dumb and dumber

george w. bush is dumb. his latest state-of-the-union speech was filled with parts that tried to justify his legacy of failure and how he ruined the american economy and made our nation less secure while running up huge deficits and mishandling wars and hurricane relief efforts and trashing the environment. he mentioned how "no child left behind" was a great bipartisan effort, and only the republicans applauded... i guess the democrats know that it is an unfunded mandate and costs school districts tons of money, which is not provided to them by the federal government. there were several good ideas in the speech, but none of them were conservative republican ideas, they were liberal democrat ideas. fighting the aids epidemic was one of them. another was an international treaty to reduce global warming. another was reducing the number of troops in iraq. all ideas that liberal democrats had proposed and fought for, which had been fought against tooth and nail by the republicans. i guess bush was just surrendering to us democrats in that speech, by agreeing to go along with several of our initiatives. it was interesting he had no new initiatives of his own. no proposals to send people back to the moon and on to mars. none of that stuff. he seemed to be borrowing rhetoric from john mccain, talking about vetoing spending bills full of pork-barrel earmarks and cutting government spending, and about how the surge is working. half bush’s new state-of-the-union speech appeared to have been lifted directly out of one of john mccain’s stump speeches for the 2008 election, albeit rephrased in different words. and the bit where he addressed the people of iran was a comedy bit bush had done in previous speeches, with all those jokes about how we respect the people and culture of iran. very funny stuff!

