The Evil Fucks Never Stop
Nov. 28th, 2006 04:15 pm"Constant vigilance!" bellowed Mad-Eye Moody. And he was right.
I must admit I'm amused by this one. Not only does it demonstrate the truly evil nature of the modern Republican politician in general and Newt-Boy in particular, but it demonstrates the utter cluelessness involved on that side of the aisle.
Seems The Gingrich Who Stole Congress gave a speech:
How very fortunate Newt chose to air those un-American beliefs in a venue which would defend to the death his right to spout them. I'm curious, though -- was he receiving an award? And, if so, was it for being the most dramatic example of a threat to their cause? I guess Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow and Alberto Gonzales and Edgar Scalia were unavailable. And, after all, hey, it's not like anyone thinks Republicans like the Constitution or the law -- they keep doing everything they can to circumvent or disembowel them.
This evil fuckface actually fancies that he has a chance to become President someday. Dumbass, you're the Repub version of Hillary Clinton: a completely polarizing figure that a sizable percentage of the population intensely, personally dislikes. And you don't have any of Ms. Clinton's good days, when she stops pandering for votes and trying to be everything to everyone and actually says intelligent, reasonable stuff. Because you, Newt, have never said reasonable stuff. You just try to make it sound reasonable.
A "different set of rules" about free speech. Gingrich, I am so glad you were right up front about that. It is indeed your right to say that, even if implementing it would violate the law -- the first law, Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights. And also because now I know for sure I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Well, maybe on the nonburning parts.
Oh, and... Newt? You guys, you guys, the Repubs, the ones in power, did lose a city. It's called New Orleans. And terrorism didn't have jack to do with it.
I must admit I'm amused by this one. Not only does it demonstrate the truly evil nature of the modern Republican politician in general and Newt-Boy in particular, but it demonstrates the utter cluelessness involved on that side of the aisle.
Seems The Gingrich Who Stole Congress gave a speech:
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.(Emphasis mine.)
Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.
"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.
Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.
How very fortunate Newt chose to air those un-American beliefs in a venue which would defend to the death his right to spout them. I'm curious, though -- was he receiving an award? And, if so, was it for being the most dramatic example of a threat to their cause? I guess Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow and Alberto Gonzales and Edgar Scalia were unavailable. And, after all, hey, it's not like anyone thinks Republicans like the Constitution or the law -- they keep doing everything they can to circumvent or disembowel them.
This evil fuckface actually fancies that he has a chance to become President someday. Dumbass, you're the Repub version of Hillary Clinton: a completely polarizing figure that a sizable percentage of the population intensely, personally dislikes. And you don't have any of Ms. Clinton's good days, when she stops pandering for votes and trying to be everything to everyone and actually says intelligent, reasonable stuff. Because you, Newt, have never said reasonable stuff. You just try to make it sound reasonable.
A "different set of rules" about free speech. Gingrich, I am so glad you were right up front about that. It is indeed your right to say that, even if implementing it would violate the law -- the first law, Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights. And also because now I know for sure I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Well, maybe on the nonburning parts.
Oh, and... Newt? You guys, you guys, the Repubs, the ones in power, did lose a city. It's called New Orleans. And terrorism didn't have jack to do with it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 09:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 09:41 pm (UTC)If my country reexamines freedom of speech, I will reexamine my country.
With an AK-47. Revolt In 2100 much?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 11:04 pm (UTC)Who's first against the wall when the revolution comes? (Besides the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Marketing Division.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 11:05 pm (UTC)Besides, I want them to rot for long decades in the Hague.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-30 08:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-01 12:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 09:46 pm (UTC)Oh, the bullet we dodged by keeping him off the Supreme Court. But the GOP found others...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:41 pm (UTC)incumbent protection"campaign finance reform" laws. But on top of his remarks about "a different set of rules," it's mentioned that he wants to "engage Syria and Iran" -- countries run by mutually hostile factions of fanatical theocrats -- in Iraq. Bizarre.(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-29 04:05 am (UTC)His talk of engagement on top of talk of absolutes, though... that's quite off. Absolutes don't like mixing with relatives. (Absolut is another story)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 10:48 pm (UTC)New Zealand anyone? [I'd say Canada, nice place, leads the world in freedoms etc... but it has these problem neighbours ya know.]
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-28 11:28 pm (UTC)Wow.
How the NeoCons have changed! Heh.
Well, this one, at least.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-29 01:05 am (UTC)"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-29 02:51 am (UTC)It's a good question. I figure the devil helps his own.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-29 03:34 am (UTC)Yeah, free speech. Thats why 9/11 happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-29 06:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-30 08:28 pm (UTC)Since you are coherent and quite readable, may I add you as a friend?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-01 08:51 am (UTC)