Slavoj Žižek: Ayn Rand’s ‘John Galts’ are the idiots who crashed the economy & they’ll do it again


 
I had to laugh at the way Slavoj Žižek so masterfully ended his Guardian op ed piece, “Who is responsible for the US shutdown? The same idiots responsible for the 2008 meltdown.”

Žižek’s subtitle is “In opposing Obamacare, the radical-populist right exposes its own twisted ideology” and in the essay, he poses a provocative question that I’ve been wondering about a lot myself recently: “Barack Obama is accused of dividing the American people instead of bringing them together. But what if this, precisely, is what is good about Obama?”

I’d like to read Žižek—or Jonathan Chait, Brian Beutler, Alex Pareene, Michael Tomasky, Charles Hugh Smith, Frank Rich or the great Charles P. Pierce—taking on this topic in further detail once the dust has cleared.

The conclusion Žižek draws at the close, though, is simply sublime:

One of the weird consequences of the 2008 financial meltdown and the measures taken to counteract it (enormous sums of money to help banks) was the revival of the work of Ayn Rand, the closest one can get to an ideologist of the “greed is good” radical capitalism. The sales of her opus Atlas Shrugged exploded. According to some reports, there are already signs that the scenario described in Atlas Shrugged – the creative capitalists themselves going on strike – is coming to pass in the form of a populist right. However, this misreads the situation: what is effectively taking place today is almost the exact opposite. Most of the bailout money is going precisely to the Randian “titans”, the bankers who failed in their “creative” schemes and thereby brought about the financial meltdown. It is not the “creative geniuses” who are now helping ordinary people, it is the ordinary people who are helping the failed “creative geniuses.”

John Galt, the central character in Atlas Shrugged, is not named until near the end of the novel. Before his identity is revealed, the question is repeatedly asked, “Who is John Galt?” Now we know precisely who he is: John Galt is the idiot responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown, and for the ongoing federal government shutdown in the US.

Standing ovation!

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
‘The Bible’ trolls Christian America: POTUS or Satan incarnate?
03.18.2013
09:30 am

Topics:
Amusing
Television

Tags:
Barack Obama
Satan


Separated at birth?

As seen on The History Channel mini-series The Bible last night. It’s interesting to note that while the popular show is taking a lot of heat for the way they cast all of those white European-looking actors to portray the olive-skinned desert-dwelling people of biblical times, Satan isn’t just a black guy, he’s a ringer for a very specific black guy…

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Best Obama speech ever: ‘I’ll do the spaceman boogie’
01.24.2013
11:27 pm

Topics:
Amusing
Politics

Tags:
Barack Obama


 
I can never get enough of these bad lip reading things and this is a particularly funny one.

Listen ladies, romance is deception. Romance is a parody. It’s how we get you cuddly and naughty naughty and not questioning men more than a two nights window.”

Best inauguration speech ever!
 

Written by Marc Campbell | Discussion
‘Why I’m Voting to Re-Elect President Obama’


 
There is no doubt in my mind that the single best writer covering the 2012 election, numero uno, is Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce. I admire Pierce’s insight, his craft and the fact that he actually has a deep knowledge of 20th century history and politics.

He’s also hilarious. Real bust-a-gut, laugh out loud funny with tears running down your face stuff. There was really no competition this year, I don’t think, for the best writing on politics, although I rate The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi and Salon’s Alex Pareene very highly, also. But when it comes to the writing, Charles P. Pierce is, I think by far, the finest political prose stylist in American life, in a rarefied class with Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Ambrose Bierce, Gore Vidal before he became a crank and Hunter S. Thompson before his brain got soft.

I don’t hesitate to make that claim for Charles Pierce’s writing, read him for just a week and I’m sure you’ll agree. I find myself in awe of his talents on pretty much a daily basis. No one has him beat for creative ways of calling idiots idiots and I love him for it. I only wish I could write as well as he can. For his coverage of the 2012 election, the guy deserves not only a Pulitzer prize and a lucrative new book contract, but his own TV show. He’s my dream guest to see on Moyers & Company.

Reading Charles P. Pierce is a privilege. Pierce wrote the best piece, bar none, on the reason to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow. Reposting it here in its entirety, since it doesn’t lend itself to an easy exceprt. I hope he won’t mind.

