Zero tolerance stupidity, part thee… oh hell, I don’t know!

So we’ve read about kids getting suspended and expelled from school for having butter knives, drawing guns, pointing fingers menacingly and wielding chicken fingers in a threatening manner.

But this is a first! A three-year-old deaf boy forced to change the way he signs his name, because his name is…

Hunter.

A deaf preschooler in Grand Island, Nebraska, has been prohibited from signing his own name because school administrators believe the gesture he uses looks too much like a gun.

“He’s deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy,” Hunter Spanjer’s father Brian told Channel 10/11.

The layers of stupid in this story are thicker than Chris Christie’s waistline!

Unsurprisingly, the school has a “strict zero-tolerance sense policy.” They claim they’re working with the parents on a compromise.

A COMPROMISE???

They want to stop a deaf child from using Signing Exact English to give his own name, because someone somewhere in this braindead administration has decided his little, tiny hands resemble those evil gun things used by mean men who kill Bambi’s mom when he signs his name, and they’re talking COMPROMISE???

Here’s your compromise, douchenozzles: you shut the fuck up, let the child sign his name, and stop soiling your collective diapers over nothing. Then you go away and never darken the sight of anyone with a shred of common sense ever again!

How’s that?

Meet Dan Gross

New Brady Campaign President, same douchebag as Helmke.

OK, this one may actually be a little dumber judging by the following press release. I didn’t think it was possible to hire someone more delusional, disingenuous and downright ignorant than Paul Helmke, but you judge for yourselves.

“Senator Rand Paul has launched an all-out, sneak attack on the authority of the District of Columbia to decide for itself the best way to protect its citizens from the ravages of gun violence.

You see, “sneak attack” in Dan Gross’ language actually means “standard amendment to proposed legislation that has been covered by the press.”

Quite simply, Rand Paul is promoting the gun lobby’s agenda and if he and the gun lobby have their way, innocent people will die.

Because they haven’t been dying, being beaten, raped, mugged and otherwise victimized in DC since the city’s gun ban was in existence?

And what happened after SCOTUS affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms and incorporated the Second Amendment?

If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s late June “Heller” decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.

Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.

Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs.

Um. Ooops!

So Danny Boy claims that if DC residents are allowed to carry concealed, innocent people will die. A claim that has not been in any way proven to be true yet. No blood in the streets upon passage of concealed carry laws. No skyrocketing deaths of innocents. But that won’t stop Dan Gross from making the same spurious claim, because… well… SHUT UP! GUNS KILL! DIDN’T YOU KNOW?

All this is in direct conflict with the principles of local prerogatives and market freedom that he regularly espouses — when the subject is not guns. Rand Paul is nothing less than a hypocrite and his actions as a senator are a threat to our communities.

Except for that little thing called the Constitution which protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, which Rand Paul has vociferously, passionately and quite openly supported from Day One.

Paul’s proposed amendments to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s bill granting D.C. spending authority would endanger every D.C. resident and abridge the sovereign right of this community to enact its own laws to protect the public’s safety.

You know, Danny Boy, espousing the same lie over and over and over again won’t make it any more true than the first time you spewed it.

Washington DC is a capital district. It’s not part of any state. Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress “exclusive jurisdiction” over the city. And while its City Council and the idiot mayor are doing their best to run the city into the ground, Constitutionally, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs. You know… the Constitution… that little document both you, your idiot predecessor and that dried up old bint Sarah Brady keep ignoring when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Sen. Paul often claims to be a staunch defender of local prerogatives against federal interference,

If you mean states’ rights, then yes.

But DC is not a state, Danny. You might want to pick up a history book every so often. Just sayin’.

but he now proposes that Congress dictate to the District that it must allow not only its own citizens to carry loaded and concealed weapons on city streets, but it must allow concealed carry by non-residents of the District.

How DARE Rand Paul exert the perfectly legal authority of Congress to dictate to the District that it must actually abide by the Constitution! How DARE he want to protect the free citizens of Virginia and Maryland and any other state from being detained, charged and otherwise violated by the DC Police for merely driving through the District  while having their property on them! Bad, bad man!

Under Sen. Paul’s proposal, it would have been entirely legal for George Zimmerman to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with a concealed, loaded handgun until he was arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin. And D.C. police could do nothing about it.

