Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Coming soon to a theater near you

GOP: THE DESTROYERS



SPEED! NEED! GREED!

STARRING: Rushie-poo LIMBAUGH, Category 5 PALIN, Baby Blue BOEHNER, Jingle Balls JINDAL, Stainless STEELE and Coldcocker COULTER!

* * *

BURN before the roiling wrath of Rushie-poo Limbaugh when he can't find his earpiece!

SIZZLE as a helplessly bound Category 5 Palin begs for abstinence-only from a merciless Jingle Balls Jindal!

GASP as a leather-clad Baby Blue Boehner fights his way through 18 thrilling holes opposite a snarling Stainless Steele!

COWER before a ravenous Coldcocker Coulter as she eats kittens!

FLY with the freedom of this no-holds-barred gang as they speed over the crumbling highways of America in fully-loaded Cadillac DTS's!

* * *

I'm working on the script. Anybody have any ideas?

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

The challenge would be deciding who to LEAVE OUT of this stunning ensemble. Hannity, O'Reilly, Larry Kudlow?

Is that your photoshop?

Priceless.

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

It is not my photoshop and don't think I didn't try to find a proper credit for it. No luck.

Here's an addition:

SHUDDER beneath Pitbull Paulson as he orders Johnny Swag Thain to LEVERAGE! LEVERAGE! LEVERAGE!

Erin O'Brien said...

Breaking from work to rant!

It's like fucking CHRISTMAS!! The head of the RNP is happily fellating drug-addict Limbaugh as he lambastes the most popular president to come along in years.

Obama overturning blood-red endangered species rule changes.

Obama lifting Bush's abortion rules.

Old fat rich white guys crying into their monogrammed fucking hankies because they'll have to pay a few hundred more in taxes!

Libby Spencer said...

Not caffeniated enough for creative input, but surely somewhere in that dialogue you will need, "drill baby drill."

deangc said...

Whatever happens, somewhere in the script you have to drop a fucking anvil on Coulter's head. Squash it into a more humanoid shape, instead of that reptilian-looking motherfucker of a noggin she has now.

Zen Wizard said...

I had an idea--but then I remembered that Palin and Coulter are the only ones I want to see naked. (And the latter not in high def. And only after an expert makeup and hair team. And in soft focus. And...aw screw it I got nothin'...)

Erin O'Brien said...

As someone who's spent years on the inside of the petroleum industry, I can tell you that "Drill baby drill" is the grand daddy of moron elixir for conservatives.

All the oil within the US's grasp isn't worth a goddamn drop of piss compared to the reserves in the Middle East.

And then there's this:

Drill baby drill!

Oh really? What about "Refining capacity baby refining capacity?"

VideoDude said...

As far as the script all you have to do is spend a day or two on Rush's or FOX News' websites. If your stomach can take it.

Rodger Jacobs said...

You know, my next Pop Matters column is on William Burroughs, which required me (shudder) to go back and re-read certain passages from "Naked Lunch" yesterday, seeing that my deadline is in five days and all I've written are notes. Not even Burroughs's dreaded Mugwump executioners could disgust me the way that this image did.

Thanks, Erin. Good God, I won't be able to keep down food for days.

MilesB said...

"Drill baby drill" has to be a line of dialogue from the sex scene, right? Now... who will the copulators be? Hmm... Rush 'n Ann?

Kirk Jusko said...

According to CNBC loudmouth Jim Cramer, the stock market's going to keep going down unless President Obama shapes up. And how is Obama supposed to shape up? By doing exactly what the stock market tells him to do.

Doesn't sound too democratic to me. We elected him, not the NYSE.

Erin O'Brien said...

hm ... a sex scene?

SMOLDER as Greta Vixon Van Susteren lures Geraldo "Mustache Ride" Rivera into her snare!

hoosierboy said...

Cry as the spend spend spend socialist policies of the Democrats decimates your 401K.

Laugh and stop paying your mortgage -- the President will take care of it.

Rage as the price of gas goes back to $4/ gallon as the value of the dollar falls to nearly nothing.

Wail in despair as you realize the burden the bloated budget puts on your grandchildren

Anticipate 2010 when you can correct your huge mistake at the ballot box


insert smiley face here.

Anonymous said...

