jawa.mee.nu

December 12, 2006

HS Physics Teacher/ACLU Demand Right to Spew Anti-Zionist Propaganda to Students

Stop the ACLU posts about a renegade high school teacher determined to indoctrinate his students about the evil of insidious Jews and the Great Satan America: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

December 08, 2006

Woman Spits in Soldier's Face (Updated)

Syracuse radio station WFBL reports that Lauren Maggi, 35, of Thurber Street was charged with harassment for spitting in a soldier's face at Hancock Airport.

The incident happened over the Thanksgiving holiday. Maggi approached a soldier from the 10th Mountain Division, who apparently was not in uniform, and asked if he was a soldier. When he said yes, Maggi allegedly spit in his face.

WFBL's news service is supplied by television station WTVH, which has nothing posted yet about the incident on its website. Syracuse.com carries this blurb:

â€¢ Woman accused of spitting on soldier
A Syracuse woman was charged after a Fort Drum soldier accused her of spitting on him without provocation at Hancock Airport, Syracuse police said.

On January 18 of this year, Lauren Maggi, 34, of Thurber Street, was charged with endangering the welfare of a child.

Someone tell me again about how the Left supports the troops, but not their mission.

Update: More details:

Jason Jones, 21, told police a woman he did not know walked up to him near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum solider and, when he responded that he was, spat in his face.
Police searched the airport garage and located a woman fitting the description that Jones provided, who was later identified as Maggi. Police escorted her into the terminal, where Jones identified her as the woman who had spit on him. A second soldier on the scene supported Jones' accusation, police said.
Maggi offered no explanation for her conduct, police said. She could not be reached for comment Thursday night.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:41 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I hope someone gave her the beatdown for that. Or was she the same chick that was dating Flava Flav?

Posted by: BelchSpeak at December 08, 2006 03:17 PM (RnY/N)

2 Version 1: This is clearly an urban legend, nothing to substantiate it at all. Just as it never occurred during Vietnam. (See Jerry Lembcke's The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam.)

Version 2: The woman must have been a right-winger, since the only cases of spitting on vets is by right-wingers.

(Both of these claims, at least regarding Vietnam vets who were spat upon, are sounded out here:

http://www.slate.com/id/1005224/)

So, my advice to folks like this soldier is to keep the press clippings, so that in another 20 years, you'll have proof that it actually happened. (Not that it'll matter to the rewriters and revisers of history.)

Posted by: Lurking Observer at December 08, 2006 03:57 PM (/ZD7V)

3 Thanks for the link. I just sent Jack Shafer a note.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 08, 2006 04:15 PM (vBK4C)

4 'Someone tell me again about how the Left supports the troops, but not their mission' - When did Lauren Maggi become Speaker of the House? Do you even know who she voted for? FYI: neither political side supports the troops - it's you and I that do.

Posted by: tbone at December 08, 2006 04:28 PM (HGqHt)

5 Whatever her politics, the woman sounds like a real asshole.

Posted by: Wango77Tango at December 08, 2006 04:28 PM (LxyIe)

6 The word that came to my mind rhymes with what football teams do on fourth and long.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 08, 2006 04:48 PM (vBK4C)

7 Lauren Maggi,[Thanks, but we really don't condone giving out personal information, even for scuzzsucking whores like this.]

Posted by: Skit Diddley Doo at December 08, 2006 05:11 PM (8p4gp)

8 "Version 1: This is clearly an urban legend, nothing to substantiate it at all. Just as it never occurred during Vietnam. (See Jerry Lembcke's The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam.)"

"So, my advice to folks like this soldier is to keep the press clippings, so that in another 20 years, you'll have proof that it actually happened. (Not that it'll matter to the rewriters and revisers of history.) "

History re-writers such as yourself? I watched my dad be spit on when leaving an Air Force base gate in front of which there was a large gathering of hairy and exceptionaly smelly people. I was seven years old and remember clearly as yesterday the purple octogon granny glasses the hippie was wearing. Yada Yada Yada, the court decided in favor of my Dad when the sh**bag sued for his broken jaw and teeth that were kicked out

Posted by: Mr.Happy at December 08, 2006 05:21 PM (8p4gp)

9 Comrades,

     Well, all I can say is "Thank John Kerry for the lovely attitude". I was a youful soldier, in my dress uniform, in 1975. I was with some others and we were headed to a meeting on the campus of Utah State University.

     We were spotted by a group of the Young Socialist Alliance, (and other assorted hippie-type ne'er do wells) who started to taunt us with the tired old "baby killers" "mercenaries" etc etc etc. We just tried to ignore them and kept on walking. After a couple of minutes of this, one of them hollered out "HEY!" and when we turned, they let fly with a number of balloons filled with red paint, pig's blood, and colored water. Pissed me off to know end, that did.

     I hadn't heard Mr. Kerry's testimony before, and I never put 2 + 2 together until later on. However, I DO understand what that bastard was saying, and I'll never forgive him for it. None of us pressed charges, because we didn't want to give those a**monkies any free press or a day in court, but if I ever find someone doing something like that and I can get to them, I guarantee we'll both be in court.

     Respects,

Posted by: Gwedd at December 08, 2006 05:34 PM (pDOVp)

10 I saw red when I heard about this....

The woman needs to be thrown in jail for assault.
We had this after Vietnam. Should NOT happen again.

Posted by: shawnee at December 08, 2006 05:40 PM (Yls2J)

11 I took some college classes with a Vietnam vet. He told me how it was. How the ememy sent kids into the line of fire. How one of his buddies ran out against orders to save the kid. How the kid blew up. He also told me how the ememy would send 12 year old kids at them for two days. Then the regulars would show up. No wonder he was nuts. He was a nice guy, just crazy.

Posted by: Howie at December 08, 2006 05:42 PM (YdcZ0)

12 Man this just pisses me off.

Anyone know of a way that we could send some show of support to this soldier. Like a cash donation or something.

Posted by: Rhune at December 08, 2006 06:04 PM (mUbGA)

13 tbone,

let me guess. Just because she spit in his face doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't "support the troops", it just means she doesn't support this particular troop?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 08, 2006 06:06 PM (8e/V4)

14 Yeah, Howie, heard a few stories like that from my uncle. He also saw his best friend give this kid a candybar, the kid pulls a grenade and takes out himself plus 3-4 guys from my uncle's unit. I guess that was actually fairly common after the first year or so. He also told me about a couple of village purges they interrupted where the cadres were just offing entire groups of families for not being commie enough.

And our guys were the baby killers >_<

As for the spitting on servicemen, my mom and dad both saw it in person, but they weren't the ones being spit on. It didn't result in a beatdown of the spitter because usually the guy who got spit on would just stand there (like it appears this 10th Mountain guy did) or his buddies would restrain him. Mom also saw protests outside her Navy base that had protestors throwing eggs and various mixes of nastiness (animal blood, paint, human waste) on cars trying to get into the base.

If I saw this kind of thing happen in an airport security wouldn't have to go to the parking lot to find the fool.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at December 08, 2006 06:11 PM (VvXII)

15 I don't give a shit what sex the spitter was. Anyone stupid enough to spit in the face of me or mine will have their face stomped.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 08, 2006 06:27 PM (ezJiI)

16 The fact that the soldier did not immediately and violently retaliate proves her wrong.

Posted by: RepJ at December 08, 2006 06:39 PM (XXEg4)

17 Mr. Happy:

You misunderstand---I am merely pointing out that there are rewriters of history (see Lembcke), not that I agree with them.

I have several friends who were in the Army at the time of Vietnam. They have personal experience of being spat upon---and not, as some on the Left would have us believe, by outraged WWII vets or somesuch nonsense, either.

My advice is sincere---Lembcke's claim is based on "I looked at contemporaneous newspaper reports, and there weren't any of soldiers being spat upon, so it must not have happened." In 20 years, there will be folks claiming that they supported the troops (shoot, they'll probably even claim they supported the mission), and that no one was ever spat upon---certainly not by anyone on the Left.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at December 08, 2006 06:40 PM (/ZD7V)

18 I wish i was there that B*tch would have no teeth left Married to a Vietnam veteran makes me a very proud woman and anyone who would do this to this to any military personal need to be punished legally does'nt she know if not for him she wouldn't have been able to do that? He is protecting her rights to walk safely down the streets and have freedom of speech ect ect if i had been there i would have taken her behind a woodshed and wailed her till the cows come home
God Bless our military and there families

Posted by: Dot Bowen at December 08, 2006 06:58 PM (Ok807)

19 I notice that Lauren Maggi, [Thanks, but we really don't condone giving out personal information, even for scuzzsucking whores like this.] didn't try to spit in a female soldier's face.

Now, I wonder why that is.

The free ride for women and leftists needs to end.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 08, 2006 07:19 PM (bLPT+)

20 I hate stories like this. It reminds me of the time a co-worker called me a baby killer because he knew I was a former Marine. He is a hardcore lib. Ironically even though my boss witnessed it he did nothing.

Posted by: SeeMonk at December 08, 2006 07:37 PM (n4VvM)

21 Please don't give out this woman's address. The first nasty letter she recieves, she will go from criminal to victim.

You guys should know better.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 08, 2006 07:46 PM (/qy9A)

22 What a cunt.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 08, 2006 08:19 PM (HSkSw)

23 Just proud of the restraint shown by the soldier. He showed class, and training.

Posted by: Codekeyguy at December 08, 2006 08:59 PM (+WuRB)

24 SeeMonk.. you should have beaten the crap out of that individual.

Posted by: Richard H. at December 08, 2006 09:11 PM (/xUS1)

25 Thanks for the heads up Bluto.
I'd hurt that bitch.

Posted by: dick at December 08, 2006 09:15 PM (iDQvf)

26 OH how I remember the year 1972, I was escorting a brother who was killed in Vietnam, a flag drapped casket at San Francisco INT. A protesting group choose to harass me and spitd on me. I had no means to protect myself from this uruly group. I forgive them and I sure hope none of their relatives were in Beriut, the USS Cole, or the World trade center.I guess we need these type of people to remind us of why we fight. If the truth is known this lady is probably unbalanced and needs help. Vietnam viet and Grandfather of a 10th mountain soldier in Afghanistan. I'm so proud to be that person.DLH

Posted by: Daniel Hughes at December 08, 2006 10:16 PM (l4gKo)

27 I'll tell you how we can support our soldiers and show them personally that you care. Whenever you see one you go out of your way to show them respect, you open a door for them, you shake their hand and thank them, you let them go ahead of you in line, you pick up their check at a restaruant, pay for their ticket at a movie, applaud them at the airport. And if you ever see some moron spit on one of our soldiers you flatten the azzclown for them.

Posted by: Buzzy at December 08, 2006 11:47 PM (CXz7T)

28 "You want to support the troops? Enlist."

BTDT, got the DD214.

Posted by: Larry at December 09, 2006 02:21 AM (Uewxa)

29 My cousin thought the Viet Nam war was illegal. Nevertheless when his number came up he answered the call. That used to be part of being a stand-up type of guy. Two weeks over there he was blinded for life. Upon coming home he met an old lady who went to the same church he did. When informed of what happened she told him he deserved it.

Never again should our military endure this sort of thing. Never. Again.

Oh and Larry? I supported the troops, spent 22 years in the military myself. How long were YOU in?

Posted by: Subvet at December 09, 2006 04:12 AM (DNVxw)

30 Larry, after my previous post I went to your blog. I think I may have taken your original comments out of context. I apologize.

Posted by: Subvet at December 09, 2006 04:16 AM (DNVxw)

31 Seemonk: For shame.What happened to your balls. I prayed that one of those punks would do it to me. I wanted to be on television with the remainder of his body. Didn't happen though I can back though San Francisco. Gues you are smaller than I. I would die for the opportunity if one of the bastards spit on me or mine. My oldest boy is on is way back right now. God help the piece of shit who spits at him. Talk about a world class ass whipping.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 09, 2006 06:25 PM (ezJiI)

32 Our nation is so divided ...

Our troops ARE the good guys.

Anyone who is against them is attacking the better part of us. The braver, more patriotic, more giving part of us.

Why don't we start saying what we all know is true? Our first civil war started out more civil than this one is. We know we are infested with an un-American element. We know they want to turn the nation into putty, and mold it into their instrument.

The MSM is lying (propaganda)

The Universities are lying (indoctrination)

Our courts are usurping the rule of, and by the people. (Authoritarianism)

The ACLU lets parts of the Constitution burn, while selectively encouraging special rights for special interests. (Socialism)

Hollywood mocks the fabric, heritage, and character of our nation, with reckless impunity. (Moral decadence)

Surrender is 'victory', lies are 'truth', and virtues are 'sins'! (Orwellian Prophecy)

Soros can buy all the 'free speech' he wants for his socialist elitists. Meanwhile 'We The People' are watching the march of taxes, entitlements, and beauracracy impede us from acheiving a better life for ourselves on our own merits. (Oppression)

We The People have individual rights, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and a right to keep and bear arms whic "shall not be infringed." And we have enforced political correctness, suppression of faith based organizations, the ATF and tanks at WACO!!! (Hypocracy)

I could go on, but Jesusland Carlos made a good point about posts being to long, so I'm going to be polite.

