I understand that Hillary Clinton is asking fans to vote on a theme song for her campaign.
Here's my recommendation.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
Cuz I get better lookin each day
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
But I'm doin' the best that I can
I used to have a girlfriend
But I guess she just couldn't compete
With all these love starved women
Who keep clamoring at my feet
Well I probably could find me another
But I guess they're all in awe of me
Who cares I never get lonesome
Cuz I treasure my own company
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
Cuz I get better lookin each day
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
But I'm doin the best that I can
I guess you could say I am a loner
A cowboy all locked up and proud
Well I could have lots of friends if I wanted
But then I wouldn't stand out in a crowd
Some folks say that I'm egotistical
Hell I don't even know what that means
I guess it has something to do with the way
That I fill out my skin tight blue jeans
19 comments:
Wow, are you really so afraid of Hillary they you have to stoop to calling her a man? I mean really, attack her healthcare plan or some issue, but don't you think attacking a politican on their gender of all things is a little low?
I guess the song, "I Touch Myself" by the Divinyls could work as well.
Ah Truthy,
Defender of the liberal faith. I do not see you defending conservatives or our president from parodies/songs on television. So much for your belief in the first ammendmant for all. You probably stand with Rosie O'donnel and her views also.
Ever read 1984? Have you ever heard of thoughtcrime?
Truth,
You cannot possibly be that dumb.
Would I have to rewrite and re-record the song in a female voice before you could understand the humor?
I'm not sure what Rosie O'donnel views you are reffering to, and no I've never read 1984, so I can't really comment on them.
As for the humor, of course I recognize thats what it was supposed to be, but making several verses and the chorus about how she's a man for some unknown reason was what I had a problem with, as I noted.
As for a thoughtcrime, the only ones I've ever heard of are from the current administration in regards to people who are detained simply for voicing their opinions and then held for years without trial.
Care to name the defendant or case? Let's examine the allegations.
Here's a good one in the news recently:
Majid Khan, held in a CIA prison, now being detained at Guantanamo, claims to be tortured at Guantanamo and yet no connection has been proven between him and terrorists.
Of coure theres the Tipton Three, Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul who were held for 3 years and eventually were released, never were they charged.
And of course there's another 400+ people who havent been charged with anything, and yet have been held there for years. It's a little bit harder for me to provide you the allegations against most of these people when the government refuses to make any.
Is this the individual? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majid_Khan_%28Guantanamo_detainee%29
Four hundred people who are being held in American prisons, who feel their rights are trampled? LOL. You come talk to me when four hundred thousand bodies are being dug up in mass graves on American soil.
I think a remake of an oldie would best fit her theme:
"The Tax Ma'am"
Think we could get the surviving Beatles to reunite to cut that one?
April, yes your wikipedia article is the person I am referring to, now that we both know the case perhaps you could make your point. Because as it turns out 400,000 people are not being dug up on American soil, and statements such as yours thus are purelly hypothetical and as Barenjager noted we are discussing the real world and not some political science simulation. For the specific person in question (or the one you chose to respond to), you may notice any claims made by the government are accompanied by such words as "assert" "allegedly" and "suspicions". If they prove him guilty then let them convict him and be done with it. But when they hold someobody for 3 1/2 years without proving anything, and by all accounts torturing him during that time what are you accomplishing? Do you think any information he might have anymore is valid, do you think holding him there is earning any goodwill?
What I am talking about is our government imprisoning people for years on end without access to a lawyer, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, the filing of formal charges, or any other number of things which constitute the basic for the international system of law we expect people to follow. Why do you think the rest of the world laughs when we talk about Iraq setting up a proper legal system, one in which people are all treated equally regardless of sectarian basis? Its because we no longer follow the example we have preached to the world for so long, and if thats the path you want to continue down then so be it, I wonder how long until the rest of the world turns on us and the 400,000 Americans found in mass graves is a reality and not just a scare tactic used to quiet any part of your concious which might rail against the removal of civil liberties and human rights.
If they've got the proof charge them. We gave the Nazis a fair and speedy trial and they killed millions upon millions of people, and here we cant even be bothered to charge the majority of people we've held in captivity for 3, 4, or even 5 years? What does that say about America as a country as us as a people? It doesnt make it strong, it just exposes our fear and gives our enemies one more way to convert moderates to their side.
When did this idiotic notion arise that prisoners of war are entitled to legal counsel or even trials?
Michael,
Libs value American rights and freedoms so cheaply, they are ready to hand them over to anyone, even enemy combatants.
Truthy,
I pity you. You are a WSU student and you have not read "1984". Read it and find out the true definition of thoughtcrime. Look at the inner party, look at the democrat party and you will see a mirror image.
Nice bait and switch tactic by switching over to the terrorists at Gitmo. I guess liberals have finally learned a new move besides pulling the race card.
If you will note Satanic, you first brough up the notion of a thought crime, in an attempt to find some smear label you could use against me, I simply responded that not having ready 1984 my definition of a thought crime is what people are in Guantanamo for.
As for my notion that prisoners of war have rights how about the Geneva conventions, the desire for our own soliders to be treated humanely, and possibly the desire to retake the moral high ground in the War on Terror. Yes there is no legal binding law saying they have rights, because they are in Cuba and we wouldn't want to actually give them the same judicial process we want Iraq to implement.
And April, it turns out I love America one hell of a lot. In fact, it would seem that I love America more than you do, becuase you are willing to give up the rights and liberties that make America great because you somehow belive it will stop the terrorists from winning. To let you know, what they hate are our rights and liberties, and it doesnt matter if we give them up because they have a gun to our face, or whether we do so in the name of "security" the result is the same; the end of America as we know it. It seems to me that if you love America than you have to love more than a name, you have to love what that name stands for, and I'll give you a hint, it doesnt stand for torture, imprisonment, and a police state.
What I was going for by bringing this all up was possibly a debate on Guantanamo, but for some reason everybody here seems unwilling to do that. Why is it that anytime anything contradictory to your views is mentioned you try and dismiss it with a one-liner about how liberals hate America. First off, do you really think you represent the majority of America, or even the majority of Republicans (all recent polls point to no, in case you were wondering). Second why not actually debate me. If my ideas are so wrong why not do more than say "oh, well, thats wrong because a democrat also endorsed it"? Why do people here seem so afraid of intelligent discussion?
Truthy,
You still don't understand what thoughtcrime really is. Read a book once in your life.
It is funny that you say you are for liberty but yet you attacked Michael for posting a parody.
As for Gitmo, why don't you post a new and seperate topic on the subject as oppossed to taking another topic off subject.
I would post a new and seperate topic, but I don't have posting powers on here, which is fine, so I'm posting it here. Also, I read a fair amount, most recently for example was the 9/11 Comission report. Finally, I didn't ever say Michael didn't have the right to parody Hillary Clinton, just that doing so about her gender is perhaps somewhat of a low blow.
No, I am not willing to give up your rights and liberties, as an American. Unlike libs, who are willing to give up MY life and liberties. I believe it is my responsiblity to protect YOUR rights to ensure MY rights are not diluted to the point of being meaningless. What happens and who is elected in Canada, Mexico or Iraq, is the problem of those citizens. My duty is to the citizens of the U.S., everything else is "foreign policy."
We are not one world, and our standards are not the same as other countries. We will not dip down our standards to reach the lows of thieves, murderers and tormenters. We may have to play rough, according to our standards, but we are not egomaniac fools who kill and inprison people for the fun of it.
Post a Comment