Rep. Wexler Wants Hearings About This Nations' Dick.

Finally. Go to his website. Sign the petition. We need this covered well in the media [if] it happens. We need to jump on Chairman Conyers. ...and tell Pelosi to BACK THE FUCK OFF!!!~

I Hope Media Matters doesn't mind...

This was such a good article written by one of their many critical writers/media watchers Jamison Foser. Let me first say I will not vote for Clinton in the Primary. I am still angry for a few things she voted for, including anti-flag burning legislation and declaring a portion of Iran's military as a "terrorist organization". The fact is this article isn't about Hillary anyway. It's about media manipulation. ...but I still can't believe how many LIES the "Liberal Media" serves us day after day about Hillary and Bill. From Jones to Monica to "Path To 9/11", I'm beginning to think, as the Rightarded repeat over and over that the press is "Liberal[y] biased", the "Liberal Media" is actually a slave to the RNC:

A "terrible" performance

The dominant political story of the past week and a half has been Hillary Clinton's performance in the October 30 Democratic presidential debate. During and immediately after the debate, the general consensus was certainly not that Clinton had fallen on her face. As Eric Boehlert explained this week:

What was interesting about the debate was that commentators who later described the night as a train wreck for Clinton were surprisingly subdued as the debate unfolded in real time. It was only later, as the pundits fed off each other and whipped themselves into a frenzy, that the reviews become increasingly harsh, to the point where it was written in Beltway stone that Clinton had absolutely bombed during the debate; a "debacle."

But again, as it unfolded live, that's not how it was reported. For instance, live-blogging the debate at abcnews.com, Rick Klein, who later hyped the dire debate consequences for Clinton at ABC's The Note, wrote at 9:33 p.m.: "Clinton is strong, concise, and sharp tonight. She is finding ways to contrast herself with the Bush administration even while defending herself."

By 10:35 p.m., Klein wished the two-hour debate was over already: "The last few minutes remind me of why debates should end at 90 minutes. Less energy on the stage, and fewer interesting things to be said."

Time's Ana Marie Cox also wrote about the debate in real time. At 10:53 p.m., Cox wrote that Clinton had made her "first mistake of the night" -- an hour and 53 minutes into the debate, and about nine minutes before the end.

But as the media feeding frenzy continued, the pundit class convinced themselves that Clinton had turned in the worst debate performance in years. It was "terrible," the New York Post announced more than a week later.

Time's Mark Halperin declared it "disastrous" and a "failure." According to Halperin, Clinton was "shrill" and "too hot tempered." The Politico's Roger Simon agreed that Clinton "really" had a "bad night" -- but Simon insisted that Clinton "seemed largely emotionless and detached." Given that two such esteemed journalists agreed that Clinton had a horrible night, but did so based on directly contradictory reasons, it's easy to suspect that no matter what Clinton had done during the debate, the pundits would have criticized her.

So constant were the negative reviews of her performance, Clinton ultimately said in an interview that she hadn't been at her best during the debate.

_____________________________
Jamison Foser goes on with his observation. This, again is really amazing. He paints a picture of absolute media manipulation in realtime, shoving a stake in the heart of that tired lie that somehow the media is too "Liberal".

Foser continues:

"Breathtakingly misleading"

If the media's rush to declare Clinton's performance a disaster sounds familiar, it's because there are striking similarities to the last debate performance to be so universally and harshly condemned by the media: Al Gore's during the 2000 general election.

Then, as now, the initial reviews weren't at all bad. In fact, the public and pundits alike initially judged Gore to have been the winner; the chattering class -- which couldn't stand Gore -- then talked itself into believing (or at least saying) that he had performed badly.

Then, as now, the real story of the debate was ignored by the media. In 2000, George W. Bush's misstatements and outright lies about serious policy matters were shoved aside in favor of relentless media criticism of Gore's mannerisms and utterly inconsequential mistake about which natural disasters he had visited with James Lee Witt and which he had visited with Witt's staff. This time around, the pundit class ridicules Clinton for allegedly evasive answers, while ignoring the larger story: the questions she was supposedly evading contained misleading claims and factually incorrect statements.