HB,

I hear Bernie Maddoff is using his spare time to craft the Republican economic policy for the 2010 election.

RJ

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

In the interests of equal time ...

DNC - The Assholes!

MARVEL as Nancy "Springbutt" Pelosi jumps from her chair every time Obama opens his mouth.

BURN before the appearance of Joe "I'm just here for the perks" Biden jumping along with "Springbutt."

SIZZLE as Obama's next cabinet nomination goes down in flames for taxes, conflict of interest ... or well, pretty much anything.

GASP as Obama cowtows to yet another less-than democratic regime (Syria comes to mind) who will ultimately play him for the foolish foreign policy amateur that he is.

COWER as Hilary Clinton sends another "we're warning you" message to Kim Jong Il of North Korea, who's going to launch test missiles anyway, regardless of what she or Obama says. Next up: harsh language to Kim Jong Il - yeah, that'll show 'em.

FLY with the freedom of this no holds barred gang as they raise taxes, allow earmarks (despite pledges to do otherwise), and push pork and worthless spending projects through congress (ain't one party rule grand?).

I'm also working on the script. Not being a writer by trade, I'll have to call upon my wife for assistance (she was an English major) and my brother Jay (who's produced some things in LA).

Al
TRAG

Erin O'Brien said...

Love notes from HB and Al TRAG. Music to my ears.

Erin O'Brien said...

Or better yet, Christmas carols--per my previous comment.

Al the Retired Guy said...

Erin,

Just glad to be here.

Al
TRAG

P.S. I'm one day away from leaving liberal hell. Will be back home on Friday.

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

"Old fat rich white guys crying into their monogrammed fucking hankies because they'll have to pay a few hundred more in taxes!"

It's not that they have to pay more taxes. It's where it's going that pisses them off. To wit (from the stimulus bill):

"Neighborhood Stabilization
• to help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant properties in
order to create more affordable housing and reduce neighborhood blight.
$2B"

Somebody want to tell me what "neighborhood stabilization" means?

"Improvements for a more efficient and secure government:
• Coast Guard – $240M for construction and repair of shoreline facilities,
bridges that are a danger to navigation, and other critical assets
• Social Security Administration modernization – $500M to replace 30 year-old
Social Security Administration’s National Computer Center
• Farm Service Agency – $50M for critical IT improvements to systems that
have been unable to handle workload increases
• Department of Agriculture – $24M for repairs and security improvements at
USDA headquarters
• Watershed Infrastructure – $290M for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service watershed improvement programs to design and build flood protection
and water quality projects, repair aging dams, and purchase and restore
conservation easements in river flood zones.
• International Boundary and Water Commission – $220M to repair flood
control systems along the international segment of the Rio Grande damaged by
hurricane Katrina and other serious storms
• TSA – $1B for procurement and installation of baggage screening and
checkpoint security equipment at airports
• Border Points of Entry – $430M to reduce construction backlog on points of
entry on our borders
• Fire stations – $210M in competitive grants to build fire stations
• Technology to help secure our borders – $280M
• State and local emergency operations centers and fusion centers construction –
$300M in competitive grants"

Uhh, this stimulates our economy? Sounds like a lot of government growth to me.

"PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE
Nutrition
• $20B to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for modestincome
families and to lift restrictions that limit the amount of time individuals
can receive food stamps
• $100M for Senior Nutrition Programs – formula grants to states for elderly
nutrition services including Meals on Wheels and Congregate Meals.
• $150M for Emergency Food Assistance Program – to purchase commodities
for food banks.
• $100M for Emergency Food and Shelter to help local community organizations
provide food and shelter.
$21B
9
• $500M for Supplemental Nutrition Program Information Systems – to improve
state management information systems for the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) program.
Helping Children
• $2B to Child Care Development Block Grant – provide quality child care
services for children in low-income families
• $2.1B for Head Start & Early Head Start – to provide comprehensive
developmental services to low-income infants and preschool children
$4.6B
Other
• $200M for the Rural Housing Insurance Fund
o to support $1B in direct single family housing loans and $10.4B for
guaranteed single family housing loans.
• $130M for Rural Community Facilities
o for grants and loans to rural areas for critical community facilities,
such as healthcare, education, fire and rescue, day care, community
centers, and libraries.
• $1B for Community Development Block Grant
o for community and economic development projects including housing
and services for those hard hit by tough economic times.
• $100M for Emergency Food and Shelter
o to help local community organizations provide food, shelter, and
support services including one-month utility payments to prevent
service cut-off and one-month rent or mortgage assistance to prevent
evictions or help people leave shelters.
o Funds are distributed by formula based on unemployment and poverty
rates.
• $500M for Social Security Administration Disability Backlog and Claims
Processing – to help the SSA process a steep rise in claims and prevent existing
backlogs from getting worse.
• $140M for Centers for Independent Living – for state formula grants to help
individuals with disabilities to live in their communities.
• $89M for AmeriCorps – to put approximately 16,000 additional members to
work doing national service,"

