Featured Stories
0

Live-Blogging the last GOP Florida debate – AKA – the Boston [Romney] Massacre

– January 27, 2012

Finally, these debates are getting to be worth watching.

(update) Highlight:

Newt panders to illegal immigrants. Romney says ENFORCE THE LAW.

Newt doubles down on pandering and says he wont bust in and deport grandmas.

Newt says Mitt Romney is the most anti-immigrant person on the stage.
Romney whomps back and OWNS. Says not to call someone you disagree with on immigration policy.

Romney calls it “repulsive” to call him anti-immigrant and demands apology. His father was born in Mexico and his father-in-law was born in Whales. He is not anti-immigrant just for supporting American law, douchebag.

My thoughts: Calling someone against illegal-immigration, “anti-immigrant” is like calling someone against shop lifting, “anti-capitalism”. Morons.

RT @AnnCoulter Newt using typically liberal (dishonest) lingo — opposition to amnesty for illegals is now “rounding up grandmothers.”

RT @AnnCoulter about “grandmothers” re: illegal immigration is like talking about rape & incest in argument @ abortion. HOW @ THE OTHER 20 MILL?

The grandmother argument is especially obnoxious considering it rests on the premise that “if you have grand kids you should be excused from law breaking”. Grandmother thieves, drug traffickers and murderers okay too, Newt?

RT @AnnCoulter Newt wants open marriages for Mexican grandmothers.

How is CNN getting past the FCC by airing such a bloodbath?? Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is killing up there. This posts new name: “The Boston Massacre”.

 ^actual photo of Romneys victims in tonights CNN Florida debate

Newt dodges question and says he won’t answer the moderators request that he clarify criticism he made against Romney about a Swiss Bank account Romney had. Newt says to move on to more important issues. The debate moderater then, amazingly, has to badger Newt into answering the question and defending his charge against Romney. Newt still refuses and literally shrugs the question off with a hand gesture. Romney PWN’s again and says “wouldn’t it be nice if people wouldn’t make accusations that they’re not willing to defend here”. Destroyed – Gingrich caves and says yes, he thought the Swiss Bank Account was shady. Romney schools him again and lets him know how blind-trusts work.

Newt Gingrich is either a shameless liar or he literally knows nothing about economic matters. Way less than me – I know what a blind trust is. Why doesn’t Newt Gingrich? Two times he criticizes Mitt Romney for actions going on in his blind trust when – BY DEFINITION – Mitt Romney is BLIND to the handling of the contents of the frigging trust. That is what it is.

Gingrich brings it up AGAIN, saying Romney didn’t know what was in his stock holdings – Romney interrupts saying “of course not – it was a BLIND TRUST”. What the hell is Gingrich thinking? Just relying on people being ignorant of what a blind trust is even after Romney just explained it to everyone? It would be ILLEGAL for Romney to know what is in it. That is literally the entire point: to appoint someone else to manage the contents of your assets specifically so the beneficiaries will have no knowledge of the holdings within the trust.

Gingrich is supposed to be the worldly, big-ideas, historian intellectual and master debater who would cream Obama in a debate if given the chance, yet he can’t even dent Mitt Romney. Why is he still saying Romney should have directed the trust to “not do certain things”? Newt Gingrich is the former Speaker of the House of the united states. I am an improv comedian on the internet. Why am *i* the only one of the two of us that knows that the beneficiaries of a blind trust have no right to intervene in their handling?

Newt-pandermania to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is asked about his health since he would be the countries oldest president ever and Paul said he’s in tip top shape and challenges any of the other, younger, men on the stage with him to a 25 mile bike ride in the heat of texas. Everyone laughs and Newt adds that Ron Paul would have no problem as president because Newt has seen how peppy he is at these debates. Reason it’s pandering bullcrap: Newt said he would not vote for Ron Paul against Obama. Mitt Romney, when asked the same question, said “of course” he would vote for Ron Paul instead of Obama.

