Saturday, June 8, 2013

You have to love Ninny Pelosi because stupid like that is a rare and wonderful thing.

Never go FULL retard.

You'll end up a Democrat.



Remember when Ninny P. waxed poetic about the struggling artists who, under ObamaCare, would never need to get a real job to secure their own healthcare? That now, under the kind and wise guidance of Ninny in the Nanny State, no one would ever have to give up their dreams of performing true art for the more pragmatic reality of taking care of one's own ass.

Ninny P. assured everyone that they could stop working at real jobs and become performance artists or musicians, writers or poets, without worrying any longer that no one on the entire planet would ever choose to pay a nickel for the crap created and therefore would leave these poor sensitive creatures with bills to pay and NO HEALTHCARE! How crushing for the human soul to be faced with the reality of providing for one's own existence! How very, very adult! EEEUUUWWW!

But Ninny was there to rescue us all from adulthood! And it was going to be wonderful - for EVERYBODY! We were all going to pay less and have more through the wondrous powers of government. Of course, when people asked for some specifics on how that was going to happen, exactly, we were told we were just going to have to wait and find out.

So now we're finding out that Ninny can't remember just exactly WHAT she said all the way back in the olden days and it is churlish and unfair of anyone to expect her to. Besides, it is in poor taste to reduce the grand and caring COMPASSION she feels for the artiste to mere numbers. How does one pay for the promise of expressing one's soul through art? I suppose, like the VISA commercial, it's priceless.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, priceless always means hideously expensive.


17 comments:

  1. Nancy Pelosi has become the poster child for elective abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not her fault, her brain has a very limited capacity. She has to do a full reset every couple of months to clear space for fresh stupid. Hey Nance, check with Holder or the NSA. I'm sure they could provide you with copies of all your speeches, phone calls, emails and recordings of meetings to refresh your memory.

    I wonder if these people are really this stupid and ignorant or if they just tell convenient lies and figure they can get away with bullshitting their way out of any trouble if somebody brings it up later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if these people are really this stupid and ignorant or if they just tell convenient lies and figure they can get away with bullshitting their way out of any trouble if somebody brings it up later.

      BINGO. They're not stupid (generally, though Ninny is thoroughly and supremely stupid) It's that they don't care. They lie because lying is always the best option when you a)think your voters are complete idiots and suspect that they aren't paying attention anyway, and b) know that the press has your back and will just scrub away any reference to anything uncomfortable.

      For politicians, lying is always the best policy. It allows you to say whatever the moment requires to get what you want.

      Delete
  3. The pressure of all that drum tight skin is affecting the blood flow to her brain. Woman has another facelift she'll have a goatee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean, instead of an aneurysm?

      Delete
  4. The bags under her eyes are already her nipples. A couple of more inches of skin pullng and her chin will be covered with pubic hair. To have an aneurysm you'd have to actually be endowed with a heart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bahahaha at Og's comments.

    Funny how the left always has memory farts when we call them on their promises, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I always look at ms Pelosi and think, I recognize her, but from where?

    it just dawned on me. her hairdo gives her head the same shape as Ron Jeremy's glans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Og. DUDE :/

      Aren't there a million ways we can criticize this horrible individual's positions and policies and character without bringing her appearance, in the form of graphic references to genitals, into it?

      Just saying. It's gross, man.

      Delete
  7. It looks like what it looks like. I merely observe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Og, this reminds me of the joke about the guy who was troubled and visited a psychiatrist. The doctor began by showing the man a series of Rorschach tests, and asked him what he saw.

      The first inkblot the doctor showed him, the man said, "Well, that's a naked woman." Silently the doctor sat aside the picture and selected another.

      The man looked at the second inkblot the doctor held up and said, now somewhat sheepishly, "Okay...that's a naked man."

      The doctor merely selected another and held it for the man. Now the man was visibly uncomfortable, but he finally said, "That's a picture of a naked man and naked woman having sex."

      The doctor laid down the inkblot, folded his hands and said, "I think you have some serious problems with sexuality."

