The fat lady sang a dolesome requiem for the neocons today, but it wasn't just any ordinary fat lady doing the singing; it was none other than George Felix Macacawitz Allen, hammering the final nail in the coffin of George Bush's PNAC agenda to destroy America and the middle class. The beast has been immobilized!
Macacawitz was, of course, the remaining holdout in the great neocon massacre of 2006. He and 44 of his Bushite bretheren, despite their all-too-familiar arrogance and fearmongering, experienced first-hand the wrath of an angry constituency. For the first time in American history, a political party has failed to capture a single seat from the opposition during an election. That fact speaks volumes!
And it didn't take long for the neonuts at the White House to make a thinly veiled attempt to explain away the spanking they received from the Democrats - the firing of one of the most loathesome creatures to ever hold a public office - an empty jesture that can only be described as an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people, as if they don't realize the new Secretary of Defense is simply a refurb of the old one. So much for heeding Tuesday's mandate for change.
This election has brought hope back to America. Bush will make overtures to the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate as an attempt to equivocate the Tuesday night Massacre; but don't be so easily hornswoggled; this election has not changed George the Lesser one iota, rather, like Pharoah's obstinance of Biblical fame, it will harden his resolve to consummate the PNAC agenda. I suspect a flurry of hastily conjured neoconpoop planks before the 109th Congress is relegated to the dust bin of history as probably the worst in history. And I expect Bush will summarily devour the olive branch he has disingenuously extended to the new majority.
We liberals must remain vigilant; we must continue to oppose the lies, the murders, the corruption, and the totalitarian tactics employed by Smirk and his cronies to sate themselves with the blood and treasure of the middle class. We must not rest until the last ruin of PNAC is but a distant and obliterated artifice of tyranny. We must not accede to the impoverished machinations of a group who has so little regard for their own rights that they would swipe ours away with impunity. We must continue the fight to forever rid our great nation of those who would govern it into extinction. Election Day 2006 proved we still have the power to determine our destiny - we need only to realize that power...and to do so with great earnest!
We beat the bastards down! Let's bury the beast in 2008!
Vac
Posts
29 comments:
I'll say it again. After word of the Democratic victory hit Mexico, millions of illegals are getting prepared to pour over the border for amnesty. The Fat Lady will be singing in Spanish. Democrats have proven with their Senate voting record, that they want amnesty. Only 4 Democrat Senators voted nay on 2611. Here's proof: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157
Creeper, I don't know much about Gates, but how much evidence is there that he's a simple refurbishment of Rumsfeld? I know he's a family friend but I expect that, or is anyone friendly with that family in like mindset? Well, at least Webb won, which means all but one of my votes were successful. I waited until the concession before accepting Webb's victory. One thing I didn't like was outsiders telling me the process should be expedited. I'm glad Webb won, but I still want all necessary formalities taken care of. It's worked out as it should. Now to hope the stupid anti marriage amendment gets overturned, and soon.
Oh, how did your precinct vote in the Senate race? Mine was about 65/35 Webb.
God in Heaven! Don't tell us that isadumbellah, the fat lady, is singing now? Eff, in the grand scheme of things he "anti-marriage thing" isn't exactly of earth-shattering importance. Wondering how happy gays and straight Dims will all be under Sharia Law, which by the way puts gays to death. You people seemingly can't see the forest for the trees. You're only worried about your own pathetic little lives. You don't give a rat's ass about the country, the principles upon which it was founded, the Constitution, future generations or the American way of life. You need to do some SERIOUS thinking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If overturning the "anti-marriage amendment" is the first thing the Dims decide to take on as the majority, it will be a most inglorious demonstration of the frivolity of the party and utter contempt they feel for their constituencies, you moron, YOU! This country is in a war in Iraq; we have young men and women in Afghanistan, we have a runaway illegal immigration problem and YOU in your selfishness and narrow-minded stupidity are worried about gay marriage? We HAD a strong economy and extremely low unemployment, but that should soon change with the onslaught of big government and tax hikes that always follow in the wake of a Congress with a Democratic majority. Yup, fasten your seatbelts, oh, and when your newly elected officials manage to put the country into yet another recession, be sure to blame it on the previous administration. Never forget - to thine own self be true (and lie through your teeth).
Tirades are nothing but tirades. Are you greater for it? Not really, but I'm sure it must have made you feel better for a few moments. It just makes you no better than the ones you're ranting about.