In her live-blogging of the debate, the very first comment Time's Cox made about the debate itself, two minutes in, mocked Brian Williams for an opening question that was transparently hostile to Clinton: "Bri-Bri, right in with the 'tell us how Hillary will eat our babies.' " Forty-three minutes later, she noted the resemblance of a question from Russert to Republican National Committee talking points: "The RNC has been emailing Tim. (See: Question about opening the Clinton archives.)" At 10:09, she mocked another Williams comment, this one about Obama: "Obama is totally a Muslim. Brian Williams just told me so."

In real time, Russert's question about the "Clinton archives" seemed to Cox to have been the result of RNC emails to NBC's star reporter. Later, President Clinton blasted Russert for his "breathtakingly misleading" question. The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org agreed, concluding that Russert "misled" with his question by "misquot[ing]" a letter from President Clinton. Correcting its earlier claim that Hillary Clinton's answer to Russert's question was "doubly misleading," FactCheck concluded, "Russert was wrong, and so were we. Bill Clinton ... called Russert's question 'breathtakingly misleading,' and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment."

Despite the fact that Russert's question sounded to at least one national reporter like it had come straight from the Republican National Committee, and despite the fact that it was "breathtakingly misleading," countless news reports have taken Clinton to task for her response, rather than indicating that Russert's question was false.

And -- what a coincidence! -- that's just what the RNC wanted the media to do. The Hill reported this week:

RNC officials acknowledged they've been encouraged to tap into the "stockpile" of opposition research they have amassed on Clinton more and more in recent days because of the senator's debate showing last Tuesday, combined with the upcoming Iowa caucuses and Clinton's continued leads in most polls.

[...]

Since last Tuesday, there has been a steady drumbeat of less than flattering stories promulgated by the RNC about the Clintons' role in releasing documents to the public.

[...]

Like many pundits, the RNC has seen Clinton as the presumptive nominee for much of the year, and one official in the RNC's research department said they have sought throughout the year to portray Clinton as "calculating."

Her trouble in last week's debate, quickly seized upon by her Democratic rivals, is helping paint that picture, the official said.

"She's really fallen into the framework that we've been using on her," the official said. "It's just been great for us."

[...]

After putting a strategic framework in place to define Clinton as both calculating and evasive, [Communications Director Danny] Diaz and the rest of the RNC communications team are trying to capitalize on what many saw as Clinton's first significant stumble.

The archives question wasn't the only question asked of Clinton during the debate that contained false or misleading assertions.

One of Russert's most over-the-top questions of the evening was about Social Security. Here is the complete question Russert asked Clinton:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no." Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Even if everything Russert said was true, that would be a remarkable question: he began it by suggesting there is something wrong with Clinton's "credibility" and ended it by directly asserting that she is a liar.

But not everything Russert said was true. Very little of it was, in fact.

At the AARP debate, Clinton hadn't been asked specifically about "lifting the cap from $97,500"; she had been asked a far more general question. And she didn't say, "It's a no"; the moderator did. (Note that Russert went out of his way to make sure the audience understood that he was quoting Clinton directly: "You said, quote, 'It's a no.' " But he wasn't telling the truth. She hadn't said those words that he was so careful to make clear she had said.)

Russert then falsely characterized his own question to Clinton at an earlier debate. Russert did not ask, as he claimed during the October 30 debate, whether Clinton would "consider" lifting the cap. He asked whether she would lift the cap. And she did not say "no" in response. She said that she would first "move toward fiscal responsibility" before making any such decision.

Oh, and that quote Russert attributed to Clinton's conversation with Bowman? It appears to be made up. The Associated Press did, in fact, report about the conversation, but did not directly quote Clinton saying anything even remotely like "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." Indeed, the AP directly quoted Clinton saying only one word: "gap." That word, "gap," is key: not only did the Associated Press not quote Clinton saying what Russert claims it quoted her saying, it characterized her as having said she would consider payroll taxes on income above $200,000, but not income between $97,500 and $200,000. Russert not only made up a quote, he made up a quote that is contradicted by the very news organization from which he claims to have gotten the quote in the first place.

