Marco Rubio Is Flopping And Wolf Blitzer Knows It...

UH EAU!

Lynn Braddy Cries For Sarah Palin

Sarah lost her gig today at Fox News. Yes she still has a few sycophants: This quote is from Lynn Braddy 

Lib, Robert Costa, is saying she’s mostly living in her 1.6 million mansion in Scottsdale. That has a good view of all the ILLEGAL ALIENS.

You might remember Lynn from such brilliant pondering as...

Oh by the way all the people in Massachusetts are liberals, just sayin. 

And

Crisis in Libya and Egypt, Obama in Vegas with the 1%, partying.

And

Well to sum up, Palin hit the nail on the head, Obama’s goose is cooked. Thanks Newshounds for not cutting me off. I’ll be back when SCOTUS declares Obamacare unconstitutional 

 On an related note Scott Brown ( Remember him?) has been drinking and tweeting.

1. Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

   Your brilliant Matt

2. 1h Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

   Whatever

3. 1h Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

   Bqhatevwr

4. 1h Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

    whatever michael

5.  

   whatever bud

6.   Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

    whatever.

7. 4h Scott P. Brown ‏@ScottBrownMA

   Heading to see Ayla@AylaBrown perform at her second sold out show. Glad she does not askMom and Dad for money. Finally!!!!

   
   

   This man served in our government. 

I Knew It!

Thanks to Salon.com

Pat Robertson has figured out why marriages fail and it isn't the gays it's you awful looking sea-hags

“You know, it may be your mom isn’t as sweet as you think she is, she may be kind of hard-nosed. And so, you say it’s my father, he’s not paying attention to mom, but you know mom…” he trails off and offers a spiteful little chuckle."

He launches into another story: “A woman came to a preacher I know—it’s so funny. She was awful looking. Her hair was all torn up, she was overweight, and looked terrible…”
So far, this story sounds hilarious Pat, Please continue.
“And she said, ‘Oh, Reverend, what can I do? My husband has started to drink.’”
The hateful punch line is coming. I can feel it. I’m on the edge of my seat.
“And the preacher looked at her and he said, ‘Madam, if I were married to you, I’d start to drink too.’”

Yeah And Then When I Am Unemployed I'll Blame Obama!

Credit http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

Victoria Jackson Is Not Coming Back.

Everything But The Scoreboard Says We Beat Ohio State!

With friends like these...

By now you've heard about Richard Mourdock and his comments about abortion and rape, but for those who've just been awaking from a 24-hour slumber, here's the jist of what he said: at a debate in Indiana, Republican candidate Mourdock was asked his opinions on the issue of abortion, to which he basically said he was staunchly pro-life. If only he had left it at that....

Yeah, you heard that correctly: he said, and I quote: "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case is in the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. I think that even in the horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

What he basically just said was that if a woman is brutally forced upon another man and said result is an unwanted pregnancy, then that's just something God planned for the victim. Our God is a loving, caring sociopath, isn't he?

Of course, any sensible person within the GOP would distance themselves away from such a despicable comment, but this is the the GOP: they welcome back their chauvinistic pigs running for office (see: the party backing Todd Akin despite his comments on "legitimate rape" and not knowing a damn thing about a woman's reproductive system) . Today, members of the Right, from Senate Minority Leader McConnell to former Presidential candidate John McCain have stood behind their candidate to replace Dick Lugar's Senate seat. Enter Mark Noonan and the aslyum known as Blogs for Victory.com praising what Mourdock said last night. 

Worst Visual Ever.

 Rick Patel commented 10 hours ago · Flag
Wow, the image of flag behind Sarah is exciting & evocative; but the ‘Newsweek’ cover photo of the Gorgeous Governor in running togs & flag was hotter than anything "Maxim’ ever displayed. Many patriots saved that issue.

Ok imagine a patriot like say this guy...

taking out his copy of Newsweek and you  know to the cover picture of Sarah P.

