Archive for the 'Politics' Category

I Love Garrison Keillor

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

We’re sticking the next generation with debt and an unjust war. Solution: We must cut healthcare for people with “Bush-Cheney” bumper stickers.

YES! What a phenomenal idea! The rest of the very great article can be found here.

Joe Fucking Lieberman

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Is SUCH an asshole.

So now that the Connecticut Democrats sent him packing, quite rightfully I might add, he’s dedicated to assuring that a Republican gets elected in his place.

His love for the Republicans is what kept him from getting the nomination in the first place, and now this.

“I’m going forward. I’m going forward because I’m fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done.”

What an asshole. Earth to Joe, you’re being partisan right this second…only you’re finally showing your true colors…those of a Republican.

Only 66 of Our Senators Are Total Douche Bags

Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Flag Desecration Amendment Fails by ONE vote.

That’s right, ONE vote. 66 of our senators are pandering douchebag assholes, and the other 34 are, well…they are too. But just not this particular time.

What the fuck is up with Diane Feinstein? She cosponsored this fucking piece of shit. Californians - do not vote for her in November. Clearly this was a ploy to show how “patriotic” she is before the election this November, do not allow it to work. I don’t care who you vote for…vote for anyone else. As this issue shows, the democrats are spineless little twerps who aren’t useful in any way. We might as well vote for all republicans. At least they have to balls to really bring on the apocalypse without pretending that they’re not.

On the Senate floor, the 73-year-old Feinstein recalled how as a young girl she was inspired when she picked up the Feb. 24, 1945, edition of The Chronicle and saw photographer Joe Rosenthal’s famous picture of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima.

With a blow-up of the Rosenthal photo next to her, she described it as a wartime “bolt of electricity” that left her with an abiding feeling that the flag was more than symbolic piece of cloth.

Awww….gee..how heartwarming. I always get a nice warm feeling when I think of winning a war by nuking two cities full of innocent people! But not as warm of a feeling as those people probably felt, right before they were vaporized! HAHA! Seriously though, it’s such a heartwarming image it makes me think we ought to trample on some more of the freedoms that flag is supposed to represent. It makes sense, right?

I’ve got an idea for an amendment. It probably won’t gain any support, because it would be kind of abrasive….but I really think it’s time has come. So without further ado:

Amendment 28 : This document is not bullshit. It’s serious stuff. Read the fucking thing, and then pay attention to it. Do not ignore parts of it, while adding any bullshit you feel like into it. Do not attempt to write discrimination into it, or to inject contradictions into it. Don’t waste time and tax payer dollars even discussing dumbass ideas like that. In general, as the congress of the United States of America, you have a responsibility to not be douchebags. If you don’t think you can handle that, see Amendment 2. We put that one in there so that you can have guns. Get one, point it at your head, and pull the trigger. Deal with important issues. You wouldn’t have to pander to the lowest comment denominators if you actually fixed problems. Imagine being liked for something other than being a better liar than the other guy? Wouldn’t it feel nice? Give it a try. Do your fucking job and stop dicking everyone around, in a nutshell.

What do you think? I think it’s got a nice ring to it. Sure, it’s vulgar and offensive, but such are the times we live. If they don’t want it to be an amendment, I think it should be played over a loud speaker in both houses immediately following the Pledge of Allegience every morning. Because it really seems like they’ve forgot the very important lessons that my proposed amendment teaches.

Science Gone Very, VERY, Wrong.

Tuesday, June 27th, 2006

This, is the most abhorrent abdication of responsibility I’ve ever witnessed.

What the fuck are these nut jobs thinking?

“Yeah…so, if too much sun and pollution makes the planet too warm, we’ll just…you know…block out some of the sun.”

Brilliant motherfuckers. Absolutely brilliant.

BTW - Everyone, really…go see Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvienient Truth.

Why do I spend so many days feeling like I’m insane, when it’s pretty clear that it really is in fact, most of the other people in the world?

I have an idea, why don’t we set a few oil wells on fire as a sacrifice to God? Maybe he would see how much of that precious blood money we were wasting on his behalf, and just block out part of the sun for us?

I hate people. I really do.

It’s really not complicated in any way, shape or form. Pollution, caused by humans, is causing global warming. Either we stop polluting, or we die. If we can’t stop, because we love our way of life too much, we die. Think about that.

The idea these insane fucktards put forth is to block out some of the sun, so that we can continue to pollute and not change our lifestyles. If we aren’t willing to change when our heads are literally on the chopping block, what makes them think we will change when we know we have a few more years to deal with it, because of the giant Blu-Blocker we’ve put in space? All that would happen is that in a few years, we’d have to block more of the sun. A few years after that, even more…then, no sun would be left. Hey! No global warming if there isn’t any sun getting to us!

I say we either find a safe and sane way to correct global warming, or we die. Either way, we brought it on ourselves.

Thanks For Keeping Track of the Priorities Congress!

Tuesday, June 27th, 2006

I don’t really give a shit about the flag either way…but if this shit passes, I’ll be desecrating them every chance I get.

It’s absolutely astounding to me that they even feel they have the time to entertain the notion of a ban like this. Wasn’t this issue already handled, oh, say, 30 years ago? The last time it was handled, it was decided that you could in fact desecrate the flag, and that nothing particularly bad would happen. And guess what? Nothing did.

But now the idiots are on the march once again, and feel it necessary to waste our time and money passing a ban on burning a particular piece of nylon created in China and sold at Wal-Mart for $10.

Why I Love Pat Robertson

Friday, March 17th, 2006

Everyone fucking despises loves Pat Robertson, right? Why do we all want him dead love him? Because he’s absolutely insane brilliant. One of the most dangerous lunatics truly brilliant minds of our time.

In the interest of exposing him for the dangerous cretin he is opening some people’s minds, I thought I would post a few choice quotes.

  • “Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.”
  • “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”
  • “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you, This is not a message of hate — this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” (on “gay days” at Disneyworld)
  • “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
  • “NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you’ve got to be a lesbian.”
  • “I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.”
  • “God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says ‘This is my land,’ and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, ‘No, this is mine.’ … He was dividing God’s land. And I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.’ God says, ‘This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.’” (on why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke)
  • “Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up” (on nuking the State Department)
  • “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” (calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez)
  • “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out,’ and ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping.” (clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez)
  • “Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”
  • Heart warming…

    Friday, March 17th, 2006

    Is this not the most heart warming photo you’ve ever seen? It was taken outside Shumacher Furs in PDX during (obviously) a fur protest.

    heartwarming_small.jpg

    An Article That All Must Read

    Friday, March 17th, 2006

    From The Village Voice

    The Torture Judge
    By Nat Hentoff
    March 13th, 2006 12:45 A

    “Essentially you have a judge saying that assuming that U.S. officials sent Mr. Arar to be tortured, a judge can do nothing about it.” Georgetown University law professor David Cole, New York Law Journal, February 17
    ————————-
    In a startling, ominous decision—ignored by most of the press around the country—Federal District Judge David Trager, in the Eastern District of New York, has dismissed a lawsuit by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who, during a stopover at Kennedy Airport on the way home to Canada after vacation, was kidnapped by CIA agents. Arar was flown to Syria, where he was tortured for nearly a year in solitary confinement in a three-by-six-foot cell (”like a grave,” he said). He became, internationally, one of the best-known victims of the CIA’s extraordinary renditions—the sending of suspected terrorists to countries known for torturing their prisoners.Released after his ordeal, Arar has not been charged with any involvement in terrorism, or anything else, by Syria or the United States. Stigmatized by his notoriety, still traumatized, unemployed, he is back in Canada, where the Canadian Parliament had opened an extensive and expensive public inquiry into his capture and torture. The United States refuses to cooperate in any way with this investigation.Maher Arar sued for damages in federal court here (Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft, formerly Attorney General of the United States, et al.). Representing Arar for the New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights, David Cole predicts, and I agree, that if Judge Trager’s ruling is upheld in an appeal to the Supreme Court, the CIA and other American officials will be told “they have a green light to do to others what they did to Arar”—no matter what international or U.S. laws are violated in the name of national security.

    Following the dismissal of Arar’s case by Trager (former dean of Brooklyn Law School), Barbara Olshansky (deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights) underscored the significance of what Trager has done to legitimize the Bush administration’s doctrine that in the war on terrorism, the commander in chief sets the rules. Said Olshansky: “There can be little doubt that every official of the United States government [involved in the torture of Maher Arar] knew that sending him to Syria was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and international law . . . This is a dark day indeed.”

    To fathom the darkness of Trager’s decision that Maher Arar has no constitutional right to due process in an American court of law for what he suffered because of the CIA, it’s necessary to be aware of a decision directly on point by New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980.

    In this landmark decision, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, David Cole points out, the appeals court decided that “the prohibition on torture was so universally accepted that a U.S. Court could hold responsible a Paraguayan official charged with torturing a dissident in Paraguay . . . The [U.S.] court declared that when officials violate such a fundamental norm as torture, they can be held accountable anywhere they are found.” (Emphasis added.)

    That 1980 Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision proclaimed: “The torturer has become the pirate and slave trader before him . . . an enemy of all mankind.” (Emphasis added.)

    The kicker is that this decision giving American courts jurisdiction over cases of official torture in other countries was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2004 (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain).

    Now let us hear how Judge Trager justifies his dismissal of Maher Arar’s suit for the atrocities he endured in Syria because of the CIA. In his decision, Trager said that if a judge decided, on his or her own, that the CIA’s “extraordinary renditions” were always unconstitutional, “such a ruling can have the most serious consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both.”

    A judge must be silent, even if our own statutes and treaties are violated! What about the separation of powers? Ah, said Trager, “the coordinate branches of our government [executive and legislative] are those in whom the Constitution imposes responsibility for our foreign affairs and national security. Those branches have the responsibility to determine whether judicial oversight is appropriate.”

    Gee, I thought that the checks and balances of our constitutional system depend on the independence of the federal judiciary, which itself decides to exercise judicial review.

    Judge Trager went further to protect the Bush administration’s juggernaut conduct of foreign policy: “One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case, and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar’s removal to Syria.”

    “More generally,” Trager went on, “governments that do not wish to acknowledge publicly that they are assisting us would certainly hesitate to do so if our judicial discovery process could compromise them.”

    But judge, the Canadian government itself is now actively involved in an inquiry to discover, among other things, what happened to Arar, and how. And in Europe, there is a fierce controversy over whether governments there have been covertly involved in facilitating the CIA’s kidnapping of terror suspects from other lands.

    Is it the job of a federal judge here to protect other governments from embarrassment and eventual punishment by their own courts for helping the United States commit crimes?

    And what about our own government’s criminal accountability? The February 17 New York Law Journal noted that “Judge Trager said that even assuming the government had intended to remove Maher Arar to Syria for torture, the federal judiciary was in no position to hold our government officials liable for damages ‘in the absence of explicit direction by Congress . . . even if such conduct violates our treaty obligations or customary international law.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

    If independent federal judges cannot hold our government accountable, who can? Fortunately, Judge Trager is not on the Supreme Court. But look at whom George W. Bush has appointed to be our custodians of the Constitution!