What Dipshit Dan forgets here is that Zimmerman didn’t just pull out a gun and shoot Martin for the hell of it, which is the way he makes it sound… Merely by accident, I’m sure.   Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch captain. He saw someone who looked suspicious. A physical altercation ensued, in which he was obviously hurt.  I have serious doubts that Zimmerman would have just been walking along Pennsylvania Avenue, looking for a kid in a hoodie to shoot. And had that been the case, DC Police could have done the same thing about the shooting as the police in Sanford, Florida did. Take the man in for questioning, charge if appropriate, try and either convict or acquit.

But see, Danny Boy is such a sniveling panty-shitter, that he believes the mere possession of a firearm on one’s person is a threat to DC residents, and wants people arrested for merely DARING to exercise their Constitutional right.  And that’s the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to commit crimes with said arms.  Not that Danny Boy gives a shit about little things called facts. Bringing up the Martin/Zimmerman fiasco is just a little red herring for you to draw your attention away from the fact that the citizens of DC have been victimized long enough, and Rand Paul is trying to help them.

Senator Paul also often purports to be a defender of the free market against government interference, but he now proposes to put the D.C. government in the business of selling guns.

Either Dan the Dildo is woefully uninformed, hasn’t read the actual amendments, or is a liar of even bigger proportions than Helmke was!  And that’s quite the accomplishment, Danny!

What one of the amendments would have done in actuality is “make the District ‘establish an office for the purpose of facilitating the purchase and registration of firearms by DC residents,’ in response to reports that there is only one licensed gun dealer in the city.” It would have made it easier for DC residents to legally purchase a firearm. It would have broken up a current monopoly, and allowed other businesses to operate within the District’s borders to fill an obvious demand and make tools of self-protection more affordable for the city’s citizens.

It certainly would NOT have made DC government into a gun dealer! Holy FUCK! Considering how badly they’re screwed up, I wouldn’t want that either!  But Danny the Douche obviously doesn’t know the difference, or is illiterate. Maybe both.

We suspect that gun stores are not opening on every corner in the District because District residents understand that possessing guns exposes them and their families to extraordinary danger. D.C. residents may have the constitutional right to possess guns for self-defense, but they are wisely choosing not to exercise that right.”

Well, Danny Boy, your suspicion is a load of day-old diarrhea laced with bits of corn and lettuce floating in a third-world toilet. The reason gun stores are not opening on every corner in the District is because it’s bureaucratically impossible and prohibitively costly to do so.

The only licensed firearms dealer in the District is Charles Sykes, and the city has made it barely possible for him to operate. How difficult do you think it is for new firearms retail stores to set up shop?

Last May, Mr. Sykes lost his lease when his office building was sold. The city then took advantage of a stray word in the law to classify his business as a “firearms retail sales establishment,” which made it almost impossible for him to relocate. The designation meant he couldn’t be within a football field’s distance from a school, church, apartment, house or library. In this tightly packed city, that left no reasonably priced options. The city gave him a small-scale map of where he could set up shop, but the map didn’t even have street names on it.

And I would suspect that if there was no demand for firearms, as Dickhead Dan claims, those stores would eventually close down for lack of business. That’s the way the free market works. Rand Paul understands this.

Dan Gross just drools incompetence and ignorance.

Nothing new there. The Brady morons traditionally haven’t been the brightest candles on the menorah!

This blithering dipshit just proves that the trend continues.

Just what, exactly, IS an MFA in puppetry?

One has to wonder. A Master’s Degree takes a lot of work. I got mine a couple of years ago, and it was a harrowing experience. I stressed for months and months, studying for my comprehensive exams, and when I finally graduated cum laude with a 3.92 average, I couldn’t have been prouder! All the term papers and exams had finally paid off! And yes, I’m bragging. I drank my way through undergrad at Johns Hopkins, and didn’t even bother graduating with a 3.0.  As a matter of fact, there was one semester (freshman year – spring) that I didn’t even break a 1.0 GPA!  So yeah.  I feel all accomplished.

But my MA is in National Security Studies – it’s a subject with some substance and a lot of literature associated with it. It helped me get a terrific job that I love and a promotion I’d been seeking.

That’s why I just don’t get this guy.

A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find.”

OK, let me understand this.

This tool left a teaching position that pays AT THE VERY LEAST $45,500 base salary for teacher with a Bachelor’s degree and no prior teaching experience (and that doesn’t even include salary steps and bonuses) to get a Masters of Fine Arts degree in…

Puppetry.

Yes, puppetry. An “art” in which you manipulate (he he *insert Beavis voice here* – she said “manipulate”) dolls with either strings attached to their limbs, or by sticking your hand up their… uh… skirts.

