I think it’s time for the Democrats or some non-related corporate person of some sort to really explore and illuminate the subject of repressed, self-loathing homosexuals. Like, there should be a two-hour documentary about it on the MSNBC, for example. Or political spots. And I’m thinking let’s get some guys who are former self-hating homosexuals who have since come out of the closet, let’s get those guys on the Maury Povich show and shit.
Because, like it or not, the specter of repressed, self-loathing homosexuals is a powerful dynamic in American politics. And, more often then not, it is used in favor of the Republigoats. Just look at the latest Rick Perry ad dust-up, for example.
I won’t post the thing here as this is an utterly partisan blog, so I only believe in giving Democrats, Greens, and Communists free advertising here. But you’ve probably seen the thing and it is likely embedded in one of the Web articles I’m about to link to. It’s basically Rick Perry walking in the woods in a nice manly-looking jacket talking about what a great Christian he is and how Obama is a queer-loving Moslem who hates Christmas.
The ‘gay-baiting’ is a play for Iowa’s social conservatives
He’s subtly reminding voters that Romney’s a Mormon
Perry’s also dog-whistling to the Obama’s-a-Muslim crowd
He’s using the ad as a “political beard”
Perry wants to tap into the war on the “War on Christmas”
They certainly brush on my own theory, but they don’t quite get there. My own theory is that the ad was actually meant to speak directly to conservative, repressed, self-loathing homosexuals. I mean, I’m not saying that Rick Perry actually is a repressed, self-loathing homosexual. But I am saying that he plays one on TV.
Has it not occurred to you that the people who made this ad are in television and are familiar with the imagery and ran out to CountryMax to buy him one of them jackets because it would do just what they wanted it to do, which was to speak directly to the repressed, self-loathing homosexuals in Iowa?
I don’t want to brush with broad strokes, but it is pretty clear that if there’s political news that has a guy who is a repressed, self-hating homosexual central to the story, that guy is probably a Republigoat. Larry Craig. Mark Foley (although that cannot be entirely chalked up to homosexuality because Foley was actually a pederast). Ted Haggart. This is the party of the repressed, self-loathing homosexual. So there is a demographic to appeal to there, and I think the Perry ad team decided to go all out, jacket and all.
I think it would behoove Democrats and also actual progressive political parties to shine a light on this issue. I think most Americans might want to know that, if that guy is running some sort of gay “conversion” program, chances are good that he dreams every day of balls on his forehead and has the scars on his upper thighs to prove it.
I think there’s a thread missing and an enormously broad question not being asked and investigated regarding the Occupy protests, and, as is often the case, you will be hearing about it first here at the ol’ KIAV.
The question, quite simply, is why now? Why not three years ago? Why not during the horrific health care reform debates? Why did these protests not rise up as a natural response to the teabaggers?
Let’s think about the motivations of the protesters who rolled out to campuses many years ago to stick it to Nixon and his dirty little war. These protesters, I think, protested for a few distinct reasons, including that they were spoiled loudmouths, including that they were trying to get laid, and including that a rather significant population of them ran the risk of actually having to travel to southeast Asia and to stand waist deep in muck just to get their heads blown up like a melon dropped off of a bridge.
Having once been a 20-something who did a little tiny bit of protesting of sorts when I could, I understand the trying to get laid angle and the being an opinionated asshole angle of it. But I never faced something that made me protest or whatever because I felt like my life depended on it.
But I think that these kids have that motivation. I think that’s why now. Because I think that these kids are in college, and they’re neck-deep in student loan debt, and they’re looking out upon this wholly shitty job market, and they’re feeling like they’re being asked to face the risk of getting their tootsies blown off by a bouncing betty. Figuratively, I mean.
I think the protests mean that the 20-year-olds are finally really feeling the pinch of this horrible terrible economic envrionment in which we find ourselves. And I think that means that this shit has really come home to roost and that somebody in Washington had better tell this stupid “supercongress” bullshit to step aside and shut up because we’re about to do some economic stimulus on your ass.
Better yet, give us some leadership who can go above and beyond “stimulus” and who can re-instill a respect for work and for labor in this once great nation of ours.
Yeah. I said it.
Teach your children well. And then, maybe, you know, listen to them.
Stupidity on the part of the right wing, I’m used to, so much so that I often just block it out like traffic noise. Stupidity on the part of librals, though, really pisses me off.
MICHELE BACHMANN SAID IF YOU DON’T WORK YOU SHOULDN’T EAT! OH MY GOD! SHE’S A TERRIBLE PERSON! JESUS WOULDN’T HAVE DONE THAT! OOOOOOOOOH!
It’s from a Bible verse, you numbskulls. II Thessalonians 3:10. More Christo-fascist dog whistle blowing, that’s all it is. This a meaningless quote, and in fact, you’re seizing upon the wrong thing regarding it.