To sum it up, the most compelling reason to vote for Obama has got less to do with Obama himself or his record and everything to do with making sure Mitt Romney and his fellow passengers in the Republican clown car don’t get the keys to the White House

Because I am going to be in Florida on Election Day, I am voting this morning here in the Commonwealth (God save it!). There is only one vote that I am casting with any measurable amount of enthusiasm. That is the vote I am casting for Elizabeth Warren to be my next United States senator. This enthusiasm is based not solely in my personal affection for her, nor solely in my admiration for the things she’s already accomplished, nor solely as a reaction against the unnecessarily crude and boorish campaign waged against her by incumbent Senator Scott Brown, nor solely even in the fact that I think this race is still agonizingly close and that I think Warren has it in her to be a great United States senator on behalf of many of the issues that I think are important to the country. The enthusiasm derives from the fact that, when she was asked in a debate what her policy would be toward our groaning (and increasingly futile) military adventure in Afghanistan, she answered quickly and simply. Out. Now.

I am also going to vote for Barack Obama. Without enthusiasm. And without a sliver of a doubt in my mind.

To be fair, this won’t be the most unenthusiastic presidential vote I ever have cast. The prize for that one remains Jimmy Carter in 1976. I spent a year chasing that grinning peanut-farmer around the country on behalf of Mo Udall’s campaign, organizing in the field in New Hampshire and Massachusetts and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, until the money ran out. All we did was finish second, over and over again. Hell, we finished second to him by an eyelash in Michigan after Mo had dropped out. Voting for Carter that fall was like draining my own blood with a turkey baster. I wasn’t particularly ginned-up over Mondale in 1984, either. Neither did Bill Clinton make my lights shine either time he ran. And, to be perfectly honest, the only real enthusiasm I felt for this year’s incumbent in 2008 came largely from being around people who were so transported by the idea of him. That and the fact that George W. Bush no longer would have anything to screw up.

However, I am casting my vote for him (again) because of something that Dr. Jill Stein said the other night on TV, when she was being interviewed in the wake of that third-party candidates debate that Larry King hosted. I’ve known Jill socially for some time, and I admire her, and I agree with her on a marginally greater percentage of the issues than I do with the president. I think a lot of the snark aimed her way is unjustified. She’s not responsible for the wankerific fantasies of renegade “progressives.” I do not, however, think she is any more likely to become president — or any more qualified to be president — than I am. For example, I take a back seat to nobody in my scorn for the president’s apparent naïvete concerning the virulent nature of his political opposition. But, listening to Stein talk about the glories of the “Green New Deal” she’s going to pass through a Congress that is unlikely to differ much one way or the other from the one we have now, well, that makes Barack Obama sound like Huey Long. Still, I thought long and hard about tossing her my vote, because I live in the bluest of blue states, and I felt that, in casting my vote that way, I would absolve myself of complicity in the drone strikes, and in the inexcusable pass given to the Wall Street pirates, and in what I am sure is going to be an altogether dreadful Grand Bargain while not materially damaging the most important cause of all: making sure that Willard Romney is not president. And I might have done it, had Jill not gone on TV and talked about how those people who are voting for the incumbent president simply to make sure that Willard Romney is not president are doing so out of “fear.”

Horse hockey.

It is not fear. It is simple, compelling logic. We have two major political parties. Until that great gettin’-up morning, when purists on both sides of the ideological ditch manage to create workable third parties that look like something more substantial than organized unicorn hunts — which won’t happen until we have proportional voting, and I wish you as much luck with that as Lani Guinier had — we always will have two major political parties. One of them is inexcusably timid and tied in inexcusably tight with the big corporate money. The other one is demented.

This is not “fear” talking. I watched the Republican primaries. I went to the debates. I saw long-settled assumptions about the nature of representative democracy thrown down and danced upon. I heard long-established axioms of the nature of a political commonwealth torn to shreds and thrown into the perfumed air. I saw people seriously arguing for an end to the social safety net, to any and all federal environmental regulations, to the concept of the progressive income tax, and to American participation in the United Nations, the latter on the grounds that a one-world government threatens our “liberty” with its insurance-friendly national health-care reform bill. I saw Rick Santorum base his entire foreign policy on the legend of the 12th Imam, and I saw Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann actually be front-runners for a while. I saw all of this and I knew that each one of them had a substantial constituency behind them within the party for everything they said, no matter how loopy. When you see a lunatic wandering down the sidewalk, howling at the moon and waving a machete, it is not fear that makes you step inside your house and lock the door. It is the simple logic of survival. Fear is what keeps you from trying to tackle the guy and wrestle the machete away from him. And, as much as it may pain some people to admit it, the president is the only one stepping up to do that at the moment.