In other words, Russert's entire question was false. He misrepresented the questions Clinton had been asked -- even misrepresenting his own words. He misrepresented her answers and quoted her saying things she did not say. At the end of it all, he called her a liar. In fact, there is no contradiction between what Clinton actually said in the two debates and what she reportedly told Tod Bowman. And Bowman himself told the Associated Press -- in that same article that didn't quote Clinton saying what Russert claimed she said -- "I don't blame her" for wanting to discuss Social Security with him privately instead of publicly "because no matter what she says, she'll be attacked."

Russert was right about one thing: his question did, indeed, go "to the issue of credibility." And it left his own credibility in tatters.

Yet the rest of the media have politely looked away, ignoring -- or, worse, defending -- Russert's dishonest performance.

On CNN's Reliable Sources last weekend, for example, host Howard Kurtz -- whose entire job is to report about the media, for both CNN and The Washington Post -- led a discussion with the Politco's Roger Simon, Townhall.com's Amanda Carpenter, and columnist Clarence Page in which not one of the four so much as hinted that any of Russert's questions might have been the tiniest bit misleading.

Kurtz, to his (small) credit, did raise the issue of whether Russert and co-moderator Brian Williams focused excessively on Clinton or on encouraging conflict among the candidates. But that is a benign question, especially compared to the much more serious matter of whether Russert had lied during his questioning of Clinton, or merely unintentionally made false claims. Instead, the journalists defended their powerful peer. Page declared that "everybody up there got hard questions." Carpenter dismissed complaints about Russert's "gotcha" questions as an "excuse" and an effort to "evade and not answer the hard questions." But the problem isn't that Clinton got "hard" questions, it's that she got false questions.

Simon went further, praising Russert for having done "an excellent job." Again: Russert made false claims about Hillary Clinton in the middle of a question in which he challenged her credibility. That is not only dishonest and hypocritical behavior, it is deeply damaging to the public's ability to make informed decisions about the candidates. It is doing serious damage to American democracy. But to Roger Simon, Russert deserves praise for this shameful performance.

In print, Kurtz wondered if it was "wise for Hillary strategists to gripe, on background, about Russert's questions" -- but he hasn't written a single word about whether those questions contained inaccuracies. He did praise Russert's question about illegal immigrants as "entirely fair." Three days before Kurtz offered that praise, The Telegraph in Nashua, New Hampshire, had editorialized that Russert's question -- which was based on Clinton's comments to that newspaper -- was "weak" and "was based on either an incomplete viewing of The Telegraph's editorial board video or an unfortunate reliance on secondary sources." The Telegraph gave Russert "low marks" for the question, which was "based on an incorrect interpretation of what she said to begin with" and took Clinton's comments "out of context."

So, why does Kurtz think the question was "entirely fair"? Did he even look into the facts before offering his praise for Russert?

____________________________________________________

Go to "Media Matters" to read the full text.

This is such a great article. It goes to the very heart of the media smear machine. It shows us how the "Liberal Media" monicker is the biggest lie perpetuated by the Right wing. Yet it continues. They are intentionally manipulating this whole society to suit their ideology. It is no longer about what would be best for we Americans. It's either their way or the highway, with us or against us, black and white... ...and as we had sat by before, not challenging these knuckle-headed fascists, we can all see how Clinton was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying about sex, Gore "invented the internet" for saying he helped to create it by losening it from the military and universities through legistlation, we need to attack Iraq because of "WMD and a threat to America because of Saddam's non-compliance".

They're all f*cking hacks. Russert, Kurtz and the rest of these jackasses are putty in there hands. No matter how many Glenn Becks, Bill Bennets, Kudlows, Tuckers, Savages, etc. you bring on, you will NEVER be "fair and balanced".

Which reminds me: How is David Horowitz' doing to [our education system] what [Fixed NoiZ has done for our "news"] going?

