jawa.mee.nu

March 21, 2007

Idiotic Democrat / MSM Full-Court Press

Pay attention. You are in the midst of witnessing a Demediacrat power grab / political hit job of magnificent proportions. Its like watching a herd of shrieking buffalo barreling through the front window of the china shop of everyday politics.

We have the LA Times propagandizing for the Democrats.

We have the Democrats ignoring the letters of the law and openly sabotaging the war (while simultaneously porking THE CHILDREN and THE FUTURE further into bankruptcy). Isn't Pelosi a grandmother?

We have more Soviet show trials for the prosecution of non-existent (and often Democrat utilized) crimes.

We have Democrats already campaigning off of this stupidity.

Its a good thing that Congress is polling worse than Bush.

$64,000 Dollar Q: For such a clear and forceful "mandate" in 2006, isn't 28% a little on the appallingly bad side?

ht: AllahP

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And here's the answer to your question: The Dems never had a mandate to begin with.

November 2006 was all about punishing the Republicans for abandoning their conservative base. Look at many of the Dems that ousted Reps. They camaigned more conservative than the GOP candidates did! November was all about the people raising their voices and demanding Conservatism and Traditionalism.

It's unfortunate that the Dems won the majority as a side-effect of this, but it happened. Fortunately, this also means that they have no mandate, and the conservatism of the baby Donks combined with the extreme liberalism of the older Dems will (and is) tearing them apart.

Posted by: Wearyman at March 21, 2007 12:20 PM (puky3)

2 My theory is that the electorate gave the Dems the legislative branch back just to remind themselves why they gave it to the Republicans in the first place. Sort of like when - once every couple of years or so - I'll get drunk on Scotch. When I wake up with a kill-me-now hangover the next day, I remember why I stopped drinking Scotch. This time I'm hopeful that we'll get a Democrat administration in the executive branch as well. The electoral hangover from the combination of legislative branch Scotch and executive branch Gin ought to put the Republicans back in for at least a generation or two.

I always return to good, old, conservative Tequila shots (No training wheels) and Coors. Good Tequila - my current fave is the Herradura reposado - never hangs me over. Neither does Coors. Scotch is distilled suicide concentrate in a fancy bottle. So is Budweiser: It has RICE in it, forchrissakes! *gag... retch*

Rice is for Sake.

But, I digress...

Posted by: Hucbald at March 21, 2007 01:01 PM (kjzzt)

3 "... as soon as we put away all criminal capitalists, Peter, we shall have a wonderful socialitic life, like comrade Stalin told us we would..."
quote from a 1930s Soviet movie made in time period of Stalins' witch hunt trials...

Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at March 21, 2007 01:35 PM (gtZwa)

4 All targeted at America's sucker vote.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 21, 2007 02:00 PM (8e/V4)

5 "Idiotic Democrat" .... redundant but true !!

Posted by: memphis761 at March 21, 2007 02:43 PM (YHZAl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 09, 2007

The Nanny State Takes a Hit

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also rejected the specious argument, that could only arise in the mind of a lawyer, that DC residents aren't covered by the Second Amendment because they don't live in a state.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:11 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Poor libs...now it will be honest people who can have them unlike the thousands of criminals.

Posted by: Randman at March 09, 2007 02:49 PM (Sal3J)

2 As I recall, Ann Coulter wrote a firsthand account of how an unarmed man tried to mug her in broad daylight because he knew he wasn't in any danger. Another passerby clearly, a decent fellow, came to her aid. Looks like now the muggers may have an extra thing to worry about. USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 09, 2007 03:29 PM (2OHpj)

3 That's fantastic!! Now, they need to push for a "shall issue" concealed carry law and adopt the "stand your ground" clauses other states throughout the country have adopted.

Posted by: Billy at March 09, 2007 03:32 PM (1SzWp)

4 Simpoly because the District of C olumbia has a much higher muslim population than any state should not be a reason to deny them gun ownership

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 09, 2007 04:02 PM (TcoRJ)

5 John,

I'm not sure your statement is entirely accurate. I would think 'most states' could be substituted for 'any state.' I have to believe Michigan with the muslim population in Dearborn alone would be higher.

In any event, the decision was based on the Constitution of the United States, not the makeup of any religious or ethnic group within a geographical area. It will be interesting to see if the dominoes in Puerto Rico and The US Virgin Islands will fall. I'm not sure what the laws regarding handguns in Guam are.

Posted by: Billy at March 09, 2007 04:21 PM (1SzWp)

6 John Ryan is just being retarded. D.C. has a higher concentration of muslim crack babies than any other state, you know.

Posted by: wooga at March 09, 2007 04:45 PM (t9sT5)

7 "Simpoly because the District of C olumbia has a much higher muslim population than any state should not be a reason to deny them gun ownership"........as DC has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of firearms crimes, this despite their draconian firearms laws, I don't see how the islamofascists, or the criminal elemnt for that matter, have been prevented from arming themselves up to this point. On that point alone your statement is pointless and inane, not unlike other constitution revisionists and freedom haters. Next idiocrat, please.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 09, 2007 05:00 PM (QkaPP)

8 Problem: If what the the Second Amendment enshrines is as much an inalienable right as the rights in other Amendments, like free speech and press, then you cannot forbid people from owning guns merely
for being ex-convicts. After all, if a man who just finished serving a 20-year sentence for child rape has a right to speak his mind about politics without government intervention, then why wouldn't he also have a right to get himself a .50 Desert Eagle, if his right to free speech is equal to his right to bear arms?

Posted by: Northern Cross at March 09, 2007 06:05 PM (Jwdal)

9 I hope CHICAGO is next!!

Posted by: mrclark at March 09, 2007 06:29 PM (QSqIX)

10 Those aren't inalienable rights - anymore than the right to vote. All of the rights in the Constitution can be taken away from you, provided the government follows the right procedures (i.e., noise ordinances restrict my free speech, but are still constitutional).

Posted by: wooga at March 09, 2007 06:31 PM (t9sT5)

11 " Problem: If what the the Second Amendment enshrines is as much an inalienable right as the rights in other Amendments, like free speech and press, then you cannot forbid people from owning guns merely for being ex-convicts "........The 2nd amendment is as important and as inalienable as the others, or, it wouldn't be a part of the Bill of Rights. In some states those convicted of crimes, particularly felonies, lose certain of their rights as a consequence of their conviction, including the right to vote and the right to keep/bear arms. The incarceration is only a portion of the criminal sentence. The term "ex-convict" is something of a misnomer, in that once convicted, short of a pardon or vacated sentence, one will always be a convict, the sentence might be fulfilled, but, the conviction is not expunged. In as much as one may fulfill ones incarceration requirements, other restrictions may continue after release. One can be forbidden to associate with particular individuals and/or organisations after the serving of a sentence. Other restrictions may be applied as a condition of release ,or may be a part of the punishment beyond the period of incarceration.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 09, 2007 07:35 PM (QkaPP)

12 This ruling has a much greater signifigance to it then all the petty smokescreen bullshit being put up here. All you "what if's" can go fuck yourselves and you damn sure aught to pay attention to what I'm going to say because this cuts to the bone.. For a many # of years, people have forgotten that the 2nd is the keystone of freedom. It ensures the ability of the people to throw off a corrupt government and start over. It has been most interesting to watch who has had the biggest problem with that. ANYONE who does not fully support that RIGHT, not privledge, is ANTI AMERICAN. Let me tell you straight up.... the goverment being allowed to govern us is a priveledge FOR THEM TO DO SO. Not the other way around. Don't let these dipshit actors piss on your back and tell you that it's raining.

Posted by: wb at March 09, 2007 08:12 PM (kkUy5)

13 John Lyin: I piss on yyou.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 09, 2007 09:18 PM (SKtGv)

14 Edward Lunny:

Admittedly, criminal law isn't my thing, and you're probably much more well-informed about those issues than I am. So I'll concede your points about that. But if you're right about the 2nd enshrining an individual right every bit as important as the other rights in the Bill of Rights, then at the very least it means every law-abiding citizen gets to own a gun. And if that's the case, then every nutcase Islamist citizen who hasn't been convicted of anything gets to arm himself to the teeth, and the government would be powerless to stop it. Why shouldn't we be worried about that?

Posted by: NorthernCross at March 09, 2007 11:28 PM (7vz05)

15 mmmm nice warm rain...... wake the fuck up.

Posted by: wb at March 09, 2007 11:30 PM (kkUy5)

16 "Why shouldn't we be worried about that?" Because now more honest people can do the same. Before only the crooks nd the cheaters could do it in places like DC. Now the balance of power is back with the people, not just the hoodlums. It is the people who ultimately are resposable in the USA. No one else. As it should be.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 10, 2007 02:07 AM (2OHpj)

17 " Admittedly, criminal law isn't my thing, and you're probably much more well-informed about those issues than I am "......It isn't mine either, I'm aware of just enough to get me in trouble. In reference to your question though, do you advocate restricting the freedom of speech, religion and assembly for the islamofascists in this country as well, since the 1st amendment is an individual right ? Admittedly the islamic extremists bear watching ,but, punishing all of us because of the potential law breaking by a segment of the population isn't crime control or security...it's tyranny.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 10, 2007 07:51 AM (QkaPP)

18 Naw! Just run the muslims back to their own lands. OUTLAW ISLAM.

Posted by: curdogr at March 10, 2007 10:27 AM (SKtGv)

The liberals will be using this they will call a big news confrence and make all sorts of rediclous predictions.RIVERS OF BLOOD WITH FLOW DOWN PENNSYLVANIA AVE,PILES OF COURPES LYING EVERYWHERE,NATION CAPITAL WILL LOOK LIKE STREETS OF BAGHDAD,MINOR AGRUMENTS WILL END IN BLOODSHED AND CARNAGE. Yeah just like the rediclous predictions made by the liberals when KENNESHAW GEORGIA got a GUN IN EVERY HOME LAW or when KING WILLIAMS rediclous gun ban ended in 2004 all the redculous predictions and when a judge struck down a gun ban in CINNCNATII there were the usial chicken littles making rediclous predictions THE VULTURES FROM THE MEDIA WENT TO GEORGIA AND CINNCINATTII AND STARVED TO DEATH

Posted by: sandpiper at March 10, 2007 11:56 PM (jAP6C)

20 Regarding militias:

Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.

So, those of us who fit the above description are
in the militia, and I proudly consider myself a member of the
unorganized militia of Tennessee, and will fight to defend my homeland
to the last drop of blood from the scum that has infested our fair
state, especially the occupation forces from Washington and the foreign
invaders they have invited into our country to usurp the authority of We the People.
America was born in revolt againt tyranny, and with any luck, it will
be reborn so after the idiots in Washington screw things up enough to
piss off enough people.

Armed rebellion is the only thing that can save this country now, and
for all of you effeminate nancy-boys who piss your pants at the
thought, then I leave you with this; "If ye love wealth better than
liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

Get ready to fight or stay back with the rest of the women.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2007 01:00 PM (eGb9y)

21 yeah cause they will show us their big boobies.

Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 10:41 PM (Cxxtv)

22 Don't worry wb, you're not in much danger of seeing any I expect.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 15, 2007 05:44 AM (eGb9y)

23 yeah.... I know. It's always the same thing.... wb, go get the clips, wb go get more ammo wb, my night sight isn't working wb what do you do for a hang fire..... damnit! I just wanted to see some boobies! No one told me the Big Guns club was for real freakin guns!!!!! I thought it was another private Hooters deal. Man, if I wasn't trading sex for safe passage at the border, I'd never get any action! Kin I join your deal?

Posted by: wb at March 15, 2007 08:46 AM (x8U0u)

24 Big 'uns.... Big guns.... thump thump thump .... helloooo?

Posted by: wb at March 15, 2007 06:11 PM (2g5nL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 05, 2007

Apostate

A prominent scientist challenges the hierarchy:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

March 02, 2007

Hip Hop Dying on the Vine?

I think the real question here is being overlooked: Is ABC News raaaacist for pointing this out?

Music sales overall are down, but rap sales in particular have dropped 21 percent from 2005 to 2006. For the first time in 12 years, the top ten best-selling albums of the year did not include a rap album. A poll of black Americans by The Associated Press and AOL-Black Voices last year revealed 50 percent of respondents said hip-hop was a negative force in American society.

Get the hell outta here! Really?

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:59 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "... Get the hell outta here! Really? "

LOL! :->>

Have a good weekend Lt.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 02, 2007 11:22 AM (vixLB)

2 Hip-Hop is the New Disco. Overexposed, negative drug and sex imagery, sent over to the UK and sent back to us repackaged. The more things change....

Posted by: Nick Byram at March 02, 2007 11:25 AM (ujg0T)

3 Hip hop is the music world's version of the Special Olympics.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 02, 2007 11:58 AM (p52Ne)

4 "Hip-Hop" has been in decline ever since Eazy-E shed his mortal coil.

Posted by: wooga at March 02, 2007 12:47 PM (t9sT5)

5 Good Lt.
For someone who so often finds fault with MSM perhaps before citing them as a source you double check to make sure that the facts are correct. When ichecked this is what I found.Top 50 Billboard Album Sales of 2006 seems to list Eminem at number 6

http://bumpshack.com/2006/12/04/top-album-sales-of-2006/

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 02, 2007 01:02 PM (TcoRJ)

6 Dear god, I hope so.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 02, 2007 01:28 PM (4A4lH)

7 JOHN RYAN: The list you cited proves the article's premise (in fact, there are far more countryish acts than you would be comfortable with):

1 SOME HEARTS CARRIE UNDERWOOD 3,721,7622

2 HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL SOUNDTRACK 3,252,743

3 ALL THE RIGHT REASONS NICKELBACK 3,043,246

4 ME & MY GANG RASCAL FLATTS 2,761,915

5 THE BREAKTHROUGH MARY J BLIGE 2,636,062

6 CURTAIN CALL: THE HITS EMINEM 2,576,365

7 BACK TO BEDLAM JAMES BLUNT 2,231,085

8 THE ROAD AND THE RADIO KENNY CHESNEY 2,100,744

9 THE LEGEND OF JOHNNY CASH JOHNNY CASH 2,004,003

10 BREAKAWAY KELLY CLARKSON 1,980,966

Hmm...1 Hip-hop album in the top ten last year. Rap sales dropped by 21% since 2005. I guess that means that Hip-hop is becoming more popular or is at the very least "stable." Right? That's your "logic"

As someone who finds fault with everything we here write, I would challenge you to come up with some stronger evidence to support your apparent assertion that the facts reported by ABC News are false.

And just for hilatiry's sake, the all-important Dixie Chicks album (#16 - low for such an 'important' album) was beaten to a pulp by the soundtrack to a movie that nobody saw.

Posted by: Good Lt at March 02, 2007 02:16 PM (D0TMh)

8 Remember....you can't spell crap without rap

Posted by: Randman at March 02, 2007 02:47 PM (Sal3J)

9 I recall once trying to explain the phrase "contradiction in terms" to a Chinese foreign student by using "rap music" as an example.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 02, 2007 03:07 PM (vixLB)

10 Wow. People are finally realizing that rap 1) requires no talent, thats why they sample everyone else's music and use it as theirs and why they always "feature" other "artists" and 2) it has created a sub-culture of violence, stupidity, and ignorance that thinks its wrong to be educated and employed and finally 3) it all sounds EXACTLY the same. Cars, slightly overweight women in bikinis, money, jewelry, and cars that aren't theirs. Yawn. This underbelly of "cool" african-american culture that has swept the country and corrupted it is finally dying a much deserved death. Good riddance.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at March 02, 2007 03:45 PM (AX3yc)

11 Whatever happened to real African-American musical talent like
B.B. King, Lois Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie? [Sorry if I spelt some of the names incorrectly.]

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 02, 2007 04:27 PM (vixLB)

12 GM, they became popular among white audiences and accepted such recognition. This automatically disqualified them of 'cool' status.

Either that, or Eminem shot them, raped them, stuffed them into a car trunk and drove it off a bridge.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at March 02, 2007 04:57 PM (VvXII)

13 In the words of Stan Marsh: "Dude! This is pretty f**ked up right here!" :-)

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 02, 2007 05:27 PM (vixLB)

14 As someone who has purchased and listened to a great deal of rap music in his life, I can tell you that one major factor in the decline of hip-hop sales is the infiltration of Southern influences in the genre.

While much of the hip-hop of the late 90's, generated from the east and west coast, had intelligent lyrics, high production values and required the artists to have some sort of flow in his style, when New Orleans and Huston began mass producing records from guys who were just released from lock up, everything went down the toilet.

Posted by: Falling Panda at March 02, 2007 06:59 PM (2a+zy)

I still remember Diana Ross and the Supremes. Lots of other great artists. Ahh the old days.

I still do enjoy some 'Rap' musical stylings. I liked the "Walk This Way" Areosmith did with (Umm ok I forget exactly who ...Run DMC?) anyway it was fun. And I liked the 'Rap' elements in C&C Music Factory's singular hit. And I also like the 'Rap' elements in Stuck Mojo's "Open Season".

So basically, if you want to use 'Rap' with actual music, I think thats OK. It's the glorification of the 'gangsta culture' that is really offensive. The word 'ho' (if it even counts as a word) and all the other trappings of in your face, disrespect of others. The way that an American sunbculture is told to embrace 'second class' as a moral emblem. Anyway.

