And when I say "One Percent" I mean the One Percent that has more money than brains and threw it at Obama in the same way that women used to throw their underwear at Tom Jones.
You know how I know that these people are Obama voters? Watch the slideshow and find out:
Only a rich, clueless libtard would pose for pictures with an obviously-gay man who designs wedding dresses for dogs, totally unaware of the undertone of crass, conspicuous consumption evident in that photo, and then go on to lecture one of us about drinking a 32-ounce Slurpee (I mean, I don't know that either one actually did lecture anyone, but you just know they would, given the chance to lord their superiority over a prole).
Only someone who voted for Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, probably more than once, too, could find this photo "adorable" instead of what it really is: disturbing.
Talk about animal cruelty? How would you like to have all that shit stuck to your head, leaving you unable to lick your own ass when needed?
The best evidence of all: who else would paint the Gay Pride flag on a dog?
People who would turn a dog into something that resembles a Mixed Berry Pop Tart should be taken out and shot. At one time in American History, we let people like that die of AIDS, but then that became politically incorrect: Now we keep them alive to torture animals and vote for Liberal Democrats (oxymoron, I know) who give great speech but otherwise couldn't find their own ass with both hands and a flashlight.
This is a Red Carpet photo. Only flaming libtards who would eat the peanuts out of Obama's shit routinely show up in Red Carpet Photos.
The Red Carpet Photo with a knuckle-dragging libtard in it is a ubiquitous feature of American Life. Just think of all the Red Carpet Photos you've seen in your own time that have the very apex of the Obama Ass-sucking Elite in them: Alec Baldwin, Steven Spielberg, Brangelina, and so forth.
Only libtards pose for Red Carpet photos, therefore, this woman must be an Obama-Loving libtard.
Fat lesbians also show up frequently in Red Carpet photos.Think Rosie O'Donnell, Janeane Garofolo, Joy Behar and Hillary Clinton. Fat lesbians are an important Obama voting bloc. Rich, fat lesbians who have too much free time on their hands so that they can dress their dog up like Doris Day, are the single most important Obama voting bloc, after African-Americans and Single Welfare mothers with four babies by seven daddies.
Only Gay Men would dress a dog in tails in this summer heat, choosing style over function or comfort. I'm shocked...shocked...that there's no sparkly top hat included to round out this otherwise disturbing ensemble.
Incidentally, Gay men will make up approximately 1/4 of the delegates being sent by the Democratic Party to the Convention in Charlotte this year, primarily because they throw the most tasteful parties with all the hot-and-cold running Man-on-Man anal sex a member of the Congressional Black Caucus could want, all on the cheap and the Down Low.
By the way, did we mention that fat lesbians were an important Obama constituency group? Ah, just in case we already have, there's another tidbit about fat lesbians on Red Carpets holding poodles in pink-ribbon bondage. This is one of the few social events people like this can attend, and not cause the local hospital to worry than a lunatic or recovering burn victim has escaped.
By the way, Fat Ugly Lesbians on Red Carpets Who Otherwise Could Not Attend a Social Function Because They Look Like 50 pounds of Whale Blubber in a 10 Pound Sack, are also a significant Obama Voting Bloc.
Obviously, this dog's owner is an escaped mental patient, gayer than Richard Simmons, and for some reason finds it necessary to hold a teacup chihuahua by the gonads at all times.
All three traits add up to Totalitarian Socialist Douchebag, in our book! An Obama voter/contributor, for certain!
By the way, The Keebler Elves called: they want their uniform back!
This is not a dog dressed to resemble a peacock: it is, instead, the Gay Men's Health Crisis Anal Sex Awareness Float, suitably modified for the event.
Since only Obama supporters and contributors would engage in Anal Sex with a Dog dressed like Carmen Miranda, we can safely assume that whoever owns this dog loves President Odouchebag, and probably does things to his four-footed friends that would get him arrested everywhere, except maybe West Virginia.
You can see it from here: the glassy, wide-eyed, thousand-yard stare. The complete disregard for how ridiculous you look. The treating the dog as if it were a child, or a baby doll, living some delusional fantasy.
You see the same symptoms on people's faces when they leave an Obama Campaign Speech. This is your brain on Hopenchange, Kids! Just say NO!
See, only a sick-and-twisted Libtard supporter of Barack Hussein Obama (did we mention that he's black, too?) would put two animals in a bed and force them to have sex in front of a crowd, and cameras. Because for a Libtard, everything, eventually, is about sex.
