Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Lieberturd flip-flops on health care

Well, is any one surprised that the d-bag from Connecticut is now against the public option? Knowing the dem pussies in the senate, they will probably give him a new committee chairmanship for opposing the public option.


Tuesday, June 9, 2009

On profanity

To add to AB's post on profanity, I am always amazed by people who are offended by the occasional f-bomb.

First, seriously, if online profanity is the biggest of your concerns, you are not paying enough attention. For example, Joe Lieberman pisses in the Dems' cereal, and they let him keep his god-damned committee chair! What else can you call the Dems but fucking pussies?

Second, as AB pointed out much more eloquently, sometimes the situation is so beyond the pale that you just have to scream out a profanity. For instance, if you are a decent human being looking objectively at the record of that fuck-shit-douchebag Joe Lieberman, you would be hard-pressed to find a single accurate description of him that doesn't involve fuck, shit or douchebag.

Third, by its very nature, the blogosphere is much more profanity-friendly. So, yes, fuck Joe Lieberman.

(Cross-posted to DL Cincinnati)

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Joe and John drop another lieberturd in WaPo

Say Joe and John, the men who have been wrong about virtually everything:
As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a "minimalist" approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a "graveyard of empires" and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more "realistic" goals there -- for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.
Who exactly are "they?" Stop this strawman nonsense. Either name names, or shut the hell up.
The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success -- a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary -- can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security.
Yeah, just like the Iraqis were going to welcome us with flowers. Right, Joe?


Friday, March 13, 2009

Thanks, but no thanks

Nuh-uh, Joe, stay where you are. We don't want you back in the Democratic party.

But knowing what pussies some of the Dems are, who knows...


Monday, March 9, 2009

Dodd smoking crack

Chris Dodd on Joe Lieberman:
"I don't think of Joe as the independent, I really think of Joe as a Democrat," said Lieberman's home state colleague, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.
Yeah, Lieberman's a Democrat like I am the fucking Queen of England.

(Cross-posted on DL Cinci)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Profile in two-facedness: Joe Lieberturd

Our favorite "independent democrat" excels at talking out of both sides of his mouth. But that's not all! He can talk out of his ass at the same time too. Take his latest on Afghanistan:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Months after slamming then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's world view as "naive," Sen. Joe Lieberman reversed course in a critical foreign policy arena Thursday, praising the new administration's approach in Afghanistan.
Yes, folks, it's the new Lieberman! All pro-Obama, all the time!
The former Democratic vice presidential nominee from Connecticut told an audience at the Brookings Institution he is optimistic the United States can turn the tide in the former Taliban stronghold in part because "President Obama has made very clear that this is a war he intends to win and he has moved swiftly to take command of it."
See, that is all it takes now to change Joe's mind about something. Just make it "very clear" to him that you want to do something and he is totally going to be on your side. Why Obama didn't make his intentions "very clear" earlier on remains a mystery to us all.
"My advice to anyone who is hedging their bets in South Asia: the combination of Dick Holbrooke and (General) Dave Petraeus, led by Hillary Clinton and (Defense Secretary) Bob Gates, is not a team I would bet against," Lieberman said.
Hey, Joe, I'll let you in on a little secret. You suck at making bets. You bet on the wrong horse. Now shut the fuck up.
He said that, in addition to a troop surge, U.S. policy in Afghanistan also needs a surge in the "strategic coherence of our war effort," as well as greater diplomatic outreach and cooperation from Afghans themselves.
Of course, Joe just realized this on January 20, 2009. Until then he was perfectly happy with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. Now suddenly he's worried about "strategic coherence."

Joe Lieberman is not just two-faced, he is brazenly so. Man, I am so ready for 2012!

(Cross-posted on DL Cinci)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Lieberwhore "deeply moved"


Joe Lieberhole is "deeply moved" by the very man whose motives and patriotism he questioned barely a couple of months ago:
"This is truly a great day for our blessed nation! I was deeply moved and inspired by President Obama's eloquent and stirring address. Now is the time to unite as a nation behind our new president's leadership and address the challenges facing our country at home and abroad," Lieberman said in a statement issued after the event.
What a self-serving douchebag asswipe.

(Crossposted on DL Cincinnati)