Other than the Americorps provision, where is the job creation? Sounds like a lot of money being spent to me. Who's paying for it?

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$0.64B
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$0.15B
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$0.15B"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?

Al
TRAG

Amy L. Hanna said...

It's not that they have to pay more taxes. It's where it's going that pisses them off.

WAHHHHHH!

That's enough salt, now pass the popcorn ...

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

I've pissed on the popcorn. Film at 11.

Al
TRAG

Erin O'Brien said...

Upon a cursory read, no problem using my $$ for any of that, Al. I am absolutely serious.

Now behave yourself with the house snacks!

I love Obama.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Erin,

Better you than me. Frankly, I don't think the guy can find his ass with both hands.

It disturbs me deeply that we're spending money on things like that. I'm equally serious.

I'll leave the popcorn alone.

Al
TRAG

hoosierboy said...

do you think spending millions on preserving mice habitat in San Fran is worthy? How about trying to figure out why pigs smell? Contriceptives distribution. These all may be worthy (or not) but let us quit pretending this is a stimulus bill. It is a fullfilling the liberal shopping list they have been denied the last 12 years.

Harry Finch said...

There is no item in the stimulus package for a mouse habitat. The California Coastal Conservancy may get up to $30M for several wetland projects, one of which includes the home of the endangered salt marsh mouse. These projects would also benefit salmon, trout, ducks, etc. And since they involve the building of levees and islands, the projects could create up to 100 jobs.

You can argue whether the 100 new jobs figure is accurate. You can argue whether it's the most effective way of spending $30M. You can't make a case that there is a dime in the stimulus package for mice preservation.

VideoDude said...

It makes me sick to hear these Republican meat puppets complain about projects that will either make new jobs or save present jobs. After years of spending money and deregulation so there rich buddies can become richer and everyone else goes right down the toilet. All the lies: (for instance) High speed trains first between Disney Land and Las Vegas (Lie, taken out of the budget, by the Republicans, the train was supposed to run between LA and Las Vegas) now between Disney land and a Nevada brothel(According to FOX News), LIE!

Bobby Jindal slammed the Stimulus Bill for this imaginary train, yet the Louisiana Transportation Board has asked for several hundred million for a rail system from Boca Raton to New Orleans. "I was against the Sitmulus Bill, before I was for it!"

Republicans are against anything that doesn't, cut taxes on the rich and decrease regulation. Instead of critizicing Obama and the Democrats, why don't they suggest "real" answers? Because their answers have already been tried and failed. How are the Republicans going to lead the country when they can't even handle one drugged addled, fat, idiot? It is pathetic to see all of these "elected" officials down on there knees sucking the fat fuck's cock. Republicans: Country First, if Rush says it is Okay!!!!!

VideoDude said...

Sorry about the misspellings. I should have typed it up in Word and used spell check.

hoosierboy said...

Well Dude,

if we are going to abandon plans and policies that are failures maybe we should start to get rid of the war on poverty and other programs instituted by LBJ -- by no measure are things better. Talk about about old worn out policies. Maybe we should look at the Department of Energy formed by Carter with the task of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Billions of bucks later we import more than ever.

VideoDude said...

hoosierboy,

What has that got to do with what I said. The Republicans keep wanting to cut taxes on the rich and continue deregulation. Where is the logic? These are the things that got us into this mess. Let's continue doing the same? WTF? As for cutting programs that are a waste, yes let's do it. The only reason we continue to rely on foreign oil is because the Conservatives and the Oil Companies want it that way. And the Democrats haven't had the balls to fight.

