So, how's it hanging?
Ferrer: Surprisingly, to the left.
What's up with the spankings thing?
F: Have you seen women's bottoms?
Good point. You're known to be really hard on incredibly stupid people on the threads. Some people think 'too hard'. Does sarcasm help or hinder with these idiots?
F: No, not too hard. If I fuck with somebody, it's because they've already proved to me that they're a reactionary 'tard whose only purpose is to provoke and regurgitate reichwing rhetoric. If you disagree with the president, that's fine. If your disagreement is based on lies, you're an idiot. At it's base, politics is about right and wrong. When you condemn right because the person espousing it is of the *wrong* party, you've lost credibility if not your soul. If there were a republican in the White House right now, pushing- let's call it McCainCare- these people would fucking love it! Same bill, different president, different opinion.
Would you support McCainCare?
E: Absolutely. I'd prefer the single-payer or an extension of Medicare to all. It doesn't matter to me whose idea it was, who implements it. Remember- ObamaCare's model was based on 'RomneyCare' in Massachusetts. Other presidents- even Nixon- saw the need for universal healthcare. They either couldn't or wouldn't pull it off. Obama did. Sheesh, if the guy cured cancer, these assholes would be whining about how he hated funeral directors and grave diggers. Buncha fucking whiners!
Would you like a beer?
F: Sure.
Back to fucking with 'tards: You're being trolled now by some of the stupidest morons on Topix. Are you scared?
F: (laughs) No. If Topix were the old west (call it TopixTown) I'd be the top gun with every punk trying to make a name for themselves. If you come at me calling me "Ferryman" or trash my blog, which BTW, has millions of not so dedicated non-readers, you're already on TopixTown's Boothill. You just don't know it.
You make this look easy. Is it?
F: Yep. I could phone this in. Well, if I had an iPhone or a Blackberry or something like that, I could. In reality, I have a lap top.
Do the ladies really call you "Two Nines"?
F: Not anymore. I carry a Glock .40 now so calling me "One Nine" would just be silly, don't you think?
Who's asking the questions here?!
F: You are. Sorry.
Don't forget that! So, what's your mom call you?
F: "Son", I think because I'm so bright and- so far- I rise every day.
Had to get that in there, didn't ya?
F: Yep. The conversation is lagging. I often fall back on humor in these situations.
Your critics hate that. Why are they humorless as well as soulless bastards?
F: Look at the left. You've got Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, some really funny and spankable lesbians- lot's of humor! Now look at the right. Name an intentionally funny republican pundit. They've got nothing. And no one. It's the same in the threads. They've cornered the market on hate and anger. We get to laugh at them. We do it very well. They help us out by being comical idiots.
What's it like being Ferrerman?
F: It's all good. I'm like a superhero in that it's a secret identity. Men want to be Ferrerman and women want to be with him. So far, that hasn't been reversed and I'm really happy with that.
What's your Krytonite?
F: Women's bottoms. No question. The same thing that gives me strength- my raisin de eatery, like the French say- can also bring me down. Gotta be wary of false bottoms. I could tell you stories....
Some other time, perhaps?
F: Yeah sure. Why not?
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Is Ferrerman A Marxist?
At the very least, I'm a Groucho Marxist. Since childhood, I've admired his humor. Once I figured out half of it was pretty dirty for the time, I was glad I was a fan.
But, as far as politics goes, after a quick check on Wiki, I'm not a Marxist after all, despite the proclamations of many idiots on Topix. Nor am I a communist. I doubt I'm Muslim either. The bacon, pork chops thing again. Socialism comes pretty close but not if by "socialist" you mean "communist" as most republicans define it via Foxnews.
In the mid 19th century when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles were paling around, the world was quite a different place. It was a more agrarian society, pretty much anywhere you went. People were living on farms and growing things but cities were starting to expand and folks were making things too. Talk about 1%ers though! Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's were the super rich of the times. I have no idea how they made their money except that it probably wasn't Credit Default Swap Derivatives or Social Networking sites. Nor was it their skill at digging ditches. No one had really found a use for oil yet either.
Marx and Engles noted the vast disparity between rich and poor that capitalism produced and predicted class struggle would result. In their opinion, Capitalism would eat itself. It *works* if it works for you as a Vanderbilt but, it defeats it's own purpose when it only works for a small percentage of people. It's really wasn't a fine line between rich and poor back then. There wasn't much of a middle class. The 99% back then were *the working class* and, let's face it; it didn't pay very well. I can't fault them at all for working on a seemingly better system that benefited far more people. That was actually pretty thoughtful of them.
Think back to any revolution- even our own- and you have to see that something had to be done. I used to have a boss who was fond of saying: "Let's do something, even if it's wrong!"
