Tuesday, November 02, 2010

...please choke on a bag of dicks:

White liberal intellectuals imply that any potential Democratic ‘12 challenger is being racially divisive.

And good riddance, you miserable pasty-faced hump. 100% can’t come soon enough.

Love,
An Obama Royalist Enforcer Thug

Posted by Kevin K. on 11/02/10 at 07:19 AM
Permalink

Sunday, October 24, 2010

You’ve always wanted to write like a firebagger, but you didn’t know how to achieve that stunning mix of seething anger, logic-defying rhetoric and mind-boggling incoherence. Well, it’s easy with Bag Libs™*!

Just supply an appropriate word for each item on the following list, and then insert them into the handy template after the jump. You’ll be all set to impress your friends, neighbors and relatives with your custom made Firebagger manifesto!

Place Name: _______________________
Noun: _______________________
Plural Noun: _______________________
Adverb: _______________________
Mythical Animal: _______________________
Verb that ends in –ing: ______________
Plural Noun: _______________________
Verb: _______________________
Adjective: _______________________
Adverb: _______________________
Verb: _______________________
Verb: _______________________
Plural Body Part: _______________________
Number: _______________________
Adjective: _______________________
Adjective: _______________________

(Note: Bag Libs™ is not responsible for loss of friends, neighbors, relatives, blood or teeth.)

read the whole post »

Posted by Hunger Tallest Palin on 10/24/10 at 09:33 PM
Permalink

Friday, October 01, 2010

Welcome to the True Progressive Tempest in a Green Teapot! We won’t stand for it! Vote out the traitorous compromisers and let the policies fall where they may! You think the Tea Party has split the Republicans? You ain’t seen nothing yet! Wait till the new Teabrained Congress convenes and see how well our progressive agenda does! Oh, and by the way, could somebody please tell me why I’m outraged today?     

Jane,

I have been a huge supporter of yours ever since the Healthcare fiasco. I have stood up for you and the other ‘professional leftists’ at every turn in my political quest. I have a question concerning Rahm. The O-bots and apologists all seem to proclaim he saved the Auto-Industry and has worked tirelessly to help unions. I don’t believe that baloney for one second, but I can’t seem to find anything to back my gut reactions. There’s that new book where Rahm was quoted as saying, “F#ck the UAW” but that’s all. If anyone else on the thread has information on my inquiry, feel free to jump in.

Thanks

Posted by Mrs. Polly on 10/01/10 at 05:44 PM
Permalink

So come up to the lab. And see what’s on the slab. I see you shiver with antici…pation:

And then? Oh figgety fuck!

In summary: Roar!

PS: The Chicago dentist who donated to the Hillary ’08 campaign and then demanded his money back and then used video editing to transform poor Hillary’s perfectly adequate smile into a terrifying Jaws grill is mixed up in this.

[H/T: Balloon Juice via Meepmeep09]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 10/01/10 at 06:49 AM
Permalink

Thursday, September 23, 2010

...and he is a very famous netroots blogger:

Since I am moderating, I got to decide the format, so we are skipping over the speechs and going straight into, after intro’s, the questions. Here’s what I came up with, let me know if you’ve any others you think I should add for the participants. Bowers, of course you know, Matt Lewis is a blogger over at Politics Daily.

Ha ha! What in the hell just happened there? Jerome’s skull is a centrifuge! That’s why things like this happen on his online activism thing-that-exists! Democracy saved! *fart*

[hat tip YAFB for the horrible, horrible Jack Landsman link via Nick]

Posted by Kevin K. on 09/23/10 at 09:33 PM
Permalink

Friday, September 17, 2010

The New Agenda (NAG)—a PUMA front group that is to “women’s issues” what Fox News is to “journalism,” has a profoundly stupid piece front-paged at their blog today in which the author attacks actual women’s group EMILY’S List for going after Sarah Palin:

So why exactly is Emily’s List attacking Sarah Palin specifically? Sarah Palin who currently holds no elected office? Sarah Palin, who is ridiculously far from the Only pro-life target available, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise? Sarah Palin, who is one of staggeringly few powerful women working in Politics today, whether she runs for further office or not?