I hope the entertaining part of 'Rap' survives the rejection of the poetic hate speech that 'hip-hop' is so caught up with. My opinion.

US, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 02, 2007 07:22 PM (2OHpj)

16 Falling Panda, Much merit in the distinction, thanks for making it.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 02, 2007 07:24 PM (2OHpj)

17 So rap is being replaced by American Idol? Gee.. I feel so much better now.

On the flip side, I think wannabes have stolen and killed hip hop. Justin Timberlake and Linkin Park and all those other trash acts are still popular, still selling records, so it's still around. Fading, yes, but still not totally gone.

Posted by: MidnightSun at March 02, 2007 08:10 PM (nR/14)

18 Good Lord I hope so. As a musician myself, I can assure you that the "real" musicians out here - whether they be rockers, jazzers, or classical folks - mostly detest rap and have for years. I remember the first time I heard a rap tune: 1983 when I was attending Berklee College of Music in Boston. I thought to my self that it would play out within five years. Boy, did I underestimate the cultural stupidity of a large segment of America: I was off by twenty years.

Posted by: Hucbald at March 03, 2007 09:48 AM (uqoHD)

19 Hucbald

As a musician, myself I completely agree with you. Never in my wildest dreams could I ever have imagined that rap would take off or survive as it has. Moreover, like all the true musicians (those who actually play a real instrument at a professional level of accomplishment) I know I believe that rap cannot die soon enough or be forgotten and consigned to the waste heap of history soon enough.

http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at March 03, 2007 03:25 PM (av5r1)

20 Ever wonder why the establishment has been pushing this trash on
society for years? Well, if you have wondered such, then you're not
quite asleep but not fully awake yet, but if you know why, then you're
awake... and dangerous. The sytematic and deliberate debasement and
degredation of society has been taking place for a very long time, with
the media, the entertainment history, and the government, (primarily
education and the legal system), working hand-in-glove with very few
exceptions and virtually no resistance to the program to turn us into
livestock and breed with whatever mongrels come along so as to make us
less intelligent and more easily domesticable. Wake up sheeple, and
smell the manipulation; it's time for revolution.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2007 10:33 AM (eGb9y)

21 Boy do you guys sound as Lily-White as Lily-White can be. All genres have an ebb and flow. There is some fantastic Hip-Hop out there. Some of the supreme musicians of our time are DJ's (see Madlib). Ever heard of MF Doom? If not, then you have no business speaking of "Rap". Yeah, main-stream Hip-Hop has been in a downward spiral recently (see Dirty-South) but so has mainstream anything. Mainstream is dead, my friends, as we are not in the 90s any more. By the same logic, Miles Davis, Schoenberg, Gustav Mahler and Led Zeppelin didn't crack the top 10 this year either so they must be dying on the vine....Oh yeah, I'm Lily-White too...and Dave Mathews sucks Granny-balls.

Posted by: Sean Neves at March 04, 2007 02:18 PM (X0Ef1)

22 They called it BREAK DANCING becuase you ended up breaking something when you danced

Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2007 08:11 PM (vnSBY)

23 Sean Nebbish:

Rock albums account for more than 80% of total album sales. "The Eagles Greatest Hits" is still the best selling album of all time--and it's thirty years old. The Eagles have released several more greatest hits albums that are far more comprehensive since then, competing with their own record.

The most poular radio stations in the country are all classic rock stations.

A hundred years from now, people will still be listening to Bach, Mozart, The Beatles and The Stones.

They wont be listening to rap or "hip hop."

You're full of shit. Hype doesn't trump reality, and rap is not even music, much less "fantastic." Music consists of threee elements: Rythym, beat and harmony. Rap has none of these elements.

Crotch groping baboons with gold teeth driving Escalades are not artists--they are an embarassment and impediment to civilization.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at March 05, 2007 02:32 AM (Dt3sl)

24 Whoa. What a hilarious thread. I have to say I don't care for rap. Hip-hop? I've seen it evolve and flourish into some interesting forms. For those of you who don't know the difference between rap and hip-hop, I think you should educate yourself. Calling them the same is like calling country music heavy metal.

Hucbald: As a professional composer and sound designer, I haven't heard a single musician ever say anything bad about rap....though maybe they just didn't see the point to express it?

I think the whole "bling-bling" crotch grabbing and ghetto glorification is pretty stupid, but then I've always thought if you don't like it, don't listen to it. Btw, I'm a Berklee alumni too. What do you do now? What did you study?

I wouldn't say all hip-hop is driven my people who don't play instruments. There are groups that are 100% live. Even if it's not live...it's sort of like collage. You can take a snippet of sound and make it totally different and do something new, or be some poser like p. diddy and just rip off a whole song, which is lame.

doriangrey: I've seen some dj's that have better rhythm than some drummers. Then again, those were the ones that could scratch melodies or bass lines with turntables in a band and could improvise really well. Unfortunately, those djs are rare. Most are just a bunch of sloppy real-time analog jukeboxes masquerading as musicians.

Posted by: osamabinthere at March 05, 2007 04:10 AM (ZxuJ4)

25 Osamatroll:

The difference between rap and hip-hop is like the difference between an Olive Baboon and an Anubis Baboon. They're different in name only.

Combine rhythym, melody and harmony, you get music. Combine arhythmyic drum beats, doggerel, and a baboon, you get rap-hop.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at March 05, 2007 11:10 PM (Dt3sl)

26 Jeff, nigga PLEASE! Hahaha. Your 8-tracks are getting worn out. I love how you're telling me what music is. I compose music for TV and film for a living. I guess you better school me...

Posted by: osamabinthere at March 06, 2007 02:39 AM (ZxuJ4)

27 I was given the definition of hip-hop by someone who said they were a fan, and they said hip-hop was a kind of rap, so Nyah Nyah. And I like heavy metal music! SO THERE! USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 06, 2007 03:21 AM (2OHpj)

28 osamaisawigger. More truth that osamaisawigger.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 07, 2007 08:43 AM (wTIrf)

29 Michael, I'll set the record straight for you...and if you check into it, you'll see it's 100% accurate:

Hip-hop is actually a culture, not just music. If you are a true hip-hop artist or b-boy, you are supposed to embrace the "four pillars of hip-hop":

-Free-styling (improvised vocally)
-Graffiti
-Break dancing
-Djing/Sampling

Rap, on the other hand, does not embrace these. Rap sounds different, looks different and IS different. Real hip-hop is not common. Commercialized and thuggish rap has dominated the airwaves for a very long time, unfortunately. Your source needs to learn up on the history of both styles. Related? Yes. Kind of rap? Not at all.

Btw, I like heavy metal too. Hahaha.

Rooster: I suppose you'd think I'm a "wigger" for liking jazz, rock and blues as well? I mean, seeing they were all invented by black people. You're getting your Oreo cookies all soggy in that milk!

Posted by: osamabinhiding at March 08, 2007 08:16 PM (ZxuJ4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 28, 2007

We R in Control*

Doubleplus ungood newspeak law proposed for Florida:

TALLAHASSEE -- A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.
"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."
She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.
In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"

Let's just cut to the chase and start calling illegal aliens "jefe" (boss).

*name the artist and album for bonus points. Answer here.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:19 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

February 27, 2007

How Green Do You Want To Be?

Radio host Glenn Beck notes today that Sunday's Oscar presenters had a very special "green" item included in their "goody bags." Each received a special dispensation from terrapass.com to reduce their annual "carbon footprint," measured in CO2 emissions, by 100,000 pounds. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 09:59 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What, no soylent green in the goodie bag?

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 27, 2007 11:27 AM (oC8nQ)

This terra pass thing has been done before in fact it is over a 1000 years old. With the Catholic church a millenia ago you could buy your sins and save yourself from hell and redeem yourself. Just today it is sinning with your SUV. I wonder how long the liberals are gonna buy into this scam? Some one is laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: DAT at February 27, 2007 11:45 AM (rA/bt)

3 who get this money? who is terrapass? is the whole global warming scam a new way to tax us?

Posted by: stunhaha at February 27, 2007 12:30 PM (qppR1)

4 terrapass is a private company. They get the money.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 27, 2007 12:37 PM (p52Ne)

5 What the hell is carbon credits? And who gets the money when I buy one? I suspect it ends up in China or India, as if we haven't given them enough already. The Liberal intelligentsia is dead set on destroying America as we know it. They are internationalists, not patriots. Fuck them and everything they stand for. They must be stopped. God forgive me, but I hate those assholes. Please, Leftards, pick up a gun,. Give us a reasonn.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 27, 2007 05:24 PM (ETghS)

6 Carlos: Note the change. Now some power companies and other business interests are signing on. Why? Why would they sign on to a big waste of money. There is no indication that any of these changes can reverse or affect the current trend. No indication what the future trend may result it. Glogal jungel, desert, ice age no one knows. They do know thatthe changes wont be enough to reverse mans input. What the lefties have done is make it profitable. The power companies will have plenty of justification to raise rates as they develop the carbon market. They will also have to "invest" in creating and installing the new technology. None of this will be cheap. But that's OK. If your electric bill goes from 150 to 300 per month you willl care. They will earn more profit. You and most ordinary schmuks will get screwed buying power that could have been made a lot cheaper. But al-Gore's bill will go from 30,000 per year to 60,000, but hey he's got the scratch, so he doesn't give a crap if others have to eat baloney all year to keep the lights on.

Intersting interview countering al-Gore's film on Charlie rose last week. An actual scientist says its exaggerated crap. Teh sea might raise 10 inches but the movie shows a giant rise and sunnami waves. he called it fear mongering.

That's why liberals are hypocrits. When they talk poor they mean their pet voters sucking at the federal tit. They don't mean working folks. They say they'll help "the middle" but all they ever do is dig deeper into your pocket.

Posted by: Darth Odie at February 27, 2007 05:48 PM (YHZAl)

7
terrapass

So
Gore pays indulgences (carbon credits) to Leftard environmental causes
(terrapass) in order to justify his using 30 times as much energy as
the average American, while the Leftard environmental causes he pays
those "carbon credits" to use that very money to downsize the life of
regular Americans? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've tried, but I just don't have
the words.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 27, 2007 07:18 PM (ETghS)

8 And no one arived there on foot they all including AL GORE arived by limo he he he HAPPY FEET. SAVE A PENGUIN EAT A LOEPARD SEAL. SQUAWK SQUAWK

Posted by: sandpiper at February 28, 2007 10:55 AM (4pkrX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 14, 2007

Fox Tries Comedy Show for the Other Half of America

"The 1/2 Hour News Hour" is aimed at the same audience that made Fox News successful: non-liberals and those sick of Mcbushitlerburton jokes from the dinosaurs at hasn't-been-funny-since-the-seventies Saturday Night Live.

Will it work? It sure pisses off the Left - just read the snotty comments at the YouTube posting and this snotty review from one of the oh-so-cool mincing metrosexual milquetoasts at Salon.com.

"The 1/2 Hour News Hour" will air Sundays at 10:00.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:38 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Will it work?

Only if it's funny.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 14, 2007 06:48 PM (8e/V4)

2 This test episode was not very original. Even the name has been used before. Setup was also very simmilar to SNL Weekend Update. JC was right... it will be great, but only if it is funny.

Posted by: Rich at February 14, 2007 06:50 PM (LGU0k)

3 I was hoping that would be funny, but I thought it was lame. I mean really, the potential is there...but it just isn't that funny. The canned laughter is crap too. At least they could get an audience. They should get rid of those tools and get Dennis Miller there to rock it.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 14, 2007 07:09 PM (ZxuJ4)

4 The BO mag had some clever stuff in it, but the obvious laugh track hitting at every joke was annoying.

Fox News should stick to News, not comedy. Yeah, I know Olberman's show is teh funney but its not intentional

Posted by: Gabriel at February 14, 2007 07:09 PM (nlXiO)

5 I thought it was kinda funny. But lose the laugh track and get a real audience. If they don't laugh, do what Letterman does, make a joke about it, or toss a pen, or paramp pomp with the drum. Anything but that laugh track. And yes, get Dennis Miller in there asap.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 14, 2007 07:16 PM (8e/V4)

6 Laugh track was really annoying.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at February 14, 2007 08:12 PM (xfvyZ)

7 I agree on the live audience. If a joke bombs, pull a Conan (better than Letterman) and toss in random clips of Jack Bauer kicking ass (like Conan with clips from Walker Texas Ranger).

Posted by: wooga at February 14, 2007 08:20 PM (t9sT5)

8 Lame

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at February 14, 2007 09:25 PM (TcoRJ)

9 Leftards don't get to comment on whether this is lame because even if it wasn't lame you'd still think/say it was.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 14, 2007 10:06 PM (8e/V4)

10 note bad.

magazine should be - B HO.

Posted by: dr. akim ullshitbay at February 14, 2007 10:21 PM (Ax65U)

11 "Leftards don't get to comment on whether this is lame because even if it wasn't lame you'd still think/say it was."

Hahaha...well, what if you're only somewhat of a leftard?

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 15, 2007 12:23 AM (ZxuJ4)

12 Canned laughter sucks.

I see Geraldo Rivera is back in Iraq. Wonder whose side is is on this time/

Black democrat Congressman from Minn. calls police on Republican Congressman for smoking in his office. Shows how childest demos are. He never even mentions the smoking before calling police. Not that its against the law.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 15, 2007 08:41 AM (Lddpk)

13 Finally some balance in comedy. That Obama - Marian Barry joke was pretty good. But why does this guy look so pained with the delivery?

Posted by: Bruce Hoby at February 15, 2007 11:16 AM (2lz3f)

14 " Canned laughter sucks. I see Geraldo Rivera is back in Iraq. Wonder whose side is is on this time/ Black democrat Congressman from Minn. calls police on Republican Congressman for smoking in his office. Shows how childest demos are. He never even mentions the smoking before calling police. Not that its against the law."

Gayrooster, are you 5? Trying learning to be literate before spouting off your racist crap. You are an embarrassment to this website.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 15, 2007 01:20 PM (ZxuJ4)

15 Should beat crap from COMEDY CENTRAL

Posted by: sandpiper at February 15, 2007 04:48 PM (XnXsx)

16 Speaking of Comedy Central... John Stewart recently had Christopher Horner, featuring his new book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)".

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 15, 2007 05:05 PM (ZxuJ4)

17 Hahaha...well, what if you're posing as somewhat of a leftard?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 15, 2007 10:17 PM (Dt3sl)

18 Gayrooster, are you 5? Trying (sic,) learning (sic,) to be literate before spouting off your racist crap.

Osamahasnbinlade, you are an embarrassment to this planet.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 15, 2007 10:20 PM (Dt3sl)

19 Jeff...nah, I just shouldn't type when I'm tired. Gayrooster shouldn't type, period. Actually, can you answer this: Do you support his racist views?

Posted by: osamabinthere at February 16, 2007 03:27 AM (ZxuJ4)

20 Osamaisqueer:

I support his right to be a racist. Unlike you leftist fascists, he isn't trying to shove his views down the throats of the majority.

You shouldn't type unless it's your suicide note.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 16, 2007 11:01 PM (Dt3sl)

21 i dont care what side you swing - this crap ain't funny and it wont hold a candle to the daily show. i bet its off the air in 3 months. if your gonna try to ram the left at least do it with some class. stewart's whole allure is that he can slam you with class.

Posted by: normanboobie at February 17, 2007 02:08 AM (cxp/w)

22 Normanpoopeat:

Stewart isn't funny. That's why he has such a tiny viewing audience.

You obviously fear any voice that doesn't screech in synch with the leftard one.

Get ready for hell, faggot.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 17, 2007 03:55 PM (Dt3sl)

23 Jeff Buttholz... "I support his right to be a racist."

So you admit you're a pigfucking hillbilly like Gayrooster?

Btw: Stewart and Colbert skewer the fuck out of your Fauxnews, CNN, repug bullshit on a daily basis. It's a breath of fresh air compared to this pathetic attempt to be funny. Stick that canned laughter up her ass. Idiot.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 17, 2007 11:46 PM (ZxuJ4)

24 Osamabeenhidinginthebathhouse: Why do all you faggots act the same? I guess you are so ashamed of yourselfs that you need an outlet other than hating your degenerate selves.

My typing bad. Yep! I never check before punching the post key. I'm also close to being shit faced much of the time. Why? Because it keeps me from pukeing when reading bullshit from worthless little pricks like you. You ain't nothing Punk. Just an embarrassment to the white race. Which I doubt that you are. You're boyfriend is probably black and muslim. So go change you dress and find a camel to suck. A big black one. You know. They kind you prefer.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 18, 2007 07:24 PM (v+LdF)

25 Osamabinjerking:

You oppose his right to be a racist? That's more than a tad hypocritical coming form an anti-White racist turd such as yourself.

So you admit you're a child molesting urban mongoloid?

By the way, Stewart and Colbert offer canned inanities to an audience of sub-human mutants. They're pandering to the slacker crowd with standardized pap designed to lull retards into complacency. It's the same old shit day after day, with the same loser tards laughing at things that just aren't funny. "Bush sucks! Mess-opotamia! Yuck, yuck, yuck!" Only faggots laugh at that crap.

The Fox news deal aired tonight, and it blew the doors off of Comedy Central. Big surprise there.

