Starting Already...
Echoing a recently-ubiquitous theme, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Moron - Kansas), has already begun throwing out the ready-made excuse for barack Obama's eventual defeat in November. Apparently, Obama will loose because his foes "speak in code". Having once been on the receiving end of an accusation of code talking, I'll translate what that means for you.
It means that: (White) People are saying things which can be construed as being 'racist' (so long as you have the time and mental deficiency required to spend hours torturing racism from the context and subtext of their words), but which cannot be called racist at first glance, because there is no evidence to back that accusation up. However, since all white people speak a secret language (English is now a secret language?), anything they say can be construed as 'talking in code', and is therefore proof positive of their overt racism. After all, if they were talking to real people, they'd be using Ebonics or Spanglish (/sarcasm tag on).
This is the same thrust of most Diversity Training programs (Re-education classes), by the way -- you (White Person) are racist and don't even know it. We (minorities, gays, feminazis, transgendered tree frogs) hear it every time you open your mouth to speak. But that's okay: you can't help it -- it's cultural. Or embeddied in your DNA. We're not sure..Just believe it's true and we'll all get along better.
Here's the report, from AP (take it with a grain of salt), via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_race_2
Uh-huh. The last refuge of a scoundrel is an accusation of racism, particularly an unfounded one. This is such a racist country that Barack Obama managed to garner a gazillion votes and be nominated for the highest office in the land. Facts are stubborn things, but never discount the abilitgy of a democrat to miss the obvious; they'll still make wildly innacurrate accusations, anyway. Especially if they're losing. Of course, if Obama came out and said something like this (actually, I'm certain Michelle Obama already has), he would be accused of whining, so they send a surrogate out to say it. And a white one at that, because, you know, she knows the 'code' (it's not strictly limited to use by white men). A wonderful little ploy: the candidate gets to accuse the American public of racism, and he can always say "Gov. Sebelius is entitled to her own opinion, and to express it. I've never asked her to say anything. But I abhor this injection of race into the campaign...the American people are better than that." Or words to that effect.
They call it 'plausible deniability'.
Expect riots in the streets on November 4th, when the aspirations of 90% of the black electorate, who show every sign of backing Obama even if it were suddenly discovered that he ate babies and kicked puppies for sport, have their demi-god go down in ignominious defeat. The stage is being set for a reprise of "Burn, Baby, Burn".
Couretesy of Kathleen Sebelius and the democratic party.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Bring The Boys Back Home...After I Win, Of Course...
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Two Americas and We Feel Your Pain...
Link from Drudge Report about a $28,500 a plate fundraiser being held for Barack Obama tonight:
http://drudgereport.com/flashbh.htm
Two things spring immediately to mind.
First, it's democrats (small 'd' intentional) who typically claim to be the champion of the Little Guy, you know, the guy who can't afford 28K to watch Barabara Streisand while eating gold-plated rubber chicken from diamond-studded platinum plates (the chicken and plates had better be gilded for 28k)? How one can make the argument that you serve the proletariat while your supporters obviously have so much money they don't-know-what-to do-with-it-all-except- watch-Babs-and-donate-scads-of-spare-cash-to-'the-(almost-lost)-cause'? After all, don't we all have a spare 28k to lend? And if not, shouldn't there be a government program to ensure that everyone does have a spare 28k? There's a contradiction here; republicans are supposed to be the party of The Rich. Somehow, it seems the democrats have become The Rich. How does that happen, and how does a committed democrat keep /hisher head from exploding trying to figure out how to justify it to all them poor folk /he/she's s'posed to be fightin' fer?
Secondly, it illustrates incredibly bad taste and a sort of shamelessness that is so utterly stupid, that you really start to question whether these people are thinking human beings. If you would lay out $28.5k to help 'Bama stay afloat for another few weeks (before he loses), then you're the sort who would attend a "Chateaubriand for Ethiopia" party, with no sense of shame. Or perhaps you'd arrive at an Earth Day celebration in your stretch SUV -- which will whisk you to your five-minute appearance to make an innocuous speech, and then whisk you back to your private jet -- so you can get back to your 32-room mansion that leaks electricity like a sieve, in imperial comfort, without a second thought about propriety.
