Saturday, January 26, 2008
During an exclusive interview with LU News, the only unindicted criminal co-conspirator ever to "serve" in the U.S. Senate once again gets extremely emotional.
U News Washington Bureau Chief Libsareb Raindead:
Welcome, Your Nibs. How's it goin'?
| a|| ~|
| b|| !|
| c|| @|
| d|| #|
| e|| $|
| f|| %|
| g|| ^|
| h|| &|
| i|| *|
| j|| (|
| k|| )|
| l|| _|
| m|| +|
| n|| `|
| o|| 1|
| p|| 2|
| q|| 3|
| r|| 4|
| s|| 5|
| t|| 6|
| u|| 7|
| v|| 8|
| w|| 9|
| x|| 0|
| y|| -|
| z|| =|
| A|| |~|
| B|| |!|
| C|| |@|
Junior Senator from New York BiIsIs al-Qlinton's old "lady":
How the %7@) did you get in here!
I told the Secret Service we had an interview. They said I could wait in here for you.
Those hired pigs don't know 5&*6. I specifically told them no interviews with any %7@)ing conservative types.
Well, they asked me what "LU" stands for. When I told them they said it'd be okay.
|%7@)ing |($9 bastard 5&*6heads!
It's all right. This won't take long. Besides, you don't want me to reveal where we are, do you?
|^1##~+ %7@)ing right I don't. You better keep your %7@)ing mouth quiet!
I bet you say that to all the reporters. Now, if you don't mind, may we continue the interview?
|%7@). All right. But first, turn the %7@) around. I've got to take a %7@)ing 2*55.
You aren't going to use a stall?
|^1##~+ it! I'll ^1##~+ %7@)ing 2*55 any %7@)ing ^1##~+ way I want to. And you won't say the first ^1##~+ %7@)ing word about it either!
Okay, okay. I'm turning around....
You got one of those stand-up things?
Shut the %7@) up! ....
I've heard a flush. May I turn back around now?
Wait one ^1##~+ %7@)ing minute.... Okay, you can turn around.
Are you sure?
Yes, ^1##~+ it! Hurry, I don't have %7@)ing all ^1##~+ day.
Yes, Your Nibs.
Now what's your first ^1##~+ question?
Okay. First question: Why did you remain "married" to Bill Qlinton, after knowing that he regularly cheated on you? Do you have no self-respect?
What's with the %7@)ing air quotes? I can produce the ^1##~+ marriage certificate if you don't %7@)ing believe we aren't ^1##~+ %7@)ing married.
I'll take that as a "no," then. I also have a follow-up: If your "husband" never ran for or became president, do you feel you would be a U.S. senator from New York now? Do you feel you would be running for or holding any elected office at all?
What kind of %7@)ing 5&*66- ~55 question is that? I won't answer any ^1##~+ hypotheticals.
Sounds like another "no." All right, we'll try a non-hypothetical. You've publicly accused President Bush of "spying" on normal Americans, but you yourself hired — not once but twice — the Hollywood-based ex-con Tony "Telesleuth" Pellicano who's famous for using not just wiretaps but live hand grenades and plastic explosives when he spies on Americans for clients like you. Do you feel your accusations against our president have a not so very hypothetical ring of hypocrisy to them?
|%7@)! You don't ^1##~+ expect me to keep %7@)ing track all the ^1##~+ time of every %7@)ed-up thing anyone I hire does, do you?
So your answer's "yes"?
No, it's a %7@)ing ^1##~+ no.
Sure. Next question. Not too long ago you promised to get the government to pay five thousand dollars to every child not aborted in America. That amounts to over a hundred billion dollars a year. Are you still making that promise? and, if so, what existing government programs do you propose cutting or new taxes do you propose raising to make this extreme expenditure even possible?
It's for the ^1##~+ children, ^1##~+ it. So I'll %7@)ing raise any ^1##~+ tax I please. If any |($9 ~55 Republican stands in my way I'll %7@)ing destroy them!
That's nice. Does that mean you'll — and I quote you — "need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts," including bankrolling that destruction of Republicans?
He's just one ^1##~+ individual. I don't know why everyone's always ^1##~+ picking on him all the %7@)ing time.
Being a multi-billionaire has its disadvantages, I guess. Let's move on, then — if you'll pardon the pun. Last July, you said that "(liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand... on behalf of the individual, (but) in the last thirty, forty years, it has been turned up on its head." Is that some sort of admission?
I admit no %7@)ing thing. I'm saying that if you're a ^1##~+ |($9 %7@)ed Republican ~55&1_$, you don't give a ^1##~+ rat's ~55 about ^1##~+ freedom.
Isn't that special. Okay. Last October, you said that "(some say) that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it, (but the UN) often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates." Isn't that a recipe for the United States having to "go it alone" sometimes, perhaps even often?
|%7@) no. Your question's a ^1##~+ recipe for a %7@)ing 5&*6 sandwich.
What a pleasant thought. Maybe you can clear this one up, then. You said that "people who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally." If that's the case, why did you, only a few months before you said this, vote in favor of the MqQain-Qennedy bill which would've, in effect, given invading illegals much better treatment in the law than the people who've been following all our laws?
It did nothing of the ^1##~+ sort. It was a %7@)ing comprehensive plan for %7@)ing comprehensively allowing people to obey the ^1##~+ law, ^1##~+ it.
Like if you allowed people to tear up their speeding tickets there would be no more speeders?
You %7@)ing well know that's not the %7@)ing same thing. Not even %7@)ing close.
Let's say I do. Is that the same alleged reasoning you used when you proclaimed that the plan of Demoqrat Governor Spitzer of New York to give illegal aliens better treatment when it comes to their getting driver's licenses "makes a lot of sense."
|^1##~+ it, that's not even on the ^1##~+ books anymore, so it's now just another %7@)ing hypothetical. Next?
Actually, I have a follow up. Did you or anyone from your qampaign ever urge the governor to make that plan go away so it would be "just another hypothetical"?
I doubt you'll find any %7@)ing evidence showing that. So, next?
Why can't lawyers ever just say "no"?
Never mind. Speaking of finding evidence, you said that you "will be requiring all Americans to have health care (insurance)" and you "will be calling on employers to do their part as well." How are you going to find out whether any American isn't meeting your requirements or whether employers aren't doing their part? Spy on them?
I'll %7@)ing make it mandatory that no one can get or keep a ^1##~+ job in this country unless they prove they %7@)ing got health insurance. Any ^1##~+ |($9 5&*6 self-employed person who doesn't submit %7@)ing proof of it with their ^1##~+ tax returns will be %7@)ing fined. I'll even have 5&*6head pigs on the street asking for proof of it during any %7@)ing DUI checkpoints! No one will %7@)ing escape my ^1##~+ requirements.
What were you saying about liberals and "freedom" just a couple of questions ago?
Freedom doesn't mean %7@)ing 5&*6 if you aren't ^1##~+ forced to have health insurance.
There's probably just enough room to carve those epitaphic words too on your qampaign's tombstone.
(Teh Psyqho-Qlown Qaqkle®).... |%7@)ing whoa. I've got to take another ^1##~+ leak. Turn the %7@) around again.
To be continued (maybe)....
That's one requirement you won't have to force me to meet.
Labels: clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), liberals unhinged, megalomaniacal liberals (BIRM), narcissist liberals (BIRM), tax'n'spend liberals (BIRM), Washington D(istrict of )C(rooks)
Comments (registered users)