Them's the breaks, dick-breath.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 19, 2007 01:34 AM (Dt3sl)

26 "You ain't nothing Punk. Just an embarrassment to the white race."

Holy shit, you totally made my day! I'm actually smiling that a fucker like you just said that to me! Hahahaha!!!

Buttholz, here is my typical bitch-slap for you:

"You oppose his right to be a racist? That's more than a tad hypocritical coming form an anti-White racist turd such as yourself."

Yeah, fuck face...I have a RIGHT to oppose his views and yours. Dipshit.

"So you admit you're a child molesting urban mongoloid?"

No, that's your mom.

"By the way, Stewart and Colbert offer canned inanities to an audience of sub-human mutants. They're pandering to the slacker crowd with standardized pap designed to lull retards into complacency. It's the same old shit day after day, with the same loser tards laughing at things that just aren't funny. "Bush sucks! Mess-opotamia! Yuck, yuck, yuck!" Only faggots laugh at that crap."

Yeah, that's why they are getting more and more popular and the best part: Getting young people out to vote in record numbers. Suck on that.

"The Fox news deal aired tonight, and it blew the doors off of Comedy Central. Big surprise there. Them's the breaks, dick-breath."

Gee, can't wait to see it cancelled so soon. I'm sure you're the only one laughing. Btw, you're the one getting dick breath from sucking Ann Coultergeist's cock. Don't forget to come up for air once in a while so I can make you look stupid again.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 19, 2007 11:46 PM (ZxuJ4)

27 osamabinhidingsomethinginhisass: Most of your faggot ghetto rats don't care for Ann Coulter. Go paint your nails. Punk!

Posted by: greyrooster at February 21, 2007 07:25 AM (smCdV)

28 "osamabinhidingsomethinginhisass: Most of your faggot ghetto rats don't care for Ann Coulter. Go paint your nails. Punk!"

Oh my, I've been 'Punked. It's over now. I should just give up. Faggot ghetto rats. Very impressive. You're so witty. Not.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at February 21, 2007 03:47 PM (ZxuJ4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 12, 2007

McCain Does Babs

Not as painful as Streisand's strident and idiotic political positions, but close. At least John is a little easier on the eyes.

Via Brutally Honest.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

February 11, 2007

Frantic MoveOn Petition Brands NPR, PBS as Partisan

If a reactionary propaganda group thinks an organization is a paragon of "independent journalism," that's a pretty clear indication that it isn't even close. National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast System have picked up the enthusiastic and frantic support of MoveOn.org, America's largest collection of Leftist nutbags.

From a MoveOn.org member email (never mind how I got this; Bluto mucks through the latrines of the fever swamps so you don't have to): more...

Posted by: Bluto at 02:02 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

1 but uuuuh pbs is run by a republican, as is npr. what reason would there be not to have bias?

Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2007 05:15 PM (AeRA2)

2 The poster known as "jake" must be off his meds again.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 11, 2007 05:33 PM (8e/V4)

3 Sounds like it.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at February 11, 2007 06:27 PM (xfvyZ)

4 Cutting Sesame Street would be like shooting your only cash cow in the brain. I realize that it's just a threat and it is the threat that the lefties hope to use to get what they want, but there is no way in hell that Sesame Street will get cancelled. I've got at least $1000 worth of SS toys, games, and stuffed animals laying around here. Besides, moveon weirdos don't want to be responsible for putting all those kids out of work in Tawain who are making Piss-On-Me Elmos for next Christmas.

Posted by: JACK ARMY at February 12, 2007 02:50 AM (TTmlA)

5 Important tip for those of us in the Resistance: Lefturd media types
are gutless cowards and will passionately declaim anything on a
teleprompter with only a little encouragement; the only trick is to
know what motivates them. Of course, a large percentage of Americans
are gutless cowards too, and can be controlled as easily as sheep, so
once the government falls, as it inevitable will from its own
incompetent mismanagement, it's only a matter of making them obey.

As an aside for Hitlery and her FBI/ATF Gestapo: MOLON LABE, and fuck you very much, because I don't mind fighting in the shade.

(For those of you who didn't get that last part, there are many good
webcomics online these days, which I encourage you to peruse so that
the adults may talk.)

Come on sheeple, and show me what you're made of.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 12, 2007 08:49 AM (eGb9y)

6 NPR's news coverage is OK. It's tilted left and the newcasters have trouble keeping their (liberal biased) emotions out of the newscast. They did a couple good stories last week that I linked here. It gets confusing though when stories like that come on and then the next one is about how we should abandon the people they just reported on. But PBS news shows are blatantly biased. The NEWS hour is OK but Now is terriblly biased. That being said I don't think either are in danger. They provide a service that is valued. I watched "Undergdogs" over the weekend. It's good, if you don't cry I'll give you 50 cents.

Posted by: Howie at February 12, 2007 09:25 AM (YHZAl)

7 NPR news is ok, but then start listening to the Diane Ream show and the like and you'll understand why these people must be taken off the dole.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 12, 2007 09:47 AM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 09, 2007

Kim Kardashian

Of course, she has a MySpace profile.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Politico: Edwards Bloggers Offend Religious Left

We often hear about the "religious left" from Democrats who desperately try to distance themselves from the militant anti-religious, anti-Christian wing of their base.

Whoda thunk that Edwards' decision to keep two rabid anti-Catholic and anti-Christian nutroots on his payroll is offending this sliver of the Democrat voting block.

Not the dextrosphere, for sure.

ht: Insty

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:58 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Federal Surplus Predicted By 2009

So much for the argument that "tax cuts don't work." Record revenues don't lie.

Tax relief works. JFK knew it, Friedman knew it, the GOP knows it, and the present say Democrats can't figure it out.

Argument over. Tax-hikers lose.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:22 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Do you even know what you are talking about? In one year Bush will replace the 9 trillion debt he has accumulated? Or do you mean we will finally be able to stop borrowing to make the payments to China? Yahoo!

Posted by: tbone at February 09, 2007 12:39 PM (HGqHt)

2 Then take it up with that rightwing rag known as Time magazine.

Posted by: Good Lt at February 09, 2007 01:05 PM (D0TMh)

3 Steve Conover has been discussing (and predicting) this very thing for quite some time now, as well as many other factoids about the economy, the debt and other critical issues not discussed by Time, et al.

Posted by: goy at February 09, 2007 01:35 PM (XyeTZ)

4 You idiots, we're 9 trilion dollars in debt. Yea, tax cuts are really great.

Foolish Americans.

Posted by: civil behavior at February 09, 2007 01:52 PM (d0Z5T)

5 Do you even know what you are talking about? In one year Bush will
replace the 9 trillion debt he has accumulated? Or do you mean we will
finally be able to stop borrowing to make the payments to China?
Are you retarded? Did you even read the article? We will have a BUDGET surplus. That means the overall debt will stop growing (except for interest). This is tremendously good news, and directly contradicts the predictions that cutting taxes would cause the debt to balloon.

Posted by: wooga at February 09, 2007 02:29 PM (t9sT5)

6 You idiots, we're 9 trilion dollars in debt. Yea, tax cuts are really great.

Foolish Americans.
So did the tax cuts hurt or help the American debt situation? Golly, it looks like it helped! And then you complain that it didn't help enough - it's just a drop in the bucket... Well that drop in a bucket is several thousand dollars in my pocket. It's a win-win outcome.

See, if you tried to raise taxes to squeeze that extra money from me, not only would I suffer, but the overall revenues would actually decrease, and we would start operating at a loss again. Raising taxes is a lose-lose result. It's something they teach in economics 101.

Posted by: wooga at February 09, 2007 02:33 PM (t9sT5)

7 Gay:

"Steve Combover has been discussing (and predicting) this very thing for quite some time now, as well as many other factoids about the economy, the debt and other critical issues not discussed by Time, et al."

And yet, nothing he predicted has happened.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 09, 2007 02:41 PM (Dt3sl)

8 Snivel:

Clinton piled on the debt, and Bush is tossing it out, even with his wastrel ways. Deal with it, tard-boy.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 09, 2007 02:48 PM (Dt3sl)

9 Time magazine is a mouth-piece for the right-wing.
Know it!!!

Or do you think corporations (AOL Time-Warner) feel the Left being powerful is better for them?

Posted by: Robert at February 09, 2007 03:24 PM (VTtVl)

10 Robert:

If the "corporations" that own AOL Time Warner cared about what is "better" for them, they wouldn't produce left-wing tripe that the public detests, now would they?

Fucking idiot.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 09, 2007 05:07 PM (Dt3sl)

11 Is this prediction as reliable as "the war will soon be over"?

Posted by: John at February 09, 2007 05:23 PM (qiTAx)

12 Funny, I seem to recall the liberals crowing about Clinton's supposed surpluses, with nary a peep about the national debt.

Asstards.

Posted by: Eric at February 09, 2007 07:11 PM (fdAim)

13 Because Clinton wasn't adding to the debt, and he actually had a surplus... not just a prediction of a surplus. That's kind of a big difference especially when the prediction comes from a second rate consevative blog.

Posted by: John at February 09, 2007 07:52 PM (qiTAx)

14 Yeah - the conservative blog known as TIME magazine.

Do any of you lefties read?

Posted by: Good Lt at February 10, 2007 12:13 AM (D0TMh)

15 ........ GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID! BUSH IS A DRUGGIE! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS! bush did cocaine got into car crashes and skipped out on military service! thats ALL that needs to be said about bush. ALL!

Posted by: Jake at February 10, 2007 01:57 AM (AeRA2)

16 "Associated" with TIME and CNN. Buddy is still a conservative blogger, and gee... it's not like his predicton could be wrong now could it? Face it dreamy... you live in an imaginary world that is very quickly crumbling. g'night.

Posted by: John at February 10, 2007 03:38 AM (S3Rzh)

17 "he actually had a surplus"

LOL. Right. Fueled by the Largest Tax Increase in U.S. History, eviscerating our national defense and treating the Social Security fund as part of the fedgov's "spendable" cash.

Clinton achieved only two authentic surpluses during his administration. One was left on Monica's dress. The other was carted off in Sandy Berger's underwear. I forget in which order.

Posted by: goy at February 10, 2007 11:50 AM (yxrZu)

18 Goy:

I misconstrued your original comment. I apologize.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 10, 2007 12:25 PM (Dt3sl)

19 Jakeass:

"Bush lied, people died! Fake but accurate National Guard memos! Halliburton caused hurricne Katrina! Joos and Bush caused 911 and 7-7! Quagmire! Civil war! Dicks taste yummy!"

Take some anti-psychotics for your BDS, dork-boy.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 10, 2007 12:34 PM (Dt3sl)

20 Johke:

Newt Gingrich's Congress was reponsible for the economic success shoved doen Clinton's throat.

Try again.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 10, 2007 12:36 PM (Dt3sl)

21 Foolish people. Why don't we just wait until it ACTUALLY happens. Words are easy to spread. Deeds are a little bit more difficult to complete. Until now, all of Mr Bush's words have been useless, so why celebrate his words when nothing has happened yet? Do you really think all those budget numbers will stay intact when we invade Iran this spring? Really? I don't think so. This is another 'talking point' for those on the right who cannot (for some reason) see the truth very clearly. I guess you start to run out of speeches for how well the invasion is going, so now you start cheerleading an economic success? Let's just wait and see.

Posted by: Tom at February 10, 2007 02:21 PM (6QkE3)

22 Do you really think all those budget numbers will stay intact when we invade Iran this spring?

A concession that the numbers look good. By the way, the left has been screeding about Iraq bankrupting the nation for years, and that hasn't and won't happen. Paranoid, ignorant fantasy of ranting fools. Per usual.

Tax cuts work. End of argument. You lose.

Posted by: Good Lt at February 10, 2007 10:35 PM (D0TMh)

23 Tom Fool:

If everything President Bush's words had been worthless so far, you wouldn't bother commenting on them, would you?

This is another 'talking point' for those on the far left who cannot (for some reason) see the truth at all. I guess you start to run out of speeches for how badly the mission to aid Iraq is allegedly going, so now you start naysaying the President's economic successes.

By the way, weren't you hypocrites braying that Iran is greater threat than the terrorists in Iraq just a short while ago? Kind of like castigating Bush three years straight for not sending more "enough" troops to Iraq, and now castigating him because he is sending more. You voted for it before you voted against it, right?

The mealy mouthed stupidity of the left knows no bounds. You Stalin-Lites will say anything to get your way.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 11, 2007 03:04 PM (Dt3sl)

24 Notice the timing.

If the Democrat wins the Presidential election, he/she will get all the credit of the surplus. If the Republican wins the election, he/she will be ignored and the Democratic Congress will get the credit.

Nuance.

Posted by: hadsil at February 12, 2007 10:56 PM (YZ/HQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 05, 2007

Another Heretic Challenges the Gobal Warming Orthodoxy

Dr. Timothy Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg climatology professor, is calling shenanigans on the Global Warming movement:

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:51 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

1 20 years ago, they were talking about the coming ice age within our lifetime if we didn't change our ways. Now, it's global warming. Hell, just a couple of years ago, Algore was telling us how 'The Day After Tomorrow' should be an true-to-life warning to the world and this was a MOVIE about an ice age occuring in a single day.

As with everything else, follow the money trail. The 'scientists' who scream the loudest are the ones who have the most federal grant dollars to lose.

Posted by: slug at February 05, 2007 01:05 PM (fvW9X)

2 Yes, lets follow the money trail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Scientists have the most to lose? I'd say it is the oil and gas industry.

Posted by: PugWort at February 05, 2007 01:10 PM (heS+8)

3 I did not see Dr. Ball's name in that piece. I did see that it was a Guardian story which is about the same as linking to Fidel Castro's personal blog.

I find Dr. Ball's certainty to be unsupported by his article and his willingness to reference Michael Crichton somewhat laughable but the fact that he was slandered by David Suzuki is a plus in my book and it exposes the "there is no legitimate descent" argument as a lie.

Posted by: Chuck at February 05, 2007 01:27 PM (SExR4)

4 Bad argument. The oil and gas industry isn't screaming about global warming.

Yet, I see there is no response to the constant back-and-forth of scientists' opinion of global-warmimg and global-cooling every few years. Tell your boys to provide some proof and, maybe, stick with one argument.

Federal grant dollars. Try some research to that as related to those crying about global warming instead of providing a link to The Guardian. Yeah, there's an independent source.

Posted by: slug at February 05, 2007 01:37 PM (fvW9X)

5 No need for his opponents to address him on the merits. He's obviously paid by the oil companies. In fact, Leftards will only cite a global warming dissenter if he's paid by the "oil companies" that way they can dismiss him for being paid by the oil companies. LOL.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 05, 2007 03:01 PM (8e/V4)

6 According to Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) we are about to enter another ice age. I distinctly remember this from an episode of "In Search Of..." from when I was in high school. That would be the mid-70's.

I think there's a 50/50 chance it's true. LOL!

Posted by: Hucbald at February 05, 2007 04:12 PM (wXveM)

7 Ad hominem, pug wort. Try again, this time refuting the data.

Posted by: w3 at February 05, 2007 04:18 PM (9TtwK)

8 This is the same Timothy Ball of the Friends of Science group......

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: civil behavior at February 05, 2007 09:43 PM (d0Z5T)

As oppossed to Al Gore of the "friends of Occidental Oil, and Communism" group!

HA HA HA HA HA HAH!

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at February 05, 2007 10:47 PM (2OHpj)

10 Weaver,

I could actually feel sorry for you if you had an excuse for being so ill informed. You obviously have a computer so the only other excuse is that you desire to remain willfully ignorant. There is no feeling sorry for rednecks.

Posted by: civil behavior at February 06, 2007 09:22 AM (d0Z5T)

11 News Flash !!! The earth is flat not round. Go on outside and check it out.

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at February 06, 2007 11:13 AM (TcoRJ)

Some people manage to make it cool to be called an 'ill informed redneck'. I'm neither, but considering the source, I'm flattered

As to whether there is any substance to the claims I make about Al Gore, I suggest genuinely curious readers just use your favorite search engines and check out who, and what I'm talking about. Then if you feel like it you can feel sorry for Al Gore's devoted drones.

If you call them on it they will call you ill-informed, and a redneck, but don't let that bother you, because it's just an intimidation tactic.

Add "Armand Hammer", to your search, and also "Midieval warm period". If that doesn't stir up some controversy I'd say you weren't trying.

If you don't look at both sides of the global warming isssue, it is exactly like looking out your window, and deciding the earth is flat. If you want to find out what the earth really looks like you have to leave your house, and do some moving around. get to a mountaintop where you can see the curve of the horizon.

Right now, the global warming alarmists are telling you that what you see outside the window is the wole story, except they are the ones who landscaped that yard your looking at. So "JOHN RYAN" makes an unintended point. You should go out and get more information, instead of just sitting there.

Use your search engine, and look up articles and information about who is disputing the "consensus" of the alarmists. Read what they have to say, and see how they have analyzed the alarmists dogmas, and faulty models. Don't be "ill informed" and just accept what you are told by Al Gore and his attack dogs.

