MEta POlitical BLOg

A Neo-cons head is exploding...

2007-09-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

Here you have the nutjob from Iran saying "we don't have the gay in Iran", and the students LAUGHING at him. So it's good the students are laughing at this guy we've decided is the Evil-du-jour, but they're laughing about him denying they have gay people, which is crazy because we know they MUST have some gay people... but we hate gay people... and we know being gay is a choice... so it's possible he's telling the truth... which is one reason to LIKE Iran... but we hate them... and we hate the students at Columbia... but but but
*BOOM*

The MOST important news item... EVER!!!

2007-09-20T12:46:00.000-07:00

The Senate votes to condemn a newspaper ad they don't like. Because seriously... f**k the troops actually in Iraq, Petraeus had his feelings hurt, and that's WAY more important.

I feel like I'm in an episode of "Life Goes On", and all the politicians and bloggers have turned into Corky.

General Petraeus? Or General Malaise?

2007-09-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

Has anyone ever considered the fact that Dave Petraeus just might be an a**hole? I can't say for sure, because I've never met the man. He could, conversely, be an absolute saint. The thing is - I'm really sick and tired of all the right-wing blowhards being fake outraged anytime there's even a possibility that someone might be saying something negative about the troops. Considering how many dipsh*ts I encounter in everyday life, I figure there must be a similar percentage of dipsh*ts in the military. In fact, I went to school with a total jacka** who's serving in Iraq, and he can go to hell for all I care... oh wait, he's already there... and NOW I'm happy.

So go ahead, and trash the troops. Some of them probably deserve it.

The reason I bring this up is because of that stupid MoveOn ad about General Petraeus. What's even stupider is the people attacking MoveOn for the ad, and then attacking public officials for NOT attacking the ad. And now the stupidest of ALL is FireDogLake attacking someone who attacked the ad that attacked Petreaus. In a letter to Elizabeth Edwards:

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh’s place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John “McCarthy” McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don’t say squat about Fred Thompson’s lymphoma. We’re your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Here's the short version: stop thinking for yourself.

Jesus, it gets tiring reading these idiot blogs. Especially when it's supposedly a "Democratic" blog, the party of "tolerance" and "liberalism" and "open-mindedness". Oh well, I guess THAT got tossed out the window.

Of course, the stupidity couldn't stop THERE. Then Bill O'Reilly had to throw his two pesos in, and destroys any credibility his point may have made by tossing out the N-word..."nazi". I think someone needs to slap O'Reilly upside the head, because he's like a broken record.

Dipsh*ts on parade.

2007-09-17T10:23:00.000-07:00

It must be AWESOME to be so smart. Sometimes I just WISH I were as smart as Insta-douchebag Glennnn Reynolds:

HOWARD KURTZ WRITES:

This frustration with journalism extends to a slew of other controversies. Is Sen. David Vitter being truthful in denying involvement with a New Orleans prostitute who was paid by Hustler magazine? Is Sen. Larry Craig dissembling when he denies soliciting sex in a men's room? Did Alberto Gonzales give faulty testimony and make misstatements about various Justice Department controversies or is he a liar?

Hmm. What recent political scandal is he missing? Hsoot, it's on the tip of my tongue . . . .

Of course, it seems sh*t likes to breed more sh*t... so Newsbusters felt the need to chime in.

Let me break this down using small words so these imbeciles can understand: Vitter = public official. Craig = public official. Gonzales = public official. Hsu = NOT a public official.

Notice which one of those things is different? I'll give you a hint... it begins with "H" and ends with "I can't believe you're all such f**king morons". The Hsu scandal might have actually been important, if Clinton had NOT given back the money... and Hsu had NOT been indicted and the Dems NOT roundly criticized him. The reason no one gives a sh*t, except you sh*t-for-brains, is that it's a NON-story... and the only reason you bring it up is because you're pissed-off about YOUR party being so corrupt. Or more to the point, you're pissed that your party keeps getting CAUGHT being corrupt.

The Hsu has dropped. Let it GO.

Bloggers love contradictions. Also, they hate them. Whaaa?