Usually if that's your plan, wrong usually is the result. But, hey- you tried.
I doubt that Marx or Engles would approve of the end result of the communist revolutions that were done, more or less, in their names. Imagine life in Czarist Russia and you can imagine the need for armed insurrection. The same with China and Cuba. The majority of people in those countries, at those times, did not have the good life. They had nothing- literally- to lose but their lives in fighting to make it better for all. Sometimes you just got to say: "What the fuck?"
I doubt our glorious founders would approve of the current state of America. And, of course I don't mean Barack Obama's America. Something got lost in the interpretation of their United States in the last couple hundred years, not the last three. Indeed, history may one day find that we the people rediscovered ourselves in this very time. That is, if we're lucky.
See, when people have nothing and strive to have something, it's one thing. When people who had something have that something taken away from them, it's just as bad as having nothing in the first place. In fact, in a way, it's worse. One way it's worse is when the people- the proletariat- co-conspire with the bourgeois to take away their own something. That is a whole different 'What the fuck?'
These assholes in the threads and on Fox who scream about unions and teachers and how they are ruining the country would have been the first to get killed in any revolution in the history of the world. They'd be the Tories of our revolution, the White Russians of Russia's revolution. NOT the good guys. They're the company rats whom the bosses pretend to like but, won't have them in their home. They get a little more, being rats, and they know on which side their cheese is buttered and who butters it. Fuckin' pussies.
I'm a big fan of revolution, even the communist ones. I know why they happened. The thing is, I don't approve of what the winners did with their victory. In all cases of communist revolution, the winners traded one totalitarian regime for another. This always causes me to say: "What the fuck?" It's never what anyone signs up for. It's not even in the fine print. It just works out that way and, if anyone see's it coming, they're probably taken out back and shot.
Communism may work one day but, no one's done it right yet. In fact, looking at the more popular communist countries (China, Russia, VietNam) they're not exactly communist anymore. They're a whole lot more like us than they set out be, back in the day. Capitalism hasn't exactly consumed itself either but, to be sure, it hasn't exactly been a rousing success either. I've noticed over the years that, as the communist countries gained more freedom and prosperity, we lost more of the same. This mightcould be that they learned from their mistakes and from ours.
No one system works or is right. This is why we, as a democracy (or as the republicans who evidently hate democracy prefer to call it "a republic") borrow from the others, specifically from SOCIALISM. We know that the good side of capitalism is that more people can prosper. We know that the downside is that, not everone can. Mitt Romney may think that "all Americans should be the one percent" but, the math just doesn't work out that way. In other words, we have to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. It is how society works. It's how Jesus would have wanted it, according to his press releases of the time. By the way, would he recognize Christianity- the religion named for him? I doubt it. I think he might say: "What the fuck?!" Story for another day...
Anyways, we're heading down the road to perhaps the worst 'ism' of all. Corporatism. It's not what the founders or Jesus or anybody envisioned but, it's the way things are going. We haven't learned a thing in our couple hundred years of espousing our greatness. Everyone has learned from us but us. Each day we lose a bit more of us while the rhetoric of our greatness gets louder, drowning us out. Plutocracy. Corporations are people too. They are not more important than you or I but....they have more money than we do....and they are 'job creators'....
They sound like Kings or Czars to me. Remember when we were against those types?
Sigh. There will be another revolution. I still can't fucking believe they let us have guns! I promise you though, when the shit goes down and these working class rethuglicans realize that they got chumped BIG TIME, I will not share a foxhole with these ignorant fucks who fucked themselves while fucking us all. Their heads will be on pikes where they belong.
Unless we get our act together soon, there will be a revolution. I wonder who will help us? Not the Chinese. Those communists seem to have a vested interest in our corporations.
Maybe we should give this democracy thing another go? It might not be too late.
But, as far as politics goes, after a quick check on Wiki, I'm not a Marxist after all, despite the proclamations of many idiots on Topix. Nor am I a communist. I doubt I'm Muslim either. The bacon, pork chops thing again. Socialism comes pretty close but not if by "socialist" you mean "communist" as most republicans define it via Foxnews.
In the mid 19th century when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles were paling around, the world was quite a different place. It was a more agrarian society, pretty much anywhere you went. People were living on farms and growing things but cities were starting to expand and folks were making things too. Talk about 1%ers though! Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's were the super rich of the times. I have no idea how they made their money except that it probably wasn't Credit Default Swap Derivatives or Social Networking sites. Nor was it their skill at digging ditches. No one had really found a use for oil yet either.