It is vitally important that the Republican party be kept away from as much power as possible until the party regains its senses again. It is not just important to the advance of progressive goals, thought it is. It is not just important to maintain the modicum of social justice that it has taken eighty years to build into the institutions of our government, though it is. It is important, too, that that you vote for one of these men based on whom else, exactly, he owes. Who is it that’s going to come with the fiddler to collect when you get what you’ve bargained for?

Barack Obama owes more than I’d like him to owe to the Wall Street crowd. He probably at this point owes a little more than I’d like him to owe to the military. The rest he owes to the millions of people who elected him in 2008 — especially to those people whose enthusiasm I neither shared nor really understood — and he will owe them even more if they come out and pull his chestnuts out of the fire for him this time around. He may sell them out — and, yes, I understand if you wanted to add “again” to that statement — but they are not likely to revenge themselves against the country if he does and, even if they decided to, they don’t have the power to do much but yell at the right buildings.

On the other hand, Willard Romney owes even more to the Wall Street crowd, and he owes even more to the military, but he also owes everything he is politically to the snake-handlers and the Bible-bangers, to the Creationist morons and to the people who stalk doctors and glue their heads to the clinic doors, to the reckless plutocrats and to the vote-suppressors, to the Randian fantasts and libertarian fakers, to the closeted and not-so-closeted racists who have been so empowered by the party that has given them a home, to the enemies of science and to the enemies of reason, to the devil’s bargain of obvious tactical deceit and to the devil’s honoraria of dark, anonymous money, and, ultimately, to those shadowy places in himself wherein Romney sold out who he might actually be to his overweening ambition. It is a fearsome bill to come due for any man, let alone one as mendaciously malleable as the Republican nominee. Obama owes the disgruntled. Romney owes the crazy. And that makes all the difference.

In his time in office, Barack Obama has done some undeniable good for people. There are auto workers in Ohio with jobs, and women making equal pay, and young people freed from the burdens of health care because of some of the president’s policies. And he is running on that record, making the case for his second term based on the good he has done for people in his first. In his only time in elective office, Romney also did some good for people. He reformed the health-care system in Massachusetts in a way that made him far more popular up here than he ever will be again. And he has spent seven years now running against the good he did for people. What kind of a politician does that? What kind of a man does that? A politician who has counted the debts he owes to the people to whom he owes them, and a man who is willing to hock everything about himself just to get even.

This is not “fear” talking. This is simply the way things are. It is important to stand against the people and the forces to which Willard Romney owes his political career. It is more important to do that than it is to do anything else. It is more important to do that than to salve my conscience, or make a statement, or dream my wistful dreams of a better and more noble politics. And that is why, today, I will vote for Barack Obama, not because of the man he is not, but because of the man his opponent clearly has become. I will do so without enthusiasm, and without a sliver of doubt in my mind.

Plus one, brother!

Read Charles P. Pierce daily at the Esquire Politics blog. Bookmark it!

You can follow Charles P. Pierce on Twitter. He is the author of Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free.

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Obama Vs. Romney: The Remix! (NSFW)


 
President Obama to fist Donald Trump if re-elected??? And Mitt Romney wants to shoot women in the head??? Really? Well only according to this comedy mash-up by Cassetteboy, a duo who are best known for their cut-and-paste comedy edits of politicians, royalty and the media. Here Cassetteboy takes comic aim at the US Presidential Elections, remixing the recent televised debates.
 

 

Written by Paul Gallagher | Discussion
Oliver Stone does not like Obama


 
Next week sees the publication of Oliver Stone’s years in the making book, The Untold History of the United States (co-written with American University historian Peter Kuznick). The volume aims to puts forth a, uh, Stoned, I guess, counter interpretation of American history of the past century. Gallery Books is putting out the hefty, 618-page tome that apparently slams Democrats every bit as it rips Republicans.

Politico writes:

“The country Obama inherited was indeed in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and, in certain ways, made it worse,” Stone and Kuznick wrote. “…[R]ather than repudiating the policies of Bush and his predecessors, Obama has perpetuated them.”

