The Republican Menace, Part I
I have heard enough, as usual, from the far right. I don't really try to listen to them, because it's much like listening to concupiscent cats yowling in the night, waiting for feral release. Two, in particular, won't shut their damned mouths until they've been heard by everyone in the American Neighborhood, so I see it as my civic duty to call undeserved attention to the overstimulated. Forget the mild retardation of Bobby Jindal and the old-school dipshittery of Mike Hucakabee or the old-skool blather of RNC chairman Michael Steele (and I'm only going to mention Sarah Palin, the Republican SBD that simply won't dissipate, this one time because she'd really, really like to be remembered). No, today will be about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, the twin terrors of political hubris.Rush Limbaugh, who is looking more like the Grimace of the GOP than ever before (yeah, I made a fat joke about fatty, and he'd appreciate it if he didn't have so much shit between his ears), still wants the president to fail. Big surprise, that. Ever since he's been broadcasting his obloquial discharge, he's found the fan base to be more likely to cheer him on if he's anything but constructive. He's merely a fortified compound away from a Waco tragedy, but that's a sad given about this Hitleresque personality. The oversized Limbaugh (I just can't keep myself from pointing out his puffy stature, a sure sign of the hot air with which he's self-inflated) has continued to keep himself in the fattest limelight he can, from wacky ideas like the 54/46 proposal (the unspoken White House response: 'sit down and shut up, Rush') to the recent CPAC demagogy where he reiterated his fail remarks with the follow-up one-two punch of saying President Obama's mission is 'to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation.' Rush, you porky cockpunch, there was a man who, not so long ago, decided individual liberties were not as important as the security of this country. You remember him, right? After all, you voted for him and advocated his policies until it because an unfashionable grease stain on your stripeless ties. The Patriot Act has done more to undermine our citizen's liberties than Obama's bailout plan (which is also going to bring about security for this country). But waitthere's more! The capitalism you espouse with your thick cronyistic gravy breath has lead us to an economic crisis thanks in part to the Republican maxim: deregulation. Oh, should I not mention that because jobs are at stake, big fellah? I'll concede that it's not all deregulation that has brought our economy to its knees, but I won't say that capitalism hasn't pooched us due to blind greed with far too little government monitoring. That's not going to be as high on your fathead agenda as shooting down any effort the current administration makes just because they all don't worship elephants. But what of tax cuts? I mean, they've done so well for us during the Bush regime, right? No? Well, why won't you mention that? Because you're Rush Limbaugh, and that's the way you dinner roll. No, it's the GOP pickup line as usual: we're right and the Democrats are wrong and ne'er the twain shall meet because our media kings prohibit such common sense. Rush, it'll be a dark day for the Republicans when you finally succumb to that massive coronary, but I will make a bowl of banana pudding and set it outside for the wolves to mourn your grotesque passing.
So let us turn to Ann Coulter, who is incapable of breeding because, while she is the biggest fucking cunt in the Republican clubhouse, she has no vagina, just two assholes. I'll concentrate on the polemical one for this discourse. At CPAC this week, she had her usual unpleasant comedic stylings on display for the faithful and heartless. One point she brought up was how the media comparisons of Obama to Lincoln and Reagan were interesting because 'apparently they can't think of a Democratic president worthy of being compared to.' First off, you've made it easy to pull out that old grammar joke: 'never end a sentence in a preposition, bitch.' Secondly, the Reagan comparison comes from the fact that, like Reagan, Obama can make a compelling speech, much unlike your previous embarrassment, George 'rubbing two words together and watching them go up in Quayles' Bush. Third, the Lincoln comparison comes from several quarters, one of them being the idea that, like Lincoln, Obama has the potential to be a truly great and honorable president (again, unlike your not-exactly-elected village idiot, Bush). And fourth, a Democratic president you could compare Obama to would be FDR, who also followed a failed Republican president with a completely fucked economy, then battled Republican opposition to bring the country back from the precipice of demoralization and ruin. That wouldn't have fit in with your little joke, so I can see why you left it out of the act. Coulter, in her infinitesimal wisdom, played up the whore cheerleader part with 'If (Obama) thinks people wanted change in 2009, wait until 2012.' I agree. If things continue as they are, people in 2012 are going to want political pundits and analysts who are not bleak forecasters of hate like you and Limbaugh. It might be time to see if you remember how to run the fry machine at McDonald's honey, and let's not pretend that was a sexist remark because you give me all the sexual thrill of jaundice.