Gosh, maybe because Palin is the new “Queenmaker” (as NAG itself called her) for kooky, far-right nutbars who want to take away women’s reproductive freedom and force rape and incest victims to bear their attackers’ children? No, it can’t be that. It must be sexism—get out your magnifying glass, Amy Siskind! 

read the whole post »

Posted by Betty Cracker on 09/17/10 at 02:44 PM
Permalink

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Stupid Obama. Doesn’t he know appointing Elizabeth Warren as a “Special Advisor” is a slap in the face to the undercarriage of a rammed down the throat bus?

“Special Advisor”? To the “president”? Who isn’t really even “the president” because of the caucus fraud and the birth in anti-colonial Kenya?

Now Warren will have to actually set up the new agency, outline its priorities, advise the president, rankle Geithner and get all on the banks’ tits instead waiting out confirmation hearing delays.

The Republicans are furious. Dodd is harrumphing. The manic progressives are popping a ‘roid.

This is outrageous. And sexist.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 09/16/10 at 11:50 AM
Permalink

Monday, September 13, 2010

Well, I hope all of y’all are right with Jeebus, because tomorrow, either Bill Kristol’s outfit or the PUMAs will pull off a political win. You know what that means, right?

Only the destruction of the Eternal FAIL Principle, which is the orange stripe in the plaid fabric of the universe itself. As we noted this morning, Kristol published a hit piece on Delaware teatard Christine O’Donnell, which should have guaranteed her victory over Kristol’s favored candidate.

But then this happened:

O’Donnell’s secret weapon is PUMAs! So if O’Donnell wins, Kristol loses, and the PUMAs finally score a political victory, an unprecedented event in human history.

Whereas, if O’Donnell loses, that means Kristol was right to paint her as too crazy for the GOP primary voters. Needless to say, “Kristol” and “right” have never appeared in the same sentence. Ever.

It seems the Mayans were off by a couple of years.

[H/T: Balloon Juice commenter DMS]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 09/13/10 at 12:11 PM
Permalink

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Piggybacking on Brit’s post below about premature wingnut schadenfreude on the upcoming elections, I thought I’d bust out my own packet of tea-leaves and prognosticate.

Unlike Will•i•am A. Jac•ob•son, I won’t pretend I know what’s going to happen. I’ll only note that if history is a guide, it should be a horrible thrashing for the Dems, what with the usual losses for a party that holds power (see Reagan, Ronald and Clinton, Bill), the wretched economy, high levels of voter anger, etc.

That said, every election has its unique dynamic. We should remember that people are voting for individuals in local elections, not Politico Idol.

However, some things are as predictable as the sunrise. So here are my predictions for the possible outcomes:

read the whole post »

Posted by Betty Cracker on 09/08/10 at 10:31 AM
Permalink

Monday, August 30, 2010

I’ve seen a number of critiques of the Beck-Palin phenomenon lately that attribute The Rise of the Silver Slurpers to a simple longing for leadership in these tumultuous times. There was this NYT op-ed over the weekend by Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister, lefty feminists pining for “A Palin of Our Own.”

Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics.

The left’s failure to nurture and celebrate female politicians has had a significant effect on its policies. In recent years, Democratic majorities and progressive legislation seem to have been built on steady trade-offs of reproductive rights, culminating this year when the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was forced to push through health care reform with a compromise on abortion financing.

An older generation of female Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi, are about as eager to mount a Palin-style girl-powered campaign as they are to wear a miniskirt on the House floor. For them, proudly or aggressively touting one’s feminist credentials (if you’re actually a feminist, that is) is taboo. It’s considered too, well, female.

I call bullshit on this. First of all, let’s look at the examples they cited:  Clinton, Pelosi and Palin. Hillary Clinton is arguably the most powerful woman on the planet, busily running the foreign policy apparatus of the world’s only super power. Nancy Pelosi is the only female Speaker of the House—ever—and a highly effective legislator in that role by any objective measure. And Sarah Palin is…an occasional Fox News contributor, a former second-fiddle on a losing presidential ticket and a half-term governor who quit every important job she ever held.