I always saw David Brock's "Media Matters" as a form of apology to the Clintons and to all of us whom lean a little to the left. His "apology" has turned out to be one of the most accurate "weapons" for truth we have... ...after repeated claims that the press is somehow "Liberal".

Thank you, David Brock. GREAT article, Foser. DAMN good.

Giuliani: 'I Turned to Bernie and said:"Thank God that George Bush is our president"

I don't know if I can stop laughing. I hope he regrets this little f*-up.

Uh-Oh!

Rightards! Dobbs needs another shiny distraction! He's talking OFF MESSAGE AGAIN!

We Need To Be Our Own Media.

"A dumb mistake."

"Scientific American is reporting on an 82 year old chemist who is being used as a pawn by Right wing Creationists science haters.

Scientist to creationists: "Don't quote me" Is the small essay.

Former chemistry professor Homer Jacobson has requested that two passages be retracted from a 1955 paper he wrote on the origins of life after discovering that creationists were using them to support their arguments. The 84-year-old scientist told the New York Times that he made the discovery when, on a whim, he decided to Google himself and quotes from his paper popped up on creationist sites such as Darwinismrefuted.com and Evolution-facts.org. To bolster their case, the sites zeroed in on his statements that amino acids couldn't form spontaneously without energy—Jacobson says today that he failed to mention that energy sources most surely existed billions of years ago—and that life could arise only under very specific conditions, which he now calls "a dumb mistake." His retraction request appears in the November / December issue of American Scientist, which published the original paper. (NYTimes; American Scientist)

His exact words were:

In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages, as follows:

On page 121: "Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [of life's birth]."

On page 125: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."

Grand Ol' Pedophile Convention Logo (Parody)

Our poor kids...

CNN Should Fire Lou Dobbs.

...so that Faux Noise Channel can hire him. "Media Matters" points out another "blunder" by Sen. Barack Obama. Well, well... Patriotism truly is the last refuge of scoundrels.

The Google News Repug Shill is Back.

Yeah, sure. This was another Google News "mistake". First it's Rep. Henry Waxman with a Iraqi flag behind "him" and now king georgie iv with a f*cking halo.
Right. "oOooPs, hOneSt mistake..."
Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

A Letter to the Republican Shill "Lou Dobbs"

Dear Sir,

I've had it.
I'm sick of it.

I've had a streak of irritably and discomfort for a while. A long while. It is not because I'm wearing an American flag Lapel pin, since I'm not wearing one. The anger and discomfort, sir, is like a white noise in the background. Both my friends and family have noticed it. My mother and father. My sister. My girlfriend. My friends. I'm as irritable as hell. It's not that I show anger all the time but it seems I express anger that is amplified. There's a stale edge to it as if I had it stored deep inside of me and allow it to seep out with the moment that I find... ...convenient.

For the last few years I have been hit with some of the most radical propaganda I thought I never would see in this country. Is it because I'm simply paying attention? I don't think so. I do want to make a point and dispel a myth that you are a journalist. You are far from it. You are anything but a journalist. A journalist would check his facts. Not color his remarks or infer meaning of remarks made by another party which they did not intend nor speak outright.

Sir, I am going to give you a juicy piece of outright BS propaganda. It is the same piece you gave us all.

You said:
"Sen. Barack Obama put away his lapel flag pin. The senator says instead of a flag pin, his words will be a testament to his patriotism. I don't know what's wrong with the senator or why he can find any discomfort at all, but that's his right as an American."

Sen. Obama said:
"The truth is that right after 9-11 I had a pin, shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

He did not express discomfort. There is nothing wrong with him. There is no sign of anything wrong, sir.

Continuing;
Obama: "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

I STILL don't see anything wrong, sir. I don't hear "discomfort" or Sen. Obama expressing "discomfort." He only wishes to express his patriotism in what he believes in, in what he believes will make this country great by his vision of America.

Yet sir, you said this:
"But any politician of any political party who believes their words can be an adequate substitute for the symbolic power of the American flag is sadly arrogant and horribly mistaken."