2007-08-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading the waste-o-bandwidth blog, otherwise known as Atrios's Eschaton, and came across a post from this rocket scientist:

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

I think Jonny McDumbass, who wrote the post, doesn't completely comprehend English. Letterman pondered O'Reilly's questions, didn't answer immediately, then said it was difficult to answer because he's "thoughtful". And how does Sammy VonRetard describe Letterman's response? "reactionary, simple-minded..."

Quick vocabulary lesson: A reactionary and simple-minded answer would've been an immediate "yes". In other words, what YOU think he should've done.

The fact is, you CAN NOT WIN IN IRAQ. There is NO winning. Sure, one side could come out with more points, but it won't end the game. The only way the US could truly "win", is if Iraq becomes a full democracy, Islam completely changes its beliefs so that they no longer resent our presence in the Middle East, and Osama bin Laden starts farting daisies.

Irony? Thy name is "Truthdig".

2007-08-13T13:33:00.000-07:00

So here you got a blog called Truth Dig, subtitled "drilling beneath the headlines", and it seems like they drilled all the way to bulls**t:

But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

If you watch the video, Paul doesn't suggest, imply, infer, or even allude to any such thing. However, I would like to suggest something: whoever wrote that post is 12-years-old and retarded.

Rove's Horrible Legacy (aka: no one really cares)

2007-08-13T12:21:00.000-07:00

I'm reading through this Andrew Sullivan piece and I think, "Was Rove all that bad?":

His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul.

Really? Were any these the same "turned off" people that gave the Democrats a tenuous (at best) victory in the Congress last year? After years of mismanagement and idiocy in the White House, it seems there are only 2 possible reasons the Democrats didn't just dominate last year: 1) the Dem's own dumb-assery or 2) Rove is a genius. It was probably a mixture of both.

I'm no Rove apologist, mind you. He can rot in hell, with AIDS-infested monkeys feasting on his internal organs, for all I care. But he's managed to keep things together fairly well, in one of the stupidest Presidencies we've ever had. Even with a slate of total loser candidates for Republican Presidential Nomination, and "media darling" Democratic candidates, it's no small feat that the Dems aren't just annihilating the Repubs in the polls. But I guess when the most popular polling line-up is Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Giuliani, it's no so easy to choose a winner... and I'm sure "sharp stick jabbed in my eyeball" would probably have garnered a good 25-30% if that were an option. But I think Rove most definitely still has a hand in keeping the Republicans from withering away for good.

Pro-drug smuggler Democrats!!!

2007-08-08T12:25:00.000-07:00

Briefly: two border patrolmen take shots at a fleeing drug smuggler -- they weren't truthful about it -- now they're serving over 10 years in prison. There are two issue going on here: 1) patrolmen protecting the country from drug smugglers and 2) lying about what they did. When comparing those two things, which would you say is more important? Most would say #1, but some Democratic/Liberal blogs seem to be rooting for the drug smuggler:

Some members of the public rail that the brave agents are in prison while the drug dealer they shot goes free. As Sutton noted, the reason the suspected dealer is free is because the agents shot at him 15 times, wounded him, then tried to cover up the incident and lied.

Yes, but remember, Republicans have no problem about lying about a crime in an effort to cover it up.

If there were a gameshow called "Let's Totally Miss the Point!", this guy would be the Ken Jennings of that show. There's a HUGE, HUUUGGGE difference between the corrupt Republicans who cheat and lie for their own benefit, and these two guys who were providing a needed service. Should they be punished for lying? Absolutely. Fire them from their jobs, put them on probation for 5 years, and make them pay a hefty fine.

While my common sense says it's wrong for the smuggler to go free, I realize that for our justice system to fully work, there has to be the utmost faith in our police force. They need to know that if they lie, justice won't be served. But there's no need to "take it out" on these guys.

The Sensuous Michelle Malkin

2007-08-08T08:02:00.000-07:00

I'm amused by this:

From Michelle Malkin's Defeatocrats cheer.

BREAKING NEWS: Repubs grasp at straws, Kos may be a hypocrite.

2007-08-06T11:59:00.000-07:00

And when I say "BREAKING NEWS" that actually means "the same ol' s**t as always".

