Sunday Surfing of the Inter Tubes (and before I forget)

Cuzz the internet's not like a big truck, right?

You betcha Mr Teddy Hulk.

Lotsa talk all week about CPAP. No wait... that's the crap I wear for my sleep apnea. Although it could fit I suppose: Conservatard Political Activist Punks. CPAC...

Don't sit on your laurels folks. These assholes aren't going into the sunset quietly. or otherwise. The Conservatard mind is... A terrible thing to waste. On the one hand we could sit here and make fun of them for Still making a way and a place for not-Joe the un-Plumber. I mean it IS hard to take a movement seriously when they put Piyush at the forefront, but they've reinvented / resurrected themselves in the past. They're working at doing it again.

And if they can't do that successfully, or even if they can, just for fun they'll recaste Obama as a socialist, just in case they still can't make their non-citizen smears stick.

I thought the other day that I heard someone play a clip where The Boner equated Obama's budget proposal with Bush's. Don't forget Reagan, Dude. The records that Dubya broke, were his, remember? May or may not have been, but I did catch a youtubie where he talks about the refucks becoming the party of "New Solutions." Like the ones he talks about here?



Tax cuts... New and improved? ??? What everrrrrr

Newtie of the Blowhards reeeeeally took it up several notches when he re-birthed himself as a Bush Opposer. NOW all the bailout/rescue/economic packages of the final days of the Bush misAdministration are "Bush-Obama" failures. Apparently, Newt doesn't believe there should only be one president at a time.



Soooo..... Wow.

Did Newt bitch when virtually no one read the Patriot Act? Did he bitch about Denny Hastert's "private" plane? Did he bitch about ANYTHING bush did at the time Bush did it? And what did he have to say about Dick Cheney's statement, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter?" And all the talk about putting more debt on the backs of our kids... who among them were so concerned when Dubya planned to "borrow the money" needed to finance his dismantling of Social Security? Besides Ron Paul. who votes against EVERY spending measure. and who isn't really refuckyoucan party member anyway.

I guess they only matter when Democrats are in the White House.

Juan Williams: HOly Shit. He's speaking sensibly. On Faux News? ??? Can't find Snuffulopolous this morning; miss my George Dubya F Will cliche fix. Anywayyyyyy......

Kinda fascinating to watch the Bush rubberstampers succumb to what do they call it...? BDS? Bush Deraingment Syndrome? ???

And before I forget: Rush Limplog spoke/ranted yesterday. Rumor has it he's a little slow on throwing Dubya under the bus.

Speaks for Itself:

"Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the President. I know it, the media knows it, even the Speaker knows it. ... This hearing will not cause us to impeach the President; it will only serve to impeach our own credibility."-

Spoken by a disgruntled Democrat?

A member of a group such as Code Pink, like maybe Cindy Sheehan?

The ACLU? EFF?

Keith O? Rachel Maddow? George Soros? Tweety or the Wolfman?

Try Refuckyoucan Rep Lamar Smith.

What intrigues me is not the fact that no Refuckyoucan ever seems to step out of cadence with Cummander Codpiece, i.e. There will be no impeachment. No, what intrigues me is his use of "our" when he speaks of credibility. Not, "they" as in the Dems' credibility. No, "us/our" as if he knows that people do, and will, look in wonder at the trance-like-as-if-drug-induced mentality that the Refucks have exhibited as they've helped this MoFo turn this country into a piss-stained-puked-on dumpster from one of his college memories.

Could it be that he's giving a backdoor/left-handed endorsement of impeachment?

This could be interesting if some "journalist" actually picks up on it and asks him what he means.

PS The notion that these hearings are much ado about nothing is absolutely correct. Nancy Pelosi's so fucking blind to what this country needs she couldn't find her.. never mind. And not to be sexist: I don't think Conyers could pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.

Another Conservative Against Bush

Wednesday I wrote about a conservative guest on the Thom Hartmann show; Thursday, although I did not write about it, Hartmann had another conservative guest. Both spoke of the need to impeach both Bush and Cheney. Today via Crooks and Liars, I discovered another article posted by a conservative, who is highly critical of Bush and the republicans, and fearful for the future of our democracy. One of the focal points of this article is the "need" for another 9-11 event to ensure the survival of the republican party in the next election. Sorry for the lack of a link, but the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Committee has already called for another terrorist attack. I firmly believe that this has been discussed and planned by the powers behind the throne.

I wouldn't call myself a conspiricist but, I've always had questions about what happened on 9-11. I've always found it curious that the twin towers fell more like they were imploded by demolition experts, rather than breaking off from the points at which they were damaged. I've heard Ed Schultz argue/preach many times how there is no way that the government could have been behind the attack in any way, but I'm not so sure. When I look at the ways this administration has relentlessly attacked the structure of this country from within, weakening our military, our economy, our alliances, the Constitution and Bill of Rights... I really can't think of a point at which they'll stop or a line they won't cross. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I firmly believe Bush will make himself dictator by 2008/9.

One common thread connects the men behind these three articles: They all worked in the Reagan Administration.

I've heard and read, time and again, how the republican party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, as if that's a reference to some rosier time of moderation. I was 8 yrs old when Goldwater got trounced by Johnson. Goldwater was an extremist kook. I remember the neighbor kids whose dad voted for Goldwater saying how Kennedy was a wimp because he didn't want to invade Cuba during the missile crisis like Goldwater did. Time and again we hear and read about the "good old days" of moderate conservatism under Reagan; as if. Bushco is virtually nothing more than the culmination of the desires and intents of the Reaganistas; Reaganism without checks and balances.

Reagan talked about failed government: The government is not your friend. Government is not the answer. The most feared words in the English language: We're from the government and we're here to help. Bush has brought government failure to life and made it flourish. My point being, that when hardcore Reaganistas, authors of Reaganist policies, decide that Bush has gone too far, when will the republicans elected to Congress wake up and realize for themselves that their unquestioned alignment with Bush is destroying the country? When will they realize that they're just like the frog in the pot of water, allowing themselves to be boiled alive, as the temperature slowly creeps up to boiling?

I realize there's an inherent shame in having to own up to mistakes, much like some women I've known, refusing to admit to themselves that the years and efforts spent in a dead end destructive relationship were a waste. There hopefully does come a time though, when mistakes are admitted, blame shouldered, losses accepted and shame dealt with. The past remains unchanged, but healing can begin and the present and future can be salvaged. If the repugs in congress do not wake up soon, it will be too late; there will be nothing to salvage. Time is running out. For the Repugs and for the country.

WOW... A Conservative's Case for Impeachment

One of the few cool things about my job is that I get to do a lot of different things. For the past several, I've had the chance to work in a quiet little corner, out of few and listen to my radio. I've been a total talk-radio addict for many years now (I just can't keep track of the 10-in-a-row shit and remember which songs I liked and who did them; I know jack shit about present day music) and since 100.7FM, which used to be a cool talk talk station, went country and dumped Tom Leykis, I've been listening to 1090AM which has a great lineup of progressive talk shows. I usually never get to listen during the day but these past few, I've been able to catch Thom Hartmann from 9-noon.

This guy has always impressed me with his knowledge of the issues and times surrounding the founding of this country. I don't know if he keeps a laptop by his side, with someway to do quick reference, or if he knows them by heart, but his knowledge of the Federalist Papers seems amazing.

Today one of his guests was conservative Bruce Fein. If it's possible, the guy's credentials are excellent, including affiliations with the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc, etc and authored the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton. The only thing I don't see, is his name on the PNAC's statement of principles. He spent quite a bit of time on Thom's show, and made a clear cut and simple case for the impeachment of both W and his Dick. He made the case without even referring to "high crimes and misdemeanors," instead focusing on W's usurpation of powers not granted by the constitution. There was no mention of lying us into a war, outing Valerie Plame, or many of the other commonly cited reasons. Instead he kept referring to this10-point proposal, spelled out at the American Freedom Agenda web site.


When someone like this starts talking impeachment, it reeeeealy makes me wonder why the hell Nancy Pelosi keeps avoiding the subject. If our Constitutional government of laws is going to survive, impeachment NEEDS to happen.