We are in a war for our culture, and for the existence of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I support the USA, ALL THE WAY!

I spit on whoever doesn't.

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 09, 2006 07:03 PM (2OHpj)

33 Recently at a local establishment, I heard a couple of dredlocked white
punk assholes at the next table over starting to say something about
soldiers while a girl whose husband is in Iraq was standing right next
to them, and I just happened to mention to a friend of mine, and not in
an indoor voice, that I would just love to hear someone saying
something bad about military people, because I hadn't got to bust a
hippie's head in a long time. The scumbag lefturds suddenly found a new
topic of discussion.

A good liberal is a dead one.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 09, 2006 07:17 PM (v3I+x)

34 It wouldn't be the first time 'peace' activists used violence to achieve their goals.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Apr/20050424Feat001.asp

http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=22850

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Sep/20060922News004.asp

http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=25446

Posted by: Wicker Man at December 10, 2006 09:29 AM (B+vVq)

35 Being the Mom of an Airman, this news article made me sick! I found her address on the Post-Standard website and she will be hearing from Me! I'd really like to know who died and made her God.... If I had been there, she would not have walked away unscathed! It's not just the men and woman who are impacted by this, but the military families, too. As we all read, from a number of you who had soldiers in Vietnam, the families also are impacted by the events that take place during their family members term in the service. Spit on our boys, spit on me....
Why aren't they picking on the politicians making the foreign policy, not taking it out on the guys and gals sent to enforce those policies? How many policians would take being spit on before something changed?? I think, NOT MANY!
Military Mom on the Warpath

Posted by: Georgia Buettner at December 10, 2006 10:06 AM (JsVAG)

36 Don't forget to thank John Kerry doing everything he could to smear the American soldier.

Posted by: pst314 at December 10, 2006 12:27 PM (lCxSZ)

37 Lauren Maggi is a SCUM-BAG!! After fighting in three combat tours and being medically retired with 20 years, as a soldier; and getting screwed up on a military parachute jump; I have no respect for this BITCH. Maybe she should think about joining the insurgency in Iraq and start ambushing American soldiers.....it would fit her style.......or better yet take a stray .50 Cal. round to the fucking head!

Posted by: Tim at December 10, 2006 08:51 PM (fsc2P)

38 Maybe we should start spitting on leftists. It's not like they know how to brawl or anything, so there's not much they could do about it.

If that happened, the Establishment Media would run piece after piece on the mental anguish of being spat upon.

Lefties count on moderates and conservatives behaving in a civilized manner, while they suffer under no such constraint. That's why they're so out of control. They have little sense of personal accountability and reason.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 10, 2006 09:05 PM (bLPT+)

39 Hey, I am Lauren Maggi, the woman in the article. I can tell you all that I fully support the troops and this current war- I am one of the remaining few people who does!

This incident stemmed from a domestic dispute, which police- and Mr. Jones- did not reveal to the media.

I am from a military family, and I would be the first person to be disgusted over such an alleged act occurring over disdain for the troops.

I need my side to be made clear here.

Posted by: Lauren Maggi at December 11, 2006 01:49 PM (HXmnw)

40 Hey, I am Lauren Maggi, the woman in the article. I can tell you all that I fully support the troops and this current war- I am one of the remaining few people who does!

This incident stemmed from a domestic dispute, which police- and Mr. Jones- did not reveal to the media.

I am from a military family, and I would be the first person to be disgusted over such an alleged act occurring over disdain for the troops.

I need my side to be made clear here.

Posted by: Lauren Maggi at December 11, 2006 01:49 PM (HXmnw)

41 So this lady represents the left?
Do you know who she voted for the last election?
You're basing this on what FACTS exactly?
I love how the right just speculates/creates events for political gain. What is your information?
I live in syracuse NY and it's about 50/50 GOP to Dems throughout the county,with a slight edge to democrats in the city. The last mayor,Ray bernardi was a Republican, and worked for HUD for Bush II. REAL leftist haven this is.

Posted by: Lefty McTruthenstein at December 11, 2006 08:51 PM (p6gCg)

42 Lefty McTruthenstein: she lives on Thurber Street, in the University section, you dishonest weasel. Are you really going to try to tell me that it's "about fifty-fifty" around SU? If so, then you're lying about living in Syracuse, or just braindead. So much for the "truth" part of your moniker.

It's "Roy" Bernardi, not "Ray." I've met him. He was a moderate Republican aberration between Democrat mayorships. Why don't you tell the folks about Lee Alexander, one of the previous Dem? You know, the one who got locked up in prison for corruption...

So you're one of the parasites in the city that keeps the county from developing its potential by trying to screw every developer with a plan to bring new jobs into the area, eh? Thanks a lot, jackass.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 12, 2006 12:33 AM (vBK4C)

43 We are rotting from within! I believe this is a version of how our enemies could defeat a super power. Liberal news media, schools that teach idiology rather than truth (sounds like "muslim radicals"), and sheep who's empathy clouds their intelligence. Let's not forget us apathetic complainers. We need a leader! "I fear not the leaders of darkness, I fear the apathy of the children of light. Not an exact quote, but close, of the great Martin Luther King.

Posted by: cutie control 9th ROK at December 12, 2006 12:41 AM (ACq/K)

44 There is no reason any soldier should get spit on in the face. To say that the left doesn't support their troops when one woman spits on a soldier's face? I am a lefty and I have always supported our troops. I do what I can and send care packages all the time. It's not about the left or right supporting the troups, it's about a war was started on false pretenses. That's it! The troops are doing their job and when they are out there fighting, they are not asking each other if they are Republicans or Democrats. They are trying to stay alive and keep their brothers and sisters alive. People need to stop saying that the right or left doesn't support the troops. EVERYONE supports the troops, not the administration and what they have done. Oh, and have we mentioned military pay? Why aren't these guys getting as much money as the contractor's that they are supporting? It's insane. I know someone that went to Iraq and she just got out of the Army to get a oontracting job making more money. She's going back to Iraq with this new job, but she's getting payed way more then she was when she was in the Military. See, I am a lefty and know someone that has been to Iraq! I bet everyone's shocked

Posted by: Vanessa at December 12, 2006 04:29 PM (ZAwk+)

45 Yes, the GOP supports the troops. That's why they cut their danger pay DURING WAR! That's why they cut funds to the VA. That's why they sent these young men and women to war in too small numbers to win it but just enough to allow the slow meltdown of the country and the continued death of these young men and women.

Ask the military how supported they feel by this administration. The grunts, not those at the top.

And did I mention the lack of armour? I have a son-in-law in the military and until Bush sends his twins to fight this so-called "war against terror" then he is not serious about it in any sense.

Posted by: Wendy at December 12, 2006 04:48 PM (37FZX)

Congratulations Wendy! You managed to hit every cliched rationalization the Left uses for betraying our troops and our country without ever getting around to being outraged that this vile act was committed. I pity your son-in-law.

Vanessa, the troops may not ask each other what party they belong to, but the Democrats are always anxious to invalidate as many military absentee ballots as possible. You support our troops only so far as you find them useful for political propaganda. You are beneath loathesomeness. Now scurry away, both of you, before you really make me angry.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 12, 2006 09:25 PM (vBK4C)

47 Lefty McTurdstain:

"I love how the right just speculates/creates events for political gain. What is your information?"

Leftist projection at its Orwellian best. Lefties have been spitting on American soldiers for 40 years. There is no recorded case of a moderate or conservative spitting on a soldier, much less a "right-winger."

Next you'll tell me you send care packages to soldiers serving in Iraq, or that you care about the Iraqi public. Maybe you and Vanessa can have a contest to see who lies more blatantly.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 13, 2006 12:43 AM (bLPT+)

48 ehpqnd basqmgh hfondvplw kjmtxivc wqzyh wnmqrgeys mfhv

Posted by: eznlu mcursfj at December 29, 2006 07:43 AM (6mFO/)

49 baygnzwk keausn ednsf yesojfn aorzjbvdt oxrh csjpxetr

Posted by: eahdic xypecdmkv at May 20, 2007 02:39 PM (I42pD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 16, 2006

Dems Defy Pelosi, Pick Hoyer Over Murtha

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A week after winning back control of the U.S. Congress, divided Democrats in the House defied incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday and elected Steny Hoyer to be majority leader, a Democratic Party aide said.

The vote wasn't even close: 149-86. The only thing more surprising than this resounding rebuke to the new Speaker is Pelosi's stupidity in endorsing the baggage-laden Murtha in the first place.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:26 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ha Ha.

Posted by: Fred Fry at November 16, 2006 02:12 PM (JXdhy)

2 I suspect she isn't as dumb as we might have hoped. She fulfilled her obligation to repay him for his prior loyalty to her and then she gets a better co-conspirator.

Posted by: Mouldy at November 16, 2006 02:36 PM (rLxNA)

3 It was the expected result.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 16, 2006 02:44 PM (TcoRJ)

4 So, who were the ones who supported Murtha? I suspect that, if Pelosi has any say over it, those 80-odd Representatives are going to be handsomely paid off.

Certainly, that'll be true for Sanchez and Kucinich and those who nominated Murtha.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 16, 2006 04:30 PM (/ZD7V)

5 Looks like the decent among the demacrats has already started

Posted by: sandpiper at November 16, 2006 04:45 PM (O2c+K)

6 Shows the stupidity of the Pelosi bitch. Nothing more. Don't give her credit for being a dumbass. The self destruction of the democratic party has begun.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 02:13 AM (R6qo5)

7 That over a third of Democrats voted for Murtha is disturbing enough in
itself. I'll betcha I could go down the list and without even
checking pick out every single one that voted for him alphabetically.

Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2006 05:40 AM (YudAC)

8 Do you morons really think that this is significant?

When the Republicans do it, no one seems to care, but when the Democrats do it, it's infighting?

You might want to go back and check your congressional history to see who has had the most "infights" over leadership positions.

The answer may surprise you.

As for me, I don't really give a shit, whether it's Republicans or Democrats doing it.

It's all just part of the democratic process and hasn't destroyed either party, yet.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 17, 2006 06:54 AM (qBTkS)

9 "Shows the stupidity of the Pelosi bitch. Nothing more. Don't give her credit for being a dumbass. The self destruction of the democratic party has begun.
Posted by: Greyrooster "

No, you get the credit for being the biggest dumbass.

Check out the history of congressional leadership elections, before you come back here with more meaningless bullshit.

And while you are focused on the so-called Democratic "infighting", in congress, you have not noticed that it didn't take President Moron long to break his promise to "work with the Democrats".

His hope of enacting any of his agenda is fading fast, as he continues to lie to congress and the American people.

He is a lame duck with 2 broken legs and will never recover, ensuring his place in history as the worst President in US history.

And he will have guys like you to thank for it.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 17, 2006 07:04 AM (qBTkS)

10 Puddleduck, what you don't understand is no one cares what you think
anymore. You've never delivered an opinion without first
belittling others in the thread with childish name calling.
You've revealed nothing about your opponents more than your own
personality flaws and inability to rise above guttersniping. Get
over it.

Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2006 09:32 AM (UeUAE)

11 Puddlefuck!
You're still breathing?

Posted by: Dick at November 17, 2006 12:34 PM (XlQVK)

12 Yeah, Dick, I'm still breathing.

They haven't been able to sufficate me, yet.

Haven't heard from you, in a while.

How are you doing?

BTW - yes, I'm still "nuts".

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 18, 2006 09:10 AM (qBTkS)

13 Puddleduck is simply a lying anti-american piece of shit. Nothing more. Just a newbe lefturd who actually thinks someone at this blog gives a shit about a commie thinks. Perhaps he should tell us more about his military career in Vietnam. Or was it Korea? or WW 2 ? or the Revolution ? Lying asshole.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 20, 2006 09:27 AM (R6qo5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 18, 2006

ACLU Succeeding in Having Searches Banned at NFL Stadiums

It's a good thing that the Department of Homeland Security is skeptical about the threat to set off radiological "dirty bombs" in seven National Football League stadiums, because the American Civil Liberties Union is doing all it can to prevent anyone being searched at NFL stadiums anyway. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

October 08, 2006

Airboating Through The Fever Swamps

The average Daily Kos reader, male, female, and others

I took a trip to the Dagobah System of the 'sphere, Dkos, just to see what they were saying about the NORK nuke test.

Here's just a small sample of the comments ~~over~~ under there:

...Bush's approval rating is in red-alert territory again. Usually they just up the FearCon level when that happens, but I think that trick's lost most of its effectiveness. So I have to think that, regrettably, you might have something in your last sentence. God grant we're both wrong.

