November 09, 2006
Before Elections:
Poverty, anger with government fueling Taliban support in Afghanistan
After Elections:
Poll: Afghans express confidence in country’s direction, security
Then there's Ace's observation that MSNBC links the Democratic victory to the all time high stock market--never mind the fact that the stock market had broken all time high records for the past two weeks.
Hella good.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:21 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
You are wery educated guys, so, can You help me out and explain? What folks those yews are?
Out of logic, them should not be more than palestinians are.
Look, my granny was telling that yews realy almost at all not a yews but youngest kids of kings and buchers, who did not inherited fair part of business, so called bastards.
Is it true?
Posted by: New Europa at November 09, 2006 04:15 PM (HLUs/)
You are wery educated guys, so, can You help me out and explain? What folks those yews are?
Out of logic, them should not be more than palestinians are.
Look, my granny was telling that yews realy almost at all not a yews but youngest kids of kings and buchers, who did not inherited fair part of business, so called bastards.
Is it true?
Posted by: New Europa at November 09, 2006 04:16 PM (HLUs/)
Now, here's some money-making advice. Invest in gold and especially silver, buy a large generater that runs on natural gas or propane, buy some farmland in the country, buy every gun you ever wanted, lay in a goodly supply of food, and get ready to make money when everybody finally decides they need the same damn things.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2006 05:43 PM (8PoNP)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 09, 2006 07:44 PM (3nKvy)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 09, 2006 07:46 PM (Bwpq7)
You and your allies in the MSM will have a difficult job trying to cover up for the Rangels of the Democratic Pary fringe Left. Frankly, I look forward to having a great time watching you implode and dance around trying to hide the mess.
You see, Prof, you can't control these guys, and what they believe in will not sound so good to most Americans who really have no idea how radical these guys are. I shall have a grand time, as I am already doing.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2006 08:57 PM (8PoNP)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 09, 2006 09:35 PM (UiiiU)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2006 09:46 PM (8PoNP)
"Galileo" isn't proof of evolution. Forget proof, you can't even show me EVIDENCE for evolution.
It's a theory only (and not a very good one).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 09, 2006 10:33 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2006 10:46 PM (8PoNP)
Most of that being demand in Moslem countries.
The price jumped from $12.60 to $13.10 today.
Posted by: Phillep at November 09, 2006 11:37 PM (WbyuY)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 09, 2006 11:37 PM (UiiiU)
Of course adjusted for 6 years of inflation..... not quite so good.
And adjusted against the Euro even worse losing about 1/3 of its value from 2000 to 2006
Posted by: John Ryan at November 09, 2006 11:44 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 12:01 AM (8PoNP)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 10, 2006 12:10 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 10, 2006 12:43 AM (iEtob)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 10, 2006 12:44 AM (iEtob)
ago and the long swim to the surface is never an easy ride. How
long did it take to recover from the crash in 29? Granted that
was worse, but it doesn't happen overnight. Yet, up it has come
steadily and surely. Nothing of course like the false values put
on dot com companies which cause it to soar and then plummet when we
found out the dot come owners were so irresponsible with their new
found wealth. You prefer roller coaster rides? Fine.
They're in Orlando. If you leave now you can be there while the
weather is still good.
Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 12:42 PM (YudAC)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 01:03 PM (eNwl1)
It's a theory only (and not a very good one).
JC--actually Merriam-Webster online defines a theory as:
"A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>."
Typically, the posits put forth by a theory are logically and empirically provable, and can be tested for accuracy multiple times against a set of criteria. In other words, "theories" are not articles of faith, as is religon.
Posted by: Gleep! at November 10, 2006 07:28 PM (a7sMc)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 11, 2006 02:43 AM (eNwl1)
empirically provable, and can be tested for accuracy multiple times
against a set of criteria.
And that's precisely why the "theory" of evolution isn't science, it's faith-- there's no evidence for it, it's not observable, and it can't be tested.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 11, 2006 09:14 AM (8e/V4)
November 08, 2006
The Islamist terrorists probably don't have nukes. The odd dirty bomb and possibly a malfunctioning suitcase bomb or old warhead, but that's a worst case scenario. In the grand scheme of things they are much less dangerous.
We won the Cold War with little help from the Democrats. We can win this one too.
Update: Misha, who is a proud American by choice, chimes in:
We won in spite of the Democrats doing everything they possibly could to aid and comfort the Soviets (see: Kennedy, Ted “*Hic!*â€, among others) and I’m still around, as are all of my kinfolk....It's been awhile since I mentioned that in the first go around of this blog, I called it Nice Jawa.Call me an unabashed optimist, call me anything you like, but having stared at and witnessed the defeat of the Soviets who were some real badasses with means the likes of which Ahmed the Cave-Dwelling Mooselimb Jihadi can’t even dream of, I don’t see us losing to a bunch of ululating, 7th century savages, no matter HOW much the Dhimmis are going to help them.
Quite a good debate going on in the comments section. The kind of debate where long-time lurkers and occasional commenters come out of the woodwork to make very important points. The kind of comments that give me hope that we can keep comments open because they are not controlled by the very people I started this blog to refute. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:45 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Borat at November 08, 2006 11:42 AM (v7DMp)
My guess is that the Dhimmicrats will abandon Iraq, which will promptly be over run by Iran with the excuse of establishing "regional stability". Iran will grab the oil fields and become a Nuclear Superpower (with the help of the IAEA/UN) as well as the worlds 2nd largest oil producer inside of two years.
Posted by: blackflag at November 08, 2006 11:43 AM (Mq5jS)
You realize you just cant have it all.
He’s your oldest and your best friend,
If you need him, hell be there again.
He’s always willing to be second best,
A perfect lodger, a perfect guest.
Beautiful loser, read it on the wall
And realize, you just cant have it all.
...you cant have it all, you cant have it all,
Oh, oh, ... cant have it all.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 11:46 AM (v7DMp)
Posted by: The Wave at November 08, 2006 11:52 AM (v7DMp)
With the wisdom of an old man.
He wants his home and security,
He wants to live like a sailor at sea.
Against the wind album.
Posted by: Howie at November 08, 2006 11:52 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: Wormpaste at November 08, 2006 11:54 AM (rtnQC)
Actually the rapture happens if Hillary is elected.
Posted by: blackflag at November 08, 2006 11:57 AM (Mq5jS)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:58 AM (eNwl1)
You are joking, right?
We won the cold war because the Soviet Union imploded, with no help from cut-and-run Ronnie, although he gets the credit.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".
What a crock of shit.
The wall was coming down, anyway, whether he wanted it to or not.
Or maybe it was his nonexistent "star wars" program that did it?
Billions of US dollars spent on a nonexistent project?
Where did the money really go?
To the Contras, in Nicaragua, perhaps, or was part of it used for payment to Iran for holding the hostages and then releasing them on the first day of his presidency?
Ronnie parted the Red Sea, also.
He just happened to be there when the Red Sea parted, so he can take the credit for that, too, can't he?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 11:58 AM (F+9W9)
The 10 year-old Steiner Ranch Elementary student (in Leander I.S.D. near Austin, Texas) says that he was browsing such sites during his Computer Lab class period when a fellow student informed on him-- as though he were doing something wrong.
"He just ran up to my teacher in front of the whole class, saying he's searching terrorist stuff about 9/11," Mark told Jones.
Mark reports that his teacher was "shocked" and told him that he "shouldn't have been looking at conspiracy theory websites."
Can't wait for an independent investigation into 9-11.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 11:59 AM (v7DMp)
From Harry Truman to Scoop Jackson. From the AFL-CIO's George Meany (whose efforts to unionize foreign workers worked hand-in-hand with the State Department in heading off Communist unionizers) to Edward R. Murrow (who, lest George Clooney's efforts eclipse history, opposed Soviet Communism as much as he opposed McCarthy at home). In more recent memory, there were the Brzezinskis and Sam Nunns and Harold Browns.
The Democratic Party was not always the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter and John Kerry, and this election, with more moderate Democrats, many of them veterans, holds the hope and expectation that it won't remain such, either.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 08, 2006 11:59 AM (/ZD7V)
Greg - yes, I love how they develop young minds to have approved thoughts only.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 12:02 PM (eNwl1)
This may actually be better for the administration since the President no longer needs to excessively abide the congress out of party loyalty. It'll be fun watching George W. veto the Dem's and flank them through the Executive prerogatives.
Yup, I'm afraid I'm the "bottle is half full" optimist type!
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 08, 2006 12:04 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 08, 2006 12:25 PM (oC8nQ)
http://www.powerclam.com/drupal/node/99
Posted by: BC at November 08, 2006 12:32 PM (/UAJE)
This may actually be better for the administration since the President no longer needs to excessively abide the congress out of party loyalty. It'll be fun watching George W. veto the Dem's and flank them through the Executive prerogatives.
Yup, I'm afraid I'm the "bottle is half full" optimist type!
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 8, 2006 12:04 PM "
Great attempt at spin.
On the other side of the coin, it will also be great fun to see virtually NO legislation presented to Bush for his signature, that the Dems have not approved, in advance.
"You want this bill passed, when Mr. President?".
HaHaHaHa
More tax cuts for the rich?
More subsidies for the oil and pharmacy companies? I don't think so.
He can veto away.
He is still a lame duck, but now he has been deprived of his own agenda.
If he decides not to cooperate with the Dems, to get legislation passed, Bush will be able to clear a lot of brush during the next 2 years, since there won't be much else for him to do.
A bigger problem for Bush, is that now that the election is over, the GOP members of congress, along with the Dems, will be telling him what they really think about his handling of Iraq and other issues.
First change? Rumsfeld will resubmit his resignation, which will be accepted, this time.
Don really needs more time to spend with his family.
Next change? Bush will reveal his secret plan for victory in Iraq.
Just kidding. Bush doesn't have a secret or otherwise plan for victory, in Iraq.
His plan is to keep pissing off the muslims, so that he can be the "war president" for 2 more years.
Historians are already saying that Bush is in contention for Worst US president and have dropped the qualifier "since so-and-so".
The next 2 years and Iraq will determine his place in history as the worst president or just one of the top ten worst.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 12:36 PM (F+9W9)
But I understand that you need to throw these people red meat. It's a blog, you don't get "hits" unless you appeal to the lowest common denominator. So I understand what you're doing here and I don't hold these statements against you.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 12:37 PM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 01:12 PM (dk0ga)
LOL! Are you really that simple that once you view the outcome of
history you think you could of done it different and it would come out
the same way. Gee....the Allies won WWII so the US should not of fought
and we would not of lost 400,000 but still won the war. Of course if
you don't believe that the terrorist want to spread Jihad around the
world just because they say so why would I expect you to think the
Soviets wanted a world revolution that they would control and lead,
just because they said so.
Posted by: Randman at November 08, 2006 01:48 PM (Sal3J)
2 years is a long time, but a lot of damage can be done...let's hope the damage can be fixed..
Posted by: Havok at November 08, 2006 01:58 PM (ErOeR)
Wrong. The Soviets were never going to use their nukes because they knew it meant their destruction, i.e., MAD. Jihadists are under no such limitations. If they get one and use it, it's the end of America as we know it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 08, 2006 02:47 PM (8e/V4)
There are no Arabs or muslims in the Bible. It wasn't chaotic till they took control. Before then it was the cradle of civilization, warts and all--not the cancer.
Dumb-fuck.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:58 PM (bLPT+)
The situation in Afghanistan is certainly not getting any more favorable. The Republicans have had complete control for 6 years, Why was anyone really surprised that the Democrats won so many seats?
Well the Democrats are going to have a bit of a chance to be of influence, I for one don't foresee the end of the world as we know it.
As for the upcoming mandatory gay marriage act ; well I don't expect that to effect me at all. As for those semi closeted gays who are threatened by it I am sure that they will speak up about it.
Posted by: John Ryan at November 08, 2006 03:10 PM (TcoRJ)
The soviet Union imploded because America outspent them. Their commie bullshit couldn't compete with decadent capitalism.
The Dems cannot block legislation--they don't have the votes. Bush can veto every single piece of shit legislation they introduce. The biggest problem for the Dems is now that the mid-terms are over, he doesn't have to restrain himself one iota. Say goodby to the Mullahs in Iran and Baby Assad in Syria. Say hello to a shit-load of dead terrorists.
The Democrats will never reveal their secret plan for victory in Iraq because they don't have one. That, and because America is not at war with Iraq.
Their real plan is to become peace makers by taking credit for the eventual troop drawdown in Iraq, and kow-towing to the muslims for the next two years--at which point they'll be tossed out of office.
Todays PC "historians" will not write the country's history any more than the British did in 1883.
President Bush will be recognized by future generations as the man who took the war to the islamic aggressors. The Democrats will be remembered the same way they're remembered for opposing WWII involvement. As hopeless appeasers.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:15 PM (bLPT+)
I know that you really don't believe half of what you've written here. If you do, you're even stupider than you let on.
The overwhelming bi-partisan support you cite for containing the Soviets never existed. Congress had plenty of traitors like J. William Fullbright, and even card carrying communists. After the Vietnam War, the Democrats opposed it overwhelmingly.
It was the Democrats who prevented McArthur from bombing the Red Chinese in the Korean War fiasco, and it was the Dems who chose to cut 'n run from the Vietnam War they started. (sound familiar, asshole?)
You're a hopless leftist so you don't get converts unless you appeal to the lowest common denominator. So I understand what you're doing here and I do hold these statements against you.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:23 PM (bLPT+)
Please explain how things have only gotten worse in Iraq, as most journalists claim. During Zarqawi's heydey, the Coalition suffered the highset casualty rates of the mission. Al Qaeda is now decimated. Furthermore, Iraq is better off economically, politically, and human rights-wise than it ever has been.
The situation in Afghanistan cannot rationally be compared to the situation under the Taliban. Nato forces cintinue to stamp out terrorists and Taliban remnants.
The Republicans have never had complete control of anything. Congress and the Supreme Court check Presidential power. A 2/3 majority of Republicans would have been necessary to control Congress in any way, and the Supreme Court is still dominated by judicial activists who shit on the Constitution.
Why are the Democrats gloating after winning so few seats in Congress?
The world as fools like you knew it eneded on 911. If the Dems have their way, you'll see dozens of 911s.
As for the upcoming attempt by extremists to destroy the millenia old tradition of marriage; well I don't expect that to affect me at all, because America won't allow it.
How does the fact that homosexuals cant redfine marriage affect you? As for those semi-closeted gays who are threatened by marriage I am sure that they will speak up about it. You just did, right?
You haven't learned a thing in the last 6 months. As a leftist, you probably never will.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:44 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (v7DMp)
You are unbelievably stupid. The idiotic drivel you plagiarized isn't even worth addressing. The Soviet Union didn't expend its ghost money by engaging in an arms race with Poland and the Vatican.
Keep your helmet on 'tard. Not only will it protect your head from further injury, it'll block those transmissions you're receiving from the planet pollack.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 06:41 PM (bLPT+)
The utter stupidity of thinking the democrats will get us out of this war is sicking. We would have gone into Iraq regardless of who was in power at the time. We would also still be there. Of course they may get us out like Clinton did in Somalia. Just leave them dragging our dead through the streets. Sooooo proud them islamocrats are of that move.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:01 PM (dk0ga)
1) With regard to your first point about probability and impact: You don’t explicitly say this, but you do seem to be resting everything on the assumption that the current strategy in the war on terror reduces the probability of the worst case scenario you describe. And I believe it is fair to say that the entire purpose of this blog rests on this assumption. Meanwhile, the assumption itself has been utterly destroyed by a recent report by all 16 of this country's intelligence agencies. In fact, the report found that the opposite of your assumption is true: there is an even greater probability that your worst case scenario will occur given current policy. And we don’t have to just go by that report; there are many scholars of all ideological stripes, most prominently Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, who have done research to back this up. We can take anecdotal evidence as well; for instance, the recent revelations that British intelligence may have spared us from an attack much worse than 9/11 suggests that our efforts have made matters much worse. Bottom line: It is all well and good to start a blog to refute a certain segment of opinion. It’s just that you haven’t actually done that.
2) When did Reagan argue that we should spend more money on the military to force the Soviets into a spending war and ultimate collapse? He argued we should spend more money on the military to catch up to the Soviets. Nobody in the conservative fold foresaw the Soviet collapse despite the fact that it was quite apparent that the regime’s days were numbered from the 1970s onward. This is a nice rebuttal to the usual partisan explanation for how the cold war ended.
3) Re: Guns and Butter; I'm sure the economics profession would benefit from your revolutionary new theory that there is no resource scarcity in a free market economy. I must have misunderstood your point here, but whatever it is you were trying to suggest, it can’t be that you think that a market economy is immune from spending itself into oblivion. Otherwise, maybe conservatives should stop suggesting that we’re spending too much on social programs because apparently in a market economy there are no choices that need to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 09:25 PM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 04:58 AM (dk0ga)
The jihadis in the ME and beyond said that a vote for a Democrat in the US was as good as giving them victory. Why? Because they knew that a leftist Congress would not have the stomach to continue the fight. Why? Have they ever seen a Democrat controlled US fight? No, a la Clintoon in Somalia the Democrats run at the first sign of trouble or resistance. Carter in Tehran's revolucion days. Khobar towers, we had the goods on them and did nothing. Clintoon had OBL in his sights and wimped out because he was afraid what Shrillary would say? Who knows.
The point is that the only leaders in the US who have showed any fight at all in recent years are Republicans. I will not sully the reputations of Democrats past that have no relation to those who lead this cowardly party today by mentioning them in the same breath. The jihadis have said they wanted to destroy the US and have a 25 year strategy for the victory of the Kalipha. So far, they are right on track to complete the project on time and maybe even a tad early.
I just hope the generals are given enough time to make an orderly withdrawal by the cut-and-run controlled Congress.
There is not really much to say. I had been having an internal debate about whether it was a prudent time to by the mountain land for the stronghold. Seems to be my questions have been answered by the US body politic. Build the house as far off the grid as I can, stock up on essentials and try to weather the coming storm. And no, I am not one of those conspiracy theorists who think the end times are a comin'. But, it may be time to find a hidey hole.
The Hobo
Posted by: Robohobo at November 09, 2006 05:24 AM (Jjm6B)
Why is it that the Dhimmicrats don't believe what the Jihadis say? OBL says he hates Americans, not America. It is not an error in translation. His stated purpose is to destroy the Great Satan and he believes he has a g-d given (Allah given) right to kill 10 million Americans. Have you all not read his writings? Please do so, they are chilling. Islam in the revelations of their prophet, believe they have a right and duty to spread their faith with any means. Yes, that is right ANY! Including the sword. That is why they hack their enemies heads off with a sword! This is the LITERAL truth of what they say and THEY take it all literally.
For G-d's sake folks, they mean what they say. Wake up before it is too late. It is not a war on a tactic, this is a long war on a religions fanatical believers.
And, just shut up with the moral equivalence about Christians, please.
The Hobo
Posted by: Robohobo at November 09, 2006 05:34 AM (Jjm6B)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 07:33 AM (dk0ga)
Must be really rewarding work.
Posted by: Machinations at November 09, 2006 12:27 PM (D4Sxg)
Here's a suggestion, grow a sack and use the name you normally post with, you spineless shitbirds.
Posted by: davec at November 09, 2006 01:44 PM (QkWqQ)
Good news about the two-party system: when one of the major parties feels threatened by a third party, they may begin the process of co-optation. This means they take the most popular ideas of the insurgent third party and make it their own.
Could the Republicans take the best ideas from the Libertarians and make them their own? I hope so. I'd start with the legalization of whorehouses, but that's just me.
----------------
Libertarian candidate comes in second in Indiana Senate race. It's a start. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
10:51 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 11:57 AM (v7DMp)
>That's a new one on me.
Shouldn't be.
Do small government, personal responsibility, property rights etc ring a bell?
Conservative Republicans really should be Libertarians.
(Maybe they could help rid the party of the freakish crypto-Greens who are only interested in legal dope.)
Posted by: BC at November 08, 2006 12:19 PM (/UAJE)
this country has since been divided between socialists and fascists...