He has a degree – a Master’s Degree – in it!  Puppetry!

This douche spent $35,000 he didn’t have, as witnessed by the fact that he has $35,000 in student loans, to learn how to manipulate dolls, thinking this oh-so-useful skill would help him find a job.

I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t see a big demand for puppeteers. No help wanted ads in any newspaper I’ve ever read ask for guys with a degree in sticking their hands up dolls’ garments. I’m not even sure how this… um… “degree” would make him a better teacher!

So he left a good paying job, got a worthless degree that cost him thousands of dollars, and somehow expected to get hired right back… in this economy… after having spent $35,000 he didn’t have on an MFA in… puppetry.

And now he’s occupying Wall Street, and crying that his poor life choices somehow entitle him to have the rest of us subsidize him.

He’s occupying Wall Street, because he thought that hard work and education would afford him a measure of upward mobility.

Seriously? Hard work in puppetry?

He actually expected the NYC school system to hire him back with a nice $10,000 raise, because he got a Master’s Degree – no matter how useless the topic?

What is it that Joe studied?  What kind of classes did he take?

• String length: effective techniques to make your puppets’ fist pump of anarchy even more potent;
• Fingers: how far up is too far?
• Manipulation techniques;
• Dance, Puppet, Dance! Interpretive Movement Behind the Curtain;
• Modern Geniuses: the Artistry of Jeff Dunham;
• Hand vs. Shadow Puppets: pros and cons
• The Joys of Puppet Erotica (None Dare Call it Porn!)

What were Joe’s comprehensive exams like?

“I’m sorry, Mr. Therrien, but I saw your fingers move suggestively over that puppet’s butt.  That’s 10 points off.”

Look – it may have been fun to borrow $35,000 to play with dolls, but I can’t imagine this guy actually thought this degree would bring him any kind of upward mobility!

It’s all well and good to make lousy economic decisions in your life. You’re entitled to your mistakes. You can’t blame capitalism, corporatism or anything else for your inability to find work with a degree in doll manipulation.

But don’t complain when faced with the logical consequences of your bad decisions.

 

Do you hear that high-pitched whine?

That would be the sound of social conservatives sniveling hysterically about how libertarians are taking over the conservative movement.  *sniff*  *WAAAH!*

Now let me say up front that there are some libertarians who have some serious growing up to do. They’re loud, immature, obnoxious and rude. I said as much on my Facebook page when I linked to a story about a band of obnoxious Ron Paul supporters who interrupted an exchange between Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld .

“You know, I’m all about free speech,” I wrote,  “but have some goddamn class! Agree or not with Cheney, Rumsfeld and crew, whatever… but at least have a little fucking decorum. I always said Ron Paul’s biggest challenge is his fans.”

It’s also true that I know quite a few social conservatives. They’re genuinely good people who abide by their faith, who are kind and generous and who believe in every principle I hold dear: independence, personal responsibility, liberty, a strong national defense… you know…

Unfortunately, there are jerks on both sides.  And today I’ll focus on the conservative ones, so if you all want to cue up your howls of protest, please do so…

…and then go away. I don’t want to hear it.

On Monday, after this weekend’s CPAC and RLC meetings, some dillbag named Kevin McCullough penned a whining editorial for Fox News, lamenting how “Disrespectful” Libertarians *insert horrified gasp of indignation here* hijacked CPAC.

Normally, I’d laugh at him and let it go, but apparently this has been a recurring theme after this weekend, with one outraged caller on Hannity even calling for libertarians to just stay away from the GOP and stick to their own party. To his credit, Hannity (whose show I can only take in small doses) told his caller that he disagrees. While he doesn’t support the libertarians’ social agenda of… *insert another horrified gasp of indignation here* freedom and equal rights for all, even Teh EEEEEEVIL GHEYS™, he’s loath to alienate a rather large group of people with whose views on the Second Amendment, the economy and free markets he agreed.

In any case, Rob recommended (well, more like challenged) that I fisk McCullough’s whining diatribe, so…  OK.

The top three winners of this weekend’s CPAC straw poll will not win the 2012 presidential nomination. And if any of the top three do break through to prove that prediction wrong, none of them will go on to win the White House in 2012.

This year’s top three placeholders in the poll were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeat their standing from the 2010 poll as No. 1 and No. 2, respectively.

If the results of this straw poll do not sufficiently demonstrate the bizarre nature and overall oddity of this year’s gathering of “conservatives,” nothing else can.