Every single time it gets this bad, and this has been the worst time for him, something happens to pull it out.

I think this is what the Bu$heviki are going to pull out of the hat to distract Amurkans from Foleygate. I'm not--quite--ready to claim they engineered it this way or that this is Rove's "October Surprise," but the timing is certainly convenient. Maybe too damn convenient.

It has happened too many times to be coincidental. And it always is precisely timed. I won't even hesitated to say it is too damn convenient. Believe your eyes and your gut.

There is a sane voice over there, urinating into the gale:

how in the world does the Bush Admin "time" a nuke test by the N Koreans???

I took these five quotes just out the first thirteen. Feel free, if you dare, to go read the rest of them.

Once again, this is a situation where the blame stretches back over many years, not just the last two administrations. This problem goes back to the fact that we failed to completely and utterly defeat and humiliate the enemy in 1953, signed a cease-fire, and voila, here we are today.

But to claim that the Bush Admin. actually orchestrated this for the elections. Good lord, that's just f***ing insane.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:42 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ship these idiots to North Korea and nuke the whole damn lot !

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 09, 2006 01:29 AM (HSkSw)

2 Shame! Shame! You are likely to receive a fatwa for that depiction of Allah! Devil will do meetballs from your body!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 09, 2006 01:36 AM (Dd86v)

3 So North Korea drops a bomb. Well we know who the lefturds will blame...

I bet that tomorrow Tory Bear Sully will be just enjoying the blimiest hissy fit as he goes about honking anti-Bush rubbish instead of blaming the very potty Kim.

The hirsute poof should go back to east London and relish in anti-American Bush-loathing by drinking a nice warm one donated by an Islamofaggot !

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 09, 2006 01:48 AM (HSkSw)

4 Um, Larry?

That's actually the picture Darth Vag sent me when he tried to engage me in Foley-style email.

He does that alot, you know.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 09, 2006 02:11 AM (/qy9A)

5

Rove's "October Surprise,

buahahaha! Our october surprise nuked your October surprise.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 02:25 AM (8e/V4)

6 how in the world does the Bush Admin "time" a nuke test by the N Koreans???

Any sane person would ask himself that question-- but I guess that's too much to expect from your average Lost Kos Kid. The few times I've perused the comments section on that blog it's like walking into a sanitarium.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 02:27 AM (8e/V4)

7 How soon will it be before Foley announces he is switching to the Democratic Party because Republicans are too intolerant and anti-Gay?

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 09, 2006 02:32 AM (HSkSw)

8 Right around the time you start embracing your "Longhorn" and reply to Foley's IMs, Vag.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 09, 2006 02:41 AM (/qy9A)

9 The Huskers are gonna get "IM'd" (internally massaged) on their own turf on October 21.

Hook 'em Horns!!!!

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 09, 2006 02:50 AM (HSkSw)

10 The implicit admission from the Kos posters is that a hot defense issue is bad for democrats. I really, really want to play poker against these guys.

Posted by: bigmac at October 09, 2006 04:51 AM (MXEOG)

11 Choice Quotes from the Jawa Comments
"The sooner the frogs are exterminated as a race the better off the world will be. Cultures are like people, and once they've passed their peak, they either ease quitely into their golden years and then on to peaceful oblivion, or become bitter and hateful toward the world. Of course, some, like the British, just become senile and infantile in their dottering old age." - Improbulus Maximus

"The anonymous lefturd's apologetics only support my position that they are 100% on the side of our enemies and will stand with them when the war is in our streets. Of course, this will only make it easier to identify them, and justifies their extermination." - Improbulus Maximus

Posted by: Rhyleh at October 09, 2006 05:51 AM (Q+ifs)

12 Darn, I thought the October Surprise was the Iran invasion.

Posted by: Howie at October 09, 2006 08:28 AM (YdcZ0)

13 Why don't you go point out some of the "choice comments" on the Kos or Atrios site, or better yet, DU or some of the other fever swamp blogs of the Leftists to them, you fricking whore Rhyleh? Hypocrite!

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 09, 2006 09:11 AM (rUyw4)

14 You can say what you will about KOS readers (your personal obssesion) they don't systematically call for R executions and being wiped out with 'enemies' - come to think of it, a point can be made that commenters here mirror AQ's sentiments to some degree. Whereas AQ calls some Americans as 'infidels' to be slaughtered, here some Americans are called as 'enemies' to be slaughtered - what's the difference?

Posted by: tbone at October 09, 2006 12:05 PM (HGqHt)

15 No, no, tbone, don't you realize that the Liberals are supposed to be the party of tolerance, so that when they break the character created for them by Rush Limbaugh, they're hypocrites? Conservatives have never laid claim to such lofty moral intentions as compassion or tolerance or empathy in the cause of supporting America. So no matter how low they sink, they stay true to their character and could never be accused of hypocrisy. Sweet deal, huh?

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 12:44 PM (UHKaK)

16 Conservatives have never laid claim to such lofty moral intentions as
compassion or tolerance or empathy in the cause of supporting America.

Gleep,

that is 100% correct. And yet despite that, I see no less intolerance in the Lib camp than I do in the conservative camp. The only difference I see is the lip service. Which is what makes your intolerance so much more despicable.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 02:02 PM (8e/V4)

17 JC - Talk about missing the irony. The point made is that the definition of tolerance foisted upon the liberal party by the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world is a caricature in the first place. Therefore, telling self-congratulatory loudmouths to piss off is a far cry from being intolerant.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 02:18 PM (UHKaK)

18 definition of tolerant: inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others/////

...telling self-congratulatory loudmouths to piss off is a far cry from being intolerant...

Oh, I don't know about that. Caricature, huh? Doubtful, at best, as I've seen nothing tolerant about liberal/leftist behavior of late. I like your latest entry into the "Why can't we all just get along" sweepstakes, though. It's sure to make friends and influence enemies, Gleep, and speaking of loudmouths......well, you get the picture!

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 09, 2006 02:44 PM (rUyw4)

19 Therefore, telling self-congratulatory loudmouths to piss off is a far cry from being intolerant.

Gleep,

Your claims to "tolerance" are as fallacious as your claims to being "open-minded". I've yet to meet a Liberal who admitted he might be wrong, or that conservatives might be right once in a while. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me. Which, again, makes your claims to being so that much more despicable.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 02:51 PM (8e/V4)

20 The thing is, and here's the kicker: Repubs and Demos are the flip side to the same useless coin. They are both religions unto themselves and you all are the imams. Stop preaching and start practicing.

Posted by: tbone at October 09, 2006 02:59 PM (HGqHt)

21 tbone,

on that I can agree on-- which again makes Liberal claims to being superior that much more despicable ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 03:05 PM (8e/V4)

22 Hey, I thought you were a Liberal at one time, until you saw some light or something. You NEVER admitted you were wrong even once at that time? Then you're either a liar or a hypocrite, which will it be? And personally, I don't care if we get along or not...guess that makes me a conservative.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 03:12 PM (UHKaK)

23 Hey, I thought you were a Liberal at one time, until you saw some light
or something. You NEVER admitted you were wrong even once at that time?

Gleep,

Yes, in fact I was a Lib once upon a time. Staunchly so. I would have been the troll on this blog about 6 years ago.

And that's why I know you Libs better than you know yourselves. I've seen Liberalism from all angles.

Did I ever admit I was wrong? Of course not, I was a Liberal.

Doesn't mean we can't get along.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 03:18 PM (8e/V4)

24 So you're arguing that because you were once a liberal, you've mastered all there is to know about the liberal position? I call BS.You don't even know basic history or knowledge about contemporary facts. I doubt for example you could explain the rationale for a universal health care system.

And yes, my point was that Kos people don't call for genocides or mass murders. That particularly charming trait seems largely reserved for the conservative commentators - who are geneally too wrapped up in their self-righteous anger to do any actual thinking or arguing (hence the name-calling, e.g., lefturds).

Posted by: Rhyleh at October 09, 2006 03:23 PM (Q+ifs)

25 I doubt for example you could explain the rationale for a universal health care system.

I doubt 99% of Liberals could-- which is precisely why they're still Liberals.

Anyway, the difference between conservatives and Liberals is the things they value, not how much "info" they have.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 03:25 PM (8e/V4)

26 JC, you strike me as a staunch believer in all of your positions; you were once a staunch liberal and now you are a staunch conservative. The lesson here may be that it isn't wise to be too staunch.

Believe it or don't -- and you likely won't -- I was once largely conservative in my core beliefs and voting patterns. That's not to say even then I didn't harbor what could only be called liberal individual beliefs. And now that I identify more with a liberal I position, I am still personally opposed to abortion and a few other reliably conservative positions.

Like you, I saw serious hypocracy from those who supposedly represented my values. Unlike you, I didn't entirely abandon all my beliefs for what seems to be an entirely new set. So let's argue our points, agree to disagree when necessary and carry on!

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 03:53 PM (UHKaK)

27 Unlike you, I didn't entirely abandon all my beliefs for what seems to be an entirely new set.

Gleep,

I didn't entirely abandon all my beliefs either. Only the beliefs I consider core make me a conservative. In fact, if Dems hadn't given the party up to the fundamentalist atheists and hard Left, I might still call myself a Democrat.

That doesn't mean we wouldn't agree on other stuff. For instance, I'm not ideologically opposed to universal healthcare if it could be shown to work (I was just being snide above). Nor am I in favor of making seniors eat cat food, nor starving babies or drowning puppies.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 04:02 PM (8e/V4)

28 Nor am I in favor of making seniors eat cat food, nor starving babies or drowning puppies.

LOL! Good to know.

I shouldn't be giving you guys such a hard time anyways; if you've got a core set of conservative values, you likely feel more let down by the current government than I do. I at least expected it.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 04:15 PM (UHKaK)

29 if you've got a core set of conservative values, you likely feel more let down by the current government than I do.

You just stumbled onto something. In fact, that's the reason for Bush's low numbers-- he isn't conservative enough

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 09, 2006 04:28 PM (8e/V4)

30 This is true, he is a sell-out to his party's principles â€” but in all fairness, that process began about '96.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 04:32 PM (UHKaK)

31 Bout time Vinnie posted his picture.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 09, 2006 08:51 PM (xJ3Xm)

32 Damn, a fricking love-in! Well, dammit, universal health care is worthless because it doesn't work. It causes rationing of vital care, raises the costs, discourages innovation, encourages overuse, and I could go on and on. How's that for a bomb thrown right into the middle of the love fest? Now, have at me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 09, 2006 09:47 PM (rUyw4)

33 Ya just gotta argue about something.

I say universal healthcare saves money becaue it is cheaper for individuals and employers to fund healthcare through taxes than it is to buy policies through insurers; employers now have more money to provide jobs, thereby generating more tax revenue which provides more healthcare.

In addition, it is cheaper to provide preventative care now than it is to wait until people are seriosuly ill and then pass the costs of treatment on to taxpayers anyway.

Finally, tax-payer funding promotes more and better research and cures by eliminating the profit motive as the sole decider of which medications are produced and which aren't.

Unless I'm wrong of course.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 09, 2006 10:23 PM (jbn6u)

34 Gleep: Ha, ha. There is nothing the government can do cheaper than private industry. Why? The people on the payroll do not profit from their work. Therefore, they don't work. Example: Communism.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 10, 2006 05:04 AM (xJ3Xm)

35 A. Not true. Every type of government employs private industry at some level to fulfill citizen needs; profit willalways be involved.

B. In all cases, cheaper does not equal better. When will you Wal-Mart heads start figuring that out?

Posted by: Gleep! at October 10, 2006 01:11 PM (UHKaK)

36 Gleep: The fact that every type of government employs private industry at some level proves my point. they must hire outside help because government employees do not work. Thanks for the help. Ha, ha

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 10, 2006 10:17 PM (xJ3Xm)

37 Vinnie should win the best self portrait of the year award with this one.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 10, 2006 10:19 PM (xJ3Xm)

38 Sure, Rooster. If anyone needs the help, it's you. Ha, ha. Ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha. Hahahahahahah,

Posted by: Gleep! at October 11, 2006 12:16 AM (w0kL4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 26, 2006

Law to Stop Taxpayer Funding of ACLU up for Vote

Jay at Stop The ACLU reports that:

S 3696 (PERA), sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-Kan), a companion bill to H.R. 2679 (PERA), sponsored by Rep. Hostetter (R-Ind.), would amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments of other symbols of Americaâ€™s history with a religious aspect.

Get the whole story here.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

September 23, 2006

How Did Arizona "9/11 Memorial" Become Moonbat Hate-America Shrine?

First TDPB post, with photos of inscriptions.