Posted by: Roy at November 08, 2006 12:20 PM (9WAJi)
Posted by: BC at November 08, 2006 12:24 PM (/UAJE)
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 12:54 PM (v7DMp)
Is there anything about the current Republican regime that is about less government?
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 01:10 PM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 01:10 PM (dk0ga)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_resigns
Posted by: George Ramos at November 08, 2006 01:14 PM (wkRws)
Posted by: George Ramos at November 08, 2006 01:14 PM (wkRws)
Posted by: Roy at November 08, 2006 01:19 PM (9WAJi)
this country has since been divided between socialists and fascists
What a fucking retard. You show you don't know shit about fascism. If
all you idiots that have been saying we are a fascist, totalitarian
theocracy were correct there would be no real elections and the Repubs
in power would stay in power forever. Are you really this dense.
FYI-The creator of fascism, Mussolini, had nationalized around 80% of
Italy's industry by the end of the war. That is socialistic.
Greg-Libertarians lean both left and right. Some, like me, are little l libertarians, while some are more party Libertarians.
Posted by: Randman at November 08, 2006 01:35 PM (Sal3J)
constitution that allows us to have elections and elect different
people. Bush is a fascist, though he can't do everything he wants
because of the way our country is set up. The Patriot Act is a
fascist act of gov't, as is the stealing of private property by the
gov't to sell to other private interests.
Posted by: Roy at November 08, 2006 01:49 PM (9WAJi)
Posted by: Roy at November 08, 2006 01:51 PM (9WAJi)
Posted by: Randman at November 08, 2006 01:53 PM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Roy at November 08, 2006 01:53 PM (9WAJi)
Posted by: rightwingprof at November 08, 2006 02:16 PM (o7KrD)
Republicans have only one redeeming quality: Not wanting to submit to islam.
Doctrinaire Libertarians like Roy are bat-shit insane.
Democrats are worthless in every regard.
Every politician should represent the people as a fucking individual. Any jackass who thinks otherwise is promoting the freak show we've had in place since day one.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:44 PM (bLPT+)
Ok, I'll ask again. Can someone please explain to me how the Military Commissions Act is more government? While we're at it, can someone tell me how protecting Marriage from activists who want to co-opt it is less government? Can someone tell me how trying to contravene the Costitution and the power of Congress over the President is less government? Is allowing schools to operate independantly of the federal government less government too? Is there anything about the current Democrat regime Congress that is about less government?
Real Republicans oppose big government. That's why they stayed home this election cycle, dildo.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:53 PM (bLPT+)
Greg and I do not agree on much that I can see, but as was ponted out, Libertarians can lean to either side of the aisle. In Montana, most lean to the right, which is why they tend to steal votes from Rebublicans.
Bush seems to be the 'Anti-Republican' but a lot of the expenditures he has had to support have to do with the war, and Katrina. He did manage to resist tax increases, and the economy shows it. So far ...
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 08, 2006 03:03 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: TXCrawDaddy at November 08, 2006 03:19 PM (CPOWk)
Posted by: RepJ at November 08, 2006 03:47 PM (T3Wz2)
Posted by: SMT at November 09, 2006 11:03 AM (PCCn+)
So major anti-Republican backlash across this state is entirely the fault of Governor Mitch Daniels. And don't think I am happy about it; I voted for the @$$hole.
Posted by: SMT at November 09, 2006 11:16 AM (PCCn+)
Posted by: The Other Dave at November 09, 2006 10:36 PM (59lCX)
Meet the new Majority Leader of the Senate. Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. One of the most liberal members of Congress.
You didn't know that was what you were voting for, but that is what you are getting.
I hope you love the government, because you just voted for more of it.
Morning Update: The last thing I saw on Fox before I went to bed was that even with the recounts, it was likely that the Republicans would still lose VA and MT. Hence the post.
Posted by: Vinnie at
12:22 AM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ansar al-Kuffir at November 08, 2006 01:02 AM (KjO46)
Posted by: Dr. Nancy Pelosi at November 08, 2006 01:30 AM (JQjhA)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 08, 2006 01:41 AM (yZQoS)
Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 01:45 AM (Dd86v)
Vinny and Rusty: You been tampering with those damn Diebold machines again? Doesn't work this time, does it? MUUUHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Just think what will happen with '08 now that Dems are getting a foothold in Florida and Ohio. MUUUUHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 01:54 AM (ZxuJ4)
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
Democrats then, were ready to seek peace at any cost with the South even agreeing to make slavery the law of the land to save the Union, for they had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries' best and bravest had fallen in battle.
They accused the Republicans of Constitutional violations.
Great little history lesson, particularly if you like to read about politics and the Civil War, and there are a lot of underlying similarities between the Democrats then and the Democrats of today with regards to war and how far they are willing to commit themselves to victory.
Democrats approach to the Civil War then (cut & run), is very similar to the approach taken towards the Iraq war of today.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 08, 2006 04:21 AM (38GUY)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 05:04 AM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Subvet at November 08, 2006 05:56 AM (DNVxw)
Actually Bush got what he asked for. He spent the last 2 years trying to get rid of the Reagan folk who crushed his dad in 80. First he teamed up with George Soros in 2/05 and called us “vigilantesâ€. 13 months later he teamed up with the ACLU to call us “xenophobesâ€. Bush wanted the Reagan folk out of the GOP and in 06 at least he got his wish.
Where did you and Bush think the Reagan folk would go when chased out of the GOP? We went back to the Dems where we were before a conservative won the GOP nomination 26 years ago. If the GOP continues to be run by liberals who continue to back terrorists – as they did last Feb when they attacked the Danes – then Regan Folk will continue to vote Dem.
Nobody – GOP nor Dem – can win without the Reagan folk. Chase us out at your own peril.. We have memories like elephants and remember that actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 08, 2006 06:05 AM (Zse4P)
Posted by: Randman at November 08, 2006 06:30 AM (Sal3J)
A nation is like a boat under sail, and if it's leaking you have to
dock it to repair it. For this country, that means tearing it down and
starting over again. I hope the lefturds fuck up real good, and I'm
sure not to be disappointed, because as bad as the GOP has been, the
lefturds will be far worse. Personally, I'm stocking up on ammo and
adding a couple of rifles to my stable for the day when lefturds,
illegals, and muslims rampage through our streets, which should be not
far off now, and the sooner Osama gets a nuke into DC, the better off
we'll be.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 08, 2006 07:26 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:42 AM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 08, 2006 07:44 AM (8e/V4)
I second that. Bush got what he deserved. He spent 6 years trying to woo the Liberal vote (as if that were possible) and ignoring conservatives except during the 3 weeks prior to elections. Now look at him. LOL. Lesson learned, the checkerpants country club Republicans can't win without its conservatives.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 08, 2006 07:50 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 08, 2006 07:54 AM (9eahu)
Posted by: actus at November 08, 2006 08:31 AM (NV0dI)
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 08, 2006 08:49 AM (9eahu)
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 08:52 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Richard H. at November 08, 2006 09:32 AM (/xUS1)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 09:33 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 10:06 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 10:35 AM (eNwl1)
Of course, it's been more than 10 years since I took a Pli-sci course, so I could be wrong.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 10:41 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 10:47 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:54 AM (8PoNP)
Breathe deep.....ugggh! Wake up and smell the feces.
Sing with me: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance! All around the world, the jihadis now dance! I hope America is ready, for two years of Dem rants! Pelosi will scare us, with her basilisk glance! The jihadis are thanking, the bug-eyed old Nance! The voters have proven, they were in a trance!"
To every Libertarian who didn't vote Republican, and every stay at home Republican: Thanks for the two years in Hell, assholes.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 10:56 AM (bLPT+)
I already wrote that.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 10:59 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:54 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I never said jack shit about the senate going to the dems. I really doubt it will but trust me, I'll be very happy if it does. If not, then they have congress which is enough to stop the nazis.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:03 AM (eNwl1)
I already wrote that.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 10:59 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Are you referring to this post of yours? It sounded to me like you said you have no clue what you're talking about and wanted help. Next time if you make a statement that you're sure of, don't mince words. Be confident.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If the Dems take VA and MT, they will be tied with the Repubs at 49 seats each. Doesn't the Senate President cast the deciding vote in a tie? The Senate president is Dick Cheney. Depending on which way the two independant seats vote, the Repubs may reatin the Senate.
Of course, it's been more than 10 years since I took a Pli-sci course, so I could be wrong.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 10:41 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You being wrong isn't anything new.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:06 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: n.a. palm"
No, we need only to fool enough Republicans, but it isn't much of a challenge, since they are so easily fooled will walk over a cliff with the rest of the lemmings, since it is in their genes.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 12:45 PM (F+9W9)
But, God willing, Allah will provide the victory, and remove the final infidel impediment to our democracy.
No, wait, we still have to get rid of Bush.
Oh, well, he'll be on vacation for the next 2 years, anyway.
Haven't heard anything about Cheney's hunting trip.
Did everyone make it home, safely, or did he go by himself, when he found out that all of his hunting buddies were too sick to go with him?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 12:53 PM (F+9W9)
Hahaha...dude, with the way your party was running it, it's like your mom just came home and is ordering you to clean up the romper room, except you're too busy stealing raisins from your little brother and your uncle Foley keeps telling you he wants to "show you something". MUHAHAHAH!! It couldn't be run any worse than you guys were these past 6 years.
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 01:00 PM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: jesusland joe"
Gaining control of the House is enough for me to celebrate, even if we don't end up controlling the Senate.
It still means the end of the rubber stamp congress and the Bush "agenda".
No tears, here. How about you, JJ?
You never blamed the GOP when everything was going wrong.
Why would you blame the Dems for anything going wrong?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 01:02 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos "
Yes, JC, it will be interesting to see just how gracefully the GOP concedes their defeat.
We will not see any GOP lawyers demanding recounts or alleging election fraud or claiming that the machines were tampered with to favor the Dems, will we?
I didn't think so.
Since those Diebold machines are so fair and honest and tamperproof, the GOP will not even mention them, as a reason for requesting a recount (oh, no, I forgot, they won't be requesting any recounts).
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 01:10 PM (F+9W9)
"That will be as close as the Democrats ever come to nailing down a real plan for anything.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz"
The Dems have a secret plan for victory in Iraq.
It is just as good, if not better, than Bush's secret plan for victory in Iraq.
The Dems, like Bush, don't want the terrorists to know their secret plan for victory, in Iraq, either.
And to further confuse the terrorists, Bush's secret plan gives the impression that Bush incompetent and doesn't know what the fuck he is doing.
But it is all part of the plan, to keep the terrorists on the run.
He has planned it so well that neither the terrorists nor the American people have figured it out.
He could have disclosed his secret plan, just before the election, which would have helped the GOP win, but he chose to keep the plan secret and America safe, instead.
Giving the GOP a defeat was a small price to pay for keeping us safe, don't you think?
Pretty shrewd, huh?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 01:22 PM (F+9W9)
"The least influential organization out of the three main branches of government is now controlled by Dhimmiecrats, and they plan on pushing their socialist agenda down America's throat.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz"
They won't be pushing their socialist agenda for the next 2 years.
All they are going to be able to do is put a screeching halt the neocon agenda of President Moron.
Plus maybe do a few "minor" investigations and maybe a little oversight of the White House and Pentagon, since they will have a lot of spare time, as they will not be spending time developing legislation that President Moron would veto, anyway.
The next 2 years will be very pleasant.
And the 4 after that will be even better.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 01:32 PM (F+9W9)
Neocon fascists? Republican socialists? LSD and mental retardation are a bad combination.
Thanks for the Wikipedia paste job in politics that duplicated what I wrote.
The least influential organization out of the three main branches of government is now controlled by Dhimmiecrats, and they plan on pushing their socialist agenda down America's throat.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 01:43 PM (bLPT+)
If you're over 18 years old--a big if--you can ask Foley to send you a naughty e-mail. Otherwise, bend over for Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.
That will be as close as the Democrats ever come to nailing down a real plan for anything.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 01:45 PM (bLPT+)
"Henny penny! The sky is falling!!!"
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 02:47 PM (ZxuJ4)
So much for GOP candidates, gracefully skulking away, when they have lost an election.
Couldn't be that the Diebold machines were stealing his votes in VA and giving them to Webb.
We'll never know. Oh, well.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 03:59 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz"
But you need to add to that "and every Republican who didn't vote Republican".
Thanks, we couldn't have done it without you!
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:12 PM (F+9W9)
I believe a more accurate statement would be "The pedophiles are truly running the daycare now."
Posted by: David "
How can they still be running the daycare?
They just lost the election.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:16 PM (F+9W9)
I believe a more accurate statement would be "The pedophiles are truly running the daycare now."
Posted by: David at November 08, 2006 04:19 PM (JpOYc)
You nutroot boys are funny. And Professor Nostril, please discontinue your criticism of Rusty and his blog, until you at least prove you have gone over to the nutroot blogs and pleaded for them to divest themselves of the racists and whackos that post there. You hypocrit!
Osama, when did you get out of your cave?
And Cafeen?man(WTF), you're new here, you wouldn't know what anyone was thinking. Take a hike, along with puddlebrain and the nutty professor.
Posted by: jesusland joe"
Still living in the past, JJ?
The Dems just won the election, for the house, so who's whining now?
BTW - did you notice that the count in the Senate is R-49, D-50, now.
If Allen holds his seat, Republicans will keep control, if they drag Cheney in for every tiebreaking vote.
And still, the best you can do is call people names.
That's ok, though, I can afford to be gracious, since you and your friends got spanked.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:26 PM (F+9W9)
You nutroot boys are funny. And Professor Nostril, please discontinue your criticism of Rusty and his blog, until you at least prove you have gone over to the nutroot blogs and pleaded for them to divest themselves of the racists and whackos that post there. You hypocrit!
Osama, when did you get out of your cave?
And Cafeen?man(WTF), you're new here, you wouldn't know what anyone was thinking. Take a hike, along with puddlebrain and the nutty professor.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 04:26 PM (8PoNP)
One Republican out of 50. Meanwhile virtually every Dem loser is suing for a recount. Giggle yourself to death, queerbait.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz"
The name is "PuddleFuck", thank you.
I do not Piddle Dick, although he might enjoy it.
Yes, those Dems are pathetic, aren't they?
And their challenges will have what effect on the balance of power in the House or Senate?
We know what a bunch of pathetic wimps those Dems are, but I just thought Repugs were above all of that crap.
Didn't you?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:31 PM (F+9W9)
The first of many to come?
Osama Bin Forgotten, himself, couldn't do worse, than what we have had with the GOP controlled congress.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:39 PM (F+9W9)
"Hahaha...jesusland, how are you doin'? I poke my head out once in a while to influence elections and such.
Posted by: osamabinhiding"
We couldn't have done it, without you and the fear of you that the GOP has been trying to instill in us since 9/11.
But after 5 years of GOP fear-mongering, most Americans have become immune to the GOP fear message.
It doesn't work for elections, any more in the US.
The GOP will have to fabricate some other reason to get us to vote for them in 08.
Family values, war on terror, war in Iraq, the economy, education, social security, tax cuts for the rich and for the oil companies?
No, none of these ideas seem to playing very well in Peoria, or anywhere else.
They must try harder, since they are only 2nd best, now.
The good news for the GOP is that, since there are less of them in congress, there is less chance that they will be involved in another scandal.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 04:49 PM (F+9W9)
When you're done gloating about the Dems winning control of the least influential half of a third of the main branches of the federal gobvernment, feel free to provide your SAT scores and college scores. That way everyone will see how much more intelligent you are than President "moron."
What you've written here establishes you as a moron beyond any doubt, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I'm already hoding it over these foul election results.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 04:56 PM (bLPT+)
You detect a disgusted American, you prancing littel monkey. What are you celebrating? Your America-last agenda will never make it through Congress, and I've kicked more muslim ass than you've played video games.
Get another pat on the fanny from your NAMBLA and koranimal patrons. Silly faggot, kool-Aid is for leftists.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:03 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 05:04 PM (ZxuJ4)
One Republican out of 50. Meanwhile virtually every Dem loser is suing for a recount. Giggle yourself to death, queerbait.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:05 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 08:53 PM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: davec at November 08, 2006 10:35 PM (QkWqQ)
Only retards point out typos--especially obvious ones. If you want to be a pedant, clean up your own writing first. You tried as hard as you could to keep your little screed error free, but ther's no excuse for the following sentence: "Either way, unless you're a oil exec, you should be happy the nation's poor haven't elected the nation's rich all those nifty tax cuts anymore."
Ouch! Either you're in the 8th grade, or you're a moron.You're too uneducated to even find all the errors. You might want to learn what paragraphs are for while you're puzzling over your other mistakes.
Every tax cut awarded to the nation's rich was rubber stamped by the Dems in Congress, shit for brains.
"Did I said sumthin' 'bout video games?" No fuck-wit, I did. Keep diddling, Stroker Ace.
The reality is that Foley wrote a naugfhty e-mail to an 18 year old man, and resigned for doing it. If you want your ass patted by a Congressional pederast, talk to Barney frank. Gerry studds already retired to Candy land with full benefits.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 09, 2006 03:04 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: David at November 09, 2006 07:17 AM (JpOYc)
Just wish Nancy Pelosi had a sister in the Senate, that could take over as majority leader.
Meanwhile, Macaca Allen has all but conceded, as Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the Buchannons and others, have urged him not to challenge the election result and appear to be a sore loser, as the Dems were labeled in 2000 and 2004.
The GOP has already figured out, that with the electronic voting machines, the vote will come out exactly the same on a "recount", so why bother?
There will be a mandatory "recount", required by state law, if the difference is less than a certain percentage.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 09, 2006 07:38 AM (fMHQi)
Maf54: do you really do it face down
Teen: ya
Maf54: kneeling
Teen: well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself
Maf54: where do you unload it
Teen: towel
Maf54: really
Maf54: completely naked?
Teen: well ya
Maf54: very nice
Teen: lol
Maf54: cute butt bouncing in the air
Your party is fucked. Give up on them. The rest of the country voted to, so all your faux "Patriotic" bullshit turns out to be idiotic.
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 09, 2006 02:55 PM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 09, 2006 04:38 PM (ZxuJ4)
One Republican out of 50. Meanwhile virtually every Dem loser is suing for a recount. Giggle yourself to death, queerbait.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz"
Turns out that Macaca Allen was talked out of demanding a recount, by Kay Baily Hutchinson and the Buchannans, Bay and Pat.
They said it would make the Republicans appear to be "sore losers".
And yet GOP losers are still whining about the way the election turned out.
Meanwhile, I haven't heard of any Democrats demanding recounts.
Please enlighten us, oh wise and wonderful one, about these Democrat recount demands.
But on a lighter note - Katherine Harris of Election 2000 fame will lose her bid for the senate by even more votes than predicted, because of a computer glitch in the voting machines that she authorized as Secretary of State to comply with HAVA.
The machines simply failed to record votes cast for her.
Unfortunately, for her, there is no way to do a recount, on the electronic voting machines.
Not even hanging chads, where the intent of the voter could be determined.
Maybe she actually won the senate seat in Fla, but we will never know.
And her win there would have given the GOP the majority in the Senate.
Take a lesson from Katie - bad Karma sucks.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 10, 2006 07:26 PM (fMHQi)
November 07, 2006
Meet the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of San Francisco. One of the most liberal members of Congress.
You didn't know that was what you were voting for, but that is what you are getting.
I hope you love the government, because you just voted for more of it. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
10:42 PM
| Comments (61)
| Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ansar al-kuffir at November 07, 2006 11:30 PM (KjO46)
Posted by: Job at November 07, 2006 11:36 PM (yPwtd)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 07, 2006 11:46 PM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Greg(not our greg) at November 07, 2006 11:47 PM (XV/2O)
Posted by: Mark at November 07, 2006 11:54 PM (viVNO)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 07, 2006 11:56 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 12:01 AM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 12:07 AM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 08, 2006 12:09 AM (CtVG6)
Posted by: Mr. Nancy Pelosi at November 08, 2006 12:16 AM (JQjhA)
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 08, 2006 01:02 AM (38GUY)
Posted by: Subvet at November 08, 2006 01:10 AM (DNVxw)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 01:10 AM (ZxuJ4)
To the victors go the spoils !