There were a few men in this country, not too long ago, who had a belief in what made this country great, sir. A vision. They not only believed in it, they risked everything by saying it. There were only a few "silly" words written. The in-"adequate" words were these:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now sir, I'm sure you believe that the above "sadly arrogant and horribly mistaken" use of words above are a pale comparison to that little lapel pin of yours. They're only words, after all, made by men who too did not have those wonderful patriotic pins of yours. They were only expressing their "silly vision" of America by way of an in-"adequate substitute" of words.

Now, sir. Do you see why I'm angry as hell? Is your "flag" pin "Made in America" sir? Did you bother to even CHECK, sir?

I do believe you OWE Sen. Obama an apology, sir.

Google Bites.

I've been noticing iGoogle's "LiBeRaL" Right-wing bias in their News' thumbnails and "news" in general on their starter page. Our puppet Maliki in Iraq looks like Rep. (D) Waxman? Is that it? What's going on?...Is it the Iraqi flag?

Pus From Limbaugh's Pilonidal Cyst speaks

from Media Matters:

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you --

CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have --

CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know --

LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.

CALLER 1: No, I'm not.

LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[...]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

Not To Worry Republicans...

Sen. Larry Craig will be back in "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy II"!!

Is... ...Is Rush Turning Into Archie?!!

I hadn't noticed this until MSNBC had broadcast footage of Limbaugh sitting in his "EIB" chair and puffing on a cigar. Is Rush turning into Archie Bunker?

A Squealing Stuck Pig.

"Rove called the ad "over the top," saying that its accusations against the Bush Administration are "amazing" in light of Clinton's "spotty" voting record on health care. He added that the claim that Bush has neglected American troops is "egregious," and he accused Clinton herself of denying the military of needed tools by opposing measures like the Patriot Act and the terrorist surveillance program. "How did she vote on the surge?" Rove challenged."

VS.

"Military suicide rate highest in 26 years, report finds"
_

Yeah Karl, whatever your lying -ass seZ.

-g.

The Goldberg.

I am about to start a series of posts triggered by an asshole the L.A. Times decided about a year or two ago to pick up on syndication. His name is Jonah Goldberg. He is a waste of space on paper and a waste of volume on Earth.

Aren't You Happy Saddam is Gone?

I get this question a lot from the mindless drones of the Rightwing brainless: "...but aren't you glad Saddam is gone? Huh? Aren't you happy Saddam is gone?"

I always answered this question with an "I don't care..." probably because of the weight of my opposition against the decision for invasion of Iraq our Moron president/decider DECIDED on. It was never enough. The last time I was asked this question from an absolute imbecile I answered it in a rather satisfactory way. Here it is paraphrased:

Q: "...but aren't you glad Saddam is gone? Huh?"

A: "Am I glad? I'll answer you but allow me to also answer you in the form of a question: Aren't you sad? Sad that 25 thousand Americans are injured? Aren't you sad over 3500 Americans are dead? Aren't you sad it's costing us $2 Billion a week and it is projected to cost us $1 to 2 Trillion after this is over? Aren't you...

Q: "...but you're not, you, you're not answering my ques-"

A: "I said I'll answer you. I will give you a definitive answer. I promise! I'll give you a YES or a NO."

Q: "but..."

A: "No-no, I said I will answer. ...but I need to frame it and I would like you to give me the answer, yes or no, to my questions. You can do it collectively or each one separate, now let me finish. Aren't you sad our military is broken? Aren't you sad Iran has no indigenous check on power in that region and will probably have a huge influence over the man who ultimately takes charge? Aren't you sad we lost our moral high ground because of Abu Ghraib? Aren't you sad we're losing allied troops by the thousands in Iraq? Aren't you sad we can no longer be trusted after we had the whole world behind us on September 12th, 2001? Aren't you sad we're responsible for 2 million Iraqi refuges? Aren't you sad our troops die from "flowers and candy"? The answer isn't that [I don't care], it's not no, it's FUCK NO! I'm NOT HAPPY, DAMN YOU!