First off, the Michelle Malkin's of the world have a huge hard-on (or female equivalent) for Daily Kos and all their related activities. They have a burning desire to find ANYTHING that they can criticize. It's really a mark of insanity if you ask me. Take for example, this years YearlyKos. In a desperate grasp, they focus on a video of a serviceman in uniform, trying to play politics [via American Prospect]:

As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit.

Here's the video. And the geniuses at Little Green Footballs had this to say:

I’m not familiar with the exact regulations on this, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it was against the rules for a uniformed soldier to ask a question.

When did it become the duty of a YearlyKos panel moderator to enforce Army regulations?

So the grasping idiot spoke too soon, because apparently is WAS the moderators duty. Since he's still a Captain in the Reserves, he has the obligation to uphold military regulations... even at the Yearly Kos.

So, now, I await Mr. Kos's response to the whole situation. Because, in order to be consistent, he'll need to call the moderator an "idiot" and "un-American":

So they'll prosecute me if I wear my Army uniforms to an anti-war protest? Really?
[...]

He has every right enshrined under the Constitution, including those of free speech and peaceful assembly.

And anyone that thinks otherwise, quite frankly, is legitimately and objectively un-American.

How much you wanna bet that Kos either doesn't say ANYTHING about the incident, or tries to parse it in a way that justifies his hypocrisy?

HELLO (Hello, hello)! I'm in a echo CHAMBER (Chamber, chamber)

2007-08-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

Hey, look at this.... I got my first ever inbound link! I guess this was the guy that made the John Roberts is dead "joke", to which I replied. Sure, I'm relegated to the "lots of little ones" category, but whatever:

The other day, I made a little joke over at Wonkette about John Roberts being dead that raised some ire among some self-righteous conservative folks. They took a break from pretending not to get erect from hate speech long enough to produce pages and pages of Technorati listings. All the big names are there (Malkin, LGF, Althouse) and lots of little ones, in no particular order, after the jump.
[...]
From all of this outrage, you would think I actually took a shot at the guy.

First of all, I wasn't outraged. Yes, there was some fake outrage, but I wear my fake outrage on my sleeve as a badge of honor. The others folks (Malkin,etc) were really, really fake outraged.

Picking on Liberal blogs: a task too easy

2007-08-01T12:06:00.001-07:00

It seems like I've been criticizing Conservative/Republican blogs more often recently. Obviously, it's because of my pinko, Liberal bias. So I thought I'd target a popular Liberal blog, like the Eschaton blog from Atrios (Duncan Black).

After reading about four or five posts in, I realized that I had spontaneously developed cancer on my eyeballs. When I stopped reading, I went into remission. Weird. Then I started giving myself paper cuts and pouring vinegar into them, because it was a lot nicer feeling than reading pointless crap like this.

Oh, and I thought I'd gleam some insight from his commenters. But apparently they're all just simians pounding on a keyboard with their fists. Here's an exchange I read... loosely translated:

Commenter 1: sjhv@!f8hjvj^T
Commenter 2: eep oop ork ahh ahh
Commenter 3: &&&fgk69#### -- $#ry^^5+ sfkfjfn4%esj494
Commenter 4: first!
Commenter 5: `4yhmb35b5tgb8995rgobkw djk5 eyhnuidf56 -=]['`86yik
Commenter 6: *throws feces*

So, yeah, it's kinda difficult to criticize a blog or blogger when the intellectual discourse is about as deep as the puddle in my backyard. Republicans may be total idiots, but at least their delusional writing is put together well.

Republicans don't want bin Laden to be captured!

2007-08-01T11:42:00.001-07:00

After reading this Captain's Quarters post (I've been picking on him a lot recently), see if you draw the only logical conclusion that I drew:

[here's what Sen. Obama said]
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

[here's Morrissey's response]
Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

Can there be any other conclusion than he doesn't want the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to be brought to justice? Obama says "find bin Laden" and Morrissey says "that's a bad idea"... it doesn't get any more straightforward.

Except for one thing: I'd be a complete dumbass for making that conclusion, since Morrissey's criticisms run deeper than that. Actually, I'm doing the exact same thing that Morrissey is doing with Obama. Morrissey is making the argument that Obama wants to "invade Pakistan", similarly to the way we invaded Iraq, except that it's NOT what Obama is saying at all. Obama is saying that we should send troops into the mountains where bin Laden and his crew are holed-up, and bring them in. It's a point Morrissey is either willfully or stupidly missing.