When democrats lose the election this fall (it's almost assured, at this point, I think) they will invariably point to all the same bugaboos they have in the past to explain their defeats: Evangelical Christians came out in force, Republicans 'Swiftboated' their candidate and they didn't fight back, Republicans outspent them, the 'Merican people are too dumb to see that Obama was superior, etc, etc. One reason for defeat they will never recognize, however, is that it's damned hypocritical to complain that repebulicans are only concerned about The Rich and Big Business, and don't care about The Poor, and don't care about Mother Earth, while you shuttle to highly-publicized events like this one, spending on one night of entertainment and political rabble-rousing what some people don't even earn in an entire year.
For the last two weeks Obama/Biden have been out repeating the same mantra; John McCain is out of touch, John McCain has no idea what the average American's life is like, John McCain does not inhabit the same reality as everyone else.
Apparently there are no mirrors at Obama Central. If there were, they'd be forced to look at themselves.
Link from Drudge Report about a $28,500 a plate fundraiser being held for Barack Obama tonight:
http://drudgereport.com/flashbh.htm
Two things spring immediately to mind.
First, it's democrats (small 'd' intentional) who typically claim to be the champion of the Little Guy, you know, the guy who can't afford 28K to watch Barabara Streisand while eating gold-plated rubber chicken from diamond-studded platinum plates (the chicken and plates had better be gilded for 28k)? How one can make the argument that you serve the proletariat while your supporters obviously have so much money they don't-know-what-to do-with-it-all-except- watch-Babs-and-donate-scads-of-spare-cash-to-'the-(almost-lost)-cause'? After all, don't we all have a spare 28k to lend? And if not, shouldn't there be a government program to ensure that everyone does have a spare 28k? There's a contradiction here; republicans are supposed to be the party of The Rich. Somehow, it seems the democrats have become The Rich. How does that happen, and how does a committed democrat keep /hisher head from exploding trying to figure out how to justify it to all them poor folk /he/she's s'posed to be fightin' fer?
Secondly, it illustrates incredibly bad taste and a sort of shamelessness that is so utterly stupid, that you really start to question whether these people are thinking human beings. If you would lay out $28.5k to help 'Bama stay afloat for another few weeks (before he loses), then you're the sort who would attend a "Chateaubriand for Ethiopia" party, with no sense of shame. Or perhaps you'd arrive at an Earth Day celebration in your stretch SUV -- which will whisk you to your five-minute appearance to make an innocuous speech, and then whisk you back to your private jet -- so you can get back to your 32-room mansion that leaks electricity like a sieve, in imperial comfort, without a second thought about propriety.
When democrats lose the election this fall (it's almost assured, at this point, I think) they will invariably point to all the same bugaboos they have in the past to explain their defeats: Evangelical Christians came out in force, Republicans 'Swiftboated' their candidate and they didn't fight back, Republicans outspent them, the 'Merican people are too dumb to see that Obama was superior, etc, etc. One reason for defeat they will never recognize, however, is that it's damned hypocritical to complain that repebulicans are only concerned about The Rich and Big Business, and don't care about The Poor, and don't care about Mother Earth, while you shuttle to highly-publicized events like this one, spending on one night of entertainment and political rabble-rousing what some people don't even earn in an entire year.
For the last two weeks Obama/Biden have been out repeating the same mantra; John McCain is out of touch, John McCain has no idea what the average American's life is like, John McCain does not inhabit the same reality as everyone else.
Apparently there are no mirrors at Obama Central. If there were, they'd be forced to look at themselves.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It Gets Worse...
The Left's criticism of Sarah Palin gets weirder and more vicious as the days pass. I wish I had the time to link to every bad thing that's been said, but there isn't enough bandwidth, and there's maybe an FCC rule against that sort of foul language.
