Friday, April 30, 2010
So make sure to keep an eye on my gallery!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Apparently prank calls aren't just for immature teenagers.
This is Lance Baxter (a.k.a.: D.C. Douglas), the voice-over actor for the Geico commercials. (And no, he's not the Gecko. He's the guy who says "Geico: 15% can save you 15% on car insurance). He left a voice-mail message at the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks asking how many of its employees were "mentally-retarded" After the message was leaked to the internet, he was fired from Geico.
Just goes to show you that karma is a bitch!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Last week, the liberal radio talk show “The Young Turks” defended Geico announcer Lance Baxter, who was fired for leaving a voice-mail message at FreedomWorks asking how many of its employees were “mentally-retarded.” After playing a clip of the message, co-host Ana Kasparian commented on how calm the voice-mail message was. Host Cenk Uygur applauded Baxter, saying his question was a fair one.
Cenk: I love this guy. Okay. I mean, this is my kind of guy.
Kasparian: That was the calmest voice-mail ever left on someone’s voicemail.
Cenk: And he just inquired. He just wants to know: what percentage are mentally retarded? You can call them back and say zero percent. He just wants to know. It’s just like Fox News, okay. He’s asking a question, okay. What percentage? It’s a fair question. We may disagree with the percentage. But the right-wingers didn’t see it that way.
Damn right they didn’t see it that way!
First of all, just because Baxter left a “calm” message doesn’t mean it wasn’t offensive. I could easily call up Cenk’s radio show and—in the calmest, most soothing voice—tell him to shoot himself in the foot, set himself on fire, jump off a building, and—if he’s still living—crawl into the street and get run over by traffic. Calm doesn’t mean inoffensive.
Second, when does asking a non-profit political organization how many of its employees are mentally-retarded constitute a fair question? It’s not a question one normally asks. Would it also be a fair question to ask “The Young Turks” how many of its employees are mentally-retarded? (Obvious answer: all of them!)
I also “love” how they defend him as a “private citizen” partaking in his freedom of expression, and how they wouldn’t hound somebody who left a hateful message on their radio show. Never mind that Baxter, being the announcer for Geico, is a celebrity, and thus a public figure not entitled to the same level of privacy as a random caller to a radio program.
Jon Stewart slammed former Geico announcer Lance Baxter for leaving his real phone number in a voice-mail message to FreedomWorks asking how many of its employees were “mentally retarded.”
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Geico Fires Voice Actor|
Questioning the intellectual capacity of the organization FreedomWorks. By the way, How did the simpletons catch this guy? Well, according to the Washington Post, he left a fake name but his real phone number. Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle retarded. It's like a vandal making his grafiti tag his home address.
Monday, April 26, 2010
MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law 'Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant'
You mean to tell me that sneaking over the border in the dead of night to live in this country without applying for citizenship while not paying taxes is a crime? Wow, MSNBC is smart! (Unlike dumb-dumb Fox News).
Friday, April 23, 2010
After being fired from Geico for leaving a tasteless message at FreedomWorks, voice-over actor Lance Baxter uploaded the following video to YouTube ridiculing Tea Party protestors as a homophobic, racist mob.
Guess somebody’s still upset about losing their job. No offense, but that’s what you get for leaving stupid messages.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Left-wing blogger Joan Walsh made a fool of herself on Tuesday’s Morning Joe when she couldn’t think of a single left-wing extremist comparable to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. (Hint: Mike Malloy or Keith Olbermann would have been acceptable answers). In her blog yesterday, she defended herself by explaining that, not only is there no one on the left like Limbaugh or Beck, but that she was also referring to extremists and terrorists (which she claims are mostly right-wing).
I'm the one who posed the question: Scarborough suggested that reasonable folks on the left (that's me) and the right (that's Joe) ought to denounce the extremists in their own camp. I asked him whom he thought I should denounce, because I don't think there's anyone on the left as consistently cruel, divisive and wrong as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. But my question wasn't merely about media: The problem on the right includes extremists who've made death threats against Democrats like Patty Murray, Bart Stupak, Nancy Pelosi and, of course, President Obama. There's no one on the left posing the same threat to leaders on the right -- or if there is, I'd like to know about it. (The whack job who threatened the folks who made the movie "Babe," along with Obama and GOP whip Eric Cantor, doesn't count.)
Sigh. Where do I begin?
2) There have been plenty of examples of left-wing extremists threatening (AND committing) violence against the right.
3) WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE WHACK JOB WHO THREATENED TO KILL ERIC CANTOR (AND HIS FAMILY!) DOESN’T COUNT?
After reading her blog post, i decided to peruse the rest of Walsh’s blog. Turns out the woman is notorious for spewing nonsense. In two recent blog posts, she has used a questionable survey to further malign the Tea Party protestors as nothing more than racists, and used an appeal to authority argument to defend congressman John Lewis (“Lewis's word on the confrontation is good enough for me.”) Gee, no wonder this woman has been laughed at.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
"It is deplorable to go ahead with this decision of the wall at the border...The wall will not solve any problem. Humanity made a huge mistake by building the Berlin Wall and I believe that today the United States is committing a grave error in building the wall on our border. It is much more useful to solve common problems and foster prosperity in both countries."
- Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico, 2006
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. And they say our president was an idiot?
Now that Obama has accomplished healthcare reform, the next logical step would be immigration reform. Let’s hope he knows the difference between immigration and illegal immigration.
Look, I have nothing against immigrants. I am neither a xenophobe nor a racist. I understand that everyone not born of Native American heritage is descended, one way or another, from immigrants. I understand that our country is the “Great Melting Pot,” a country built by immigrants. And I openly embrace the idea of immigrants coming to this country to seek a better life, especially if they’re from Mexico.
But I also realize—no, I know—that there is a major difference between immigrants who come to America through the immigration process, and those who sneak across the border in the dead of night. It’s the same difference between buying something and stealing it. One is legal, the other is not. It’s a matter of principle, not race.
Immigrants should be free to come to this country, but is it too hard to ask that they come here legally, pay taxes, learn English, and assimilate into our culture? Or is that racist of me?
About a month ago, Acorn CEO Bertha Lewis warned the Young Democratic Socialists that they were heading to a time that would be worse than McCarthysim, Japanese interment, and segregation.
What flavor Kool-Aid was she drinking? Acorn-flavored?
As you guys know, right now, we are living in a time, um, which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It’s going to dwarf, um, the internment during WWII. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation.
They [conservatives] are coming, and they are coming after you, and they are going to be brutal and present. They’ve already shown it to you.
…this is not rhetoric or hyperbole. This is real.
Really? Times today are worse?
Worse than accusing and slandering innocent Americans, often without any substantial evidence, of being Communist spies and sympathizers?
Worse than uprooting nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes and relocating them to internment camps with horrible living conditions?
Worse than legally discriminating against African Americans by forcing them to drink from different water fountains, use different restrooms, attend different schools, and sit in different bus seats?
This isn’t rhetoric or hyperbole? This is real?
Are you kidding me?
I may not have lived during the time of Japanese internment, McCarthysim, or segregation (though I know many people who lived during those times), but even I have enough common sense to know that times are better, not worse, than they were back then, regardless of the current political atmosphere.
And people accuse conservatives of fear mongering?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
In a recent column, political analyst Roland S. Martin, author of “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House,” exposes the hypocrisy of the Tea Party protests, as well as its most vicious critics.
First, let’s deal with the Tea Party haters. Please, shut up.
How can any liberal, progressive, moderate or conservative be mad about a group of Americans taking to the streets to protest the actions of the country? What they are engaged in is constitutional. The freedom to assemble, march, walk, scream and yell is right there in the document we all abide by.
Do I object to idiots holding up clearly racist signs, as well as the stupidity of images of President Obama as Hitler? Of course. That ignorance detracts from whatever commentary they are trying to make on the status of the nation.
…But it’s clear that most of the folks attending Tea Party rallies are not bigots and homophobes. There are ignorant fools in all groups, and the Tea Party is no different.
If anyone wants to oppose the Tea Party for spreading misinformation, do that. But to assert that it’s wrong to take part in civic engagement is utterly silly. The best of this country came out of the action of those in the streets.
…They are a rowdy, loud and forceful bunch filled largely with Republicans who oppose the policies of the president. Nothing wrong with that. There were a bunch of rowdy, loud and forceful liberals and progressives taking to the streets to oppose the policies of President George W. Bush.
Finally, after a year of the left slandering the Tea Party protests as racist, bigoted, white supremacist, the Ku Klux Klan, and teabagging rednecks, I finally find someone who disagrees with the movement, but doesn’t resort to race-bating or smear attacks.
And he’s an African American to boot!
I said it before. I’ll say it again. Fairness and Accuracy in Media is anything but “fair” or “accurate.”
Case in point: a recent post praises left-wing columnist E.J. Dionne for writing “a good column” about the Tea Party protests. You know it’s “good” because it blames the media for promoting the racist protests.
E.J. Dionne has a good column in the Washington Post today (4/19/10) looking at the Tea Party movement, and pinning a fair amount of blame on the press: "The news media's incessant focus on the Tea Party is creating a badly distorted picture of what most Americans think and is warping our policy debates." Looking at the most recent poll of Tea Party supporters, Dionne concludes that racism is clearly a factor in motivating many of these activists.
Dionne is right. The media’s obsession with the Tea Party protests have “created a badly distorted picture of what most Americans think,” if by that he means smearing protestors as racist rednecks who are angry over a black president, focusing on a few outrageous signs to exemplify the entire protests, using the derogatory term “teabaggers” to refer to protestors, smearing the protests as anti-government and anti-tax (even though the protests are against larger federal government and higher taxes), and siding with congressmen who claimed they were called racial slurs (though there’s no evidence to back their story).
Yes, all this media attention, negative as it is, has helped the Tea Party movement. (rolls eyes).
And now for a voice of reason:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
I’m all for promoting abstinence, especially among teenagers. But Lady Gaga? That’s like Michael Moore promoting proper diet and exercise.
The 24-year-old singer who's made a career with songs that glorify carnal pleasures told London's that she is currently under a self-imposed sex ban and that others should consider a similar posture.