Now that THAT'S cleared up: Obama's idea is horrible.

[update]: Another Republican wants bin Laden to be free.

A classic game: Making stupid assumptions from meaningless data!

2007-07-31T12:28:00.000-07:00

Oh boy, the GOP sure has a feather in its hat over this one: The Democrats are more partisan than the Republicans. At least that's the assertion Ed Morrissey makes:

Both parties like to blame the other for failing to exercise independence in Congress. Their supporters blame the members of the opposite side for excessive partisanship which keeps Washington DC from accomplishing anything for the people. The Washington Post decided to take a look at the 110th Congress to see which party exercises the most partisanship -- and the Democrats win the prize.

In fact, the Democrats take nine of the top ten partisan spots, as well as scoring 8 points higher in partisanship as a party.

So here's where he got that damning evidence. But all is not what it seems. The chart doesn't actually show "partisanship" at all. Here's the co-creator of the chart in the first comment:

I'd like to point out that the party voting scores are not indicative of partisanship per se but of voting behavior, which can have a number of factors.

Of course that doesn't stop the idiots in the rest of the comments to proceed with their "yee haws" and "git 'er dones". But when I read the chart, my first thought was -- "Well, they're in the majority. It seems logical that they would vote more similarly, since the Democrats are setting the agenda". Morrissey obviously doesn't have my sophisticated thinking skills.

So I went back a few Congresses to check my theory. Here goes (House only):

109th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 2 Dems
108th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems
107th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems (the first Dem is 66 places down)
106th - top 20: 12 Repubs/ 8 Dems
105th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 1 Dem/ 1 Ind
104th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems

Of course you know what that means! Nothing! Or more precisely that when a certain party is in power, they vote for issues they support. *gasp*

Just like school on Saturday.... no class.

2007-07-31T11:49:00.000-07:00

Here's the God's honest truth: it doesn't matter if you're a Republican blogger or a Democratic blogger, a conservative blogger or a liberal blogger -- you're going to post horrible things. They ALL write vile, heartless things about other people. I write vile, heartless things about people. So no one should be surprised when a people like lefty Wonkette jokes about wanting Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to die:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.

However, it's possible that this was merely a glib commentary on the idea that Dems/liberals are just like Repubs/conservative when it comes to wishing for the demise of their political foes. If that's the case - Good show, Wonkette! You sure showed them!

What's a bit sicker is the idea that political stupidity can't seem to take a break for a candidate's dead relative:

This weekend, the Minnesota open-borders contingent turned themselves into the equivalent of Fred Phelps when they decided to picket the home of Senator Norm Coleman -- as he and his family prepared to bury his father, Norm Coleman, Sr.

Of course, the Fred Phelps comparison is moronic. Phelps protests the funerals of dead troops because he hates gay people -- Coleman's 82 year old father died after prolonged cancer, and these people are protesting about kid's parents being deported. If you can't see the difference, please do us all a favor and never use another electronic device again.

Having said that, it's still a terribly classless thing to do. Let the guy mourn and bury his dad. The same thing goes for Al Franken, who apparently didn't feel the need to stop his tirade against Coleman for even a moment. No, you don't have to dwell on it, but a simple message on his blog saying he offers condolences would be a sufficient and human thing to do. Especially since Franken has harped on his own father's passing for years now. And it's not like the election is in a month... he could take a few days off, and it wouldn't effect him at all. It's just sad.

JUST LIKE Hitler (part 2 in an ongoing series)

2007-07-30T13:59:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck is NOT a baby raper (as far as I know). Baby rapers have sex with infants, Glenn Beck (as far as I know) does not. However, the reason baby rapers rape babies is because they have a sick desire that needs to be fulfilled... just like Glenn Beck's desire to compare people like Al Gore to Hitler. So while the outcomes of what Glenn Beck and baby rapers do is different, the motivations behind them is exactly alike.

Also, (as far as I know) Michael Savage does not like to give oral sex to poodles. But people who do like giving oral sex to poodles engage in a practice that is generally frowned upon by decent citizens... just like Michael Savage's comparing people to the Nazis. So the way I see it, if you approve of Michael Savage's radio show, you're not far off from giving a poodle a blow job. That's the only logical assumption that can be arrived at.