Sorry, ladies, but I’ll match our record up with the GOP’s on women’s leadership any day of the week. Sure, Palin has a creepily devoted fan base and scads of Facebook friends. So does Lady Gaga. And Lady Gaga has more progressive policy chops.

read the whole post »

Posted by Betty Cracker on 08/30/10 at 08:09 PM
Permalink

Friday, August 13, 2010

Yes it’s trite, but it fits.

Petulant Left blogger Jane Hamsher, quoted today in The Hill:

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, who is also a columnist for The Hill, said he didn’t think Obama would get a 2012 primary challenge “in a million years.”
In an e-mail, Moulitsas also said Obama shouldn’t be challenged.
Still, some influential figures on the left, which erupted in fury this week at criticism White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made in an interview with The Hill,
suggest a multitude of voices in New Hampshire and Iowa could be helpful to the party.

“I have always encouraged a diversity of voices in the primary process, within all parties and at all levels of government,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake.com, a leading liberal blog.

Yes, Jane, because the only way to advance Progressive issues is to elect more Republicans. It’s so obvious to me now.

I’ve never had much regard for Hamsher. Her disastrous dalliance with the Lamont campaign was an early indicator that her first and only love is the sound of her own voice. Then there was the Grover Norquist Incident. And now this.

Team Gibbs.

Posted by Tom65 on 08/13/10 at 06:19 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind yesterday at The Huffington Post (from a post originally titled “Is the GOP Becoming the Party of and for Women?”):

The sexism the 2008 election will forever change the political landscape. Millions of women voters, be they registered Democrats or newly-minted Independents, no longer feel that they have a home in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party does not yet realize this, the Republican Party does!

Ummm, yeah, they sure do:

JASON MATTERA, Human Events editor: “You know what gave Billl Clinton the most satisfaction when walking his daughter down the aisle? It wasn’t sending off Chelsea in holy matrimony. It was scoping out the talent in the room. As he’s walking down the aisle can’t you picture him contemplating, “I’ll take that honey at 1:05 AM. I’ll take that one thirty seconds later.” Then there’s the walk of shame back to his bed with Hillary. And getting in bed with Hillary is probably one of the biggest walks of shames [sic] there is.”

Posted by Kevin K. on 08/03/10 at 09:50 AM
Permalink

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Saw while browsing a few minutes ago…

It gets better…

No shit.  But why did it take until July of 2010 for Google to figure that out?

Posted by Kevin K. on 07/07/10 at 09:36 AM
Permalink

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

...so you’re going to have to entertain yourselves by checking out one of the dumbest rivalries in the history of the internets: The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind (and her commenters) vs. Human Event’s Jason Mattera. It’s kinda like what a war between Andrew Dice Clay and Monty Python’s Hell’s Grannies would be like if everyone was huffing ether and repeatedly running headfirst into brick walls. Or something. I mean, you try to explain how some of the brainiacs from TNA seem to think Jason Mattera is a disillusioned Democrat or what in the hell this means:

read the whole post »

Posted by Kevin K. on 06/29/10 at 09:23 AM
Permalink

Friday, June 18, 2010

Remember The New Agenda (NAG)—the incognito PUMA organization that has had some success in passing itself off as a generic women’s group? Allegedly non-partisan, the group exists primarily to fluff lady wingnuts like Palin and Bachmann and kvetch endlessly about the results of the 2008 Democratic primary.

Meanwhile, the group attempts to sandbag actual feminists while fancying its clutch of wealthy, elitist whiny-butts as the second coming of Seneca Falls. They even tried to pass off The World’s Saddest Corporate Training Session as the herald of a new epoch in women’s advancement.

Anyhoo, heretofore, The New Agenda has attempted to generate buzz with the low-watt current of decidedly D-list “celebrities” like the absurd Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. But they may have finally hit the jackpot this week.

read the whole post »

Posted by Betty Cracker on 06/18/10 at 11:14 AM
Permalink