And by all means DO check out "Timothy Ball" and the "Friends of Science" because after all, I am more concerned that you readers get the whole story, than just the parts that the alarmists have pre-approved for you. make up your own mind after seeing BOTH sides. Thats the way good decisions are made.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at February 07, 2007 06:49 AM (2OHpj)

13 Snivel Behaviour:

There is no feeling sorry for White suburban punks with the lowest standardized test scores in American history. Go back to your rap CDs, video games and your parents' low expectations. The grown ups are having a conversation.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 07, 2007 07:53 AM (Dt3sl)

14 John Lyin:

You would know about the Earth being flat. Your mullah masters already issued a religious edict claiming it was so. Maybe thay can issue an edict on anthropogenic warming, too.

You wait for the Earth to cook like a giant pizza. The rest of us are addicted to reality.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 07, 2007 07:56 AM (Dt3sl)

15 Nice site!

Posted by: celexa at May 20, 2007 01:37 AM (EiWnq)

16 Very good work!

Posted by: xanax at May 21, 2007 01:06 PM (EiWnq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 30, 2007

Pagans Publish Two Books of Heresy

From the Drudge Report:

Two powerful new books say todayâ€™s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:20 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I probably couldn't make heads or tails out of either of them, but I'd be curious to find out what makes them "powerful" ... accuracy or contrarianism.

Posted by: Gleep! at January 30, 2007 02:48 PM (Zlbra)

2 ... accuracy or contrarianism.

Or facts.

Heretics. Burn them at the stake I say!

Here's another FACT you won't hear the inquisition address no matter how many times it's put to them:

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 30, 2007 03:59 PM (8e/V4)

3 Comrades,

     I've never felt so proud to be a Pagan.......

     It's just so much fun to watch the greenies get their panties in a twist when their dogma falls victim to "inconvenient truths", as though they would ever allow facts to get in the way of their stories.......

     Respects,

Posted by: Gwedd at January 30, 2007 04:19 PM (wlNg1)

4 Well, so far these books are facty-truths, no bout adoubt it.

Posted by: Gleep! at January 30, 2007 04:34 PM (Zlbra)

5 ok.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 30, 2007 05:31 PM (8e/V4)

6 Pagans, and infidels, have more fun!

Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 05:37 PM (QkaPP)

7 I don't know is global warming is true or not. Someone has to show me that snow in Malibu and Pheonix means the world is getting warmer. My common sense tells me that all this carbon going into the air is not good. Therefore, I will treat it with an open mind. For now, it's another Y2K. Remember that one? People actually emptied their bank accounts and stockpiled food and gasoline because of the bullshit they were being fed.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2007 05:44 PM (w+w6p)

8 I'm still stockpiling food, medicine, medical equipment, ammunition, gold, silver and a few things I won't mention, Mr. Greyrooster. Does that make me stupid, or smart, or perhaps neither?

Posted by: templar knight at January 30, 2007 06:17 PM (LFjVi)

9 If the obvious is true then most of the posters on this thread by way of their own admittance will not be part of any solution to a problem stemming from an enigma called Mother Nature. Of course none of us on the more progressive blogs thought otherwise. It is still the same 30% that over and over lives in virtual reality. Go ahead just press the restart button, everything will be fine.

Foolish Americanos......

Posted by: civil behavior at January 31, 2007 08:52 AM (d0Z5T)

10 snivel,

without China and India onboard, Kyoto is a problem not a solution. It means more pollution, not less. You know that. Yet you persist. So it's not the environment you care about. It's something else. My guess is your agenda is income re-distribution from the 1st world to the 3rd world. Kyoto is a socialist scheme:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist
scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a
letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 31, 2007 10:25 AM (8e/V4)

11 Snivel behavior: Didn't I tel you to get back in your ghetto? Now go back and stay there. Friggin idiot.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 31, 2007 10:25 AM (w+w6p)

12 Templar Knight: Does the items you are stockpiling have expiration dates? Much too soon. We will have ample time to stockpile when the signs are right. Meanwhile keep your powder dry.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 31, 2007 10:28 AM (w+w6p)

13 snivel,

warming on Mars. Address that please. Without China and India, Kyoto will create more pollution, not less. Address that too please. Otherwise STFU.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 31, 2007 10:38 AM (8e/V4)

14 I have a prediction for you, civil behavior. I predict global warming will vanish from just about all conversation when we are trying to figure out how to cope with the destruction caused by exploding nuclear bombs used against Israel by your buddies the Iranians. And the response by the Israelis. I wish to hell you progressives would get your heads out of your hind ends long enough to see what the hell is going on in the World using an historical context. You are a bunch of fucking idiots, no, dangerous idiots, as you provide cover for, and help, the enemies of civilization.

Posted by: templar knight at January 31, 2007 10:42 AM (LFjVi)

15 snivel,

just like the last thread where I asked you to address Kyoto-- crickets.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 31, 2007 02:20 PM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 06, 2007

The U of L Cheerleader UNCENSORED

So, this University of Louisville cheerleader has some naked porn pics taken of herself and they get posted on the internet. Just one more example of how our society's young women are working overtime (a la Paris Hilton, Britney, Lindsay Lohan) to out-slut one another, often in very public ways. Now, it's possible this girl no intention that they ever became public. If so, I feel a bit of sympathy for her--but not that much, to be honest. At any rate, I'm not posting the pics here, but if you're looking for them, you can find them via a blog that rhymes with "space of aides".

UPDATE : Okay, here are a couple (SFW) below the fold: more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:36 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

January 05, 2007

The Passing of an Exceptional American

This isn't a post about Gerald Ford, although he was a fine American and a decent President. Rather, this is about the passing of someone that the mainstream media my well largely ignore, not because he isn't important, but because... well, you know. On December 31, 2006 Seymour Martin Lipset passed away after a long illness that originally struck around the same time that the US was struck on 9/11. There will probably be some profoundly eloquent memorials, referencing his prodigious authorship in the political science arena. Here is a biographical essay penned by one of his former students, Larry Diamond, and Gary Marks, shortly before his illness.

At the time that I had the honor of serving as his research assistant in the late 1990s the large bear of a fellow that everyone called "Marty" was the most cited living American author, a distinction I'm sure he held until his death at the end of 2006. Of him, Diamond and Marks wrote: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 09:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1169 words, total size 7 kb.

January 03, 2007

Reuters Posts Pictures of the Year (Updated)

Reuters has selected their 206 pictures of the year. While that may seem like a large number of photos, think about all the world-shaking events that occurred in 2006, and you can see that Reuters' editors had their work cut out for them. It's certainly no small task to characterize the history of the world for an entire year in only 206 snapshots.

Reuters has taken on a solemn task, the sort of job that only a well-respected global news agency can be trusted to perform. With such a small number of selections, each and every photo chosen reflects the experience of the seasoned news pros at Reuters.

Here's one of their picks: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:05 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

December 13, 2006

Flight Club Membership Growing

Via Jay at Stop The ACLU:

CAIR. Muslims are being encouraged to file civil rights complaints if they feel they are being discriminated against. One Muslim speaks out, claiming they are â€œstoking the flames of victimization.â€â€¦
Washington Times: American Muslims making a religious pilgrimage to Mecca are being encouraged to file civil rights complaints if they feel discriminated against by airlines.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), citing what it called the â€œairport profilingâ€ of six imams removed from a recent flight, yesterday said Muslims traveling this month to the holy site in Saudi Arabia need to be aware of their rights.

Also see: See Dubya.

And now a shameless Flight Club Reprise!

Posted by: Howie at 08:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

December 05, 2006

Anonymous, Veiled Muslim Woman to Give 'Alternative Christmas' Message on British TV

Britain's Channel 4 has decided to go dhimmi, just like the Beebs, and will allow a "freelance lecturer in Islamic studies and the Koran" who goes by the name of one of Mohammed's wives and wears a full veil and gloves in public to counter the Queen's Christmas message this year: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:39 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Why does the Christmas holiday even need a counterpoint? Maybe I'm just touchy lately but this seems spiteful and ill willed of them.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 02:45 PM (2OHpj)

2 I just linked this story, too. As I pointed out, the niqab makes a great Christmas tree skirt if you're in a pinch! ; )

Posted by: Dan Riehl at December 05, 2006 02:53 PM (WdN7X)

3 They should go all the way and invite Abu Izzadeen to deliver Christmas rant: "How dare you come here to a Muslim area?!"

Posted by: forest at December 05, 2006 03:22 PM (1YuGt)

4 Oh, joy of joys, we now have Allahmas.

Minor niggle, though - though the story is from the BBC site, it seems it's Channel 4 (who recently ran a show called 'Are Muslims a Threat to Free Speech?'), that have made this rather odd decision.

Posted by: Joe Public at December 05, 2006 03:59 PM (DWwwh)

5 More evidence Liberalism is a mental disorder and a threat to Western civilization.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 05, 2006 04:03 PM (8e/V4)

6 I want to be the first to volunteer to give the "alternative Ramadan" message next year. Seems only fair to me.

Posted by: Dr. Sanity at December 05, 2006 07:27 PM (ds0+e)

7 The Randman strategy of 'bikini escalation' has my total support! Explode the skulls of seventh century zombies with skin, glorius skin.

Why not?

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 07:35 PM (2OHpj)

8 "The message will reflect a year in which the wearing of religious
clothing and symbols have "dominated the news agenda", said a Channel 4
spokesman."

Uh, no ... terrorists and terrorism have dominated the news agenda, you twit.

Posted by: Oyster at December 05, 2006 07:38 PM (YudAC)

9 I would like to volunteer to deliver the alternate Ashura greetings.

Inasmuch as I am culturally sensitive, I will be sure to assist in the beatings of as many self flagellating Muslims as possible.

Let the world see that Americans are always available to help.

Posted by: sigmund, carl and alfred at December 05, 2006 07:57 PM (dHZc2)

10 I really have no problem with this act as long as we get to have a
bikini clad model to give the response to Ramadan. Oh yeah....tolerance
is suppose to be a one way street with liberals.

Posted by: Randman at December 05, 2006 08:18 PM (Sal3J)

11 the alternate Ashura greetings

Network news is completely out but I do veg out in front of the travel
channel sometimes. On one of their self promoting commercials where
they are showing different cultures they say "be a believer" and show a
Muslim man with the tiniest little trickle of blood. He is obviously
suppose to be an Ashura participant and I always laugh how they water
it down because if they showed the true pic people would be changing
the channel in horror.

Posted by: Randman at December 06, 2006 08:18 AM (Sal3J)

12 That's okay, I know they'll be having the Queen offer an "alternative
perspective" next Ramadan... right? I mean the point is after all
"balance", not umm, dhimmitude... oh. Nevermind.

Posted by: Scott at December 06, 2006 09:19 AM (z2RMg)

13 Gee, I wonder what that alternative to Christmas message could be. Jihad? The "House Of War?" Hatred, violence, ignorance, stupidity, misogyny, "homophobia," racism, deceit, and poor hygiene?

War on Earth, ill will towards men, from an enslaved cunt who doesn't even celebrate Christmas. Absurd.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 06, 2006 06:36 PM (bLPT+)

14 jonny151

Posted by: jonny388 at December 11, 2006 08:15 AM (UShEr)

15 ctzqf ucnbgzyh oydzhpi abmwsgvnk xmwtdcvfp harqjd krjlayph

Posted by: xijcduhnt zacur at June 12, 2007 08:27 AM (XLJgI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 04, 2006

Muslim YouTube Club Targets Anti-Terrorist Videos and Users

Muslims have set up a group called Oul-Al-Albab/Oul-Al-Absar at YouTube that targets videos and users critical of Islamist violence. YouTube's poorly thought out flagging procedures encourage dishonest users to lie about content in order to suppress videos with which they disagree. YouTube has refused to change the system, despite numerous complaints from users that certain groups, particularly those sympathetic to Islamic terrorism, are abusing it (screen captures). more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:12 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Heh. Thanks for the tip Bluto. My account was flagged.

Posted by: Chad Evans at December 04, 2006 12:56 PM (zT9YR)

2 Yes I agree with you, this group is spoiling Youtube very much, because they do downgrade videos not in a metter of tollerance. I guess Youtube will prohibit this group very soon.

Thank you for sharing this story with me !

Posted by: Marina making pictures at December 04, 2006 02:03 PM (L9lhM)

3 We should go to You Tube and flag everything. That will wake them up.

Posted by: TC at December 04, 2006 10:03 PM (RdUvM)

4 I don't suppose it's possible to backtrack and locate the people who flagged the anti-violence videos as inappropriate. If they are flagging them, then they support violence caused by Islamists. If they can be located, then they should be investigated and their behavior scrutinized.

Posted by: Peggy U at December 04, 2006 11:55 PM (2P7TQ)

5 TC has a point.

If you find something offensive, isn't that a subjective reaction? If so, then if YouTube itself is the offending entity, aren't you within your rights, as someone who is subjectively offended, to flag whatever is in front of you accordingly?

Suppose if a few thousand AntiJihadists were to show how offended they were over a three day period? It's an idea.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 04:41 AM (2OHpj)

6 Muslims are allowed to ban anything they don't like again, while we are made to watch their trite. Ridiculous state of affairs for u-tube to allow this to happen. Policy needs changing to take it out of the "religious" context. Groups only offended through their religion should be made to swallow it.

Posted by: Victoria Moore at December 05, 2006 04:48 AM (DSmIQ)

7 I could see flagging it if it mocked prayer or worship. Since violence is neither, but that which harms us all, YouTube is playing into their hands.

Posted by: Cricket at December 05, 2006 07:10 AM (u1K1q)

8 Where do these people find the time to sift through YouTube videos and flag them? Seriously. I can barely find time to sleep as it is, much less flag videos all day. Is this a "student" group? Some unemployed cretins with no responsibility for anyone or anything other than themselves - if that?

Posted by: dm60462 at December 05, 2006 12:36 PM (twWVY)

9 Hell yeah, I got blacklisted woohoo! Laviciousness fever is on the rise.

Posted by: NorthernCross at December 05, 2006 05:33 PM (gUvu0)

10 I should probably add that nothing's happened to me yet, and they scarlet lettered me over a week ago already. But if I get banned, then all I'll do is get a new account.

Posted by: NorthernCross at December 05, 2006 05:39 PM (gUvu0)

11 do the same 2 them

Posted by: dirty ragis at December 06, 2006 02:21 PM (JMNY+)

12 "do the same 2 them"

What he said ...

Don't we have enough mass as anti-jihadists, to force a change of policy at YouTube, by exercising our perogative to be offended? Can't we (following the rules) stage some kind of event, and get all the AntiJihadists to tag anything an everything they can find as offensive?

If people can stage a march, where they have to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to be heard, can't we arrange to do a virtual march on YouTube jihadists?

It's to easy to sit and watch vids and flag them. Pop some popcorn, make some hot cocoa, put on your favorite music, and go to town. I've avoided it because I dislike censorship, but I've done a 180' regarding jihadist propaganda. Even CAIR offends me now.

I'll sign up for any such effort. Does anyone want to try and organize the event, and if so, how can I help?

It can be our vitual air campaign vs YouTube terror. Any takers?

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 07, 2006 04:01 PM (2OHpj)

13 It's okay, because all we have to do is find all the information we can
about the owners of YT, and when TSHTF, round them up along with the
rest of the enemies and traitors. I'll bring the rope.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 10, 2006 09:06 PM (v3I+x)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 24, 2006

The 'Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship'

A $250 token scholarship, whose recipients must be at least one quarter Caucasian, is generating more anger and "buzz" than its creators expected: From ABC:

All the media attention is focused on a $250 Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship offered by Mroszczyk and the BU chapter of the College Republicans. Applicants must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.2 or higher; they must write two essays; and, here's the kicker, they must be at least one-quarter Caucasian.
The application itself offers an explanation: "We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today."
According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out "how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship."

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 09:26 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

1 MLK wanted a color-blind society, but Libs won't give it to him because without race Liberalism would collapse.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2006 10:42 AM (8e/V4)

2 Does ABC also do stories on the United Negro College Fund?

Posted by: Billy at November 24, 2006 11:16 AM (3M6Tx)

3 This is an effective way to focus the discussion. By this kind of action we can smoke out the incongruity of "race blindness" relative to the "race consciousness" of affirmative action.

I think it's fine to have some "helping hand" kind of financial aid and "alternative standards" --- for the children of parents who haven't had a post-high school education, irrespective of race or ethnicity. It could be argued that such young people tend to emerge from childhood under some disadvantage, and that it is in the interest of society to help them break out of the lower class existence that often results. But, that's a one-time fix, not a philosophy that we live with from generation to generation. And it would eliminate financial aid earmarks for minorities who are NOT particularly disadvantaged, but still "count" for purposes of special treatment.

Posted by: Terry Ott at November 24, 2006 01:14 PM (e36K4)

4 This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple, to start a dialogue about race based scholarships.

Unfortunately, many blacks and liberals have taken the bait and have run with it, only to look like fools.

Of course, you guys will make sure that we liberals understand the issue, won't you?

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 24, 2006 01:57 PM (9HW/3)

5 "Of course, you guys will make sure that we liberals understand the issue, won't you?" - Piddlelick

It's out of my hands, only God can give you more brain cells.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 24, 2006 03:35 PM (vBK4C)

6 many blacks and liberals have taken the bait and have run with it, only to look like fools.

Yes, because a dialogue about race based scholarships always makes Liberals look like fools.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2006 04:17 PM (8e/V4)

7
Of course, you guys will make sure that we liberals understand the issue, won't you?

It would be easier to explain quantum physics to a high crack addict.

