Sunday, January 20, 2008

I got jokes...

Q. Why does Laura Bush always have sex on top?

A. Because George can only fuck up.

Ha! I love it.

It's A Toss Up...

I'm somewhat conflicted on this one. Apparently some jackasses made a movie about what a bad president Hilly would be and they want to start airing it wherever their mutant rat-fucking cronies can distribute it to.

First amendment rights or unfair tampering with the electorate? Does the fact that the general public is too stupid to investigate anything themselves and will buy anything wrapped in shiny paper matter?

From the SCOTUSBlog:

Court appeal set on promos of campaign film
Citizens United, a Washington-based conservative advocacy group, is moving to appeal to the Supreme Court ? and seeking expedited review ? in a case testing its right to run promotional ads for a 90-minute film critical of?New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The organization formally filed a?notice of appeal?Wednesday in U.S. District Court, and plans to file its actual appeal in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.? James Bopp, Jr., Citizen United?s counsel, said he will also file a motion asking the Court to expedite the case in hopes of having it heard and decided during the current Court Term.
A special three-judge U.S. District Court refused on Tuesday to clear the way for unrestricted airing of the film itself and three ads that promote the film, titled ?Hillary: The Movie.?? This is the way the District Court described the production: ?The Movie is susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.?
With that content, the District Court said, the film is a form of ?electioneering communication? that a 2002 federal campaign finance law forbids being aired on radio and TV in the period before a primary or general election of federal candidates, including those running for president, if the broadcast is paid for by corporation funds including funds of a non-profit corporation.
?Citizens United has already released the film as part of a campaign to?put the film in theaters, on TV-on-demand broadcasts, and in stores as DVDs. It has also prepared three ads to promote the film, to be aired prior to?state caucuses and primaries, before the Democratic national convention and before the general election in November, if Sen. Clinton becomes the Democratic?nominee.? It has not yet run any of the three ads because of legal uncertainty.
In a lawsuit filed in District Court in mid-December, Citizens United contended that it is unconstitutional to treat the film?s TV showings and its ads as the type of broadcasts covered by the 2002 law.? The Federal Election Commission told the District Court as the lawsuit unfolded that the ads may be aired as planned because they come within an exception the FEC has fashioned in a new rule.
Even though it is free to run the ads, Citizen United?s lawsuit asserted that it is unconstitutional to require the organization to disclose the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to pay for such an ad,?and?to require a disclaimer as to who is responsible for the content of the ads.? Those provisions apply, the FEC has said, even if the ads themselves are not banned.
The District Court concluded that Citizens United had not made a sufficient showing that it would be harmed by?the requirements laid down for the three ads.? Thus, the Court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the?disclosure and disclaimer requirements for the ads while the lawsuit proceeds through the Court toward a final ruling. It is that refusal that will form the core of the appeal to the Supreme Court.? While the District Court also refused to bar the enforcement of the ?electioneering communications? ban against the movie itself, that will not be at issue in the currently planned appeal.
Citizens United has posted the contents of the three ads at

I Thought They Had Vitamin C And Stuff...

Last week the Supreme Court placed a case on their April docket regarding the claim that some consumers were duped by Philip Morris into believing that Lights were A-Ok to smoke. Next up: Me vs. Flintstone Vitamins. I thought they'd revert society back into peaceful hunter gatherers who cohabitate with multi-functional dino-buddies. Honestly, Philip Morris is only helping out the whole natural selection part of Evolution at this point. C'mon, people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those self righteous non-smoking ass pirates who wrinkles my nose whenever someone lights a cigarette within 50 feet of me. No no, my friends. I am an ex smoker. A reformed smoker. In recovery, as some of you schmuck 12 steppers would put it. Yes, I may have the lungs of a non-smoker, but I believe I have the metaphorical heart of a two pack a day-er. And as such, I despise all the pricks riding on this new fangled wave of health nuts pushing through legislation outlawing people from borrowing matches in public and whatnot. But still... even when I was smoking, (heavily, I might add) I never once considered my blissful habit as healthy or even neutral. So for anyone out there still in the dark as to whether or not light ciggies are good or bad for you: mail me a money order (no personal checks) for 25 dollars and I'll send you a carton of my brand new, all natural, organic cigarettes which will help you to lose weight and increase your IQ while simultaneously increasing the size of your penis or breasts. They're called Darwins. Smoke up, Johnny!

Posted from moBlog – mobile blogging tool for Windows Mobile

Huck's a Schmuck - Part II

Again from Salon War Room:

Mike Huckabee's mission from God
1/17/08 7:36 AM
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has clarified what he meant when he said that "what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
In an interview with Fox News -- Crooks and Liars has the video -- Huckabee says an amendment banning abortion and another banning same-sex marriage "are the two areas I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance."
Fair enough, but why not?
If it is, as Huckabee said the other day, "easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," what's the basis for stopping at abortion or same-sex marriage or even at tithing or Sunday school? Why not push for an amendment outlawing homosexuality entirely? On the other hand, maybe God would be interested in passing the Equal Rights Amendment. How about an amendment banning the death penalty? Or maybe an omnibus amendment outlawing preemptive war, the touching of pigskins and the getting of haircuts?
Who should be the arbiter of "God's standards"? How do we decide which of those "standards" can be ignored and which are important enough that we "need" to address them by amending the Constitution? And how would Mike Huckabee feel about having someone else -- say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich -- making those decisions for him?

Huck's a Schmuck

From Salon's War Room:

Huckabee digs a little deeper
1/17/08 12:51 PM
The beginning of the end for Sen. Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who lost his reelection bid in 2006, may have come in April 2003, when he famously suggested that there's a slippery slope between homosexuality and bestiality.
So what do we have here?
In an interview with Beliefnet, Mike Huckabee tries again to dig himself out of his "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" hole by ... suggesting there's a slippery slope between homosexuality and bestiality.
Asked whether it wouldn't be a "dangerous undertaking" to try to bring the Constitution into conformity with the Bible -- particularly "given the variety of biblical interpretations" -- Huckabee said: "Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic."
Huckabee said that "the genius" of the Constitution is that it was built to be changed. On the other hand, he said, the Bible "was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture."
"The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was," Huckabee said. "Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn't vote, African-Americans wouldn't be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there've been injustices made because the Constitution wasn't as clear as it needed to be, and that's the point."
What Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister, doesn't say: As historian Mark Newman writes, many Southern Baptists once "defended segregation in the sincere belief that it formed part of God's plan for the human race," and sometimes "cited biblical verses" in support of racial separation.


For the record, I am the geekiest jackass this blog has ever seen. I'm posting this from my mobile device. That's right, ''mobile device,'' not cell phone. I'm also a pretentious geek! So anyway, I saw Barrack Obama on the hard hitting Tyra Banks show the other day. No, I didn't tune in. It was on while I was at the bank so quit fucking judging me, damnit. Just before the show went to commercial break, Tyra and Barrack went over to a basketball court that was set up in the fuckin studio to play a game of pickup. Is that pandering or what?!? I'm impressed. If I see him on Montel next week with a bucket of fried chicken and some grape drink he'll have my vote locked up.

Posted from moBlog – mobile blogging tool for Windows Mobile