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 08, 2006 01:22 AM (HSkSw)
Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 01:47 AM (Dd86v)
In case any one is interested, I have started to reread a book I read a few years ago and I recommend it as my way of trying to help others who might want to concern themselves in beginning readings on survival skills. The book is written by a man about his father and mother surviving the nazi's rule over Europe before and during World War 2 . The author is Art Spiegelman and the book is Maus.
As I was writting this I was just hearing on the radio to the democrats win in the Missouri senate election.
Posted by: Creature_From_The_Mariana_Trench at November 08, 2006 02:02 AM (ckKdx)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 02:12 AM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: yo at November 08, 2006 02:16 AM (fkcf6)
Posted by: Subvet at November 08, 2006 02:17 AM (DNVxw)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 02:22 AM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 02:23 AM (Bwpq7)
I'll tell you what. You people have done a tree-mendous job brainwashing poor old Creature_from_the_Mariana_Trench. The boy is about to take shelter in a cave somewhere. Too funny! Hey Creature... say "hi" to the ATF for me when they come git you, ok?
But perhaps someone should tell him that habeas corpus disappeared under Republican rule? And isn't someone going to cry foul about invoking the Nazis as is the case whenever some wild-eyed Democrat does it (funded by George Soros of course)?
A sweet night indeed.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 03:54 AM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 08, 2006 04:22 AM (38GUY)
even more free run of
the world than they already do, and it shouldn't be long before every
lefturd in America wonders what happened. They are bound to fuck things
up so bad as to be unrecoverable, and then we can get started
re-establishing Constitutional government, but only after all the
lefturds have been taken out and shot or hanged, starting with their
leaders.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 08, 2006 05:50 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:30 AM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 08, 2006 07:51 AM (8e/V4)
Now we can start taking our country back.
Ya hoo!!
JC -
"I've yet to see anybody whine about moving to Canada or Fwance. That's the difference between the Lefties and us."
Yep, JC you won't be moving to Canada or "Fwance".
You will be moving to the mountains, stocking up on food and ammo, defending America from the muslims, that will be coming for you, now.
Be very afraid......BOO!!!
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 08:14 AM (fMHQi)
"Pass the hemlock.
Posted by: Subvet "
You need to be around in 08 so that you can be humiliated, again.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 08:17 AM (fMHQi)
You could move to Iraq.
Posted by: actus at November 08, 2006 08:33 AM (NV0dI)
'Freezer' Jefferson wins in LA? Let Pelosi deal with that anchor around her neck first.
Posted by: Fred Fry at November 08, 2006 08:59 AM (JXdhy)
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 09:00 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 09:32 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 09:37 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 10:16 AM (v7DMp)
But Shimkus won and by 20 points so I voted for a winning Republican. Now we have to hold the "conservative" democrats like e
Ellsworth to their word. Of course they will vote for Pelosi and betray thier values strait out of the blocks. Pendulums do swing back. Conservative values did not loose the republicans did. Conservatives have sucessfully pushed the Democratic party to the right. At least with these freshmen.
Posted by: Howie at November 08, 2006 10:23 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:23 AM (8PoNP)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:23 AM
Why don't you go with it since you obviously hate America?
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 10:35 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: Mr. Nancy Pelosi"
You could have done a lot worse, and probably did, in reality.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 10:47 AM (F+9W9)
"It's what politicials do. (Along with stuffing bills full of pork)"
Think GOP and "bridge to nowhere", when you think of pork, lest anyone has forgotten.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 10:53 AM (F+9W9)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:56 AM (8PoNP)
even more free run of
the world than they already do, and it shouldn't be long before every
lefturd in America wonders what happened. They are bound to fuck things
up so bad as to be unrecoverable, and then we can get started
re-establishing Constitutional government, but only after all the
lefturds have been taken out and shot or hanged, starting with their
leaders.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 8, 2006 05:50 AM "
Fuck thing up any more than they already are?
That would be like trying to fuck-up a soup sandwich. Impossible.
Finally, our borders will be secured and integrity brought back to the House, if not the Senate, also.
A great day for America and Americans.
Why do you hate America and Americans?
If the GOP had won, Americans would have been smart and done the right thing.
Now Americans are stupid, because they think that Bush and the GOP are a bunch of assholes, that don't deserve to govern this Great Nation?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 11:03 AM (F+9W9)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 10:56 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And yet you managed to find time to direct hatred towards me. I'm honored. Anyway, I'm glad I could help vote some of the crooks stealing your money out of office. How much would you pay for a case of Pepsi? Ask Halliburton how much they charge YOU to supply a case to the troops.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:07 AM (eNwl1)
I see the usual turds around here are busy circle-jerking in celebration. The Dems will do the same thing in the House for the next two years. Disgusted Americans will toss them out in 08.
Hey Dhimmies: I thought you assholes were going to win the Senate in a landslide? I guess you'll have to enjoy two years of the House, while we enjoy the Presidency, the senate and the dsupreme Court.
Justice Stevens will be dead soon and replaced with a Constitutional judge. Now that's something to celebrate.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 11:10 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:14 AM (eNwl1)
Posted by: memphis761 at November 08, 2006 11:17 AM (D3+20)
I see the usual turds around here are busy circle-jerking in celebration. The Dems will do the same thing in the House for the next two years. Disgusted Americans will toss them out in 08.
Hey Dhimmies: I thought you assholes were going to win the Senate in a landslide? I guess you'll have to enjoy two years of the House, while we enjoy the Presidency, the senate and the dsupreme Court.
Justice Stevens will be dead soon and replaced with a Constitutional judge. Now that's something to celebrate.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz "
Too bad the GOP base didn't show up to support GOP candidates, but they were too busy, at home, trying to wash the bad taste from their mouths, from all the GOP scandals.
The mainstream American voters did show up and have given the GOP and Bush the message.
Stevens has to live for only 2 more years, before croaking, so that Hiliary can appoint an ultra-liberal judge.
Maybe she will be able to replace, at least, one of the conservative judges, as well.
Now that's something to celebrate.
Interesting that you should see the dark cloud, instead of the Silver Lining.
The House is gone, for the GOP.
The Senate is still undecided.
Hmmm...let's see...should the Dems despair over not taking the Senate or should they rejoice over taking the House?
Jeff, you're a "glass is half-empty" kinda guy, aren't you?
Can't blame you, though, since your ass is so sore from being spanked so hard, that you probably can't even sit down, at this point.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 11:22 AM (F+9W9)
Posted by: mike at November 08, 2006 12:37 PM (TJ8HB)
Have you EVER heard a Republican take that sort of a position after a big win? I'll go ahead and answer for you: NO.
By the way... I must say... The liberals commenting here are hilarious! Good natured sarcasm has never been more appropriately employed. Keep up the good work guys! Jon Stewart has nothing on you.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 12:59 PM (Bwpq7)
Yeah, it's because they won't have you. Hard to be the world's bully when your scandal/bad policy infested balls shrivel away. You're all a bunch of sore losers. It's very entertaining to read all your posts!
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 01:05 PM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: Howie at November 08, 2006 01:37 PM (D3+20)
Easy on the sophistry. It's only the day after the election. Few Rebublicans will demand recounts, but their demands will be opposed by Dem lawyers. The Dems made this clear long ago.""As usual, you're full of shit.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 01:55 PM (bLPT+)
Howie,
Bush strong armed the Dems. The Reps own the Texas State Legislature. No comparison to the new landscape. If there is to be no gridlock, it's because Bush will have to cave in to the Dems. I doubt he'll do that, so I expect gridlock.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 01:57 PM (v7DMp)
You write Supreme Court justice as though they were saints. Yes I will celebrate the death of that piece of shit Stevens, the same way i celebrate the death of anyone who injures my country.
The mainstream voters stayed home or allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by Establishment Media poison. Less than half of all eligible voters are even registered to vote, and less than 55% of them probably voted, so the Dems won no great victory.
America is not a democracy. Check Wikipedia closer next time.
America has given foreign terrorists American legal rights and Geneva Conventions protections that they are not legally entitled to. To describe this as Bush throwing Americans into jail without due and throwing away the key is absudist. Orwellian doublethink is a leftist standard, so I'm not surprised. So is claiming victory from defeat in a debate.
Americans are illegally arrested and thrown in jail everyday in America, but you only show symapthy for foreign terrorists.
You are a complete piece of shit, and nobody believes you own an American flag that hasn't been burned.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:08 PM (bLPT+)
You traitors only control the House--the least influential branch of the government. You don't even have the majority necessary to dominate it.
Your crowing about a glorious people's revolution with hillary Clinton at the vanguard is premature. That is what leftists are known for, after all. Shooting their wads early. I guess you'r a half-sack empty kind of gay. Just wait awhile and you can drink another shot. If you were hanging with a Log Cabin Republican, you wouldn't have to wait.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:13 PM (bLPT+)
There will be gridlock because the Dems will refuse to work with the Repubs--just like they've been doing for the last 6 years.
Political power and control of tax revenue have always been their only goals. What's best for the country and its people was never a consideration.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:16 PM (bLPT+)
Sore loser, don't get pissed off that your little "turd blossom" Rove couldn't swindle enough votes to win. We aren't complaining this time around because your stupid dirty tricks didn't work this time.
Jeff, "What's best for the country and its people was never a consideration": I suppose you're right if that means the 1% of wealthiest Americans that get all the nice tax breaks with Chimp/Bush. As he said to them, "You are my people". Or maybe you were referring to him pissing away all our money like a true conservative?
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 02:54 PM (ZxuJ4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 08, 2006 04:33 PM (8PoNP)
The Dhimmies aren't crying about Diebold conspiracies because they prevented them? How exactly? Stop pulling juvenile statements out of your hairless ass.
Every tax break given to America's wealthiest was done so with Dem participation, shit for brains. Stop pretending you give a damn about fiscal responsibility.
Make sure to wear your hemet when you get on the short bus. You've fallen out of it on your head too many times.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:11 PM (bLPT+)
"Every tax break given to America's wealthiest was done so with Dem participation" -Prove it. Also: Are you one of those dumb-asses who is piss poor or middle class who defends failed Ivy-league fake ranchers like Bush/chimp?
America voted to take me off the short bus to make room for you. Try not to drool on anyone, ok?
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 08, 2006 09:05 PM (ZxuJ4)
This was the closest election in decades. Probably longer. Stop wasting my time. You lefties only complain about Diebold machines when your side loses, and that's a fact. Everybody knows that dead people, pets, wetbacks, felons, and absentee ballot frauds all vote Dem. Philly and Milwaukee are big dem strongholds.
Lies only work if the person you're lying to is at least as dumb as you. Try to remember that.
No legislation passes without bi-partisan support, cretin. Not unless one party is able to field a 2/3 majority. Learn about politics before you argue about them. If you continue to argue about subjects you're ignorant of, you'll lose every time and everybody will know that you're stupid. Also: Are you one of those dumb-asses--whose parents are piss poor or middle class--who defends failed, Ivy-league, fake heroes like Ketchup Kerry?
Unless you're on welfare, the Dems wont help you. If you are, they'll help you stay poor and on welfare. Yes, they care about you so much. That's why they always raise taxes for the working and middle classes, bankrupt the Treasury, raise college tuition fees, send jobs overseas, and foment racial and class warfare.
The dems voted to take you off the short bus because holding stupid kids back to their level hurts their misplaced self esteem. Nobody is retarded nowadays. They're special.
Have a special day.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 09, 2006 03:31 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: osamabinhiding at November 09, 2006 03:06 PM (ZxuJ4)
And so, it begins.
To quote that sage of great wisdom, Flava Flav, Don't believe the hype!
I'm heading over to a buddies house to eat wings and watch returns. He's a labor Democrat and I'm in the libertarian wing of the Republican party. What could possibly go wrong?
Just chill and enjoy this as the spectator sport it is. If the Dems end up taking either house (which I still doubt) then just think of all the fun we'll have. Anyway, just remember that exit polls showed Kerry winning by 6% in Ohio back in '04.
It's going to be a long night.
Posted by: Rusty at
06:06 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 07, 2006 07:11 PM (dk0ga)
Posted by: SeeMonk at November 07, 2006 07:56 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 07, 2006 08:37 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 07, 2006 09:11 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 07, 2006 11:44 PM (dk0ga)
Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 01:51 AM (Dd86v)
BTW How did you guys get my photo?
Posted by: Last laugh Larry at November 08, 2006 02:51 AM (Dd86v)
as stupid as we all think you are, but then, in your terms, better
means worse for the US. I hope to meet you when the jihad comes to our
streets in earnest.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 08, 2006 07:28 AM (v3I+x)
Now go ahead and cheer for Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Clinton bitch. They are now major players.
NYC will regret what the next terrorist attack on brings to them.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:40 AM (dk0ga)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:40 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You're still a moron. Aren't you a Christian? If so then don't you know that the Bible says that the middle east will always be in chaos. That means nothing anyone does will change it. You can blame the dems if you want, but it's been that way for thousands of years and never improved. Dems have been around for how long again?
Try not to forget that it was your republican president who swung at the beehive with a baseball bat. Iraq is his responsibility alone. But you're personally complicit so I hope you pay the consequence when the time comes.
With dems in power and things the way they are now it's only going to get better. I know you hate that. Too bad. Suck a lemon.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 09:49 AM (eNwl1)
Seriously, boys. suck it up and then suck it.
Things are gonna change for the better.
meaning better for the majority of the world, and not you fucktards.
get your bunkers ready, and please...by all means? Get in them and don't come out.
Man, it's a good day to be an American.
Posted by: Keg at November 08, 2006 10:38 AM (4pujD)
Posted by: tbone at November 08, 2006 11:14 AM (HGqHt)
All you faggots have is the House--the least influential branch of the government. We have everything else. Ah! It's a good day not to be a Dhimmiecrat.
Your comment about the majority of the world validates what is said about the treasonous left. Your alliegence lies elsewhere.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 11:15 AM (bLPT+)
If it means we get to take another hit again, NYC has got no problem destroying our way of life. Any day of the week. That's the difference between traitors and patriots.
The only hit you're willing to take is in the ass. You wouldn't even take a bong hit if the pipe was too hot for your pursed lips.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 11:18 AM (bLPT+)
Hey, BTW, I'm a girl. Will you please call me a lesbian? I'd be proud to be called one from a fucktard like yourself. I'd wear it like a badge of honour. Serious. Call me one, it'll make you feel better. For a while...
Posted by: Keg at November 08, 2006 11:30 AM (4pujD)
Were you referring to a crackpipe? Bongs don't get that hot. I'm sure you've burned your lips on a few little boys...Not the same thing....
Posted by: Keg at November 08, 2006 11:31 AM (4pujD)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 02:22 PM (wkRws)
Why don't I just call you CP? Changing your screenname cant disguise your trademarked stupidity. Dyke.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:15 PM (bLPT+)
You sound like an expert on illegal drug use and child molesting. You would make a fine Democrat if you left the Socialist White North.
That's right, I also know that you're from the 51st state.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:17 PM (bLPT+)
November 06, 2006
Funny thing is that in the natural sciences there has long been a theory that the gay was caused by something in the endochrin system during fetal development. Environmentalists have long claimed that certain pollutants mimic estrogen and that increased levels of these estrogen mimickers has led---among other things--- to an increase in homosexual behavior in animals.
I kid you not. See for instance Our Stolen Future, which is forwarded by none other than Al Gore. Of course, in that book they make a strong case for homosexuality in animals being caused by human pollution and then, as if on cue, exempt the human race from their findings.
Homosexuality in seagulls is one thing, but it is entirely different if you are on the LPGA. Or a female tennis player. Or in Angelina Jolie. [UPDATE: Did I say "in" Anglina Jolie? Freudian something or other, I'm sure.] Mmmmm, lesbian Angelina Jolie. Nice.
So you see, on the one hand Al Gore wants to blame humans for causing homosexual behavior in animals. That it is a bad thing for lesbian seagulls to want to fly away together. But he also holds the inconsistent belief that the same behavior in humans is natural and normal.
It's quite the paradox then.
How do environmentalists and animal rights activists solve this dilemma? Simple, rally the troops to decry any science which might discover the cause of homesexuality. Any scientific research on the subject is labelled homophobic.
Homosexuality is really problematic in Darwinian terms. Evolutionary principles are stacked against homosexuality being a genetic predisposition. It doesn't exclude the possibility altogether, but it seems less likely than other explanations.
But if a cause can be determined for homosexuality then that implies that an intervention to take away the cause would mean that homosexuality would not develop.
One might even label the intervention a cure. And just to make myself clear, the first person to cure hot chicks of lesbian tendencies will get swift kick square in the nuts.
And so gay activists are not trying to support alternative scientific research to disprove the endochrin theory, they, in fact, are supporting no scientific research. In this case, they oppose any advancement of knowedge because scientific discovery stands in the way of their agenda.
This entire discussion was prompted by reader Dave checking out a PETA website. I don't know if he found his way there searching for lesbian sheep porn or not. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:07 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 733 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: cory at November 06, 2006 11:47 AM (+pzHI)
and as such I will not cast the first stone at them.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 06, 2006 12:10 PM (vixLB)
The deaf community has been facing the same problem in that some forms of deafness can be corrected, but that leads to a smaller deaf community, and they are not happy about that.
Posted by: Fred Fry at November 06, 2006 01:01 PM (JXdhy)
I would be able to pick them out in a flock.
Thinking back I always wondered about Heckle and Jeckle.
Posted by: NortonPete at November 06, 2006 01:03 PM (fVuwW)
Posted by: Rusty at November 06, 2006 01:09 PM (JQjhA)
Studies like these also tend to reveal that the connection, while linked to genes, is not destiny. It would be fair to use the term 'vulnerability'.
For example, my parents were ravaged by alcohol abuse, it was horrible, and so I avoid alcohol as a matter of life and death. I am a 'high risk' for similar behavior.
Sociopathic genetics don't guarantee that sociopathic behavior will result. It appears there is the potential to screen, and intervene.
People don't like to think they have something wrong with them, and so like with alcoholism, they will find ways to deny it.
The is one scary thing about the possibility of screening, and 'intervening'. If a government were to discover the genes that affect critical thinking, or submissivness ...?
Anyway, science gave us the bomb, so why not go full speed ahead on the genetics of behavior? I have met gays who are not happy being that way, and if they had a cure they would take it.
USA all the way! Vote!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 06, 2006 01:10 PM (2OHpj)
They would call you a bigot, key your car and then slash the tires. (and then let you kill the baby)
Posted by: Fred Fry at November 06, 2006 01:34 PM (JXdhy)
Posted by: tbone at November 06, 2006 01:39 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: daveinboca at November 06, 2006 01:52 PM (FB/78)
The lower testosterone levels in American men story turned out to be a fraud based on bogus science and polling.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 06, 2006 03:26 PM (bLPT+)
I know they supposedly have a 'gay gene' identified for genetics, but like an earlier poster said, a genetic marker does not necissarily manifest itself in the individual carrying it.
The Darwinian explanation for homosexuality as far as I've heard is population control. The hypothesis is that if a population gets to a cetain size it will start producing homosexuals to reduce the number of breeders, thereby reducing long-run competition for food, resources, and mates for those who are more evolutionally fit.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 06, 2006 03:44 PM (VvXII)
I and the scientific community are eagerly awaiting your full report, on this topic, as well as the many other scientific topics, such as stem cell research, evolution and global warming.
Thanks, again
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 06, 2006 04:11 PM (F+9W9)
You know what would be really funny? Bringing up 30 year old sterotypes in a desperate attempt to get everyone to forget about Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by: OBL at November 06, 2006 04:17 PM (HGqHt)
You're totally off base with your Darwinian explanation.
The correct explanation is that through kin selection, homosexuals can support others with whom they share genes, bolstering the genetic fitness of kin and therefore themselves.
Posted by: Greg at November 06, 2006 05:10 PM (v7DMp)
Genetics possibly but there is a "trigger" factor in developing humans.
Identical twins can have one afflicted and not the other.
Lots to learn.
Posted by: NortonPete at November 06, 2006 05:21 PM (fVuwW)
There are a number of plausible theories. Check out the sociobiological research.
