Posts Tagged ‘mainstream media’

Rant against the drive-by media

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

Allow me to repeat myself first: if I had to distill the failure of the Bush presidency to one thing, it would be the bailouts. Though the democrap Congress is as much to blame as Bush, I recall my disgust, watching him practically leap out of his chair to endorse the greatest robbery in the history of the world, without debate or even stopping to think.

Bush had many other faults, there’s no denying it, but it would take a whole other blog running 10 years or more to pick through the mountain of undeserved negative propganda he and his administration suffered, to find and assemble bits of the truth.

Bush hatred was as manufactured and overt by the left-wing mainstream media circus as the Two Minutes Hate was by Big Brother.

And so I hate the drive-by media. With Bush they were ruthless pricks and with Obama, fawning shits. No matter which mode they were in they can’t be regarded as journalists or professionals. I’m glad their “product” is dying, they deserve to die, as McDonald’s or Burger King would if they stopped caring and sold spoiled food.

Here is Rush Limbaugh’s definition of the drive-by media:

Since the media is obviously very, very hurt — the drive-by media now very disturbed — by the title, the term that I have dubbed them, “the drive-by media,” I think, ladies and gentlemen, it would be worthwhile to redefine for you exactly what the drive-by media is. They are exactly like drive-by shooters, they pull up to a congested area, they spray a hail of bullets into the crowd. It causes mass hysteria, confusion, mistakes, and misinterpretation, sometimes people and their careers actually die, and then the drive-by media smirks and they ride away, unnoticed in the excitement. They’re never blamed, they’re never held accountable.

In fact, they’re lauded! They’re held up as heroes (mostly by themselves) and then the rest of us have to engage in mopping up the mess that the drive-by media caused. They’re flying down the highway with the top down, laughing and looking for their next group of victims to hail the bullets and mortar fire into in the form of the way they cover a story, and this is repeated over and over and over. There seems to be no stopping them and their marauding ways, and that’s what I mean by drive-by media.

These drive-by pukes are responsible for Obama getting elected. They shouldn’t get the credit, but as we don’t have an informed populace literate in history, they’ll have to do.

Advertisements

SHOULD OBAMA WIN/SHOULD McCAIN WIN

Saturday, 18 October 2008

DISCLAIMER: I’m telling you straight up, I’m voting for John Sydney McCain III and Sarah Louise Heath Palin and this post reflects that POV. If you’re going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, remember to vote on November 5th. Or be punished with a baby.


REGARDING BOTH MEN: I’m disappointed neither said much about freedom, optimism and America’s unique greatness during this election. I’m extremely disappointed neither man said anything about the Constitution and limiting government power. At least with McCain there’s an inkling of hope in regaining sanity, while Obama thinks, as all liberals must, the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch and is his to shake away the parts he doesn’t like (or add a RIGHT to everything from free cable to personal bodyguards to stop school bullies).

SHOULD OBAMA WIN it’s tempting to say that America as we know it will pass away. But don’t. There’s plenty to be positive about. We’re not quite there as far as a Second Civil War goes, if only because no one really knows what they’re fighting for or against. Confusion reigns and it’s preferable to anarchy.

SHOULD OBAMA WIN (not by a “landslide”, he’s not the other Hussein) there’s no reason for melodrama or pessimism. Democracy is self-correcting, and Barry’s Ascension might prove a real blessing, galvanizing the Right in a way not seen since ’94, when Congress after 40 years flipped to a Republican majority, keeping Billy Clinton in check, despite his lack of pants.

SHOULD OBAMA WIN how fast people caught in the middle wake up and realize they’ve re-elected Jimmy Carter with a better tan depends on how fast Obama’s economic schemes are unleashed. My guess is he’ll be low-key for “the first 100 daze”, drinking in the worship of the mainstream media, until even they will have quieted, waiting for the show to begin, SHOULD OBAMA WIN.