Posted by: Randman at November 24, 2006 05:18 PM (Sal3J)

8 PuddleDuck
Isn't it true that a 'publicity stunt' like this wouldn't work if the rules were really balanced?

If there werent any racial favoritism in affirmative action, could there be any mockery of that favoritism?

There is only one human race, and everyone belongs to it. That should be what we teach our children from day one.

Can you get behind that?

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 24, 2006 06:23 PM (2OHpj)

9 Ha, Ha, Ha. I think its fucking great. Pure genius. Now the crybaby blacks and their lefturd ass kissers will have to defend the stupidity of their past policies. I demand equality. A Waacp, a white caucus in congress, a white miss America contest, a white police officers assoc. Heh, heh. Love it. God bless white folks. Demos will self destruct to the point we can get rid of the cotton gin. After all. It takes jobs away from poor blacks.

Gotta mix another drink.

I need to start a United Causasian college fund. I promise to give 10% of any monies collected to poor whites in need of education. The rest will go to staffing my office with 21 yr old blondes who can't type.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 24, 2006 07:24 PM (Sm/YV)

10 What the fuck is your problem?

You guys can't separate an opinion on one issue from an opinion on an unrelated issue, and you call me an idiot, even when I agree with you?

You guys are just fucking amazing!

As long as there are privately funded race based scholarships, they can be given to anyone the fund chooses to, right?

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 25, 2006 08:02 AM (5NRC5)

11 What you commie assholes fail to realize is that if a privately funded race based scholarship is for white people. Blacks and commies asshole like you will riot, attack inocent people and burn their cars. Private golf courses are privately funded. Their memberships can be given to anyone the club chooses to, right? Enough said asshole. You commies make me sick.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 09:30 AM (Sm/YV)

12 I know racism when I see it. I am a
Republican too even though I am a Mexican American. The leters to this forum
show the racists that respond to this cheap and
tactic. This is not about liberalism, this is about racist whites. The vulgar answers
here prove what scum we are
dealing with here. No one denies you scholarships because you are white. They
denied you because you were not white.
Stop telling your racist lies.
You are racists. You can
keep your damn $250.00, and go to hell.

Posted by: Paul Jaramillo at November 25, 2006 04:55 PM (npY2c)

13 Not so my Mexican American friend (whatever that is. Make up your mind)
The point is poor white people deserve the same opportunities as browns and blacks. Perhaps when and if you ever become a American instead of a Mexican
American you will understand. Us racist white folds pay the bill. Why shouldn't we receive some of the benefits? And you don't know racism when you see it. Viva la Raza.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 07:56 PM (VMUjK)

14 You can
keep your damn $250.00, and go to hell.

Paul,

now you're showing some progress. Obviously you don't need whitey's hand-outs because you have a shred of dignity and self-respect left (hello! that's the whole point!).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 25, 2006 11:55 PM (8e/V4)

15 Why is it racism for scholarships to be offered to only black students and not racism if scholarships are offered to white students?

When a charity funding organization discriminates, I don't see the deprived charity rioting in the streets.

Many local chapters of the United Way continue to descriminate on funding of the Boy and Girl scouts, since those organizations don't allow gays or Atheists.

I don't see the boy and girl scouts or their parents rioting in the streets.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 26, 2006 06:55 AM (3uJnp)

16 Paul Jaramillo:

If Whitey is so racist, how come they hand out scholarships to every group except White people?

Why don't you live in Mexico, as a proud "Mexican American?" (A clear contradiction. But then, a nation that cant speak Spanish correctly cant be expected to produce citizens who speak English and know the difference between America and Mexico.) Could it possibly be because Mexico is a disease ridden shit-hole full of under-achieving, racist, 4 feet tall, assholes?

You're stupid enough to qualify for a race, sex--or in your case, ethnicity based scholarship. You should look into that. As a "racist," I'd be proud to pay your unearned way through college. Puto.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 04:26 PM (bLPT+)

It's obvious that piddledick is such a socialist he doesn't know what racism is. What white only scholarships? The only one in existence is this joke that you leftist pricks fell for.

Hope you minorites realize that if you can call white people racist we can call you racist. We would be far more correct. While I happen to harbor no dislike for the Mexican people I think they have been brainwashed into thinking whitey is racist. We're so racist we let them come to our country. Does that make sense? When whitey looks at a Mexican and shakes his head do you Mexicans ever think that it could be the FUCKING FLAG YOUR WAVING. Mine is red, white and blue. A third generation Mexican (American) in a boxing match still receives calls of Viva Mexico and carries a Mexican flag around the ring. Does that make sense? It only makes sense if your heart is still below the border. So excuse me if I treat you as a the foreigner you act like. Strange how you never wave the Mexican flag when going to a free hospital or to the welfare office. As long as you wave the Mexican flag your a Mexican. So act the part amd gp back to your wonderful country. It's waiting for you to bring the gringos money back with you.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 11:22 PM (aghaS)

18 http://www.stazzz.net/shemales.php shemales pictures

Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (m7J36)

19 http://www.stazzz.net/shemales.php shemales pictures

Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (m7J36)

20 http://www.stazzz.net/shemales.php shemales pictures

Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (4hvnM)

21 http://www.stazzz.net/shemales.php shemales pictures

Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:40 PM (4hvnM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 21, 2006

Well Go Right Ahead and Do That

Iâ€™d imagine that would be a ticket seller for some of their other passengers. It turns out the Imams were being intentionally ornery. Also they are already getting with CAIR to sue the airline. Bluto is right, itâ€™s a setup.

Minneapolis Star Tribune: One of the Muslim scholars removed from a US Airways flight on Monday today called for imams around the country to boycott the airline after employees refused to sell him new tickets for his flight home.
On Monday, Omar Shahin and five other imams had gone to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to fly home to Phoenix after attending a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation. Shahin is president of the groupâ€¦
â€¦ "I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "I want to buy six tickets."
"They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look," he said "It's terrible. We want America to stay the way it is because we love this country."
The supervisor asked Shahin to leave the ticket counter.
"This is prejudice," he replied. "This is obvious discrimination. No one can argue with this."
"I am calling for a boycott of US Airways because I'm not going to stay silent," said Shahin, who is Jordanian. "I came to this country to enjoy justice and freedom."â€¦

Unfortunately one aspect of freedom he forgot is that freedom also means being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Including the fact you are suing them and behaved badly the day before. In America you don't have to serve someone who is a pain in your backside.

Much more below the fold. more...

Posted by: Howie at 04:38 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

1 us air just got my business!

Posted by: whitey at November 21, 2006 05:46 PM (SAN1I)

2 Put em in Greyhound, luggage compartment! Put Depends on them and don't let them out til they get there.

Posted by: memphis761 at November 21, 2006 05:51 PM (D3+20)

3 "One of the Muslim scholars removed from a US Airways flight on Monday today called for imams around the country to boycott the airline after employees refused to sell him new tickets for his flight home."

Great!!! Not just imams, but all muslims should boycott UW Airways.

US Airways will probably get a hefty reduction of their insurance premiums!!!

Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 21, 2006 06:02 PM (38GUY)

They are going to boycott the airlines? Shit, I feel safer flying already.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 21, 2006 06:11 PM (DlfZ3)

5 Put them on a plane and fly it non-stop to Guantanamo Bay.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at November 21, 2006 08:58 PM (HSkSw)

6 The coverage by national media on tonight's broadcast news [ABC & NBC] that I watched did not mention the connection of the Imam Shahin to a Hamas "charity."

What a surprise!?!

Also, their refusal to accept the seats they were assigned makes it appear that they were acting as agents provacateurs, attempting to create a "cause celebre" to arouse radicalism in quiescent Muslims in the USA.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: daveinboca at November 21, 2006 09:15 PM (jDrcJ)

7 "Unfortunately one aspect of freedom he forgot is that freedom also means being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason."

Uhm. Thats not quite true.

Posted by: actus at November 21, 2006 10:31 PM (NV0dI)

8 Give terror sponsers a one way ticket to where they want to go most ...

Remember the Greek myth about Tantalus in Hades?

What if the Martyr goes to a heavenly cage when they die, and the virgins are on the outside? With the fruit, and the fresh water ...

Finally those poor Muslim women will have a chance for payback ...

It makes me smile

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 21, 2006 11:31 PM (2OHpj)

9 Howie a public carrier does NOT have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
You must be thinking that the Jim Crow laws are still in effect.
All of that finally left by the early 60's using the Federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
I think maybe it is time for you to audit a high school civics class.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 22, 2006 12:07 AM (TcoRJ)

10 I'll be flying US Airways for the holidays.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2006 12:37 AM (8e/V4)

11 Let's see, Muslims make up less than 1% of the US population. I'm sure a boycott would be devastating. NOT!

Posted by: Subvet at November 22, 2006 12:44 AM (DNVxw)

12 Jim Crow laws have nothing to do with airline safety. Even regulated interstate travel industry has rights regarding who they will let fly, and who not. The fed can only do so much without earning a fair rebuke.

I would say an airline forced by the government to do something that the airline would otherwise consider to be unsafe, could sue the government for its accountability in making such an enforcement.

If the government forced airlines to allow bombs on planes that would be obviously stupid. Forcing airlines to accept disruptive, or threatening people seems also pretty obviously stupid.

Any arguement with the feds should be handled in light of the government being held accountable for enforcing a dangerous standard.

We may be talking internment in ten years time. Debates about who can, and can't fly will have a different set of rules.

Want to place any bets on how this 'boycott' turns out?

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 22, 2006 02:15 AM (2OHpj)

13 "Unfortunately one aspect of freedom he forgot is that freedom also means being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason."

Fortunately, the above statement is false and

Fortunately, another aspect of freedom, that you neglected to mention, is that anyone can boycott any business for any reason, including discrimination.

5 years after 9/11, the joke that we call "Department of Homeland Security", still does not instill much of a sense of "security" in most Americans.

Maybe all prayer should be banned on airplanes, unless they are Christian prayers, spoken in English.

What power one person has, anymore.

Just pass a note to a stewardess and you can get anyone kicked off an airplane.

Probably works on the ground, just as well, too.

If you don't like one of your neighbors, call the KGB..er I mean the FBI and report some suspicious activity that you have fabricated about them.

It worked in the old Soviet Union and still works, today, in the USA.

Maybe they will be dragged from their home, in the middle of the night, and designated an "unlawful combatent", without the right of habeas corpus and you will never have to see them again.

Can't happen, right?

"Let's see, Muslims make up less than 1% of the US population. I'm sure a boycott would be devastating. NOT!
Posted by: Subvet "

Hmmm...that would be about 3 million potential customers that the airlines can afford to ignore. NOT!

Maybe Wal-Mart should stop people, at the door in order that they choose who can come in, based upon their appearance or spoken language.

But don't stop with muslims.

If customers are black, they are probably there to shoplift and if they appear to be hispanic, they are probably illegal aliens.

----------------------------------------------

You may, also, want to consider the safety record of the airline and aircraft, in addition to the passenger list.

. 20 September 1989; USAir 737-400; La Guardia Airport, New York: The crew incorrectly trimmed the rudder for takeoff and were forced to abort the takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway and was partially submerged in water. Two of the 55 passengers were killed.

. 1 February 1991; USAir 737-300; Los Angeles, CA: The USAir flight was cleared to land on a runway which also had a Skywest Metro III on the runway awaiting takeoff. The aircraft collided and burst into flames. Two of the six crew members and 20 of the 83 passengers on the USAir jet were killed. All 10 passengers and two crew members on the Metro III were killed.

. 3 January 1992; USAir Express (Commutair) Beech 1900; Gabriel, NY: The aircraft hit high ground on approach 3.9 miles (6.2 km) from the runway at about 1600 feet (490 meters) above minimum altitude at that point. The NTSB believes that the glide slope indicator may have been unreliable due to precipitation static. One of the two crew members and one of the two passengers were killed.

. 22 March 1992; USAir F28-4000; New York, NY: The aircraft crashed just after takeoff in snowy conditions due to icing on the aircraft's wings. Three of the four crew members and 24 of the 47 passengers were killed.

. 2 July 1994; USAir DC9-31; Charlotte, NC: The aircraft encountered heavy rain and wind shear during approach at about 3.5 miles (5.6 km) from the runway. The crew executed attempted to go around for another landing attempt, but the aircraft could not overcome the wind shear. All five crew members survived, but 37 of the 52 passengers were killed.

. 8 September 1994; USAir 737-300; near Pittsburgh, PA: The aircraft lost control at about 6,000 feet (1830 meters) during approach. All five crew members and 127 passengers were killed.

. 8 January 2003; US Airways Express (Air Midwest) Beech 1900; Charlotte, NC: The aircraft crashed into a maintenance hanger at the airport shortly after it departed for a flight to Greenville, SC. The NTSB determined that the loss of pitch control resulted from a combination of an incorrectly rigged elevator control system and by the airplaneâ€™s aft center of gravity being substantially aft of the certified limit. Both pilots and all 19 passengers were killed in the crash.

Oh, yeah, I feel much better about flying US Airways, now.

And remember, before you fly next time, insist upon seeing the passenger list, before you board the plane just to make sure that there are no "undesirables" on the plane.

"Forcing airlines to accept disruptive, or threatening people seems also pretty obviously stupid.
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 22, 2006 02:15 AM"

What "disrupted or threatening" people was the airline forced to accept, this time?

Obviously, they were not "forced" to accept these muslim passengers, as the word of one passenger was able to get them removed from the plane.

Your exclusion criteria? They dress funny, speak funny, have a beard, pray funny, have a funny muslim-sounding name.

Remember that it is your patriotic duty to, personally, keep as many "undesirables" off of your airplane as possible.

Not everyone has the "right" to fly and you can do your part by helping toy decide who should be able to fly and who shouldn't.

Of course, every other passenger will be watching you, too, so be careful not to look or act suspicious or they could have you thrown off the plane.

But, I'm sure you won't mind, since it is in the interest of national security.

Not to worry, though.

The worst president in US history is keeping us safe.

I feel much better, knowing the President Moron is in charge.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 22, 2006 03:43 AM (cbfpu)

14 Puddle duck: please send your novel to a publisher not a comments section I cant even read it.

Posted by: DAT at November 22, 2006 07:08 AM (HYYQD)

15
The worst president in US history is keeping us safe.

Bullshit. Jimmy Carter is doing nothing about terrorist beyond supporting them.

Your so full of shit Puddledick. If somebody is disruptive and refused
to sit where they are assigned they most certainly can be refused
service. We know you want to defend your terrorist heroes at any cost.

Posted by: Randman at November 22, 2006 08:45 AM (Sal3J)

US Airways soon to be the safest airline in the country.

Puddleduck: You're nothing but a low life commie. Punk!

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 22, 2006 09:20 AM (I+yOi)

17 Puddleduck is not a low life commie, or a punk!
<stick's out tongue>
So There!
Play nice kids.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 09:45 AM (ZQepB)

18 "Maybe all prayer should be banned on airplanes, unless they are Christian prayers, spoken in English."

What an "asshat" (hattip to LGF) response and the fact that they are only 1% says to me that their day is a coming. Americans will only take so much shit before they start doing more then just removing them from the plane. CAIR cares nothing for Americans they are in the business of trying to place us in glazed over position to be able to have their caliphate however a great many of us will never glaze over and the pc of us will wake up one day to. God Bless the United States of America. How's that prayer for you?

Posted by: Rightmom at November 22, 2006 09:50 AM (0lpqx)

19 Puddlefuck, you're an idiot at your best. Oh, since you've been busted do you still pretend you're a vet? I hope not.
Go away now.

As far as these Islamic pukes go, they've just made US Airways the safest airlines to fly.

""I am calling for a boycott of US Airways because I'm not going to stay
silent," said Shahin, who is Jordanian. "I came to this country to
enjoy justice and freedom."â€¦"

Posted by: dick at November 22, 2006 09:52 AM (jfHrV)

20 Piddle a "vet"? LOL. Sure he is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2006 09:57 AM (8e/V4)

21 No fear and puddleduck. Now we have two commie punks.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 22, 2006 10:07 AM (I+yOi)

22 Please, if we don't stop this name calling NO ONE will get a window seat.
PD has some good points. So does Michael Weaver. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
If we lean to far toward the right or the left the plane will tip over.
Or something like that.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 10:14 AM (ZQepB)

Yes, I know it's not to far, it's too far. Sorry I get nervous when I fly.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 10:22 AM (ZQepB)

24 Ok, look. There has to be a way to maintain security, keep us safe, without giving up our rights afforded us by the Consitution.
Maybe while taking a break from all the inane insults we can find a way.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 11:32 AM (ZQepB)

25 lilcrash...oh wait, I mean No Fear...you're only called "lilcrash" over on newshounds...
Anyway, I hope you're having fun here. I know it's all a joke to you, I've read what you've written.

So tell me, what you're saying is they should have let these people on the plane, even though they were spouting anti-American rhetoric before getting on the plane?

Call me what you will, but I wouldn't have felt safe on a plane with ANYONE of any race, color or creed who was spouting that kind of stuff. I would have reported them as well, even if they were white, middle-aged, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Texans. I'd rather be safe than blown up into tiny smithereens.