Posted by: rightwingprof at November 06, 2006 05:25 PM (o7KrD)
Posted by: Greg at November 06, 2006 05:47 PM (v7DMp)
piss you off ? Is it because of your weak intellect that your
posts always consist of slogans or smarm rather than actually, you
know, contributing?
Frankly, I find it a fascinating topic and I think everyone wants to
know what makes us tick or tock. Some good discussion here.
Posted by: Oyster at November 06, 2006 06:55 PM (YudAC)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 06, 2006 06:58 PM (VvXII)
In nonhuman primates, to best of my knowledge, while male/male mounting is observed, actual penetration has not been observed.
Interestingly, hyena societies are matriarchal and female hyena mimic male genitalia. It has been documented that female hyena mount males.
Posted by: Greg at November 06, 2006 08:14 PM (19GwZ)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 06, 2006 11:28 PM (0AdXP)
Scientific research into a "cure" for homosexuality with either
1 - find a cure
or
2 - demonstrate that gays not only didn't choose their orientation, but can't change (do you think Ted Haggard wants to be a fag? if he can't "choose" to be straight, who can?)
If there is a cure, what then? Should individuals be allowed to take it for themselves? (yes) Should the government inflict it on unwilling gays? (no)
Should parents be allowed to give it to their children? Even if there are serious negative side effects?
One thing is certain: scientists must be allowed to do research unless there is a compelling reason to block it (such as research involving the creation/destruction of human beings or part-human hybrids). The affront to gay dignity is not a good reason to block fearless research.
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at November 07, 2006 02:07 AM (YvLui)
Dr. Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance at Glasgow Caledonian University, has also written to OSU: “Considering the health problems the world is facing, it seems remarkable to me that a leading scientist such as Dr. Roselli should concern himself with frankly irrelevant questions. That the pursuit of these research questions should result into pain, suffering and death for higher mammals makes his endeavor all the more questionable.â€
The experiments on “gay sheep†are strikingly similar to German experimenter Günter Dörner’s deadly tests on rodents. OHSU stated that Roselli and Stormshak would “like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, for instance by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.†Likewise, Dörner postulated that homosexuality could be prevented in rodents by “correcting abnormal hormonal concentrations prenatally.†Also, Roselli and Stormshak cited Dörner’s work in a paper, suggesting that they are continuing along the same line of inquiry.
The German Society for Sex Research has strongly condemned Dörner’s sexual-manipulation experiments on animals, noting that “etiological research [on homosexuality] go[es] hand in hand with the common discrimination against homosexuals in our society,†and such tests “openly toy with the idea of endocrinological euthanasia of homosexuality.â€
To learn more about you can help end these cruel and misguided experiments, please visit http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-navratilova.asp.
Thank you.
Posted by: Shalin Gala at November 07, 2006 09:25 AM (7HMiR)
Dr. Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance at Glasgow Caledonian University, has also written to OSU: “Considering the health problems the world is facing, it seems remarkable to me that a leading scientist such as Dr. Roselli should concern himself with frankly irrelevant questions. That the pursuit of these research questions should result into pain, suffering and death for higher mammals makes his endeavor all the more questionable.â€
The experiments on “gay sheep†are strikingly similar to German experimenter Günter Dörner’s deadly tests on rodents. OHSU stated that Roselli and Stormshak would “like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, for instance by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.†Likewise, Dörner postulated that homosexuality could be prevented in rodents by “correcting abnormal hormonal concentrations prenatally.†Also, Roselli and Stormshak cited Dörner’s work in a paper, suggesting that they are continuing along the same line of inquiry.
The German Society for Sex Research has strongly condemned Dörner’s sexual-manipulation experiments on animals, noting that “etiological research [on homosexuality] go[es] hand in hand with the common discrimination against homosexuals in our society,†and such tests “openly toy with the idea of endocrinological euthanasia of homosexuality.â€
To learn more about you can help end these cruel and misguided experiments, please visit http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-navratilova.asp.
Thank you.
Posted by: Shalin Gala at November 07, 2006 09:26 AM (7HMiR)
Posted by: Ergo at November 07, 2006 10:14 AM (CMqw9)
Posted by: Ergo at November 07, 2006 10:14 AM (CMqw9)
Posted by: Ergo at November 07, 2006 10:18 AM (CMqw9)
In terms of a stable species with a large population, homosexuality is not problematic at all, since the species in more than able to produce a sufficient number of offspring to keep the species alive. In fact, there have been arguments that it helps to prevent overpopulation, so that food does not become scarce. The added benefit of having a gay animal in a herd would be to added strength to a herd without the added burden of too many babies. Babies are very vulnerable, and if every pair of animals had a baby there would be a lot of babies to defend.
Basically, there are plenty of reason evolution passes on traits that are seemingly anti-survival.
Posted by: Robert at November 07, 2006 10:31 AM (bnSHH)
But the right wouldn't let you abort a gay fetus because all children are a gift from God and are wanted, right?
Wait a minute! God allows some children to be gay? What was he thinking?
Or would aborting a gay fetus become an allowable exception in the eyes of the right while victims of rape, incest and ectopic pregnancies just have to suck it up?
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Posted by: Dee at November 07, 2006 01:01 PM (8H63a)
I agree that the money should be spent on something more worthwile instead of on flawed science.
Posted by: Brian at November 07, 2006 01:14 PM (m+C+k)
Posted by: Greg at November 07, 2006 01:48 PM (19GwZ)
certain political persuasion because you don't like them doesn't lend
creedence to it.
Posted by: Oyster at November 07, 2006 07:09 PM (YudAC)
November 02, 2006
Posted by: Bluto at
09:21 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 02, 2006 10:29 AM (C2G0Q)
Posted by: Dustin at November 02, 2006 11:21 AM (d+fHI)
If we are in violation of international labor laws and the ACLU and other groups are trying to have those laws enforced, what is the problem with the ACLU?
The NYT article says that "The petition, filed by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the other groups...".
Please explain why an organization that defends our constitution and international laws (unlike our fearless leader, who took an oath to defend our constitution, but doesn't), should be vilified for helping to protect workers' rights.
Shouldn't we be vilifying the AFL-CIO and the other groups, also, rather than singleing out the ACLU?
What am I missing?
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 12:33 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 12:47 PM (8e/V4)
What are you missing? A brain.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 01:57 PM (vBK4C)
*one word: 'ILLEGAL'
Posted by: guy at November 02, 2006 02:02 PM (C/3DC)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 03:39 PM (cNF2m)
I have been on this site for a couple of days, now and don't really care who agrees or disagrees with me.
I have no idea who you are talking about.
But I learn very quickly and I can sure see that you must have been deprived of a lot of oxygen during childbirth (one of many on this site).
And Guy - does international law specify that only "legal" immigrants are entitled to be safe on the job?
And how does the ACLU try to destroy our constitution?
Didn't they defend one of your heros, Rush LimpBalls?
Guess I missed that part, too.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see all of the illegal immigrants rounded up, along with all of their anchor children and shipped back to Mexico or whereever the hell they came from.
Then build a wall across the Mexican border to keep all of those fuckers from coming back.
And to fill the jobs that Americans won't do, how about the employers compete for American workers, by offering enough money that Americans will do the jobs, reducing the incentive for illegals to come here?
In the meantime, how about conforming with the laws of the US and the world?
Is that too much to ask, while we are rounding up all the illegals?
Or would you rather to pay the hospital bills for the illegals that get hurt on the job, because safety laws are not being enforced?
Oh, and by the way, I'm also in favor of getting rid of all the legal foreign workers here on visas that are also taking jobs from Americans.
When their visas are up, I say we send them home, as well.
And how about we stop giving American companies incentives to give away jobs to people in other countries?
Aren't you getting tired of America becoming a third world country, one that exports raw materials and imports finished goods?
I know I am.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 03:44 PM (F+9W9)
Don't tell Bush that the OAS doesn't have an army.
He'll want to launch a pre-emptive strike on them, especially if he finds out that they can't defend themselves.
He needs a victory, somewhere, really badly.
Maybe he could win that war, before the election and declare "Mission Accomplished".
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 03:50 PM (F+9W9)
Even a dumb assed puddleduck can get a few things right.
Puddlefuckhead: Bush just got a victory. Kerry's mouth.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 05:08 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 02, 2006 05:42 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:51 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 03, 2006 12:18 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 08:05 AM (cNF2m)
November 01, 2006
Posted by: Rusty at
06:09 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
I hope someone reads my mind and gives him a demonstration...
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 01, 2006 06:33 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Dustin at November 01, 2006 07:55 PM (d+fHI)
Genital mutilation is not common in the urban areas of Ethiopia where this man is from, and in the rural areas is completely a women's ritual - the father would not have attended, nevermind performed the circumcision.
Either way it's shameful and barbaric.
Posted by: Eric J at November 01, 2006 08:41 PM (5PRM2)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 01, 2006 09:55 PM (CtVG6)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 01, 2006 10:20 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Big White Infidel at November 01, 2006 10:55 PM (wbJN+)
Greyrooster is also a lonely and bitter old man. Pity him.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 01, 2006 10:59 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 01, 2006 11:07 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 01, 2006 11:09 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 01, 2006 11:22 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Joe Public at November 01, 2006 11:28 PM (dHMPp)
Please stop it. Stop talking. Go home, get on the bike, go wind surfing, anything, stop it. You're going to hurt the Republican party.
Perhaps in your case, it would be better to say:
Please stop it. Stop talking. Go home to your trailer, drink thunderbird, watch the skeeters get zapped, anything, stop it. You're going to hurt the Republican party.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 01, 2006 11:29 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Joe Public at November 01, 2006 11:37 PM (dHMPp)
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 01, 2006 11:44 PM (HSkSw)
His son, if he truely is a marine, defends the freedom of all Americans, black, brown, yellow and white alike.
And Greyrooster has done more with his racist venom to dishonor his son's service than I could ever do with my stupid taunts.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 01, 2006 11:47 PM (HSkSw)
As it goes, I do believe that GR's son is a serving military man. GR himself has provided ample evidence that he himself was, and these things tend to run in families. 'Make the old man proud', and such. That aside - even if I thought he was lying, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, just because I wouldn't want to insult someone who was putting their life on the line in the name of my country. That you would do so speaks volumes about your character.
Posted by: Joe Public at November 01, 2006 11:53 PM (dHMPp)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 02, 2006 01:23 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 07:36 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 02, 2006 07:38 AM (yZQoS)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 07:47 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:02 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:15 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:47 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:48 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 08:53 AM (8e/V4)
Read back at what Greyrooster recently wrote and you will see his racism is not about Islam.
The racist insults the host (See Comment #5 above) and yet now even you seem to take up for him.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 02, 2006 09:29 AM (HSkSw)
Oh, I see, blame the woman! Because in Islam you need 4 women's testimony to equal one man.
Eric, that's why we have things called TRIALS. Trials remove "doubts" over evidence. The jury has weighed the man's guilt and have passed a judgment.
Why don't you pop that in your mouth, roll it around a while? Its tasty. Don't choke on it.
Posted by: BelchSpeak at November 02, 2006 09:31 AM (ZEIBc)
I'm not taking up for him, and I know he's a racist. But his comments against islam are not.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 09:38 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 02, 2006 09:43 AM (v3I+x)
I am no fan of Islam myself.
What bothers me is when anti-Black racists are given a home here.
Liberals who visit here read Greyrooster's racist hate and get the wrong idea about Rusty's site.
More conservatives need to tell Greyrooster to shut up and leave.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 02, 2006 10:00 AM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Howie at November 02, 2006 10:34 AM (D3+20)
I save my attacks on rooster's racism for when he actually posts something racist. Otherwise I just end up sounding like a Leftbot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: negentropy at November 02, 2006 11:12 AM (27KAF)
Greyrooster doesn't need to 'shut up and leave'. As I see it this is a free speech zone. I am nobody special, but like you, I have been able to come here and say whats on my mind. I have even pissed someone off.
The worst bigots are Islamic Jihadists. OK?
The correct response to free speech, is more free speech, not less. If you aren't OK with opinions different then yours, maybe your the one who should "MOve On". Just sayin ...
Islam isn't a race. Stupidity isn't racial. Lets not fall victim to either one.
I suggest to you Darth, that you pick another thread, because here the "force" is not with you...
USA all the way! Get out the vote!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 02, 2006 12:33 PM (2OHpj)
Don't worry Darth. GreyRooster's racists comments are counter-balanced by Improbulus's death chants and rants, so the Liberals still get the right idea of what a wonderful Christian blog this is. And just to make sure. we have Jesusland Joke and Great White Infinite to spread the Agape! Peace brothers!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 02, 2006 01:01 PM (Dd86v)
Hill said there are major problems with the prosecution's case and that Adem was arrested primarily on the word of the then-2-year-old girl who could have been coached by a mother desperate to get custody. Another problem in the case, Hill said, is that the alleged circumcision, which took place in 2001, wasn't discovered or reported to police until two years later.
"What mother would not know that this has happened to their daughter for two years?" he said.
Hill said the couple's history of problems also led him to question the prosecution's charges.
Khalid Adem immigrated to the United States from Ethiopia when he was 16, Hill said. Fortunate Adem moved to this country from South Africa when she was 6, according to court documents. The two met at Georgia Perimeter College in Clarkston. The couple was married, and their daughter was born on Sept. 8, 1999. The couple had a contentious marriage and was divorced by August 2003.
Fortunate Adem was awarded full custody of the child. Adem was not granted visitation rights.
So the mother didn't notice the mutilation of her daughter's genitalia for two years? Co-incidentally she noticed it during a contentious divorce and custody dispute? Sure that's why we have trials. But excuse me if I don't have %100 faith in the jury system for an emotionally charged case like this one, with no physical evidence.
Posted by: Eric J at November 02, 2006 03:05 PM (hrQvk)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 03:54 PM (cNF2m)
Not to mention who gives a rat's @ss what the moonbats think. Let them get the wrong idea and go crying back to Kos and DU about the raaaaaacism they just witnessed. See if I care.
Posted by: Lying Moonbat at November 02, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 04:15 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 05:16 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 06:01 PM (cNF2m)
Eric J is right. There is absolutely no proof that the father mutilated his daughter, but there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the mother. Only a moron would believe that she didn't report the mutilation to coincide with her divorce suit. Nothing on the planet is more vicious, depraved and pitiless than a woman raping a man in a divorce case. The criminal justice system in this country is an incredibly corrupt joke. Your faith in it is misplaced, to say the least. Wild accusations aren't synonymous with fact.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 03, 2006 12:33 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 08:09 AM (cNF2m)
October 24, 2006
I just voted. Yes I voted early, but since I'm not a Democrat you don't have to worry about me voting often. In my state we have what is called "early voting". I voted Republican. Mostly. I voted Green for a few local offices. I've no idea why those were partisan races anyway.Why did I vote Republican in all the major races? Because for the last 6 years we've had an out of control federal government that spends far too much money. I want that to change. But you don't fix that by voting for people who promise changing things by spending even more.
That's the dig faster to get yourself out of the hole strategy I hear a few of my fellow RINOs talking about lately. Yeah, that's real smart.
Could it get any worse under a Democratic Congress? Of course it could! Much worse. Higher taxes and more spending. It's what the Democrats are promising.
And with big-spender Bush in charge, "compromise" will mean spending somewhere between the White House's "way too much" and the Democrat's "obscenely disgusting too much".
Then there is the foreign policy front. This is what really worries me. For every one legitimate criticism by Democrats of Bush foreign policy and Pentagaon ineptness there are 10 fantasies of dangerous proportions. These foreign policy fantasies range from "let the U.N. handle it" to "let's talk about the problem some more" to "ignore it and it doesn't exist".
I'd like to see many of the Bush foreign policy "realists" replaced. The fact is they are not realists. I'd start with Donald Rumsfeld and work my way down.
But the fantasies of the Democratic party are the opposite side of the same coin. It is proper to hold Bush accountable for mistakes made in Iraq, but where is the accountability for the Democrats who essentially wanted to do the same things as Bush, but wanted to go in under the auspices of the U.N.? As if internationalizing the same policy would have made some difference.
Or the accountability for those Democrats who, last year, called for precisely what we are doing right now: training Iraqi forces to defend the country themselves?
And how would things get better by calling an international conference to discuss Iraq? That is what other leading Democrats are saying right now. Calling an international conference. This is what passes for "realism" in Democratic circles.
Working towards realism cannot begin by electing a party that would give France veto power over American foreign policy. It's bizarro logic.
And do you think the Democratic leadership in Congress is really "moderate"?
The Right Place, using three different measures, has built a scale to measure just how "liberal" or "conservative" each member of Congress is. The lower the number, the more liberal. The higher, the more conservative. The scale ranges from 0-100.
Nanci Pelosi, the next Democratic Speaker of the House? She gets a 6. To put that in perspective, a left-of-center "moderate" should score at least in the 30-40 range.
Should the Democrats take over the Senate Carl Levin would chair the Armed Services Committee and Jay Rockefeller the Intelligence Committee. Both score 9 on the scale.
The Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee would be Charlie Rangel. He scores 4, making him one of the most liberal Congressman in the entire House! You want this guy in charge of the committee that proposes tax bills?
See the whole list here. Anyway, go ahead and vote for the Democrats. That's real smart.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:01 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Mr. Right at October 24, 2006 12:18 PM (unls6)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 24, 2006 12:45 PM (Dd86v)
By the way - I like cowboys. When are you sophisticated sycophants going to realize we don't view "cowboy" as a four letter word.
Posted by: Editor at October 24, 2006 01:20 PM (adpJH)
ignoring the validity of your claim that we went it alone, sometimes you have to go it alone to do the right thing. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. Majority opinion of some committee of self appointed intellectuals does not make something right or wrong.
Posted by: Edward Stewart at October 24, 2006 01:31 PM (90nMW)
Posted by: RepJ at October 24, 2006 01:47 PM (L5LRS)
Posted by: dcb at October 24, 2006 04:17 PM (8e/V4)
Not that it will make any difference in FL, But I really can't wait to see the look on Bill Nelson and the Dems faces when they see how close they came to be beaten by Katherine Harris (of all people)!
Posted by: Mrs Abe Froman at October 24, 2006 04:32 PM (OYckj)
I would like to see Bush impeached if the Democrats win.
Why?
Bush is not waging all out war in Iraq. There are NOT enough troops and I've got a nephew in the marines in the hell hole of Ramadi and they are undermanned. I don't want a war waged like Vietnam. I want a war hell bent on winning and CRUSHING the enemy.
Secondly, I want a FENCE the FULL LENGTH of the Mexican-U.S. border built, no amnesty, and illegals deported. Bush and Congress are playing games with us.
Finally, with Bush out. Dick Cheney would be President and I don't believe he is a pseudo-Conservative like Bush is.
I voted twice for Bush, because there was nothing better and the Democrats having nothing worthy of consideration for President. Bush is just the less of two evils.
Posted by: Darren at October 24, 2006 04:33 PM (38GUY)
Nothing wrong with being a cowboy. They bring the beef to market.
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 24, 2006 05:22 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:49 PM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 24, 2006 08:13 PM (Dd86v)
We are choosing the people who will shape the world our children, and grandchildren will inherit!
(Then I typed about fifteen minutes of angry ranting and thought better of it before posting, and typed this paragraph in its place. Whew, close call...)
Vote for anyone but a Dem, unless your stuck with the Leiberman/Lamont choice in which case (many more angry words!) support Lieberman.
