lately, i've received several requests to explain what criteria are required to help something or someone qualify as a candidate for wankerhood. each was in an envelope simply addressed "note to myself". then there was a knock at the front door, and i opened it to find ted cruz, dressed in a pink floral hawaiian-print muu-muu, a feathered hat that made his face look like a turkey's ass and dragging a cross with his left hand and carrying a pitcher made out of michelle bachmann's head in the other, offering me a glass of his special bullshit and koolaid cocktail (apparently an old family recipe). he never said what he wanted. i thought he might be campaigning to be this weeks winner, but he just kept repeating, "nooo BRRAAAAINS! noooo BRRAAAINS!".... and then i woke up.
but seriously, with so many things to comment on, one has to draw the line somewhere. first of all, it's easier (and much more fun for all concerned) to take potshots at those who engage in expressing themselves in stupid, ridiculous and moronic fashion. besides, if you're going to go and open yourself up to mockery and derision, it's my feeling you deserve what you get, though, as one pointed out to one of my comments, mockery is a form of bigotry...but we'll get to that particular item in a few minutes. it also allows me to use my god-given talents of sarcasm and snidery (is that a word?) to express my opinion without coming across as just another run-of-the-mill bitch out for a daily rant. some things are of such a nature as to not lend themselves to such tactics, like the dutch zoo who, in order to avoid the possible inbreeding of a species, killed a juvenile giraffe who was reportedly eating a slice of rye bread, in full view of a group of school children. despite the fact that several other zoos had offered to take the poor doomed animal, the zoo felt it more appropriate to kill it and feed it to the lions in residence. nope. no way to be sarcastic there. or the store security video that showed a convicted abortion clinic bomber and former darling of the right-to-life movement walking up behind a 12 year-old girl while her father went to use the restroom, fondling her and, according to the girl, inviting her to his car for a drink. last we heard, he's still on the run, this paragon of pro-life virtue (oops. that was a trifle sarcastic, wasn't it).
anyhow, since i also don't feel i have any need to justify myself or the free expression of my opinions and we also need to move forward, lets get on with it. i previously mentioned the reply to my comment that said my mockery was the equivalent of bigotry. the subject of my comment was the pastor at the white tail chapel (irony apparent in a moment) who, since jesus was born nude, died nude and then rose from the dead, also in the nude, decided to preach...you guessed it....in the nude. he proceeded to encourage his parishioners to also duff their duds, which they did. i'm sorry, but (i said but!) a church full of naked, "amen"-ing, hand-clapping swaying (in more ways than one) people just comes across as...take your pick...funny, ridiculous, preposterous, certainly anything but (i said it again!) worshipful. however (i couldn't say "but" again) to each his own and my honest reaction to it was taken as an affront to religion, particularly christianity. now really, it was funny, wasn't it? along the same line, but not nearly as funny, is reverend donny at the happy valley church of jesus christ who decided to give his take on inter-racial relationships...they're, to put it mildly, god's big no-no (right up there with choosing to be gay or openly supporting background checks), because, as he puts it, god created people of distinct colors and had he wanted a different color, he'd have made them that way in the first place. and, as we all know, god is never wrong. needless to say, his proclamation was greeted with applause, cheering and plenty of amens. so much is acceptable as long as it's in the name of god.
and while we're speaking of things in the name of god, we have the ever-reliable "chaps" klingyshit, who recently said that gays are so unreliable in combat situations that they must resort to wearing diapers, transgender individuals only want access to ladies facilities so they can rape women and gays do not deserve health care (or any other protections granted under law) but do deserve to die. he has also come to the realization that disney is under the influence of "demonic spirits". the last is because a recently canceled disney channel series had the NERVE to depict a family with two moms. you know, i never did trust goofy. and donald's always running around without pants. how could we have been so blind? now, in his home state of colorado, "chappy" is intending to run for political office in order to prevent the democrats from doing their damnest to establish an american theocracy. you did catch that. it's the DEMOCRATS that want to establish a theocracy in this country (facepalm here). personally, i think he's the one who's been doing a little too much nipping on the "demon spirits".
moving from people who claim to believe in god to one who seems to have a little god complex. despite admitting to meghan "santa and jesus are white get over it" kelly that he regrets having been such a divisive force in the past, he returned to being his true self by saying that it is quite possible obama will resort to putting those who do not support his "agenda" into prison camps, as was done to japanese-americans during the second world war. so watch it all you christian, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-gun zealots. you just might find yourselves going to camp soon. and to think you won't have to sell any of those stupid candy bars or magazine subscriptions to get there. and maybe, just maybe, you'll have sarah for arts and crafts and ted as your outhouse monitor.
previously nominated billionaire tom perkins who likened the "persecution" of the wealthy in this country to the nazi persecution of the jews, told an audience at the commonwealth club that he has a suggestion for changing the voting rules that will completely change life as we know it, and for the better. as he puts it, if you pay $1.00 in income tax, you get one vote. if you pay $100, you get 100 votes. if you pay 1 million dollars....well, you see where this is going. although he tried to walk it back with a wink and a "JUST KIDDING!", you can plainly see his feelings are if you've got the money, you can buy whatever you want. like the song by abba...."money, money, money....lots of money. it's a rich man's world!" well, tommy, you might be rich, but you're still a dick.
a little something on the lighter side, a woman in grand rapids got a little peckish and decided to go to the drive-thru at her local mc donalds. however, they got her order wrong and after complaining they said they'd replace it. instead of waiting, she left. upon her return, she found that, once again, they got her order wrong. this time, instead of simply complaining, she thought it better to put a bullet through the drive-thru window and take off. police were able to track her down because, on her first visit, she had given them her phone number so they could call her to let her know when to come pick up her food. seriously. next time she wants it her way, i suggest she go to burger king.
now, as they say in the music biz, i'm going to bring it on home. scott walker, during his appearance on right wing news to promote his book 'uneducated'...or something like that...claimed that, back in the day, he was so sure that ronald reagan would be good for the country, it was a no-brainer...he had to vote for him. the only problem is, reagan's first run was in 1980, which would have made scotty only 13 at the time. doing the math, he would have been 17 when reagan ran, and was elected, for a second term. so we have a conundrum. did he vote when he was not yet "legal", thus perpetrating voter fraud (one of the biggest republican sins) or is he just out and out lying, trying to pad his conservative resume? or can we pick from a list of options for excuse #3....i forgot. i don't remember. i was taken out of context...BENGHAZI!!! it's not overly surprising rwn didn't call him on it right there since research into facts has never been a strong suit for conservatives.
this week, i have to hand it to the men of the cloth. hand. cloth. reminds me of why i chose to call them "wankers". because, like most wankers they tend to leave a mess and when asked what they're doing the answer is always "nothing!". but unlike most wankers, they never bother to shut the door.
later.
No comments:
Post a Comment