That’s a pretty brazenly bold call, especially when it concerns Mittens, whose plastic Edwards-esque hair, liberal (which today is considered moderate) views on health care and gun rights, propelled him to a fairly close contest with Zombie McCain in 2008.

It’s also an interesting proclamation, because all three actually appeal to a broader spectrum of “moderates” than the uber-religious nutjob Mike “…what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” Huckabee and his ilk.

The “bizarre” label is particularly insulting since conservatives CLAIM many of the same principles that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, in particular, have been espousing since emerging onto the national scene: deficit reduction, paying off debts and fiscal and personal responsibility.  I say “claim,” because many of them go back to the policy of “Politics as Usual” as soon as they secure reelection.

But hey, just because their views and principles more accurately reflect conservatism than those who claim to support fiscal responsibility, but then proceed to claim some kind of divine mandate to use your tax dollars to support programs that fit their religious/personal mold, their good showing at the CPAC straw poll is obviously a bizarre anomaly.

Ron Paul, though technically still a Republican, has given up his GOP identity to embrace the chance to be the poster child for the more libertarian streak that has run rampant through CPAC, largely unabated for the past two years. Mitt Romney, the virtual author of Obamacare, and 2008′s third-place finisher for the GOP nomination, is weighed down by the fact that his universal health care mandate in Massachusetts has largely failed with the exception being the $50 state-subsidized abortions. Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

And what “GOP identity” would that be, Kevin?  The fact that Paul supports tighter border security, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and any form of welfare for illegal aliens? The fact that he opposes membership in the UN? The fact that he voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists after the 9-11attacks?  The fact that he regularly votes against tax increases and increased government spending? The fact that he supports states’ rights, and happens to be one of the most ardent and consistent supporters of the Second Amendment in Congress?  Or is it the fact that he explicitly stated his belief that abortion is murder?

Yeah, sure looks like he’s given up his GOP identity, moron.

Now, to be sure, there are a bunch of things I completely disagree with Ron Paul about, and I do think he’s way too close to the 9-11 Truthers. Of course, there’s not candidate with whom I agree 100 percent, but to claim that Paul has relinquished his Republican creds, because he happens to agree with libertarians on many issues is disingenuous at best and a downright, intentional lie at worst.

As for the “immoral libertarianism” of Gary Johnson… OH NOES! HE SUPPORTS TEH EEEEEVIL GHEYS AND STONERS!

This is where the social conservatives and social libertarians part ways.  We happen to think that there’s nothing immoral about two people of the same gender wanting to spend their lives together and having the same right to do so (and the same marriage tax penalties, to boot!) as two people of different genders.  And we happen to believe that the federal government shouldn’t have a say in what amounts to a socio-economic contract between two consenting adults who want the rights afforded to married next of kin.  McCullough and his socon ilk, despite claiming to support individual freedoms, only do so when it comes to heterosexual couples who only have sex in the missionary position and only to procreate – NEVER for actual gratification. (That last part was sarcasm, assholes. Stop your screeching.)

But since socons loudly proclaim that their religious text of choice not only condemns homosexual relationships, but some claim their Sky Elf of choice actually HATES FA
GS, anyone who actually supports equal rights for them EEEEEEVIL GHEYS must be immoral.

As for Johnson’s support for legalized pot, he comes at it from a strictly economic and criminal standpoint.  According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexican drug cartels make the majority of their profits from marijuana trade. As anyone with a basic grasp of economics understands, when something is illegal, it’s inherently dangerous; when something is inherently dangerous, those who are still willing to engage in its trade will earn a bigger profit, giving criminals a virtual monopoly on the market.

Additionally, the prisons are brimming with stoners who committed the egregious crime of toking up (not necessarily harming anyone with their actions).  How much do you think it costs to keep these losers in prison?

Johnson advocates having a DEBATE on the issue and approaching it from an economic and criminal standpoint: It has never been legal to use any type of drug, including alcohol, and drive or do any type of harm to others.  So, he says, it’s time to discuss legalizing it, controlling it and taxing it.  And for those efforts, he’s called “immoral” by socon buttnuggets, such as McCullough, despite being highly rated by the Right to Life Committee on the socons’ pet issue – abortion.

In other words, this year’s CPAC wasn’t about advancing conservatism. Rather, it exposed the radically disrespectful element of the libertine.

Read: They didn’t advance my moralistic, religious, fundamentalist agenda which seeks to marginalize a large portion of the population that doesn’t think like me and my frothing fundamentalist fruitcake friends!