This Guy Is Perfect For Missouri

Caption This

"Well Since Nobody's Here I Wonder If I Can Smoke"
"Why Did I put my name on a book geared towards people who can't read?"
"Did the same person who writes Mom's books write this one as well?"

What Do Right Wingers In Boston and Arizona Have In Common? They Want to Secede.

They Sure Do Love America!

Sherrif Joe Compares Himself To Donald Trump

From land O Twitter 

 

@RealSheriffJoe Donald Trump and I, fighting Obama's birth certificate, both celebrate our birthdays today.

I've Always Said If I Moved South I'd Move To North Caroline

But I could rethink that

CBS News) A majority of North Carolina voters on Tuesday approved a controversial amendment that will write a ban on same-sex marriage as well as civil unions for both gay and straight couples into the state Constitution, according to the Associated Press.
With most precincts reporting, the amendment was passing by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin.
The amendment mandates that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized." Opponents of the measure ran ads stressing the impact the language would have on straight North Carolina residents, arguing that the measure would eliminate protections against domestic violence.
Former President Bill Clinton campaigned against the amendment, arguing that it "will hurt families and drive away jobs," and President Obama opposed it in a statement - though the president, who is walking a careful line on same-sex marriage, did not mention the amendment during a recent visit to the state.
Supporters, like 93-year-old Rev. Billy Graham, made a more straightforward appeal: "Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern," he said in a newspaper ad supporting the amendment. "I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected."

Go back to sleep Billy.

What College Made You A Snob?

Edit by ET to add...

President Obama Wants Everybody To Go To College...

What A Snob!

 

Went to college and has 3 degrees! Not one in common sense.

Wingnut "Art"

Found this tonight and had to post it. More commentary later, perchance, but for now browse the gallery and come to your own conclusions...

Edit by Jonathan: Disagree with this man's politics, but he is a hell of a painter.

Another edit by Jonathan: There are a few things i'd like to review in his paintings:

First - in "The Forgotten Man", the are many bills on the floor, one of them being the Social Security Act of 1935, in which the artists says that SS was "a pyramid scheme from the start" taking away money from the younger, working generation to the older generation. OMG! Why are we giving money to seniors who are way past their prime to work? We shouldn't be giving them a dime...we should be telling these lazy, old bastards to keep working, or be prepared to send them off on a block of ice to starve and die! From the same painting, the man talks about Reagan as if he were the 2nd coming of Christ himself. Nevermind the man's economic policies set in motion 30 years of handing out tax breaks to the very rich helped create a widening gap between rich and poor, ignored the AIDS epidemic, and aided "freedom fighters" like the Contras and the mujaheddin that eventually came back to bite us in the ass. Nope, the man was a saint!

Now, onto "One Nation Under God". The symbol is showing the Messiah holding the U.S. Constitution; the symbolism highlighted on the page states the following, "Inspired of God, and created by God-fearing, patriotic Americans." I don't know how many times I have to spell this out, but i'll say it again: These men may have been "God-fearing" patriots, but they also had the sense to realize that their religious beliefs should not be shoved down the throats of others, fearing that they would trade one oppressive state religion for another. It's the reason why the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment were written.

Oh, and I found this as well: make of this what you will.

We're Going To Hell Hurray... Hurray We're Going To Hell Today... Today

If you have read this blog long enough you know it's normally the sweet, lovable Count who pisses people off. Well one thread has proven the definite excepion to the rule...


On Thursday August 7th, 2008 Jonathan Holmes wrote a blog entry about Lee Stoneking

We are still getting hate posts. The last two left today...or I saw them today...