The Republicans don't like you....Tube.

2007-07-27T10:18:00.001-07:00

The Democratic YouTube/CNN debate was somewhat novel, and I said before it didn't totally suck. And the one thing this format provides (whether it's real or just perceived) is a one-on-one communication with actual, everyday people. So while the hillbillies and snowmen were silly, for the audience, it helps shed light on if the potential leader of the free world is able to relate with "down home" folk and have a sense of humor. Remember, there's really only one reason Dubya got as many votes as he did in 2000 -- he was the "guy you could have a beer with".

Now, many of the GOP candidates are possibly NOT going to attend the Republican YouTube/CNN deabates. From Talking Points Memo:

It's looking like there might not be a GOP CNN/Youtube debate. Rudy appears to be opting out and Mitt Romney doesn't seem far behind. And GOP party functionary Hugh Hewitt is already laying down a line of covering fire for the retreat, arguing that CNN and Youtube are biased against Republicans.

In a strange twist of fate, even conservative bloggers realize what a horrible idea skipping this debate would be. From the oh-so-smart Andrew Sullivan:

For my part, the current old white men running for the GOP already seem from some other planet. Ducking YouTube after the Dems did so well will look like a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy. But then, we kind of knew that already, I guess, didn't we?

And even a more pragmatic criticism from Hot Air:

“The GOP can’t face the people, the GOP can’t handle unorthodox questions, the GOP has no sense no fun” — it’s a PR disaster in the making. Although I’m not surprised it’s Rudy who’s leading the way. Formats that don’t lend themselves to pat answers aren’t his strong suit.
[...]
In this case, if the frontrunner walks, the rest have every incentive to attend and then bludgeon Rudy with the same no-guts-no-fun talking points the Democrats have on ice.

There's some comparison between the Democrats not participating in the Fox News debates... but the comparison is decidedly weak. Fox News is a conservative outlet -- sure they may be fair and balanced, but they're "fair" coming from a conservative standpoint already. CNN is accused of being "liberal", but only from right-wing people. There are quite a few cases of lefties accusing CNN of being too willing to coddle conservative viewpoints... so obviously the political compass at CNN is not entrenched in one ideology. When was the last time a righty accused Fox News of being too "liberal"? Or when has there been ANY time that ANYONE accused Fox News of being "liberal"? I rest my case.

My prediction: Any GOP candidate that doesn't attend this debate will NOT be the GOP candidate for President.

O'Reilly and the Daily Kos really need to get a room.

2007-07-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

Actually, this post is about John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, so maybe they should ALL get a room and have their gay threeway behind closed-doors.

In the latest chapter of Dumb vs. Dumber, Aravosis takes an isolated statement from O'Reilly's forum and uses it out of context:

"Maybe it's time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building."

And how do jetBlue and Home Depot, big supporters of O'Reilly, feel about launching a terrorist attack against the US Capitol that would assassinate all 535 members of the US Congress?

The full quote is in response to that whole Keith Ellison thing where he compared Bush to Hitler. And the statement was meant to show how absurd the notion of comparing anyone to Hitler is. It's quite possible Aravosis realizes this, and is just playing a stupid, stupid game... but I'm not yet ready to give him too much credit.

Scott Thomas: more crap to keep stupid people's minds occupied

2007-07-26T14:18:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, a story comes out that I find boring, silly, and a waste of time. However, since 99% of the political bloggers in the world seem to thrive on this pointless s**t, I read about it.

Now, the "right" is all abuzz about a New Republic writer who just became un-anonymous (if that's even a word). Here's the brief version: He wrote some crap that made the "sheep" on the right pissed of -- they criticized him and called him a liar -- he identified himself -- and now they're still calling him a liar. Yes, the people must have NO lives of their own.

You know, I could post quotes from all the crazy people that are either intentionally missing "Scott Thomas's" point or are just too stupid to understand basic English, but I won't. You can read the silliness from Michelle Malkin, or the Weekly Standard, or the National Review Online. If you haven't fallen asleep yet, you can read OPFOR:

Now we have to go about fact-checking his stories, which I suspect will turn out to have been grandly embellished.

