“Knock, knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“9/11″
“9/11 who?”
“YOU SAID YOU’D NEVER FORGET!”
But that’s exactly what former White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did on Hannity the other day. She was talking about how the Fort Hood shooting should definitely be considered a terrorist attack so they go on Obama’s permanent record, and then highlight her administrations own spotless terror record. OH EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE THING.
Go here to watch the video of the exchange.
I mean, how can you argue that? How can you possibly argue against a Republican stump speech turned RAP!? Impossible!
The guy literally hit every topic imagineable, painting an unpatriotic brush over all those who dare consider themselves liberal. I’m not quite sure that’s what Jefferson would’ve said about Adams, even during the days the two loathed each other more than Michele Bachmann and logic, but whatever.
God, I hope liberals don’t make a video in retaliation. Any video that simply says the other side is wrong as their argument isn’t helpful.
But congrats to conservatives for finding their Will.I.Am. Perhaps now liberals will find their slightly messed in the head leader to start marches for the public option.
[via IndecisionForever]
Thankfully this is just an SNL skit, not an announcement, but I think it does pretty accurately sum up what would happen to the world if Beck and Palin were to ever join forces and win an election. I think it’s definitely possible that their stupidity would literally manifest itself as a physical force capable of destroying earth. What? Who needs science? Isn’t that one of their core tenants anyways?
I’ll give you one guess as to who Martha Stewart is talking about here.
Man, we’ve had a lot of Sarah Palin-related quote of the days recently. Hopefully this book hype will die down soon and we can stop talking about her until at least 2010. Which is soon. Shit.
See the video of Stewart’s comments after the jump:
The man has balls, I’ll give him that.
Glenn Beck is currently planning a 9/12-type march on DC to coincide with the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a dream” speech, where there will surely be a myriad of protesters holding signs comparing our first black president to Hitler.
But the march is only one part of Beck’s plan, the other?
“I am drafting plans now to bring us back to an America that our founders would understand,” he told a crowd in Florida saturday, at a book-sales event.
Beck has been “doing a lot of reading on history in the last few years” and announced that he is crafting a 100 year plan for the nation.
Beck recently said to a crowd in Florida that “We need to start thinking like the Chinese.” I think he’s miscalculating the inborn racism in his followers, and he may want to change that to something a bit less menacing. Aren’t his supporters always the ones denouncing Obama as a communist?
In any case, as they say in the ABC show V, he’s arming himself with the most dangerous weapon of all, devotion.
[via RawStory]
You may remember this polite, liberal kid from when he was interviewing teabaggers a few months ago. Well, he’s back and he’s now interviewing the same sort of folks at a Sarah Palin book signing event. All the kid does is ask for specifics as to what people like about policies. What are they able to come up with? Not a whole hell of a lot. The bullet points are:
- More drilling (”Get polar bears off the endangered species list so we can drill there”)
- Less abortion (”I’ve heard from church groups and Fox News that Obama supports partial birth abortion’_
- Fairness
- Realness
That’s all I’ve really got. Scan the video yourself to see if you can get any other key policy points out of it.
So remember how red states all rushed to ban same-sex marriage over the past few years before the gays could marry and multiply and take over the country? Well, in it’s hurry to do so, Texas actually ended up inadvertently banning STRAIGHT marriage as well. Huh??
Subsection B of the ban, a constitutional amendment ratified in 2005, states, “This state…may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The intent was to prevent even civil unions for gay couples—but it doesn’t actually specify the “gay” part.
I ain’t no fancy big city lawyer, but unless you throw in “gay” in there somewhere, this does seem to me like a status “identical to marriage” would actually be “marriage” would it not? Bust out the lawsuits, though I doubt you’ll actually get anywhere with them as I’m sure Texas has already called for a vote to put “gay” in that bill.
[via Newser]