Space question: Romney says he wants to bring corporate America and the defense industry together to form a national Space Program that would be worth the expenditure. Says he is NOT for a colon on the moon, referring to something Gingrich has proposed, saying it would cost billions to trillions and he would rather rebuild homes in America then on the gead dayum MOON. Right answer!

Gingrich’s chance of being GOP nominee down to 5.9% on Intrade. Started at 10.0% tonight.

Romney says Obama’s answers to fixing America’s insurance problem is like “Groundhog day all over again”. Excellent line! Spin on the Yogi Bera phrase “it’s like Deja Vu all over again” except now with a Bill Murray cultural reference. Nice!

Rick Santorum is playing it safe and not being a dick. Consequently he sounds less whiny. This is the first attack he’s leveled on the whole debate: saying that Obamacare is the same as Romneycare (false) and Gingrich supported the Obamacare & Romneycare mandate to buy insurance (essentially a tax on just being alive) for 20 years (true).

Romney is answering Romneycare accusations like a champ. I’m watching 4 different Romney-hating right-wing accounts on twitter completely flail and flame out. They’re melting down, unable to admit that the dude is owner whichever of their boys is up there.

HAHAHA. laughed out loud – Santorum gave a teeth gritted terse response to Romneys accurate distinctions between Romneycare in his home state and Obamacare, which Romney says is unconstitutional. Romney answers “first of all, it’s not worth getting mad about”. Essentially, the 2012 election has had it’s first “you mad” moment. AWESOME.

Question on why would your wife make the best first lady. Can’t wait for Newts answer!
Ron Paul is nice and mentions his wifes cookbook and their anniversary.

Mitt Romney, with the best answer, yet agin – says his wife Ann would bring compassion, especially to women in pain. Ann was diagnosed with Multiple Sclurosis in 1998.

Consequentially, so was Newt Gingrichs wife at the time (#2), around the same time. Not sayin Newt divorcer her cuz she got sick but… he divorced her when she got sick. Romney, the Mormon with less wives than the Catholic Gingrich, met Ann when he was 18 and married her in his early 20s and they’ve been inseparable ever since. Sorry folks – but that stuff matters sometimes. This is one of those times. Obama has a perfect looking family. It must be matched with an equally perfect looking one.

Newt Gingrich’s answer…

RT @AndrewStilesWFB: Gingrich leaving door open to appoint a new first lady, if elected.

RT @AnnCoulter Newt got married again during santorum’s answer.

Jk.
Gingrich said Callista would bring an artistic sense to the Whitehorse because she loves the arts, plays the french horn and sings…. um… ya. ok. awesome dude…
Rick Santorum says his wife is smart and pooped out a lot of kids (had 8. 1 died. raising 7). I guess that’s nice too.

Rest of the debate didnt matter. Romney obliterated these jokers. Santorum gave good answers and in another lifetime it would have been a great night for him. Too late. He’s going no where. Romney will win Florida, the primary and beyond.

Erik Erickson is on Red State. big Romney critic but can’t find anything bad to say about Romney so he just says Newt and Romney “hurt each other” tonight. lol. Nice try. Newt got sunk.


“see ya later, Losers”

Tags: , , , , ,
0

Obama’s State of the Union Rerun

– January 25, 2012

If you missed Obama’s State of the Union speech last night – dont worry! It was no different than the ones he gave the last 2 years.

Step 1: Copy & Paste.
Step 2: add some current references so the masses dont get suspicious.
Step 3: win re-election for your soaring rhetoric on “hope and change”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags:
0

Hero mom trains 16-year-old daughter to take off her clothes for money

– January 24, 2012

I’ve seen the type a bunch of times in Los Angeles. This one comes from the UK but is just as awesome, disturbing and shameful, awesome. The mom says topless photography is awesome as long as it’s done tastefully, like Playboy .

The 60-year-old mother of 10 and grandmother of nine, insists that being a glamour model is a brilliant career. And it is the path Paige has apparently wanted to follow since she was just 10 years old.