How's that for good ol' American values? "I don't have any facts about the matter, but I'm going to say he's guilty anyway". Yep - these are the people I share a country with.

Here's the truth: The one thing the Left can legitimately hold over the Right's head is the anti-war position. It's now the majority opinion of US citizens, and it's growing daily. But instead of reexamining their wrong-headed beliefs and see the Iraq quagmire for what it is, the Malkin's of this world would rather target insignificant people like "Scott Thomas". On some level, I understand that... because it's not easy accepting that you're wrong. It's a lot easier just shifting your focus onto other things that, in the long run, will have no impact on anything.

update: Andrew Sullivan writes MUCH better than I do on the subject. Why is the British dude smarter than 90% of Americans?:

So far, the hysteria says far more about the hysterics than about TNR.

Oh Really? O'Reilly.

2007-07-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

Should I feel ashamed for laughing at simple-minded people acting like total a**holes? No? Well then, I don't feel guilty watching Bill O'Reilly and Daily Kossians bitch-slap each other like anorexic supermodels in a catfight over the last bit of crank. It's almost funnier than the last Larry The Cable Guy movie... which was about as funny as cancer.

First, we see that Bill O'Reilly doesn't like the Daily Kos, and calls it a "hate site", and yada yada I'm bored just typing this:

Earlier this week, we confronted JetBlue CEO Dave Barger about his airline sponsoring a conference held by the hate-filled website the Daily Kos. That far-left concern routinely posts vile thoughts such as [White house press secretary] Tony Snow should die from cancer, the pope is a primate, and Israel deserves to be attacked.

The hate this website traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites.

I think most people agree that O'Reilly is a blowhard. Also, he's either a straight-up liar (and obfuscates the truth intentionally) or just really, really stupid and misinformed. As far as I'm concerned that's where the discussion of O'Reilly ends. Of course, the 12-year-olds at the Daily Kos aren't able to let things be...

So Kos Front Pagers are going after Bill O'Reilley's web site (over, and over, and over) in a grand cyber-gesture of "nyah, nyah, nyah":

Shocking, but true. Bill O'Reilly advocates the violent overthrow of our government, believes that a former President of the United States is planning a murder, feels that a sitting Senator is unfit for any office because he is a fake Christian, and that millions of Americans are members of a party of death. It must be true, because after all, it was posted at his website.

Ok buddy, put down the Red Bull and whatever Noam Chomsky book you're pretending to read, and listen closely: O'Reilly NEVER said that Kos himself actually HOLDS the beliefs of the people on the website.

Plus, any sane person can look at the Daily Kos for 5 seconds and find some very unhinged Lefties. If O'Reilly were smart enough to make a point, I think it would be that the Daily Kos site attracts crazy pinkos in greater numbers than most websites. No, not EVERYONE on the site is a nut... but it's not too difficult to find them. Just look at the response to O'Reilly.

And now, this "grasping for 15 more minutes of fame" blogger takes a silly comment and wastes my tax dollars having the Secret Service investigate it:

Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.

So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

I think English must be this guy's second language, because he really doesn't know what "outright states" means. Using a fictional example, if I were to post "I want to kill Tony Soprano" that would be outright stating a threat to his life. However, if I post "I will respectfully follow all of Tony Sopranos orders, but if you could read my mind I'd be wearing cement shoes"... that's NOT an outright threat on his life.

In the Clinton case, how do you know that he's not thinking of sitting outside her window and watching her change clothes? I'm sure THAT would put him on the Secret Service watch list as well. Or maybe he's thinking of buying lots of pinapple-flavored snowcones and wants to throw them at her. I'm sure that TOO would get him on the list. So please, stop wasting my taxes on your petty bitchfest, and go back to Starbucks to discuss the latest Wilco CD.

(Biden == Crazy) while (Dude who calls gun 'baby' == Sane)

2007-07-24T11:49:00.000-07:00

Mickey Kaus is about as insightful as a sea otter... and not those cute, holding hands ones either. I'm talking about one of those mean, rabies-filled sea otters.

