A Neo-cons head is exploding...

Here you have the nutjob from Iran saying "we don't have the gay in Iran", and the students LAUGHING at him. So it's good the students are laughing at this guy we've decided is the Evil-du-jour, but they're laughing about him denying they have gay people, which is crazy because we know they MUST have some gay people... but we hate gay people... and we know being gay is a choice... so it's possible he's telling the truth... which is one reason to LIKE Iran... but we hate them... and we hate the students at Columbia... but but but
*BOOM*

The MOST important news item... EVER!!!

The Senate votes to condemn a newspaper ad they don't like. Because seriously... f**k the troops actually in Iraq, Petraeus had his feelings hurt, and that's WAY more important.

I feel like I'm in an episode of "Life Goes On", and all the politicians and bloggers have turned into Corky.

General Petraeus? Or General Malaise?

Has anyone ever considered the fact that Dave Petraeus just might be an a**hole? I can't say for sure, because I've never met the man. He could, conversely, be an absolute saint. The thing is - I'm really sick and tired of all the right-wing blowhards being fake outraged anytime there's even a possibility that someone might be saying something negative about the troops. Considering how many dipsh*ts I encounter in everyday life, I figure there must be a similar percentage of dipsh*ts in the military. In fact, I went to school with a total jacka** who's serving in Iraq, and he can go to hell for all I care... oh wait, he's already there... and NOW I'm happy.

So go ahead, and trash the troops. Some of them probably deserve it.

The reason I bring this up is because of that stupid MoveOn ad about General Petraeus. What's even stupider is the people attacking MoveOn for the ad, and then attacking public officials for NOT attacking the ad. And now the stupidest of ALL is FireDogLake attacking someone who attacked the ad that attacked Petreaus. In a letter to Elizabeth Edwards:

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh’s place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John “McCarthy” McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don’t say squat about Fred Thompson’s lymphoma. We’re your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Here's the short version: stop thinking for yourself.

Jesus, it gets tiring reading these idiot blogs. Especially when it's supposedly a "Democratic" blog, the party of "tolerance" and "liberalism" and "open-mindedness". Oh well, I guess THAT got tossed out the window.

Of course, the stupidity couldn't stop THERE. Then Bill O'Reilly had to throw his two pesos in, and destroys any credibility his point may have made by tossing out the N-word..."nazi". I think someone needs to slap O'Reilly upside the head, because he's like a broken record.

Dipsh*ts on parade.

It must be AWESOME to be so smart. Sometimes I just WISH I were as smart as Insta-douchebag Glennnn Reynolds:

HOWARD KURTZ WRITES:

This frustration with journalism extends to a slew of other controversies. Is Sen. David Vitter being truthful in denying involvement with a New Orleans prostitute who was paid by Hustler magazine? Is Sen. Larry Craig dissembling when he denies soliciting sex in a men's room? Did Alberto Gonzales give faulty testimony and make misstatements about various Justice Department controversies or is he a liar?

Hmm. What recent political scandal is he missing? Hsoot, it's on the tip of my tongue . . . .

Of course, it seems sh*t likes to breed more sh*t... so Newsbusters felt the need to chime in.

Let me break this down using small words so these imbeciles can understand: Vitter = public official. Craig = public official. Gonzales = public official. Hsu = NOT a public official.

Notice which one of those things is different? I'll give you a hint... it begins with "H" and ends with "I can't believe you're all such f**king morons". The Hsu scandal might have actually been important, if Clinton had NOT given back the money... and Hsu had NOT been indicted and the Dems NOT roundly criticized him. The reason no one gives a sh*t, except you sh*t-for-brains, is that it's a NON-story... and the only reason you bring it up is because you're pissed-off about YOUR party being so corrupt. Or more to the point, you're pissed that your party keeps getting CAUGHT being corrupt.

The Hsu has dropped. Let it GO.

Bloggers love contradictions. Also, they hate them. Whaaa?

I was reading the waste-o-bandwidth blog, otherwise known as Atrios's Eschaton, and came across a post from this rocket scientist:

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

I think Jonny McDumbass, who wrote the post, doesn't completely comprehend English. Letterman pondered O'Reilly's questions, didn't answer immediately, then said it was difficult to answer because he's "thoughtful". And how does Sammy VonRetard describe Letterman's response? "reactionary, simple-minded..."

Quick vocabulary lesson: A reactionary and simple-minded answer would've been an immediate "yes". In other words, what YOU think he should've done.

The fact is, you CAN NOT WIN IN IRAQ. There is NO winning. Sure, one side could come out with more points, but it won't end the game. The only way the US could truly "win", is if Iraq becomes a full democracy, Islam completely changes its beliefs so that they no longer resent our presence in the Middle East, and Osama bin Laden starts farting daisies.

Irony? Thy name is "Truthdig".

So here you got a blog called Truth Dig, subtitled "drilling beneath the headlines", and it seems like they drilled all the way to bulls**t:

But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

If you watch the video, Paul doesn't suggest, imply, infer, or even allude to any such thing. However, I would like to suggest something: whoever wrote that post is 12-years-old and retarded.

Rove's Horrible Legacy (aka: no one really cares)

I'm reading through this Andrew Sullivan piece and I think, "Was Rove all that bad?":

His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul.

Really? Were any these the same "turned off" people that gave the Democrats a tenuous (at best) victory in the Congress last year? After years of mismanagement and idiocy in the White House, it seems there are only 2 possible reasons the Democrats didn't just dominate last year: 1) the Dem's own dumb-assery or 2) Rove is a genius. It was probably a mixture of both.

I'm no Rove apologist, mind you. He can rot in hell, with AIDS-infested monkeys feasting on his internal organs, for all I care. But he's managed to keep things together fairly well, in one of the stupidest Presidencies we've ever had. Even with a slate of total loser candidates for Republican Presidential Nomination, and "media darling" Democratic candidates, it's no small feat that the Dems aren't just annihilating the Repubs in the polls. But I guess when the most popular polling line-up is Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Giuliani, it's no so easy to choose a winner... and I'm sure "sharp stick jabbed in my eyeball" would probably have garnered a good 25-30% if that were an option. But I think Rove most definitely still has a hand in keeping the Republicans from withering away for good.