Apparently in McCullough’s worldview, anyone who actually stands by their principles of personal and fiscal responsibility is debauched, lewd and lustful.  Either that, or he has no concept of the word “libertine.”

It has been the inclusion of the libertarian aspects of the past two years that has thrown the message of conservatism askew in a widely disproportional way.

It is the libertarian in attendance that produced the free pornographic calendar passed out to attendees in 2010. It is the libertarians in attendance who openly promote the inclusion of groups like GOProud, largely as an attempt to silence groups who would speak in strong support of traditional moral values. It is the libertarian in attendance who slandered President George Bush, by claiming his appreciation for the Constitution was best summed up as a “damn piece of paper.” It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as “illegal.” And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed “war criminal” to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.

Wow, anti-First Amendment and gay-bashing in one paragraph!  Pretty impressive.  Yeah, Great Pumpkin forbid we actually include people who support freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility and fiscal conservatives in our ranks.  We might catch Teh Ghey™!

I would submit people who fear the inclusion of gays, who agree with what they claim are their basic principles, in their “Big Tent” might not be so secure in their sexuality, but that’s just me playing amateur shrink.  Fact of the matter is that pornography is legal. It’s a protected form of speech, as is disagreement with Bush or any other president about foreign policy.  But to McCullough, it appears only speech HE approves of deserves recognition or respect. Anything else is immoral and should be avoided.

Now the libertarians stuffed the ballot box of the CPAC straw poll, and for the second year in a row made it the laughingstock poll in the eyes of the voters. (This year’s voters are perhaps more engaged, more aware and more plugged in than ever before.)

Really, Sparky? Got evidence of that, or are you just too appalled to actually believe that a gathering of liberty-minded people would produce a liberty-minded winner in a straw poll?

In head-to-head polling going back a full year to last year’s CPAC, neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney has consistently topped a head-to-head match-up against a greatly weakened President Obama. Romney has only topped the sitting president once in that 12-month period. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a no-show at CPAC for the past years, has beaten the president head-to-head in nearly every poll taken.

Is the goal to elect a liberty-minded president who will respect the Constitution of the United States, or someone who could potentially beat Obama?  Is the goal to elect someone who could beat the current president, even if they’re a theocratic fuckwad and would use the office to push his social and moralistic agenda?  Is the goal to exchange one form of tyrant for another – one who would steal your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because they happen to be kids, and that happens to be what Jesus would want him to do?

Yeah, not so much.  The idea isn’t to find someone who would defeat Zero, but would impose his own special brand of dictatorial fucktardery on the nation. The idea is to find someone who respects this country and her laws, not someone who would change the Law of the Land to fit their religious beliefs.

David Keene, the American Conservative Union’s outgoing president, gave a lengthy discounting of this year’s poll in the lead up to it. That should serve as a very clear indicator that next year’s CPAC needs some significant changes if it is to become the great conference it has been in past years.

Because dammit, next year, they’ll stuff the ballot with votes for Sarah Palin, which is much more preferable to stuffing the ballot with votes for Ron Paul.

Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Really?  All that different?  Fiscal responsibility, ending outrageous entitlements, Second Amendment and strong self defense, individual liberties… Yeah, they’re really different. I guess Mr. McCullough is one of those douchebags who believes that those who believe it’s their right to keep the fruits of their labor instead of having them appropriated by government force and redistributed to fit politicians’ end are evil and greedy?  I would think so.  It’s OK to take your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because Jesus says so?  Is that how it goes, Kevin?

If having a fundamental belief that I am the owner of my efforts and that I’m best qualified to judge how my money is spent, not a politician, who cites the Bible or the Communist Manifesto as his justification…

If having enough maturity to let people live their lives without moralistic interference from religious nutjobs and letting whatever God I believe in do the judging is equal to amorality…

I’ll take that over sniffly, moralistic preaching from people who have no understanding of the concept of actual freedom and merely give lip service to liberty while pushing an agenda that reflects their religious views any day of the week.

And it is not consistent with the average conservative voter in America.

Is that the same average conservative
voter who idolizes Ronald Reagan? 

If you analyze it I believe the very
heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism — Ronald Reagan

Yeah. THAT Ronald Reagan.

The fact that so many faith-based conservatives were missing from CPAC, and are also arguably the most dependable conservative voter in the country only added to the confusing, bizarre, disrespectful and, in many ways, off-putting memories of this year’s event.

Yes, CPAC enjoyed its largest attendance ever. But one could possibly argue that it was smaller than it would have been if the third leg of the conservative stool — social conservatives — had been the key player they have traditionally been in the past.