I didn't get the answers to any of my questions, however.
Rightards are pretty rude after all.

-g.

Liars, Hypocrites and Traitors To the Rule of Law

This group of senators are nothing more then liars, hypocrites and traitors to the rule of law. They should be voted out of office. They should be removed or recalled. They have endorsed AG Gonzales' thug tactics and lies to congress. It is horrible. They advocate the wiretapping of Americans, torture and election fraud. These senators in the list below are nothing more then enablers to crimes perpetrated on the American people and the world.

Sessions (R) No
Shelby (R) No
Murkowski (R) No
Kyl (R) No
Allard (R) No
Lieberman (I) No
Martinez (R) No
Chambliss (R) No
Isakson (R) No
Craig (R) No
Crapo (R) No.
Lugar (R) No
Grassley (R) No
Roberts (R) No.
Bunning (R) No
McConnell (R) No
Vitter (R) No
Cochran (R) No
Lott (R) No
Bond (R) No
Ensign (R) No
Gregg (R) No
Domenici (R) No
Burr (R) No
Dole (R) No
Voinovich (R) No
Inhofe (R) No
DeMint (R) No
Graham (R) No
Thune (R) No
Alexander (R) No
Corker (R) No.
Cornyn (R) No
Hutchison (R) No
Bennett (R) No
Hatch (R) No
Warner (R) No
Enzi (R) No

VOTE them OUT. RECALL them. THROW THEM OUT!

Good Riddance and Have Fun In Hell

...and I hope you're having your limbs ripped from their sockets repeatedly as Dante described... ...but on a lighter note here's my tribute to a fat, filthy hate-mongering waste of space/volume called "Jerry Falwell". I can't believe human DNA could be so cruel...

Rudy Takes Cheney's Talking Points...

Repug-Rudy thinks Democrats can't protect us. We fought World War II under a Democratic administration. Rudy thinks the world of lil' king georgie, who took a WHOLE month off prior to 9/11. Read or listen. Rudy thought the world of Bernard Kerik. See what kind of asshole Bernie is. Rudy continues to repeat the lie that Dems can't protect America.

..and here's my take on it:


Republicans are for the most part liars, thieves, charlatans and crooks. I never thought they were that bad until a steady progression of crime and lies from the 2000 election to now was practiced by today's crop of GOP. They deserve nothing. We NEED a third party to replace them. Republicans are slowly destroying themselves by their own corruption. SEE here, here and here. ...and one-party rule is not the American way. America can keep its democratic values but not with a single party in charge. The Republican party is dead, folks.

A.A.R. is F.U.B.A.R.

Sam Seder is probably the best thing that happened to Air America Radio. He was "born" there as a radio broadcaster. AAR has cut his hours and it's wrong. Plain and simple. There are very few who have Seder's subtle wit coupled with the greatest of work ethic.

Get his book.

"I built the boarder fence in San Diego".

In light of the fact that Al Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" which was then twisted into "I invented the Internet-" by a Right-wing group of fools who then turned it over to the "Liberal Media" so that they could run with it- Today on Tucker Carlson I noticed Duncan Hunter say "I built the boarder fence in San Diego".
Really? I thought illegal immigrants had a hand in building it. Is Duncan Hunter an illegal alien? Or does he just hate 'em on T.V.?
Duncan Hunter has said this before.

...and we don't hear shit from the "Liberal Media".
Not a PEEP.

Support for Spocko Update.

Let's Hear it For Spocko.

Late last year a blogger named "Spocko" went after Right-wing hate (redundant, i know) radio KSFO. After all, KSFO has a hate line-up that would make Mickey M. proud. Aside of KABC/WABC thugs like Sean Hannity and others, KSFO's Melanie Morgan and her merry band of bigots has rallied their fellow nut cases to the cause of torture, targeting Speaker Palosi and just plain murdering Liberals. (How? ...gas?...ovens?) Check it out and listen to what has been inspired. I even have a video response to the corporate fascists that shut down Spocko's hosted site on You Tube.

Help out Spocko. He's about to fight a dragon.