Marx and Engles noted the vast disparity between rich and poor that capitalism produced and predicted class struggle would result. In their opinion, Capitalism would eat itself. It *works* if it works for you as a Vanderbilt but, it defeats it's own purpose when it only works for a small percentage of people. It's really wasn't a fine line between rich and poor back then. There wasn't much of a middle class. The 99% back then were *the working class* and, let's face it; it didn't pay very well. I can't fault them at all for working on a seemingly better system that benefited far more people. That was actually pretty thoughtful of them.
Think back to any revolution- even our own- and you have to see that something had to be done. I used to have a boss who was fond of saying: "Let's do something, even if it's wrong!"
Usually if that's your plan, wrong usually is the result. But, hey- you tried.
I doubt that Marx or Engles would approve of the end result of the communist revolutions that were done, more or less, in their names. Imagine life in Czarist Russia and you can imagine the need for armed insurrection. The same with China and Cuba. The majority of people in those countries, at those times, did not have the good life. They had nothing- literally- to lose but their lives in fighting to make it better for all. Sometimes you just got to say: "What the fuck?"
I doubt our glorious founders would approve of the current state of America. And, of course I don't mean Barack Obama's America. Something got lost in the interpretation of their United States in the last couple hundred years, not the last three. Indeed, history may one day find that we the people rediscovered ourselves in this very time. That is, if we're lucky.
See, when people have nothing and strive to have something, it's one thing. When people who had something have that something taken away from them, it's just as bad as having nothing in the first place. In fact, in a way, it's worse. One way it's worse is when the people- the proletariat- co-conspire with the bourgeois to take away their own something. That is a whole different 'What the fuck?'
These assholes in the threads and on Fox who scream about unions and teachers and how they are ruining the country would have been the first to get killed in any revolution in the history of the world. They'd be the Tories of our revolution, the White Russians of Russia's revolution. NOT the good guys. They're the company rats whom the bosses pretend to like but, won't have them in their home. They get a little more, being rats, and they know on which side their cheese is buttered and who butters it. Fuckin' pussies.
I'm a big fan of revolution, even the communist ones. I know why they happened. The thing is, I don't approve of what the winners did with their victory. In all cases of communist revolution, the winners traded one totalitarian regime for another. This always causes me to say: "What the fuck?" It's never what anyone signs up for. It's not even in the fine print. It just works out that way and, if anyone see's it coming, they're probably taken out back and shot.
Communism may work one day but, no one's done it right yet. In fact, looking at the more popular communist countries (China, Russia, VietNam) they're not exactly communist anymore. They're a whole lot more like us than they set out be, back in the day. Capitalism hasn't exactly consumed itself either but, to be sure, it hasn't exactly been a rousing success either. I've noticed over the years that, as the communist countries gained more freedom and prosperity, we lost more of the same. This mightcould be that they learned from their mistakes and from ours.
No one system works or is right. This is why we, as a democracy (or as the republicans who evidently hate democracy prefer to call it "a republic") borrow from the others, specifically from SOCIALISM. We know that the good side of capitalism is that more people can prosper. We know that the downside is that, not everone can. Mitt Romney may think that "all Americans should be the one percent" but, the math just doesn't work out that way. In other words, we have to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. It is how society works. It's how Jesus would have wanted it, according to his press releases of the time. By the way, would he recognize Christianity- the religion named for him? I doubt it. I think he might say: "What the fuck?!" Story for another day...
Anyways, we're heading down the road to perhaps the worst 'ism' of all. Corporatism. It's not what the founders or Jesus or anybody envisioned but, it's the way things are going. We haven't learned a thing in our couple hundred years of espousing our greatness. Everyone has learned from us but us. Each day we lose a bit more of us while the rhetoric of our greatness gets louder, drowning us out. Plutocracy. Corporations are people too. They are not more important than you or I but....they have more money than we do....and they are 'job creators'....
They sound like Kings or Czars to me. Remember when we were against those types?
Sigh. There will be another revolution. I still can't fucking believe they let us have guns! I promise you though, when the shit goes down and these working class rethuglicans realize that they got chumped BIG TIME, I will not share a foxhole with these ignorant fucks who fucked themselves while fucking us all. Their heads will be on pikes where they belong.
Unless we get our act together soon, there will be a revolution. I wonder who will help us? Not the Chinese. Those communists seem to have a vested interest in our corporations.
Maybe we should give this democracy thing another go? It might not be too late.
Monday, April 16, 2012
This gives me gas
Every four years we go to the polls to elect the President of gas prices. George Washington, our first President, is famous for setting the bar low at zero cents per gallon, back in the late 1700's. Other presidents wisely followed his lead, with many tying his record at 0 cents until the 20th century rolled around and oil companies figured out they should be charging folks for their product. It was about this time too that Henry Ford figured out his cars ran better on gasoline than they had on oats and hay. Things really changed then!
Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying: "Ferrerman, stop being silly! There wasn't any gasoline in Washington's day and, never minding that, the President does not set the price of gasoline!"
Well, you're right about that. I am being silly and no POTUS sets the price of gas despite what Michele Bachman and Newt Gingrich say. In fact, both of them ran for president saying they would set the price (at $2 and $2.50, respectively) and neither one of them could convince enough of the dumbshits in their party that they could do that and one dropped out months ago and the other just won't give up.
Yet, just like in '08 when McCain/Palin screamed "DRILL, BABY, DRILL" gas prices are being touted by the republicans as THE issue in this election. Well, it worked so well for them last time... Perhaps one of these days it will work.
Actually there IS a president who DOES have a say about the price of gasoline. Even more actually, there are several. They are the presidents of the various oil companies! And, you know what? They love, love, LOVE high gas prices! High prices = HIGHER PROFITS! But, you can't vote these guys out of office no matter how they might feel about gay marriage or abortion. You're stuck with them just like you're stuck with high gas prices unless Gingrich hangs in there, defeats Romney, then defeats Obama and then nationalizes the oil companies. That's the only way a POTUS could set the price though. You could draft Hugo Chavez. He's got experience with that.
Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying: "Ferrerman, stop being silly! There wasn't any gasoline in Washington's day and, never minding that, the President does not set the price of gasoline!"
Well, you're right about that. I am being silly and no POTUS sets the price of gas despite what Michele Bachman and Newt Gingrich say. In fact, both of them ran for president saying they would set the price (at $2 and $2.50, respectively) and neither one of them could convince enough of the dumbshits in their party that they could do that and one dropped out months ago and the other just won't give up.
Yet, just like in '08 when McCain/Palin screamed "DRILL, BABY, DRILL" gas prices are being touted by the republicans as THE issue in this election. Well, it worked so well for them last time... Perhaps one of these days it will work.
Actually there IS a president who DOES have a say about the price of gasoline. Even more actually, there are several. They are the presidents of the various oil companies! And, you know what? They love, love, LOVE high gas prices! High prices = HIGHER PROFITS! But, you can't vote these guys out of office no matter how they might feel about gay marriage or abortion. You're stuck with them just like you're stuck with high gas prices unless Gingrich hangs in there, defeats Romney, then defeats Obama and then nationalizes the oil companies. That's the only way a POTUS could set the price though. You could draft Hugo Chavez. He's got experience with that.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
I'll Make You Famous!
Well, not really.
Recently, I picked up three new trolls on the threads.
Well, maybe one troll picked up three new, um, personalities. It's hard to say, as they all seem to run together and tend to share the trait of being (alleged) conservative reichtards with anti-Ferrerman sentiment. Nothing knew under that sun.
However, whether brand new Ferrerman haters or trolls with new socks, if your strategery is to call me "fairyman" or mock the *smallness* of my well beyond average penis, I've already beaten you up and you will not- not- earn a reputation by going up against Ferrerman especially if you declare victory when I ignore you.
In as much as it is true that unregistered poster *Sam* became notorious by trolling Ferrerman, it's not quite good notoriety. I mean, following a Ferrerman all over Topix, iconning his every post, trying to convince people that thousands of posters think that Ferrerman is clueless, nuts and spam and disagree with everything he says, is not really winning Topix. Actually, it causes most people to see such posts and remark: "That's Ferrerman's asshole! He calls his asshole Sam! He's even posted a picture of his asshole, Sam!" That's nothing to aspire to. Trying to out-asshole my asshole Sam is so easy, any asshole can do it.
"Whoopdeedo!" as they say.
Recently, I picked up three new trolls on the threads.
Well, maybe one troll picked up three new, um, personalities. It's hard to say, as they all seem to run together and tend to share the trait of being (alleged) conservative reichtards with anti-Ferrerman sentiment. Nothing knew under that sun.
However, whether brand new Ferrerman haters or trolls with new socks, if your strategery is to call me "fairyman" or mock the *smallness* of my well beyond average penis, I've already beaten you up and you will not- not- earn a reputation by going up against Ferrerman especially if you declare victory when I ignore you.
In as much as it is true that unregistered poster *Sam* became notorious by trolling Ferrerman, it's not quite good notoriety. I mean, following a Ferrerman all over Topix, iconning his every post, trying to convince people that thousands of posters think that Ferrerman is clueless, nuts and spam and disagree with everything he says, is not really winning Topix. Actually, it causes most people to see such posts and remark: "That's Ferrerman's asshole! He calls his asshole Sam! He's even posted a picture of his asshole, Sam!" That's nothing to aspire to. Trying to out-asshole my asshole Sam is so easy, any asshole can do it.