Maybe it’s because the bigots of the bunch were booed at last year’s CPAC for being… um… rude asshole bigots, hmmmm?  Remember Ryan Sorba? Talk about your rude, insolent little fucks!  Talk about being disrespectful to members of a group that supports freedom, academic and personal liberties and fiscal conservatism for everyone, regardless of the choices they make in life.

And given the fact that the Ron Paul-toting, uber-disrespectful and, in many ways, disruptive ballot stuffing has wrecked the straw poll results, pinging completely unelectable candidates in two of the top three slots, perhaps more significance should be paid to the straw poll to be conducted by the conference that happens in the fall called the “Values Voters Conference.”

Because the ballots will get stuffed in favor of religious zealots there!

If social conservatives are the largest portion of the conservative discussion, no attention should be paid to a poll that virtually eliminates their presence all together.

Many of them chose to boycott CPAC altogether because of the presence of those EEEEEEEEEEEVIL GHEYs!  And guess what! CPAC had a record attendance anyway!  Maybe there’s a reason their presence was discounted!

The reason?  According to that amoral libertarian rag, Human Events, “84% of the voters identified themselves as fiscal conservatives, placing their highest priority on economic growth and restraining the growth of government.”

So maybe the majority of conservatives simply didn’t give a rat’s flying fuck how the Bible tells us to screw.  They’re more worried about becoming another Zimbabwe.

CPAC leaders did the best they could to put on the best conference possible. It wasn’t their fault that the libertarian elements within the attendees equate free speech with animalistic expressions, especially when visiting someone else’s “house.”

They paid to be present at that “house,” asstard. The organizers of CPAC opened it to anyone who supports conservative principles, and as long as they paid their fee, they had every right to express themselves at said house.  Unless, of course, Kevin, you don’t think the First Amendment applies at a gathering of those who claim to support freedom!

Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don’t mix with conservative ideals. And, because of that, perhaps they should have their own conference and let all the pot-smokers and gay marriage supporters come and complain about how the U.S. shouldn’t be fighting terrorists, while they slander public servants.

What you call “strange” is what is commonly known as “consistent.” These people believe in freedom and individual liberty for ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation, even if they disagree with said choice. They believe in responsible government spending, even if it makes the hypocritical theocrats shit their underpants at the thought of legalizing marijuana or cutting spending that supports religious initiatives. They believe in a strong national defense without the fraud, waste and abuse that comes with the ever-growing government bureaucracy.  And they believe that if someone doesn’t act like a conservative while claiming to hold conservative views, they deserve skepticism and criticism – not slander, as you claim – even though they have an “R” behind their name. (read: I’ve abandoned my free market principles to save the free market system — George W. Bush)

At the very least, the winner of their straw poll would be somewhat reflective of the title of who they are, and what they believe.

Done and done.

Now why don’t you and your minority theocrat fundamentalist Bible thumpers go cry in a corner somewhere!  There doesn’t appear to be any more room for you under that big tent.

Oh Garson!

What a condescending, pretentious, classless, arrogant, opprobrious imbecile Valerie Jarrett is!  I do realize that most members and pals of this administration view the plebeians from their imaginary Acropolis with the disdain and insolence of those born to rule the Great Unwashed, but still…

I would think a senior member of the administration would recognize a highly decorated military officer and appreciate his service to his country – service that involves actual defense of this nation and her freedoms, vice Jarrett’s sniffy, entitled position that involves sucking at the taxpayer teat, while performing copious amounts of rimming on the rectum of Zero and any other big-name politician that can keep her in Jimmy Choos.

But no.  Everyone apparently exists to serve Valerie Jarrett.

According to our tipster, Jarrett was seated at the head table along with several other big-name politicians and a handful of high-ranking military officials. As an officer sporting several stars walked past Jarrett, she signaled for his attention and said, “I’d like another glass of wine.”

Garçon!

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who was seated next to Jarrett, began “cracking up nervously,” our tipster said, but no one pointed out to Jarrett that the man sporting a chestful of medals was not her waiter.

To his credit, the military officer had more class in his toenail clippings than the ignorant Jarrett has in a lifetime of taking up space and air.  He simply went and got her the wine.  He didn’t berate her for her complete lack of courtesy or awareness, but simply got her the wine.

Someone ought to teach Jerrett the difference between a military uniform and waiter garb, so she quits embarrassing herself in public.  But then again, I doubt she’d care even if she understood the distinction.