The funniest part (if there is one) of this criticism, is that it's being delivered by people who would normally tsk-tsk the very notion of flinging invective, considering it beneath their station, and intelligence, to engage in common verbal mudslinging. Unless, of course, there's a presidential election to be won, and their side seems to be losing it.
Then, not only are they out in force slinging mud, they're out in legions flinging their psychoses around, too. It's as if the great mental constipation of the True Left was suddenly relieved by a dose of Ex-Lax in granny glasses, and all the foulness and dishonesty in the soul of a committed Leftists flows through the flapping rectum that is the collective mouthpiece of their cause: the media.
The problem seems to have affected the staff at Salon (http://www.salon.com/) the worst. Here are two posts from Salon in which Sarah Palin is compared to Usama Bin Hidin', and another that purports to explain how she's really not a woman. A third post from Politico (http://www.politico.com/) has a democratic state chairwoman saying Palin was only selected because she 'hadn't had an abortion." Really. I can't make this shit up, no matter how drunk I get.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall
Now, for sheer stupidity, here's one from someone who is supposed to be a professor -- a responsible position, no doubt, one where one can have enormous influence over young, malleable minds -- who writes for Newsweek, a supposedly responsible publication with a responsibility to inform the public of that which it should, reasonably, know. If my kids were in her class, I'd sue the University for child abuse, and then burn down every newsstand that sold Newsweek.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/wendy_doniger/2008/09/all_beliefs_welcome_unless_the.html
Dennis Miller summed it up nicely last night on the O'Reilly Factor (paraphrasing): "This chick is in their melons..." The panic is fun to watch, but the vitriol is frightening. As a society, we'd better start reigning these folks in, and then somehow find a way to bring intelligence and reasonableness back into our public discourse.
A good start might be beating the people who write slop like this into a coma...
The Left's criticism of Sarah Palin gets weirder and more vicious as the days pass. I wish I had the time to link to every bad thing that's been said, but there isn't enough bandwidth, and there's maybe an FCC rule against that sort of foul language.
The funniest part (if there is one) of this criticism, is that it's being delivered by people who would normally tsk-tsk the very notion of flinging invective, considering it beneath their station, and intelligence, to engage in common verbal mudslinging. Unless, of course, there's a presidential election to be won, and their side seems to be losing it.
Then, not only are they out in force slinging mud, they're out in legions flinging their psychoses around, too. It's as if the great mental constipation of the True Left was suddenly relieved by a dose of Ex-Lax in granny glasses, and all the foulness and dishonesty in the soul of a committed Leftists flows through the flapping rectum that is the collective mouthpiece of their cause: the media.
The problem seems to have affected the staff at Salon (http://www.salon.com/) the worst. Here are two posts from Salon in which Sarah Palin is compared to Usama Bin Hidin', and another that purports to explain how she's really not a woman. A third post from Politico (http://www.politico.com/) has a democratic state chairwoman saying Palin was only selected because she 'hadn't had an abortion." Really. I can't make this shit up, no matter how drunk I get.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall
Now, for sheer stupidity, here's one from someone who is supposed to be a professor -- a responsible position, no doubt, one where one can have enormous influence over young, malleable minds -- who writes for Newsweek, a supposedly responsible publication with a responsibility to inform the public of that which it should, reasonably, know. If my kids were in her class, I'd sue the University for child abuse, and then burn down every newsstand that sold Newsweek.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/wendy_doniger/2008/09/all_beliefs_welcome_unless_the.html
Dennis Miller summed it up nicely last night on the O'Reilly Factor (paraphrasing): "This chick is in their melons..." The panic is fun to watch, but the vitriol is frightening. As a society, we'd better start reigning these folks in, and then somehow find a way to bring intelligence and reasonableness back into our public discourse.
A good start might be beating the people who write slop like this into a coma...
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
She, at least, Seems to Get IT...