It's a frightening world in which the tendentious live, but it endears them to their hardcore audience while giving them a slight compensatory thrill. In ten years' time, it won't be them who are remembered for their pitiless diatribes and foolish confederations. The ones we will remember will be the people who made a difference, even if it was a terrible one. But we will celebrate those who rejected the idea of callous peroration in favor of making this delicate world better somehow, and we will build barbecue restaurants over the graves of those who tried to elevate negativity into a business plan. Limbaugh and Coulter, you have been served.
REACTIONSAscending | Descending
Tuesday, 03 March 2009
Why are you just spewing your liberal talking points as an instrument for your beloved Huffington Post and/or Olberman-Maddow extravaganza on MSNBC. If anyone is keeping count, I technically called you a tool.
Would you like me to make a list of anyone associated with politics that has no brains and no real grasp on what our country was founded on and supposed to be? I hope not because the list would include just about 535 congressmen, 50 or so radio/news hosts, and 1 command-in-chief. It might also include ex-presidents, cabinet members, supreme court judges, and local government officials.
Congratulations, you just wrote an article about a couple of nut job entertainers. Looks like the side show has worked on you while they take your country away from you. But at least we are in an era of hope and change now! Drink your Cool-Aid and have a nice day.
Would you like me to make a list of anyone associated with politics that has no brains and no real grasp on what our country was founded on and supposed to be? I hope not because the list would include just about 535 congressmen, 50 or so radio/news hosts, and 1 command-in-chief. It might also include ex-presidents, cabinet members, supreme court judges, and local government officials.
Congratulations, you just wrote an article about a couple of nut job entertainers. Looks like the side show has worked on you while they take your country away from you. But at least we are in an era of hope and change now! Drink your Cool-Aid and have a nice day.
Tuesday, 03 March 2009
Sorry, I didn't know it wasn't allowed here. 'Liberal talking points?' Really? So you sum up this entire essay as liberal talking points? Do you pay attention, or do you really see Limbaugh and Coulter as 'nut job entertainers?' Fabulous place, your world, where the Kool Aid Man doesn't come through your walls for commercial purposes, but rather to enforce the Patriot Act. If you'd like to make your list, feel free, but what would be your point? What are you trying to prove with it? And as for my country being taken away, The Republican good ol' boys did plenty of that over the past eight years, so now I'd like to see what the other side can do with my country. And yours. Enjoy your day, and I'll spew as I see fit. But in the spirit of free speech, please, do give your side. Not just the Grand Old Party Line, but your personal feelings on these strange days.
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
you know, if only rush and ann were nut job entertainers....how many republican pols have been falling in line with a version of hoping the president fails talk? that is the scary part, i keep giving these folks the benifit of the doubt, but more and more are showing themselves to be true wack jobs....they really show no interest in the country only their own pocketbooks and power brokerage. i certainly hope there are enough folks to rise above the garbage and work to get things moving in a positive direction with a positive tone. you need to take a few steps in order to get anywhere.
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
I am in no way indicating your speech is not allowed, I am simply pointing out that the left's assault against the right is tired, just as the opposite is true. And yes they are the liberal talking points, President Obama mentions Limbaugh once and now their is a global assault on him by you and your constituents. The only difference between you and the MSM is that you phrased your article in a manner reminiscent of, what do you know, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; spewing hateful language and personal attacks.
I am not going to make my list which is the point. There is no reason to bitch about every single person associated with politics on every end of the spectrum. I would give you the same message if you were talking about Michael Moore. These, I will say again, "side shows" are only distracting from the real problems.
Feel free to spew all you want, if you're intention is just to vent so be it. But last time I checked, this is the reaction section, and that's how I reacted - heard it all before.
