Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Political limericks...

There was a large man named Rush
Whose opinions did constantly gush.

His radio rants,

Sure ruffle some pants,

But his thinking just seems so much mush.

There was a young man named Glenn

Who uses his chalk like a pen.

His arguments seem ruthless,

But his logic is toothless,

And he thinks commies hide in his den.

There was a young man name of Keith

Who rips at the right with his teeth.

He mocks them with voices,

And questions their choices,

Giving many of them a nightly worst wreath.

There was a thin woman named Ann

Who certainly could use a tan.

She lashes the left,

As morally bereft,

While thinking more right than most can.

There was a young man named Barack

Whose critics he often does shock.

They question his birth,

Say he lies without worth,

But say “no” to him as they dead lock.

There was a tall man name of Bill

Who nightly presents all his will.

“You’re in no-spin zones,”

To his guests he intones,

But he comes off as just nothing but shrill.

There was a young woman named Sarah

Whose beauty just might rival Farrah’s.

But when she opens her mouth,

All who hear her run south,
With a strong sense of fear and sheer terror.

There was a young man name of Sean

Who says lefties do everything wrong.

His rantings enable,

Right fringe groups who table,

The conspiracies for which Sean does long.

Added on 11/12/2009...

There once was a man named Lou Dobbs
Whose opinion he did spew out in gobs.
He ranted of illegals,
As he acted all regal,
So now he's considering new jobs.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Stop staring at yourself!

Someone at Fox News has got to tell Martha MacCallum to stop admiring herself in the monitor in front of her.

This is most noticeable and annoying when she takes part in those silly multiple-choice "nooooz" quizzes on The Factor. She spends more time catching glances at herself in the monitor than she does looking anywhere else.

course she's pretty. She is. But does she have to prove this to herself constantly?

Bill, please. Point some of your famous No Spin attitude straight at Ms. MacCallum and get her to stop stealing glances at herself in your monitors. It's annoying.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Bum's Rush for Rush?

Rush Limbaugh has fallen victim to a vast Liberal conspiracy of staggering proportions.

It's obvious that the NFL is a nest of lefty Socialists and Communists, because it has rejected Rush's honest desire to be an NFL-team owner, dropping him like a Favre bullet over the middle, rejecting him like a smothering defense on 4th and short.

Who could possibly believe that as an owner Mr. Limbaugh would not comport himself with the same dignity and restraint he has so clearly demonstrated on his radio broadcasts over the last decade?

What proof is there that he's anything less than a fair and impartial man who wants nothing more than to be one of the guys, to hang with his peers?

What has this world come to when a multi-millionaire can't spend his money on whatever he wants to in a supposedly free market, unimpeded by political and social pressures?

I, for one, can't wait for Rush's appearances on the fairest, most impartial media shows, like Hannity and The Factor and On the Record, so he can make his case and they can give him the support and props he so badly needs. The Teabaggers should take up his cause. Glenn Beck should diagram it on his chalkboard and expose it for what it is: Obama's fault. Women around the country should come to Rush's aid and support him in this unfair denial of his rights as he has so clearly done for them, time and time again.

This is just so obviously a case of left-wing pressure brought to bear on an innocent, right-thinking man who simply doesn't deserve any of it.

No... not really.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Deny wrongdoing yet pay anyway?

In what twisted part of the cosmos does it makes sense for a corporation or company to be able to admit no wrongdoing (in terms of what they were sued for), yet have to pay money in a settlement?

How can they agree that they owe someone money but be able to say they did nothing wrong?

If they truly did nothing wrong, they shouldn't pay anything at all. That they paid, however, means they did something wrong: paying is admitting this.

What am I missing here?

If I smack into someone in traffic or a tree in my yard falls on my neighbor's house, I pay for these transgressions. I can't say, "These weren't my fault, but here's some cash anyway."

If corporations want corporate personhood, want the rights that people have, they should behave like people and admit wrongdoing when they do wrong.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Hello Pot? This is Kettle.

Eric Cantor's name is perfect: he's a can't-er, all right.

Here's how
his meeting with Steny Hoyer will probably go.

Hoyer: "So, I'd like you to get on board with health care reform."

Cantor: "No."

Hoyer: "You said it would be good 'to see if we in Congress could try to work together for a change.' So you're now saying you didn't say this?"

Cantor: "No."

Hoyer: "All you Republicans can seem to say is 'no'; is this any way to seek meaningful change?"

Cantor: "No."

Hoyer: "You're kind of a dick, aren't you?"

Cantor: "Yes... I mean, no."