To all Jawa's... Keep up the good work, this is one of the best places on the internet, and
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 24, 2006 09:31 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 10:50 PM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 10:50 PM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 11:13 PM (zqSqi)
it has nothing to do with "flippant remarks", and everything to do with the fact that fwance, Russia, and Kofi, et al, were on the take in Iraq and Bush ruined their gravy train. Not a great way to "win friends" when you ruin their gravy train.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 24, 2006 11:38 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Subvet at October 25, 2006 03:06 AM (DNVxw)
" I believe the Indians started the slaughtering first " Hmmm. That's like saying he rammed his face into my fist. If only they had just layed down, rolled over and just given us their land and moved off to the desert.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 09:18 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 09:35 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 09:37 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 25, 2006 11:47 AM (Oew5j)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 07:23 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 25, 2006 07:32 PM (8e/V4)
Pilgrams seeking religious freedom come to new world and start killing indians. Come on Larry. Once again liberals attempting to rewrite history. There are many historical books on the Commanches in Texas and what they did to bring the wrath of the cowboys upon their heads. Torture, rape, mass murder, multilation, slavery. Shit sounds like the muslims. Again in 100 years people will be saying how the muslims were so mistreated by the Marines. Liberalism is a disease that affects the thought process. You should be ashamed if you voted for the traitor Kerry. Of course you did grow up in Hattiesburg. Cause for foregiveness. Try and get it right next election.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 26, 2006 06:39 AM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 26, 2006 09:28 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 26, 2006 09:41 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 27, 2006 12:29 AM (eqF9P)
My Marine son Scott, a health nut, says I am contributing to an unhealthy America. I say the devil make me do it. I was supposed to let some muslim who gets tax breaks buy it? Little that he knows that when he gets home I'm going to con him into running it. The town will now have two Mac Donalds. Gotta feed all those New Orleans people who moved here and don't plan to go back. Not that I blame them.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 27, 2006 12:53 AM (eqF9P)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 27, 2006 01:53 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 28, 2006 06:59 PM (Sc2TP)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 22, 2006 08:06 PM (mjvBP)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 23, 2006 12:49 AM (pAEmi)
http://villasincrete.net/porn
by5pv
http://arachno.name/t/161743
Posted by: porn at January 21, 2007 12:19 PM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/pharmasy1
http://villasincrete.net/pharmasy1
9jwnv
http://arachno.name/t/161743
Posted by: dgon at January 24, 2007 10:44 PM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/best_tavel
http://villasincrete.net/best_tavel
4u2ss
http://arachno.name/t/161793
Posted by: trvel at January 25, 2007 06:34 PM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/pharmasy1
http://villasincrete.net/pharmasy1
svzs9
http://arachno.name/t/161743
Posted by: dgon at January 26, 2007 08:50 AM (YuVtd)
Posted by: tom at January 30, 2007 04:25 AM (YuVtd)
October 23, 2006
Several studies in The American Political Science Associations' PS: Political Science and Politics journal predict that the Republican Party will retain its majority in the U.S. Senate, but that the Democrats will take over the House of Representative.
It's science. You can't argue with it.
Remember, it took Ph.D.'s with advanced computer modeling to make these predictions. I need a punchline for a joke that goes something like, "What do you call 4 Ph.D.'s who use complex forecasting models to say exactly what that moron Chris Matthews has been saying for months?"
I'm thinking, "Tenured" ought to do the trick. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
01:35 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Papa R. at October 23, 2006 03:11 PM (R75zM)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 23, 2006 03:29 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: Mark at October 23, 2006 03:29 PM (E3lkP)
Posted by: Vinnie at October 23, 2006 04:15 PM (/qy9A)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 23, 2006 05:29 PM (DdRjH)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:25 AM (zqSqi)
No silly, they know that the Government prints money when it needs it. D'uh.
Posted by: Fersboo at October 24, 2006 10:46 AM (x0fj6)
Hee hee! Say this six times fast ...
"Mars missions miss "
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 24, 2006 10:09 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: JJP at October 25, 2006 08:32 AM (dY/49)
Well golly! Thanks!
(Didja hear that? Brilliant! I knew it! WhooHoo!)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 25, 2006 05:08 PM (2OHpj)
October 20, 2006
Democrats, so I was told on NPR last night, are trying to reconnect to religious Americans who vote overwhelmingly for the Republican party. So, how are they doing that? By trying to suppress the vote of religious Americans.Last night I went down to the church where I regularly attend for a small group meeting. I was early. When I got to there, I found a flyer from Americans United for Separation of Church and State taped to the door.
The flyer had "pastor" written on it. It warned that churches endorsing political candidates could lose their tax exempt status. Here is a copy of a similar letter. The version of the letter I got, which also bore the Americans United for Separation of Church and State logo on it, also cited court cases in which churches were prosecuted.
The rather thinly veiled threat was that churches that endorse political candidates or even distribute values based voter guides, might be held to account. If you talk about politics in your church, we will take you to court.
I wonder how many of these flyers were taped to the doors of churches with largely African-American members? The kind of churches which routinely invite Democratic candidates to speak from the pulpit.
Now, my church never endorses political candidates. It is official church policy. I've personally never felt like talking politics was appropriate anywhere in church, not even during our monthly potluck dinner.
But, even so, there is a general consensus among the members that any party that can't take a stand against gay marriage or abortion might not be exactly what you'd call 'Christian'. The feeling isn't shared by all, but talking positively about Democrats, even at potluck, is a sure way to get a dirty look or a scowl.
And this is in a very theologically liberal church. As I mentioned, we are eschatological universalists in our core doctrine.
But I do not respond to threats kindly. And since my voice carries a bit of weight with the other congegants, I can promise you this one thing: I will no longer be silent about making my political preferences known.
Not only did the local Democratic party activist who taped this to our church just ensure that I will vote, but that of most of my fellow church members. And I have a feeling that the local Baptist ministers will also not be amused. And there are a lot of Baptists around here.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:07 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.
In private, they refer to them as "those nuts".
http://www.amazon.com/Tempting-Faith-Inside-Political-Seduction/dp/0743287126
By David Kuo.
David Kuo was Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
The book hits the stands today.
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 11:16 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 20, 2006 11:19 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 11:44 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: cory at October 20, 2006 12:43 PM (+pzHI)
Posted by: tbone at October 20, 2006 02:23 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 03:15 PM (rUyw4)
church. right now a liberal church in
california that doesn't like President
Bush's policies are being investigated by the
IRS. If you really want to talk about voter
supression, check out the case in California
where a GOP congressional candidate sent out
15,000 letters to people with Spanish names telling them that illegal residents and nationalized citizens could not vote. One person who received the letter is the current congresswoman of the district, who has a spanish surname
Posted by: harryo at October 20, 2006 03:41 PM (vXE/Z)
You also ignore overt efforts by Republicans in Ohio and else where to purge Democratic voters by the tens of thousands, as they did in Florida/Ohio and elsewhere in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
You're silent about that yet have the temerity to pretend what you're writing about is worthy of a second thought.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at October 20, 2006 05:33 PM (e3GJ1)
I will vote, I will vote republican, and I will PRAY that the democrats lose bigtime. ( I guess I'm just going to hell!)
Posted by: Codekeyguy at October 20, 2006 06:51 PM (+WuRB)
There's nothing wrong with a church saying that a particular issue is right or wrong (war, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). These are issues that used to be addressed in the church (no matter the denomination or religion), and this is where the American people dealt with these issues (where they were close to their maker(s) through their own relgious tradition). But now such issues have moved from moral issues to political issues. And as such political battle insues within the walls of religion.
The problem faced now on these issues is that when a priest says something to his congregation carries far more weight than when a fake politician says something to those same people. This makes the more secular political hacks nervous because a non-politician is talking about an issue that is important to their favorite candidate. And so you get suggested threats of litigation against religious institutions to keep them from talking about such important issues.
Posted by: Edward Stewart at October 20, 2006 08:48 PM (Eta76)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 10:38 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 20, 2006 11:40 PM (AP2ro)
And, really, Democrats have no room talking about "vote suppression" when they make a habit out of manufacturing voters. Fake voters suppress the votes of real people; stop the fraud, and I'll start worrying about a handful of idiots frightened out of voting.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2006 08:12 AM (bH9q3)
The Bush Admin. are playing the Christian voting block.
In private, they refer to them as "those nuts".
I know. One day, according to Dem talking points, the evangelicals are manipulating Bush, and the next day they tell us Bush is manipulating them. So which is it? The stoy keeps changing. Let me know when you get the final draft of the memo.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 09:20 AM (8e/V4)
Conspiracy politics is for retards.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 09:21 AM (8e/V4)
about the hispanic vote says that only a small portion of the nation's total Hispanic population votes. There's never been any evidence of any organized voter fraud by illegal immigrants because if there was any evidence wouldn't the attorney general or other law enforcement officials investigate such allegations the way the FBI and California's attorney general jumped over the attempt by a Republican in Orange County CA to supress latin voters by sending out letters say that regardless of citizenship status, Latin Americans would be arrested if they try to vote.
And what's wrong with letting released felons vote. The purpose of prison is to reform criminals to become productive, respectable members of society; and what better way to become
respectable members of the community by participating in the political process.
On another note, should non-citizens, ex felons and other people who don't have the right to vote be exempted from taxes since they don't have a say, via the election box, on who should pay taxes and how they are spent.
Posted by: harryo at October 21, 2006 10:33 AM (vXE/Z)
Anyways, I wanted to ask if there was any evidence that Republicans get an "overwhelming majority" of the religious vote, because from everything I've seen, that isn't the case.
Posted by: JohnJ at October 21, 2006 03:13 PM (h/wKi)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 22, 2006 04:15 AM (2OHpj)
various lefturd visitors, who make a far better case than I ever could
for the extermination of their kind. I save all their comments in a
text document which I call the "evidence file", which I'll read while
they're waiting in line for their turn at the rope. Gregturd and
Nostril Von Retard have to wait at the back of the line so they have
longer to consider their sins.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 22, 2006 05:13 AM (v3I+x)
October 19, 2006
The New Media Journal also lists as part of Keith Ellison's qualifications for Congres:
▪ Has hidden behind at least three known aliasesOne 9/11 denyer and one anti-Semite. Nice party ya got there.▪ Who, while a law student, organized a speaking engagement at his school titled "Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?", and refused to listen to Jewish student's concerns over the program
▪ Has supported slavery reparations
▪ Has publicly supported one cop killer and another who attempted to kill a policeman
▪ Appeared on stage with a person who allegedly said "Jews are among the most racist white people I know."
▪ Is a ten year-long member of Louis Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam", and lied about it repeatedly
▪ Has taken campaign contributions from a man who has affirmed that he is "In support of the Hamas movement."
▪ Has been in trouble with the IRS for refusing to pay $25,000 in income taxes
▪ Had his driver's license suspended for thousands of dollars in unpaid traffic fines
Posted by: Rusty at
08:55 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 10:20 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 19, 2006 10:27 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 10:35 AM (8e/V4)
have you heard Alex Jones' radio ad promoting that video? He sounds like a COMPLETE MORON, you must admit.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 02:25 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greg at October 19, 2006 02:45 PM (/+dAV)
He's black Rusty. He's a black muslim. What the hell do you expect. Blacks become muslim for one reason and one reason only. Because they are racists who hate white people. Why the hell can't people admit to this fact?
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 19, 2006 06:49 PM (ZVu3J)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 21, 2006 09:14 AM (AP2ro)
Let me put numbers on your bullet points and rate whether they're valid or invalid critiques of Keith Ellison:
1. Ellison's Aliases: People change their names and use noms de plume. There's nothing shady abuot that. INVALID
2, 5 & 7. His Nation of Islam connections: Yes, Ellison, as an angry younger black man, got involved in the empowerment rhetoric of the Nation of Islam, including its very unfortunate anti-Semitism. He has renounced that. Everyone who knows the guy says he's a coalition-builder -- a genuine uniter. Nevertheless, it's in his past, so he has to live with it. VALID
3. Slavery reparations -- not a bad idea. INVALID.
4. Cop killers -- I am personally uncomfortable with this and need to learn more about it. VALID.
6. Campaign contributions from a "Hamas supporter." This is the old slam on the Council on American Islamic Relations. The quote predates many of Hamas' acts of violence; the speaker was referring to the social service provision and empowerment aspects of the Hamas movement, not the violence of its armed wing. INVALID.
8 & 9. IRS and driver's license problenms: Yes, he's got flaws, and his personal financial problems are embarrassing. VALID.
Yes, there are valid critiques. But he seems like a good guy. Anyway, Americans in general are ignorant beyond belief about Muslims. They need a Muslim in public life -- if only to remind people that not all Muslims looks like Osama bin Laden. Plus, Ellison has been forthright about the stupidity of the war on Iraq and social justice issues in general. So he gets a pass on these issues in his past. He's going to do a great job in Congress.
Posted by: Dan Bernard at October 21, 2006 01:47 PM (adgk1)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 21, 2006 07:48 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 10:42 AM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Rusty at
07:38 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Captain Ed at October 19, 2006 07:48 AM (s8buG)
October 10, 2006
Nancy Pelosi would be a much better Speaker of the House than that scoundrel Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
Here is what you will get if you vote, like me, for Democrats this fall.
Nancy Pellosi is a member of the House who represents San Francisco, California. As a representative of that fair city, Speaker Pelosi would be much less tolerant of gay sexual deviants. Much less so than the current Speaker from the Illinois corn belt. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
09:58 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: HadaAbeche at October 10, 2006 10:02 AM (FJRB8)
Posted by: Sapper Chris at October 10, 2006 11:07 AM (ZEIBc)
Posted by: Editor at October 10, 2006 11:08 AM (adpJH)
be much less tolerant of gay sexual deviants.
Nonsense. The only difference is that Dems would rush to the gay deviant's defense if he were a Democrat.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 10, 2006 11:23 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: wooga at October 10, 2006 11:38 AM (tAB8A)
Posted by: jane at October 10, 2006 11:54 AM (L5LRS)
Posted by: Good Lt at October 10, 2006 12:09 PM (D0TMh)
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 10, 2006 12:44 PM (fXz1b)
So you guys are gonna have Pelosi as the speaker next month and Hillary as the President in two years. Great!! Two PMS Vicious Cunting Sows running the show. You guys are totally f&%$ed now!! The Carpet Munching States of Islamica. Heterosexuals will be banned from marriage, NAMBLA will run the Boy Scouts, parts of the country will have seperated into Islamic states run by CAIR, California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will be part of Mexico again and the ACLU will replace the Supreme Court. That is, if North Korea can't get's shit together and properly test a nuke. C'mon George, do us all a favor and press the red button now and Rock the Casbah!!
Posted by: Big White Infidel at October 10, 2006 12:59 PM (T1CVr)
(...and I'm not even drunk...)
Posted by: Bob Crawford at October 10, 2006 01:13 PM (/UAJE)
Don't fret. The hackable Diebold machines will deliver the election to the RePageLickin's.
Posted by: Greg at October 10, 2006 02:14 PM (/+dAV)
Michael Rivero is interviewed by Lenny Charles of the INN World report.
I like him, although he should shave off that mustache.
http://www.thelastoutpost.com/Portals/_TheLastOutpost/Video/mediaplayer/Michael-Rivero.wmv
Posted by: Greg at October 10, 2006 02:36 PM (/+dAV)
What's up with your buddy Lauro Chavez, Greg? Haven't heard you mention him lately, did you two have a falling out?
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 10, 2006 02:54 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 10, 2006 02:54 PM (rUyw4)
I heard at the water cooler that he ran off with your old lady.
Something about your dick being so small, you can fuck a Cheerio.
Posted by: Greg at October 10, 2006 03:53 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Gleep! at October 10, 2006 04:03 PM (UHKaK)
Posted by: RepJ at October 10, 2006 08:55 PM (XlkAj)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 10, 2006 09:46 PM (xJ3Xm)
Keep dancing and flinging monkey. Jessee MacBeth still loves you!
Posted by: Max Power at October 10, 2006 11:02 PM (aMi4b)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 11, 2006 09:31 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: David R. Block at October 11, 2006 12:57 PM (HPQz7)
You'd think that these revelations would've clued in the Jesus voters.
You'd think that they would understand by now that well-paid advisors brief W on which insider terms to use in order to thrill the hearts of fundamentalists. You'd think that they would notice that "their" president rarely attends religious services. Recent books have portrayed GWB as a foul-mouthed and ill-tempered bundle of resentment, likelier to say "motherfucker" than "maranatha," likelier to raise the finger than to bend the knee.
Howard Dean described an incident that occurred during a meeting with Bush, when both men were governors. When forced to take a call from a Christian Coalition representative, W stomped off muttering "I hate these people."
Alas, most evangelicals still cling to their hallucinations of Republican piety. Maybe this revelation by Tucker Carlson -- no liberal, he -- will finally awaken the entranced:
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
Posted by: Greg at October 11, 2006 01:51 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Max Power at October 11, 2006 06:53 PM (aMi4b)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 13, 2006 06:54 AM (xJ3Xm)
Let the smear campaign begin. Maybe we need those swiftboaters to come in and do the job. They are professional liars, like most Repugs, currently in power.
Posted by: Puddleduck at October 13, 2006 08:18 AM (F+9W9)
Dear Puddles,
Same Same
Posted by: SDFreeman at October 16, 2006 11:56 AM (D84Qi)
Posted by: SDFreeman at October 16, 2006 11:58 AM (D84Qi)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 22, 2006 11:17 AM (zW/Zg)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 24, 2006 06:17 PM (ASLRs)
http://villasincrete.net/fucker
3uotg
http://arachno.name/t/161818
Posted by: lover at January 21, 2007 05:36 AM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/drugs
http://villasincrete.net/drugs
w8lts
http://arachno.name/t/161818
Posted by: shop at January 22, 2007 05:58 AM (YuVtd)
Posted by: tren at January 29, 2007 07:54 PM (YuVtd)
October 04, 2006
Having sex (or wanting to have sex) with a teenagers is not child molestation nor is it pedophelia.
Pedophelia is sex with children. Teenagers are not physically children. Having sex with a teenager is 'statutory rape'. That is, by statute, we declare them incompetent to make their own decisions on sexual matters.
Statutory rape is wrong because teenagers under 18 are not mature enough to rationally make those kinds of important life choices. It is wrong at the social level.
Wanting to have sex with prepubescent or early pubescent children goes beyond social mores. It is anti-Darwinian....or you might call it "unnatural", which is what I think the Bible calls it.
I think the Bible also says that those who engage in pedophelic behavior fall into
canyons, are impaled, then are eaten by mountain lions and grizzly bears. It's somewhere in the back.
Wanting to have sex with a hot 17 year old girl is natural, but wrong.
If you want to have sex with this, you are not a pedophile. You need to control yourself, but you do not need to check into a clinic.
Britney Spears at 17
Wanting to have sex with a 9 year old is unnatural and vastly more wrong. Wanting this makes you a deviant of the worst kind. If you want to have sex with this, then I'd suggest chemical castration. Or maybe suicide.
Christina Aguilera at 10
One "prophet" certainly comes to mind here.
Oh, and death to America!
Posted by: Rusty at
10:33 AM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Editor at October 04, 2006 10:42 AM (adpJH)
While I am the last person who is going to defend Foley, this is a truly important point. Up until the 20th CENTURY it was considered completely acceptable to MARRY teenage girls in many places in America. All through history it was common for men to marry girls aged 14 plus, basically the age where reproduction became possible. It is entirely natural for men to desire teenage women (the boys part less so IMHO) and only sane societal laws make it illegal to do so, as 16 year old girls do need protection but not because the men are sick. Just because they are being men.
Posted by: Christopher Ross at October 04, 2006 10:45 AM (etcdC)
What a man, what a religion!
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 04, 2006 10:49 AM (ITYPH)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM
The very first frame.
Fair and Balanced!
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 10:54 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 11:03 AM (/+dAV)
Last time I checked, the dems and MSM were telling me there was nothing wrong with this kind of male bonding.
I wake up on Monday and it's like a guy can't sodomize another guy in America anymore. WTF?
Posted by: Bif at October 04, 2006 11:10 AM (Ignlt)
See, look at the "moral values" people. They hate gays, will stop gay marriage, vote to oppress, but like jim west of spokane, jeff gannon hot military stud gay prostitute, and now mark foley gay teen lover....i really think the moral value anti-gay people are just that...gay as hell. repressed as hell. look at the ideology. follow the bible, hate everything...kill everything...now look at what your ideology has caused....two failed neo-con wars....a police state...
man, maybe if you gay gOP people would stop listening to your pastor anf have gay sex you wouldnt have to hate everyone and everything...
moral values folks my ass...how bout the neurotic repressed freak show bar none!
losers.
Posted by: ernie at October 04, 2006 11:25 AM (acTzX)
Posted by: pivalleygirl at October 04, 2006 11:27 AM (G8qYZ)
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 04, 2006 11:37 AM (ITYPH)
A GOP staff member told congressional pages to watch out for former Congressman Foley.