After 8 years of spend, spend, spend suddenly the Republicans are fiscally conservative, again. Or is it because the Democrats want to spend money on the country and the people and not give it to KBR or Haliburton (XE)!

philbilly said...

We interrupt this Mobius loop of partisan bickering for breaking news:

The American Independent Party is forming quietly, organically and inevitably in every corner of this nation.

Carry on.

Dudesworthy said...

Actually Al, I really don't get what your screaming about either...

Somebody want to tell me what "neighborhood stabilization" means?

Looks pretty simple to me, $2Bn to buy up empty houses (thereby decreasing excess capacity in the housing market) and using them to create affordable housing (which will get the homeless off the streets).

Sounds good to me...

Uhh, this stimulates our economy? Sounds like a lot of government growth to me.

Some of this does sound a little vague, like the $280M for "Technology to help secure our borders", but even then Reps have been asking for tighter border controls for years, so what's the problem?

The rest of it seems to be construction and IT projects, both of which will definitely create jobs.

Other than the Americorps provision, where is the job creation? Sounds like a lot of money being spent to me. Who's paying for it?

I'll file this under 'missed the point'. Read that list again, that money is being used to feed people and give them housing.

OK that may not massively stimulate the economy, but are you really, seriously, honestly, truly going to protest against feeding the poor?

Frankly with unemployment rising so rapidly I think that we have to have some sort of basic safety net for people.

In my opinion the government should provide its citizens with basic food and shelter.

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?

The first item is $20B to "stimulate lending to small businesses and to support in zero-fee or reduced-fee loans to small businesses".

Since when has twenty billion dollars been considered a small amount of money?

I know the dollars weakened lately but still its $20B!

To sum things up; if you were questioning whether it was right to spend the money at all, then I could see your point, but if you're debating where the money is being spent then I have to disagree with you.

VideoDude said...

Dudeworthy:

Great post!

Anonymous said...

Al the Retired Army Guy said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$0.64B
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$0.15B
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$0.15B"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?"


I would prefer a bit more for small businesses as well, BUT WHEN YOU DISTORT THE NUMBERS BY CHANGING THE SCALE FACTOR you lose your argument as far as I am concerned. Almost every other number you quoted was in millions. To make an honest argument, you should have said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$640M
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$150M
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$150M"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?


But that would have been too close to trying to keep your argument consistent, I suppose. For me, you lose based on distortion.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"Actually Al, I really don't get what your screaming about either...

Somebody want to tell me what "neighborhood stabilization" means?

Looks pretty simple to me, $2Bn to buy up empty houses (thereby decreasing excess capacity in the housing market) and using them to create affordable housing (which will get the homeless off the streets).

Sounds good to me..."

Al's Comment: OK, but who's paying for it? Us? Since when is it my job, as a taxpayer, to buy up vacant housing?

And let's take it one step further - we provide that housing to the homeless - do these people have the means to pay for the house in terms of rent or mortgages? My guess is that most won't have that ability. If they don't, who pays their mortgage? Yep, you guessed it, the government, which means you and I via taxes. If that's the case, I think that the government should pay everyone's mortgage in the interest of being "fair." And frankly, I'd feel better living in that house if I had enough to eat - the government better fork that over. And hell, I can't get to work without a car, so Uncle Sugar is just going to give me one of those too.

The point is, where does it end? Where does government involvement stop?

"Uhh, this stimulates our economy? Sounds like a lot of government growth to me.

Some of this does sound a little vague, like the $280M for "Technology to help secure our borders", but even then Reps have been asking for tighter border controls for years, so what's the problem?

The rest of it seems to be construction and IT projects, both of which will definitely create jobs."

Will it really? What happens after things are built? Where are the long term effects, or is this just a giant band aid on a sucking chest wound?

'Other than the Americorps provision, where is the job creation? Sounds like a lot of money being spent to me. Who's paying for it?

I'll file this under 'missed the point'. Read that list again, that money is being used to feed people and give them housing.

OK that may not massively stimulate the economy, but are you really, seriously, honestly, truly going to protest against feeding the poor?'

Of course not. I just don't think the government is the entity that should be doing it.