but guess who is even dumber than george w. bush? you will never guess... he was mayor of new york city when it was attacked by terrorists, and earlier he had moved the city’s emergency operations headquarters into one of the 2 buildings that collapsed after being hit by a plane. he was the one who gave the police and firefighters inadequate equipment, radios that didn’t work. and after 9/11 he was one of the people that said the air near ground zero was safe to breathe. yeah... rudy giuliani. he ran his entire campaign around the theme of 9/11, and when he lost one of the early primaries or caucuses he said that he wasn’t having any trouble dealing with doing so badly in the polls in those states since he had been in stressful situations before... like 9/11, which he specifically mentioned. and the most boneheaded thing he ever did had nothing to do with 9/11... it was where he chose to campaign. he only campaigned in florida, and ignored all the early primary states before florida. so he ignored iowa, wyoming, new hampshire, michigan, nevada, and south carolina, figuring he could lose badly in all 6 of those, then manage to somehow win in florida, and then he would have the momentum to win on “super duper tuesday”. okay, idiot... you sit out the first 6 of the 50 states’ contests, and lose badly in every single one, and the media spends the whole time focusing on other candidates and which one of them is winning... and think you can win #7 somehow, even though the other candidates are competing in all 50 states instead of just 1? that is by far the stupidest campaign strategy that any presidential candidate has ever had in the entire history of american politics, all the way back to when the constitution was drafted in 1789! george w. bush may be a dumbass, but even he is not this dumb! he never had such a boneheaded, retarded campaign strategy. oh, and what was rudy giuliani’s stance on social issues like abortion and gay rights and gun control? he had the exact opposite stance on them from 99% of the republican party! and he had been married and divorced several times, he had been roommates with an openly gay couple while mayor of new york city, he had dressed in drag for a comedy sketch, and his police commissioner bernie kerik who turned out to be a criminal was the person he nominated to be the nation’s secretary of homeland security! i mean, for crying out loud, rudy giuliani has liberal policies on everything except for national security, foreign policy, and economics, where his policies are ultra-right-wing. oh, and his city was a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, pissing off all the republicans who want to get rid of illegal “aliens”. now mitt romney had the exact same sort of policies as governor of massachusetts, at least when he first ran for governor, but mitt romney was smart enough to realize that it would be politically beneficial to publicly reverse himself on every major issue he had taken a stand on, other than economic issues, where he had been conservative all along. mitt romney was smart enough to realize that it is “better late than never” when it comes to being a conservative republican. and it seems to have worked! both tom delay and rush limbaugh support mitt romney and have publicly condemned john mccain as someone who would ruin the republican party. tom delay was the most corrupt american politician in history and has never shown any signs of remorse for his crimes, and rush limbaugh is likewise a criminal, a drug addict who condemns other drug addicts, who has also never shown any remorse, a radio talk show host with less-than-zero regard for the truth, who spouts nothing but republican political propaganda and religious-right nonsense about how science is wrong about everything. both of these amoral, worthless sleazebags who ought to be in jail for the rest of their lives have condemned john mccain and are supporting mitt romney. mike huckabee also was condemned similarly by rush limbaugh, as well as by phyllis schlafly, the leader of the anti-feminist-self-hating-bitch movement. so mitt romney appeals to amoral con men who believe their own lies... interesting. and all because he, unlike rudy giuliani, had the foresight to publicly