Obama’s election “felt like a kind of expiation for the sins of a nation whose reputation had been sullied, as we have shown throughout this book, by racism, imperialism, militarism, nuclearism, environmental degradation and unbridled avarice,” they wrote.

But on subjects from Wall Street reform to health care to Afghanistan, Stone and Kuznick rip Obama for breaking campaign promises and continuing the policies of President George W. Bush — who’s roundly condemned throughout the book. In some instances, they write, Obama went further than Bush’s White House toward anti-progressive policies.

Obama is basically Bush-lite. Anyone not blinded by partisanship can see that. You thought you were getting FDR, but you got a guy to the right of Nixon on both economics and civil liberties! It shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say out loud, but other than Daniel Ellsberg, actor John Cusack and Oliver Stone, few on the Left are saying it.

This, however, is just waggish conjecture:

“Obama asserted presidential power in ways that must have made Dick Cheney jealous,” they wrote.

Well, I laughed.

An accompanying 12-hour documentary series, Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States, will air on Showtime beginning November 12th. I can’t wait to see it. One of my best friends, composer Adam Peters, scored the series, and I myself worked on conceptualizing a similar project with Stone’s Ixtlan production company (note Carlos Castaneda reference there) back in 1994 that had the working title “History Inside Out.” (Without going into the how or why of it here, this project didn’t happen, but Disinformation did, a year later). Stone has wanted to do something like this for a long time, obviously—and he’s a brilliant guy, passionate about history—so I fully expect this to be Stone at his most inspired. Adam told me it was really amazing.

Politico summarized some of the harsher Obama critiques from Stone and Kuznick’s book:

On Wall Street reform: “The biggest winner under Obama was Wall Street.”

On health care: “Obama’s failure to articulate a progressive vision was also apparent in the fight over health reform, which was to have been his signature initiative…Obama’s health care reform effort, marked by the inability to even refute Republican charges of death panels, was so unpopular that it became an albatross around the necks of Democrats in the 2010 election.”

On a troop surge in Afghanistan: “When it finally came down to decision time, Obama didn’t have the courage or integrity of a post-Cuban Missile Crisis John F. Kennedy. He settled on a 30,000-troop increase, giving the military leaders almost everything they wanted and more than they expected.”

On civil liberties: “Among the greatest disappointments to his followers was Obama’s refusal to roll back the expanding national security state that so egregiously encroached on American civil liberties.”

On ‘imperialism’: “[He] was not offering a decisive break with over a century of imperial conquest. His was a centrist approach to better managing the American empire rather than advancing a positive role for the United States in a rapidly evolving world.”

On defense spending: “While cutting defense spending, pulling combat forces out of Iraq and beginning the drawdown in Afghanistan represented a welcome retreat from they hypermilitarism of the Bush-Cheney years, they did not represent the sharp and definitive break with empire that the world needed to see from the United States.”

 

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Obama on Ayn Rand
10.25.2012
11:35 am

Topics:
Amusing
Class War

Tags:
Barack Obama
Ayn Rand


 
In the new Rolling Stone cover story, out today—yes the same one where Obama says Mitt Romney is a “bullshitter”—we get to hear the President’s take on reichwing icon Ayn Rand:

Q: Have you ever read Ayn Rand?

Obama: Sure.

Q: What do you think Paul Ryan’s obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?

Obama: Well, you’d have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that’s a pretty narrow vision. It’s not one that, I think, describes what’s best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a “you’re on your own” society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
‘Please proceed, Governor’: Jon Stewart on the Presidential debate’s most dramatic moment


 
Although Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment was obviously the comedic highlight of the debate, Stewart draws out the laughs nicely here on the Libya question like the satiric maestro he is. Brilliant!

Why The Romney Campaign Stopped Talking About Libya
 

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Obama is Ralph Kramden on ‘The $99,000 Answer’
10.05.2012
10:29 am

Topics:
Current Events
Politics

Tags:
Barack Obama


 
Thee single best comment I’ve seen anywhere on the Internet, the one that totally sums up the horrifying experience of watching the Obama/Romney face-off. This in response to a great piece written by Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce titled “How to Recover from a First Presidential Debate.”