Paige posed for her first photos in skimpy dresses at 14. Now her mother helps her practice for topless shoots at home – and offers to pose alongside her in the hope of reviving her own career.

Paige has earned £2,000 from her modelling, but her mother spends £400 a month on lingerie, fake tan, manicures, heels and lessons to help her daughter to learn how to pose provocatively.

They have also both agreed that the teenager should have a breast augmentation when she turns 18 if her 32C boobs have not grown.

Annette had £18,000 of surgery to help further her career – including a face lift, cheek and chin implants, Botox and a boob job to go from a 36D to 36DD.

Tags: ,
0

Remind me again why Corporations shouldn’t have free speech?

– January 24, 2012

The Stop Online Piracy Act was proposed months ago and I posted about it on my Facebook and blogs. Some response but minimal response. Then on January 18th 2012, dozens of popular websites including Tumblr, Google and Wikipedia posted warnings about the law and suddenly all my Facebook friends and blog readers were informed and incensed over the issue.

So Richard warning you about an internet censorship law = “meh. okay. might take a look at that some time.”
Corporations warning you about an internet censorship law = “holy shit!?? waaa?? WE MUST FIGHT THIS!”

and I’m fine with that. What I’m not fine with is that so many of the people who reacted to the warning from the corporations want to censor corporations from engaging in free speech rights. They want to fight against limiting speech on the internet (as notified and persuaded by the information supplied by a corporation) but they want to limit the speech corporations are allowed to engage in.

I’ve been asking this for the past year and am still looking for a pundit or activist to supply a relevant, logical answer: Why do you want to limit corporate speech?

I strongly suspect that the reason I am unable to get a coherent answer from anyone who advocates censoring corporate speech is that they do not have one. They have an emotion-based hippie-propaganda fed position that corporations are by definition evil and thus must be restrained whenever possible.

And that’s stupid.

There are already laws against defamation. You can’t just broadcast total lies without legal repercussions.  Furthermore: You hypocrites have benefited from corporations informing you about things. So what is the argument? I would say that perhaps it is just an inherent leftist distrust in non-government groups of organized people, except these same people strongly support unions and dont want THEIR speech limited in any way, so that’s clearly not the issue. There is no issue. It’s just illogical anti-capitalism as far as I can see and if i’m being short-sighted on the issue then – for the love of God – educate me. I’m ASKING for the logic behind your position and you’re giving me nothing.

Why should corporations be allowed to sell us cars, food and medicine – but not ideas?

Why do you want to allow a soda company to spend unlimited millions of dollars to convince us to buy cans of chemically flavored sugar water but you want to forbid that same company from spending money to convince us to support free speech rights?

 

Tags: ,
0

Ideology means very little in elections

– January 24, 2012

I’ve been saying this in various forms for over 10 years but John Ziegler has said it so well in this column that i’m angry at not articulating my own version better before he beat me to it. Regardless, he nails it in the following in his list of the Six Dirty Secrets of Presidential Politics in 2012.

Issues/Ideology Mean Very Little

Thanks to “dirty little secret” number one, I find it almost hilarious that so many political commentators still desperately hang on to the delusion that voters (at least the ones who matter) make their decisions the same way that said commentators do.  This reminds of me of the identical fallacy which occurs when a woman interprets the actions of a man based on the erroneous belief that his brain works like hers does.

These ignorant voters don’t delve deeply into the candidates’ record/positions to decide which one is closest to their views.  They have no real ideology.  Instead, they make their choices based mostly on feeling, and often that doesn’t even mean a sense about each of the candidates.

Instead, these people tend to vote based on which decision will make them feel better about themselves.  Ironically, that usually means which side will make these “stupid” people feel as if they have made the “smart” selection.