      "Me?" the man responded. "You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"

      Delete
    2. A man goes to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist pulls out the Rorschach test.
      Psychiatrist: "Now, I'm going to show you some pictures and you tell me what you see."

      Man:"Well, that's a naked woman."
      Psychiatrist: "Mmmhmm"
      Man: "That's two naked women."
      Psychiatrist: "Ahh." and making a notation on his pad.
      Man: "That's a man and a woman having sex."
      Psychiatrist: sharp intake of breath

      And so it goes through the whole series of cards. One sexual image after another.

      Psychiatrist: "Well, I have to tell you,..."
      Man (thinking): Oh, no this is it! Rubber room, medications, shock treatments. He's about to call for the attendant with the strait-jacket.
      Psychiatrist: "...you're perfectly normal. You got all of them right. You wouldn't believe the crazy things some people see!"



      Delete
  8. It never stops amazing me how differently men (generally) and women (generally) evaluate what is funny, what is appropriate based on who you're interacting with, and what is something that your listening audience may or may not want to hear or see.

    Og, the thing is, when people on our "side" say things like what you've said here about Pelosi, it's frankly unhelpful in convincing the other side we're correct. If I went to a lefty site and they were discussing Sarah Palin in the context of penises, I would write those people off as completely unserious, leave the site, and be less inclined in the future to pay any attention to anything they say, or to anything anyone ever says negatively about Sarah Palin.

    At the same time, it grosses out and possibly even offending half the people on OUR side.

    Again, I'm just saying. I loathe Nancy Pelosi with all my heart. But I have no desire to read about pubic hair and penis glans when I'm pondering the damage she's done to the country, and actually that shit just distracts from that real, tangible damage. It makes a joke out of the fact we need to beat these fuckers down at the ballot box or even in a revolution some day.

    Maybe I've become a humorless prude but I doubt it. I just really, really, really don't like it when women politician and commentators are talked about in sexual terms, be they Pelosi or Hillary or Palin or my own self.

    This is EXACTLY the reason why female bloggers like me and Buttercup lay low and don't use our real (married) names or post pictures of ourselves. The last time I posted a picture of myself, some lefty bloggers took it and dissected every aspect of my appearance, quite crudely. They were just...making observations.

    My mother saw that shit. MY HUSBAND SAW THAT SHIT. It was...problematic. It was one of the reasons I stopped blogging for a long time.

    So I'm compelled to write these several paragraphs, possibly sounding bitchy and pedantic but I can't help it. I feel really, really strongly about this and I can't keep quiet about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1: you're certainly welcome to your concerns. If all we had to worry about was "Convincing" anyone of anything, you'd be 100% correct.

    The demonstrable fact is that the "other side" cannot and will not be "Convinced" of anything. So I don't care.

    2; I don't have the best memory on the planet but I do seem to recall a certain person saying something to the effect of "Can anyone look at a bicycle helmet and not think "penis"? " I would have figured my comment did not stray beyond the tender sensibilities of that person.

    If you honestly think there is the slightest possibility- I mean, even one hundredth of a percent- that there exists any way to "Convince" the morons who vote D of anything, please let me know what that game plan is. In the meantime, I will continue not giving a damn what they think, at all, ever.

    I'm sorry you have taken offense at something I said. It was not intended to offend- rest assured that if I intended to offend you, it would be crystal clear. I neither mince words nor pull punches. You and buttercup have said things that I found not only extremely offensive but downright rude, and I was told to shut up because I was wrong and that was that. So I did. If this is another of those cases, well, I guess I just will again. Of course what Rachel wants, Rachel gets. I won't leave another comment here or at your place on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I know you're right, Og, there is no convincing most of those fools. I just still like to try. Ha! Seriously though, actually, I do think there are certain D-voters who can be persuaded. I have a sister who is one of them. I've known a few others. And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're more likely to listen when I don't refer to anyone's face in the context of pubic hairs. I'm just saying, man! It does make a difference, I think. Granted, Buttercup's blog is not a forum where we're trying to persuade my sister or any brainless liberals.