October 1, 2006— It turns out Foley's obsession with 16- and 17-year-old male pages has been known to Republicans on Capitol Hill for at least FIVE YEARS.â€
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514770
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 11:45 AM (/+dAV)
This happened to me in Miami many years ago. I received a call from the Coral Gables police department that my dog had bitten a child. I asked what happened, they said they were not sure as they received the call from the childs mother. I naturally, rushed home to find my dog still chained in my screened in back porch. Turned out that a 15 year old boy had attempted to deliver a circular to my house by opening the screen door and entering my back porch. Of course the mother had called the humane society, a lawyer, police, aclu and naacp. All paperwork referred to this 160lb 15 year old as a child. Judge threw case out and asked if I wished to press charges for trespassing. The word child was simply a ploy to gain sympathy for a dumbass 15 year old.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 11:52 AM (xJ3Xm)
You're wrong. Foley is a pedophile.
pedophile
A person who suffers from Pedophilia; that is, an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Pedophile Noun: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
ped·o·phile (plural ped·o·philes) noun
Definition: adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 11:52 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 11:54 AM (xJ3Xm)
Poor ole Foley, forgot the first rule of politics....no anal lube south of the Mason Dixon line.
Posted by: Barney Frank at October 04, 2006 12:11 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 04, 2006 12:17 PM (7teJ9)
Conservatives have roundly condemned the deviant Foley even if he's
Republican, while Liberals like Ernie only believe deviancy is wrong
when a Republican gets caught.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 04, 2006 12:27 PM (paKD6)
Also, this might happen when one of MY children are around, which will immediately lead to surgical castration anyway. Only I won't be using anesthetics.
Other than that, you're right. There IS a distinction to be made. The problem is where to draw the line. If you draw the line at "teenager", then it'd be "natural" (though undeniably WRONG) to want to have sex with a 13-year-old.
There's a line to be drawn between "natural" and "unnatural", on that we can certainly agree, I just don't know exactly where to draw it.
Posted by: Misha I at October 04, 2006 12:32 PM (kb0Ei)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 04, 2006 12:37 PM (Dd86v)
I believe that whatever we in power do with our young charges, be it, boofing them, harassing them or just giving them a good shagging, it's most important to teach them how to swim.
Now, that said, this behavior by the Congressman is unacceptable. I call on all Republicans to resign.
Posted by: Senator Ted Kennedy at October 04, 2006 12:41 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: Rick Ellensburg at October 04, 2006 12:51 PM (lvyez)
See anything wrong with this graphic? The O'Reilly Factor ran it in not one, but two segments and posted it three times. I can understand if FOX and The Factor made an error the first time, but to post it repeatedly should be a firing offense, The most watched show on FOX News has now labeled the former Republican Congressman Mark Foley, who is in the middle of a sexual predator scandal that has Hastert's career on the ropes —a Democrat. Was it an error or done by choice? I report–you decide.â€
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 12:57 PM (PnoGS)
Your right, this sicko Rep from FL should never have the opportunity to serve in the Upper chamber.
This is your old friend Brock signing off from Hell
Posted by: Senator Brock Adams at October 04, 2006 01:10 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 04, 2006 01:13 PM (7teJ9)
More "Log Cabin" Republicans
“Things have been looking up for accused child molester Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, the 36-year-old Christian conservative activist and lawyer with close ties to Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Scott Baugh, head of the Orange County Republican Party. Police say Nielsen took a 14-year-old Westminster boy as his sex partner in 2003 and maintained a huge cache of man-boy pornography.
But prosecutors have allowed their case against Nielsen, once an intern in the district attorney’s office, to stall for 40 months.â€
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115991457480750400
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 01:28 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Jerry Stubbs at October 04, 2006 01:43 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 04, 2006 01:44 PM (ITYPH)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at October 04, 2006 01:50 PM (3nKvy)
Posted by: Good Lt at October 04, 2006 02:11 PM (lvyez)
Time to clean house (and senate).
Those claiming to be from the "party of morality" are particularly reprehensible.
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 02:20 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Some Guy at October 04, 2006 02:20 PM (wkRws)
Posted by: Northern Cross at October 04, 2006 02:21 PM (mtrrA)
Posted by: Northern Cross at October 04, 2006 02:22 PM (mtrrA)
Posted by: Papa R. at October 04, 2006 02:40 PM (R75zM)
No wonder you chose to become a college instructor.
Posted by: Darth Vag at October 04, 2006 02:54 PM (HSkSw)
Simple. Pedophile.
Just like all those South-of-the-Border-boys who knock up 15 year old Mexican girls because a Mexican girl becomes a woman at age 15.
I'm glad the rapists go to jail in Texas, but I wish the sickoes would go straight to hell.
Sorry, we have laws for a reason. To protect minors from being ravaged by PEDOPHILES. It is time these pedophiles obey the law, whether they are Mexicans who need submit to Anglo culture if they want to live here or former Congressman Foley.
Posted by: Darth Vag at October 04, 2006 02:59 PM (HSkSw)
Paidon = child
Phileo = love
Literally pedophile means "one who loves children."
We can bicker back and forth about the definition of pedophile all day. But we can leave it at this:
Foley is an Internet Sexual Predator.
It doesn't matter what we call it, it was despicable.
Posted by: "Pink "Eyed" Jim at October 04, 2006 04:04 PM (QBzHJ)
Both the Democratic party and the Republican party needs an enema. Both have reduced govenment to petty bickering. Whenever the Democrats are in power they do something stupid. Whenever the Republicans are in power they do something greedy. Greedy just happens to suit my particular situation.
Posted by: Rev. Fred Phelps at October 04, 2006 04:41 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: Some Guy at October 04, 2006 06:06 PM (wkRws)
Only the subject of pedophilia could bring Greg and Ernie onto the same thread. Any idea why? I have a theory.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 04, 2006 07:54 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 04, 2006 08:04 PM (rUyw4)
Look up ephebophilia. That's what Foley was engaged in.
Then go look up Gary Studds.
Your faux outrage with a newly discovered value of sexual propriaty is laughable. But DO keep at it, because the whole schtick of "gay men, by default, cannot be trusted around adolescent males..." when Dems/ACLU have been trying to kill the Boy Scouts for banning gay leaders is just ripe with rank hypocrisy.
Posted by: Darleen at October 04, 2006 08:53 PM (cXz8w)
Posted by: Bluto's nasty mother at October 04, 2006 10:28 PM (xJ3Xm)
Blessings.
Posted by: Faith at October 05, 2006 06:52 AM (UNgLP)
oops. Make that, "However since it is now commonly accepted that any individual under the age 0f 18 is a child in most states..."
Posted by: Fatih at October 05, 2006 06:54 AM (UNgLP)
Yeah right. Mr. Foley is entitled to happiness just as any other scum-sucking, perverted two-faced son of a prick faggot I suppose. Frankly Howie, you are beginning to get on my nerves.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 05, 2006 11:32 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Papa R. at October 05, 2006 12:54 PM (R75zM)
Posted by: Greg at October 05, 2006 01:37 PM (/+dAV)
If we buy into it, we're only moveing America closer to a world where homos and pagans and abortionists will openly worship their dark gods in taxpayer built temples, while the surviving Christian faithful are driven into hiding deep underground and eating each other's lice. If you don't vote for Republicans, you're voting for Satanic drug-dealing Islamofascist Soddomite communist flag-burning NASCAR-bashing abortionist America-haters!
Posted by: Rhyleh at October 05, 2006 07:59 PM (Q+ifs)
Posted by: Bluto at October 05, 2006 10:51 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: Papa R. at October 06, 2006 01:01 PM (R75zM)
Posted by: xzlni ofmzqt at January 18, 2007 09:59 PM (qSyto)
September 09, 2006
Absofrigginglutely insane.
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Graeme at September 09, 2006 06:41 PM (tdW1M)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 09, 2006 06:43 PM (Bp6wV)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 09, 2006 08:56 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 09, 2006 08:59 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: greyrooster at September 09, 2006 11:06 PM (7yR8J)
Posted by: Farty McNasty at September 10, 2006 02:08 AM (u3bd/)
September 05, 2006
Posted by: Rusty at
08:12 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
It's the duty of all Americans to support and fight for this country and its policies. Being a veteran, particularly during wartime, is a honor not something to be exploited.
Posted by: greyrooster at September 05, 2006 08:29 AM (whUU2)
Posted by: greyrooster at September 05, 2006 08:36 AM (whUU2)
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 05, 2006 01:54 PM (7teJ9)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 05, 2006 04:58 PM (v3I+x)
5 points for being gay.
5 points for being female.
10 points for being a veteran.
This means you are a sure thing for the San Francisco Police Dept.
They just satisfied 4 hiring quotas with one person.
Posted by: greyrooster at September 05, 2006 08:42 PM (8PMUy)
Posted by: Bill Faith at September 05, 2006 11:10 PM (n7SaI)
the front had an EGA the back had two rifles and a Pistol with the inscription WEAPONS TRAINING BATTALION CAMP LEJUENE N. C.
I was not greeted warmly.
In fact I had four teachers/front office employees ask me "what's your problem, what's wrong with you"
I responded, "I have no problem, what's wrong with you?"
They threw their hands in the air and said we will let it go. The one said Grandpaw don't know nothing.
I guess drawings of rifles and pistols are illegal in school also LOL
Posted by: Barry0351 at September 06, 2006 09:52 AM (uy3W4)
Posted by: Barry 0351 at September 06, 2006 09:56 AM (uy3W4)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 11, 2006 11:28 PM (Dd86v)
August 31, 2006
Posted by: Rusty at
10:49 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: shank at August 31, 2006 11:00 AM (+H1yK)
Posted by: mariro at August 31, 2006 11:14 AM (rA/jn)
Posted by: BelchSpeak at August 31, 2006 11:22 AM (2eLg/)
Posted by: Oyster at August 31, 2006 11:41 AM (iT50f)
Posted by: Writer at August 31, 2006 12:13 PM (iL9qH)
Yeah, that's what they did; sorry it's not threatening enough for you. And that's what the the KGB and East Germany's Stazi used to do to intimidate people on a routine basis. Read up a little on your history and what governemtns do to "protect" their sheeple from agitators and other dangerous types.
Posted by grinnel at August 29, 2006 03:11 PM
A painting was a threat to the President of the US? Maybe if somebody hit him with it ...
Posted by grinnel at August 29, 2006 03:14 PM
Because art is art and threats are threats. Look, I'm not going to debate the meaning of art here. Give up whatever freedoms you want. Give 'em all up. You're not using them anyway. Except the Right to Bear Multiple TV Sets.
Posted by grinnel at August 29, 2006 03:34 PM
The left love pictures depicting assassinations of Presidents they don't like, then if the artist is visited by a Federal Agent it's like Stalin's rounding up and murder of dissidents, except non of that happens and they get interviewed, but it's one more step in the direction of concentration camps...
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 12:18 PM (QkWqQ)
Added to my roundup at Old War Dogs >> Bill's 2006.08.31 Short Shorts (Updated throughout the day)
Posted by: Bill Faith at August 31, 2006 02:38 PM (n7SaI)
Posted by: James Mabry at August 31, 2006 06:05 PM (KdHV7)
And yeah, a painting is a painting and a shot at a president is a shot at a president. As far as I know, Booth, Czolgosz, John Schrank, Oswald, Lynette Fromme, or Hinckley were painters. And yet, they actually did kill or take shots at presidents. How can this be?
But not to worry --davecs' Secret Service and FBI have got all the galleries covered ... now if they could just do something about those ports.
Posted by: Lefty Poster grinnel at August 31, 2006 06:49 PM (+T1K1)
Posted by: Lefty Poster grinnel at August 31, 2006 06:54 PM (+T1K1)
Because you pasted from some lefty moron writing about being terrified by Government agents, as I said then -- the U.S Secret Service is only tasked with certain roles in Law enforcement and making weak wristed liberals urinate in their panties isn't one of them:
Your story:
Donna Huanca works as a docent at the Art Car Museum, an avant-garde gallery in Houston. Around 10:30 on the morning of November 7, before she opened the museum, two men wearing suits and carrying leather portfolios came to her door....
Now read below and tell me I fabricated it:
The Art Car Museum's director James Harithas, who served as the director of the Corcoran Art Museum in Washington D.C. in the late 1960s, described the visit from the G-men as unbelievable. "People should be worried that their freedoms are being taken away right and left." Robert Dogium, the FBI spokesman, said the visit was just routine follow-up on a call "from someone who said that there is artwork of a threatening nature to the President."
I can't help you have no understanding of how Federal Agencies work in the United States.
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 06:58 PM (QkWqQ)
Your whole argument has been about Bush's assassination. Please point to where the article says that.
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 07:02 PM (+T1K1)
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 07:04 PM (+T1K1)
Let's perhaps put it in a context you can understand:
You're working at your job on the drive-thru window of McDonalds, and an obese person drives up and asks for a Big Mac with three slices of Cheese.
As a liberal hand-wringer you think to yourself "This guy is going to have a heart attack maybe I shouldn't give him this meal"
Your Boss informs you, that your job is to hand him a Big Mac, not decide the health ramifications.
The Secret Service do not have the luxury of deciding what constitutes a threat or not, they have protocols to follow, one of which is to do interviews with the party to do a threat assessment.
It is their job. I'm sorry you can't understand that, but it isn't something new -- they have been doing it since they were tasked with protecting the President -- but hey keep thinking you're losing your fweedoms.
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 07:12 PM (QkWqQ)
Why? Because these calls for censorship are motivated by the belief that exposure to or creation of images of violence causes people to act in destructive--even deadly--ways.
Pro-censorship forces, including politicians and pundits, cite all kinds of "scientific studies" that are supposed prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.
There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent!
And if we start suppressing material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. So cheerleading lead to his becoming a serial killer? And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible. Shall we ban the Bible? Maybe it'll stop even one psychopath. Of course not. Thaat's as crazy as staking out art galleries.
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 07:20 PM (+T1K1)
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 07:26 PM (+T1K1)
Defense witnesses testified they did not know the boy who drew pictures of figures holding bloody, decapitated heads and bloody knives.
...
Dyleski is accused of bludgeoning 52-year-old Pamela Vitale, slicing open her stomach, and carving a symbol resembling a "T" with two cross marks into her back. The prosecution has presented evidence that Dyleski tried to purchase marijuana-growing equipment using stolen credit cards, and that he listed Vitale's Lafayette address as the billing information.
ED LAKE, Minn., March 22 - Before Monday, before his storm of bullets that left 10 people on this Indian reservation dead, Jeff Weise was rarely noticed here. But when he was, people saw a confused, brooding teenager with few friends, a peculiar attraction to Nazism and a lifetime, already, of family troubles.
Residents here said they were stunned by Mr. Weise's actions, though they said they had seen signs of trouble. Some said he favored Goth culture and clothing and Nazi philosophy, and had seen him drawing graphic, violent pictures.
So while it is rare -- so are serial killers, and Presidential assassination attempts, that is why it's left to the secret service to interview people that are reported of making threatening threats again the U.S President.
As for your comments about nothing being done about the art -- Congratulations!! you might have just figured out what I told you the other day --- it is not illegal to draw such art -- just the secret service investigate any potential threat, and while they most likely thought it was bullshit from the get go, they still did their job and investigated it.
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 07:44 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 07:59 PM (+T1K1)
Let's switch that up a little Your left leaning article does not even mention the agents were on-site investigating a call that said the art gallery had material deemed threatening to President Bush by a citizen, in fact if I remember correct they tried to slant it to being "Anti-American" (shades of McCarthy?) behavior that got their attention -- but I guess that is what you have to say when you're trying to paint a Federal Agent doing his job as some sort of CheneyBushHitlerChimpy stormtrooper / brown-shirted Nazi invading your fweedoms!
As your article isn't even factual, I have a hard time believing their descriptions of what the U.S Agents were interested in.
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 08:06 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 31, 2006 08:18 PM (D2g/j)
Of course the article you quote from also doesn't make mention of the thoughts of the writer (Christopher Brauchli) that "He (Dogium) failed to observe that the conduct of his agents might be considered threatening by the few people left who worry about those sorts of things."
It did mention, however, that the agents "asked Ms. Huanca where she went to school and whether her parents knew she was working in that sort of place (emphasis mine) ... questions to protect the President if I ever heard 'em.
No, I don't think one has to slant this story to find the undertones of McCarthyism both articles were raising.
Oh, and let's seeif you can comment without the hyperbole, sarcasm and over-generalizations for a change, if you can. You'll be taken a little more seriously.
Posted by: grinnel at August 31, 2006 11:35 PM (+T1K1)
You have evidently missed the whole point of your own source; When you are attempting to provoke the reader into believing that the United States Government has become a fascist police state, one conveniently leaves out facts like the purpose of a United States Secret Service visit -- the article says that they were being investigated for "Un-American activities" which leans towards "dissent is unpatriotic" and invokes in the mind of the reader, that the art gallery is being molested by fascist agents of the U.S Government.
This was reinforced by the writers suggestion that not only did the agents 'barge' into the art gallery, wearing their menacing G-Man suits, and flash their badges, but their physical appearance made the poor hapless woman scared to be alone with them.
It is obvious, even to the mere village idiot, that any cooperation she gave at this point was voluntary. including access to the Gallery, any answer she likewise provided she did so under her own volition, understanding that she was under no obligation to answer them.
The whole article is wrote to push the agenda; If they had disclosed the reason the agent was there, and that it was a routine investigation following a tip there would be no story, likewise the fact investigations of this kind happen everyday, and for every President, Democrat or Republican only enforces it is routine.
Posted by: davec at August 31, 2006 11:58 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 01, 2006 07:47 AM (7teJ9)
The sooner the government collapses and we fall into civil war, the better, so we can kill off all the lefturds, muslims, and other assorted scum.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 01, 2006 10:38 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 01, 2006 10:41 AM (rUyw4)
Of course! Those cowboys just want to blame Muslims for everything!
Posted by: Kevin at September 01, 2006 11:22 AM (gSwo7)
In Britain, you do not have the right to bare arms.
You do not have the right to self-defense in your home.
You will be monitored by Government cameras on the street, what started as an inner-city project expanded into the suburbs.
I have been detained by the Police, in a public area, during a lawful assembly and have been searched, while my friend was handcuffed to his car steering wheel and searched, under the Criminal Justice Act.
This along with taxation like the "Poll Tax" repealed by public demand (Pensioners were imprisoned for not paying) and then re-released under the name the "Council Tax", also bare in mind that they are looking at requiring a national id card, that contains both biometric and encoded record data, as compulsory and requiring their citizens to pay $130.00 for the privilege of owning one!
You don't even know what Freedoms you really have, until you live in a place that doesn't have them.
Posted by: davec at September 01, 2006 12:39 PM (QkWqQ)
Question: If you WERE affected by the Patriot Act, would you even know it? See, one of the main tenets of the Patriot Act is that the federal government can check out your library records, your Internet visits, your associations, your basement and any other venue they deem relevant without ever being required to inform you, so long as they meet the requirements of the Act-- a little too easy to do for many. Not before. Not during. Not after. Not at all.
So I may know a dozen people who've been affected. Or, I may know absolutely no one. How would I know? That's my answer to your challenge and my problem with the Patriot Act, or any legislation passed that gives the government broad authority to operate without oversight, without accountability, and without sunshine.
Right now, you're saying "I've done nothing wrong, and I'm not a terrorist or a threat to the state or the people in it, you have nothing to worry about. I'm glad they're checking out the bad eggs and protecting us."
Well, that's what a lot of people said in 1934 Germany: "I'm not one of the 'undesirables' identified by the National Socialists, I'm OK. Go ahead, let them investigate me, I've nothing to hide" and for a while, many groups did have nothing to hide, at least by the old rules. But then came 1935, and 36, and 37 and 38 and 39, and the rules kept changing. And new laws limiting what Jews, Slavs and other "undermentschen" could do kept being slowly but surely introduced, until it was eventually illegal for them to continue even to live. And no one stopped it 'till the US and the Soviets.