Posted by: Kelly at November 22, 2006 11:57 AM (jfHrV)

26 No Fear. You seem to be able to hold an adult conversation but I am
surprised you would defend a moronic troll such as Puddledick.

There has to be a way to maintain security, keep us safe, without giving up our rights afforded us by the Consitution.

Where does it say in the constitution that you can disrupt flights?
Where does it say you can ignore lawful demands to debark or you can
willfully ignore seat arrangements and sit wherever the hell you want?

What is your take on the historical precedence with the executive
branch to have extra powers during times of war. It has been well
established by Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. They took much greater
liberties during times of war and after the war things went back to
normal. And now hang on....the country went back to normal without
legions of hyperventilating NGOs lecturing us that every time a
terrorist isn't read his Miranda rights the constitution is shredded.
How can FDR be such a liberal hero when he listened in on every single
call that came in and went out of the country?

Posted by: Randman at November 22, 2006 12:05 PM (Sal3J)

27 How can FDR be such a liberal hero when he listened in on every single
call that came in and went out of the country?

Randman, the answer is he is not a Liberal's hero at all any more. They sold out his legagcy for the new I hate America NeoLiberalism.

Posted by: Darth Odie at November 22, 2006 12:12 PM (YdcZ0)

28 Yes Kelly, lilcrash. So? I never have hidden who I was. Anyone who cared to could figure that out. I gave you the link remember and I stand by everything I have said. You have exposed nothing.
Why so combative? Humor can and often does diffuse a heated arguement. If you can find fault in that motive be my guest.
"So tell me, what you're saying is they should have let these people on the plane, even though they were spouting anti-American rhetoric before getting on the plane?"
Ummm no. I don't think I said that. In fact I know I haven't.
What I did say that there should be away to protect ourselves without giving up all our rights that so many have fought and died for. Past and present.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 12:16 PM (ZQepB)

29 Randman, Puddleduck is passionate about what he believes in. He mades some valid points. Don't worry about it. In fact he's alittle pissed at me right now I think. But that's my problem.
Ok, I don't pretend to be able to solve the balance between security and protection of our rights. I don't know what the answer is. Both of those are serious issues. Believe me I'm concerned about all of it. I wish I had a solution. If I did I won't be sitting here right now.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 12:25 PM (ZQepB)

30 Combative? Sister, I'm not even close to being combative. Fact is, I don't trust you're here for actual debate anymore. Do me a favor, and explain this comment you left and what you meant by it. Maybe then I'll feel you're actually here to learn something from the other side.

"
Give them enough rope, divide and conquer.

Give me some time."
Posted by: lilcrash () on Wed 11.22 10:37am

And I apologize, I attributed a PD comment to you. The other part of my comment should have been directed to him, not you.

Taking someone off a plane is not giving up rights. Drunk and obnoxious people are removed from planes. Combative people are removed from planes. Unfortunately, the passengers should have drawn attention to the people causing the problems prior to boarding. That would have been the smart thing to do.

People have a right to be afraid. It's not easy to forget that three planes were hijacked five years ago. Makes you a little gunshy.

Posted by: Kelly at November 22, 2006 12:41 PM (jfHrV)

31 It's an old joke taken out of context. To explain it I would have to go back and give you exerpts of conversations that go back over nearly a year. Frankly I just don't have that kind of time. It's innocent enough. Relax. Not every word is a plan to bring you tumbling down. Really.

As far as the rest of your post goes. I do agree.
But there has to be a way to maintain and protect our rights. I don't have an answer to this.
In any case I have Thanksgiving to attend to. We'll have to continue another day.
Kelly and everyone else.... Have a great Thanksgiving.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 01:05 PM (ZQepB)

32 I'm sorry Kelly I was being dismissive. That wasn't my intendtion. I don't want you to think I was cutting and running when I was pressed. You have made a point. A good one.
"People have a right to be afraid. It's not easy to forget that three planes were hijacked five years ago. Makes you a little gunshy."
I may have to re-think my postion. On this. But I really do have to go. Company just got here.
Thanks for hearing me out. What you believe and what you don't I have no controll over. Time will tell.

Posted by: No Fear at November 22, 2006 01:15 PM (ZQepB)

33 PuddleDuck
If the government shouldn't try to force airlines to accept passngers who begin to cause trouble with the crew, AND make any menacing statements. Who cares about their religion? They aren't any better than the Christian ministers wife that got in trouble a few months back, when she was disruptive.

I consider myself a non-denominational christian, and thats for disclosure. Even still I think she screwed up, and she, or anyone else disruptive should not be on a plane.

They are all the same to me if they are disruptive. It is not a good idea to put yourself 20000 ft in the air with someone who is acting like they could be irrational, or aggressive.

If the goverment tries to force the airline to allow disruptive passengers, the the government should be held accountable with evryone else.

And for the record dude, I would be an undesirable to a lot of people. I have friends in the Montana Militia. It isn't Hamas, but it still makes a lot of people cringe. Could that keep me off a plane? Maybe. I'm not a member, but my world is small, and I have a lot of associations.

I will accept that for the time being we need to watch out not just for drunks, and lunatics, but for people who want to kill Americans just because they are American. If the Imams were patriots, they would accept that openess will return, when Muslims stop hijacking planes.

Anyway, as to all the police state type concerns you express, like I said, I have friends in the Milita, so I hear all about it. A lot of them think the Left will bring such a state about. Sometimes they make sense.

I hope everyone has an awsome Thanksgiving Holiday (Including my Indian friends) and I may not be back till afterwards so don't think I'm dodging the argument.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 22, 2006 03:51 PM (2OHpj)

34 Trolls are good for stomping.

Posted by: Dick at November 22, 2006 04:13 PM (XlQVK)

35 No, You are right you cannot systematically discriminate on a basis of race ethnicity or gender. Religion too. But, if someone makes trouble for you or your patrons you can refuse to serve them. Provided you are not providing some essential service they cant get anywhere else or are in dire need of. I'm talking about refuseing to serve them based on prior behaviour. Their behaviour obviously caused discomfort among the other passengers. Cost losts of time and money and was unnecesary. But Anybody can refuse service to anyone under those conditions. The thought of their race never entered my mind, being Muslim doesn't matter, and if it does go bitch about Mohammad Atta. I'm sure lots of Muslims fly without acting like asses. It would be interesting to know how many Mulsims flew American that day with no problem. 100's thousands maybe? So the claims of unfair treatment are crap. It has nothing to do with like or dislike. You people are racist, Fuck off.

Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2006 09:09 PM (YdcZ0)

36 Oh and my state never had Jim Crowe laws so you'll have to excuse me for being a damn yankee.

Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2006 09:18 PM (YdcZ0)

37 No, it won't sell any extra tickets, but it won't hurt much either. Just a lot of hot air on both sites.

Make a real post if you find any proof that they ere just acting up intentionally. More likely they are just assholes.

Posted by: Mr. C at November 22, 2006 10:04 PM (cYBtu)

38 Those imams have flown in America many, many times before. They know exactly what is acceptable behaviour on a plane and what kind of behaviour will get them tossed off a plane.

Anyone who claims they wern't deliberately trying to get thrown off is a liar or an asshole. Either that, or a lying asshole, which is even worse.

Americans just aren't stupid or complacent ebough to buy leftist bullshit about discrimination against oppressed muslim jihadis anymore. This isn't the first time islamopitheicine agitators were thrown off a plane just as they had planned, and it wont be the last. When koranimals deliberately act like terrorists, they will be removed from flights and investigated.

I suggest all you moonbat traitors get used to it, becuase the rest of us are going to ensure that's what happens every single time.

And you know what? There's not a damn thing you pussies can do about it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 22, 2006 11:33 PM (bLPT+)

39 "Puddle duck: please send your novel to a publisher not a comments section I cant even read it.
Posted by: DAT at November 22, 2006 07:08 AM"

Just scroll to the bottom of a long post and if you see "PuddleDuck", just ignore it.

I knew you could do it.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 23, 2006 10:22 AM (/DYyZ)

40 How is it that these muslims were intentionally acting up, and that's what got them tossed off the plane?

Did I miss something, or are you guys reading between the lines, again, to try to spin this incident to make it look like it was the muslims fault?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 22, 2006 11:33 PM

On another rant, again, huh, Jeff?

It's Thanksgiving.

Say your prayers (in english, of course - we wouldn't want anyone to think that you were planning to highjack an airplane, now would we?),
take one of your happy pills and try to chill out for the rest of the day.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 23, 2006 10:31 AM (/DYyZ)

41 I know that this is going to be a extreme statement.
Having said that, let's all be thankful on this day that we have rigths, afforded to us by the constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise none of us would be here arguing this at all. Those rights need to protected, At All Cost.
Happy Thanksgiving To All Of You And All Your Hold Dear.

Have no fear, we'll live to debate another day.

Posted by: No Fear at November 23, 2006 11:21 AM (ZQepB)

42 Our rights under the constitution and bill of rights will begin to be restored, beginning in January, and fully restored in 2009.

And we won't have to share them with the neogoons, since they will have all moved to the mountains and stocked up with food and ammo, awaiting the inevitable muslim onslaught.

Damn that Nancy Pelosi!! (well, you know it can't be President Moron's fault).

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 23, 2006 11:51 AM (/DYyZ)

43 PiddleDick and Fear Monger:

You two didn't have to tell me you were lying assholes. I already knew that. Hell, everybody here knows that.

Meanwhile, real Americans will continue to eject jihadis from flights and you two will continue to piss and moan impotently.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 24, 2006 09:49 PM (bLPT+)

44 I think that no fear wears a barka.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 10:40 PM (aghaS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 13, 2006

Simpsons Jump the Shark (Updated)

I've enjoyed "The Simpsons" for years.

But last night, emboldened by the Democrat victory in the midterm elections, Matt Groening and the other writers let America know just how they feel about the folks who protect us with their lives. They disagree with John Kerry, but only because Kerry didn't go far enough in betraying our soldiers.

Update: Hot Air has video. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:16 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Its all a part of the "If we say it so many times, maybe they will believe it's true" mentality of the left. Just like all of their campaign jargon. Unfortunatly alot of people are believing this crud as aposed to thinking for themselves.

Posted by: ApexBill at November 13, 2006 11:43 AM (d6FxI)

2 I've never watched the Simpsons. "Why would anyone want to watch this trash" would be a better question?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 13, 2006 12:43 PM (8PoNP)

3 Jumped the shark is exactly the phrase that came to mind last night when I saw the disgraceful Vietnam-era-style troop bashing.

F' the Simpsons.

Posted by: Yojimbo at November 13, 2006 12:51 PM (APTyk)

4 Family Guy even worse...From a reader at www.michellemalkin.com
I wanted to bring to your attention a couple of outrageous clips from the November 5th episode of Family Guy. The family is shown having a discussion about the son possibly joining the Army. The mother is opposed to the idea. The father answers that the Army is great because you can get "money for college, free food and all the brown people you can rape." A bit later in the scene, the baby (who speaks) says "the bottom 10% of our high school class is off to fight another battle."

Posted by: WVUinMN at November 13, 2006 01:06 PM (UdJCa)

5 Yes Bluto,
In that regard I find their show jaded.
South Park, however, helps clean the palate so to speak :-)

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 13, 2006 01:29 PM (pJzYI)

6 This is nothing new to the Simpson's. They have been trying for years to morph themselves into the liberal version of South Park ala Jon Stewart. Most of it has been simply annoying (claiming we jail patriotic dissidents like Michael Moore or mocking the "occupation" of Iraq in the recent Halloween special). However they have really gone off the deep end with this latest episode which, I wouldnâ€™t even have seen if the restaurant I was at didnâ€™t leave it on after the football game ended.

The fact of the matter is the show has just plain sucked for about 4-5 years. I am an obsessive Simpson's fan with all the accompanying DVD's and even a decaying collection of VHS' taped off TV. In its prime it was a witty show with few equals but it has fallen off tremendously.

This "new" (2-3 years old) attempt to reframe the show as a far-left version of South Park is obviously a last gasp. If it was truly funny I imagine it might still attract an audience. I don't know of any of the old school Simpson's dorks like myself who can even stand the show now. Not because it is liberal but simply because it is NOT funny anymore.

Posted by: Texag03 at November 13, 2006 01:36 PM (s+8EU)

7 This is nothing new to the Simpson's. They have been trying for years to morph themselves into the liberal version of South Park ala Jon Stewart. Most of it has been simply annoying (claiming we jail patriotic dissidents like Michael Moore or mocking the "occupation" of Iraq in the recent Halloween special). However they have really gone off the deep end with this latest episode which, I wouldnâ€™t even have seen if the restaurant I was at didnâ€™t leave it on after the football game ended.

The fact of the matter is the show has just plain sucked for about 4-5 years. I am an obsessive Simpson's fan with all the accompanying DVD's and even a decaying collection of VHS' taped off TV. In its prime it was a witty show with few equals but it has fallen off tremendously.

This "new" (2-3 years old) attempt to reframe the show as a far-left version of South Park is obviously a last gasp. If it was truly funny I imagine it might still attract an audience. I don't know of any of the old school Simpson's dorks like myself who can even stand the show now. Not because it is liberal but simply because it is NOT funny anymore.

Posted by: Texag03 at November 13, 2006 01:36 PM (s+8EU)

8 I sent Fox an e-mail this morning letting them know they have lost a viewer.
What a disgrace. Here is the e-mail address if anyone else in interested in letting them know how they feel.
askfox@foxinc.com

Posted by: Steve O. at November 13, 2006 01:59 PM (CLQNo)

9 Grow up pussy, most of them did greet us as liberators, but we still had to take out the Saddam run military and infrastructure. Warfare is funny like that. Ask the French in '44.

Posted by: Cdat at November 13, 2006 02:04 PM (1ISxl)

10 > recruitment goals have been met consistently in the real world

Here is a good analogy...

If I set a "goal" of bedding 20 women a month, I would probably not meet my goal. If I lowered my "goal" to 1 or 2 a month, I would most likely make my goal.
Both the "goals" and the minimum education requirements keep dropping lower and lower every month.

As for the perception of "evil" don't blame Homer, he is a fictional charactor just like Murphy Brown.

If you want to blame someone for the perception that the soldiers are "evil" Blame the "Brave Heros" at Haditha, My Lai or Kent State.

Bush got the message from the people after the election... why can't you?

Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell: TAKE YOUR WAR AND GO TO HELL!!

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 02:10 PM (T4HwR)

11 Grow up you pussy. It's a joke. They told us we would be greeted as liberators. We had to invade. They were making weapons of mass disintegration.

Posted by: George Ramos at November 13, 2006 02:16 PM (wkRws)

12 Well, it's true.

Posted by: Ryan at November 13, 2006 02:28 PM (2OYFk)

13 Now where did I see this kind of outrage over a cartoon before?

Perhaps down the road Mort Walker will be receiving mysterious envelopes of powder for his treasonous depections of the military..

Posted by: MyPetGloat at November 13, 2006 02:33 PM (06Exb)

14 OK Howie, lets talk about your "hersos" and the ever lowering education standards you confirm with your typo tirade.

1. How was Iraq responsible for 9/11?

2. Where are the WMD?

3. Why is the worlds greatest superpower getting its ass kicked by thugs with pipebombs to the point that they must murder un-armed civillians to "pad their stats" ???

Don't get me wrong, I am thankfull for the brave heroes defending Halliburtons freedom to gouge. Without your raping of your fellow soldiers and shooting cruise missles in to Kirkuk elementary schools, we would have never won the House and Senate. So PLEASE keep up the good work, if you don't keep shooting your own soldiers (Like Pat Tillman) we may not win the White House in 2008.

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 04:03 PM (T4HwR)

15 Here is a list for you Howie:

1.) Tara Burkhart - Raped by a fellow US soldier who was never prosecuted

2.) Jennifer Dyer - Raped by a fellow US soldier who was never prosecuted

3.) Sharon Mixon - Raped by a fellow US soldier who was never prosecuted

4.) Sally Griffiths - Raped by a fellow US soldier who was never prosecuted

5.) Timothy McVeigh Army Sergent - OKC Bomber

6.) Charles Whitman - Marine - Austin Bell Tower Sniper

7.) Jeffrey Dahmer - US Army - Cannibal/Mass Murderer

8.) John Allen Muhammad Army Sergent - DC sniper

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 04:08 PM (T4HwR)

16 The Army is having to turn to more high school dropouts and lower-achieving applicants to fill its ranks, accepting hundreds of recruits in recent months who would have been rejected a year ago, according to Army statistics.

--- NY Times

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 04:13 PM (T4HwR)

17 MyPetGloat:
Perhaps when someone gets maimed, or dies from cartoon 'outrage' that would be a valid comparison.

WiseGuy:
If you want to blame someone for the perception that the soldiers are "evil" Blame the "Brave Heros" at Haditha, My Lai or Kent State.

Haditha is a non-issue, no one has been tried.
However, perception of the many, is done by the acts of a few now? so should I now think all Teachers are child molesters, due to the fact I've seen 5 arrested in the news, all Police are racist abusers, because I saw the Rodney King video? see how that works?

As for your requirements dropping, can you tell me when the Military dropped their requirement for a High School degree?

Posted by: davec at November 13, 2006 04:40 PM (QkWqQ)

18 I've go some of Wiseguys brave hersos for you right here.

)

Name: Barea Nafie Dawoud Ibrahim

Nationality: Iraqi

Group: Ansar al-Sunnah

Release date of execution video: 02-10-2004

2)

Name: Luqman Hussein

Nationality: Iraqi-Kurdish

Group: Ansar al-Sunnah

Release date of execution video: 11-10-2004

3)

Name: Hussein Shanoun

Nationality: Iraqi

Group: Ansar al-Sunnah

Release date of execution video: 03-11-2004

4)

Name: Hussein Jassem Mohammad al-Zubaidi

Nationality: Iraqi

Group: Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Release date of execution video: 21-01-2005

5)

Name: Ahmad Alwan Hussein al-Mahmadawi

Nationality: Iraqi

Group: Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Release date of execution video: 21-01-2005 (same video like that before)

6)

Name: Mohammed Mutawalli

Nationality: Egyptian

Group: Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad

Release date of execution video: 10-08-2004

7)

Name: Jack Hensley

Nationality: American

Group: Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad

Release date of execution video: 21-09-2004

Name: Abbas Dahel Majid al-Obeidi

Nationality: unknown

Group: Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Release date of execution video: 22-10-2005

9)

Name: Eugene Armstrong

Nationality: American

Group: Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad

Release date of execution video: 20-09-2004

Perceived evil my ass, this is fucking real evil you jackass

If wise guy wants to see it email Howie. You watch that and tell me who's on the side of good and who's evil you fucking retard.

Posted by: Howie at November 13, 2006 04:45 PM (D3+20)

19 Remeber we punish war crimes they get a medal for murder. All thos people were beheaded alive.
The MSM calls that "signs of torture"

Posted by: Howie at November 13, 2006 04:46 PM (D3+20)

20 O.K.

Jump the shark? What are you all mad!?

This is satire folks in case you forgot. Last I remember it was as American as apple pie.

sat‧ire /ˈsÃ¦taɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sat-ahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€“noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
[Origin: 1500â€“10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate)]

â€”Synonyms 1. See irony1. 2, 3. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty. Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose: Swift's satire of human pettiness and bestiality. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack: lampoons of the leading political figures.

Posted by: Sharky Too at November 13, 2006 05:11 PM (Y6uq5)

21 Howie, nice post... but I didn't see any answers to my questions in there.

1. How was Iraq responsible for 9/11?

2. Where are the WMD?

3. Why is the worlds greatest superpower getting its ass kicked by thugs with pipebombs to the point that they must murder un-armed civillians to "pad their stats" ???

Here are one more:

How many US casualties are due to humvee wrecks, friendly fire and helicopter crashes in comparison to the number killed by actual enemy fire?

Our best and brightest?

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 05:21 PM (T4HwR)

22 I didn't see the show as I rarely watch the Simpsons anymore, BUT didn't Groehning (sp) stop actively writing the show years ago? I though he was bought out and moved on to write Futurama, etc.

So the creator may not be to blame, just the current producers/writers/staff. The anti-military war comments in here make me sick. You people are ignorant. We have the most honorable and capable military in the history of this fine country and arguably of the civilized world.

We are in the midst of a moral and right war against pure evil. Those that cannot see it are truly alarming to me. Shame on Fox and the Simpsons. Shame on ignorant and foolish Americans.

Posted by: Howie2 at November 13, 2006 05:26 PM (C5YSc)

23 It's funny cause it's true.

When are you guys going to figure out you've been wrong about the war all this time?

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, you know.

Posted by: Dan at November 13, 2006 06:29 PM (SaN+5)

24 This is why we don't watch Simpsons or Family Guy. Matt Groening has hit a new low.

Posted by: RepJ at November 13, 2006 07:04 PM (jcCc5)

25 You, guys must really be smarting from the election to get so angry at a cartoon. Wow, doesn't take much huh?

This article was written by a muck raking hack and is simply trying to get you spun up against a non-existent enemy.

Remember, when you're angry, the political puppeteers have total control over you. Dance little puppet dance.

Speaking of getting children to sign up for the military. My 14 year old nephew is approached daily with military recruitment offers. They keep telling him "think about the military as a career". "You don't want to go to college, Do you really want to go to school for 10 more years? The military offers you a job and a career the day you graduate" This is despicable behavior. What the military does is get 17 year olds to sign delayed entry contracts then the more kids they get to sign up, the higher their starting rank and pay. So, in effect, the military recruiters can say they aren't recruiting yet, they have their contracted enlisted folks do it for them.

Why do we have military recruitment booths in our high schools after all? It's to get the young folks setup before they start college.

Sure, the military is a good job for some, but to tell kids that they don't want to waste time in college and go to war is UNAMERICAN!

Posted by: LabRat at November 13, 2006 07:06 PM (4JE2y)

26

Oh look, it's a LIBERAL BOOGEY MAN!

Posted by: LabRat at November 13, 2006 07:14 PM (4JE2y)

27 3. Why is the worlds greatest superpower getting its ass kicked by thugs with pipebombs to the point that they must murder un-armed civillians to "pad their stats" ???

Only someone ignorant of history would ask why Guerilla warfare brings a conventional military to it's knees, it has in every insurgency -- good example Russia, in Afghanistan.
When I re-read your complete sentence about "murdering un-armed civilians" I then realized you probably are dumber than a box of rocks.

Posted by: davec at November 13, 2006 07:53 PM (QkWqQ)

28 Wiseguy:
15 Here is a list for you Howie:

1.) Tara Burkhart - Raped by a fellow US soldier who was never prosecuted
[..]

Why don't you post your profession, and let's see how many rapists, murders and thugs share it, then we can compare you to them to.
I swear, this blog is getting overrun with idiots.

Posted by: davec at November 13, 2006 07:57 PM (QkWqQ)

29 You're right, davec, about being overun with idiots, but it goes with the territory. You do a great job of exposing their stupidity for the World to see.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 13, 2006 08:27 PM (8PoNP)

30 The great value of a thread like this is that it exposes elitist turncoat pussies like Wiseguy, and bald-faced liars like Labrat, who says his fourteen year old is being recruited. Right, what does your wife, Morgan Fairchild, whom you've slept with, think of that?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 13, 2006 08:52 PM (vBK4C)

31 DaveC said:
"Why don't you post your profession, and let's see how many rapists, murders and thugs share it"

People in my profession, as is the case with most others, are PROSECUTED for rape, in the US Military they are PROMOTED.

By the way, how is the hunt for Osama going? Did you find him in Iraq?

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 09:06 PM (T4HwR)

32 wiseguy:
You're a waste of space, in a database table that could be used for something much better.
You might invest your time better by taking some of that pent up frustration from your raisin sized balls and hit some porn sites instead, troll.

Posted by: davec at November 13, 2006 10:20 PM (QkWqQ)

33 Wow, the fact that the moonbats have come out in such force in this topic shows that it must've hit a nerve.

I only saw the last half of the episode and thought it was just dumb. But as most of the regulars have already said, it's been at least 3 years since Simpsons has been good.

Wiseguy: promoted for rape? Examples and sources please. This isn't the French Army c. 1800. Most of my buddies have gotten multiple details just for singing an 'offensive' cadence, so I can imagine they'd disappear to Levenworth pretty quick if they actually raped someone.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 13, 2006 10:50 PM (VvXII)

34 Ranba Ral: maybe wiseguy has a point. Didn't Clinton get promoted to Commander-in-Chief after Juanita Broadderick?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 13, 2006 11:08 PM (vBK4C)

35 Hey not-so-wise guy wasn't Clinton an alleged rapist? He was "promoted" to the presidency by moron jackasses like you.

Posted by: Monica at November 13, 2006 11:11 PM (N2FRq)

36 Wiseguy [more like ignoramus and a lying malicious one at that]

To try to portray all coalition personnel to be the same as a few bad apples who disgraced themselves is a manifest travesty.

How about mentioning the medics, doctors, and medivac personnel who knowingly walk into harms way just to help save the innocent Iraqi's whom your filthy worthless subhuman Jihadi buddies blow up with their IED's?

How about mentioning reconstruction of schools in Afghanistan by the U.S. and NATO personnel? The schools that your mother-loving Taliban brothers purposely attacked because in your f**ked up pseudo-religion you don't want girls to receive an education?

Wiseguy, you are not worth the oxygen that you waste.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 13, 2006 11:16 PM (pJzYI)

37 heh, true that Bluto.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 13, 2006 11:45 PM (VvXII)

38 After reading all of the intelligent, articulate, and correctly spelled insults I have seen the error of my ways.

You are absolutely right god bless the brave heroes who murder for oil, rape for free and pave the way for Halliburton.

Can't wait for the impeachment to begin.

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 13, 2006 11:57 PM (T4HwR)

39 You bitches were the first to bitch about the Muslims complaining over the Danish cartoons, yet here you all are crying over an episode of The Simpsons and Family Guy. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y, fucktards? It's satire, get the fuck over it or stop complaining when Muslims get upset over the Danish cartoons when you guys have a soft spot as well.

Seriously get a fucking life you war geeks.

And as for Garduneh Mehr, since you're a Persian, perhaps you should go get yourself a nosejob and schedule an appointment for your laser hair removal, since we all know how hairy and greasy you fucks are. Talking all tough online yet you would be scared like the little bitch you are in person. No different from the e-jihadis haha. Go back to managing those gas stations in West Covina.

Posted by: Meh at November 14, 2006 12:13 AM (IUgqk)

40 USA has fucked up, plain and simple,courtesy of Bush and any MORON who re elected him.Youll be sweeping up the mess for decades. Sometimes the truth is just too hard to face.The most ignorant voting population on earth.

Posted by: pflo at November 14, 2006 12:17 AM (NFwHw)

41 "Both the "goals" and the minimum education requirements keep dropping lower and lower every month"

Bullshit - pull another one out of your ass douchebag.

Posted by: Max Power at November 14, 2006 01:16 AM (PM8kH)

42 Meh:
As you obviously know there is a difference between "complaining" and "rioting", the Muslims did the later -- five people were killed in Afghanistan and riots in other countries caused damage to property.

Any other apples, you want to compare to oranges?

Posted by: davec at November 14, 2006 01:46 AM (QkWqQ)

43 Hey Dickwad meh - when we cut off Matt Groening's head and call for the death of all the western cartoonists then you little H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y rant might mean something.

Until then STFU!

Posted by: Max Power at November 14, 2006 01:47 AM (PM8kH)

44 Max, Dave, give the kids a break. After all, we did take the proverbial wizz in their Cherrios by asking for facts andn common sense instead of empty rhetoric. Don't we know that's against the rules?!

Plus Bluto and I made a swipe at THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVAR, which I'm sure didn't help matters any.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 14, 2006 02:08 AM (VvXII)

45 Max:
He evidently likes 8bit computer games, and I cannot fault him for that

Posted by: davec at November 14, 2006 02:13 AM (QkWqQ)

46 davec -

Someone probably has answered your question, but if so here it is again.

"As for your requirements dropping, can you tell me when the Military dropped their requirement for a High School degree?

Posted by: davec "

"Published on October 4, 2005 by Knight Ridder

Army Moves to Recruit More High School Dropouts
by Joseph Galloway

WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards.

Until Army recruiters began having trouble signing up enough recruits earlier this year, the Army had set minimum standards that were higher than those of the Defense Department.

The Army has a recruiting shortfall of 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers over the past 12 months. It hasn't fallen so short of its annual goal since 1979, several years after the Vietnam war.

Harvey and Cody addressed the recruiting issue in news conferences during the annual convention of the Association of the U.S. Army.

The Department of Defense "standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 (the higher end of testing) and 4 percent Category 4," the lowest end, Harvey said. "The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4." It now would use the Defense Department guidelines, he said.

Cody said that increasing the number of people with General Education Diplomas allowed to enlist in the Army wasn't really a lowering of standards. GEDs are certificates granted in lieu of high school diplomas to dropouts who can pass an examination.

The Army's figures show 6.5 percent of all enlisted soldiers held GED certificates at the end of 2004, the last year statistics were available. The Army plans to keep its limit on new soldiers with GEDs at 10 percent in any year.

Harvey said the Army was working hard to resolve its recruitment problem.

He said the number of soldiers on recruiting duty is increasing from 9,000 to 12,000, and the Army is asking Congress to increase enlistment bonuses from a maximum of $20,000 to a new limit of $40,000 for some who choose branches where there are shortages. The advertising budget for the Army was being boosted by $130 million.

The problem, Harvey said, is "a combination of three factors: a good economy, the war in Iraq and parents reluctant to see their sons and daughters enlist" because of the war.

He confirmed that the recruiting shortfall was affecting the Army's plans to temporarily increase troop strength of the active force by 30,000.

The Army secretary said the long-term Army plan was to increase the operational Army, the soldiers who fight, from the current 315,000 to 350,000, while maintaining today's total strength of 482,000.

By comparison, in 1980 the U.S. Army's active-duty strength was 780,000.

Cody said there was bad news and good news on manpower. "We didn't make our goal in recruiting," Cody said. "But we reached 108 percent of our goal in retaining those soldiers already in the Army."

That means that the soldiers who come in the Army "stay with us," Cody said. He added that even after a combat tour and on the eve of heading back to Iraq, soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) re-enlisted at a rate that was double what the Army had hoped to achieve.

Cody said that if the enlistment numbers had been met this year, there might have been an end to the involuntary extensions of the enlistments of thousands of soldiers".

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1004-01.htm

And then there is this more recent article -

"U.S. is recruiting misfits for army
Felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks

Nick Turse

Sunday, October 1, 2006

* Printable Version
* Email This Article

Opinion

.Main Opinion Page
.Chronicle Sunday Insight
.Chronicle Campaigns

SF Chronicle Submissions
.Letters to the Editor
.Open Forum
.Sunday Insight

After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military's achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.

But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military -- that "co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology" that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

While the secretary of defense's longstanding goal of transforming the planet's most powerful military into its highest-tech, most agile, most futuristic fighting force has, in the words of the Washington Post's David VonDrehle, "melted away," the very makeup of the armed forces has been mutating before our collective eyes under the pressure of the war in Iraq. This actual transformation has been reported, but only in scattered articles on the new recruitment landscape in America.

Last year, despite NASCAR, professional bull-riding and Arena Football sponsorships, popular video games that doubled as recruiting tools, TV commercials dripping with seductive scenes of military glory, a "joint marketing communications and market research and studies" program designed to attract, among others, dropouts and those with criminal records for military service, and at least $16,000 in promotional costs for each soldier it managed to sign up, the U.S. military failed to meet its recruiting goals.

This year, those methods have been pumped up and taken over the top in several critical areas that make the old Army ad tagline, "Be All You Can Be," into material for late-night TV punch lines of the future.

In 2004, the Pentagon published a "Moral Waiver Study," whose seemingly benign goal was "to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success." That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was "a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms 'serious criminal misconduct' in their background" -- a category that included "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of "recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records." In fact, as the military's own data indicated, "the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001."

One beneficiary of the Army's new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been "a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder."

Recently, Eli Flyer, a former Pentagon senior military analyst and specialist on the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct, told Harper's magazine that Green had "enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, although this offense may not have been known to the Army when he enlisted."

With Green in jail awaiting trial, the Houston Chronicle reported in August that Army recruiters were trolling around the outskirts of a Dallas-area job fair for ex-convicts.

"We're looking for high school graduates with no more than one felony on their record," one recruiter said.

The Army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits -- in one reported case, they went to a "youth prison" in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated, he was "barely 17 when he enlisted last January" and his divorced parents say "recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him."

While confusion exists about whether the boy's mother actually signed a parental consent form allowing her son to enlist, his "father apparently wasn't even at the signing, but his name is on the form too."

Law enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos," the Chicago Sun-Times reports, "because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity maybe rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities."

Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond -- and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when Marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment." While this recruit was eventually booted from the Corps, a Milwaukee police detective and Army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be Marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons."

Earlier this year, it was reported that an expected transfer of 10,000 to 20,000 troops to Fort Bliss, Texas, caused FBI and local law enforcement to fear a turf war between "members of the FolkNation gang ... (and) a criminal group that is already well-established in the area, Barrio Azteca." The New York Sun wrote that, according to one FBI agent, "FolkNation, which was founded in Chicago and includes several branches using the name Gangster Disciples, has gained a foothold in the Army."

Another type of gang member has also begun to proliferate within the military, evidently thanks to lowered recruitment standards and an increasing tendency of recruiters to look the other way. In July, a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, found that because of pressing manpower concerns, "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" are now serving in the military. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report.

The New York Times noted that the neo-Nazi magazine Resistance is actually recruiting for the U.S. military, urging "skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units." As the magazine explained, "The coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war. ... It will be house-to-house ... until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "

Apparently, the recruiting push has worked. Barfield reported that he and other investigators have identified a network of neo-Nazi active-duty Army and Marine personnel spread across five military installations in five states. "They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said.

Little wonder that Aryan Nation graffiti is now apparently competing for space with American inner-city gang graffiti in Iraq.

In the latter half of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military started to crumble from within and American troops began scrawling "UUUU" on their helmet liners -- an abbreviation that stood for "the unwilling, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful."