Barry Friedman, of Tulsa, Oklahoma writes:

Last night reminded me of the episode of THE HONEYMOONERS where Ralph goes on the “$99,000 ANSWER,” picks the popular music category, rents a piano, and has Norton play musical selections all week to prepare for the event. Thing is, Norton always “warms up” by playing the first few bars of SWANEE RIVER, a tune which annoys Ralph, even though he just knows the melody; so, the night of the show, first tune Ralph is given, of course, is “Swanee River,” which he can’t name; thus, he loses on the easiest, most obvious point. Last night, Romney played SWANEE RIVER over and over and, while we sat in our living rooms, screaming IT’S SWANEE RIVER, IT’S SWANEE FUCKING RIVER—or, more to the point, “47%... The Ryan budget which includes the $750-million… vouchers… women’s issues… ACA… you can’t balance the budget cutting ‘Sesame Street… 36 months of job growth… quote the RNC platform!”—Obama stood there like Ralph, dumbfounded, fully briefed, yet inexplicably, comically unprepared.

P.S. Did anyone else get the email from the Obama Campaign last night, the one that started “I hope I made you proud out there explaining the vision we share for this country”? Maybe next debate, they’ll wait until the debate is over before sending out self-congratulatory messages.

How fuckin’ true is that?
 

 

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Идиот: Vladimir Putin cracks sarcastic put-down of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy prowess
09.12.2012
03:15 pm

Topics:

Tags:
Mitt Romney
Barack Obama
Vladimir Putin


 
What’s Russian for “pwned”?

It’s been another horrific, shitty, awful week for GOP nominee Thurston Howell III Mitt Romney. Now, even Russian President Vladimir Putin can’t resist piling on the insults aimed at the increasingly hapless Republican standard-bearer.

Yesterday Putin said he was “grateful” to Mitt Romney for saying Russia remained the United States’ “No. 1 geopolitical foe” because this idiotic statement of non-fact aimed at the GOP’s abundant pool of cud-chewing low information voters, actually helped Putin in missile defense negotiations!

According to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti, Putin told reporters:

“I’m grateful to him for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems. The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective.”

Seems reasonable enough to me!

Way to go, Mittens! That’s what happens when you pander to people who get their information from ALL CAPS EMAILS. Yet another reason why Mitt Romney will never be the President of the United States.

President Obama drew blood with his own viciously witty riposte to Romney’s idiotic/politically suicidal statement about the crisis in Libya:

“There’s a broader lesson to be learned here: Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later and as president one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that. It’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make them.”

Dropped. Romney really tossed that ball right over the fuckin’ plate, didn’t he?!?!?

Fox News viewers who have never heard of any of this and who have no idea what any of this means can go here, here and here for more information.
 

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
What if Obama had called a real marijuana user?
09.05.2012
11:53 am

Topics:
Drugs
Politics

Tags:
marijuana
cannabis
Barack Obama


 
I have to laugh at people who think the Obama/Kumar video is a “secret message” dog-whistle to potheads that he’s going to make reform of marijuana laws a priority during a second term. Based on what readily available evidence? A “hunch”? It can’t be about looking at what’s actually happened during his administration thus far, that’s for fucking sure.

Stick with it. The footage of the raids is breathtaking.
 

 
Thank you Michael Backes!

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Meatheads: Obama and Romney portraits made out of beef jerky


 
We always get a kick out of San Francisco artist Jason Mercier’s witty portraits of pop culture icons made out of junk, garbage and recycled materials. His creations are often the very definition of “form is an extension of content.” In this case, Mercier may be making a statement regarding the current state of politics in America - the USA is being run by jerks and meatheads and we’re all headed for the slaughterhouse. Stampede, anyone?

In this instructive video, Mercier shows us the process of turning dead flesh into art.
 

 

Written by Marc Campbell | Discussion
Unemployed steelworker in anti-Romney ad not voting for Obama, either


 

“We didn’t know who the hell Mitt Romney was when all that stuff started. It wasn’t until later we found out who Romney was. We just knew he was just another guy with money. It wasn’t until his boys came and started gutting the place that we found out he was an asshole.”

—Former GS Technologies steelworker Donnie Box, of Kansas City, Missouri

Although Donnie Box is the star of a pretty darned effective anti-Mitt Romney web ad produced by Priorities USA, that doesn’t mean he’s voting for Barack Obama in November, as Mike Elk reports in In These Times:

For Donnie Box, it doesn’t matter whether Romney had a direct day-to-day managerial role when Bain Capital closed his plant. Box feels Romney was still in a position to change things and that Romney had no problem profiting from his suffering. And Box notes that it was the actions Bain took before 1999, when Romney was indisputably head of the company, that led to the plant closing.