I'm assuming you're right, you have done nothing to warrant investigation, and therefore the Act really doesn't threaten you. Me neither as far as I know. But that doesn't mean I ignore the parts I don't like. And the fact they can go ahead and check you out without ever telling you is at least potentially threatening to this democracy, at least IMHO.
History never repeats itself exactly. But familiar patterns always, always, always reappear.
As for "taking my rants" to KOS, JJ, I think you're a grown up and can probably handle disagreement ... unless that's why you come to a blogsite, to avoid it. Sorry, as long as Rusty allows my continued commenting, I can't help you there. Just ignore me.
Now, davec ... He's made a lot of hay about what Federal agents are required to do when a citizen phones in a complaint about a possible threat to the President of the US. And he's right, they are required to do just that. And if this lady felt threatened by questions or a situation she even agreed to, well, that's her problem. OK.
After reading his last post, you think davec would be the last guy here to defend unjust legislation. But though he makes some pretty good points on this art gallery argument, I've got a feeling he's less than intellectually honest. I think he would have absolutely no problem letting the G-Men/Feds do whatever they want to do to the dirty liberals, requirements of the job aside. It's nice they are required to do so because it gives his argument a certain legitimacy, but I think it wouldn't bother him in the least if they were not required to do what they did at the art gallery, whether there was a serious threat or if there was merely something this person found personally distasteful or irritating. C'mon davec, your attitudes are part of the record here; come clean.
"You don't even know what Freedoms you really have, until you live in a place that doesn't have them."
That's right, and I don't want to find out either. So I will continue to voice my disagreement with legislation that does away with them.
Improbulus Maximus: sucks to have some asshole can your right to free speech, doesn't it? But as davec could tell you, the trooper was just doing his job, assessing threats and taking action. But really, shoulda called the ACLU … they might have taken your case, like they did Rush Limbaugh's during the DA's attempt to search his medical records.
Posted by: grinnel at September 01, 2006 02:01 PM (UHKaK)
As the Art Gallery was not an abuse of the powers granted to the United Secret Services charter (protection of the President) I am unsure of why you're hinting I'd be fine with it if it was illegal or a breach of civic rights -- because it was handled within the Law, so anything else is another fictional liberal fantasy, concocted like a scene out of "V for Vendetta."
Unfortunately, just because Liberals view an Art Gallery as a shrine of "Talking truth to Power" it does not make them exempt from investigation, nor the law.
See, one of the main tenets of the Patriot Act is that the federal government can check out your library records, your Internet visits, your associations, your basement and any other venue they deem relevant without ever being required to inform you
Can you tell me if this is exclusively granted by the Patriot act? I am unaware if John "Teflon Don" Gotti was given a telegram in advice by the F.B.I in 1995 making him aware that his club, business and residence were broken into, and bugs placed? I wonder how many other criminals were made "none-aware" of an active investigation while in progress?
Out of all the powers you have mentioned, most, if not all were used by the F.B.I before the Patriot act.
Posted by: davec at September 01, 2006 03:09 PM (QkWqQ)
You know, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn also "voiced his disagreement" with the SMERSH officers after his arrest, while imprisoned in the Lubyanka.
Something to bare in mind if you believe this country is becoming a Police State.
Posted by: davec at September 01, 2006 03:23 PM (QkWqQ)
Guilty.
"I am unsure of why you're hinting I'd be fine with it if it was illegal or a breach of civic rights --"
Based on much of your past commentary, I think you'd be fine with this kind of intimidation, as long as the recipient was a liberal. If the roles were reversed, I doubt you'd be so willing to defer to the legal trappings, much as Improbulus Maximus didn't care for the tratment he got above.
"Can you tell me if this is exclusively granted by the Patriot act?"
Absolutely; these subsections are the parts of the Patriot Act that has most civil libertarians up in arms. In every criminal instance I can think of, a search warrant had to be obtained, used within a a certain timeframe and every attempt made at delivering it to the owner/occupier of the premises. Not so with the Patriot Act. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly be corrected.
"I am unaware if John "Teflon Don" Gotti was given a telegram in advice by the F.B.I in 1995 making him aware that his club, business and residence were broken into, and bugs placed?"
A probable cause warrant had to be issued by an appellate court allowing for the placement of the bugs. The placement was allowed for a prescribed period of time, named in the warrant, after which they had to be removed.
Any information gathered before or after the warrant would be inadmissabile. These same rules that applied to Gotti do not apply to those targeted by the Patriot Act.
"Out of all the powers you have mentioned, most, if not all were used by the F.B.I before the Patriot act."
This is a common theme, not just here, but by all who defend the Patriot Act. If all these powers were in place and used before the PA, and opposition to it is much ado about nothing, tell me, what was the purpose of passing it? What has it added to our security as a nation if the Secret Service, the FBI and others already had these powers and used them? Why does it exist?
Posted by: grinnel at September 01, 2006 03:42 PM (UHKaK)
Posted by: grinnel at September 01, 2006 03:49 PM (UHKaK)
Posted by: grinnel at September 01, 2006 04:13 PM (UHKaK)
The Patriot Act also requires a warrant be issued:
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
Even the review of Library book records requires a warrant, so it is a extreme hyperbole to frame the issue that the Patriot Act removes the need for judicial oversight.
Likewise you're incorrect in regards to Solzhenitsyn, his arrest while on the front line was for statements he made in a letter to a boyhood friend not his literary works, which is not exactly courageous.
In fact his opening statements in one of his books is that he wished he had not only resisted his own arrest, but also other peoples that he had watched -- Solzhenitsyn had the courage of his convictions, after his own arrest, but only when he had been thrown under the wheels of the machine himself.
Posted by: davec at September 01, 2006 04:22 PM (QkWqQ)
""You are under arrest!"
Burning and prickling from head to toe, all I could exclaim was: "Me? What for?"
And even though there is usually no answer to this question, surprisingly I received one! This is worth recalling, because it is so contrary to our usual custom.
Hardly had the SMERSH men finished "plucking" me and taking my notes on political subjects, along with with my map case, and begun to push me as quickly as possible towards the exit, urged on by the German shellfire rattling the windowpanes, than I heard myself firmly addressed--yes!"
I believe he was arrested by SMERSH due to his position in the Military.
Posted by: davec at September 01, 2006 04:37 PM (QkWqQ)
"It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte, that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized, boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. "
When it comes to defending your statements, you're often your own worst enemy.
You're right about Solzenhitsyn -- SMERSH I mean: ,not courage:
"During the war, between 1944 and '45, Solzhenitsyn had corresponded
with a school friend, N.D. Vitkevich, criticizing Stalin but referring
to him under a pseudonym. Nontheless, Captain Solzhenitsyn was summoned
to the office of brigade commander, Colonel Travkin, where he was
arrested. His Colonel defied the SMERSH men arresting Solzhenitsyn by
informing the young officer of the reason for his arrest, shaking his
hand, and wishing him happiness."
In 1945, criticizing Stalin period was courageous.
Posted by: grinnel at September 01, 2006 04:45 PM (UHKaK)
Numerous sections of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional, this alone points to judicial oversight, not to mention the Congressional attempt to block it's renewal without review of the wording.
One could argue that the main fault with the Patriot Act, is it's lack of transparency -- what is it used for, are the Government using it for drug-dealers / organized crimes, or strictly terrorist behavior? how many warrants were granted, versus how many rejected, but the nature of anti-terrorism work itself would mean information leaks could endanger active investigations.
I don't look at Solzenhitsyn as 'brave' for his communication, doing dangerous things, does not always equate to courage, criticizing Stalin knowing that communications from the front line were being monitored, makes me believe it was foolhardy.
However, there is no doubt that his works of literature after the fact are monumental, as were the effects of his books on the Russian Government.
I admire his works after the fact, however just like Christopher Reeves "Championed" the cause for the disabled with Spinal injuries after he himself was disabled with an injury, it shouldn't be seen as altruism like that of Mother Theresa, after all they were all victims first, champions after.
Posted by: davec at September 02, 2006 03:48 AM (QkWqQ)
August 29, 2006
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
Who will be stronger on National Security?
--they'll both pander to the strongest voting block on the social issues.
The one who will win, will be the one who gives the appearance that they'll support the largest voting blocks wishes...but in the end the status quo will remain on social issues.
The most important issue will be National Security.
If the democrats harp on the War in Iraq...they might as well be harping on the Bay of Pigs....because they're both HISTORY.
How will we protect our country in the FUTURE is what is relevant.
Posted by: mrclark at August 29, 2006 09:40 AM (VxWAO)
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at August 29, 2006 11:30 AM (MAPKL)
Giuliani, OTOH, has played politics in NYC his entire life. I don't believe that what he has espoused re: social issues, is what he would actually enact if he became POTUS. In any event, it is my belief that the issue of abortion, with the exception of partial birth, is pretty much settled in the country. As for immigration, what do you expect a NYC politician to say on the matter?
I like to think that his stance on defense would take in the immigration issue as well. You might hear something very different from a Presidential Giuliani re: immigration and national security than you are currently hearing from a Giuliani that was former mayor of NYC. He has my vote.
Posted by: Babs at August 29, 2006 11:42 AM (iZZlp)
This view is why Scalia can be an orgy freak and an intellectual leader of Constitutional textualists.
Posted by: wooga at August 29, 2006 12:50 PM (tAB8A)
Posted by: sandpiper at August 29, 2006 03:16 PM (n7v4a)
1) McCain-Feingold and its unprecdented attack on the first amendment.
2) The formation of the so-called "gang of 14,"
3) His jumping into bed with ted kennedy support for the heinous senate immigration bill, which would have made income tax optional for borderjumping criminals who seek to jump to the front of the line, flaunting sovreignty and basic fairness
4) Just to round it out, mr. squeaky-clean, let's not forget, was one of the keating 5.
what would he have to do? if this is not a compelling case against McCain, can one be made?
as someone once said of Jhimmi Carter, "the man knows not what shrine he seeks save that it bears his name."
Posted by: jdubious at August 29, 2006 03:32 PM (G7s9a)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 04:16 PM (BInc2)
For Giuliani, or anyone else, to get the nomination, they will have to make the conservatives happy on social issues. That means promises will have to be made - as well as enforced by conservative members of Congress - to have a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. Many of those old liberals are close to dying off. Hopefully the first to go will be Ginsburg. How an ACLU shill ever got on the bench, I don't know.
Posted by: slug at August 29, 2006 05:35 PM (PZkbq)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 05:43 PM (BInc2)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:07 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 06:08 AM (JROsA)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 30, 2006 08:45 AM (WmiLs)
Posted by: wooga at August 30, 2006 12:37 PM (tAB8A)
Posted by: Paul Moore at August 30, 2006 04:25 PM (Rj0Is)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 30, 2006 08:06 PM (kSaq7)
August 26, 2006
Former Jawa See-Dub is on the case. Once a Jawa, always a Jawa.
Q: Does Osama bin Laden get lap dances or what?
Posted by: Rusty at
02:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
August 24, 2006
No. They are entirely too corrupt....They are the legal arm of the political left. Even with a few whistle-blowers, the ACLU is more corrupt now than ever.Read the rest.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:05 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2006 08:21 AM (eId1k)
This is gonna be one of the biggest blog stories in a couple of weeks. What a joke out of Hollywood - I'm already working on my material.
Just a taste - will the game include affirmative action?
Posted by: hondo at August 24, 2006 09:13 AM (XrexX)
Bill is a strong voice for an uncompromising faith. The Catholic faith is one many claim; yet few follow. Every Catholic who voted Dem in 1990 voted to continue to fill the dumpsters with babies, and to expand that killing by forcing Our Catholic hospitals to murder children.
The number of American Catholics is actually a much smaller number than anyone would believe. For every Priest, Bishop or lay Catholic who would bend the faith around the loose morality of these times, shame. Donahue is a Catholic, and for some, that word means something.
Posted by: Brad at August 24, 2006 10:01 AM (6mUkl)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 24, 2006 10:15 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 24, 2006 11:49 AM (iDabT)
Posted by: Brad at August 24, 2006 12:10 PM (6mUkl)
All we have left is the cartridge box. Very soon, any man who wants to retain his liberty will have to do so at the risk of his life.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2006 12:33 PM (v3I+x)
I sympathize. But the only thing the cartridge box will get you is your own personal Waco. Save it for that revolution the Libs keep threatening.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 24, 2006 12:39 PM (iDabT)
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 24, 2006 03:37 PM (D2g/j)
Posted by: sandpiper at August 24, 2006 03:38 PM (K3hNB)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2006 04:06 PM (v3I+x)
Good one, Maxie. And in that order.
Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2006 05:37 PM (YudAC)
The ACLU has horns!
Posted by: actus at August 24, 2006 06:05 PM (nnhSu)
If I had to re-write it (and somebody should have!) I'd dump the Jewish atheist bit - and change it to 'interprets the 1st amendment entirely too narrowly". The very essense of being extremely partisan (Hentoff) is the narrowing of views to fit one's own personal ideology. That is a case I could even make a decent argument about.
We only get to pick our team mates in kids sandlot baseball - grownup real life doesn't work that way.
Nice to have you back - stick around - lib/left quality of late really in the toilet! We have been spending more time fighting amongst ourselves over who wants to kill them all (any all) faster and better.
Posted by: hondo at August 24, 2006 09:07 PM (XrexX)
What does Hentoff being a Jew have to do with anything. You must be a bigot, a racist, a nazi to mention that he is a Jew. Anyway, thats what the libs and meatheads would say if he were black and you mentioned it.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2006 09:23 PM (G765Y)
Posted by: hondo at August 24, 2006 09:29 PM (XrexX)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 24, 2006 10:13 PM (rUyw4)
Actually, it was the dude that was interviewed that brought it up. The President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Big surprise there eh?
Posted by: actus at August 25, 2006 08:59 AM (nnhSu)
Posted by: Brad at August 25, 2006 09:47 AM (6mUkl)
Posted by: hondo at August 25, 2006 09:51 AM (XrexX)
Bigot"
The quote I posted was from the interview this blog post links to. The interview is with William H. Donahue, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York. If his words put Catholics in a bad light, maybe he should be fired.
Posted by: actus at August 25, 2006 10:34 AM (nnhSu)
Sure it can, just as soon as Osama bin Laden finishes his Christmas shopping. The ACLU is a declared enemy of the US, but we apparently refuse to recognise enemies as such anymore; it might offend them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 25, 2006 10:49 AM (v3I+x)
No apologies from me. Your side screams kill, kill, kill and delivers the means in their own “Planned Parenthood death chambersâ€
Bill argues for life, life, life, yet he is perceived by most as a hateful man with no compassion, while the ACLU is embraced by most Americans as the voice of reason and compassion. Go figure. No Actius, I’m not embarrassed by Bill.
Abortionists, your soul lives forever and there is nothing you can do about it. Fair warning.
Posted by: Brad at August 25, 2006 11:07 PM (6mUkl)
I have kown Bill for many years here in NYC - while we share many beliefs, I don't particularly like having him as a "spokesman or front personality". He's not a winner when it counts.
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 01:24 AM (XrexX)
Well, Bill is more appealing to the conservative end of the church. The less articulate like me want the message simple and straight. I like the guy and don’t expect to win, just stick to my beliefs and principles.
I’ve listened to a lot of Hondo at the Jawa corner bar. You defend the turf as well as anyone here, and its all pretty much PC approved. That’s a rare talent.
Enjoy your retirement when you get out. I envy you; I’ll be working my ass off until that bearded groundhog sees his shadow on Armageddon day.
Posted by: Brad at August 26, 2006 10:04 AM (6mUkl)
Its good that he points out who the jews are, no?
Posted by: actus at August 26, 2006 10:17 AM (nnhSu)
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 10:29 AM (XrexX)
You jumped on a flub by Bill - he makes a lot of them.
Actually, his comment "athesist Jews" is one of many variations of a discriptive insult directed at elements within the Jewish community.
Its orgin however is within the Jewish community - and is used along with others in a decades on-going argument within that comunity reference religion & political/social ideology. It can get very bitter.
I have witnessed it first-hand up close - and suspect so has Bill.
This is a very NY thing (and in a few other localities elsewhere).
Why Bill uses this expression in an interview is beyond me - without the unique understanding of the NY "thing" the interviewer and audience have no context to place it in other than their own interpretations (as you did).
This is a Jew vs Jew thing with very regionalized (often isolated) meaning. Bill should not have put his 2 cents there. Makes him look like both a fool and anti-semetic.
If your interested in the "context" I suggest reading Ben Stein.
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 10:56 AM (XrexX)
Big city urban Italian/Irish with a new influx of Latin blood. We are what we are.
Practicing Catholic - but not very good at it - need more practice.
Defrocked altar boy - back then - used my position to hit on chicks in the first 3 pews.
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 11:07 AM (XrexX)
Dude should have realized by now that its ok to pick on atheists, but not on jews.
Posted by: actus at August 26, 2006 03:14 PM (nnhSu)
He wasn't picking on Jews - he was attempting to join them and use their in-house raging argument to his advantage. Clearly, a dumb move on his part which leaves the door open for ..... you.
You've got talent actus - I give you that. You specifically search for and target isolated statements that are typically badly stated & functionally dumb (and would require detailed contextual explanation to actually work and avoid appearing stupid).
This then effectively places everyone on the defense - not about his overall interview - but on that one isolated point. The rest of his comments become moot and quickly forgotten. His whole argument doesn't collapse - it simply becomes overshadowed and easily ignored.
In my eyes - this makes Bill incompetent.
This is an excellent technique you have actus - and it takes time and skill to learn it. Wish you would stop by more often for verbal combat, but I understand why you don't. I consider it my lose.
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 04:25 PM (XrexX)
He was using an internal jewish debate for the fundies at the stoptheaclu.com? awright.
"You specifically search for and target isolated statements that are typically badly stated & functionally dumb (and would require detailed contextual explanation to actually work and avoid appearing stupid)."
Right after nat hentoff, he tells us about another guy: ". He is an African American man who I believe to be principled, honest, and sincere."
Why is this dude so concerned about people's ethnicities?
Posted by: actus at August 26, 2006 05:10 PM (nnhSu)
I've made it clear I believe him to be essentially incompetent and more concerned with the argument that the result.
actus - I read the interview - reference Myers - your "concern" is really a stretch as is the "implication".
This one doesn't work at all! I'm surprised at you.
If you want to nit-pick (another name for this approach) - fine - but I'm not some dumb smuck sitting at the bar who just fell off the turnip truck - I have never insulted you - so please don't insult my intelligence.
Posted by: hondo at August 26, 2006 05:50 PM (XrexX)
August 21, 2006
I haven't dedicated much space on this blog to what I see as a fringe group, but it would be nice to see Mexican-Americans treat the La Raza (the race) crowd with the contempt they deserve.
I don't know to what extent this is true, but if US taxdollars are going to promote a racist school, I'm sure not happy about that either.
PS-The mural above was taxpayer funded.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:43 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 21, 2006 04:01 PM (ASIza)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 21, 2006 06:20 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: wooga at August 21, 2006 06:25 PM (tAB8A)
Posted by: Rusty at August 21, 2006 06:40 PM (JQjhA)
Don't mess with Texas should read as follows: Please, wet backs, turn this State, and the greater southwest into a thrid world shit hole just like the one you left.
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 21, 2006 06:52 PM (D2g/j)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 21, 2006 06:56 PM (gLMre)
Since you bring up the subject of trash, you are probably aware that North Texas produces a particularly refined variety of white trash.
God, I love the missing teeth, tattoos on sun-damaged skin, dressed like bums in filthy halter tops and Harley t-shirts. Two varieties really, the fat kind with diabetes and the thin kind on meth. Both kinds like to sit in the waiting room of a county hospital and cuss about all the wetbacks.
And yes, this North Texas white trash is made without using any Mexicans. 100% USDA indigenous, inbred, inebriated pure white trash.
Posted by: Darth Vag at August 21, 2006 07:10 PM (+nlyI)
I just performed another ultrasound exam on a 38 week gestation. Guess what, the patient is an illegal alien. Our taxes will pay for the delivery, and the sugar tit the mother, and child will be on. I just hope for profit hospitals do not close down from all the illegal aliens getting their care for free. I would lose my job in the name of perversity, I mean diversity.