In his piece about the YouTube Democratic debate, he seems to take issue with Biden speaking his mind:

I agree that the Biden response to the gun-toting You-Tuber was revealing--it showed Biden lacks even moderately calibrated snap judgment--and it was revealing in a way that a) wouldn't have happened with a non-YouTube debate, in which the questioner most likely wouldn't have gotten past security, let alone the screeners, and b) reflected Biden's alleged fatal flaw (or one of his several alleged fatal flaws), namely his cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions.

His "a" part shows exactly why these kinds of debates are so needed, but his "b" part suggests that Kaus want his politicians to dodge and lie in response to questions asked of them. It's possible that he's gotten so used to our Executive branch never giving direct answers, that it scares him when someone actually does. Sadly, Glenn Reynolds, who usually has a decent head about such things, falls in the same camp:

The big news isn't the diminution in Biden's already microscopic chances of becoming President, but the collateral damage to other candidates and the Democrats' brand. It's hard to win swing states if gun owners hate you.

I wonder if anyone of them actually watched the video? The guy isn't holding a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or even a handgun. He's got a (automatic? semiautomatic?) AR-15 built for military use... and he's calling it his "baby". It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, this guy just has a few screws loose - and yes, I realize he was probably just being a tad facetious. Most of the other candidates would've hemmed-and-hawed around the subject, but Biden told you straight out. And it sucks that people like this idiot Kaus think he should be penalized for being honest and forthright.

The other completely stupid thing that Kaus brings up:

Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?

I'll answer both questions with a "yes". The arguments against meeting with "enemy" foreign leaders is insane to me. Just because you meet with them doesn't mean you'll be giving out hand-jobs under their desk... it's just meeting!

Imagine if you had a hostage situation at a bank or on an airplane. Is Kaus suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the hostage-takers? Is he saying the police should just ignore them and hope they go away? Of course, that would be bats**t looney to suggest such a thing. But just because you send in a negotiator, doesn't mean you have to give in to their demands. You talk to them, and see if there's a mutually beneficial road to a peaceful solution. As Obama brought out last night, Reagan met with the Soviet leaders, and no one freaked out about that. So what's the problem with meeting with Iran or Syria? The only difference I can see is the religious one. and that's just sad.

Damn you Hillary for not running on your own merits!

2007-07-24T11:21:00.000-07:00

Why do right-wingnuts have such a hard-on for the Clintons? Did Bill run over all their puppies when they were kids? Because, honestly, the insane hatred of these inept people sheds more light on the haters than the Clintons.

Case in point, Ann Althouse deconstructing Clinton's debate performance:

Did Hillary avoid mentioning Bill in last night's debate?
She sure tried! For example, in talking about sending Chelsea to private school, she said: "I was advised... if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone... So I had to make a very difficult decision." "I"? No "we"?

Excuse me for a second, I need to throw some acid in my eyes after reading this weak excuse for a blog post... ok, much better.

Seriously, is that REALLY her criticism of Clinton? Really? She's trying to talk about the issues from her own perspective, and you're pissed that she's not invoking President Bill? Because let's be honest, imagine if Clinton had talked more about Bill during the debate. Then Althouse would've written a piece about Clinton trying to ride his coattails, or some other pointless s**t.

You know, Hillary could rescue 10 orphaned babies from a house fire, and the right-wingnuts would find something to criticize her about. "There was another baby who died in a house fire just 2 miles away... why didn't Hillary save THAT one? It must be because she hates orphaned babies." And while I'm joking, I'm also not too far off from the truth either.

The YouTube/CNN Democratic debates weren't totally horrible.

2007-07-24T10:19:00.000-07:00

The gimmicky YouTube/CNN Democratic debate last night could've been the S.O.S. (same ole' s**t) but with some Web 2.0 wrapping paper. Surprisingly, only about 50% of it was the S.O.S. The one thing I picked up on is that almost every question said something to the effect of "we need a change". To me, "change" means a new direction, not just veering a few degrees off the present course. And on that stage, only two people were representing true and honest change... and they were relegated to the far corners, and given very little screen time.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are crazy if they think they actually have a chance of winning the nomination. They both offer NEW ideas and a brand new direction... but while the YouTubers may posture about wanting "real" change, they'll never vote for it. What almost all Americans really want is a slight modification to the current policies, but not so much that it becomes scary. The fact is, we're frightened of change. Clinton is ahead in the Democratic polls, and she's a typical obfuscating politician, just like all the other politicians... how is that change? Just because she has boobs? Maybe she won't suck as a much as President Bush, but has that become our standard for electing the next President?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I may talk and act just like every other politician in the world, but at least I'm not as bad as Bush."