A glance at recent history proves this point.  In 2008, there was no doubt that the media had convinced the “middle third” that Obama was the “wise” choice.  In 2004, despite the media’s best efforts, the middle third felt like Bush 43 would keep us safer in a post-9/11 world.  In 2000, there was no real sense as to which candidate was the “wise” option, and it basically ended in a tie.  In 1996, thanks to the economy being good, they deemed Bill Clinton worthy of a second term.  In 1992, thanks to a misperception of the economy, they simply felt like three straight Republican terms was enough.

Now, if one candidate is perceived as being ideologically outside the mainstream (which, thanks to a media-created matrix, can really happen only to Republicans), then that perception will very likely impact the way that the “middle third” decides which candidate is the “wise” pick.  But this usually won’t be because of the candidate’s actual views, but instead because of the narrative that his or her ideology creates (for instance, Rick Santorum would get crushed not because most people disagree with him about gay rights, but rather because his misunderstood views on the issue would create the impression that he was outside the mainstream and therefore not the “wise” alternative).

The bottom line as this relates to 2012 is that the notion that Mitt Romney would be at a disadvantage against President Obama because he is supposedly a “right-leaning moderate” going up against a “left-leaning moderate” is just silly.  As long as there is no conservative third-party candidate, Obama himself will single-handily produce a near-100% conservative voter turnout for Romney, regardless of how his ideology is perceived.

This is also why Newt Gingrich is so unelectable, especially against Obama.  All these voters would ever really know about him is that he is a fat, old, angry white male, with two ex-wives, who resigned as speaker of the House because he got Clinton impeached while he himself was having an affair.  Game, set, match.

Tags: ,
0

Gay teen commits suicide one month after posting “it gets better” video

– January 23, 2012

Before getting into the details of this story, i’ve got to announce to all those struggling: It gets better when you MAKE it get better. if youre in a toxic environment – GET OUT. if you absolutely cant, then use perspective and see the bigger picture and prepare for when you CAN.

If soldiers in Nazi prison camps, murderers in Alcatraz and Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption can spend years behind bars of iron in environments of hate, abuse and despair and keep it together enough to plot their eventual escape one day then YOU can too while waiting things out behind your bars of suburbia and judgementalism.

One month after posting a video testifying how much better life gets for gay people as they grow up, 19-year-old Eric James Borges – known as EricJames among his friends – took his own life for unknown reasons.

“It gets better” is a campaign designed to reassure gay youths who are struggling with acceptance that it won’t always be that way and to inspire them to soldier on.

Poignantly, given the circumstances of his death, Borges ends his video with a message of hope and encouragement, saying: ‘You have an entire life fit to burst with opportunities ahead of you. Don’t ever give up, and don’t ever for one second think that you’re not a valuable and beautiful contribution to this world.’


The caption for the video:

“It Gets Better Campaign” by EricJames Borges from Visalia, CA. My story is always hard to tell, even in a simplistic condensed form, but, “Many LGBT youth can’t picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can’t imagine a future for themselves. So let’s show them what our lives are like, let’s show them what the future may hold in store for them.” -ItGetsBetter.org

AGAIN: If you’re in an environment that is killing you – get OUT! If you have no possible way to get out or even if you’re just too broken to do what it takes to get out immediately then at MINIMUM stay internally strong and weather the storm by plotting your escape.

“Well, that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We’re going to devote our energies to sports and gardening, all the cultural pursuits as far as they’re concerned. In fact, we’re going to put the goons to sleep. Meanwhile, we dig.” – the Great Escape (movie)

Another video he made:

Tags: ,
0

Why Rick Santorum isn’t a viable choice

– January 22, 2012

Previously I gave pause to a claim by former Senator Rick Santorum that the criticism that he was one of the most corrupt members of congress the year before losing his re-election in the senate could have been trumped up. He said it was a smear job by a left wing group that just does this kind of thing to get rid of republicans they dont like. Sounds plausible. But the organization, CREW, that made the claim and Santorum said was making phony charges, appears to have more of a basis for their charge than political ideology:

During the Republican presidential debate Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul cited CREW’s research as he focused the spotlight on former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, whose ethical lapses landed him in our 2006 Most Corrupt Members of Congress report. We also filed an ethics complaint against the senator.