As much as we'd like for no one to be poor or be free of want, there will always be someone in that state. As Americans, we are empathetic and try to do what we can to help such folks. But try as we may, there will always be the poor. Think about it. Johnson's "Great Society" in many ways aimed to end poverty. Forty years later and God only knows how much of our tax dollars spent, there are still poor folks in this country. I'd say that spending more on that is reinforcing failure rather than success.

"Frankly with unemployment rising so rapidly I think that we have to have some sort of basic safety net for people.

In my opinion the government should provide its citizens with basic food and shelter."

Sorry, this is socialism (government owning the means of production and provision of goods and services). If that's what you're for, fine. Just admit it. And I disagree that it is the role of the government to provide food and shelter to its citizens - its role is to provide basic services, e.g., police, fire, etc. and provide for the common defense.

"Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?

The first item is $20B to "stimulate lending to small businesses and to support in zero-fee or reduced-fee loans to small businesses"."

Since when has twenty billion dollars been considered a small amount of money?

When compared to the other nonsense in the bill, it is tiny indeed. The party of Harry Truman should be ashamed of itself for this IMHO.

"I know the dollars weakened lately but still its $20B!

To sum things up; if you were questioning whether it was right to spend the money at all, then I could see your point, but if you're debating where the money is being spent then I have to disagree with you."

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree.

Al
TRAG

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

"Al the Retired Army Guy said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$0.64B
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$0.15B
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$0.15B"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?"


I would prefer a bit more for small businesses as well, BUT WHEN YOU DISTORT THE NUMBERS BY CHANGING THE SCALE FACTOR you lose your argument as far as I am concerned. Almost every other number you quoted was in millions. To make an honest argument, you should have said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$640M
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$150M
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$150M"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?


But that would have been too close to trying to keep your argument consistent, I suppose. For me, you lose based on distortion."

What I probably should have said was:

Compared to what is earmarked for other (and what I would consider to be specious as best programs and projects in many cases) things, the amount provided for small businesses is astonishing indeed. As I noted above, Harry Truman would be ashamed. And what I'm saying is not a distortion - it comes directly from the bill. If there's any distortion, I'd submit it is on the amount of money provided to small businesses in the bill - distorted in favor of projects that will do anything but stimulate our economy.

Al
TRAG

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

"Al the Retired Army Guy said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$0.64B
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$0.15B
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$0.15B"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?"


I would prefer a bit more for small businesses as well, BUT WHEN YOU DISTORT THE NUMBERS BY CHANGING THE SCALE FACTOR you lose your argument as far as I am concerned. Almost every other number you quoted was in millions. To make an honest argument, you should have said:

"SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business Credit
• to stimulate lending to small businesses and to support $20B in zero-fee or
reduced-fee loans to small businesses; and
• for loans and critical technical assistance to “micro” borrowers.
$640M
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
• for rural business grants and loans, and to guarantee $2B in loans for rural
businesses
$150M
Economic Development Assistance
• to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.
$150M"

Notice how little is being dedicated to small business. So much for the Democratic Party being the Party of the "little guy," huh?


But that would have been too close to trying to keep your argument consistent, I suppose. For me, you lose based on distortion."

What I probably should have said was:

Compared to what is earmarked for other (and what I would consider to be specious as best programs and projects in many cases) things, the amount provided for small businesses is astonishing indeed. As I noted above, Harry Truman would be ashamed. And what I'm saying is not a distortion - it comes directly from the bill. If there's any distortion, I'd submit it is on the amount of money provided to small businesses in the bill - distorted in favor of projects that will do anything but stimulate our economy.

Al
TRAG

philbilly said...

Ya, know, Erin... Now that I've seen the photo of Rush a few times and I can actually look at it without howling, I give him props for being so comfortable with his sexuality.

Kirk Jusko said...

If all government does is protect private property--not just protect but DEFINE private property, since it would be kind of hard to say what it is otherwise--then those with the most property--the very people who say they're against big government--get the most out of government. In effect, they ARE big government. Those without private property, meanwhile, get to live, I guess, in anarchic bliss. Just don't visit their neighborhood after dark.

Velociman said...

Funny that you would put Rush's face on the body of someone who would undoubtedly, almost by definition, vote Democrat. Where is your pride in sisterhood, sister?

Erin O'Brien said...

I am flummoxed by your command of extrapolation, Mr. Crawford.

What kind of beer does she drink?

VideoDude said...

A former Republican speaks out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html