I'm not a fan of Camille Paglia, but I've always considered her an honest writer. Here's some really good, and fair, commentary on the State of Things (that it was allowed to appear on Salon.com was near-miraculous):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html
I'm not a fan of Camille Paglia, but I've always considered her an honest writer. Here's some really good, and fair, commentary on the State of Things (that it was allowed to appear on Salon.com was near-miraculous):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html
This Man Might be a Heartbeat from the Presidency...
Joe Biden...that about says it all *shaking head sadly*.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/bidens-stevie-wonder-moment/
Joe Biden...that about says it all *shaking head sadly*.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/bidens-stevie-wonder-moment/
Now You Know How They Think...
Without a doubt, one of the most disgusting things I've read for quite some time. It was written by Heather Mallick, for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It is a full-blown, double barrel ass-rape (whooops! Heather might be threatened by such references to oral sex, guns and sodomy) of Sarah Palin, Republicans, and finally, Americans, from a Canadian 'journalist' who apparently does not get out much. Or who might be a lesbian with a very bad rash, confined to a wheel chair. Take your pick. Anyway, here it is -- be ready to call your Congresscritter to demand an invasion of Canada before the retardation (and venom) spreads south:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html
To balance this slime, I give you the inestimable James Lileks, who put out this flaming heap of dung much better than I ever could (Thank God for Lileks!):
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0908/091008.html
This is what the True Left believes. This is how the True Left thinks. The True Left is a collection of elitist snobs who have invaded the institutions of the West; the universities, the media, the law courts, and finally, our politics. It's not about regular folks -- you know, the ones who run the world-- it's about the Left. It's about scratching their peculiar itches, be they political, cultural, economic, sexual or psychological. These are the kinds of people who are deathly embarrassed about standing at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, but who would show no shame if they were caught stealing from a poor box (after all, the anthem is a celebration of evil jingoism, and the church is a sham and blight on the culture that deserves to be robbed --- like Microsoft or McDonald's ) . They don't know anything about regular folks; the True Left only talks to itself, and in a jargon which only it can understand. Conversely, they live in a high-minded fog of ignorance of the fact that there is a far wider variety of opinion, and a far-more varied population, than what is apparent to them on the brie-and-chardonnay set.
This is a prime example.
Blowback: Via Kathy Shaidle (http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/) and BlazingCatFur (http://www.blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/), Heather Mallick responds to her hate mail. (Please make a stop at both links so that you may get the full effect. Kathy absolutely savages Mallick).
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/09/mallick-speakson-babble-about-rsponse.html
Without a doubt, one of the most disgusting things I've read for quite some time. It was written by Heather Mallick, for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It is a full-blown, double barrel ass-rape (whooops! Heather might be threatened by such references to oral sex, guns and sodomy) of Sarah Palin, Republicans, and finally, Americans, from a Canadian 'journalist' who apparently does not get out much. Or who might be a lesbian with a very bad rash, confined to a wheel chair. Take your pick. Anyway, here it is -- be ready to call your Congresscritter to demand an invasion of Canada before the retardation (and venom) spreads south:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html
To balance this slime, I give you the inestimable James Lileks, who put out this flaming heap of dung much better than I ever could (Thank God for Lileks!):
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0908/091008.html
This is what the True Left believes. This is how the True Left thinks. The True Left is a collection of elitist snobs who have invaded the institutions of the West; the universities, the media, the law courts, and finally, our politics. It's not about regular folks -- you know, the ones who run the world-- it's about the Left. It's about scratching their peculiar itches, be they political, cultural, economic, sexual or psychological. These are the kinds of people who are deathly embarrassed about standing at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, but who would show no shame if they were caught stealing from a poor box (after all, the anthem is a celebration of evil jingoism, and the church is a sham and blight on the culture that deserves to be robbed --- like Microsoft or McDonald's ) . They don't know anything about regular folks; the True Left only talks to itself, and in a jargon which only it can understand. Conversely, they live in a high-minded fog of ignorance of the fact that there is a far wider variety of opinion, and a far-more varied population, than what is apparent to them on the brie-and-chardonnay set.
This is a prime example.