Move on. Tomorrow it will be something else. Spend time productively.....like maybe sharpening your claws for the next one. lol
Anonymous, I wasn't speaking to you. I was speaking to Victoria. lol
I prefer she sing in Italian. Spanish just isn't as pretty a language. :-)
Republicans defending the constitution??? Now, that is a laugh. You fuckin' shit on it for 12 years, then you all the sudden become a patriot? Just fuck off. People like you make me sick. You condone what the Bush administration has done to our political system, then come back and act like the victim? If the Republicans wanted to change our problems with immigration, the invasion of Iraq, and constitutional rights issues they would have. They had the majority. But, they chose to debate flag burning and issues that most Americans were concerned about, they ignored. You are right. Gay rights should not be an issue at all. If people want to marry, it should not be up to the government to decide who they can marry. So, it is earth shattering to someone that wants the right to choose. The Bush administration put our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration chose not to fine corporations that employed illegal immigrants and allowed the problem to escalate. They ignored border security and making Mexico accountable for the problems. People are being tortured and held for five years without a trial, and you talk about constitutional rights and the pursuit of happiness and liberty? What a fucking joke you are. I see through you and you are not a victim. You are a brainwashed moron that chooses to place the shortfalls of this administration, led by Republicans, to instantly place it on Dems. Your faux patriotism is quite sickening. Once again you all cannot change history simply because you write it in a blog or add clauses to legislation that were not voted upon. (for those with a brain, we know that this means) Bush has broken over 700 laws since he has been in office, but, yet, you speak of constitutional rights. I would really like to know how we intend to get out of this amazing high deficit that Bush has left us with? I personally do not like the fact that at the moment China owns our asses. Pieces of our federally protected lands are being sold off, bit by bit. But, it is so damn awful that the Dems want to come in and give hope to those that have no healthcare coverage. Those that are tired of CEOS stealing the pensions. Those that cannot make it on their wages, because the elite are being pampered, while they work for scraps. Those children that lose the time with their parents because their parents have to work their asses off to survive and provide. I can go on and on. Oh year, come back to reality. The economy is not so fucking great as you make it sound. Go back to Neverland, there you can live in your fantasy world, and you won't have to grow up. Jeez, people like the moron attacking Eff have no clue about reality.
Well you're right about one thing Michelle. It only took 12 years for the leftyz to get back in.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Michelle I noticed you blamed everything on the Bush admin. If he's responsible for everything, then why would you be happy the leftyz took congress? After all, they certainly have NO power if Bush is pulling all the strings. Right?
This is SO DAMN EASY .... LMAOOOOOOOOO
Look Captain Hook, or is it "Michelle" - the ONLY one in Neverland is YOU. You believe that illegal immigration began in the year 2000, dumb fuck? Just how stupid are you to think you can slip THAT one past everyone, anyway? And you're goddamned, fucking A right we have troops in Iraq and AFGHANISTAN. Where was your pansy, whiny, simpering, lying ass September 11, 2001, you ignoramus? You probably think that President Bush and the Republican party and everyone with conservative views was responsible for the fall of the Twin Towers, don't you? And I suppose the Holocaust was a hoax in your opinion too. The ONLY time you people give a crusty fuck about the Constitution is when it upholds what you want torn down. No one has been treading on the Constitution but YOU and the rest of your neo-communistic, socialistic, liberal buddies and for all your carping and lying and dissembling and finger pointing and accusations, you know that's the truth.
LOL @ Neverland
Michelle's elevator never has gone all the way to the top, Anonymous.
Actually, I don't give a flying rat's ass what the constitution, nor what the majority of the people, has to say about gay marriage. There is no rational basis for completely denying gays the right to marry and to have the state not recognize them. I'm sure many homosexuals would compromise on some issues, but that can't be discussed because some people think legislating by religion and tradition is the be all and end all.
And the gay marriage issue was part of my local elections.
Btw, I voted for the Republican in my district.
Eff you can't be serious. Why don't gays just fight for the individual rights they want? It sure would be easier to accomplish. But they can't, and you know why. Gays are using marriage for their attempt to be accepted into society. Don't let the party line fool you. Sure there are certain benefits they could profit from being married, but they can get that without marriage. Their main agenda for marriage is to be one step closer to forcing society to accept their behaviour.
You anonymous losers are so transparent. No, these issues did not start in 2001, but they could have been settled or at least progress by 2006. That is the problem with you idiots, you don't care anything about the constitution, then you want to play the patriotic role. Dems tearing down the constitution? omg. Why do I bother with such stupid desperate puppets. Like I said..fuck off, you are nothing, a loser, a zero. We see through you, and those traitors that have disrespected the constitution and laws of this nation, will be brought to justice. Those that chose their corporate pioneers over their country will pay. Now, we shall see progress after we clean up the corrupt. America has spoken, you lose, good day! BTW, the Bush administration never had Conservative views, they are not a conservative administration. Get an education.
"Eff you can't be serious. Why don't gays just fight for the individual rights they want?"
I thought they were.
"It sure would be easier to accomplish. But they can't, and you know why. Gays are using marriage for their attempt to be accepted into society."
They, as a society, should be accepted. That some gays may not behave decently is another issue that's not withstanding this debate. also, Christians don't own marriage simply because tradition has defined it by their standards and that of apparently most other religions. Even if no religion advocates acceptance of homosexual marriages and, or, unions, it is flat wrong to amend the constitution to specifically forbid state acceptance, and the rights and privileges that go with it, of any religions which choose to accept such unions. That's a blatant theocratic imposition of religion, based in hypothetical fears which manifest out of insecurity.
"Don't let the party line fool you. Sure there are certain benefits they could profit from being married, but they can get that without marriage. Their main agenda for marriage is to be one step closer to forcing society to accept their behaviour."
I'm fooled by no party line. I simply refuse to let marriage have a definition as biased and restrictive as some Christians, especially those on the Christain right, want it to be.
They abuse the constitution by trying to use it to protect the sacred instutitution of marriage from a false threat.
"I'm fooled by no party line. I simply refuse to let marriage have a definition as biased and restrictive as some Christians, especially those on the Christain right, want it to be."
Eff, you strive mightily to appear an elistist intellectual, but dumbass statements like that prove the opposite is true. Christian Right? I have to wonder how many Jews and Muslims, in fact, would vote for gay marriage? Oh! That's right - homosexuality is a capital offense in Islam, you dumb fuck! Since you seem to have such a hard on for the Christian right, you might look for a different issue besides gay marriage to keep it up unless they've developed a Cialis for Stupid. Historically, marriage plays a key role in FAMILY. People traditionally MARRY and form a FAMILY. I'm not against gay "unions" that incorporate things such as insurance benefits, but let's call it what it is - a union, not a marriage. You can drag out the stale argument that the divorce rate is 50% in the U.S., but I guarantee you that the rate of fidelity between gays, both male and female in exclusive relations, is FAR lower lower than it is in heterosexual couples. That's not a slam, it's simply the truth and the majority of gays will vouch for the statement's veracity. By the way, thank you for also being the only one in this nest of vipers to admit "I don't give a flying rat's ass what the constitution, nor what the majority of the people, has to say about gay marriage." Personally, I DO respect the Constitution and respect the majority, because that's what a democracy is based upon - majority rule. You have, once and for all demonstrated the agenda of the true liberal: If I can't have what I want, then to HELL with the Constitution and majority rule!" Thank you for being honest about it,
Eff, you liberal selfish, self-centered, egotistical rat bastard, you!
I don't give a crap because majority opinion doesn't automatically mean fair and ethical. I also don't care what the Constitution says because, as far as I know, t doesn't specifically say anything about it, hence the desire to amend it to prevent gay marriages. It it shouldn't be meddling in hat issue.
Christians, whom I didn't exclusively refer to, are the majority religious group and have been for years. They are therefor the most relevant, and the ones whose tenets and values come the most to mind when speaking of tradition as a rationale for opposing gay marriages. The right wing element is simply the most vocal opposition.
Furthermore, "Christians don't own marriage simply because tradition has defined it by their standards and that of apparently most other religions."
Somehow the last three words of the above self quotation and the scope of what they cover was missed by you. Some how both the lesser relevancies of what Muslims would support in a majority Christian country; the fact the words in question already acknowledged pro homosexual marriage as an opinion with minority status in most religions, as far as I know; and the fact that I never made a direct, nor clearly intended one, comparison between American Christians and Muslims around the world, including in the US, was missed by you.
From now on, please just insult me outright. Explaining you justification for insulting me just gives me a headache.
eff you got your ass kicked by anonymous. Just cower down and keep your mouth shut boy. He nailed you on every count of your statement and you came back with the lamest of all lame explainations in an attempt to cover your sorry beaten down ass.
Brilliant tactic, behave delusionally as a response to every contention made against you.
"Brilliant tactic, behave delusionally as a response to every contention made against you."
No need to employ a tactic, as you fucked up royally. You're too embarrassed to admit it and now you will, as a result of having that pointed out to you, dig your hole deeper.
It's true that majority rule isn't always fair - to the minority with a different viewpoint or goal; however, perhaps you didn't get it the first time, so I'll spell it out for you one more time.
Democracy necessarily means that the majority rules. The Constitution also didn't mention many issues because it wasn't necessary as the founding fathers understood that laws would be enacted to protect the safety and rights of Americans.
Furthermore, eff, you're either a liar or have very poor recall. One should be most careful when one puts something in writing because it can come back to bite you in the butt. You most certainly DID specifically refer to Christians and not once, but twice:
"also, Christians don't own marriage simply because tradition has defined it by their standards and that of apparently most other religions."
