Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Stale Links For Your Stale Coffee

---Ann Coulter busted on video, as per usual lying her transgendered ass off, but this time being called on it and mercilessly left to twist in the wind.

If the interview had been conducted on Fox or even, nowadays, CNN, needless to say this wouldn't have happened and the lie would have been allowed to gently nestle among all the other casually-uttered untruths piled up like so many dessicated stools in the great stinking litter box of the Conservative Media.

--Annoyed that you can no longer post snotty, entirely just comments on Everyone's Favorite Pathetic Little Fascist's website? Then try the mirrored site, Adam Yoshida 2.0. In case you've forgotten just how fascistic and utterly nasty not-so-young Adam is, and how closely he trails Ben Shapiro in the Most Aggressively Obvious Sexual Inferiority Sweepstakes, sample this post of witless bile and pristine sociopathy, all in Yoshida's patented "html machismo" prose style:

My plan is simple: we should wage a brutal campaign of terror against the terrorists themselves.

The local Mosque is filled with Islamists and its preacher constantly calls for Jihad? Well, then it sounds like a promising target for a car bomb.

A newspaper prints anti-Americans lies and declares that fighting Americans in Iraq is an "Islamic duty"? It sounds like the editor is practically begging to be assassinated.

A little newspaper stand sells pro-Jihadist materials? An offense like that might not quite call for an assassination. But it would be worth it to burn the place down in the dead of the night.

A television station broadcasts a telethon for 'martyrs'? It sounds to me like an improvised explosive device left at its gate might do some good. Same for the bank which handles the deposits.

Now, I know this last point is going to be controversial, but I'll raise it anyways: adult male children of major terrorists are, almost certainly, going to turn out to be terrorists themselves. Even if they aren't, anything less than full cooperation with American intelligence services on their part is a sign of their complicity in the crimes of their family members. The same goes for spouses. It may even go for daughters. Hell, if we can kidnap or kill their grandparents, I'm all for it. Anything to get at the Islamists.

Now, obviously, some senior terrorists won't care for their families at all. That's fine. As obviously, simply killing them would be a sub-ideal solution. Instead, US intelligence should keep them under surveillance and, when a good moment arises, kidnap them and remove them to a secure location within the United States. They might then (especially minor children) be held as a means of securing the surrender of certain individuals or, better still, as part of a plan to force certain Islamists to betray their comrades-in-arms.

Now, I'm sure some people will find the idea of kidnapping the children of Islamists to be morally objectionable. So be it. So far as I'm concerned, the Islamists forfeited their right to be parents the moment they first spoke a word against the United States. (My Emphasis; batshit genocidal insanity in the original.)


Secretly, 75 percent of all Bush supporters will agree with Yoshida, while secretly or not, 95 percent of freepers will.

--From the Department of It's So True I Command You To Share! The NRO's Corner is The World's Shittiest Weblog. A "well, duh" statement, it's true, but I hope that it will become so automatic and so over-used that the awful Jonah or maybe den-mommy K-Lo will be forced to post an insincere, ever-so-wounded plea for civility.

--More proof that the Conservative Media has really been doing its job the past, oh, decade:

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

...

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.


Now where did these kids learn such an attitude? From the "Liberal Media"? From teachers, who to a person are liberals, homos, and evolutionists to such extent that children must, must be "allowed" to be vouchered into private Christian Schools like the one Bart Simpson got kicked out of for talking about farting? Or is it "Original Sin"? That the natural state of childhood and young adulthood is so fascistic? How does a conservative explain this crap?

At least a generation ago, when one heard the horror stories of student surveys, it provoked outrage from the left because it exposed stupidity (many high school kids of a certain era were notoriously ignorant of history and geography) or morality (The Day America Told The Truth Study, which documented what liars kids -- and adults -- were -- still are?), and provoked outrage from the right over, of course, morals that are silly (the shocking -- shocking! -- studies that would show, horror of horrors, that high school kids drank, smoked pot, and fucked like bunnies). Of course this study is horrifying to some, but to others it is a sign that "hard work" is paying off ("how dare one criticise the President during wartime!", "treason!!!") and I can't help but think all the little Hannitys out there are saying to themselves, "good job". "Now to fit those kids for lederhosen..."

--Finally, all I can say is that I hope this is true, and I hope she knows more, and says more. I mean to say, I hope it's true because it confirms my appraisal of Condi Rice's character: to tell one's first cousin that they are effectively disowned because they are politically embarassing when they in fact have done nothing to be embarrassed over (indeed, their moral "crime" is little different from what Ms. Closet Condi herself is suspected of) is a wormy thing to do. For an analogy, imagine if Clinton had been a junkie, then had disowned his brother Roger. For another, imagine if Jimmy Carter had been a whisky drunk, then had disowned his brother Billy for being a beer drunk.

No, those arent correct analogies, either, because drinking and doping are vices of sorts where homosexuality, bisexuality, and cross-dressing most certainly are not. Okay, here's one: what if Al Gore had disowned a cousin because they were too bland? It's not only mean and wrong on the one hand, it's hypocritical on the other.

*Edit: revised a descriptive error.

|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home