Before Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, he was a world-traveled young man who went to Occidental College and made his first public policy speech at age 20, transferred to Columbia, graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, became a community organizer and grew that organization from a staff of one to a staff of 13, then attended Harvard and was chosen to edit the Harvard Law Review in his first year, graduated from Harvard, wrote a book, then was a lecturer on Constitutional law from 1992 to 1996, then was elected as a state senator in 1996, was reelected in 1998 and in 2002, losing in a run for the House of Representatives in 2000 only to be elected as a senator in 2004, riding a stellar speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Obama came to the attention of many of us as a superstar.
And a large complaint against Obama during the 2008 election was that he didn’t have any experience.
Herman Cain graduated from Morehouse College with a Bachelor of Science in mathematics and got his graduate at Purdue, a Masters in computer science. He worked as a ballistics analyst for the Department of Navy. He became a successful analyst in the area of restaurants and foods, drastically improving the performance of 400 Burger King restaurants he managed for Pillsbury. Pillsbury took the unusual step in corporate America of rewarding success, and Cain was made CEO of their Godfather’s Pizza. He closed approximately 200 restaurants and eliminated several thousand jobs. Then, he and a group of investors bought Godfather’s Pizza from Pillsbury in a leveraged buyout. He was a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s board and also was CEO of the National Restaurant Association having previously been a board member and also served on various boards of directors of other food service corporations. Cain was also a voice against the Clinton health care plan, was a senior adviser to the 1996 Dole campaign, was a brief candidate for President in 2000, was a candidate for Senate in 2004 and did not win the primaries, and since 2005 has had an association with the Washington lobby group “Americans for Prosperity.”
We are hearing a lot about Cain’s reported and alleged proclivity toward forcing pretty young girls into uncomfortable situations, and I do not want to make light of those charges. These stories are making the recitations of Paula Jones make Bill Clinton seem like one suave character.
What we’re not hearing much of, though, is that Herman Cain’s career is that as a corporate bean counter made CEO and as a failed candidate for political office; that he has little to no experience for the office he seeks. There is not public service in his background unless you count being a candidate and a lobbyist.
I could give a crap that he’s been inappropriate with women. I am concerned that the man is not remotely qualified for the position.
Via TRMS via The Smoking Gun comes the funniest thing we’ve heard of at least since Charlie Sheen said “Duh! Winning!” (I am giddy to note that TMS’ coverage of this includes a photo homage to North By Northwest.)
Let’s first remember who James Inhofe is. Senator from Oklahoma. Favors a Constitutional amendment banning marriage rights for everyone. Originator of the phrase “God, guns, and gays” as a phrase used in an electoral campaign. Has said that the United States should base its policy regarding Israel on the Bible. Outspoken advocate of the notion that climate change is a hoax. Has compared the EPA to the Gestapo. Trained as a pilot by the United States Navy, Inhofe is a commercial pilot.
Now that we recall who Inhofe is, we can kick back and enjoy the story. Check this out.
Newly released Federal Aviation Administration documents and audiotapes shed a scary new light on a bizarre incident late last year during which U.S. Senator James Inhofe landed his Cessna on a closed runway at a south Texas airport, scattering construction workers who ran for their lives as the politician’s plane hopscotched over them and six vehicles.
The FAA material, provided in response to a TSG Freedom of Information Act request, details how Inhofe, 76, chose to land on the main runway at the Cameron County Airport on October 21 despite being aware that it was closed and had a large ‘X’ on its threshold.
The politician, the FAA investigation determined, “still elected to land avoiding the men and the equipment on the runway.” In a bid to avoid “legal enforcement action,” Inhofe, who has a commercial pilot’s license, agreed to “complete a program of remedial training,” according to an FAA letter sent in January to Inhofe, a third-term Republican senator from Oklahoma. Inhofe is pictured at right.
Rachel Maddow, ever brilliant though overtly redundant and also she repeats herself a lot and says the same thing over and over again as well also, really had an excellent piece last night about how “conservatives” seem to have an ultimate hard-on to bring back the Confederacy. If you ain’t watched it yet, g’head:
She’s right. These fuckin’ guys do seem obsessed with reviving one of the most failed, seditious, cruel, and generally horrible historical moments in American history. Six Hundred Thousand Americans died during the Civil War, and many Republigoats are just frothing at the mouth to go right on back to it. When these assholes in this clip are at the microphone espousing secession, it’s all one can do not to yell out FINE. GO AHEAD. SECEDE, YOU ASSHOLE. WE DON’T NEED YOUR STUPID STATE ANYWAY. MAY YOUR SHIT COME TO LIFE AND KISS YOU. GHEY KHAK AFEN YAM*. FUCKERS.
But the Confederacy is not the only horrible idea that “conservatives” hold close to their hearts. They yearn for the days of the Articles of Confederation, which was the first system of government we had in these Untied States of America, which gave the states considerable autonomy, including the rights to print their very own munnies. This was such a disasterous system of government that we had a SECOND constitutional convention and created a SECOND Constitution and a SECOND form of government with a stronger central government that had the right to tax and to print munnies. But now, as Rachel points out in her piece cited above, “conservatives” are wet in the crotch to return to those days. The AOC were utterly ruinous financially and politically, but these assholes just can’t wait to return to it.
Embracing horrible ideas is apparently what “conservatives” are all about.
For instance. When the Great Depression took hold and Roosevelt started to address the issue by spending government munnies, and then things started to get better, the “conservatives” went hey, hold on there, Charlie, and Roosevelt caved to that political pressure and started efforts to tighten up the federal budget. And guess what happened? The economic recovery fell right on its ass. Then Japan saved us by bombing the living gravity out of Pearl Harbor, and the government was allowed to spend lots of munnies again. But budget tightening during a recovery touted as what a country needs? Sound familiar? It didn’t work then, and it ain’t gonna work now. But “conservatives” walk around with their dicks out regarding this notion.
How about the mythical animal known as the “free market?” How about deregulation? How about the notion that cutting tax rates leads to higher returns? How about The 1/2 Hour News Hour? Back-alley abortions? Privatizing Social Security? I’m telling you, these assholes never met a horrible idea they didn’t want to please orally.
And we keep listening to them like they actually have something to say.
Yes, Mr. “Conservative,” that’s very interesting. Yes, I agree. Tejas should absolutely seceed, and wimmens shouldn’t have no access to safe and legal abortions or anything else; keep those broads barefoot and pregnant and tell them to STFU. That’s right, Mr. “Conservative”, we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Nod, nod, nod. Why does America so consistently listen to a band of thugs who has been so consistently wrong about so much?
Hey. “Conservatives.” You know what was also a great idea? LAWN DARTS. Throw them straight up in the air and don’t move from that spot. K?
I heard John Boner say it in one of the sound bytes regarding the ongoing budget kerfuffle, and I am paraphrasing, but he said it almost exactly: We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
That doesn’t even make sense. But it certainly does serve the nation’s fat cats well, does it not?
We have given and preserved under the previous preznit and the current one some of the most ginormous tax cuts ever for the wealthy. Then we had an economic maelstrom the likes of which we have not seen in two generations. I can tell you from my own experience that I will be paying less in taxes in 2011 than I did last year, and, in fact, I got two months from last year I didn’t pony up a dime. How’s about you?
But we don’t have a revenue problem?
Of course we have a revenue problem. Unemployment still hovers around ten percent, and unemployed people only pay taxes if you allow them to collect the unemployment benefits they paid for, which, increasingly, we’re not so much willing to do. If you collect less in taxes, you will have a revenue problem. If my job stops paying me munny, guess what? I have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM.
But. If you’re one of these assholes who is sopping up the juices from the Boosch tax cuts, it sure is convenient if the legislators you purchased can work to convince Americans that the problem is that we spend too much munny on poor people and public broadcasting and all those damned abortions, ain’t it? Lookit this shiny thing over here while my friend ducks out the window with that big bag of munny!
That’s all it is, people. We have a revenue problem. And until it gets addressed, prepare to see more and more of this beloved place to look like the tsunami hit here.
There is a lot of finger pointing going on regarding the impending government shutdown. Democrats say it’s the Republigoats’ fault; Republigoats sez it’s the Democrats’ fault. I just want to point out one thing regarding all the phalanges waving around: There is, truly, only one political party which has actually said out loud that shutting down the federal government is a drool-inducing sexual fantasy of theirs: The Republigoats.
If there is a shutdown at midnight, you will collectively hear every last Republigoat in these here Untied States moan in ecstasy and then have to excuse themselves to use the washroom. Some might even have to ask you if you can lend them a change of pants. Because the direct policy goal of the Republigoat party is to beat the living shit out of the government until it can do little more than curl up in a ball in the corner, rock back and forth, and blow spit bubbles.
Although. As Dr. Rachel Maddow (no, not that kind of doctor) points out seven or eight times every night on her television program lately, Republigoats and “conservatives” talk a big game about “limited” government but who in actual fact won’t rest until there’s a telescreen in every home. In Michigan, the governor wants the power to dismantle your local municipal government based on his say-so that said government is not fiscally solvent. They want the power to monitor every pregnancy in the nation to ensure that every last one is carried through to birth. The examples are countless; these “small government” folks are actually interested in a big strong goose-stepping government that feeds us black goo bread and Victory gin.
But when it comes to government doing the things government ought to do, when it comes to facilitating unemployment benefits—a government function I personally was recently made very glad was there—when it comes to the government investing in women’s health, when it comes to building infrastructure, to being the spendor of last resort in tough economic times, when it comes to these reasonable functions of the commons, these Bizarro-Utopian Anarchists pop a boner at the notion of shutting down the aspects of government that are actually useful. One of their leading champions, consultant Grover G. Norquist, famously said that he’d like to get government so small he could drown it in a bathtub. But I’m sure he’d light candles and use a nice bubble bath and salts first.
Remember whose eternal wet dream is a government shutdown when you don’t get your tax refund until November.