“There is no doubt in my mind when he came in with Bain Capital, he was the President and CEO of that corporation,” Box says. “He was responsible for the people who came in there and started loading up on debt. They knew with that much debt that there was no way that the place could survive.”

The scandal has led to a serious credibility problem for Romney among working-class voters. But being disillusioned by Romney is one thing; voting for Obama is another. And Box, for one, says he won’t be doing the latter.

Despite appearing in a controversial ad for the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA, denouncing Romney’s role in the GS Technologies plant closing, Box, a lifelong Democrat, says he won’t be voting for the first time since 1971 because he has lost faith in politicians.

“I could really care less about Obama,” says Box. “I think Obama is a jerk, a pantywaist, a lightweight, a blowhard. He hasn’t done a goddamn thing that he said he would do. When he had a Democratic Senate and Democratic Congress, he didn’t do a damn thing. He doesn’t have the guts to say what’s on his mind.”

Box’s refusal to vote for Obama shows the challenges that organized labor faces in convincing its members to vote for Democrats. Many union members like Box feel the party hasn’t pushed hard enough for jobs bills or labor law reform while making sure to pass trade pacts, like the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, which the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers opposed.

As the son of a life-long union member who retired early in disgust at the way he and his co-workers were being treated—and I’ve briefly been in a few labor unions myself when I was younger—I can easily see why Donnie Box would say “Fuck it” to Obama. Who could blame him? The White House hasn’t done much of anything for the unions (except talk) and labor gets next to nothing out of its unquestioning support for the Democratic Party. Although I believe that it most certainly is worth voting this year, if only to keep the GOP wolves at bay, I fully understand where Mr. Box is coming from and I wouldn’t argue with him that I think he’s wrong, either. Because I don’t.

As far as I’m concerned, the best thing that Obama and the Democrats have got going for them in 2012 is that they aren’t fucking Republicans. That isn’t enough for Donnie Box and god bless him for having the guts to say so.

Read more of Mike Elk’s
Laid Off Steelworker in Anti-Romney Ad Says He Is Not Voting for Obama (In These Times)

After the jump, see what ABC News is calling “The Bain Ad That Romney Should Fear the Most”

Written by Richard Metzger | Discussion
Sarah Silverman: ready to scissor Sheldon Adelson for a fat Obama donation (NSFW)

Sarah demonstrates
Like so…
 
The nice girl and her Schlep Labs posse have done it again for America…
 

 
After the jump: remembering The Great Schlep…

Written by Ron Nachmann | Discussion
Hank Williams Jr. has shit for brains


 
Hank Williams Jr. should learn to shut his fucking mouth before he puts his foot so far down his throat he’ll dislodge the impacted turd called Ted Nugent that’s lodged in his lower intestinal tract. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, he accuses President Obama of hating America and in a fit of Tea Party-style paranoia (probably induced by an overdose of chewing tobacco and Jim Beam) fears that the President is out to strip Americans of their Christian names.

Here’s a tidbit of hillbilly wisdom from Bocephus as featured in the RS interview:

On “Keep the Change,” you sing, “I’ll keep my freedom / I’ll keep my guns /  I’ll keep my money / and my religion too/ I will keep my Christian name and you all can keep the change.” What did you mean by that?
Exactly what I said, cousin.

Yeah, but when you talk about your Christian name …
You know, we’ve got a President that does a call to the Koran or Mecca or whatever. That’s what I meant. That’s exactly what I meant. I won’t be changing my name to whatever. That’s exactly what I meant.”

Why do you think he (Obama) hates America?
Oh, you know I don’t know. I don’t know about that but it’s kind of obvious. I guess when you take a tour, a world tour, to apologize for America. He did that, you know?”


Hank Jr. is an asshole with the soul of a nasty drunk.  And if there’s any doubt about that, just listen to the mean-spirited prick recorded in Kansas some time in the early nineties during an alcohol-fueled performance of his ode to guns, booze and pick-up trucks, “Country Boy Can Survive.” This is not the country music of his father. This is music to kick shit by.  
 

Written by Marc Campbell | Discussion
Page 1 of 3  1 2 3 >