With a growing majority of Americans opposed to the war in Iraq and even ardent hawks refusing to enlist in droves, new policies creating a lower-quality officer corps and the Pentagon pulling out ever more stops and sinking to new lows to recruit and train troops, a new all-volunteer generation of UUUU's may emerge -- the underachieving, unable, unexceptional, unintelligent, unsound, unhinged, unacceptable, unhealthy, undesirable, unloved and uncivil -- all led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful.

Current practices suggest this may well be the force of the future. It certainly isn't the new military Rumsfeld's been promising all these years, but there's no denying the depth of the transformation."

http://tinyurl.com/khj8f

A simple Google provides a wealth of facts.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 14, 2006 06:21 AM (qBTkS)

47 "Only someone ignorant of history would ask why Guerilla warfare brings a conventional military to it's knees, it has in every insurgency -- good example Russia, in Afghanistan.
When I re-read your complete sentence about "murdering un-armed civilians" I then realized you probably are dumber than a box of rocks.

Posted by: davec "

Yep, Bush had plenty of examples of how to lose a war, but he jumped into Iraq anyway.

The French and the Americans had no possibility of winning a war in Vietnam.

The Russians in Afghanistan, the more recent example.

If Bush had brought in his daddy's advisors in 2002, we wouldn't be in this mess, unless he had chosen to ignore their advice, also.

Do I have to say it, again? Guess so.

If Bush had been smart, studied hard and done his
homework, he wouldn't have gotten us stuck in Iraq.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 14, 2006 06:35 AM (qBTkS)

48 Not only was Tara Burkhart raped and the rapist never prosecuted, but Tara Burkhart was charged with various military infractions and sent to jail, as her reward for reporting the rape.

I don't know why a woman would want to go into the Army or become a Marine.

They certainly have no respect for women there.

My daughter is a 1st Lt and the safety officer at the Coast Guard station in Galveston.

She has not had any of these problems with men trying to rape her, although she should be a prime target, since she is petite blond and blue eyes.

Maybe there is a different mentality in the Coast Guard, than the Marines or Army.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 14, 2006 06:52 AM (qBTkS)

49 Now, that's rich!!!

Idiot #1 congratulating idiot #2.

"You're right, davec, about being overun with idiots, but it goes with the territory. You do a great job of exposing their stupidity for the World to see.
Posted by: jesusland joe"

It's a blog, guys, not a competition to determine which of the 2 of you is the bigger idiot.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 14, 2006 06:55 AM (qBTkS)

50 I believe he was talking about you and your ilk, fuddleduck. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would be advantageous for you. It sure couldn't hurt. Because you're reaching, boy, you're reaching!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 10:06 AM (8PoNP)

Wasn't puddleduck one of the ones claiming to be a Vietnam veteran? I've never met a Vietnam vet who didn't know that the South fell to North Vietnamese regulars backed by Soviet armor, not VC. The VC never fought above company strength after their near annihilation in the Tet Offensive.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 14, 2006 11:18 AM (vBK4C)

52 Puddleduck:
Your two articles from the Liberal sites "San Francisco Gate" and "Common Dreams" has me convinced!

a category that included "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

Ever notice how articles like this switch from specific figures to percent, how that works is if you had 40 people in the Military in 2004 on a waiver then had 63 in 2005 you would have at least 50% more, sounds more damning to quote percentile statistics though?

Puddleduck, I have never commented on your service, but looking at you sticking knives in the people serving in the armed forces in every thread I think you must have been quite the Buddy Fucker.

Posted by: davec at November 14, 2006 01:21 PM (QkWqQ)

53 Let's just say most of us would not want to be in a foxhole with fuddlepuck. Having him watch your back would be like.....well, you get the picture.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 01:56 PM (8PoNP)

54 I believe puddleduck said he was an Airborne Ranger, I think he can correct the details of that.

Posted by: davec at November 14, 2006 02:19 PM (QkWqQ)

55 Meh,
You filthy TAAZI worthless Mo-slime, for your information I am a scientist (Ph.D.) employed in defence industry in North America. Oh yes, I work on systems that allied forces employ to dispatch your worthless fellow Jihadist ilk to the infernal regions whence you came. Oh yes! I love my f**king job! I could get myself a 25% raise by working for a different employer, but I'd rather keep working where I am owing to the unparalleled job satisfaction. That is, the satisfaction of knowing that in my own small way (albeit insignificant next to the coalition service personnel) I am doing my part! In addition, it is my privilege to donate from my earnings of this same job to various allied funds from solidersangel to assisting the displaced in Israel to spiritofamerica.
FYI, "TAAZI" is what we Iranian patriots call your Jihadi ilk; it roughly translates "vicious rabid animal".

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 14, 2006 02:27 PM (vixLB)

56 Here is a recap of valid questions posed on this blog, and some of the brilliant responses from the well educated, articulate folks who read this page:

How was Iraq responsible for 9/11?

Davec: "You're a waste of space, in a database table that could be used for something much better."

Where are the WMD?

Davec: "You might invest your time better by taking some of that pent up frustration from your raisin sized balls and hit some porn sites instead, troll."

How is the hunt for Osama going? Did you find him in Iraq?

Garduneh Mehr: "Wiseguy, you are not worth the oxygen that you waste."

How many US casualties are due to humvee wrecks, friendly fire and helicopter crashes in comparison to the number killed by actual enemy fire?

Max Power: "WTF???? Is this real? No one could be this much of a pussy!"

No wonder you dipshits lost the election.

Posted by: Wiseguy at November 14, 2006 08:48 PM (5sF1s)

57 Wiseguy:
I didn't lose any Election?
I also stopped answering your questions after I figured out you were a troll, with your strawman questions, you bravely attack.

Posted by: davec at November 14, 2006 09:51 PM (QkWqQ)

58 "I believe he was talking about you and your ilk, fuddleduck. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would be advantageous for you. It sure couldn't hurt. Because you're reaching, boy, you're reaching!
Posted by: jesusland joe"

Thanks for the compiment. I am now a proud member of an ilk.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 04:24 AM (qBTkS)

59 "Wasn't puddleduck one of the ones claiming to be a Vietnam veteran? I've never met a Vietnam vet who didn't know that the South fell to North Vietnamese regulars backed by Soviet armor, not VC. The VC never fought above company strength after their near annihilation in the Tet Offensive.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto"

I believe that you have me confused with someone else, except for the part about me "claiming" to be a VietNam vet.

Be that as it may, your argument is irrelevent.

We were not going to win the VietNam war, no matter who you think we were fighting and how many of our soldiers were sent there.

Ho Chi Minh was determined to win, at all cost.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 04:57 AM (qBTkS)

60 "I believe puddleduck said he was an Airborne Ranger, I think he can correct the details of that.
Posted by: davec"

Wrong again, davec.

Nothing to correct.

I never claimed to have been an "Airborne Ranger", only "Airborne".

I said I was a member of the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, from April 1964 thru August 1966 and was only a parachutist (not a senior parachutist or jumpmaster - do you know the difference?).

The "Airborne" designation is earned by competing 3 weeks of training at a jump school (for me that was at Ft. Benning).

The Ranger, Recondo and Pathfinder designations are earned by completing additional training and is usually offered to those who have an MOS of 11BxP, or similar, where 'x' = proficiency level and "P" = "parachutist".

Once you successfully complete the training, you are allowed to wear the Ranger patch on your right shoulder above your unit patch. The Recondo patch was worn on one of the shirt pockets, I believe and I can't remember where the Pathfinder patch was worn (a chevron worn above the Recondo patch?)

I would not have taken any of that additional training, since it would not have been related to my MOS.

Many of the guys seemed to find the Airborne training difficult as 2 thirds of the class failed to complete the training and dropped out, prior to graduation.

Learned that the guys that swam 5 miles before breakfast (Navy UDT), couldn't run.

Maybe they had been out of basic training and were out of shape.

You know the terminology for dropping out of training, if you saw "An Officer and a Gentleman". The term is "DOR" or dropped, on request.

Since the training was voluntary, you could drop out anytime you liked.

Maybe it had something to do with the 3rd week?

And, for many, the 2nd week did them in.

34 feet is a long way up, when you are up there looking down (one short, sargent!!).

And 250 ft is even scarier, as you feet dangle in the breeze at 250 feet above the ground.

And it doesn't help that you just witnessed a member of the cadre climb one of those towers to help a student climb down, that got blown into a tower when the wind shifted as he was being dropped, and is now hanging on for dear life.

It also doesn't help when you see the result of failure to "rig and run, all around", where the clips, on the specially modified chutes were not all connected properly to the the "ring".

The jumper, "in the air", gets a surprise, as those clips come loose, one by one, after he reaches the top of the tower, until he is left with an uninflated chute, above his head, and he has to be lowered to the ground on the cable.

If you have ever tried skydiving, then you would know what it's like to jump out of a "perfectly good airplane".

Tried the skydiving thing too.

It was a little scarier than jumping out of a side door of a C130, C123, C119 or C124.

We had to climb out onto the locked wheel of a Cessna, while holding onto the right wing strut at 3000 feet, and push off backwards.

Learned how easy it was to fall thru your suspension lines, while your main chute is deploying.

But was able to use some training that I never had to use, while in the Airborne.

And that would be to cut away the main and pull the reserve.

At 1250 feet, your reserve chute is practically worthless, if you have a malfunction, since you have only 9 seconds from the time you jump out until you hit the ground, with a complete malfunction.

Doesn't give you much time to cut away the main and pull the reserve (and don't even think about pulling the reserve, before cutting away the main).

During the first 3 seconds, you are falling to the end of your static line, your main chute should be deploying from the deployment bag and your canopy inflating, breaking the 80 lb test line that connects your static line to the apex of your main chute.

You have about 2 seconds to verify that you have a fully inflated canopy over your head.

You've already use up 5 seconds of the 9 seconds, that you have left.

If you have a canopy that you can ride down, even with the risk of injury, you had better keep what you have got, since you, most likely, don't have the time to cut away your main and pull your reserve and expect the reserve to fully inflate, by the time you hit the ground.

The ex-special forces instructor warned me that I would be the most difficult to train, in the skydiving class.

Can you figure out, why?

Probably only an ex-paratrooper would know the answer.

A "leg" sure as hell would not know the answer.

And don't forget to check your cantelope.

Queer, Sargent, acorn!!

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 06:27 AM (qBTkS)

61 "Let's just say most of us would not want to be in a foxhole with fuddlepuck. Having him watch your back would be like.....well, you get the picture.
Posted by: jesusland joe "

Yep, and I wouldn't want to turn my back on you, expecially while you are holding that jar of Vaseline.

After all, you are a Republican, in the "ilk" of Mark Folley, aren't you?

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 06:36 AM (qBTkS)

62 "Puddleduck:
Your two articles from the Liberal sites "San Francisco Gate" and "Common Dreams" has me convinced!

a category that included "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

Ever notice how articles like this switch from specific figures to percent, how that works is if you had 40 people in the Military in 2004 on a waiver then had 63 in 2005 you would have at least 50% more, sounds more damning to quote percentile statistics though?

Puddleduck, I have never commented on your service, but looking at you sticking knives in the people serving in the armed forces in every thread I think you must have been quite the Buddy Fucker.

Posted by: davec "

Wrong again dave.

I am not sticking knives into the backs of our soldiers.

Just contradicting your "facts".

You would be better off if you would do some research, before posting, instead of just pulling shit out of your ass.

Maybe one of your buds can show you how to use Google. It's so simple, even you can learn how to use it. Or not.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 06:44 AM (qBTkS)

63 "No wonder you dipshits lost the election.
Posted by: Wiseguy "

Put them all together and they can't come up with one coherent thought, between them.

Pretty sad.

What next? Does my mother wear army shoes?

Well, actually, she was an army MP, during WWII, so she did wear army shoes.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 06:48 AM (qBTkS)

64 Puddleduck, speaking of "coherent thoughts", it would be useful for you to take your own advise.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 12:29 PM (8PoNP)

65 PuddleDuck:
You do not have to post any details to convince me, I have never questioned if you served or not.

Which facts would you be contradicting there puddleduck? you did not disagree about Guerrilla warfare so I assume it is this:

As for your requirements dropping, can you tell me when the Military dropped their requirement for a High School degree?

You are ex-Military so you understand there are waivers for certain individuals to join. If you are going to claim that I am incorrect with a fact, I do not want to see a "commondreams" or "sfgate" URL, please show me Department of Defence policy on their site where it says you no longer require the above? not some hippy or Liberal mag -- thanks.

Posted by: davec at November 15, 2006 12:36 PM (QkWqQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 04, 2006

Kerry Unapologizes, Reinsults Troops, Fellow Democrats

Apparently still stuck in a sixties timewarp, John Kerry's official website is now saying, "It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way.":

Although there are plenty of well-educated people in our armed forces -- Kerry was one of them -- military service has long been an opportunity employer for those with less education and fewer skills than they need to work in the private sector. Indeed, the military sells itself as a place to garner skills and to help pay for higher education.
And wars, including this one, are often fought by those less privileged -- albeit no less smart -- than the sons and daughters of those who lead us into them.
Apologies? Sure, from the cut-and-run Democratic candidates who've cancelled appearances with Kerry.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:14 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 So, the question is "did Kerry's gaffe help or hurt the Democrats or GOP?"

Despite round-the-clock coverage of John Kerryâ€™s Iraq gaffe this week and non-stop rallies in which the President paints Democrats as weak-on-terror tax lovers, the political momentum has returned to the Democrats. Maybe thatâ€™s because nearly a third of registered voters (32 percent) now say Iraq is the most important issue in deciding their vote. The economy comes in second at 19 percent. And just 12 percent say terrorism, the Republican trump card in the last three elections, is their most important issue. In fact, as millions of Americans fill in their employersâ€™ health-care selection forms for next year, terrorism is statistically tied with health care at 11 percent.

Meanwhile, the Presidentâ€™s approval has fallen back to 35 percent, after a slow but steady rise from 33 percent at the beginning of October to 37 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll last week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15557264/site/newsweek/

Hmmm...seems it didn't hurt the Dems, but the GOP's and Bush's poll numbers keep falling, since the GOP and Bush (and you guys, here), are keeping Bush's failed policy in Iraq number 1 on the voters minds.

Thanks for the help, but we were doing ok, before you helped us on this one with all the talk about Kerry.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 04, 2006 04:26 PM (fMHQi)

2 Your words contradict your actions. If you're so unconcerned about Kerry's slander of our servicepeople, why are you so desperately trying to stifle discussion of it here?

The real question is, "why do Democrats loathe the military?" - this loathing is not new, either; witness the frantic efforts of Dem lawyers to invalidate military absentee ballots in Florida in 2000. Today's Dems loathe the military because it stands in the way of what they need for political success: American defeat in the War on Terror.

Another good question is, "why have we not been attacked in the past five years?" - that's an easy one. We made the choice to move the battlefield from Manhattan to the Middle East, where our military has been successful in eliminating tens of thousands of terrorists, forcing Islamist factions to expend their resources in their own backyards, rather than ours.

My votes will be cast based on which party I consider to be best qualified to perform that most basic of duties: ensuring the safety of the Republic. You could get me to vote Democrat by convincing me that the Dems are concerned, first and foremost, with that duty.

I can guarantee you that the sort of desperate trollish comments that you have specialized in here will not accomplish that objective.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 04, 2006 06:48 PM (vBK4C)

3 Of course puddlefuckhead agrees with Kerry. They are both traitors.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 08:30 PM (cNF2m)

4 PuudleDork:

Your polls said the same thing in 2000, 2002, and 2004. What makes you think they will prove any more accurate this time around?

Thanks for the wake up call, Kerry. A lot of brainwashed Americans needed it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 05, 2006 09:01 AM (bLPT+)

5 I love how every time some bigshot lefturd sticks his foot in his
mouth, and then shoots himself in the foot, all the little lefturds
come out to fling their feces around like the assmonkeys they are. A
good lefturd is a dead one.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 05, 2006 12:21 PM (v3I+x)

6 Kerry is the EXACT reason I've gone from conservative liberal to hell-bent conservative.

He's such a dick.

I, as a veteran of the Army Guard, take SERIOUS offense at this latest load of horseshit. By ignoring that a large number of Guardsmen and Reservists join to pay for college, he just shit on the backbone of the military.

Wow.

I'm beside myself, now.

He quite literally is the gift to republicans that just won't stop giving - regardless of who he pisses off.

What're the chances if the dems take one up the poop-shoot on Tuesday that the jettison him ala Lieberman?

Probably nil, but it's fun to think about.

Posted by: yo at November 06, 2006 01:28 AM (fkcf6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 29, 2006

Sons and Soldiers

Cookie at The Cookshack Gab & Grub writes about two brothers who served in Iraq. One died there. Their mother wants to send a message to America and Cindy Sheehan. Chances are pretty good that you won't hear what this woman has to say from Brian Williams or Katie Couric, so head on over to the Cookshack.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

310kb generated in CPU 0.083, elapsed 0.1372 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0699 seconds, 604 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

March 21, 2007

March 09, 2007

March 05, 2007

March 02, 2007

February 28, 2007

February 27, 2007

February 14, 2007

February 12, 2007

February 11, 2007

February 09, 2007

February 05, 2007

January 30, 2007

January 06, 2007

January 05, 2007

January 03, 2007

December 13, 2006

December 05, 2006

December 04, 2006

November 24, 2006

November 21, 2006

November 13, 2006

November 04, 2006

October 29, 2006

Recent Comments