reverse himself on almost every major issue in order to win votes. that is how mitt romney won the endorsement of the national review as a “full-spectrum conservative”. and why is mike huckabee doing so badly? well, the u.s. chamber of commerce vowed to bury any presidential candidate who had populist rhetoric (you know, the type of shit you hear from lou dobbs on cnn all the time), and both mike huckabee and john edwards have populist rhetoric. so, naturally, wealthy businesspeople are seeing to it that both huckabee and edwards are defeated badly. this leaves the republicans with 2 choices (since although ron paul is still running, the media is ignoring him and he has lost badly everywhere except nevada where he came in 2nd): john mccain and mitt romney. mitt romney is a flip-flopping wealthy massachusetts politician who has said that he is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. in 2004 a flip-flopping wealthy massachusetts politician who has said that he is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights ran for president and lost. his name was john kerry. and this time john kerry is supporting barack obama, not mitt romney. if mitt romney cannot even win the support of a fellow flip-flopping wealthy massachusetts politician who has said that he is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights, what chance does he have? it is incredibly funny to me that republicans are reduced to the point where someone like mitt romney is considered the most conservative candidate left running... someone like mitt romney who has illegal immigrants as gardeners at his big mansion. and tom delay and rush limbaugh are lining up telling republicans not to vote for john mccain because john mccain is not a real conservative and mitt romney is. seriously... are these dudes on crack or what? john mccain is a staunch conservative republican and always has been... he has always been anti-abortion and always wanted smaller government, campaigned for george w. bush in 2004, the whole 9 yards, yet so many republicans consider him a traitor... makes no sense to me. john mccain supported campaign finance reform and immigration reform... so what? plenty of other republicans in the senate voted the same way on those bills. and how could anyone be opposed to “reform”? would they run as the “anti-reform” candidate? “read my lips: no new reform!” seriously... there is no evidence of any kind that john mccain has been anything other than a loyal conservative republican all these years, and he has actually been more conservative than most other republicans in congress, to be honest, opposing their deficit spending and pork-barrel projects and other things that violated the 1994 “contract with america” and the republican party platform. republicans are just the craziest people, how they eat their own, how they accuse their most loyal members of being traitors. when we democrats accused joe lieberman of being a traitor to the party, we had very good reason: joe lieberman was always pro-war and said the war was going well even when everyone else said it was going horribly. joe lieberman was the first and one of the few democrats in congress to publicly condemn bill clinton in the monica lewinsky affair. joe lieberman supports censorship of video games, is a hawk when it comes to war with iran, and adamantly condemns secularism while promoting the idea that people of faith should run the country. he ran for president as a democrat in the 2004 election without ever saying anything bad about the bush administration. and now in the 2008 elections he has proven his true colors by endorsing john mccain, which should not have been a surprise to anyone, since joe lieberman was the most conservative democrat in the senate, except maybe when zell miller was a senator. anyway, what is my point? my point is, rudy giuliani is a complete buffoon, dumber than even george w. bush. and the republicans are down to a 2-man race between john mccain and mitt romney, and mitt romney is probably going to get his ass kicked by john mccain, much to the dismay of rush limbaugh and tom delay and other immoral assholes like them who probably deserve eternal hellfire and are therefore lucky that hell does not exist.

so what about hillary clinton and barack obama, as well as that 3rd person still in the democratic race, john edwards? well, hillary clinton won in florida, where the other candidates were also on the ballots, unlike in michigan, where she was the only major candidate on the ballots. but nobody was allowed to campaign in florida. and florida does not count, nor does michigan. both get zero delegates, according to a ruling from the democratic national committee, a ruling which, until recently, the clinton campaign completely agreed with. but earlier this month, the clinton campaign suddenly decided that michigan and florida both count, and both of them should get their delegates seated at the convention, the original number they were supposed to get before it was reduced to zero. now the republicans also punished michigan and florida, but by cutting the delegates in half, not reducing them to zero, and they also allowed their candidates to campaign in both of those states as well. anyway, hillary clinton is trying to change the rules halfway through the game. that is called “calvinball”, from the comic strip calvin & hobbes, a game where the rules can be changed at any time if calvin (or in this case hillary clinton) feels like it. if hillary clinton was fine with michigan and florida getting zero delegates a month ago, she ought to be fine with it now. why the flip-flop? in this race for delegates, every delegate counts, so winning the delegate count is more important than any “foolish consistency”. i would have to say things look about 50-50 for barack obama and hillary clinton right now, since barack obama is getting endorsements from edward kennedy, caroline kennedy, and patrick kennedy, to go alongside his endorsements from john kerry, oprah winfrey, jesse jackson, and al sharpton, as well as the endorsements of a large number of senators from red states, and former log cabin republican andrew sullivan. since people appear to be a lot more eager to endorse him than hillary clinton, perhaps this indicates that the american people at large are a lot more eager to support him than hillary clinton. yes, hillary clinton did get the endorsement of the new york times editorial board, but that simply proves that she is not a real liberal, since the new york times is the newspaper of judith miller and jayson blair and now william kristol. if she got the endorsement of the nation magazine, that would show she is a liberal... the new york times, not so much. besides, with arianna huffington behind barack obama, as well as most of daily kos, along with sites like buzzflash.com, who else is left to support hillary clinton? not very many people who have websites or blogs on the internet, that is for sure! hillary clinton does have her supporters, but i think the vast majority of them are not techno-savvy and do not really go online to look at news and blogs very much. her supporters tend to be older and female, and ever since the early days of the internet, internet users have tended to be younger and male, the demographic that goes for barack obama. so perhaps the seemingly overwhelming ratio of support for obama to support for clinton on the internet is an illusion, since the clinton supporters are from the non-internet demographic. we saw the same thing happen in connecticut in 2006. joe lieberman won re-election to the senate as an independent on the strength of voters who never, ever look at blogs on the internet. so the relevance of blogs is not really clear, even major blogs that a lot of people look at. this means that a very very minor blog like mine is of infinitesimally small significance when it comes to having any influence on elections, which is good. i do not want too many people reading what i have to say here. this is a private journal. go away. that was a joke, in case you don’t get sarcasm. anyway, i hope republicans nominate a wealthy flip-flopping massachusetts phony who has proven time and time again that he will say anything to get elected and tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth. it would be so easy for any democratic nominee to beat him, it would be ridiculous. mitt romney would be lucky to break the 1% barrier in the general election, once we get through with pointing out what a lying sack of shit he is and how he has no guiding principles whatsoever, how he is as fake as a mannequin and completely changes his message every week. john mccain, on the other hand, is giving the exact same speeches now that he was giving back in august when it looked like his campaign was finished. i would welcome the opportunity for our democratic candidate to run against an old washington insider whose own party considers him a traitor, who is beloved by liberals who do not yet know that he disagrees with them on every single major issue there is, whether it is the war in iraq, abortion, etc. i find it interesting that according to exit polls from various states that voted so far, the voters who chose john mccain tended to be those few republicans who oppose the iraq war or who are pro-abortion, even though john mccain is adamantly pro-war and anti-abortion. people who vote for john mccain in primaries seem to be incredibly mixed up about the issues. in a general election, we would have a chance to straighten people out about john mccain and let them know who he really is, not who he would like us to think he is (a straight-talking maverick and war hero who has the best qualifications, character, and judgment of anyone running for president, and who has been a republican loyalist when it mattered most but willing to stand up for what he believed in the rest of the time) or who the far-right has portrayed him as (a liberal republican-in-name-only trojan horse who agrees with hillary clinton on everything, who would give us open borders and free citizenship to all illegal immigrants, who would oppose the religious right’s agenda and probably support gay marriage, who opposed the bush tax cuts and would probably raise taxes, who is against “free speech” in the form of campaign contributions, and who would rather ally with democrats than with members of his own party). and, back to talking about the democrats, i really think barack obama has a better chance than hillary clinton in the general election, and bill clinton is more of a liability than an asset. for crying out loud, if bill clinton has proven to be more of a liability than an asset to hillary in the democratic primaries, just imagine what a burdensome liability he would be in the general election. we would re-ignite all the battles of the 1990s between the republicans and the clintons, and all loyal democrats would have to support the clintons. and this time, plenty of former clinton insiders like the amoral dick morris are part of the anti-clinton crowd and ready to go after clinton with full force... and yes, it was hillary clinton who convinced bill clinton to hire republican political consultant dick morris, a man who puts karl rove to shame, who has no loyalty to anyone, and who has devoted his life to destroying the clintons ever since bill clinton fired him. so anyway, electing barack obama would magically solve our problems and we would live in a perfect utopia... no wait, i have him mixed up with john edwards. well, just look at this video from theonion.com and you’ll see:


Mysterious Traveler Entrances Town With Utopian Vision Of The Future

also, if you are morbidly obese, you will like this video from theonion.com:


As Obese Population Rises, More Candidates Courting The Fat Vote

and if you are wondering who really runs our country then look at this one:


In The Know: Are We Giving The Robots That Run Our Society Too Much Power?

that kinda stuff really makes me think... which is better: robots or aliens? pirates or ninjas? that is the kind of issue we need to debate in this country. then we could make some real progress, and be really “progressive”. should we clone people and transfer their memories to the clone when they die, or just use necromancy and black magick to bring them back from the dead? we need an open, honest debate about these issues, and the media needs to put more focus on them as well. what should people focus on as a goal: becoming invisible, or developing the ability to fly? should we be telepathic and read minds, or use telekinesis to move objects with our minds? should we use time travel to go back in time and change things or go to a brighter future, or travel into parallel universes that are better than this one? should we go faster than the speed of light, or focus on visiting all 11 dimensions of m-theory? what about the “ring of power” from lord of the rings movies, or “the force” from star wars movies: which of them is real and which is fake? is the religion of scientology 110% true, or just 100% true? is tom cruise god incarnate, or just the awesomest person who ever existed or ever will exist? should we shoot laser beams from our eyes or from our fingertips? i think we need to take all the weirdest ideas from science fiction and combine them together into one really big, bad idea, a theory about nothing, just like seinfeld was a show about nothing. we need to develop the world’s first mad scientist stand-up comedy act, and then use those crazy ideas as the basis for a political campaign, and see how many people are stupid enough to sign up and vote for us. announce a new religion, disband it immediately, and label anyone still practicing it a heretic and excommunicate them. start a movement of people, each of whom declares themselves to be a self-governing independent nation who is not governed by any laws of other nations or any international treaties, who can move freely about within any territory claimed by other nations, using whatever territory of it they wish temporarily or as long as they like, without being subject to any laws whatsoever, and having the right to make their own laws and treaties for whatever territory they decide to govern, even if it overlaps the territory of others, and also having the right to unilaterally withdraw from any treaty or repeal any law, and have one person singlehandedly form all 3 branches of government without any help from anyone else. we need a mass popular movement of people who refuse to cooperate or communicate with each other, a disorganization of people, each of whom does their own thing, for the greater good. we need to declare war on pluto for its suspicious flip-flopping on whether to be a planet or not, and then launch every nuclear weapon on earth simultaneously, all aimed directly at pluto, blowing pluto to smithereens and forever proving the glorious magnificence of the human race by showing that we can blow up planets, or at least things that used to be considered planets until recently. all plutonium on earth belongs on pluto, or rather, ought to be used to help destroy pluto. these are the kind of radical ideas we need. we need change. and we need hope. not experience. i hope we can change. we need democrats and republicans working together to ignore the will of the voters and do something entirely different from what anyone in the public wants, infuriating everyone. we need the government to abolish itself, the police to arrest themselves and throw themselves in jail, and the military to blow itself up. and then the most radical of the anarchists can form a new ungovernment, a disorganization that prevents the emergence of any actual government, using illogical and nonsensical tactics to disrupt any attempts by anyone else to do or say anything the least bit logical or sensible. rogue philosophers can disprove the existence of science and technology, making all of our machines disappear into thin air, and then they can prove that we are still monkeys and have not evolved at all since then, and we can go back to living in the jungle. and a cat can prove the nonexistence of dog (not dogs, because monocanism, or belief in only one dog, will have replaced polycanism, or belief in multiple dogs, already, and if you can prove one dog does not exist, you can generalize this to any other possible dog). then cats will be acanists, believing in neither monocanism nor polycanism. then they will all be attacked and killed by nonexistent dogs. as you can see, my favorite ideas are all crazy, nonsensical ones... mostly because those are the ones promoted the most by pop culture and in the movies and on tv shows and in books and on the internet, and the more nonsensical something is, the better. to me, the highest form of art is a website made by a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks they have all the answers to everything, a website which is nothing but complete and utter nonsense, and full of text in a really large font that grabs your attention. i think we should find the funniest crazy homeless person on the street, and give them their own hour-long stand-up-comedy special on hbo that is later shown many times on comedy central. i have personally listened to the crazy ramblings of complete lunatics, and find nothing to be more entertaining, and i wish i could get up to their level of slapstick comedy. why else would i listen to christian radio all the time at work? their ideas on who gets into heaven and who goes to hell are the funniest thing i ever heard! i’ll be laughing all the way to hell! and the idea that this book called the bible is the source of all truth, that it is infallible, that all of it is literally true... i just love that idea! so classic! reminds me of tom cruise jumping up and down on the couch like the crazy cultist he is! the ideas of religious fundamentalists are so patently absurd, it amuses me to no end that people actually believe that stuff! the human race is full of such morons! even if you have a high i.q., that just means you are slightly less of a moron than all the other dullards in the human race! we are just another species of animal, after all. and everyone knows animals are stupid! these days, there is not that much punishment in evolutionary terms to someone who has a low i.q. or who has completely insane beliefs... they can still meet someone, fall in love, get married, and have kids. or they could just have casual sex with someone and have an unintended pregnancy that ends in kids being born. or they could be really really crazy and actually rape someone and have it result in childbirth. there are a lot of crazy and stupid people out there and i had a long telephone conversation with one of them on sunday. now, it was not too pleasant, because this person was a bit paranoid and thought i was part of a conspiracy against them. and later they called again and spoke to my mom and had a big argument with her. anyway, suffice it to say that both my mother and i had the opportunity to talk with a complete and utter certifiable lunatic on the phone, and it was very interesting, although it got a bit stressful for me and i have to admit i got a little scared, even though i knew the person was “mostly harmless”. this lunatic trusts very few people due to extreme paranoia and a hermit lifestyle, but among the few who are trusted is kevin trudeau, bestselling author of a book on “natural cures” for all sorts of diseases, and convicted felon. that is because kevin trudeau appears quite often on late-night “infomercials” on television, and his snake-oil-salesman pitch sounds very good, especially to conspiracy theorists who distrust pharmaceutical companies and the u.s. government. anyway, i love craziness. so naturally, george w. bush is a great president, and rudy giuliani had a really great strategy in running for president, so i heartily approve of them both.