"I can't believe I'm saying this — don't have sex. I'm single right now and I've chosen to be single because I don't have the time to get to know anybody," she said while visiting England to help promote MAC's Viva Glam campaign, which supports global HIV and AIDS projects. "So it's OK not to have sex, it's OK to get to know people. I'm celibate, celibacy's fine."
Just to clarify, this is the woman promoting celibacy:
“Don’t have sex,” and “I wanna take a ride on your disco stick.” Sounds like conflicting messages to me.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Suppose you claimed to have seen a UFO last night and you videotaped it as evidence. The video tape does not show a UFO, rather a clear night sky, yet you insist that you did indeed videotape a UFO.
Should you be taken seriously? Of course not!
Now suppose you’re a researcher for a far-left blog site. You claimed to have heard protestors shout racial slurs at congressmen, and that you videotaped it as evidence. The video tape does not show protestors shouting racial slurs, yet you insist that you did indeed videotape protestors shouting racial slurs.
Should you be taken seriously? Of course not!
Only 22 seconds of video have emerged from the time in question [when black congressmen were allegedly called racial slurs], filmed by Lee Fang of the liberal American Progress think tank. His YouTube clip — labeled as being filmed about five minutes after the crowd rushed Lewis and Carson — has been posted by Breitbart and dozens of blogs accusing Democrats of lying.
Fang told the AP he was standing "pretty far away" across Independence Avenue from the Cannon building when he saw the crowd erupt, so he hurried over. Fang did not hear the epithet, but he said he believes it was used. "The hatred was palpable," he said.
Okay, so at least Fang admitted that he didn’t hear any racial slurs. Yet he insists protestors did shout them, even though his videotape (embedded below) proves otherwise.
Seriously. Is anyone surprised by this? They shouldn't be, considering that Obama’s bows to every foreign leader he meets.
Bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.
Bowing to the Japanese emperor.
Bowing to the Chinese premier.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Last night, the left-wing pundit labeled Editor David Freddoso as “Worse Person in the World” for stating black Tea Party protestors do exist.
The bronze to David Freddoso, the online editor of the Washington Examiner. And this is embarrassing. He writes today, “Where are the black Tea Partiers? They’re here, hated and trashed by liberals. Keith Olbermann has famously asked where the Black tea-partiers are. The Associated Press writes that they are indeed out there. They are brave to participate, too, given the hateful, racist rhetoric they report from liberals who want them to shut up and go away.”
Mr. Freddoso then links to a long Associated Press story about black Tea party members, which identifies five of them. Five! And one of them is a former Fox News commentator. Mr Freddoso, five? I’m embarrassed on your behalf now.
I don’t know what Olbermann was expecting. The news story would have been much longer if it tried to identify more than five black Tea Party protestors. Then again, the story could have identified 500 protestors, and Keith Olbermann still wouldn’t believe it.
Ever since he asked “Where are the black faces?” at the Tea Party protests, Olbermann has opposed anyone who has tried to show him said “black faces” and other minorities.
The Dallas Tea Party refuted his claim with a video highlighting minority members and inviting him to attend. Olbermann rejected the invitation and scoffed that the video only highlighted a few minority members.
Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media wrote an article criticizing Olbermann and claiming that a fellow correspondent of his did see black protestors. Olbermann laughed, asking “Why not just say it: Some of my best Tea Party friends are black?”
You can throw all the black Tea Party protestors at Olbermann, and he’ll keep asking you where the black people are. Pundits like him are immune to the truth.
As for Fredosso, he managed to turn Olbermann’s ridicule against him:
Wow, I am embarrassed, Keith...embarrassed that I should thus become the beneficiary of an obviously slow news day and an even slower research team. Is that really the best you can do? I always wanted to be the Worst, but I also wanted to deserve the victory. That has to be the weakest, lamest public shaming I have ever received. My conservative friends are already accusing me of cheating, telling me that I barely deserve the title of "Worse."
Thanks, Keith. You've made me into the Floyd Landis of "Worst Person in the World."
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Last night, left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann labeled columnist John Avalon as “Worse Person in the World” for comparing the left-wing activist group Code Pink with the right-wing militia group Hutaree. “Well sure, those are the same,” Olbermann remarked. “Non-violent sort of lumpy protest as opposed to domestic terrorism!”
This coming from the man who compared the Tea Party protests to the Ku Klux Klan. (Well sure, Keith, those are the same: non-violent sort of lumpy protests as opposed to white supremacist groups!)
Olbermann then lectured Avalon on the term “wingnuts.”
An additional note to the non-partisan Avalon and the real journalists of CNN, the term “wingnut” is by definition a reference to conservatives. Even conservatives acknowledge that. There are not left-wing wingnuts. The left-wing equivalent is “moonbats.” Thank you.
Well, Olbermann is partially right but mostly wrong. “Wingnuts” is more commonly used to describe conservatives rather than liberals, who are called “moonbats.” However, the definition for “wingnut,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “one who advocates extreme measures or changes.” So the term can be used to describe either conservatives or liberals.
Therefore, according to the dictionary definition, Keith Olbermann can be classified as either a “wingnut” or a “moonbat.”