    Of course I've said many things in the past about peoples' looks. I used to write on my blog about Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore being fat. So I certainly didn't mean to come off sanctimonious in that regard. And yep, this certain person has compared bike helmets to peckers. What I'm getting at with this Pelosi thing is that you're talking about her FACE. That never used to bother me until it happened to me in a public forum, so sure, we can probably all agree that my tender sensibilities are over-riding more rational concerns. I was just trying to communicate to you why a lot of women get a little touchy about this subject. Certainly wasn't trying to get you to shut up, and also wasn't even saying you're "wrong". Just was ranting about how it feels to be talked about in graphic sexual terms in public, by strangers, and that knowing that feeling makes me extra-defensive about it when I see it happen to others, on either side of the political aisle.

    We know you neither mince words or pull punches, and that can be a wonderful thing. I think I've badly communicated about this whole thing, though, if you're interpreting my "offense" in the way you seem to be interpreting it. I'm not exactly fanning myself and getting the vapors. It's just that a lot of us women who write about politics get really punchy when we see other women in politics being bashed for nothing but their appearance. I hate it when they do it to Sarah Palin and Laura Bush, so why wouldn't I hate it when it's done to this asshole Pelosi? Sure, Pelosi is a menacing, evil force in American culture, and I quite genuinely do hold ill will towards her, but still, I cringe at talking about her FACE. Is that completely unreasonable to you?

    And hey man, what is up with "What Rachel wants, Rachel gets"? Seriously? Where is that coming from? What has happened in the past here or on my blog that gives you that impression of my personality? I'm genuinely curious.

    Anyway, sorry Buttercup for hijacking your post. Ha! Like Og, I won't say any more about it. Onward and upward!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have struggled over the last few days with whether I should respond to your increasing outrage, Og, over both Rachel's and my attempts to tone down the vulgarity in your comments regarding Ninny Pelosi's looks.

    But, obviously, when you feel it necessary to reference a discussion that happened months and months ago on Rachel's blog, you are harboring a sense of resentment and victimization that is somewhat disconcerting. I thought you were a big boy. My apologies.

    I agree completely with Rachel that there is a line that needn't be crossed. We all dislike Nancy Pelosi FOR HER POLITICS. Making fun of her intellect, even her looks (up to a point), is fair game. Unfortunately, in our attempts to be humorous, all of us have crossed that line at one time or another. When we do, and are gently chided to go back behind the line by others, a gentleman does not argue the point or increase his vulgarity.

    On this comment thread, you crossed that line. And with a tired old joke that EVERYONE has heard a million times. Point one: if you're going to be vulgar, at LEAST be funny. I attempted to soften the insulting comment by referencing your remark that she suffered from lack of blood flow to the brain. You were not to be dissuaded from your apparent INSISTENCE that I "get" the joke, so you helpfully SPELLED IT OUT FOR ME IN GRAPHIC DETAIL. This falls outside the boundaries of civil discourse, sir. I thought long and hard about simply deleting your comment, but still refrained, hoping that if I ignored your taunting, escalating, sexually graphic baiting, that you would cease. But I underestimated you. After a few days, you posted another comment comparing Ninny to a porn star's genitalia. This was in exquisitely poor taste. If you had been in my home and said that, you would have been unceremoniously told that your comment was disgusting, vulgar and unwelcome. I would have demanded an apology. But this is the internet, and I have been trying very hard to simply ignore your repeated attempts to prod me into responding.

    I did not start this blog to be popular or to gain thousands of readers. Or commenters. And whether it's appropriate or not, I feel as if this little blog is like my home. I joke around, post recipes, pictures that make me laugh, ideas that make me scratch my head, and politics that make me crazy. However, just like my home, there is a limit to what I will tolerate. Your incredibly unwelcome vulgarity was not quite enough to make me ask you to leave, but your comments to Rachel are.

    When Rachel made two efforts to calmly explain to you how your comments were frankly insulting and unnecessary, you simply got nasty, saying that I am rude and insinuating that she is demanding and spoiled (what Rachel wants, Rachel gets!?!?)REALLY? -- and at that point, sir, you've been shown the door.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete