Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DFU SONG: Y M C A (Arianna Huffington busted in SUV)
DFU SONGS | 9-2005 | Lyrics, Doug from Upland

Posted on 09/18/2005 10:57:26 AM PDT by doug from upland


Liberals, you're so easy to mock
I say, liberals, what you say is a crock
Limo liberals, in your mouth stuff a sock
Because we don't want to hear it

Liberals, we have our eyes on you
I say, liberals, we have watched what you do
Phony liberals, all your hubris shines through
From you we don't want to hear it

Hey, Arianna, just S T F U
It is about time you S T F U
You have your stained blue dress, it's a big SUV
Can you say it? HYPOCRISY!

Yes, Arianna, just S T F U
It is about time you S T F U
No more lectures, please dear, credibility's shot
A bad hair day for you, you're caught

Liberals, the new media rules
I say, liberals, you have been shown as fools
Limo liberals, you come unarmed to duels
And no longer will we hear it

Liberals, the mainstream can't protect
I say, liberals, what you say we reject
Phony liberals, you have lost all respect
Because people will not hear it

Hey, Arianna, just S T F U
It is about time you S T F U
You have your stained blue dress, it's a big SUV
Can you say it? HYPOCRISY!

Yes, Arianna, will you S T F U
It is about time you S T F U
No more lectures, please dear, credibility's shot
What a bad hair day, you're caught

S T F U...yes, Arianna, just S T F U
Your blue stained dress is a big SUV
And we mock you for your HYPOCRISY

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arianna; goingthereanyway; huffington; hypocrisy; kooks; limoliberal; pharisees; photo; sanfrancisco; sierraclub; suv
I know I shouldn't keep being so mean to her and piling on, but darn it, it is just so much fun.
1 posted on 09/18/2005 10:57:34 AM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
2 posted on 09/18/2005 10:58:39 AM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"I know I shouldn't keep being so mean to her and piling on, but darn it, it is just so much fun."

It's OK. This is one of those highly justified Schadenfreude, BWWWAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA events that we all long for.

She is sooooooooooooo busted.

3 posted on 09/18/2005 10:59:52 AM PDT by roaddog727 (P=3/8 A. or, P=plenty...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

bump the suv

4 posted on 09/18/2005 11:00:03 AM PDT by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

puffington is a buffoon! Why in theee hell would anyone care what she says at all? We drive two SUV's, and two trucks!!!! Do I care what she says? Is SHE buying my gas? She does not tell me what to drive. She's a buffoon and a jackass as well.

5 posted on 09/18/2005 11:21:03 AM PDT by cubreporter (I trust Rush. He has done good more for our country than anyone will know. He's a man of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

The coming SUV wars
Is the tide of public opinion turning against these metal monstrosities?

By Arianna Huffington

Nov. 25, 2002 | Once again, America is a nation divided.

I'm not talking about the irreparable, brother-against-brother split between those who think the Bachelor should have proposed to Brooke instead of Helene. I'm talking about a contentious clash that is just beginning to rage. Call it the SUV war. As you read this, the opposing camps are staking out their turf.

On one side sales of the gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing, downright dangerous behemoths continue to soar. And apparently, the more fuel-inefficient the better: Dealers are having a hard time keeping up with the demand for the Hummer H2, GM's new $50,000 barely domesticated spinoff of the Gulf War darling, which struggles to cover 10 miles for every gallon of gas it burns. The symbolism of these impractical machines' military roots is too delicious to ignore. We go to war to protect our supply of cheap oil in vehicles that would be prohibitively expensive to operate without it.

There seems to be no shortage of Americans who think that consuming 25 percent of the world's oil just isn't enough. Maybe the next model, the H3, will need to be connected to an intravenous gas-pump hose all the time. And there would still be people eager to buy it.

These are the same folks who don't give a whit (this being a family newspaper) that at an OPEC meeting last month, the oily group's secretary general announced that one of the few bright spots in an otherwise gloomy world was the U.S.'s seemingly unslakable thirst for its product. How nice it must feel for SUV owners, knowing that their swaggering imprudence is helping the world's anti-democratic oil sheiks sleep just a little better at night. Call this camp the Bigger Is Better crowd. Their motto: "Burn, baby, burn ... 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars." How about this for a bumper sticker: "Honk if you hate the ozone layer!"

Lining up on the other side of the SUV DMZ are a disparate collection of groups and individuals whose aim is to win the hearts and minds -- and change the driving habits -- of the American public.

These include the Evangelical Environmental Network, which is promoting greater fuel efficiency through a provocative TV ad campaign that asks: "What would Jesus drive?" Hint: I don't think the answer is a Hummer. (Turning water into oil wasn't really his thing.) This comes at the same time that Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars, a group I co-founded with film producer Lawrence Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV agent Ari Emanuel, is producing ads parodying the drugs-equal-terror ads the administration is running. In this case, we're linking driving SUVs to our national security. When Hollywood progressives and the "WWJD?" crowd independently hit on the same idea, you know that something is up.

Even as SUVs continue to roll off the assembly line and out of car dealers' showrooms at a record pace, there is a growing sense that the tide of public opinion is turning against these metal monstrosities. A tipping point in the push to wean ourselves from foreign oil has finally been reached. The SUV makers have won a few battles, but they may be about to lose the war.

The new mood is very similar to the consciousness-raising that followed the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Designated Driver campaign. Before that, the prevailing attitude was, "Hey, what's the big deal?" The campaign hammered home a very compelling answer to that question, and the public's perception of drinking and driving was changed forever. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel went from being cool to being antisocial. With luck, getting behind the wheel of a loaded gas-guzzler is about to undergo the same transformation.

To see how the SUV fight is going, take a look at the media, usually an excellent weather vane when it comes to these kinds of societal shifts. In the last week alone there has been an explosion in the amount of positive coverage given to the anti-SUV movement, including segments on all the networks' nightly news shows. This is no small thing when you consider the megamillions in advertising dollars the auto industry represents.

And in Washington, after steadfastly opposing any raise in fuel efficiency standards, the Bush administration let it be known last week that it is considering a proposal to increase the standard for light trucks and SUVs by 1.5 miles per gallon by 2007.

While Team Bush hailed the proposed boost as a major victory in the battle for energy independence, Sen. John Kerry, who along with Sen. John McCain last spring proposed raising the SUV standard by 50 percent, called the 7 percent increase "window dressing." Others labeled it "political theater" and "almost an insult in its modesty." A thousand dittos.

It does seem woefully inadequate -- especially when you consider how many loopholes have already been driven through by light trucks and SUVs, which are currently allowed to average 7 miles per gallon less than regular cars. And the ultimate absurdity is that if an SUV is massive enough, it is entirely exempt from federal fuel economy standards. That's right, build one with a gross vehicle weight of over 8,500 pounds -- like the Ford Excursion or the new Hummer -- and the leviathan's lousy gas mileage doesn't even have to be reported to the government.

Chew on that one and see if it doesn't rev your engine: Automakers are rewarded for being particularly inefficient. There's the Bush Free Market for you.

Even the muckety-mucks in Detroit are starting to get the message. Ford, for instance, whose executives met last week with representatives from the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign, has pledged to boost the overall fuel efficiency of its SUVs by 25 percent over the next three years, and plans to introduce a hybrid gas-electric model that will get around 40 mpg.

Of course, much of the industry's "we care" message is little more than a desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable and put a pretty P.R. bow on a very ugly reality. Their real message is: "We care about making money, and if doing that now means we have to make it seem like we care about the environment, then so be it." Take, for example, this "faux" socially conscious reminder offered in the new Hummer brochure: "With the power to cross any terrain comes the responsibility to protect that terrain and its potentially fragile ecosystems."

The war's not going the SUV makers' way, and they know it. So now they want to make it look like we're all on the same side. At the moment, they're trying to figure out just how far they have to go to quell the uprising. It's in all of our interests to let them know that a 1.5 mpg improvement is not enough. The consequences of our addiction to foreign oil are no longer an abstraction.

6 posted on 09/18/2005 11:57:18 AM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

This is as priceless as Robert Kennedy Jr telling all of us little people to conserve as he waits for his private jet to pick him up.

7 posted on 09/18/2005 12:11:05 PM PDT by LoudRepublicangirl (loudrepublicangirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

A Pro-God, Pro-America, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Distinctly Middle-Class, Single, Hetero-sexual, White Guy's Take On Politics and Society


Monday, May 30, 2005
Limousine Liberals: Hypocrisy Made Manifest
For years now, my Liberal friends have told me that I am not rich enough to be a Republican. I take umbrage at such statements because I reject the premise of the statement. Somehow the myth has arisen that all Republicans are autocratic, rich, self-absorbed, greedy, cold, and uncaring, misers, whereas all Democrats are egalitarian, lower middle-class, compassionate, generous, altruistic, philanthropists. What utter balderdash.

The generalities:

The primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats believe in, to quote Judge Janice Rogers Brown, "human perfectibility...asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased." This results in a constant effort to "redistribute wealth" and even worse, talent, among the people; basically a socialist philosophy. It is a philosophy which eventually leads to bringing all people down to the "lowest common denominator." To paraphrase Karl Marx: to each as their needs dictate, from each as their ability allows. This is a philosophy that groups people together as special interests, placing stereotypical limits on their abilities and makes stereotypical assumptions about their wants and needs. It is a philosophy that believes there is a limit to wealth, and if one person has a lot, someone else must suffer lack. It seeks to use that lack to engender a feeling of guilt in those who are successful, and therefore is able to "extort" money from them in the form of taxes, promising to redistribute that money to those in "need." It is a philosophy that is, at its core, antithetical to the concepts of freedom, responsibility, and generosity.

The Democrat philosophy is antithetical to freedom because in order to prevent wealth from accumulating in one person's hands, there has to be an autocratic bureaucracy to supervise the distribution of money, making sure that no one suffers lack. It is antithetical to responsibility because it assumes that if you don't have, you are incapable of getting, through no fault of your own, and so must be provided for. It is antithetical to generosity because if "excess" is taxed, and the state provides for those in need, there is no need for generosity. The eventual product of such a philosophy, the inescapable result, is an uncaring and unmotivated populous totally dependent upon the state.

Republicans believe that all people are different, and are responsible for taking advantage of the opportunities that society provides for them. It is a philosophy that allows each individual to rise as high as his abilities and drive allow. It makes no assumptions and applies no restrictions. In their eyes, you can become as rich as you want to be. The harder you work, the further you progress. It is a philosophy that believes in the nobility of man; that, given the opportunity, he will aspire to be more. People will seek the opportunity to better themselves, and in so doing, improve the general welfare of the society. It believes that there is no limit on the generation of wealth, the more it is pursued, the more it is generated. It encourages freedom, because only through freedom is one able to pursue his dreams. It encourages responsibility, because no one is automatically provided for unless they are truly unable to care for themselves. It encourages generosity, because the "haves" know that those who lack, are truly those who are unable to provide for themselves, and so, deserving of charity. It also encourages generosity, because giving, voluntarily, is an unselfish act that engenders a general sense of well being. The eventual product of such a society is an empowered and enthusiastic populous, which supports their state out of a sense of pride.

The specifics:

Why is it that so many high profile Liberals are so wealthy? It would seem to me that if they truly believed in what they preached, they would eschew the trappings of wealth and live in modest means. Why do people like Barbara (Put Out a Clothesline) Streisand, Rob Reiner, Al Franken, George (Bank Buster) Soros (? billions), Teddy (Orca) Kennedy ($10 million), John (Lurch) Kerry ($620 million), John (Lassie) Edwards (12 million), etc. need so much money? If they truly believe that nobility derives from "modest means," and that rich people (read rich Republicans) are evil, why do they persist in retaining all of their money? Just think of all the people they could help if they lived on say...$100 thousand a year. That, by no means, is poor. In fact, by Democrat's definition, that is "upper class." Why do they need 25 room mansions in exclusive neighborhoods? Why do they need "vacation homes" at Martha's Vineyard, or in Miami Beach? If they truly believed in the garbage they are spewing, they would take a vow of poverty and donate the vast sums of money they have accumulated to help the "downtrodden" they are so quick to point to as they encourage the rest of us submit to higher taxes and fight against "Bush's tax cut for the rich." Hypocrites!!

Wealthy Republicans? Sure there are plenty of them, so what? There's nothing wrong with that, they are merely practicing what they preach. Republicans believe in the generation and accumulation of wealth. They say no one who desires to be wealthy and is ready to work hard for it should be denied the right and opportunity to pursue it. They encourage capitalism, risk taking, and entrepreneurism. They offer us opportunity rather than dependence.

So who are these rich hypocrites? Aside from those mentioned above, according to public records, in 2000, 27 of 50 Democrat senators were millionaires. Of the super millionaires, worth over $10 million, were nine Democrats and five Republicans and of the top ten, nine were Democrats. Kerry was number one, the rest: 2- Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin ($300 million) 3- Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia ($200 million)4- Jon Corzine, New Jersey ($71 million) 5- Dianne Feinstein, California ($26 million) 7- Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey ($17 million) 9- John Edwards, North Carolina 10- Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts. Even more interesting than that, is that these are not just Democrats; these are some of the most Liberal Democrats.

Other wealthy Democrats; Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and world's second-richest man, was John Kerry’s economic adviser. Billionaire George Soros gave over 15 million to (now Soros stated prior to the election that he would spend whatever it took to get rid of George Bush. Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs is a Democrat also advising Kerry on economic issues and appointed Al Gore to the Board of Directors of Apple. Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the fashion company Esprit, is a Democrat Party donor and activist. Bernard L. Schwartz was a principal character in Chinagate (selling advanced aerospace technology to China during the Clinton administration). He is CEO of Loral Space & Communications and a major Democrat donor. Former chairman of Comcast Corporation and Chinagate participant, C. Michael Armstrong, is major financial supporter of the DNC.

In California, Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek), Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame), and Steve Bing (grandson of Leo Bing a New York real estate tycoon) together gave $20.2 million to Democrat Party committees in 2002. Then, of course, we have the Trial Lawyers Association. Trial lawyer Harry Jacobs, reportedly worth $42 million, earned in representing patients in malpractice suits against doctors and nursing homes, spent millions of his own money in a failed attempt to be a Florida Democrat Congressman. Another Florida trial lawyer, Wayne Hogan, earned $54 million by representing Florida against tobacco companies and spent at least $4 million in his failed bid to a Congressman.

In Redmond, Washington, since 1998, Bill Gates (Microsoft founder and chairman), the richest man in America, has contributed three times more money to Democrats than to Republicans and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, America's 3rd richest man, has given over $150,000 to Democrats and no reported gifts to the GOP over the last three election cycles.

So next time you hear some Democrat blowhard spouting off about those rich Republicans and how evil they are, just gently remind them that there is more than enough money to go around, and that Republicans are just being true to their beliefs. Remind them of all those rich "Limousine Liberals" who live in the lap of luxury and want to help the indigent using your money and show them that the Democrats are hypocrites. Also tell them why. Oh, you don't know why? Well, let me enlighten you.

It's how they seek to gain and retain power over the rest of us. They envision a society in which they, who are wise and benevolent, can dispense material goods to those of us who "just don't get it," in accordance to our needs. They seek to assure that none of us will acquire sufficient wealth and power to challenge them. They envision an American version of Brezhnev's Soviet Union, in which the deserving (because of their wisdom and benevolence) rich and powerful can enjoy a life of wealth and luxury (because only they are sophisticated enough to appreciate it), while the rest of us are "granted" a life of pedestrian equality (for our own good).

Yes, Liberal hypocrisy is apparent all around us, it only requires open eyes and an open mind to see it.

8 posted on 09/18/2005 12:23:32 PM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Too funny.

Huffington speak with fork-ed tongue......

9 posted on 09/18/2005 12:23:43 PM PDT by roaddog727 (P=3/8 A. or, P=plenty...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

FYI ~ Our local radio talk show (97.1 FM) just mentioned the SUV driving hypocrites, with regard to their belief that Global Warming is making storms worse. The story is getting out, good job!!

Glad to be here, MOgirl
10 posted on 09/19/2005 6:19:11 AM PDT by MOgirl (In memory of Walton Wayne Callahan, I love you forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl

What city?

11 posted on 09/19/2005 6:23:57 AM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

St. Louis, MO. Very popular show ~ Jamie Ulman & Smash are the hosts. I would bet many in their audience had not heard about the incident until this AM. Again, good job!

Glad to be here, (sorry for leaving that out!), MOgirl
12 posted on 09/19/2005 6:29:02 AM PDT by MOgirl (In memory of Walton Wayne Callahan, I love you forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl

Great. Thanks for the report.

13 posted on 09/19/2005 6:47:06 AM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All
14 posted on 09/19/2005 2:28:08 PM PDT by doug from upland (Arianna Huffington loves that big gas guzzling Suburban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson