This is the most stupid, fucked up, and useless thing I've seen in awhile. The only good that could come of that is if it was actually a front for some kind of death squad that hunted you down as soon as you signed up, because signing up automatically shows that you are an idiot who shouldn't be alive any more. Found the link over at the OC.
Most of the Talkers happen to live in New York City.
Yeah, big shocker that something this lame is the product of pretentious New York fucks. Why would I want to talk to them, or furthermore, have them talk back? As was pointed out recently, those pricks can't even fix a hole in the ground.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Nancy Pelosi actually smart? Yeah, I dunno about that. Maybe she just has this front of being, I dunno, stone cold fucking stupid when she actually has her shit together behind the scenes. I guess it's possible, but I'm gonna need a lot more convincing before I'm on board with this notion.
"If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off" Pelosi's approach to handling attacks from Republicans)
Can somebody explain to me where the Democrats have done any face ripping? I mean, seriously, the Republicans are doing everything they can right now to not win. At this juncture it's going to be more a matter of the Republicans losing as opposed to the Democrats winning if indeed things shift in November.
To condition Democrats for this fall's midterm elections, she has employed tactics straight out of DeLay's playbook: insisting other House Democrats vote the party line on everything, avoiding compromise with Republicans at all cost and mandating that members spend much of their time raising money for colleagues in close races.
This has me rather torn. On one hand it's like, let's get some change in here. Sure, the Democrats are just going to fuck things up, too. But at least it will be a different class of fuck-ups. You know, a change in scenery.
But at what cost? By being as big of assholes as the Republicans? Alright, fight fire with fire. That's fine. But by doing so, by voting party line, by refusing to compromise, they're just further hardening so much of what's wrong with politics in this country. This does nothing but cement the simplistic black-and-white approach we have to things. The Republicans, of course, aren't going to do much to change matters, so of course, the Democrats have to do this if they're going to pull off an upset. Either way you slice it, it sucks.
And hey -- do I really even want change? You know taxes? Fuck that, I want my goddamn money. I've already got the BMW. Oh, and I am so totally getting a gun. You think I'm joking? I'm not joking. Relax,if when I get guns, I'll be sure that I know how to use them properly (OK, that might not the right thing to say in order to relax people).
The thing is, there's plenty of Republican shit I can get on board with. But Bush and all this Neocon shit? All this Jesus nonsense? Gay marriage, stem cells? That shit has got to stop.
When Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was found with $90,000 in his freezer from an apparent bribery scheme, Pelosi immediately had him tossed out of his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Hmmmmm, I seem to remember this playing out a bit differently. For one, Pelosi didn't toss him out -- there was a vote which accomplished that. Yes, Pelosi was pushing for him to step aside, but it's not like she swooped in, took charge, and kicked his ass out. Also, there wasn't much "immediately" about it, he was under investigation for quite awhile before he was finally kicked off of the committee. The $90,000 being found wasn't the trigger as the Time writer is trying to imply since the money was found in August and all of this shit didn't go down until the May-June timeframe. Maybe that wasn't made public initially back in August, but either way, the writer has a clear bias towards Pelosi. And of course, I have a clear bias against her, because she's a moron.
Fuck everything: we report on other peoples' reporting. You decide. You know, if you care enough.
"If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off" Pelosi's approach to handling attacks from Republicans)
Can somebody explain to me where the Democrats have done any face ripping? I mean, seriously, the Republicans are doing everything they can right now to not win. At this juncture it's going to be more a matter of the Republicans losing as opposed to the Democrats winning if indeed things shift in November.
To condition Democrats for this fall's midterm elections, she has employed tactics straight out of DeLay's playbook: insisting other House Democrats vote the party line on everything, avoiding compromise with Republicans at all cost and mandating that members spend much of their time raising money for colleagues in close races.
This has me rather torn. On one hand it's like, let's get some change in here. Sure, the Democrats are just going to fuck things up, too. But at least it will be a different class of fuck-ups. You know, a change in scenery.
But at what cost? By being as big of assholes as the Republicans? Alright, fight fire with fire. That's fine. But by doing so, by voting party line, by refusing to compromise, they're just further hardening so much of what's wrong with politics in this country. This does nothing but cement the simplistic black-and-white approach we have to things. The Republicans, of course, aren't going to do much to change matters, so of course, the Democrats have to do this if they're going to pull off an upset. Either way you slice it, it sucks.
And hey -- do I really even want change? You know taxes? Fuck that, I want my goddamn money. I've already got the BMW. Oh, and I am so totally getting a gun. You think I'm joking? I'm not joking. Relax,
The thing is, there's plenty of Republican shit I can get on board with. But Bush and all this Neocon shit? All this Jesus nonsense? Gay marriage, stem cells? That shit has got to stop.
When Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was found with $90,000 in his freezer from an apparent bribery scheme, Pelosi immediately had him tossed out of his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Hmmmmm, I seem to remember this playing out a bit differently. For one, Pelosi didn't toss him out -- there was a vote which accomplished that. Yes, Pelosi was pushing for him to step aside, but it's not like she swooped in, took charge, and kicked his ass out. Also, there wasn't much "immediately" about it, he was under investigation for quite awhile before he was finally kicked off of the committee. The $90,000 being found wasn't the trigger as the Time writer is trying to imply since the money was found in August and all of this shit didn't go down until the May-June timeframe. Maybe that wasn't made public initially back in August, but either way, the writer has a clear bias towards Pelosi. And of course, I have a clear bias against her, because she's a moron.
Fuck everything: we report on other peoples' reporting. You decide. You know, if you care enough.
Yup, this pretty much says it all.
Although I tried my best not to get caught up in JonBenet Fest™ 2006, I still read my share of articles on all that shit. I did keep it all off of here, though, except I will say this: how hilarious is it that the DNA didn't match? You just knew it wasn't gonna match. No way we could finally start to emerge from this mess. Nope, the train of joy just keeps rolling on. So by hilarious I of course mean, fan. Fucking. Tastic.
Although I tried my best not to get caught up in JonBenet Fest™ 2006, I still read my share of articles on all that shit. I did keep it all off of here, though, except I will say this: how hilarious is it that the DNA didn't match? You just knew it wasn't gonna match. No way we could finally start to emerge from this mess. Nope, the train of joy just keeps rolling on. So by hilarious I of course mean, fan. Fucking. Tastic.
Monday, August 28, 2006
When I first saw the headline to this article, I had a momentary lapse in judgment. For a brief moment I went optimist, asking myself "Did Katherine Harris actually say something smart?" Because church and state separation is a lie. The favoritism we give to Christianity in this country is disgusting. But no, of course, she was babbling about some stupid bullshit.
U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."
The God part is just fucking stupid. But like most of the rest of her comments, we'll set that aside. You either realize what she's saying is crap, or you're an idiot.
One thing I'm pissed with in general is this notion of always trying to figure out the intent of the founding fathers. Unless if things are pretty obvious (as they rarely seem to be), it's a waste of fucking time trying to decide what a bunch of dead guys really had on their minds over 200 years ago. Of course, almost no one actually tries to figure out what their intent was -- instead, they claim to be looking for intent when they are actually just trying to find a way to spin those words from the past to fit their agenda.
And even if we do figure out what their real intent was, so what? Is that really the best thing to be following, the thoughts of people from centuries ago? Times were, I dunno, a bit different back then. There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated all of what was to come long after they were dead. They at least appeared to be apt to this idea, and as such made it possible to adapt the Constitution over time (another debate in and of itself, of course).
If you are still hung up on the founding fathers, let's just remember their intent towards women and non-white people, shall we? They made things pretty clear on those fronts.
One more thing I will comment on from the article:
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
No, the common misconception isn't that people in general think that, the misconception is that us dirty secularists all think that. Sure, maybe some of us would say that, but in any case that is not realistic. This is nothing more than the bullshit mentality that a lot of these right-wingers have, the felling that they're always being persecuted and held back when they are, in fact, in the majority and in charge. As I've said recently and repeatedly in the past, they are nothing but a bunch of spoiled, over-sensitive crybabies.
The problem isn't people of faith being active in government, it's people of faith letting their faith go too far in their decision making. How far is too far? Hard to define clearly; it's one of those "I know it when I see it" types of things. Obviously a person's faith is going to at least color their thoughts and actions in some way. But stupid shit like consulting with God before going to war? That's dumb, and that's dangerous.
I also love how morons like this have absolutely no perspective on anything. Yeah, you want to break down the already weak walls between church and state? Fine. Because we've never seen entire areas of the world in figurative and literal flames because faith was running the show.
U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."
The God part is just fucking stupid. But like most of the rest of her comments, we'll set that aside. You either realize what she's saying is crap, or you're an idiot.
One thing I'm pissed with in general is this notion of always trying to figure out the intent of the founding fathers. Unless if things are pretty obvious (as they rarely seem to be), it's a waste of fucking time trying to decide what a bunch of dead guys really had on their minds over 200 years ago. Of course, almost no one actually tries to figure out what their intent was -- instead, they claim to be looking for intent when they are actually just trying to find a way to spin those words from the past to fit their agenda.
And even if we do figure out what their real intent was, so what? Is that really the best thing to be following, the thoughts of people from centuries ago? Times were, I dunno, a bit different back then. There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated all of what was to come long after they were dead. They at least appeared to be apt to this idea, and as such made it possible to adapt the Constitution over time (another debate in and of itself, of course).
If you are still hung up on the founding fathers, let's just remember their intent towards women and non-white people, shall we? They made things pretty clear on those fronts.
One more thing I will comment on from the article:
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
No, the common misconception isn't that people in general think that, the misconception is that us dirty secularists all think that. Sure, maybe some of us would say that, but in any case that is not realistic. This is nothing more than the bullshit mentality that a lot of these right-wingers have, the felling that they're always being persecuted and held back when they are, in fact, in the majority and in charge. As I've said recently and repeatedly in the past, they are nothing but a bunch of spoiled, over-sensitive crybabies.
The problem isn't people of faith being active in government, it's people of faith letting their faith go too far in their decision making. How far is too far? Hard to define clearly; it's one of those "I know it when I see it" types of things. Obviously a person's faith is going to at least color their thoughts and actions in some way. But stupid shit like consulting with God before going to war? That's dumb, and that's dangerous.
I also love how morons like this have absolutely no perspective on anything. Yeah, you want to break down the already weak walls between church and state? Fine. Because we've never seen entire areas of the world in figurative and literal flames because faith was running the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