Anonymous said...

    wow,,,hell already has your names,,,sad
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard Lee Stoneking preach many times. He is not a televangelist. He is a very humble and spiritual man of God. He has given much of his life to the ministry, not for the intent of becoming famous or wealthy, but because of his true desire to spread the gospel and reach others. I would suggest that the next time that you choose to mock and blaspheme a speaker of any sort, you would do better to get your facts straight. That is just shoddy journalism, irresponsible blogging, and slanderous. But chalk one up for freedom of speech. I agree with Mark, contact Mr. Stoneking and allow him the opportunity to respond to your accusations and judgements. I am sure that you won't do that, you would much rather take a cowards way out and publically trash someone who is not given an opportunity to share their side of the story. If in fact, you do, I pray that you can become a little more open minded and recognize that not only is Mr. Stoneking a phenomenal person, but one of the most spiritual men I have had the privilege of hearing speak. I regards to the comments about the congregation, my own pastor was there, and although I cannot speak on behalf of all of those attending, I do know several, and they do not deserve this kind of attack either.

Pilling The Boehner

OK, this piece over at The Smirking Chimp - a site almost as good for rant-a-thons as BAD - all but completely encapsulates my feelings about the GOP latching with leech-like desperation onto the ready availability of contraception as the issue that will topple Colossus Obama, presumably installing President Mormon, Moonbase or possibly even Man-on-Dog instead.

You've probably been following the issue already - the ginned-up outrage on the farthest fringes of the right that legislation establishing ready access to health care (something they already don't much like) would include, horror of all horrors, a requirement that a common, widely-used and publicly-approved-of medication be a mandatory part of any employer's health care package. Specifically, The Pill. And House Cryer-in-Chief Boehner's threat, this week, that Congress will legislatively overturn any such mandate in the name of "religious freedom."

News flash, John of Orange. Here are a few salient points.

First, this isn't a free speech issue. Yes, we know that your camp has done everything in its power to cast it as such, when it came to Bush-era policies allowing, say, pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill on grounds that doing so would violate their personal religious convictions. (Here's where I could elaborate on the theme of, "You think pork is unclean, don't work at Der Wienerschnitzel," but that would be a distraction...and I think everyone here gets the point, anyway.) And, yes, we expect you to predictably trot out the "corporations are people" mantra, in this case, to insist that it is a blow to the very foundations of the Union to insist that contraceptive coverage be part of any organization's health plan, because all those incorporate "people" should be allowed the freedom to choose for all their myriads of employees.

But it's not really a speech issue at all, free or not. Nobody but Congress, lobbyists and pundits comb through the minutiae of anybody's health care plan to argue free speech protections. The Average American (Remember us? We employ you.) is much more grateful for having a job with benefits, hoping for a reasonable per-paycheck contribution, and having the ability to look askance at that scary co-pay number...because I can promise you it is better than the cost of sourcing coverage for even a small family on your own. Been there.

It's an insurance policy. Not a manifesto.

And I think the Average American also instinctively understands where the boundary between a corporation's "personhood" rights and his or her own individual rights lies. It's pretty clear that, if only for reasons of the doctor/patient confidentiality tradition, the pharmacy counter does not and should not get vetted by the boardroom first. One's medical condition should only become an employer's issue when it affects one's personal job performance; not in advance, and certainly not in a broad, company-wide sense.

Second, it's not a religious freedom issue because this is NOT - repeat, NOT - a policy that dictates any given religion's articles of faith, or mandates a state religion. Again, it's an insurance policy. Not a scripture. No employer short of holy orders is, I hope, going to say that by agreeing to employment with us you agree to the following rules of behavior, ascribe to the following beliefs, etc. That is, I think, still pretty much illegal.

Furthermore, nothing in this legislation compels any individual employee to hop right on out there and get on the Pill, now, this instant, should doing so violate that employee's individual beliefs. You are offering an option: one which is, as I noted above, widely available for generations, popular with the public, and effective, and safe. It preserves, rather than overturns, the conscience objection. And if you're that scared that your faithful are going to stray from your position (as, I might point out, plenty of Catholic women already do), then your issues are more in your own communications department and less in your employee benefits division.