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 21, 2006 08:02 PM (D2g/j)
Posted by: Richard H. at August 21, 2006 08:04 PM (7KF8r)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 21, 2006 10:18 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: sandpiper at August 21, 2006 10:51 PM (uo3LX)
Posted by: pivalleygirl at August 21, 2006 11:48 PM (0Pys3)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 22, 2006 06:24 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 22, 2006 09:05 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2006 10:39 AM (/GBNb)
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 22, 2006 02:34 PM (D2g/j)
Years ago, I took a Chicano Studies class at ELAC and when I challenged the professor on some of the topics, let's just say, he was less than pleased with my views and opinions. You can imagine what my grade was? In the past, I've been called everything from a "wanna be white girl" to a "traitor to my people."
I come from a large Mexican family and please know, most, if not all of, love this country above all else. There is nothing these victi-cratic racist organizations can offer that would be of any interest. They are beyond contempt.
Posted by: Linda at August 22, 2006 03:42 PM (xtRRB)
Years ago, I took a Chicano Studies class at ELAC and when I challenged the professor on some of the topics, let's just say, he was less than pleased with my views and opinions. You can imagine what my grade was? In the past, I've been called everything from a "wanna be white girl" to a "traitor to my people."
I come from a large Mexican family and please know, most, if not all of, love this country above all else. There is nothing these victi-cratic racist organizations can offer that would be of any interest. They are beyond contempt.
Posted by: Linda at August 22, 2006 03:42 PM (xtRRB)
Posted by: Linda at August 22, 2006 03:42 PM (xtRRB)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 22, 2006 05:21 PM (rUyw4)
Hi Linda. Same here. You're not alone.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 23, 2006 01:14 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 26, 2006 07:56 AM (v3I+x)
There were two Iraq wars. The first one we won, and big. That was the war to oust Saddam Hussein. The war to send a message that in the post-9/11 world, do not think of even looking cross-eyed at the United States, or we will deal with you. Rumsfeld did a great job.
The second war, the war to establish democracy in Iraq, hasn't gone so well. The vast majority of American casualties have come from this war. The vast majority of Iraqi casualites have come from this war. This war is not going so well, it is not clear that one can ever succeed in nation-building, and it's not clear that this war is even worth fighting.
Rumsfeld should be fired. And it's not like I haven't been saying this for some time now.
So, Lieberman is right that Rummy has to go. What is not clear, though, is the inconsistency in the idea that Rumsfeld should be fired, yet the U.S. should stay the course in Iraq.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot “walk away†from the Iraqis.Joyner has the backstory and more.
The Commissar and Rick Moran have important related posts.
McQ and Mark Steyn have the counterpoint.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:23 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 21, 2006 09:49 AM (v3I+x)
Myself and many others in the mil (well, at least rank & file in my unit and with those I know), have been down on him since the start of the war. I would have liked to have seen him fired several years ago - but tempered my complaints due to the obvious - BDS. Didn't want to give others jack when they started calling for anybody's resignation just to give them some kind of "victory" in the War On Bush.
This may have been a mistake.
I'll be interested in what some here's complaints are about him - doubt highly many would pick up on or even correctly identify the military blunders he had a hand in.
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 09:50 AM (XrexX)
I personally will not respond to and ignore any lib/left that jumps into this - try keeping the dialogue between ourselves. I know - for some its tough - since you seem to enjoy the fight/argument more than victory itself.
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 09:58 AM (XrexX)
I kept my mouth shut for far too long, as well. Rumsfeld has some great ideas--especially about tranforming the military--and I also love his candidness. At what point, though, did the Right adopt nation-building as a worthy goal?
Posted by: Rusty at August 21, 2006 10:03 AM (JQjhA)
Wouldn't it be great to clean house of both Dems and Repubs? Imagine a 70% turn out in the next couple of elections, sweeping out the old and bringing in the new (people who actually have the American people's interest at heart).
I still believe we can restore this nation to greatness, but greatness isn't measured just by military might. It is measured by the degree that there is a consensus and justice. If Impy and I, who seem to come from opposite extremes, can agree on this, it means there is hope.
As to Lieberman, this is a tight rope act. He wants to placate the Libs while still remaining Hawkishishly pro-Israel. He is going to lose the election because people realize that he is Israel's proxy senator. I hope Hillary gets the same treatment.
Posted by: Greg at August 21, 2006 10:06 AM (KrkIv)
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 10:09 AM (XrexX)
Posted by: Graeme at August 21, 2006 10:20 AM (byHsT)
Posted by: Greg at August 21, 2006 10:22 AM (KrkIv)
Don't know - do know we should not discuss who to replace till we discuss the specifics of why to replace.
What his "errors" are couldn't be carried out without some kind of small group consenus within the admin, govt, and Pentagon.
just changing faces in not the solution. ID the problems.
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 10:26 AM (XrexX)
Posted by: Graeme at August 21, 2006 10:48 AM (byHsT)
Posted by: Rusty at August 21, 2006 10:48 AM (JQjhA)
I'm interested on where this topic will go - particularly reference "why".
I hate rummy - kept it to myself - but I'm ready to explode - but on specifics - if I don't here those specifics ID'd while I'm gone - then clearly one of the big problems is here among the loyal following.
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 11:10 AM (XrexX)
Posted by: Graeme at August 21, 2006 11:13 AM (byHsT)
No choices without ID'ing specific reasons and problems first - this isn't "American Idol".
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 11:20 AM (XrexX)
The vocal left is not capable of IDing the problems, or proposing a solution. Worse still, they have stifled public debate from those who might have something valuable to say.
Our public discussion has focused on our loss of civil rights, whether or not we are in Iraq for oil, the absurd BushHitler meme. Chickenhawks, etc.
Bush needs a marketing campaign to introduce new talking points. He could promote a contest, with a prize, soliciting ideas for reducing dependency on Saudi oil, to promote the idea that we should not be dependent on the Saudis. To promote the idea that it's not really about the the price of oil, but the price of being in bed with a country that spends billions of dollars to promote the Wahhabi brand of Jihad overseas.
This is the tip of the iceberg but at least it might jump start some public discussion regarding the enormity of the threat we face.
I have no specifics on Iraq, except that I think we need to win and we should do it now.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at August 21, 2006 11:21 AM (up9HT)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 21, 2006 11:28 AM (rUyw4)
You got it half right.
We did win the war with Iraq. Rumsfeld’s transformation of the military and his confidence in the training and advanced technology of our troops allowed us to defeat the 4th largest army in the world in three short weeks. This was done over the objections of old world generals who thought the only way to fight was with 500,000 men.
What you are missing is the goal Bush and Rumsfeld are trying to obtain in Iraq. The objective was not to replace a tyrannical dictator with a benevolent dictator (or puppet government) that would only be overthrown at some point in the future. Iraq has a large middle class of educated people, enormous potential wealth from oil and years of experience living in a secular (albeit forced) society.
Rumsfeld said it best when, during the initial looting following the fall of Baghdad, he opined “sometimes a little chaos is a good thingâ€. A true democracy can only come through the Iraqi people realizing that it’s up to them, that they must be the ones to take ownership of their society before security can be achieved. No imposed order will bring the type of social change that will make this war worthwhile.
The U.S. will be in Iraq for a minimum of 50 years at the insistence of the Iraqi government and people. Our presence will be demanded for strategic protection against Iraq’s neighbors. Bush will sign a treaty and base lease arrangement that will guarantee our presence prior to leaving office in ’08.
If the goal had been to conquer Iraq, dominate the population and steal its natural resources, the position of the liberals, press and now you would be right - more troops to impose order and a puppet government to do our bidding. But, if you buy into the need to change the dynamics in the Middle East, the only way to proceed is to let the process play out in Iraq. The Iraqi people will eventually grow tired of the violence and act to establish a true democracy.
Posted by: jwest at August 21, 2006 11:36 AM (psZ0S)
I understand that goal, but is it attainable? Three contradictory goals a) secular b) unified c) democratic. You can have two of those, but not all three.
Posted by: Rusty at August 21, 2006 11:41 AM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Graeme at August 21, 2006 11:50 AM (byHsT)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 21, 2006 12:06 PM (rUyw4)
We the People are soon going to be faced with the choice of fighting muslims and others in our own neighborhoods or fleeing to the hinterlands, and if we choose to fight, you can bet that Bush or his successor, whether Republican or Democrat, will send in the Gestapo to make sure we don't offend any muslims while we fight them for our survivial. We're under attack from every quarter by various enemies, but Bush and the Republicans don't care or are paralyzed by fear and ineptitude, and the Democrats seem to be betting against us, and making themselves a place with our enemies by opposing all efforts - weak and ineffectual as they are - that Bush actually does make. They in government who are not inept are traitors and cowards.
The War on Drugs puts hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail each year, yet the Mexican Army regularly sends armed incursions across our border in order to secure drug shipments, and the government does nothing. Thousands of foreign nationals, in what can only be termed an invasion, cross our borders every day, threatening the property and liberty of Americans, and the government does nothing. The War on Terror ensures that granny gets the third degree at the airport, but muslims can freely and openly preach war against us in our own country, and the government does nothing.
I don't want to see our neighborhoods turn into free-fire zones, but the idiots who run our government are ensuring that they will, by doing everything they can to ensure that our enemies' efforts are not impeded in the least way. Our enemies openly state their goals and plans, yet the government continues to try "diplomacy", which is simply appeasement. The sooner al Qaeda gets a nuke and sets it off in the middle of DC, the sooner We the People can finally be totally free from the incompetence, corruption, and tyranny of the Federal government.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 21, 2006 12:25 PM (v3I+x)
I have yet to hear a workable and desirable outcome if we leave Iraq, other than civil war, which may not be such a bad thing. The problem with it is two-fold: the outcome of that war could be in doubt (how do you think the Sunnis ended up controlling Iraq in the first place?), not least because Turkey would intervene in the north and Iran would intervene in the east; and because it could just end up being a haven for terrorists (again).
I, too, wish we could just wash our hands of the whole mess. It's really starting to appear to me that the Muslim world is like a big Harris and Kleibold. It's got guns and access to the killing power of the grown-ups, but it's not even at the level of maturity of a 17-year-old. It believes retarded shit. It is gullible, has doubts about it's virility, is arrogant and lacks self-esteem at the same time, and is uncomfortable around women.
And it's sociopathic.
Nation building, it seems, is like trying to adopt an abused, angry teenager. In principle it knows you're trying to do good, but it will blame you for the past and the present without cause, and will cause you no end of misery.
Bush IS awful. No doubt about that. And I have every reason to agree with every complaint up here.
I do wish that things were going faster and better in Iraq. But let's keep our eyes on the goal. How long did it take for us to throw off the British and sign the papers at Appomattox? It can take a long time to work off the differences. Granted, they're fucking crazy out there, we've still got some waiting to do.
Posted by: grayson at August 21, 2006 01:14 PM (3Vh45)
The goal is attainable, but only by maintaining the vision.
Democrats only want Rumsfeld’s resignation as a scalp to show weakness in the Bush administration. There is no alternative plan, no replacement offered, just the constant whining of liberal negativism that leads back to the failed appeasements of past.
Liberal’s worst nightmare would be success in Iraq, with the subsequent placement of Bush’s image on Mt. Rushmore (per Chris Mathews). They will sacrifice everything, including the safety and security of the U.S., to make sure that won’t happen.
It’s not hard for a small group of people to kill 100 civilians a day with bombs. Apparently, it’s not hard for our MSM to portray this killing as evidence that the entire country of Iraq is ready to sink into a full-fledged civil war. Different cultures do have different values placed on life and the ease of a totalitarian society does hold a certain appeal to people who are used to being ordered about. But if this experiment in nation building is not right for Iraq at this time, then where and when?
Posted by: jwest at August 21, 2006 01:14 PM (psZ0S)
Well good news; there's no chance of that, especially what with over three years of undermining by liberals, our enemies abroad, and the Iraqis themselves. We cast our pearls before swine, and they turned to rend us. Muslims don't deserve freedom because they just use it to spread hatred and murder innocent people. The Iraqis deserved Saddam, and it was our mistake to remove him. Not only will Iraq never be friendly toward us, but now its riches will go almost exclusively toward the promotion of terrorism.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 21, 2006 02:02 PM (v3I+x)
Our work in the cities is done. We need to pull out and reposition on the Syrian and Iranian borders. Let the Iraqis finish the infighting that is taking place. Eventually they will find the Baathist jackass who is driving the Sunni insurrection. Maybe they will even grow a pair and take down Muqtada al-Sadr. We belong on the borders and protecting the oil. Let the Iraqis save the Iraqis from Iraqis.
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 21, 2006 02:32 PM (7teJ9)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 21, 2006 02:35 PM (7teJ9)
Sun-Tzu knew, and so does a Grouse.
It brilliantly turns our greatest weakness (liberal media), into our greatest strength.
This method requires self-sacrifice, but that is the way of the light of the world.
Posted by: QC at August 21, 2006 02:40 PM (PX+vn)
Rummy did not want to commit to the manpower involved in what the Naval Officers said was the way to win the war (Rummy is a former Naval Reserve officer; who never saw real war). Rummy relied on The failed( many time in the last 70 years the most recent being th Balkans 1997-1999) Hermann Goring strategy of "Shock and Awe". If failed in the Battle of Britain and it failed in "The War on Terror".
Grunts win wars. Backed up by Naval fire Power. Always have and always will. Even "Stasrship Troopers" (war in the 25th century) has the grunts (I forget the name Heinlein called them "Mobil Infintry"?) winning the war.
Since Non of Bush's top advisors had ever stuck a bayonette in anyone I chalked it up to lack of knowledge on warefare. But by 05 It was obvious were were not winning. Had Bush really wanted to win the war he would have fired Rummy then. In retrospect it seems that Bush has callously used the war to win 2 sets of elections (02 + 04) I Think his "Read my lips......" approach is becoming all to obvious to too many Americans to produce the wins in 06 it did earlier. I hope it does not produce a massive defeat.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 21, 2006 02:41 PM (MoOfO)
Rummy inherited a Clinton-hobbled military and allowed State to become even more appeasement-hallucinating than ever before. If Clinton hadn't allowed Islam to become nuclear in Pakistan, the last 5 years would have been VERY different.
Our biggest problems are our diplomatic corps and our calling this a War on Terror and not a War to Kill all Who Dream of Dhimmification. And I'd fault Bush a couple of orders of magnitude more than Rummy for each time W's called Saudi "our friends" or "our eternal friends". Each time he does that it sets back progress by years.
We aren't making the rhetorical case for this war in the necessary Churchillian terms, and that's not Rummy's fault.
Yeah... the Saudi-pensioned State Department knows where the Bush family skeletons are hidden and they are NOT going to risk messing with their gravy train.
Posted by: Aaron's cc: at August 21, 2006 02:45 PM (ckkO9)
Posted by: QC at August 21, 2006 02:47 PM (PX+vn)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 21, 2006 03:16 PM (rUyw4)
Seemonks suggestion may hold water. Makes sense to me. I'm not bothered by how many Iraqis die in their quest for democracy.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 21, 2006 04:27 PM (FysfD)
Said it coming out the gate above - there is a great deal of ignorance on all parts - not exempting even the loyal following. Ignorance loses - ignorance gets people killed.
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 04:50 PM (XrexX)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 21, 2006 07:35 PM (gLMre)
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 08:09 PM (XrexX)
Posted by: hondo at August 21, 2006 08:11 PM (XrexX)
There is no civil war. al-Sadr and al-Tikriti are slugging in out in a power grab. Instraed of pretending we don't know what is happening, why don't we just pretend and get the hell out of the firing line.
Then when one side wins, we jump on the winner while weak, and crush them into the freaking dirt!
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 21, 2006 10:00 PM (n4VvM)
Since then he and Bush have been playing the political game just like LBJ, trying to win with low casualties and without offending Iraqi leaders--Sistani is playing him for a fool--and neither winning nor pleasing anyone. Fallujah devastated our image, and Muqtada should have been jailed years ago--now he is an Iranian-backed threat and will soon, IMO, stage a coup in the south.
Now we are back to paying tribute, this time to Hezbollah. We need someone with the guts to end it, like we did in the Barbary Wars. This is death by a thousand cuts.
Posted by: Pat at August 21, 2006 10:03 PM (jAFLw)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 21, 2006 10:09 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Vigilante at August 21, 2006 11:39 PM (Ai61H)
Posted by: Vigilante at August 21, 2006 11:40 PM (Ai61H)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 24, 2006 06:23 PM (gLMre)
Posted by: hondo at August 24, 2006 08:49 PM (XrexX)
August 04, 2006
Odd. Serial killer wishes new Pope best wishes.Sam DietemanLooks like Sam was planning to convert. What's the penance on 6 murders?
Phoenix, United States
Congratulations Holy Father!!!Though I am not yet Catholic, I feel a great joy in witnessing the election of a new Pontiff,congratulations Pope Benedict XVI !!
[Photo above right: Dale Hausner]
Sam Dietman was arrested today on suspicion of being a serial killer in Phoenix. Another serial killer, Dale Hausner, was also arrested. Between the two of them, six people were killed and 17 wounded. The two were friends living in suburban Mesa.
It looks like Dale Hausner was an aspiring sports photo journalist. What sport does a mass-murderer who targets women cover?
Women's boxing. Notice the photocredits belong to Hausner and the boxing match was held in Phoenix. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
07:32 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Darth Vag at August 04, 2006 07:59 PM (+nlyI)
Posted by: George Ramos at August 04, 2006 08:32 PM (f1d3r)
Posted by: George Ramos at August 04, 2006 08:33 PM (f1d3r)
www.keeppunching.com/korner_articles/2004/jan/rubin_09JAN04.htm
Perhaps Hausner should have considered conversion and penance - but that apparently had little effect on his partner.
Glad these two are behind bars. Prayers for the victims and their families.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at August 04, 2006 08:39 PM (MAPKL)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 04, 2006 08:43 PM (8e/V4)
These guys are toast. I hope they hang if they are guilty. But that guy from Cleveland, who said it is his right to be a pedophile, he molested kids so far into their autism, they could not even let their parents know they were being, abused is not even close to an appropriate adjective. He is on par with Jeffrey Dahmer. His abuse ate these kids souls. If I had one bullet and had to choose between shooting Saddam Hussein between the eyes, or this evil vile creature, I believe in my heart Saddam would be a very happy person.
Until I wheeled around and bashed his head with the butt of my rifle.
He has admitted to his crime. Take away his appeal, and then take him out back. I'll bring my own ammo and weapon if needed.
Posted by: Cmunk at August 04, 2006 09:27 PM (n4VvM)
"Joe Louis means to me...
Class. In an era filled with politics and war, Joe Louis stood head and shoulders above the crowd with pride and dignity. He fought for his country, fought in the ring and was never in trouble with the law."
"He defended his world title a record 25 times and held on to it for almost 12 years. Both of those are still records to this day."
"He was a positive role model and he let his fists do the talking, not his mouth. They spoke volumes."
Dale S. Hausner/Photo Journalist
Posted by: rachel at August 04, 2006 09:29 PM (GMwQE)
"Joe Louis means to me...
Class. In an era filled with politics and war, Joe Louis stood head and shoulders above the crowd with pride and dignity. He fought for his country, fought in the ring and was never in trouble with the law."
"He defended his world title a record 25 times and held on to it for almost 12 years. Both of those are still records to this day."
"He was a positive role model and he let his fists do the talking, not his mouth. They spoke volumes."
Dale S. Hausner/Photo Journalist
Posted by: rachel at August 04, 2006 09:33 PM (GMwQE)
Posted by: rachel at August 04, 2006 09:36 PM (GMwQE)
Posted by: Cmunk at August 04, 2006 09:56 PM (n4VvM)
We need to broaden the Church to be inclusive of all people ........SHIT!
Posted by: Brad at August 04, 2006 11:22 PM (6mUkl)
Posted by: Mike at August 05, 2006 08:57 AM (o+Eb2)
Posted by: Sandhills Raymond at August 05, 2006 11:13 AM (1tbcY)
55 queries taking 0.1246 seconds, 880 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