The Welfare State exists so that minorities can have sex without consequence. Abortion exists so that White Ivy-League-Educated Women too lazy or cheap to buy condoms can have sex without consequence. AIDS funding increases year-after-year so that Gay Men may have sex without consequence. Now, apparently, it's time for animals to be allowed to have "reproductive freedom", but only after two of them have been forced to pose for a disgusting propaganda photo!
This is the worst sort of conspicuous, wasteful, totally pointless consumption I have ever seen in my life. A quarter million bucks (and I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible any of it came from Stimulus Funds?) to stage a mock dog wedding (get this) FOR CHARITY.
That's how you know these people are all book-carrying, Obama-loving Libtards, because the irony of such a waste of money would be totally and completely lost on them. Why not just donate the $250,000 to the Humane Society on the Q.T., and skip the obnoxious display of wealth, like any good Republican would do?
Because without the manufactured pomp and circumstance, you'd never believe what these people in their tiny, little minds believe: that they're somehow special, and you're not. That's why!
One wonders: Where's Occupy Wall Street when you need 'em most?
13 comments:
Utter crap. Not an Obama supporter by any means, but your bias is more transparent than cellophane, and your assumptions are groundless. Those idiots could easily and likely be Republican conservatves.
Dude, it's called SATIRE. I know you went to college, right? I do a lot of this kind of thing on this site.
And by the way, you also don't know that they AREN'T liberals.
What, exactly, offended you to get this sort of reaction? Not that I really care or will be contrite about it, of course...
Regards,
Matt
I'm not offended. Nor would I expect a redaction if I were. I object to your post because it is beneath you. You have a keen mind. Pandering demagoguery is a tactic for small minds. "Look! They squander money on pets! They must be liberals! Liberals are retards! Don't be a retard!" It smacks of the primary symptom of what is wrong with mainstream media as a whole: It panders spectacle rather than exporing issues.
You're conservative. We get that. We get that with a two by four across the forehead. Tell us why being a conservative is better than being a liberal. Demonstrate it through meaningful, pertinent examination of issues that impact our lives as citizens of this country. Don't settle for Jerry Springer tactics that do nothing but drag down the already-depressingly-low lowest common denominator.
Don't worry. I still love ya.
Matt:
I still don't see any dogs!!!! LMAO...ONLY a sissy would agree to do something like this to a dog, and I HOPE a few of them got bitten for their bullshit....dumbasses!!!
And 'Fubbles'?....Really???? 'Fubbles'????...I'm thinking maybe someone beens dressing YOU up in a bunch of wierd shit and parading you around town, too....with a name like 'Fubbles',,,holy shit!!!
Thanks, Kell.
And "Fubbles" is a buddy of mine, since about age 7. He's actually a pretty cool dude, and the name belongs to an actual asshole of unfortunate common acquaintance. Don;t be too hard on him, or think him lame.
Regards.
@Fubbles
Demagoguery? I'm a rank amateur at it compared to some Progressive Liberal (two lies for the price of one) bloggers out here. You should read what gets written at Mother Jones, or Democratic Underground, if you want to see demagoguery.
Secondly, I am NOT a Conservative. I thought I was once, but then I was reminded that I was a disgusting heathen who didn't want to see "the enemies of God" murdered in the streets as a prerequisite to the The Rapture, and so they kicked me out of their club.
What I am is a Republican with some Conservative viewpoints, and no willingness to follow the entire God, Guns and Gays fixation of most right-wingers any further than is practicable.
As for why my brand of politics is better than another: we've tried the alternatives. Barack Obama is simply another shad of lipstick on the same old socialist pig. It doesn't work because, eventually, you run out of other people's money.
Now, the viable alternative, Free Market Capitalism paired with representative democracy has, I'll admit, suffered a terrible blow with our current economic crisis, but it precisely because government interfered with both capitalism and democracy that we've arrived at this sorry state of affairs.
If you got government out of people's lives, and out of their fucking wallets, we'd recover a hell of a lot faster, and come back the better for it. After all, it worked for the better part of 200 years. All Barack Obama has done is to ensure that the capital markets have no access to cash, because he's sucked it all up to pay for Obamacare and an expanded welfare state.
Regards, Dude
Now we're on to something!
My problem with Republicans is that I have no faith that they will do anything differently than the democrats have. Foreign wars will continue, the ephemeral "war on terror" will continue, the erosion of the Bill of Rights will continue, government interference in our private lives will grow, and we will continue to spiral towards economic ruin, and second-class status in the ranks of world powers.