It's an insurance policy. Not a sermon from the pulpit. Offering is not requiring or even endorsing, any more than having a vegetarian dish or two on the menu forces or urges everyone working OR eating in the restaurant to become vegan.

I could make the counter-argument, in fact, that efforts to oppose contraceptive coverage being a universal element of the health care legislation constitute a denial of equal protection under the law to women, whose health condition is the one most greatly affected by pregnancies, be they planned, accidental and/or unwanted. Yes, we know that Justice "Bite Me" Scalia apparently has no problem with discrimination against women.(Appalling, in and of itself.) And that nobody has reintroduced the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, for those of you too young to remember how haltingly it limped its way to shameful failure), or legislation like it, in the past couple of decades is a perplexing tragedy.

But one thing you need to remember before you tread down this path, Boehner. Your constituency and those of all your GOP cronies isn't composed of Catholic bishops, Fox News pundits and right-wing ideologues alone. They also include a great many women. At least some of those women have been listening, especially in light of the recent (and ongoing) SGK/PP travesty. And when they step into the voting booth, in the primaries or the general election later this year, let's just consider. Will they march happily in lockstep with you and the other white men of privilege who are trying so hard to dictate to them what they are and are not "entitled" to when it comes to their health, simultaneously talking out of the other side of your mouths about how government needs to "stay out of" individuals' decision-making about their lives? Or will they turn to another candidate who seems to exhibit something like care or empathy for the issues that really matter to them, and genuine individual empowerment?

Stay tuned. Every day it looks more and more to me like the right-wingers have chosen the wrong horse to bet on in this race, by fixating on this issue. It's the modern-day burka of the Western world, and I believe waving it in the wind as Boehner is doing will prove to be the act of sheer foolishness that finally brings down their house of cards decisively.

One of my other favorite blogs, Library Grape, goes on to demonstrate how Boehner is making it both dumb and dumber.

The State Of Georgia Rules In Favor Of Obama Against The Sam Sewell's Of the World

Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia. Now somebody is going to have to read the ballot to Blackflon so he doesn't vote for Obama by mistake. Reading the ruling here 

Credit our good friend Domenica Iacovone* for bringing this to our attention.

*Our "friend" Sam Sewell said he wouldn't trust anyone who called themselves "Domenica Iacovone" As Domenicapointed out she calls herself that because that is her name.

Oh, Poor, Persecuted Herman Cain....

So, in my travels this evening through the Series of Tubes, I happened upon this from our old friend Jeremiah...

Mr. Cain had a lot of promise, and was leading in the polls early on in his campaign, but as always, Democrats in their greed, desire for power and deceitful ways found someone they could pay to tell lies about him, and destroy his candidacy for the Presidency....It's the Liberal Democrat way, folks, they don't know any other way to win than to belittle, lie, cheat, and steal from and to the American people to get their way...

Really, Jer? REALLY? After a blogging hiatus on your part of almost six months, you choose to throw your hat in the ring for Mr. Pizza? Cheering him on in his quixotic quest to transcend the many allegations surfacing against him? Where is your evidence that these are ginned-up "Liberal" plots? Why should not these individuals choose to come forward now, at a meaningful time, to share their evidence? Had I been a victim of the same behavior, I would certainly choose NOW to step up and say so in a broad public forum, absent other relief. And as for greed, desire for power, and deceit...I'm pretty sure that pursuit of same is reasonably nonpartisan. Plenty of evidence for that is available on both sides of the aisle. Convince me I'm wrong. I'm waiting.

And as for the statement that Cain was leading "early on" in the campaign...oh, please. Nobody was buzzing about him until a handful of weeks ago, and now he's old news. Deservedly so. The guy hasn't a clue, any more than most of the GOP field have. You're all scrambling so as to avoid having to anoint a reasonable, vaguely rational individual like Romney, preferring instead to christen some wacko wingnut-panderer like the likes of Bachmann or Perry to carry your standard.

Good luck with that.