Posted on 09/30/2010 10:42:20 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
It all clicked into place when I read that Murkowski is now running an ad attacking the Tea Party Express as "the organization from California* that did a half million in attack ads" thereby stealing the primary from her, and I imagined Princess Lisa saying "You were too stupid to think for yourselves so just vote for mke, you imbeciles! Now, I understand what's been bothering me about her the past few weeks.
Lisa Murkowski is Alaska's answer to Mom, the tycoon from the cartoon sitcom Futurama.
For those unfamiliar with Matt Groening's real masterpiece, Futurama is the saga of a slacker pizza delivery boy who is accidentally cryogenically frozen and wakes up in the year 3,000, where he gets a job working for his descendant, Professor Farnsworth, at Farnsworth's delivery company, Planet Express. One of Farnsworth's bitter enemies is a woman known simply as Mom, who owns many of the galaxy's biggest corporations (she is so powerful she even holds a trademark on the words "Mom," "Love" and "Screen Door"), including "Mom's Friendly Robot Company," which has a total monopoly in the robot manufacture market. Mom projects a folksy and sweet image, but in reality she is vicious, evil, thin-skinned, foul-mouthed and cringingly unattractive.
First, note the resemblance:
And really, after all the bitterness, all the derision aimed at GOP voters like they were too dumb to figure out whether they liked their own senator, and all the effort to make her seem folksy and caring about the down home Alaskans because the big bad Californians might hurt them, can't you imagine Murkowski walking into her office, closing the door and saying:
"Jerkwad Tea Party makes me sick to my ass! And if I see Joe Miller, I'll cram a squirrel in him!"
* Isn't that sort of like saying Alaskans shouldn't have believed Reagan because he was from California? just sayin...
Soon, hopefully. It’s highly addictive.
Whimmy-wham-wham-wazzle!
Rimshot!
Sandra Bernhardt.
Personally, she reminds of another cartoon character: Nancy Pelosi.
I just have to tell you that your tagline is brilliant!
AND so true.
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little teabagses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"
It was’nt directed at you, but your post. You asked for thoughts.
A long time ago, I read a approx 6th grade level, school text book
that combined fantasy stories, American Indian mythology, and portraits of American Founding Fathers (focusing on ridiculous and questionable foibles.)
No child would be able to discern between fantasy and reality. The “Fathers” were not fables. Very dangerous and destructive.
Since then, I have watched this trend. “It must be true because it reminds me of a movie I saw.”
Please accept my apology. I have offended you, and that was not my intent.
>One of the things sapping the gray matter of the American mind is the blurring of reality and fantasy. Just my thought.
Can you blame people from wanting to escape a reality where:
- The higher-law of a Constitution is routinely ignored in favor of the lesser-law,
- The ‘public servant’ known as a police-officer may break into a house w/o a warrant [think SWAT-teams and ‘wrong address’ stories]
- The ‘public servant’ known as a police officer may assault, kidnap, or simply execute you for exercising your lawful rights [COSTCO, the MI open-carry, etc]
- The ‘public servants’ known as the Legislature may, contrary to both popular wishes AND Constitutional authority pass laws [TARP, Obamacare, etc]
- The Supreme Court may decree what the Constitution says, thereby becoming a super-legislature; they have virtually eliminated the 5th Amendment prohibition against unjust compensation for property [Keelo v. New England]; they have created new-law out of whole-cloth [the illegalization of anti-abortion laws in Roe v. Wade]; They have made the 4th Amendment of no effect by allowing no-knock warrants & allowing police search & seizure on “probable-cause” (proper reading of the 4th Amendment is that the warrant authorizing police action may be issued on ‘probable cause’)
- The politicians try to “spend our way out of debt”... using my money, not their own.
- The idea of standing up to/against authority is an anathema to the “average citizen” because they have been conditioned to believe that the very position of authority justifies that person’s use of ANY authority. [i.e. school bannings of weapons, despite the fact that is a FEDERAL OFFENSE under this law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html ]
ROFL!
She is a loser.
Looks like something you get free with a bowl of soup.....EH yours looks good on you!!!
Amazing parallels.
I go outside and pull weeds.
We wouldn’t be in such a mess now, if we were grounded in reality instead of chasing escapes.
Murkowski is a self-centered, selfish, loser. Amazing how many politicians (Barney Frank), have been in office for decades because Americans were not paying attention.
Genius. Great comparison
>Murkowski is a self-centered, selfish, loser. Amazing how many politicians (Barney Frank), have been in office for decades because Americans were not paying attention.
True enough, though there is more blame on the older generations than the younger generations [how long have those under 30 been voting; those under 20?] for that situation; that sort of *does* fly in the face of your theory.
>We wouldn’t be in such a mess now, if we were grounded in reality instead of chasing escapes.
Ah, but let me counter by pointing out that I have found a rather interesting contradiction between the State Constitution and several State Statutes. Every public official I approach on the subject points me to some other person in a fashion similar to this: local police -> DA -> state supreme court -> lawyer -> legislator -> DA.
The reason this is a particular problem for me is that it, in practice, prevents me from attacking the contradiction from a point of strength (that of violating neither law) and forces me to attack from a point of weakness (that of defending myself against the law by challenging that law AFTER a violation thereof; i.e. in court).
The contradiction I found is as follows:
New Mexico State Constitution
Art 2, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
A contrary State Statute:
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
-(1) a peace officer;
-(2) university security personnel;
-(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
-(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
-(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
-(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
-(2) “university premises” means:
—(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
—(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark!
Thank you!
Prayers up for Father Ludtke.
Saw it, loved it!
Nicely done!
When I posted this, one of the things I was really looking forward to was all the stuff that would get posted by fellow Futurama fans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.