"Whoopdeedo!" as they say.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Independent's Day
There are only so many democrats and republicans to go around and libertarians don't count at all so, some people are independents. In any presidential election, technically, independents are thought to be the deciding factors. Each party, assuming they have their own voters in line, must convince the independents to vote for their guy to achieve victory.
I like to think of independents as intelligent, thoughtful people who could go either way- like bi-sexuals, I guess, depending upon which way the wind is, er... uh, blowing. Some may be truly undecided. If the rock band RUSH taught us anything, it's that if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Not everyone wants to commit to a political party. After GW Bush and with McCain/Palin running, a lot of republicans described themselves as "independent" to disassociate themselves from the carnage of the former and the impending doom of the latter. It's kind of an alias for some, a sort of witness protection program.
"Don't blame me! I'm an Independent! I didn't do it!"
I'm sure some people truly don't want to march in step with either party. I've voted republican in the past myself but I was young and um...experimenting, I guess.... I didn't like it.
Like it or not, I'm a democrat. And, like it I do. Sheesh, if there were a republican worth voting for, he or she would be a democrat so, there you go. Being a democrat doesn't mean I have to vote for every democrat anyway. I like the social programs and the progress they tout and I don't like the fact that those social programs and progress are what republicans want to kill. It's pretty much that simple. I'm quite certain that if I were a millionaire I'd still feel this way because people would still be hungry and we would still need public schools with teachers and janitors, paid for by taxes, no matter how much dough I have. This isn't Scientology where you buy your way to the next level. It's life and other people live it too.
So, every four years both parties try to woo independents to their side. Do you want to maintain the status quo for four more years or do you want to roll the dice?
Independents probably got GW Bush elected in 2000. Well, the Supreme Court actually elected him and none of those folks are independent at all but, independents probably made it close enough for the Supremes to make the call. After eight pretty damn good years of Clinton, independents might have decided to roll the dice and give the republicans and Bush's kid a try because, how bad could he fuck things up? We take presidential turns here, historically. Ever notice that?
Who, though, is truly independent? A guy in the threads whom I call "Tickle" recently described himself as an "independent conservative". What the fuck is that? This dude, a security guard, wants to be the guy who executes criminals, among other crazy, Travis Bickle fantasies. Why he doesn't associate with one of the Tea Parties is anybodies guess. His views aren't conservative views at all and they are only independent of reality itself. How many other independents are only independent because they are way too crazy for any established party? Clearly this idiot would never vote for a democrat/liberal because such types frown on murdering people. This guy- if he thought about it- wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he were running. After all, he palled around with prostitutes ya know and had a health care plan.
Not to say that all independents are crazed, wannabe executioners. Most probably are not. But, if I were a republican party leader, I wouldn't be courting independents like Tickle, encouraging them with love for the wealthiest one percent at the expense of contempt for the 99% of us- Tickles own demographic, by the way. Such political romancing also is a turn-off (I suspect) for mainstream republicans who have been disappointed with the direction the party seems to be taking. And you'd have to be a very dedicated idiot not to know that Barack Obama was handed a horrible economy, a horrible deficit, two wars and a house of representatives that was only bent on representing getting him out and one of their own in and that- despite all this- Barack Obama has done a very good job.
Mitt Romney and Tickle can declare Barack Obama to be "...the worst president since Carter..." but they are only fooling their own people (who want to be fooled anyway) and I seriously doubt they are fooling anyone who is a true independent. Jimmy Carter, by the way, wasn't that bad. If you recall, he followed Gerald Ford who became president by virtue of Richard Nixon's having had to resign over the Watergate thing so, it's not like he went out of his way to fuck things up on his own. I like Carter a lot better as the statesman/home builder he is now but, he was not our worst president ever.
I think true independents have already made up their minds. They haven't been swayed by Kenyan birth stories or Carter comparisons. I also doubt they see Romney as the answer especially to those questions. I do not see them falling for him in November. Hell- even republicans don't see themselves falling for Romney in November. They're still holding out for a messiah it seems. Not this year.
I like to think of independents as intelligent, thoughtful people who could go either way- like bi-sexuals, I guess, depending upon which way the wind is, er... uh, blowing. Some may be truly undecided. If the rock band RUSH taught us anything, it's that if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Not everyone wants to commit to a political party. After GW Bush and with McCain/Palin running, a lot of republicans described themselves as "independent" to disassociate themselves from the carnage of the former and the impending doom of the latter. It's kind of an alias for some, a sort of witness protection program.
"Don't blame me! I'm an Independent! I didn't do it!"
I'm sure some people truly don't want to march in step with either party. I've voted republican in the past myself but I was young and um...experimenting, I guess.... I didn't like it.
Like it or not, I'm a democrat. And, like it I do. Sheesh, if there were a republican worth voting for, he or she would be a democrat so, there you go. Being a democrat doesn't mean I have to vote for every democrat anyway. I like the social programs and the progress they tout and I don't like the fact that those social programs and progress are what republicans want to kill. It's pretty much that simple. I'm quite certain that if I were a millionaire I'd still feel this way because people would still be hungry and we would still need public schools with teachers and janitors, paid for by taxes, no matter how much dough I have. This isn't Scientology where you buy your way to the next level. It's life and other people live it too.
So, every four years both parties try to woo independents to their side. Do you want to maintain the status quo for four more years or do you want to roll the dice?
Independents probably got GW Bush elected in 2000. Well, the Supreme Court actually elected him and none of those folks are independent at all but, independents probably made it close enough for the Supremes to make the call. After eight pretty damn good years of Clinton, independents might have decided to roll the dice and give the republicans and Bush's kid a try because, how bad could he fuck things up? We take presidential turns here, historically. Ever notice that?
Who, though, is truly independent? A guy in the threads whom I call "Tickle" recently described himself as an "independent conservative". What the fuck is that? This dude, a security guard, wants to be the guy who executes criminals, among other crazy, Travis Bickle fantasies. Why he doesn't associate with one of the Tea Parties is anybodies guess. His views aren't conservative views at all and they are only independent of reality itself. How many other independents are only independent because they are way too crazy for any established party? Clearly this idiot would never vote for a democrat/liberal because such types frown on murdering people. This guy- if he thought about it- wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he were running. After all, he palled around with prostitutes ya know and had a health care plan.
Not to say that all independents are crazed, wannabe executioners. Most probably are not. But, if I were a republican party leader, I wouldn't be courting independents like Tickle, encouraging them with love for the wealthiest one percent at the expense of contempt for the 99% of us- Tickles own demographic, by the way. Such political romancing also is a turn-off (I suspect) for mainstream republicans who have been disappointed with the direction the party seems to be taking. And you'd have to be a very dedicated idiot not to know that Barack Obama was handed a horrible economy, a horrible deficit, two wars and a house of representatives that was only bent on representing getting him out and one of their own in and that- despite all this- Barack Obama has done a very good job.
Mitt Romney and Tickle can declare Barack Obama to be "...the worst president since Carter..." but they are only fooling their own people (who want to be fooled anyway) and I seriously doubt they are fooling anyone who is a true independent. Jimmy Carter, by the way, wasn't that bad. If you recall, he followed Gerald Ford who became president by virtue of Richard Nixon's having had to resign over the Watergate thing so, it's not like he went out of his way to fuck things up on his own. I like Carter a lot better as the statesman/home builder he is now but, he was not our worst president ever.
I think true independents have already made up their minds. They haven't been swayed by Kenyan birth stories or Carter comparisons. I also doubt they see Romney as the answer especially to those questions. I do not see them falling for him in November. Hell- even republicans don't see themselves falling for Romney in November. They're still holding out for a messiah it seems. Not this year.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
4 more years?
At times I wonder if I could stand it. Some days I think: "Let the bastards have their country back!"
Let them have a CEO instead of a president. Hey- maybe he'll sell off some of the lesser performing states and we'll be done with Mississippi? Did you know there is an Idaho? Did you ever care?
But, let them have their country back because they did so well at things during the Bush years... Remember him? It was just over three years ago.
I still wonder if they are serious about the presidency. It's gonna be Romney as candidate and no one wants that. Not you, not me and not the GOP. I can't for the life of me understand how that happens. Yesterday on the Today Show, Sarah Palin was Queen For The Day and she regurgitated what I hear on Topix all the time; "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!"
"Anybody"? Even Romney? Well, maybe not him....
By the way, does she regurgitate them or do they regurgitate her? Is she like mama bird Alicia Silverstone chewing up her baby's food and feeding him mouth-to-mouth or, the way around? Yikes, either way.
How do you run a campaign against someone where you goal is to replace that person with anyone? See, anyone could be anyone. George Zimmerman! He's anyone. And, he's quite popular with the reich for his stance on Negro shooting. And he's being "persecuted" by liberal elites such as myself. He's certainly in favor of the Second Amendment and tough on crime. He could be anyone.
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are anyone but they are even less popular than Romney. Ron Paul too. Did you know he was still in the race? As of this morning, all three still are. It's any one's guess as to why. My guess is book/speaking fees and a better time slut on Fox. No, that's not a typo.
The thing about not having four more years of Obama is not having to listen to four more years of horrible talk of how horrible Obama is. Maybe it would make these assholes shut the fuck up?
Not a chance. They still talk about Jimmy Carter! That was the 70's, man! They won't let him go and they won't let Obama go. There would be no "Obama Derangement Syndrome" where the country is ordered to move on and not blame Obama for the Romney inadequacies. All the good Obama has done, Romney has sworn to undo on his first day. If he could do that, the actions and results themselves would only spin to serve that Obama had been *wrong* all along, that the economy had not actually been rebounding and that the only- ONLY- way out was not taxing rich people and war with Iran.
But, at least we wouldn't be socialist anymore because welfare, SSI, unemployment insurance and all those other horrible, communist things Obama had instituted since he took office in the 1930's would be gone!
Of course I want 4 more years. I think the GOP does too. They didn't want to follow GW Bush's act in '08 and that's why they ran McCain/Palin. They had to show up at the election with somebody. They know they can't win this time around either. If they don't want Romney, why should independents? Four more years of Obama means they stand a fair chance of getting the ball at the start of the second half, with the country in far, far better shape than they left it in '08. It's their only chance and I think they know it. Eight years of Clinton gave way to eight years of Bush because of our sense of fair play where, when things are going well, let the uncoordinated kids into the game. We're winning, right? Well, with Obama we will be. He can't idiot-proof the country. But, four years from now, maybe Russ Feingold?
Interesting....
Let them have a CEO instead of a president. Hey- maybe he'll sell off some of the lesser performing states and we'll be done with Mississippi? Did you know there is an Idaho? Did you ever care?
But, let them have their country back because they did so well at things during the Bush years... Remember him? It was just over three years ago.
I still wonder if they are serious about the presidency. It's gonna be Romney as candidate and no one wants that. Not you, not me and not the GOP. I can't for the life of me understand how that happens. Yesterday on the Today Show, Sarah Palin was Queen For The Day and she regurgitated what I hear on Topix all the time; "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!"
"Anybody"? Even Romney? Well, maybe not him....
By the way, does she regurgitate them or do they regurgitate her? Is she like mama bird Alicia Silverstone chewing up her baby's food and feeding him mouth-to-mouth or, the way around? Yikes, either way.
How do you run a campaign against someone where you goal is to replace that person with anyone? See, anyone could be anyone. George Zimmerman! He's anyone. And, he's quite popular with the reich for his stance on Negro shooting. And he's being "persecuted" by liberal elites such as myself. He's certainly in favor of the Second Amendment and tough on crime. He could be anyone.
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are anyone but they are even less popular than Romney. Ron Paul too. Did you know he was still in the race? As of this morning, all three still are. It's any one's guess as to why. My guess is book/speaking fees and a better time slut on Fox. No, that's not a typo.
The thing about not having four more years of Obama is not having to listen to four more years of horrible talk of how horrible Obama is. Maybe it would make these assholes shut the fuck up?
Not a chance. They still talk about Jimmy Carter! That was the 70's, man! They won't let him go and they won't let Obama go. There would be no "Obama Derangement Syndrome" where the country is ordered to move on and not blame Obama for the Romney inadequacies. All the good Obama has done, Romney has sworn to undo on his first day. If he could do that, the actions and results themselves would only spin to serve that Obama had been *wrong* all along, that the economy had not actually been rebounding and that the only- ONLY- way out was not taxing rich people and war with Iran.
But, at least we wouldn't be socialist anymore because welfare, SSI, unemployment insurance and all those other horrible, communist things Obama had instituted since he took office in the 1930's would be gone!
Of course I want 4 more years. I think the GOP does too. They didn't want to follow GW Bush's act in '08 and that's why they ran McCain/Palin. They had to show up at the election with somebody. They know they can't win this time around either. If they don't want Romney, why should independents? Four more years of Obama means they stand a fair chance of getting the ball at the start of the second half, with the country in far, far better shape than they left it in '08. It's their only chance and I think they know it. Eight years of Clinton gave way to eight years of Bush because of our sense of fair play where, when things are going well, let the uncoordinated kids into the game. We're winning, right? Well, with Obama we will be. He can't idiot-proof the country. But, four years from now, maybe Russ Feingold?
Interesting....
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Jan and Dean and George and Trayvon
I've got a cotton/blend jacket and they call it a hoodie
It's not very scary, it's an oldie but goodie
It's got a kangaroo pocket where my Skittles might go
Please don't shoot me!
I'm NOT A NEGRO!
(with apologies to Jan And Dean)
I'm used to cherry-picking and hyperbolic extrapolation on Topix and in the real media but, the Zimmerman v. Martin drama has become an ordeal. Like practically everything else these days, opinions are slashed down party lines.
Republicans support Zimmerman because he used his Second Amendment rights to protect himself and his entire community (well, the white citizens) from a suspicious person who could have been a dangerous burglar because there had been multiple burglaries at the time and though unsolved, surely could have been committed by Blacks. And Trayvon was Black. They hold the 2A above all other rights amended and otherwise because, well, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
That sounds like that other axiom that states: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!"
Conversely, most democrats feel the Trayvon Martin killing was tragedy and, quite possibly, murder.
If there was ever a case where a simple phone call to the Police could be handled in minutes, it's one where 'there's a suspicious guy walking in my neighborhood' is the dilemma. How often does this happen in your community? You probably don't know because 99.99% of the time, no one gets shot as a result of the call. The police come, check out the 'suspect' and determine who he is and what he's up to. Wants, warrants, a TV set he can't account for and/or burglary tools means a trip to jail. A bag of Skittles, an ice tea and "I'm staying at my pops" means, 'OK, young man, have a good evening.' It IS as simple as that.
Zimmerman made this happen. He far and away over-stepped the very limited 'authority' he had as a member of the Neighborhood Watch. His duties are to observe and call the police. He's not militia and he's not Paul Kersey. Even Paul Kersey ("Death Wish") drew the line at shooting suspicious persons at will and never stalked anyone to provoke an 'attack' . Zimmerman was a frequent caller of 911, known to call to report neighbors who left their garage doors open, inviting theft. I wonder if warning shots wouldn't have nipped that infraction in the bud. Maybe Zimmerman did too?
Think of anything you ever did wrong in your life. You probably realized you did it wrong and then you explained why you thought you were right. That's why they are called mistakes. It certainly seemed like the right thing to do at the time but, of course, it turns out it was not. Explaining that you thought you were right doesn't change things.
Nor does other people speaking on your behalf, extrapolating what could have been your victims intentions that night. It's obscenely fucking stupid to state you know Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglary that night or to know that he attacked Zimmerman. How could you possibly know that? The only person who knew what Trayvon was doing died that night. Zimmerman didn't really know and none of the assholes on Topix know.
A horrible mistake was made that night. A boy died. There is no justifying that, no qualifying. And no bringing the child back. I wish these assholes would shut the fuck up.
It's not very scary, it's an oldie but goodie
It's got a kangaroo pocket where my Skittles might go
Please don't shoot me!
I'm NOT A NEGRO!
(with apologies to Jan And Dean)
I'm used to cherry-picking and hyperbolic extrapolation on Topix and in the real media but, the Zimmerman v. Martin drama has become an ordeal. Like practically everything else these days, opinions are slashed down party lines.
Republicans support Zimmerman because he used his Second Amendment rights to protect himself and his entire community (well, the white citizens) from a suspicious person who could have been a dangerous burglar because there had been multiple burglaries at the time and though unsolved, surely could have been committed by Blacks. And Trayvon was Black. They hold the 2A above all other rights amended and otherwise because, well, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
That sounds like that other axiom that states: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!"
Conversely, most democrats feel the Trayvon Martin killing was tragedy and, quite possibly, murder.
If there was ever a case where a simple phone call to the Police could be handled in minutes, it's one where 'there's a suspicious guy walking in my neighborhood' is the dilemma. How often does this happen in your community? You probably don't know because 99.99% of the time, no one gets shot as a result of the call. The police come, check out the 'suspect' and determine who he is and what he's up to. Wants, warrants, a TV set he can't account for and/or burglary tools means a trip to jail. A bag of Skittles, an ice tea and "I'm staying at my pops" means, 'OK, young man, have a good evening.' It IS as simple as that.
Zimmerman made this happen. He far and away over-stepped the very limited 'authority' he had as a member of the Neighborhood Watch. His duties are to observe and call the police. He's not militia and he's not Paul Kersey. Even Paul Kersey ("Death Wish") drew the line at shooting suspicious persons at will and never stalked anyone to provoke an 'attack' . Zimmerman was a frequent caller of 911, known to call to report neighbors who left their garage doors open, inviting theft. I wonder if warning shots wouldn't have nipped that infraction in the bud. Maybe Zimmerman did too?
Think of anything you ever did wrong in your life. You probably realized you did it wrong and then you explained why you thought you were right. That's why they are called mistakes. It certainly seemed like the right thing to do at the time but, of course, it turns out it was not. Explaining that you thought you were right doesn't change things.
Nor does other people speaking on your behalf, extrapolating what could have been your victims intentions that night. It's obscenely fucking stupid to state you know Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglary that night or to know that he attacked Zimmerman. How could you possibly know that? The only person who knew what Trayvon was doing died that night. Zimmerman didn't really know and none of the assholes on Topix know.
A horrible mistake was made that night. A boy died. There is no justifying that, no qualifying. And no bringing the child back. I wish these assholes would shut the fuck up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)