I am not going to make my list which is the point. There is no reason to bitch about every single person associated with politics on every end of the spectrum. I would give you the same message if you were talking about Michael Moore. These, I will say again, "side shows" are only distracting from the real problems.
Feel free to spew all you want, if you're intention is just to vent so be it. But last time I checked, this is the reaction section, and that's how I reacted - heard it all before.
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
Nicely played. So you got the point of it, and all is well. Except I don't see the 'side shows' as mere distractions. Limbaugh, in particular, is informing the party's less-thoughtful members, and the sheer hate Coulter uses is not confined to her books. Yesterday afternoon, CNN ran an article speculating that Limbaugh is 'running the GOP,' and Michael Steele himself briefly admonished Rush's invective before recanting and bending knee. Obviously Limbaugh and Coulter aren't the only problem, but they're doing a dandy job of making themselves part of the GOP solution. It must be difficult for some Republicans to get anything done with all the ill will they are supposed to have towards Democrats... seems to me that much of the acrimony is given voice through the side shows, making them part of said problem. It's not my sole intent to vent, but what else is an Instigate page for these days?
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
Limbaugh is playing a role in the self-destruction of the GOP which is important to note, I will agree with you there. Without polarization in government bad things happen (history 101).
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
That's what worries me. The GOP doesn't need to go away, just the bearers of ill will who simply won't shut their traps. But is Limbaugh's blather polarizing or just whore talk? People who will say anything for money have had way too much press over the past twenty years.
Sunday, 08 March 2009
Rush is a prisoner of his own ideological narcissism. Obama is trying to move away from the ideological postering to look at solutions from a more realistic perspective. The dogma Rush spews is so last century ... boring, divisive, and just plain wrong. There are a few intelligent Republicans who actually have something meaningful to say, but for them, it's practically political suicide to say it because the majority of GOP voters are just too stupid and pigheaded to listen to anyone other than their stupid and pigheaded leader - Rush.
Sunday, 08 March 2009
Ah, where to begin?
What a kind and thoughtful missive, Mister High Voltage! So perhaps we'll start here:
"If anyone is keeping count, I technically called you a tool."
What an audacious thing to write; I suppose you must be very confident of your views. But do I begin with trying to teach you how to construct a cogent argument -- that would be English 101, son -- or do I dive directly in to attempting to insult you? For me, this is a difficult choice to make.
(By the way, your paper got a charitably-granted C minus.)
I wish you had taken the time to more fully develop (or at least _present_) some of your arguments. I remain unclear about how you "technically" called anyone anything other than to refer to Mr. Hagen as a "tool." Your conclusion that Mr. Hagen is a "tool" is bluntly stated yet sadly unsupported. What sort of "tool" is Mr. Hagen in your view? Who is using this tool and toward what end?
So lets take a look at this:
"The only difference between you and the MSM is that you phrased your article in a manner reminiscent of, what do you know, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; spewing hateful language and personal attacks."
If you've been paying attention -- which is, of course, the single prerequisite for gaining a thorough education -- perhaps you might have been given pause after typing "The only difference between you and ..." is a construction that cannot be completed successfully according to any known logic. Bluntly and colloquially put: that bucket's got a hole in it and your legs are getting wet.
You seem to wish to convince or at least persuade, an admirable pursuit. Nonetheless, proving a negative is a fool's errand and in a culture of more rigorous schooling, this would be beyond a postulate for any educated person. I must wonder whatever happened to what was once called "secondary school."
And then this:
"I am not going to make my list which is the point." Annoying though it may be, punctuation remains critical to _establishing_ one's point.
Finally this:
"Without polarization in government bad things happen (history 101)."
I'll not be so rude as to repeat my admonition against attempting to prove a negative. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions here, but not in the least do I question your conviction. Further, I'm compelled to take exception to your _history 101_ remark with its implied necessity for "polarization."
I would contend that, by the very definition of the word, "polarization," one would expect heated disagreement if not outright conflict. But perhaps we studied a differing History 101; what I was taught and fervently believe is that any fair and decent manner of governance is simply bound to have and ought to welcome opposition. In my country, we far too seldom pay much attention to the beautiful notion of "the loyal opposition." It remains difficult for me to imagine a patriot seeking "polarization." Instead, a strong case could be argued for the passion and concern of individuals. And within this great notion iyou'll perhaps discover why your paper doesn't utterly fail.
Last:
"...what our country was founded on and supposed to be..."
History 101 again, I suppose, but it is my belief that you'll find that this country was founded on three principles, listed in chronological order as well as in the order of their observed importance. They are--
1. Freedom to worship as any [man] sees fit.
2. Freedom from tyranny and debt.
3. Commerce.
I genuinely admire and appreciate the mighty heart with which you've presented your views.
GN Williams
What a kind and thoughtful missive, Mister High Voltage! So perhaps we'll start here:
"If anyone is keeping count, I technically called you a tool."
What an audacious thing to write; I suppose you must be very confident of your views. But do I begin with trying to teach you how to construct a cogent argument -- that would be English 101, son -- or do I dive directly in to attempting to insult you? For me, this is a difficult choice to make.
(By the way, your paper got a charitably-granted C minus.)
I wish you had taken the time to more fully develop (or at least _present_) some of your arguments. I remain unclear about how you "technically" called anyone anything other than to refer to Mr. Hagen as a "tool." Your conclusion that Mr. Hagen is a "tool" is bluntly stated yet sadly unsupported. What sort of "tool" is Mr. Hagen in your view? Who is using this tool and toward what end?
So lets take a look at this:
"The only difference between you and the MSM is that you phrased your article in a manner reminiscent of, what do you know, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; spewing hateful language and personal attacks."
If you've been paying attention -- which is, of course, the single prerequisite for gaining a thorough education -- perhaps you might have been given pause after typing "The only difference between you and ..." is a construction that cannot be completed successfully according to any known logic. Bluntly and colloquially put: that bucket's got a hole in it and your legs are getting wet.
You seem to wish to convince or at least persuade, an admirable pursuit. Nonetheless, proving a negative is a fool's errand and in a culture of more rigorous schooling, this would be beyond a postulate for any educated person. I must wonder whatever happened to what was once called "secondary school."
And then this:
"I am not going to make my list which is the point." Annoying though it may be, punctuation remains critical to _establishing_ one's point.
Finally this:
"Without polarization in government bad things happen (history 101)."
I'll not be so rude as to repeat my admonition against attempting to prove a negative. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions here, but not in the least do I question your conviction. Further, I'm compelled to take exception to your _history 101_ remark with its implied necessity for "polarization."
I would contend that, by the very definition of the word, "polarization," one would expect heated disagreement if not outright conflict. But perhaps we studied a differing History 101; what I was taught and fervently believe is that any fair and decent manner of governance is simply bound to have and ought to welcome opposition. In my country, we far too seldom pay much attention to the beautiful notion of "the loyal opposition." It remains difficult for me to imagine a patriot seeking "polarization." Instead, a strong case could be argued for the passion and concern of individuals. And within this great notion iyou'll perhaps discover why your paper doesn't utterly fail.
Last:
"...what our country was founded on and supposed to be..."
History 101 again, I suppose, but it is my belief that you'll find that this country was founded on three principles, listed in chronological order as well as in the order of their observed importance. They are--
1. Freedom to worship as any [man] sees fit.
2. Freedom from tyranny and debt.
3. Commerce.
I genuinely admire and appreciate the mighty heart with which you've presented your views.
GN Williams
Login to leave a reaction. Or Sign Up!
SEND TO A FRIEND
SHARE THIS
COMMUNITY RATING
MORE BY HAGEN
For The Benefit Of Robin Bennett
I'm not excited by Facebook. It seems faddish to me, even though 20 trillion people use it enough times during the day...more
You Had To Be There
Unless your name was Supan, in which case we sang about you with unbridled passion and frivolity. In the picture, you'll...more
Air On Angles
I fell asleep last night dreaming of melodic angles. Not the best way to pass out on a Sunday night, but they would not leave...moreTAG CLOUD
Be the first to tag this content!










Digg.com
Mr. Wong
Delicious
Magnolia
Reddit
Blinklist