You hit the nail on the head saying that we need to get government out of our lives and wallets. Here's the gordian knot that faces us: How do you reduce government when the elected officials that have the power to do so are incentivized to maintain the status quo?
We need another choice. All we have now is a choice between 4-year old moldy dog shit, and a fresh steamy pile of dog shit.
Personally, I liken the choice as something between passing a bowling ball or opening an umbrella...up your ass.
Be that as it may, the first step in changing our political system is at the local level. Something like term limits, Sunshine laws, a ban on lifetime appointments for judges, etc., are good things. If you can't get the rascals out quickly, you can at least, theoretically, limit the damage they do.
Second, the explosion in instantaneous communications must be put to better use than just shooting asinine cat videos across the internet. Imagine what would happen if your Senator, Governor, or Congresscritter were legally required to account for every minute of his time, and make a full accounting of who he was meeting with?
Why not? Right now, private employers often make this demand of their employees (think PeopleSoft), why should Congress be held to a different standard?
Third, government very often does thing in an anachronistic way. Why, for example is there still a US Post Office (besides the fact that far too many people are either set in their ways, or technologically incapable of using a different medium of communication)? Oh right: Unionized jobs. Why, in this day and age when there's 4,000,000 lawyers who will file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat, and much of the function of the labor union has been superseded by state and federal law, does anyone need a union to protect their rights?
Why do we need hundreds of thousands of government employees to handle PAPER files? To run mimeograph machines. To print voluminous Congressional bills?
If you applied this dialectic to much of what government does: old-fashioned, labor-intensive tasks that could easily be supplemented/replaced by technology. overseen by a union-organized workforce which defies the laws of the free market, you'd eliminate both the financial base, and the critical voting base, of most second-rate politicians, who are the biggest reason why we're so screwed.
Where technology cannot provide an answer, then outsource the damned thing...in this country. I'm positive some business out there would love to enjoy the same monopoly on First-Class mail the Post Office does, only over a limited geographical range.
(Amazing, the Post Office has a monopoly, but goes broke; private monopolies that make money (think Microsoft) are bad, but government-run ones are peachy keen. Go figure!).
If "The System" is organized so as to allow the corrupt to prosper (as you seem to imply), then by all means, let's reorganize it so that this is no longer possible. It CAN be done; all we need is the political will to do it. That an informed citizenry that doesn't take it's cues from Oprah and Tom Cruise.
Regards
Whoops! That last line should have read:
"That and an informed citizenry that doesn't take it's cues from Oprah and Tom Cruise."
Bad fingers!
Take it a step further: If you eliminate the extra-constitutional functions the government has granted to itself, and allow the private sector to assume those roles, you kill two birds with one stone. You kill agencies like the FDA that have no constitutional mandate to exist, and you eliminate inefficiency AND eliminate large special interest groups that are the primary catalyst for corruption in our government. If the government has no authority to regulate medication, the pharmaceutical and insurance lobby has no candidates to bribe...I mean "contribute to the campaign" cough cough...
Think about how much better business could handle functions performed today by government agencies: FDA, FCC, TSA, Education, NRC, port office; these could either be eliminated entirely, or handled by the private sector FAR better than the government currently performs.
I agree that full transparency goes at least part of the way towards achieving accountability.
The problem I just can't get around is how to make government smaller, when those with the power to do so are invested to keep it as big as possible. I know that the problem is corruption in big goverment, and I know the solution is reducing the size of that government, but I just don't see how to get from A to C. I don't see what B is.
Shit, it looks like everything is under control over here.
You just killed the whole Occupy Doo-Doo Pee-Pee movement. You know, dogs may very well be the next currency. No more Chinese food for this guy.
~Chap
www.insaneasylumblog.com
Dogs as currency would make sense, Mr. C. They're worth more than the dollar.
Regards.
Getting form A to C, Fubs, is bit trickier, agreed. But..it's not impossible. The trick, I would imagine is to keep a constant stream of pressure on our elected douchebags .You can do that more easily nowadays with modern communications.
If you can have an app to figure out your three-way lunch bill because you're mathematically-challenged, you can have an app that gives you a GPS location on Congressman Asswipe, and Senator Dingleberry during business hours, and since every Congressional office is overstaffed, it shouldn't be too difficult to find someone to post the good Congresscritter's schedule online every day.
None of this changes unless we have accountability and transparency, and the only way to get either is to let those above us know that we want it.
If there's anything a politician loves more than consequence-free sex with the underage hired help, it's a bandwagon to jump on.
Regards
Post a Comment