you know that's true. Know how I know you know? Because in the parts of your mind untainted by disturbing paranoia and bong resin, you know that if the right wanted to take complete control of the government by force we could do it in a week and there'd be nothing you stinking hippies could do about it.
One of your heros on the left once said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
Second, you may now say "Math, this theory sounds so brutal and violent! I do not like it!" Well, that is ok, you may pretend that it has a better name, such as "political power comes from flowers.".
Somehow, Lenin/Mao's point was lost because the vast majority of the left seems to believe political power comes from extremely limited hygiene, chanting, starving yourself and burning wicked accurate effigies in the street.
Back in the really real world, its obvious that the right has a near monopoly of real power in this country which is why you douchetools are relegated to banging drums in the park painted red with the blood of the innocent. And you have the audacity to threaten us with a fucking civil war if we don't start accepting your demands? My 9mm wrote you a poem expressing its feelings about this prospect in the form of a haiku:
You say you want a
revolution, well you know,
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.
This isn't the movies and just 'getting together' and 'smiling on your brother' isn't going to win an actual civil war. It takes guns and training and a will to fight for what you believe in. Hate to break it to you, but you're a bunch of cowardly pacifists who will only do violence in the form of vandalism if you're wearing a fucking mask. You take that to another level and we will too but ours goes to fucking eleven. Yours is clearly stuck on stupid.
September 04, 2008
So clear is the divide between big-city and small-town America that one American friend said to me: "These whitebread Republicans are like children - someone has to tell them what to do and what to think, they're incapable of independent ideas."Yep, and the Moron-in-Chief made similar points in his analysis of the Palin speech. The only thing different here is that we have a lefty who actually kind of sees it, which is interesting, despite the fact that the entire article is laced with exactly the kind of obnoxious behavior she notes that our left engages in. What I find interesting is the fear that starts to show in the latter part of her article. She says this,
The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is too dim to get your point is not itself a particularly brainy way to win others over to the essential correctness of your views.
So America is stuck. Two countries, mutually irreconcilable, who never meet each other and don't want to, either. Who distrust each other at best, despise each other at worst. And who have absolutely no understanding of the other.
To an extent, she's right, there is a serious divide in the US, and it is growing, but the next bit she wrote is pathetic. It's almost like she's trying to bargain with us wingnuts, asking if it'd be okay to give us our duck guns and deer rifles, church socials and idyllic small town bumpkin life, and her enlightened leftist counterparts in America control the rest. Hey Linda, FYNQ. We're not ceding the nation to your Marxist counterparts willingly.
Which brings us to our writer's big fear,
Can America survive another photo-finish election which the Republicans win, or will it be out and out war between the red and the blue states? Perhaps only small-town America itself can prevent it, such as the dental nurse who asked how the mother of five kids, one with Down's syndrome, could hold down a full-time job, one step from running the United States. Sarah Palin, bad mom. That might finish her.
Amazing. She can understand that the reason the left loses presidential election after presidential election in America is because of it's inability to control it's raw hatred, ignorant sneering and open disdain of middle America, yet she can't help but engage in the same obnoxious behaviors and expects that somehow there will be a different result.
She acknowledges that the left's obnoxious smugness is why they lose, and yet she has the nerve to ask conservatives to take some pittance and capitulate to head off a civil war? Incredible, this is exactly the noxious blend of narcissism and insanity that the Moron-in-Chief addressed so brilliantly addressed earlier. These people really can't control themselves.
Maybe this is a lament? Maybe she knows they can't change, and that they can't win in America? Is this desperation?
September 03, 2008
Someone should tell the Democrats.
Consistently at the Democratic convention the crowd would chant the names of their candidates and of course, that of the Messiah. Contrast that to the frequent chants of U.S.A. at the Republican Convention.
Republicans are playing for the name on the front of the jersey. The priorities of the Democrats are clear. Republicans chant U.S.A., Democrats chant O.BA.MA.
That's enough of a difference for me.
Plenty of Americans would rather stay in their dream state than to recognize the poverty sweeping across the country, right here, right now.
Obama understands that people are suffering. Every week, prices go up at the supermarket, and people are unable to feed their families. It already is dark and stormy for millions, who can't even afford pencils, book bags and lunch money for their children.
But when Obama wins the White House, we may just see a revolution that can turn the tide and improve this nation for everyone, not just a select few.
That's right. When (not if) Obama takes office, all the nation's ill's will be swept away. Why, it's gonna be like we've gone from black and white, depressing Kansas to the colorful, magical land of Oz overnight! (Nevermind the fact that Dorothy wanted to head back to Kansas and the bitter people there, clinging to their guns and religion.) The bottom line is the fact that when Obama wins, everything suddenly becomes magically delicious!
The main point, though, is that it'll be a revolution! Actually, even if Obama should—heaven forbid—lose, there'll be a revolution either way. It's just the difference between a peaceful, lovey-dovey revolution and the blood-in-the-streets kind of revolution. You see, I omitted the paragraph Ms. Ali typed right before the part I quoted above...
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!
I can see the new Obama campaign slogan now: "Change You'd Better Believe in, Whitey, Unless You Want Your Back Against the Wall!" What an inspiring message that is. Hope and Change on the one hand, a bloodbath of epic proportions on the other. The choice is yours.
September 02, 2008
From the sounds of things, he was rejected for his well-publicized post rejecting McCain for his turnarounds on immigration. I did talk to Hawkins a little bit about it, I think he's kind of amused by the whole thing at this point, which I don't think is expressed in his post. He found a solution to the problem anyway, he simply handed the keys to RWN to someone who had been invited. In any case, I think it's foolish for them to refuse Hawkins the RNC press passes.
Yeah, the blogosphere is a tiny place in the broader scheme of things, but it does have an effect, particularly on the media. It is also a good way to measure enthusiasm amongst the base and activists. This is especially true of larger sites like RWN.
McCain and the GOP leadership absolutely must rebuild the bridges they burned with the conservative movement, the selection of Gov Palin is an acknowledgment of that point. The choice of Gov Palin was a good start in that direction, but they have to follow through by continued efforts to reconnect with the grassroots. Inviting prominent conservative bloggers, especially those who are willing to strongly criticize McCain and/or the GOP would be a positive, if small step.
September 01, 2008
Barack Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, for heaven's sake. And the best McCain can do is a woman who minored in poly-sci at the University of Idaho?Um, Susan, a lot more people in this country went to schools like the University of Idaho than Harvard, which is, fair or not, basically a synonym for East Coast snobbery and elitism. So, go ahead and make that distinction. We'll see how that works out in the long term.
60 queries taking 0.1251 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.