Instead of addressing the charges, Mr. Santorum responded with the tried and un-true GOP talking point that CREW only targets Republicans. Fortunately, many fact-checking reporters caught onto Mr. Santorum’s trick.

  • The New York Times pointed out that our 2011 Most Corrupt list is bipartisan, with four liberal House Democrats on the list of 14 lawmakers. Three more Democrats merited dishonorable mentions.
  • The Washington Post noted we’ve named plenty of Democrats as corrupt.
  • ABC News explained that CREW “focuses its criticism on both parties.”

Mr. Santorum should take a lesson from CREW and just stick with the facts. To us it doesn’t matter if politicians are Republicans or Democrats, only that they’ve broken the rules.

Now that he’s back in the game, maybe Mr. Santorum finally will be forced to explain his unethical conduct.

Read CREW’s 2006 Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report

Other than the ethics stuff, I only have 1 other problem with Santorum and that is the gay stuff. He’s an okay candidate running on blue collar middle class principals and blah blah blah that is just fine – except for his handling of the social conservative nonsense. To some extent, abortion, but more so the gay thing. If he were the nominee, the headlines and media coverage would be about nothing but buttsecks and his opinion about it. What happened was that Santorum was explaining why he doesn’t think the constitution protects any and all sexual activity and that was why he opposed a Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws. Santorum claimed that the ruling opens a legal loophole that says you can do whatever you want to whatever you want with your genitals since it would be protected under the equal protection clause. The argument is a constitutional and legal one and has merit and should be debated – however, Santorum allowed himself to be a target for the issue after gay activists took his words to mean that there was some equivocation going on between being gay and raping squirrels. Santorum could have shined in response, but he didn’t. He is essentially correct on the questions raised in the argument, but handled the attacks in response to it so poorly that he should be disqualified as a candidate for that reason alone. In one of the debates he was asked what he would do if his son told him he was gay and Santorum responded that he would love him just as much as he did the second before he told him and would try to be the best father to him that he could. -A good answer, but he should have been saying that for the past 6 years when talking about the subject to crush the “you disagree with me, therefore you hate me” arguments leveled against him. Since he didn’t, he built up too much negativity that he cant fight against by just starting to now.

Santorum called the classification of his words a “jihad” by gay activists but… thats lame. and it’s a defensive argument coming way too late.

Gay activists also Google-bombed his name by linking to a website that proclaims that the word Santorum is henceforth slang for “The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.” Santorum himself participated in the innuendo making by making the following unintentional acronym on his website:

As far as the primary contests go:

Rick Santorum isn’t going anywhere. Despite a third place finish, he’s on his way to the Sunshine State. Newt is still speaking very kindly of Rick in public, knowing that he needs Santorum’s supporters if he does manage to turn it into a two person race with Romney, but he’s got to be annoyed.

For his part, Santorum is correct to note that he has now won exactly as many primary contests as Mitt and Newt. And as per number 4 above, he has no reason to leave. Newt may have all the momentum at the moment, but if he does trip and fall, number 2 above should tell us that there is an excellent chance that Newt’s backers will actually stampede to Rick, rather than “falling in line” behind Romney. If he can just put in another strong pair of performances at the Florida debates, he will remain well positioned to lurk in the background and wait for his opportunity.

Tags: , , ,
0

Republicans vote for Obama in South Carolina Primary

– January 22, 2012

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary last night, despite competitor Mitt Romney having been ahead in the polls for the past few weeks up until Texas Governor Rick Perry dropped out of the race and Gingrich’s numbers in the state soared. Romney won the same percentage of the vote (27%) that polls showed him having two weeks ago when he led 27/24 over Rick Santorum.