Blowback: Via Kathy Shaidle (http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/) and BlazingCatFur (http://www.blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/), Heather Mallick responds to her hate mail. (Please make a stop at both links so that you may get the full effect. Kathy absolutely savages Mallick).
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/09/mallick-speakson-babble-about-rsponse.html
Of Cosmetics and the Porcine...
Just watched Obama's whiny complaint that was supposed to 'explain' the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. After the usual cries of 'this is a distraction' and 'they took it out of context', followed by the de rigeur refrain of 'let's deal with the real issues instead of this phony one' (or words to that effect), Obama went on to once again remind us what's at stake for this country should he succeed in talking a good game all the way to the White House.
You see, Obama never says anything wrong. It's all about context -- and the media and the peasants are simply too stupid to correctly divine his intent, or worse, able to grasp the subtle nuances in his gossamer rhetoric, or somesuch nonsense like that thar. This is the seventy-fifth time (or so it seems) that the man has said something that three days later he has had to either refine, explain, recant, put into focus, revise, reverse, diavow, dissemble about or flat-out lie about.
Was Barack Obama talking about Sarah Palin and making reference to her lipstick joke, while simultaneously attempting to paint her (and McCain, y implication) in an unfavorable light? You betcha! After all (tot he best of my knowledge, Iwill try to post evidence), Joe Biden used the same lipstick line that day (or the day before) -- only no one listens or watched Biden, so no one knew about it. Two people using the same phrase in everyday parlance is mere coincidence. Two people using the same phrase in the context of a political campaign is a strategy.
I suggest that Mr. Obama stop crying about how unfair he's being treated (because he sure as hell isn't), and start to remeber that what he says is important. How he says it is sometimes more important, as much of politics is about perceptions rather than truths. When you make jokes like that, be prepared to get some blowback, and then take it like a man. Michelle is not going to come to your rescue, baseball bat in hand, to beat off the sharks you personally chummed. She probably would, because she apparently is the one who at least has the courage to stand behind the half-assed things that come out of her pie hole. By comparison, she's better prepared for this job, in this regard, than you are.
But, please, stop with the phony sanctimony, already?
Just watched Obama's whiny complaint that was supposed to 'explain' the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. After the usual cries of 'this is a distraction' and 'they took it out of context', followed by the de rigeur refrain of 'let's deal with the real issues instead of this phony one' (or words to that effect), Obama went on to once again remind us what's at stake for this country should he succeed in talking a good game all the way to the White House.
You see, Obama never says anything wrong. It's all about context -- and the media and the peasants are simply too stupid to correctly divine his intent, or worse, able to grasp the subtle nuances in his gossamer rhetoric, or somesuch nonsense like that thar. This is the seventy-fifth time (or so it seems) that the man has said something that three days later he has had to either refine, explain, recant, put into focus, revise, reverse, diavow, dissemble about or flat-out lie about.
Was Barack Obama talking about Sarah Palin and making reference to her lipstick joke, while simultaneously attempting to paint her (and McCain, y implication) in an unfavorable light? You betcha! After all (tot he best of my knowledge, Iwill try to post evidence), Joe Biden used the same lipstick line that day (or the day before) -- only no one listens or watched Biden, so no one knew about it. Two people using the same phrase in everyday parlance is mere coincidence. Two people using the same phrase in the context of a political campaign is a strategy.
I suggest that Mr. Obama stop crying about how unfair he's being treated (because he sure as hell isn't), and start to remeber that what he says is important. How he says it is sometimes more important, as much of politics is about perceptions rather than truths. When you make jokes like that, be prepared to get some blowback, and then take it like a man. Michelle is not going to come to your rescue, baseball bat in hand, to beat off the sharks you personally chummed. She probably would, because she apparently is the one who at least has the courage to stand behind the half-assed things that come out of her pie hole. By comparison, she's better prepared for this job, in this regard, than you are.
But, please, stop with the phony sanctimony, already?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Why Baby Boomers Suck, Part II...
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)