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Gravel if they were the only two candidates and a man-eating lion would eat me unless I chose. If they did half the s**t they proposed, it would ruin the country. The same thing goes for the Republican side with Ron Paul. Though, if the choice were voting for Paul or getting eaten by a lion, I'd vote for Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I really wish people could just be honest. No one want "change", we want "tweaks". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Noel Sheppard hates the troops...

2007-07-23T15:07:00.000-07:00

... the enemy troops, that is. See? You thought I was going to say he hates American troops, but I didn't.

Anyway, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters (or creepy-looking, beady-eyed guy, as I like to call him) is so upset at someone suggesting that the U.S. Military is creating serial killers, that he wants everyone to read all about it:

In it, Corey Mitchell, a crime author and editor of In Cold Blog, addressed the "list of serial killers and mass murderers who have spent time in the military" while making the case that "a seemingly normal, everyday, All-American soldier [can] turn into a brain scooping cell phone camera posing beast."

Notice the "can" placed in brackets there? That means that it wasn't actually IN the article... this douchebag just put it in to further mislead his retarded readers. In fact, if you actually read the article, you'll see that Mitchell is LITERALLY talking about a soldier who took a cell phone picture with him pretending to eat the brains of a dead Iraqi. Mitchell's question is, in reality, a quite valid one: What happened to this soldier to make him think this was appropriate and/or funny?

Sure Mitchell is being outrageous with the title, and it's obviously meant to be sensational, but the actual text of the article is at least thought-provoking... unlike Sheppard's post, which I think was actually killing my brain cells while reading it. But Mitchell's argument really becomes a "chicken or the egg" question. Do potential serial killers just gravitate towards the military, or does being in the military unleash something in everyday people that wouldn't normally be unleashed? While I have no statistical evidence, I think the former is probably true. But then that begs the question: What do you do about it? Psych evals are imperfect, and I'd prefer the military not go down a cuddly, teddy bear route... so there really isn't much to do.

The other great (in a pathetic way) thing is that these idiots are on a rampage against Daily Kos about it, eventhough THEY TOOK IT DOWN!!!

The leftist blogosphere went out of their way to cover this one up as quickly as possible.

It was posted at Daily Kos, as Ace relates. But the Kidz are on edge about their credibility, so it was deleted within hours, without a word of explanation. Just doesn’t look right to be dissing the military when Kos is trying so hard to be the voice of the Democratic Party.
[...]
It was also posted at a “crime blog” called “In Cold Blog,” and again it was deleted, when they realized it was being noticed.

I don't understand this logic, but then again I'm not 12 years old. Kos disapproves of the article, takes it down, and you STILL place blame on Kos? And yes, it doesn't "look right to be dissing the military"... especially since Kos WAS in the military. So what's the problem? The stupidity about this is really making my brain hurt. And while the original post may be a horrible piece of trash, these idiots made sure to save a copy so EVERYONE can see... and are even referencing it in other posts. Is this some right-wing masochism that I've been unaware of?

Anatomy of stupid, stupid sign.

2007-07-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

Kos himself has hopped on the fake outrage bandwagon. Here's a quote that he quotes in his post (talk about "meta"):

However, when you, as a candidate, hold a sign up, smile, and get your picture taken with a sign comparing Americans to Osama Bin Laden that sends a different message.

No, the sign did NOT compare "Americans to Osama Bin Laden", it was simply a statement of things that this woman says "no" to... and they just happen rhyme. For example, if I were to say:

I hate broccoli, Hitler, and the Dallas Cowboys

Does that mean I'm comparing Hitler to Wade Phillips? Absolutely not. However, if I said Hitler killed millions of Jews... just like the Dallas Cowboys. Now THAT would be a comparison. Of course, the only thing the Cowboys have killed is my love of American Football.

Even so, the only real thing the Republicans have going for themselves these days is comparing Democrats to terrorists. Most Americans don't actually buy into that bulls**t, so why spoil the Republicans fun?