The Republican party could have wrapped up their nomination process and voted for their best candidate in the field, Mitt Romney, but decided to be stupid about it and give Gingrich a reason to keep campaigning hard and dragging this thing out longer than it needs to be.

Hugh Hewitt on the results:

“We’re ready to take out some of the balloons we’ve been storing,” is how Democratic strategist Donna Brazile greeted the idea that Newt would win by a significant margin in South Carolina, an hour before the polls closed and Newt was indeed declared the winner. She was echoing James Carville, who said much the same thing. So what is it that makes these two lefties happy about Newt’s win?

They think they know that tonight’s result means one of two things — Newt as the GOP nominee, which they pray for, or a battered and bloodied Mitt Romney as the president’s opponent, which they will settle for.

Newt is good at delivering speeches and one liners, but is otherwise has a hit and miss record and is a bit of an embarrassment. Don’t we already have a president with that exact resume?

I dont even wanna think about having to choose between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama until i absolutely must. On the issues, he is supportable but just has sOooOo much BAGGAGE, is sooOOOo douchey in so many ways and theres no reason for it.

Theres an alternative named Romney and he’s squeaky freaky clean, just as good a public speaker and debater, has just as good small government/tax/lower regulation plans and ideas and NONE of the Newt-Negatives. Newt would be a great cabinet appointment in the Romney administration but the dudes not electable and his wife – whom im sure is very nice and i wish them lots of happiness (big-ups to my boy for marrying a blonde thats the same age as his daughter) – is just too awkward and coo-coo-bananas looking to be our first lady, especially compared with the picturesque perfection that is Obama’s family.

People dont vote on ideas, they vote on style, appearance, deliverability, reliability and then ask themselves “does this person scare the shit out of me or not?” and if the answer is “less than the other guy” then they vote for them.

Romney is the only one who can win that fight against Obama.

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said. “We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.”

Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

“Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense. It is just like what you get from liberals most of the time and the cheers and yahoos, and that is what we kept getting from this audience.”

Tags: , , ,
0

Wisteria Lane is all Blanche

– January 22, 2012

If Desperate Housewives gets renewed many more seasons, its gonna start to look like a remake of the Golden Girls where everyone is Blanche.

Tags: ,
1

“Real Life” Titanic

– January 20, 2012

Imagine that…

Tags:
0

Persian Permanent ink Causes Permanently Petrified Penis

– January 19, 2012

“You’d think somebody repeatedly sticking a needle in your penis would be a little off-putting” starts this report about an Iranian guy who got a tattoo on his wiener for his girlfriend and it resulted in a permanent erection. Ya ya, whatever – but Iranian? in Iran? Not Iranian-American? That’s what it says. What the H, dude? I thought you couldn’t even say the word “penis” there. or get tattoos. or have “girlfriends” that you weren’t a day away from marrying. or DEFINITELY not get tattoos on your penis “for” your girlfriend.

The 21-year-old wanted a Persian script reading borow be salaamat (good luck on your journeys), and the first initial of his girlfriend’s last name (“M”) permanently inked on his dong for some reason and then he couldnt not have a boner. nice.

The penis is essentially a blood sock and when we get aroused, we’re redirecting blood into the muscles to harden them up and make sex possible. The theory that the doctors treating this guy gave was:

The tattooist punctured too-deep holes that damaged vessels in the penis, resulting in fistulas, and then a pseudoaneurysm, a pooling of blood outside a vessel wall. They recommended he see a specialist to have the blood removed, but he rejected that idea and saw another doctor to have a shunt procedure performed. It didn’t work.

Since the fellow is still able to have sex, and achieve a more-or-less normal erection, he’s rejected any more treatments, even the one his urologists recommended in the first place.

In one of those statements you’d think nobody would actually have to make, the Iranian doctors wrote “based on our unique case, we discourage penile tattooing.”

Since there’s no picture of the guys dick to share with you, here’s a girl with a Dali-long-legs Elephant on her back:

Tags:

Bad Behavior has blocked 346 access attempts in the last 7 days.