" I simply refuse to let marriage have a definition as biased and restrictive as some Christians, especially those on the Christain right, want it to be."
It matters not how you choose to define marriage, murder, theft, etc., eff, because the reality is that the law will continue to use their definition. I think it would be very interesting, however, to see you in a court of law after violating a law that YOU don't hold to fair or ethical by stating that you don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution or majority rule, because YOU don't think the law you violated was fair or ethical.
You're yet another Lost Boy from Neverland that never grew up.
"Brilliant tactic, behave delusionally as a response to every contention made against you." -Eff25
"No need to employ a tactic, as you fucked up royally. You're too embarrassed to admit it and now you will, as a result of having that pointed out to you, dig your hole deeper."
I fucked up nothing. It's you who distorts and omits words to suit your arguments.
"It's true that majority rule isn't always fair - to the minority with a different viewpoint or goal; however, perhaps you didn't get it the first time, so I'll spell it out for you one more time.
Democracy necessarily means that the majority rules. The Constitution also didn't mention many issues because it wasn't necessary as the founding fathers understood that laws would be enacted to protect the safety and rights of Americans."
I'm aware of what the underlying principle of a democracy is. You, though, don't seem able to directly acknowledge that some cases of majority opinion can be obviously unfair to a minority, not simply as a matter of their personal perception, but in terms reasonable standards, the main one of which is the need for there to be a substantive argument against gay marriage other than personal offense and supposition on what the Founders might have intended. You haven't made that. It is not an effective rationale to say majority rule, to hell with the consequences and who's effected, unless directly protected by the Constitution. Showing real cause for opposition would do quite well.
"Furthermore, eff, you're either a liar or have very poor recall. One should be most careful when one puts something in writing because it can come back to bite you in the butt. You most certainly DID specifically refer to Christians and not once, but twice:
"also, Christians don't own marriage simply because tradition has defined it by their standards and that of apparently most other religions."-EFF25
" I simply refuse to let marriage have a definition as biased and restrictive as some Christians, especially those on the Christain right, want it to be."-EFF25
I recalled my words, and checked them carefully. I acknowledged that Christians, especially those that lean to the right, are the ones I believe the must culpable and relevant, but my defense was in response to your unecessary lecture on how much more dangerous it could or would be for gays in some other societies. You tried to argue that I was naive of that, and show my complaint as being comparably ludicrous, which has some validity, but doesn't preclude my contention at all
"It matters not how you choose to define marriage, murder, theft, etc., eff, because the reality is that the law will continue to use their definition. I think it would be very interesting, however, to see you in a court of law after violating a law that YOU don't hold to fair or ethical by stating that you don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution or majority rule, because YOU don't think the law you violated was fair or ethical.
You're yet another Lost Boy from Neverland that never grew up."
You truly are amazing. Would it matter to you if the Constitution supported gay marriage?
"Democracy necessarily means that the majority rules. The Constitution also didn't mention many issues because it wasn't necessary as the founding fathers understood that laws would be enacted to protect the safety and rights of Americans."
Bush didn't seem to mind breaking laws that protect the safety and rights of Americans. He also didn't seem to mind using the excuse that the laws unconstitutional. hmmm
Eff25 said...
Actually, I don't give a flying rat's ass what the constitution nor what the majority of the people, has to say...
Well, there you have it folks. An intervention has occurred and eff has admitted to no respect for the constitution!
More strawmanning. Highly pathetic
YOU said it eff! LMAO
Are you backpeddling now?
Since you will not present the excerpt with the proper context, only your delusions, what I said is I do not believe there is a valid basis for rejecting gay marriage, therefor I would not care what the Constitution has to say about it, noting any addressing of gay marriage therein should not exist if there is no valid reason for such an amendment. There is a difference between founding principles 200+ years ago and their presence in the Constitution then, which continue today, and trying to turn religious edicts into amendments to the Constitution today. All you can do is harp about general principles; make red herring comparisons to some other cultures' greater intolerances; imply an absurd notion that popular opinion should force in a gay marriage rejection, apparently so you can have a strong legal cause to oppose the marriages; and obsess on statements in a narrow way so that you can avoid some arguments against you.
What I admit to being unsure of is if you are truly so inept at comprehension as you present yourself to be, or if you are just amoral. Which is it? Or is your character darker?
eff got his ass KICKED .... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAa..........ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ........... What a demo loser
If you say so, little boy. Have some cotton candy and play on the swings.
Oh eff, can't we just let them pla in the streets with the big toys? :>)
Children need to grow slowly, they won't get the time back
Post a Comment