No matter how hard the media will try to conceal the ensuing flops and failures of what is essentially regurgitated marxism, the matured internets will be there as never before, documenting every misstep. I don’t mind the ignorance or foolhardiness of the American people, as long as it hurts. Stupid should hurt, and when you put your hand on a hot stove it’s your hand that should burn, no one else’s.

SHOULD McCAIN WIN it will be nothing less than a second chance for America. McCain isn’t a maverick so much as a 3-legged dark horse. He’s going to need a complete overhaul, including a visit from the ghost of Reagan. Republicans have been shitting the cot on their core values for so long that the lies of the left aren’t worth addressing, there’s too much to be done. There are bodies stacked to the rafters in the cellar: compromised, sissified Rightards still in office have no time to worry about a dead dog planted on the stoop by the New York Slimes.

SHOULD McCAIN WIN or even if he loses, these second-chance Republicans better get back to principles or they’ll find they have a very short shelf life; when it’s time to act they’ll either be fresh and ready or thrown away. That’s as it should be. Nothing less than their best will be acceptable, and should they keep on doing the same things they’ve been doing, they will deserve their crucifixions. SHOULD OBAMA WIN, true conservatives, already livid, will be trembling among stacks of wooden boards and nail guns.

I really wish the ticket was Palin-McCain. But you can’t have everything.

The most important thing you can take from this enjoyable babble is this: America was founded by people smarter than you and me. They split the government’s power into thirds so that no President could turn into a monarch, nor a mob of shits like Congress into the Central Comittee. We also have 200 million guns, and despite what politically-correct weenies may believe, we don’t run from a fight.



The Ponytail Guy, 1992

Tuesday, 5 August 2008

Originally titled “The Ponytail Man”, the name of this post has been changed to reflect the more popular name for this absurd historical character.  14 APR 14

Apologies to the few who already read this post. I never thought to youtube the Ponytail Guy, whose purported name was “Denton Walthall”.

I put this up so that people who initially remember Denton the Ponytail Guy from a “town hall” meeting will have a slightly easier time finding or referencing him. Very likely the Ponytail Guy (aka Ponytailed Loser, Ponytailed Asshole, Ponytailed Mamaluke, Ponytailed Chooch) was an audience plant working for the Taxocrats.

Link to the full debate transcripts; click here or below:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92b1.html

“Denton Walthall” aka Ponytail Guy

October 15, 1992

The Second Clinton-Bush-Perot Presidential Debate (First Half)

This takes place in the first half of the Richmond debate. The October 15th “town hall” format debate was moderated by Carole Simpson.

PONYTAILED LOSER: And forgive the notes here but I’m shy on camera.

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

SIMPSON: So your question is?

PONYTAILED LOSER: Can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? I think there’s a need, if we could take a poll here with the folks from Gallup perhaps, I think there’s a real need here to focus at this point on the needs.

(After Bush 41 and Clinton both idiotically agree)

PONYTAILED LOSER: Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we’re not under oath at this point but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the US to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? I repeat that. It’s a real need, I think, that we all have.

I’m ashamed to admit that way back in ’92 while I watched this live, I believed in what the Ponytailed Plant was saying, his begging our would-be leaders for assistance that, per the Constitution, he was not entitled to receive and they were not entitled to give him. It was the naivety of youth that made me believe this gross display of spinelessness was worthy of a free people, or that it would have any heart-softening effects on men (and women) the Constitution was put in place to protect us from. In answering this simpering hippie doofus, George Bush Sr., perhaps not understanding how stupid and outrageous the Ponytailed questions were, totally shit the cot. Perot did only marginally better. Only Chill Clinton seemed prepared to soothe the poor long-haired “child” in a convincing manner. To the best of my knowledge (a few dozen Google searches) Ponytail Guy has never been heard from again, suggesting he was indeed an audience plant to make Slick Willie look good. That was then. Today there’s less need for audience plants; the useful idiots of the mainstream media have given up all objectivity and are the direct descendants of Ponytail Man, existing only to make the Taxocrats look good. Today you are instructed to vote for Obamarx, the latest loving father who promises to take care of you, the infants.

MEET OUR NEEDS! WAAAAHHHH!

Advertisements