Vocalizing to a small group of carbon-based supporters in Michigan earlier this week, “Mitt Romney” – the android launched many years ago by a venture capital fund to become the first completely non-human Republican nominee for President – pretended to express his/its deep affinities with and positive responses to various aspects of the state where he/it was, so to speak, “born and raised”…
Amongst the utterly predictable elements of Mittbot’s pandering subroutine about his/its enduring “love” of American cars, lakes (both great and little ones), etc., a notable standout was the mysterious observation that, “It seems right here. The trees are the right height.”
Some political pundits found the remark to be oddly disturbing, but jokingly sloughed it off as yet another unfortunate “Conehead” moment where the logical analytics of Mittbot’s programming simply failed to connect with actual human experience.
That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but I really think the press should insist on a more detailed explanation of Mittbot’s curious expression, or at the very least attempt to gain a better understanding of what he/it regards as the qualitative indicators for optimal forestry.
Looks like the folks at Bad Lip Reading (BLR) got their mojo back after a few duds following the priceless Rick Perry BLR, “Save a pretzel for the gas jets”… Maybe it helps if the subject is stark raving mad to begin with. Just a theory.
p.s. Sorry for being MIA for the last week. That’s what happens when you get super-busy with work. Not that I’m complaining!
Neat little mock ad from the folks at BuzzFeed pivoting off the accusation that Newt Gringrich is “grandiose”…
It’s actually not surprising in the least that Newt would so readily embrace the term given his attachment to the notion of “American exceptionalism” – a view that holds the United States in an entirely unique position amongst nations of the world for various reasons that are mostly bullshit.
Fun Fact: Joseph Stalin was the first person to employ the term “American exceptionalism” when he castigated the American Communist Party for its deviance from Marxist theory. Go figure.
Stephen Colbert’s speech at the College of Charleston last week, just days before the South Carolina Republican primary.
For the record, “Herman Cain” received 6,324 votes or 1.1% of the total number cast, a figure well ahead of all the other non-candidates still on the ballot; in fact, almost double that of Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann and Johnston, combined.
From the definitely not co-ordinating with Stephen Colbert Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow SuperPAC, a negative ad attacking the negative ads of the Republican frontrunners… then vows donations will be used to “destroy both these guys and their SuperPACs with a merciless ad torn so fierce they’ll wish they’d never been incorporated… an orgy of pure distortion leaving nothing behind – but the clean campaign we all deserve.”
More fun with SuperPacs from the team of Stephen Colbert and his friend/business partner Jon Stewart (with whom he’s definitely not co-ordinating!).
Because he’s not on the ballot in South Carolina and that state’s GOP doesn’t allow write-ins, the latest TV ad from the Americans for a Better America Tomorrow, Tomorrow SuperPac, Republican primary voters are encouraged to express their support for Stephen Colbert by casting a stealth vote for ex-candidate Herman Cain (who dropped out of the race several weeks ago, but remains on the ballot).
It’s great fun watching Colbert slip a turd into the box lunch of the Republican primary contest. Obviously he won’t “win” the SC primary, but I’m pretty sure he’s got another Peabody Award in the bag.
Rick Mercer rants against the erosion of public debate under the Harper Government® concerning various issues of the day and its paternalistic “My house, my rules” approach to unilaterally enacting decisions…
Um, sorry, but isn’t this semi-dictatorial kind of behaviour the nature of majority governments in parliament and, truth be told, part of the reason we elect them to effectively function as such in the first place? If anything, the virtual autocracy we temporarily grant to our leaders for several years at a time seems to be a feature, not a bug, of our system.