Arizona has erected a supposed memorial to the victims of 9/11 that not only looks like an Islamic crescent from the air (reminiscent of the "crescent of embrace" proposed for the Flight 93 memorial), but features America-bashing inscriptions.

From the East Valley Tribune:

One inscription states, â€œYou donâ€™t win battles of terrorism with more battles.â€ Another: â€œCongress questions why CIA and FBI didnâ€™t prevent attacks.â€ And another reads, â€œErroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians,â€ referring to a wedding reportedly hit by mistake in Afghanistan.
â€œItâ€™s a worldview that is critical of America, and in many cases cheapens 9/11,â€ said Greg Patterson, a lobbyist and consultant who operates the EspressoPundit blog, where he and his readers have been critical of the memorial. â€œIt is bent on attacking the Bush administrationâ€™s take on the war, at the expense of the memory of 9/11.â€
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he was stunned to learn of the inscriptions. â€œTo politicize it to me is absolutely outrageous, instead of a memorial to remember those who have sacrificed their lives,â€ he said.

Arizona resident Espresso Pundit first exposed the false memorial and is encouraging citizens to contact Arizona governor Janet Napolitano to express their concerns.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:26 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Rusty,
You want a donation?
Show us your tits, you blog whore!

Posted by: Greg at September 23, 2006 09:46 PM (PnoGS)

2
But Bush politicizing the memory and the events of 9/11 for his own imperialist interests seems quite okay, though.

Posted by: Alban at September 23, 2006 09:47 PM (oFrJ0)

3 "Alban", is it? What the hell are you talking about? Do you think that the President of the United States of America shouldn't participate in commemorations of the fifth anniversary of the most heinous terrorist attack in American history?

Or do you think that the party that has prevented further attacks for the last five years, despite gross obstructionism from the party currently out of power, shouldn't be allowed to mention the fact in their campaigns?

And look up "imperialist" in the dictionary - you sound like some sort of timewarp retread commie-symp. Next you'll be calling the free Iraqis "running dog lackeys". It's 2006, man, enter the new century for God's sake.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 23, 2006 09:56 PM (vBK4C)

4 Bluto, I wanted to like Bush's speech on 9/11/2006 but, he jumped right into selling the Iraq war just a few minutes into it. I think that's what Alban may have been talking about. Personally, I would have skipped the "imperialist interests" bullshit though.

Parts of the speech were truly brilliant but, he should have left Iraq out of it. The speech should have been in memorial of our shared national tragedy not the very thing that is ripping us apart.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 10:15 PM (89Rw1)

5 Oh, Greg, you should be the first to pony up the dough.

Posted by: Vinnie at September 23, 2006 10:21 PM (/qy9A)

6 Back on topic... if those are real inscriptions, and they appear to be, it is disgraceful. That kind of shit should not be on a 9/11 memorial.

Just as I was disappointed with Bush for reaching right for devisive topics on 9/11 it appears the creators of this memorial are doing the same braindead crap.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 10:22 PM (89Rw1)

7 Rich, the DNC/MSM have been propagandizing us for months about Iraq, claiming that it isn't connected to the Long War. It is. And the Prez has a responsibility to make that clear.

I don't think Alban knows what he was talking about.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 23, 2006 10:35 PM (vBK4C)

8 The structure looks like a corral. Circular, enclosed, only one pronounced exit.

Hmmm...

Not my kind of place.
-Steve

Posted by: Steve at September 23, 2006 10:58 PM (J46r2)

9 Bluto, I actually do agree with you, mostly. I don't take issue with the President explaining the Iraq war and it's relation to the GWOT. I have an issue with that particular forum.

I just feel that the 9/11 anniversary speech was a highly inappropriate place to make that explanation and it certainly smelled of politicizing 9/11.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 11:09 PM (89Rw1)

10 Why not go back and put some time-line stuff about the fall of Saigon on Kennedy's grave?

Posted by: voirdire at September 23, 2006 11:13 PM (XXbbW)

11 voirdire... heh, not a bad idea... "Here lies George Washington, Traitor to the Crown"

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 11:16 PM (89Rw1)

12 Rich, you're talking about a speech, not a permanent, so-called memorial that has as one of its stated aims the indoctrination of children into Blame American First Liberalism.

Btw, the phrase, "Blame American First", was first uttered by a disillusioned Democrat, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 23, 2006 11:18 PM (vBK4C)

13 Bluto, I know what we're talking about, I even mentioned the Bush stuff was off topic. I can only imagine you changed back to the original topic because you agree that parts of the speech were highly inappropriate. =)

Yes, these inscriptions are disgraceful and should be removed. No argument here.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 11:23 PM (89Rw1)

14 Tell us again, Rich, how you're not a lefturd pretending to be a
"moderate". Or maybe you're just confused. Let me straighten you out;
we are at war with people who want to kill us. If you are not on our
side, then you're on their side, and thus the enemy. And thus deserving
of no consideration of mercy. It's currently safe for you to sit back
and undermine our security by taking the enemy's part, but soon, there
will be suicide bombers in American cities and muslims murdering people
at random, and I don't doubt that you and your misbegotten ilk will be
cheering them on, but if you do, remember that you will go to the fire
with them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 23, 2006 11:28 PM (v3I+x)

15 IM, wow, and I thought I was off topic and here you come with some imbecilic rant.

I'm curious, what exactly did I say in the course of this discussion that puts me on "their side" or that "undermines our security?" Seriously. Can you coherently explain what I said in this discussion that does either of those things?

I'm betting coherent thought and rationality have escaped you long ago...

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 11:33 PM (89Rw1)

16 No Rich, there was nothing "inappropriate" in the speech. Only an apparatchik would claim that there was.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 24, 2006 12:21 AM (vBK4C)

17 Would it have killed the bureaucrats of Arizona to commission a simple, classic memorial? An eagle, the flag, a plaque? Something with a bit of respect, a prayer, some patriotism?

Instead, some artist posers use 9/11 to pretend that they know something about something. The memorial is supposed to be creative and profound but it's actually trite and clichÃ© - multi-cultural pablum for poor school children - as well as being anti-American and disrespectful.

As Yeats wrote:â€œThe best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.â€

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 01:06 AM (fIUHw)

18 Bluto, I'll admit, I had to look "apparatchik" up.

apparatchik - noun - an official in a large organization, typically a political one

I see though that it's common usage was to refer to officials within a communist organization. So, I'm guessing it was a round about way of calling me a communist? If so, you're way, way off the mark there.

Anyway, I don't think I was hoping for something so horrible from that speech. Simply an ideal that would unite us instead of discussing something that is dividing us.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 01:51 AM (89Rw1)

19 This shit is fucking sick and has gone on for to long.....my g-d people died and a bunch of asshats make this in to some half assed mock up Bullshit sorry excuse for a memorial that looks like a muslim crescent.

Posted by: Joshua at September 24, 2006 05:23 AM (8g9JA)

20 Rich, it divides us in a good way. Those who value Party over country are goaded into self-identifying.

The meaning of "apparatchik" has broadened colloquially to include any petty, partisan hack, not necessarily communist.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 24, 2006 08:48 AM (vBK4C)

21 Ah Rich, I don't know what to tell you. If you're not a lefturd, then
you're just a useful idiot, also known as a "moderate", who has been
politically neutered and therefore made safe. You probably call
yourself an "independant" and congratulate yourself for having taken
the time to research the issues and candidates, (meaning you eat what
the party feeds you), when you vote Democrat .

The thing is, in our situation, i.e. with an enemy actively trying to
kill and conquer us, you have to have clarity of vision so that you may
see what action you must take, and the resolve to do it, because
standing up for what's right isn't easy, and is rarely popular. It's
pretty simple really, as our ineloquent CiC put it; you're either with
us or against us. I don't personally care for many things that Bush
does, and I actually support few of his policies, but we can worry abut
that when there are no longer people trying to kill us.

You're probably one of those poor simpletons who think that Bush's low
poll numbers indicate that we're losing on the battlefield, but that's
to be expected from mindless sheeple who simple bleat what the media
tells them to. The fact is that the enemy takes a daily shot of morale
from people like you, and part of the reason they want to conquer us is
simply because they believe they can, because of all the treasonous
lefturds and cowardly "moderates" who think that slavery is much more
preferable to liberty if liberty requires on to fight for it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 24, 2006 08:54 AM (v3I+x)

22 "Rich, it divides us in a good way."

There is no kind of "good" national division.

"Those who value Party over country are goaded into self-identifying."

Exactly. The people who would follow Bush over the precipice praise the speech while everyone else feels a little weird listening to 9/11 being made into a political tool. That praise is self-identifying for Republicans who value their party and divisiveness over country. They may even go so far as to call the divisiveness "good."

No US President, Republican or Democrat, should be followed blindly out of misguided patriotism.

IM, congratulations on the relative clarity, I assume your meds are most effective in the early parts of the day.

"If you're not a lefturd, then you're just a useful idiot, also known as a "moderate", who has been politically neutered and therefore made safe. You probably call yourself an "independant" and congratulate yourself for having taken the time to research the issues and candidates, (meaning you eat what the party feeds you), when you vote Democrat."

Heh, interesting way of putting it. My voter registration says "No party affiliation" and yes, I've self-identified in the past as "independent" but, there is the Independent Party so I avoid that term. Believe it or not, I don't often vote Democrat. Most of my votes have been for Republicans. Personally, I don't even consider this president a true Republican and that is part of why I dislike him.

"I don't personally care for many things that Bush does, and I actually support few of his policies, but we can worry abut that when there are no longer people trying to kill us."

And when precisely will that be? Or, put bluntly, there have always been people trying to kill us, trying to destroy our country and our way of life. This is a fact of life when you're a superpower. You can't halt all internal debate simply because we're at war. There was debate in our country throughout every war of the twentieth century. We basically won them all, debate does not lose wars. Lack of debate can lose our democracy though.

"You're probably one of those poor simpletons who think that Bush's low poll numbers indicate that we're losing on the battlefield, but that's to be expected from mindless sheeple who simple bleat what the media tells them to."

Heh, no, unlike many people, including many on this site, I've spent a lot of time studying war strategy and tactics throughout history. What's happening in Iraq is neither winning or losing, it's chaos. We are no longer defining the battles. We're very much a reactionary force at this point. Fortunately, with our training and firepower, we can be on the defensive for decades relative to the enemy and still never come anywhere near losing. We need to stop being reactionary though. We need to show an overwhelming force. More troops would help accomplish this.

And yes, the media has their heads way up their collective asses when it comes to military reporting. Anyone who listens to them will inevitably say something very, very stupid. Of course, as you've demonstrated, you can do the same without listening to them.

"The fact is that the enemy takes a daily shot of morale from people like you"

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that because we're at war everyone should give up their constitutional rights? All potential sources of dissent should be quieted? Opposition dismantled? The press censored?

All this should sound very familiar. It's precisely what every authoritative repressive regime does. You know, the ones you want us to fight against. Interesting tactic, defeat the enemy by becoming just like the enemy. Hadn't heard that one before...

"because of all the treasonous lefturds and cowardly "moderates" who think that slavery is much more preferable to liberty if liberty requires on to fight for it."

Anyone who thinks that the people of this country won't fight them simply because they disagree with the president is in for a very rude awakening if they come here. You're deluding yourself simply to make yourself feel superior to all those that disagree with you.

By making statements like that you display just how ignorant of history you truly are. Nothing unites this country like an attack. I won't say I think that's a good thing but, it's the truth. You'd have everyone from the southern good ol' boys to the new york prancing queens fighting side by side.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 11:23 AM (89Rw1)

23 Rich: the civil rights movement of the 1960s was horribly divisive, in a good way. Bigots self-identified in reaction and consigned themselves to the ash heap of history.

Thus, with the Blame America First crowd. It is as good for these destructive deviates to be divided from the American mainstream as it was for the bigots to reveal their true natures.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 24, 2006 11:39 AM (vBK4C)

24 Bluto, actually, I agree 100% with both your points. I just happen to think the "Blame America First" crowd is far smaller than you seem to think it is.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 11:50 AM (89Rw1)

25 "useful idiot"
HILARIOUS!
Personally, I think Rich is unsure of where his huevos lay.
He is certainly an Andrew Sullivan style tool.
But I have a suspicion that even that is too vigorous and manly a description for Rich.
Rich is probably a god-fearing-christian-queen who tapes it between his legs. But remember Rich, Felicity Huffman didn't play a politician. Neither should you.

Posted by: Darth Vag at September 24, 2006 12:35 PM (HSkSw)

26 Rich, you say: â€œHeh, no, unlike many people, including many on this site, I've spent a lot of time studying war strategy and tactics throughout history.â€

I donâ€™t believe you. If you were a war historian I think you would be able to put Iraq in the larger context of the jihad being waged against us.

You say that debate is good and necessary. Against a worthy opponent, this might be true. If the left wished America victory, the left would offer serious and productive arguments to the Bush Administration. The opposition would try to propel the country towards better decisions rather than weakening her ability to fight.

But Bill Keller and the NYT feels that only debate which reduces Americaâ€™s status as â€œsuperpowerâ€ is a good debate. So we debate the merits of Abu Graib, the Geneva Convention, Gitmo, wire tapping etc. And we weaken America.

Because this is OK with you, and in fact defended by you, Rich, you are properly labeled â€œlefturdâ€ and traitor by those who are deeply concerned about the future of our country.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 12:58 PM (fIUHw)

27 Rich: ask Joe Lieberman how big the Blame America First crowd is.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 24, 2006 01:51 PM (vBK4C)

28 Darth Vag, you're truly bringing up the quality of debate. Good job. I hope one day to be as witty as you and be able to call people who disagree with me fags.

Heroic Dreamer, you at least tried slightly harder to add an intelligent thought or two.

"I donâ€™t believe you. If you were a war historian I think you would be able to put Iraq in the larger context of the jihad being waged against us."

Where exactly have I discounted the context in which Iraq is being fought. In my comments on this site I have consistently said I disagree with the way in which Iraq is being fought, not that it is being fought. I've always heard a little saying about the word "assume," you should look into it.

"You say that debate is good and necessary. Against a worthy opponent, this might be true."

You try to claim that you respect the value of debate but, I believe you are either lying or deluding yourself. I've actually agreed with you and many other on this site, and said so but as soon as I express any dissent, I'm a terrorist. What, short of completely agreeing with you, would you consider appropriate debate? I don't believe there is anything, it's either your way or the terrorist's way. That's ridiculous and has far more in common with the way the terrorists think than the Bush Administration.

"So we debate the merits of Abu Graib, the Geneva Convention, Gitmo, wire tapping etc."

These are worthy debates and strengthen America, not weaken it. Failing to debate fundamental issues as you appear to want will inevitably lead to the destruction of this country we all love.

"Because this is OK with you, and in fact defended by you, Rich, you are properly labeled â€œlefturdâ€ and traitor by those who are deeply concerned about the future of our country."

Call me "lefturd" all you like, as inaccurate as it is but, calling me a "traitor" is a disgusting tactic. How does arguing for our shared fundamental rights make me a traitor? Your complete and total ignorance of what this country was founded on while calling yourself a patriot is far more dangerous to our continued existence than me expressing wishes for cooperation.

You sir, are a traitor. You're a traitor to every value this country was founded on. You are a traitor to everything our founding fathers fought for. You are arguing for oppression and extremism. You are a hypocrite. Every bit of bile that spews from your ignorant misguided brain damages the integrity of this country further. You attack me for not raising the quality of debate and then call me a traitor. That is the absolute epitome of hypocrisy. Start using one or two of the neurons god gave you.

Bluto, I'd prefer not to ask Lieberman anything as I'd like him to keep his figgin' mouth closed. He openly took a stance against freedom of speech in 2000 and that was why I didn't vote for Gore then. Lieberman is an insult to democracy.

But, I do get your point about "good" division. I should have said it plainly before, I was wrong, there is good division, I was too quick to jump on that point.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 03:01 PM (89Rw1)

29 Rich: "Every bit of bile that spews from your ignorant misguided brain damages the integrity of this country further."

You have alot of nerve pompously acting like you are above the fray. Instead of getting mad, why don't you try to be thoughtful? Think about the issues. Maybe you're not right.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 06:19 PM (fIUHw)

30 Heroic Dreamer, you're right. I got very pissed at being repeatedly called a traitor by you and others and responded too quickly.

Trust me, I never go into a discussion with the assumption that I'm right. I read every word you and others say and consider them thoroughly.

I've pointed out many times in the recent weeks that I've been posting on this site when others have a valid point. The same can't be said of you. I'll certainly agree that I'm not right 100% of the time but, I'm not off the mark 100% of the time either.

What you should take away from my rant above is don't be so quick with the word "traitor" and the like. It is nowhere near accurate and something I consider to be among the worst insults you could lob at me.

Simply disagreeing with you or even the president does not make me a traitor (or terrorist, or sympathizer, etc, etc).

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 06:42 PM (89Rw1)

31 I personally believe that Rich, Greg and some other lefties are an anti-American traitors.

They probably masturbate to Al Qaeda death porn.

Posted by: Darth Vag at September 24, 2006 07:19 PM (HSkSw)

32 Simply disagreeing with me or even the president does not make you a traitor.

What makes you a traitor is claiming that the debate over Abu Graib, GItmo and the Geneva Convention is valid and important.

It shows that you place more value on taking America "down a peg" than on winning the war against islamists. Only a traitor would encourage a boisterous public debate on the Geneva Convention knowing that the enemy beheads their captures. Only a traitor could feel that the discussion regarding the harshness of the detainee treatment at Gitmo, triggered by a false story about flushing a koran down a toitlet, was a valid and worthwhile debate. Only a traitor would encourage the public debate over the naked pyramids at Abu Graib rather than recognize it for the aberration it was.

You, my man, are a traitor.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 07:34 PM (fIUHw)

33 My comment above was for the traitor who calls himself "Rich."

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 07:41 PM (fIUHw)

34 Heroic Dreamer, and here I thought you were making baby steps into the rational world. How silly of me...

"It shows that you place more value on taking America "down a peg""

That is just a foolish statement. I have never expressed anything but love for my country. Do I think imbeciles like you need to be taken down a peg or three? Hell yeah.

Public debate about issues the country's population finds itself divided over is good and normal. There were disagreements over all of those issues, what should the country have done? Ignored the issues entirely?

A traitor to the very foundation of this country would want to squelch debate and silence dissent. Sound familiar?

A smart man once said "Think about the issues. Maybe you're not right."

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 08:15 PM (89Rw1)

35 Rich:
"A traitor to the very foundation of this country would want to squelch debate and silence dissent."

No, Rich. A traitor is one who commits treason - treason is the act of attempting to overthrow one's country or to assist her enemies in a time of war.

The left talking points - this "debate" and "dissent" of which you are so fond - like the Geneva Convention debate, Gitmo detainee treatment debate, and Abu Graib scandal (just to name a few) provide aid and comfort to our enemy. They assist our enemies in a time of war. These debates serve no other purpose. You are a traitor.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 08:37 PM (fIUHw)

36 Heroic Dreamer, "talking points" or not, many many millions of Americans are concerned about these issues. If I understand you correctly that concern should be squelched, correct?

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 08:46 PM (89Rw1)

37 Rich, I don't think you're a traitor, but I think you're very selective about what you consider "divisive".

Heroic Dreamer makes a good point. Fixating on Abu Ghraib and whether terrorists are covered by the Geneva Conventions (they're not), and keeping these stories in the news every day does send a message to our enemies that we're weak and divided. They get the idea that if they just kill a few more of our soldiers or their own civilians that we'll give up.

And these stories are only emphasized for partisan political gain, not as part of any legitimate debate. I know that, you know that, Heroic Dreamer knows that; but the terrorists aren't all that familiar with our political system and they think it means they're winning.

By keeping these stories in the news, hoping to help Dem candidates in the midterms, the MSM actually contributes to more death and destruction. And they know it; they just don't care, blood sells.

Ironic, isn't it, they won't show you cartoons of Allah or Mohammed, but when a treasonous US congressmen decides to forget the "innocent until proven guilty" thingie regarding our own troops, that's front page, baby.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 24, 2006 08:48 PM (vBK4C)

38 Bluto, heh, I'm not a traitor, high praise.

I'm actually not all that selective. I'm largely focusing on what I think is wrong with the right in this country because everyone on this site seems to think the right can do no wrong. As I've said and implied over and over on this site, I like balance. I'm OCD that way.

I actually think the left is guilty of many of the same kinds of errors and they divide us just as the right does. When I get into discussions with liberal type people I tend to find myself defending Bush and getting called a fascist.

To an extent, I agree with your analysis of the MSM and how the left uses some of them. I do think you greatly overestimate the savvyness of the Dems though. Many of these stories stay in the news simply because they are news. Even if the Dems recognized it as valuable I doubt they'd be able to assemble a coherent strategy to use it.

"I know that, you know that, Heroic Dreamer knows that; but the terrorists aren't all that familiar with our political system and they think it means they're winning."

Damn, this is going to sound obscenely cliche. In all honesty, if we start changing our fundamental way of life based on what terrorist think, they've won. I mean, the motto of this site seems to be "who gives a shit about them" and now you're arguing we need to consider what terrorists think?

I do get what you're saying and I partially agree. However, I already wonder if some of the airport security measures are a bit crazy and those are based on real terrorists and real plots. I find it really hard to swallow that now I need to concern myself with what we think the terrorists might think.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2006 09:06 PM (89Rw1)

39 Rich: "In all honesty, if we start changing our fundamental way of life based on what terrorist think, they've won."

No, Rich. They've won when we submit, when they've exacted dhimmitude from the West. They've won when Shar'ia is the law of the land. They've won when we, in the West, lose the will to fight and to perserve our Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think you are really taking this war very seriously, Rich.

Because treason implies intent, and you claim to love America and wish her well, and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I retract my accusation that you are a traitor.

You are a "useful idiot" - meaning that you are aiding and abetting the enemy unwittingly.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 24, 2006 09:26 PM (fIUHw)

40 "Only a traitor would encourage a boisterous public debate on the
Geneva Convention knowing that the enemy beheads their captures."

What if it's a debate about withdrawing from it? It's not like any enemy we've fought against has followed it.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at September 25, 2006 01:35 AM (VvXII)

41 Heroic Dreamer, heh, thank you for my upgrade to "inadvertently helping the enemy." That's very generous of you.

"No, Rich. They've won when we submit, when they've exacted dhimmitude from the West. They've won when Shar'ia is the law of the land. They've won when we, in the West, lose the will to fight and to perserve our Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think you are really taking this war very seriously, Rich."

I find this statement pretty amusing actually. It appears you have far, far lower standards than I do. You'll actually accept everything short of Shar'ia law?! That's sad. I want this country to remain the one I was born in. You'll compromise any and all of your rights to fight this war. And people on here say it's me not seeing the big picture?!

I take this war very seriously. I completely understand the stakes. The problem is, you're only considering what they can do to us. You also need to consider that we could go too far with the compromises and end up doing to ourselves what the terrorists will never be able to do, irreparably harm our country.

I'm not saying the "right" or "left" would do this. Well meaning, upstanding Americans would do this. It happens out of fear and anger. People like you or I could do this as long as we're focused solely on how our measures effect the terrorists and ignore the effects on ourselves.

The sacrifices we should be making are along the lines of what our parents and grandparents did in WWI and WWII. Through those wars they sacrificed blood, sweat and money. Not their liberties. There are sacrifices we should make as Americans but sacrificing our liberties is sacrificing what it is to be American.

Posted by: Rich at September 25, 2006 09:19 AM (89Rw1)

42 Rich: "The sacrifices we should be making are along the lines of what our
parents and grandparents did in WWI and WWII. Through those wars they
sacrificed blood, sweat and money. Not their liberties."

For someone who claims to read alot of war histories, you don't know what you're talking about. One small obvious example: we interned Japanese during WWII.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 25, 2006 09:26 AM (fIUHw)

43 Heroic Dreamer, I figured you'd bring that up as I was typing that.

The interning of the Japanese and German Americans was an abberation. I haven't seen anyone argue it was a good idea (which I assume you will).

My point remains though, what you're talking about is sacrificing liberties of the entire US population. According to your own words, you'd be OK with any and all sacrifices short of surrender and/or Shar'ia law.

That sounds a whole lot like Hezbollah's standard of victory which was "As long as we still exist after the israeli operation, we've won."

You have very low standards, I expect far more from my country and it's citizens.

Posted by: Rich at September 25, 2006 09:36 AM (89Rw1)

44 Rich: " According to your own words, you'd be OK with any and all sacrifices short of surrender and/or Shar'ia law."

Don't put words in my mouth.

Reread the comment you are referring to which was in response to your sentiment that somehow we've lost the war if we don't fixate our public debate on the Geneva Convention, Abu Graib etc. I disagree.

You are perhaps very young and you don't realize the gravity of the threat we are up against, or you have absorbed all of the left's logic and talking points and find a certain pleasure in the "debate" because you can repeat them back and sound knowledgeable. Frankly, I'm starting to think that you are a journalist. Perhaps with the Los Angeles Times.

Am I right?

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 25, 2006 09:46 AM (fIUHw)

45 Heroic Dreamer, you don't put words in my mouth and I won't put words in yours, deal?

"Reread the comment you are referring to which was in response to your sentiment that somehow we've lost the war if we don't fixate our public debate on the Geneva Convention, Abu Graib etc."

No where did I say we should fixate on these issues. All I said was the debate surrounding them was legitimate.

Not that I want to help you further dismiss everything I say without reading it (as if you need any help with that) but, I am 28 which I imagine you may consider "very young."

As for simply absorbing the left's talking points, I don't think even you believe that. "Clinton's response to terror attacks was a joke" doesn't strike me as a Demcratic talking point. How about you? There are plenty of other examples from my posts on this site but, that one is within the last fifteen minutes.

Honestly, yes, I do enjoy the debate. It's a mental exercise and I've always considered it important to expose myself to contradictory points of view. I tend to learn a lot this way and find flaws in my reasoning. Yes, I've even learned a few things from you although I prefer not to give you the satisfaction because you aren't coming at this with an open mind.

No, I'm not a journalist. I'm a former plumber turned programmer.

Posted by: Rich at September 25, 2006 09:57 AM (89Rw1)

46 Rich: 28 can be young or old, depending on what life has thrown at you. not important. As you can tell, I, too, enjoy debating.

This particular debate - the debate concerning our country and the war we are in - is a very serious matter for me. It's not that I personally have to be right - I want our country to get it right.

At separate times, three men, all in their 80's, have expressed to me the opinion that today feels like alot like 1938-1939. This means that we are careening towards catastrophe, towards war, and that the Chamberlains and the Lindbergs have taken center stage in the debate. We took enormous casualties and dropped the atom bomb to win WWII. Can we not, for once, learn from the past, wake up and change our destiny?

Additionally, because of our weak will, our inability to shout out that yes, we are superior - because we apologize for our power and seek being "liked" internationally at the expense of our own best self-interests, we risk losing the war against islamists. Many feel that America is not worth defending, or that America should be taken down a notch. Losing the war to islamists is not an option for me.

So clinging to the notion that the NYT's debate regarding Abu Graib, the Geneva COnvention etc. etc. is somehow noble when in reality these controversies aid and abet our enemies is , to me, unpatriotic.

Why not debate whether the Wahhabi's funding of mosques in the US should be cut off? Why not debate the curtailing of free speech vis-a-vis criticism of islam? Why not debate if Condi did a good job in the recent Lebanon/Israeli war?

The NYT and other MSM by the choices of topics which they choose to cover reveal that they are on the side of the enemy.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 25, 2006 10:45 AM (fIUHw)

47 Heroic Dreamer, I agree with your sentiment that you want the country to get it right. Thing is, there's a right way and a wrong way to fight this war. We're still on the right side of things but, if we give in to the temptation to join the animals in the gutter we may win the battles with the terrorists but, we will have lost America.

"At separate times, three men, all in their 80's, have expressed to me the opinion that today feels like alot like 1938-1939."

I've heard the same. Right now, my mother-in-law is staying with us. She's French and Jewish. She lived just outside of Paris during the war and lost most of her family to the camps. I've watched old films of her family and her just before they were taken away. I've talked to her at length about that time and she does see enormous similarities. Her happiest memory is of an American troop giving her a piece of gum after they liberated her town. Trust me, I may not have lived it but, I'm well acquainted with what the stakes are.

"Additionally, because of our weak will, our inability to shout out that yes, we are superior"

I'm shouting our superiority every chance I get. I want us to remain superior in every way though. There's a subtle difference to our ways of thinking. You believe we are superior because we are American. I believe we are superior because of what it is to be American. I worry that we'll give in to the shared temptation to abandon what it is that truly distinguishes us from the animals we're fighting.

"So clinging to the notion that the NYT's debate regarding Abu Graib, the Geneva COnvention etc. etc. is somehow noble when in reality these controversies aid and abet our enemies is , to me, unpatriotic.

Why not debate whether the Wahhabi's funding of mosques in the US should be cut off? Why not debate the curtailing of free speech vis-a-vis criticism of islam? Why not debate if Condi did a good job in the recent Lebanon/Israeli war?"

I believe all of these to be important topics to discuss. The issues you bring up are of critical importance as well. Our enemies could find a way to take comfort in any public debate we have in our country. It would be, at best, foolish of us to think that by simply curtailing what we debate that we will, in some measurable way, help our struggle against them.

They need no moral boosters from western media. They think they're on a mission from God. The current situation in the world would not be any different if the NYT had been running "Hooray Bush" as it's headline for the past few years.

Posted by: Rich at September 25, 2006 11:55 AM (89Rw1)

48 I personally think we should all run down there and tear this thing down. Better yet fill it up with porKorans and burn it. Anyways here is the list of the fuvking dirtballs who did this.

Contact Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano:

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

E-mail the Arizona 9/11 memorial organization: information@AZ911Memorial.com

Here are the 30 members of the Arizona 9/11 memorial commission approved by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (I'm hyperlinking with contact info or adding email info as I find it):

Crystal Allman Assistant United Phoenix Fire Fighters (callman@phxfirefighters.org)
Benito Almanza President Bank of America
Joe Anderson Chairman & CEO Schaller Anderson
Marcos Andrade
Johnny Basha Vice President Chairman of the Board Bashas
Viana Bruce Marine Semper Fi 24/7 Support Team
Cassidy Campana Public Relations Manager R&R Partners
Lynne Christian
Shelley Cohn Executive Director Arizona Commission on the Arts
Kathy Copeland Lieutenant/ Investigation Division Glendale Police Dept.
Rich Dozer President Arizona Diamondbacks
Susan Ehrlich Judge State Court of Appeals
Paul Eppinger Executive Director Arizona Inner Faith Movement
Jennifer Glazar Flight Attendant Southwest Airlines
Dan Hoffman Architect Studio MA
Jake Jacobsen President P.L.E.A.
Donna Killoughey Bird General Council Life Teen, Inc.
Ronnie Lopez Chairman P.I.C.
Paul Luna President Valley of the Sun, United Way
Ken Magoch Past President FOP Retired Sgt. Tucson PD
Cindy Petrovich Buyer I Arizona Dept. of Veterans' Services
Penny Pfaelzer PfaelzerJohnsAmen&Dean
Bob Ramsey Chairman & CEO Starwest Associates/American Life Star
Diane Saunders Assistant to the Governor Governors Office
Billy Shields President United Phoenix Firefighters
Sonia Singh
Steve Speisman Teacher
Joe Tucker CPA
Daniel Valenzuela
George Weisz Mayor's Office

Who sponsored the memorial? Here's a list provided by the AZ 9/11 memorial foundation:

Arizona Emporium
AZ Comm Financial Services
azcentral.com
Bank of America
Bashasâ€™
Blue Cross Blue Shield AZ
City of Glendale
City of Phoenix
City of Tempe
Concert
Fort McDowell Casino
Future Vision Investment
Grupo Ã± Advertising
Honorable George Weisz
Humana
iHealth Technologies
Levine Foundation
Maricopa Community College
Mass Electric Construction
McCarthy Construction
MTI
Nationwide
Phoenix Councilmember Greg Stanton
Phoenix Suns
Primestaff
RBC Dain Rauscher
SCF Arizona
Schaller Anderson
Sleep America
State government agencies
The Arizona Community Foundation
The Arizona Republic
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association- PLEA
The Ramsey Foundation
UFCW
United Phoenix Fire Fighters

Posted by: Pagan Piggy Goddess Allah at September 25, 2006 01:10 PM (43atl)

49 Does anyone know the North/South orientation of this monument? From the shadows in the illustration in the illustration, it appears that it the early morning (or late evening) the shadow of the disk would cast a cresent on the grass to the right of the monument. If so, I wonder if the cresent shadow would be visible at 8:46 EDT on Sept 11th.

Posted by: gc at September 28, 2006 10:20 AM (KXdSR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 09, 2006

ACLU Thwarted in Attack on Boy Scouts

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

In a victory for common sense and common decency, the Oregon Supreme Court has overturned a lower court decision that would have barred Boy Scouts from public schools. From the Boy Scouts of America legal issues website:

Boy Scouts of America welcomes todayâ€™s decision from the Oregon Supreme Court declaring that the Portland Public School District did not discriminate against an atheist student by permitting Boy Scouts to make presentations and distribute informational flyers.
An atheist mother represented by the ACLU complained that allowing Boy Scouts to recruit in public schools on the same basis as other groups discriminated against her atheist son who attends Portland public schools. In todayâ€™s decision reversing a lower court decision, the Oregon Supreme Court emphatically concluded that â€œnothing that occurred in any public school program, service, or activity was discriminatory at all.â€
â€œGiving Boy Scouts equal access is not discrimination,â€ said Scouting spokesperson Robert H. Bork, Jr., â€œit is the law.â€

Via Jay at Stop the ACLU who has more on the story.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:52 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Bluto,
Pardon this unrelated comment but I thought you Jawa's might be interested in this
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060909/nysa018.html?.v=24

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 09, 2006 11:45 PM (Bp6wV)

2 Which religion is worse, atheism, or Islam?

Posted by: Hucbald at September 10, 2006 12:28 AM (JkNHw)

3 I'm agnostic and this is really disgusting. That woman is jut as bad as any religion jerk trying to push her views on everyone else.

Posted by: Mr. Mxyzptlk at September 10, 2006 01:43 PM (H7GX1)

4 Another blow against these rotten selfcentered atheists trying to force themselves on us now i hope they give that stupid MICHEAL NEWDOW a swift kick right in his backside and make him hang his head in shame and lets screw the ACLU

Posted by: sandpiper at September 10, 2006 02:15 PM (n7v4a)

5 As an atheist I'm disgusted by this woman's actions. The scouts are an incredible organization. I would not be the man I am today without them.

The actions of these and similar atheists make the whole lot of us look like lunatics. Like clinic bombers and the Christians or Islamic terrorists and normal Muslims.

"Which religion is worse, atheism, or Islam?"

I can't even count how many ignorant concepts are embodied in that single statement.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 02:58 PM (89Rw1)

6 The question would have been better phrased, "Which faith tradition is worse..." - atheism is as much a matter of faith in the unknowable as any religion.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 10, 2006 03:53 PM (vBK4C)

7 Yeah, clinic bombers, all 3 or 4 of them years ago, and Islamic terrorists, thousands of whom are busy killing and maiming in the name of Islam as we speak, from such varied locations as Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Timor, Russia, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and I could go on and on. Great comparison, Richie, and you have now taken moral equivalency to a new high, or should I say low.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 10, 2006 03:57 PM (rUyw4)

8 Jesusland Joe,
Granted, I used too blunt an instrument to prove my point but, the fact remains. There are unfortunately fanatics in all schools of thought. That's all I was trying to convey.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 04:15 PM (89Rw1)

9 "The question would have been better phrased, "Which faith tradition is worse..." - atheism is as much a matter of faith in the unknowable as any religion."

I don't consider atheism a matter of faith at all. I came to atheism through a lack of empirical evidence supporting any of the world's modern religions. All atheists I know think roughly the same way.

It's not a belief there isn't a god. It's knowing there's no evidence there is. Maybe since I'm not completely closed minded that's more atheism with a bit of agnostic thrown in.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 04:20 PM (89Rw1)

Yes, Rich, you used a cruise missile to kill a fly. And your point is about as valid as your comparison is skewed.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 10, 2006 05:03 PM (rUyw4)

11 Jesusland Joe,
You're kidding, right? What precisely about the statement "There are unfortunately fanatics in all schools of thought." is so insane?

I'll readily admit when I'm wrong but it's not like that idea is completely out in left field....

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 06:32 PM (89Rw1)

12 Sorry Rich, but unless you're an agnostic, you're taking it on faith. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 10, 2006 06:40 PM (vBK4C)

13 The Dread Pundit Bluto,
You are correct. I suppose I am agnostic although, I think the atheism comes in when I think about how likely it is that there ever will be evidence.

I'm not the best when it comes to labels anyway...

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 06:54 PM (89Rw1)

14 Not in Left field, Rich, just saying that a fundamentalist Christian might want to display a creche on the Courthouse lawn, or perhaps want creation taugh alongside evolution, not exclusively, or perhaps want a moment of silence, or a prayer at a school function, or oppose the handing out of condoms at school. These kinds of things are harmless when you compare them to people who are cutting the heads off people, or murdering schoolchildren, or using children as suicide bombers, etc.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 10, 2006 08:10 PM (rUyw4)

15 It's not fundamentalism that I'm talking about. While I disagree with every last one of those things (except the condom one) they are not the actions of fanatics.

Christianity's fanaticism is largely in it's past (inquisition and crusades). With the example of the clinic bombings I was merely looking for a contemporary example. I figured if I cited the crusades (more equivalent to the trouble with Islam today) I'd be flamed for dredging up the past that's not relevant today.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 08:23 PM (89Rw1)

16 "The question would have been better phrased, "Which faith tradition is
worse..." - atheism is as much a matter of faith in the unknowable as
any religion.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 10, 2006 03:53 PM"

MEGA-DITTOS!

Posted by: QC at September 10, 2006 09:32 PM (ebe/J)

17 Check out the record of the only officially atheist states: The communists. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS slaughtered in the name of no-God.

Posted by: QC at September 10, 2006 09:36 PM (ebe/J)

18 QC, as I'm sure you know, there was far more to the communists than atheism. No one in their right mind would look to them as an example.

Hell, even I don't believe in a state void of religion like the communists. I believe simply in religious freedom as is envisioned in the US constitution: Everyone is free to practice their religion (or lack there of) without interference from the government. The only limitation being that they can't intrude on the rights of those that don't believe as they do.

This may come as a shock but, "atheist" and "immoral murderous sociopath" are not the same thing.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 10:09 PM (89Rw1)

19 One other point. Your number of "hundreds of millions" sounded wildly innaccurate. I checked around online, the highest estimate I saw was about 62 million for the period of 1917 to 1987.

This is still obviously a horrendous atrocity however, just pulling numbers out of thin air to make an argument is bad form at best.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 10:14 PM (89Rw1)

20 120 million known from what I can find. Starvation caused by communisim counts too.

Regardless. The athiestic governments of the 20th century take the death toll crown. Irrefutable.

Posted by: QC at September 11, 2006 01:09 AM (ebe/J)

21 Looking further I see numbers up to 140 million. That would be 1.4 Hundred Million. More than 1 is plural, hence the "s" in hundred's of millions".

Posted by: QC at September 11, 2006 01:26 AM (ebe/J)

22 QC, I'll agree with a caveat.

All the governments you're talking about were essentially rooted in the USSR. It was basically one government and one ideology. A sample size of one is statistically meaningless and easily leads to false conclusions.

For example, the starvation you cite, was obviously not caused by atheism. Many deeply religious nations have and still do face widespread famine and starvation. Even the US was not immune from that.

So implying that you can learn about atheism from the actions of the Communists of the 20th century is just plain wrong.

Communists were atheists, yes. Communists did horrible things, yes. There's no link between the two.

If you still think there is a connection, ponder this. Hitler was a Christian. His speeches were filled with Christian ideology. He even claimed to be doing what he was doing for Christianity and found "support" for what he was doing in the Bible. Even knowing that, no rational person would try to equate the Nazis and Christianity. They really have nothing to do with each other.

See what I mean?

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 01:28 AM (89Rw1)

23 Btw, I was looking for direct deaths: murders, executions, assassinations, deaths in wars, prisons, work camps. I wasn't counting things like starvation since that can happen under any form of government.

Counting starvation I have no doubt "hundreds of millions" would apply.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 01:30 AM (89Rw1)

24 You claim Hitler was a Christian. This is folly. It is refuted by far too many sources, includiing his own words. He hated the church and wanted it destroyed so his power would be total.

Even if he had been Christian (which he was not) I understand your attempt at the analogy, but it fails. For I can site many instances that go against your example. What other Godless states could you point to?

You can imagine that it was just a coincidence that they chose to crush religion, and to follow communist ideology... that the next band of merry atheists would get it right... but there are no examples to point to.

Posted by: QC at September 11, 2006 01:43 AM (ebe/J)

25 QC, sorry, it's late, I mis-spoke, I should have said
"Hitler CLAIMED to be a Christian."

You are right, he hated the church, simply because he saw it as a threat to his absolute power. He did however see it as a useful tool to control the people. He did wrap his rhetoric in Christian ideology and many people followed him on that fact alone.

Now, as for other atheist countries. You're right, there aren't any. Atheism is only recently gaining any kind of acceptance and the whole communism thing really damaged the acceptance it had at that point.

What I can tell you is that myself and every other atheist I know would never consider "crushing religion" to be a positive thing. Speaking for myself, my "utopia" would be a secular government with complete freedom of religion for the people.

I can honestly say anyone advocating soviet style government-enforced athiesm is a fringe lunatic. Unfortunately, due to our lovely media, it's always the fringe lunatics that get the attention.

I know that doesn't answer your call for another example but, drawing conclusions on a sample of two would be just as flawed, no matter how great an example I could find. =)

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 01:56 AM (89Rw1)

26 Good for the Scouts. Some people (like the athiest lady) just have too big a stick up their rear about everything.

If it was the Dan Beard Council, though, she may have had a case based on rampant douchebaggery, neglect, and possibly torture.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at September 11, 2006 02:27 AM (VvXII)

27 Rich, you can't exclude starvation from the statistics. Stalin used famine as a tool to reduce the peasant population. As they began to die, he ordered his men to seize shovels, so that the corpses couldn't be properly buried to prevent pestilence.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 11, 2006 09:31 AM (vBK4C)

28 The dread pundit bluto,
You are correct. I see your point.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 03:53 PM (89Rw1)

29 Rich, one other point, and I'll leave you in peace. I do not consider the Crusades to be Christian fanatism in the sense that Christianity had been under constant attack from Muslims for 400 years prior to the Crusades. Self-defense is not fanatism.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 11, 2006 05:21 PM (rUyw4)

30 The fanaticism comes into play when you consider the whole "convert or die," "kill the non-believers," and my favorite "we need to cleanse christian lands of muslims" aspects to many of the crusades.

Also, self-defense flies out the window the instant the crusaders took new territory (which they did in most of the crusades). Most of the crusades were used for political gain by various parties as well.

Honestly, while I know all about the fighting between the sides prior to the crusades, I don't know of any historians that say the crusades were simply justifiable self-defense.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 06:27 PM (89Rw1)

31 I think atheism and Christianity are similar in that there is no evidence to support either. However Christianity does offer hope. And there are signs that it is truth whereas atheism offers nothing but a void.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 11, 2006 10:41 PM (Dd86v)

32 heh... umm, how are there "signs" but no evidence supporting Christian beliefs? Also, the lack of evidence supporting Christianity itself certainly goes further supporting atheism than to the contrary.

As for Christianity offering hope, it all depends on your point of view. I don't feel hope when people replace rationality with faith. I don't feel hope when some lunatic is on TV preaching hatred and bigotry in God's name.

I do however feel hope when people are able to set aside their religious differences and treat each other decent through a respect of their shared humanity and not a threat of eternal damnation.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 10:58 PM (89Rw1)

33 Just so I'm not misunderstood, I don't think hatred and bigotry are part of christianity, it's just preached by people that don't understand their own faith.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 11:54 PM (89Rw1)

34 I don't feel hope when people replace rationality with faith.

Rich, all logic, all science, all rationality is built on faith. Without faith all is chaos. It starts with the faith that your thoughts and senses are real and your own, and not illusion or madness or some matrix-like machine.

Everything is built from those unprovable points. On faith.

Posted by: QC at September 12, 2006 01:28 AM (ebe/J)

35 Well, there are signs and prophesies. And events are unfolding as predicted in the Bible. And it seems to me unlikely that our Creator would leave us without a road-map. To be an atheist requires more effort and constant denial.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 12, 2006 06:38 AM (Dd86v)

36 Not if you accept the fact that there is no creator.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 12, 2006 07:42 AM (YyQDW)

37 greyrooster, interesting point. I suppose, yes, if you get down to a low enough level we all take things on faith. Yes, I do make the assumption that my senses are not failing me and giving me accurate information.

However, once you get into the human realm of thought and free will, then larger questions come up. It's these larger questions that I prefer to answer rationally while others answer them with faith.

Last gasp larry, events are also unfolding as predicted by Nostradamus and some raving homeless guy who pisses himself multiple times a day. Should we start worshiping them? Many, many authors have made predictions over the years and sometimes it looks like world events can be crowbarred in to fit. That doesn't mean they predicted it. If you make very broad predictions they will always fit sometime.

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 10:12 AM (89Rw1)

38 I don't think the prophecies are that broad, they are fairly specific. Brother Rich come into the light. Salvation is awaiting you! Thirst no more! :-)

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 12, 2006 11:25 PM (Dd86v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 06, 2006

Attack of the Nutty Professors

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

From the Daily Mail (UK) via the Drudge Report:

The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

The fact that it would take, literally, hundreds of conspirators to plan the event, plant the charges, and recruit Saudis to commit suicide to perpetrate a fraud seems lost on these boneheads. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 04:29 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

1 ....I think there is a severe shortage of tin foil.

The libs can't keep it together any longer...

Now if they can just keep it up until the MidTerm elections...

Posted by: mrclark at September 06, 2006 04:36 PM (VxWAO)

2 -OPERATION NORTHWOODS: US plan to carry out terror attacks against us citizens to start war with cuba
-Executive order W199i in which bush ordered FBI agents off OBL's case before the attacks or face arrrest
-US military ran wargames on 9/11, same targets, same atttacks
-Many Hijackers have been found alive
-On FBI website: OBL is not wanted for 9/11 attacks it was removed from his list of crimes in nov. 2001
-FBI now says no hard evidence connecting OBL to 9/11
-OBL in confession video is fatter, and has an apparent nose job
-9/11 commission says twin towers did not have 47 huge steel beams in middle of the buildlings, yet they can be seen in photographs, instead they say it was hollow elevator shafts
-Thousands of put options placed on major airlines before attacks
-Several hijackers trained at us bases in CIA spy training
-Prof.Steven Jones has found thermate in WTC steel
-WTC leaseholder larry silverstein said they pulled WTC7-He could not have been talking about firemen because NIST said there were no firemen in WTC7

Posted by: isaac at September 06, 2006 04:50 PM (MOEB0)

3 OPERATION CRACKER SANDWICH: 6 September 2006 DNC arranges release of 75 certifiable paranoid lunatics to counter five year commemoration of 9/11 terrorist attacks.

OPERATION MIKE CHARLEY FOXTROT: operative isaac dispatched to spread laughably inane disinformation on conservative websites.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 06, 2006 04:59 PM (vBK4C)

Mmmm, I love cracker sandwichs. Especially with lots of butter and hot sauce.

who let all of the loonies out today, and gave them this url?

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 06, 2006 05:40 PM (n4VvM)

5 Its a good thing more of em didn't show gentemenz...

for sure we'd have had a Yeaaarrghslide!

Posted by: mrclark at September 06, 2006 08:43 PM (VxWAO)

6 This is obviously another Karl Rove mole job. Any conspiracy as strong as this would have assasinated its critics by now and replaced them with reductio-ad-absurdum puppets like this.

Posted by: a reader at September 06, 2006 10:36 PM (mZElg)

7 We don't call them wacademics for nothin.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 06, 2006 11:19 PM (8e/V4)

8 Isaac is surely Greg. Couldn't be two of these insane nutjobs on the planet at one time.
Greg hates Jews so much he disquises himself as one with the name Isaac.
Yea! I got it. Greg is a Jewish wannabe.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 07, 2006 04:04 AM (5OGpF)

9 JC: I call them [m]academia nuts.

Posted by: Oyster at September 07, 2006 05:14 AM (YudAC)

10 I call them self hating idiots.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 07, 2006 06:29 AM (5OGpF)

11 The liberal leftist eggheads dont know a damn thing it proves what mindless idiots they realy are

Posted by: sandpiper at September 07, 2006 08:15 AM (oN6hw)

12 And in a new twist, CNN is reporting:

The Arabic language TV network Al-Jazeera says it will show video of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders as they planned the 9/11 terror attacks.

This might ruin some folks plans for Monday.

Posted by: Neo at September 07, 2006 01:15 PM (Yozw9)

13 Have you noticed how the rightwing lap dogs never question the evidence presented? They simply name call and dismiss. Well you chimps, we who believe otherwise dismiss you as the neaderthals you are. doomed to the extinct bin of evolution.

Sticks and stones my closeminded americans, sticks and stones.

Posted by: Tony N. at September 08, 2006 12:12 PM (dkCF2)

14 Have you noticed how the rightwing lap dogs never question the evidence presented? They simply name call and dismiss. Well you chimps, we who believe otherwise dismiss you as the neaderthals you are. doomed to the extinct bin of evolution.

Sticks and stones my closeminded americans, sticks and stones.

Posted by: Tony N. at September 08, 2006 12:13 PM (dkCF2)

15 Question what? The fact that the mujahadeen have exisisted for centuries? The fact that Osama Bin Laden is a real person? The fact that his organization has been around since the Reagan administration? The fact that islamic terrorism has happened hundreds of times since its beginning's in palestine? Why the hell is it so hard for you conspiracy nuts to believe anything? Do you still believe aliens built the pyramids? Or that atlantis is really under the atalntic ocean? seriously! given the track record of Osama Bin Laden I think the 9/11 attacks are right on que with what he has wanted all along. A new holy war with the west. Why the hell would the Bush administration go through all this trouble of starting all these wars just to get oil? there is more to it than money. its a holy war just like the crusades so get over your consiracy's. This conflict is really very simple and easy to understand. If anyone is going extint its you! Your so busy looking for insignificant odd details you probably wouldnt notice a 10 foot yeti sneeking up on you. lol

Posted by: steve at September 09, 2006 02:41 AM (Teqg8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 03, 2006

Why Hating Liberals is a Survival Trait (UPDATED)

Because, in their black little hearts, they support people who post things like this:

Oh, they'll claim they disagree, and a few of them will be sincere, but meanwhile the liberal mainstream will be flocking to the Canadian Bush assassination movie.

Via Curt at Flopping Aces.

UPDATE: YouTube has removed the video:

Posted by: Bluto at 10:07 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Leftists making light of 9/11, mocking the victims of terrorism. They are consumed with hate for America. They are in league with our enemies.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 03, 2006 10:16 AM (ILns2)

2 But don't you question their patriotism!

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 03, 2006 10:20 AM (vBK4C)

3 They have no patriotism to question. They would like to see a one world government along the lines of the EU. They want to see the end of the nation-state era. Why they won't admit the obvious is beyone me, other than they think they might have a greater chance at success by being disingenious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 03, 2006 10:45 AM (rUyw4)

4 Sickening, really sickening.
It's incomprehensible for me that there are Americans who describe the mass murder of their fellow countrymen as a "funny home video", and I'm not even American.
Any human being with a shred of decency would object to this callous display of inhumanity.
Honestly, I couldn't watch more than 3 seconds of this clip.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 03, 2006 11:00 AM (Bp6wV)

5 Did y'all notice the comments at YouTube from the spanish-speaking commentor whom I assume is a Mexican?

Does this suggest evidence of the revival of the "Plan of San Diego"--only this time with Islamists rather than the Kaiser's Germany or with the Japs?

Posted by: Sue Bob at September 03, 2006 11:27 AM (ytwO7)

6 ...and these are the type of people we want to protect our country? No way!!!

Posted by: Tom at September 03, 2006 11:43 AM (IsMoH)

7 ...and these are the type of people we want to protect our country? No way!!!

Posted by: Tom at September 03, 2006 11:44 AM (IsMoH)

8 Look, it's obvious that the individual that created that video has issues.

In other words - He's an oxygen thief.

Posted by: Oyster at September 03, 2006 12:24 PM (YudAC)

9 A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 03, 2006 01:36 PM (v3I+x)

10 This has got to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. What's really pathetic is that the people who think this is funny are too stupid to realize they'll be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Posted by: Vicki at September 03, 2006 02:56 PM (PD9dI)

11 "Oh, they'll claim they disagree, and a few of them will be sincere, but meanwhile the liberal mainstream will be flocking to the Canadian Bush assassination movie."

Is it a good movie?

Posted by: actus at September 03, 2006 03:46 PM (EJtif)

12 "A good liberal is a dead liberal."

When you gonna get this party started?

Posted by: actus at September 03, 2006 03:49 PM (EJtif)

13 I'm just waiting for the right time rectus old boy, but you're certainly invited you treasonous piece of shit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 03, 2006 04:02 PM (v3I+x)

14 >>>Is it a good movie?

rectus, IM is right, you are a POS.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 03, 2006 04:26 PM (8e/V4)

15 That's an insult to pieces of shit everywhere.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 03, 2006 06:24 PM (5HE2m)

16 For your information, the Bush assasination movie is not a Canadian movie, it is British. It is being shown at the Toronto Film Festival, a lefty festival that I'm sure will soon be coming to wonderful Bollywood and New York. And yeah, our lefties are just as bad as your lefties.

Posted by: Rick at September 03, 2006 11:10 PM (b/eoi)

17 Can't win in Louisiana.
The NAACP is attacking Sheriff Lee of Jefferson Parish for not letting looters cross the bridge and loot the local businesses. Referring to Sheriff Lee as a racist, bigot. I guess all looters are black. The same people claim Bobby Jendal is insensitive to the plight of minorities.

Problem: Sheriff Lee is of Chinese descent and Bobby Jendal is of Indian (The Hindu kind).

To blacks in Nawlins everyone is racist except blacks.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 03, 2006 11:16 PM (1bd8g)

18 Yep, Rick, all the Leftists are basically the same. They hate true freedom, and seek to use the Muslims as foot soldiers to fight their war for them. The only problem here is that this has been tried before, and hasn't worked out too well for the ones seeking to use the Muslims. The Muslims invaribly turn on the ones who sought their help. That is my only consulation with this whole mess of an alliance between the Muslims and the Leftists. The Muslims will kill the Leftists as soon as their usefulness has ended.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 03, 2006 11:48 PM (rUyw4)

19 This is almost as bad as the Video Google 9/11 tribute by "Something Awful". In that the guy goes into that Benny Hill comedy song after a fake Enya song to start.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1005425936871388297&q=9%2F11+tribute

Theres the link if you want another person to get pissed at, personally I think this one is much worse because it is better made than the one YouTube pulled.

Posted by: Naieve at September 04, 2006 03:01 AM (+PWjE)

20 "I'm just waiting for the right time rectus old boy, but you're certainly invited you treasonous piece of shit."

It sounds like its not going to be so fun, mainly because its all talk and no go. But do I have to actually go somewhere? It would be more amenable if the party came to me.

"It is being shown at the Toronto Film Festival, a lefty festival that I'm sure will soon be coming to wonderful Bollywood and New York.."

Why is it going to bollywood? Is there a lot of dancing in it?

Posted by: actus at September 04, 2006 10:49 AM (nnhSu)

21 Rectus, I'll gladly come to you if only you'll be so kind as to tell me where to find you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 04, 2006 12:16 PM (v3I+x)

22 "Rectus, I'll gladly come to you if only you'll be so kind as to tell me where to find you."

Washington DC. Whens the party?

Posted by: actus at September 04, 2006 03:20 PM (nnhSu)

23 I see someone read my post.

Posted by: Naieve at September 04, 2006 06:04 PM (+PWjE)

24 IM, rectus sounds like one of the whiny staffers running around Cap Hill talking out of their asses and working for some idiot liberal congressman. I love provoking them when they attend the frequent and nauseating rallies defending the rights of illegals or islamist terrorist pigs. When you come for him and his kind, I'll gladly help.

Posted by: Cyco Sapper at September 05, 2006 09:29 AM (ZEIBc)

25 rectus,

you and IM should share info offline and arrange for a face to face conversation. We'd even be willing to chip in for his plane ticket and hotel.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 05, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)

26 Washington huh? First floor or second?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 05, 2006 05:06 PM (v3I+x)

27 "you and IM should share info offline and arrange for a face to face conversation. We'd even be willing to chip in for his plane ticket and hotel. "

Sorry. Only if its a party. Just IM and Me? Thats no party. I'm not going to be the only one in his "A good liberal is a dead liberal" party.

Posted by: actus at September 05, 2006 06:07 PM (nnhSu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 28, 2006

If You Can't Win, Throw Out The System

The Electoral College system - an American tradition and governmental safeguard in place in the US for over 200 years - has suddenly become catastrophically unacceptable to some residents of California.

Sure - it was positively dandy when the Clintons were in power. There was no need to change anything, because all was right with America. Now that the letters have changed decisively from D to R, however, something has to be done. This wasn't supposed to happen.

According to Opinion Journal, legislatures in California are trying to usurp these constitutionally mandated safeguards to favor large, uneducated liberal urban populations of inner cities. The proposal would mandate that any candidate that got the popular vote would automatically get the state's electors - regardless of the number of communities that participate in the electoral process. ~~In other words, if voters in LA, San Fran and San Diego outnumber the rest of the state, then these three cities determine who gets California's electoral votes.~~

I won't go into the number of constitutional and logistical problems this would create for all candidates and voters - the Opinion Journal article does that quite effectively - but the American public at large should be aware this is going on. It is being pushed by one party - the Democrats.

Yes. The Democrats want the dense inner-city populations and their infinitely successful approaches to problems like education, crime and corruption to run the national government without regard to what anybody else outside of the large population centers might think.

Times have changed so much under the long dark night of Bushiburton fascism that the very democracy that was perfectly acceptable a decade ago has collapsed entirely and needs to be replaced with procedures favorable to urban liberal constituencies.

Didn't y'all country boys and gals get the memo? Your votes are no longer needed or relevant, thankyouverymuch.

Stein hoist: Daily Pundit.

Update: I worded a particular passage above badly. Jim corrected me in the comments: " It would be more correct to say that if Candidate 'R' wins the majority in California (not the most likely outcome) but Candidate 'D' wins the majority of the popular vote nation wide, then instead of California's electoral votes going to 'R' as they are currently required to do they would go to 'D' anyhow."

Apologies for the oversight.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:15 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This is just a symptom of the problem that faces our nation - one that Benjamin Franklin foresaw when he was asked what kind of government the convention had created and he replied; "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, we've done a piss-poor job of keeping it, because we've been slowly democratizing to the point that most people actually do think we're a democracy, and don't even know the difference due to general ingorance. It didn't help when the Constitution was amended to allow direct election of senators; a minor point, but a crucial one, since that one move essentially removed from the states any say in the Federal government, thus eliminating one of the checks and balances which was so crucial to keeping equilibrium in the system. Now we have a tyrannical, imperial Federal hegemony in which two corrupt parties manipulate the system and violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution on a regular basis for the sake of power, and the idiots who vote for the parties are perfectly willing to accept the degredation of our rights and liberties in exchange for a better place at the trough. Democracy allows a people to give themselves the kind of government they deserve, good and hard. Well, we're getting it, and there's more to come.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 28, 2006 08:46 AM (v3I+x)

2 You are exactly right IM. Back when Bush Sr. lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton, Bush won the popular vote. No one seems to remember that one. Our system wasn't flawed back then. Now all of a sudden the republicans gain control and its a problem. Give me a break.

Posted by: Venezuelanexile at August 28, 2006 09:08 AM (a/kZr)

3 Howie, you got the outcome correct, but you didn't word this analogy correctly:In other words, if voters in LA, San Fran and San Diego outnumber the rest of the state, then these three cities determine who gets California's electoral votes.

What would be more correct is to say that if Candidate 'R' wins the majority in California (not the most likely outcome) but Candidate 'D' wins the majority of the popular vote nation wide, then instead of California's electoral votes going to 'R' as they are currently required to do they would go to 'D' anyhow.

Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2006 09:11 AM (YkmII)

4 "I won't go into the number of constitutional and logistical problems this would create for all candidates and voters - the Opinion Journal article does that quite effectively - but the American public at large should be aware this is going on."

The constitutional system issue isn't that hard. Legislatures can allocate their electoral college vote any way they wish, subject of course to other constitutional mandates, like equal protection and due process.

Or did you think you had some constitutional right to vote for president all on its own?

"In other words, if voters in LA, San Fran and San Diego outnumber the rest of the state, then these three cities determine who gets California's electoral votes."

Uh, whoever gets the most votes in CA gets CA's electoral votes already. Did you not know this?

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 09:12 AM (nnhSu)

5 That was a very thoughtful and reasoned response, Maxie, and one likely to draw criticism from the ones who refuse to see that this abomination we call the Federal Government was born of the conflict named the Civil War. Changes made subsequent to that conflict have given rise to what we now have, an all-powerful central government with little concern for the sharing of power foreseen by the founders. I have little doubt that the masses, including the illegal aliens, will vote, and vote often in the upcoming elections. When you have a system that allows voting without any proof of citizenship or identification, which would prevent you from even renting a movie at Blockbuster, you get what you deserve.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 28, 2006 09:12 AM (rUyw4)

6 Sorry Good Lt., not Howie.

Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2006 09:12 AM (YkmII)

7 California could also explore succession - I'd be cool with that. That way - everybody can get what they want! Big problem though will be counties in north and those outside the major cities. They may want to stick around.

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 09:31 AM (XrexX)

8 Hmm....I seem to remember something in my history about a great war being fought to preserve the Union, hondo. I have a better idea, hondo, the state of California stays in the Union, and anyone living there not satisfied with the Union, move on to a place more to their liking, say Mexico, or Europe, or perhaps the Middle East, as they seem to be enamored with that place.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 28, 2006 09:43 AM (rUyw4)

9 "The constitutional system issue isn't that hard."

Duh. How can a system be "hard?"

"Legislatures can allocate their electoral college vote any way they wish, subject of course to other constitutional mandates, like equal protection and due process. "

When the Cali Democrats throw out the traditional electoral college process to tweek the system for the favor of the national Democrats, that's apparently just fine by actus. Equal protection and due process much? Apparently, those constitutional mandates only apply when Democrats are chaning the system that they were fine with a decade ago.

"Or did you think you had some constitutional right to vote for president all on its own? "

That sentence makes no sense. Try again.

Maybe that's why you don't show your face at protein wisdom anymore. Not that we're complaining.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 28, 2006 09:45 AM (yT+NK)

10 Californians can do anything they want with their electoral votes - except take them away from Californians.

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 09:48 AM (XrexX)

11 Well, I see reports this morning that a Mexican flag has been hoisted atop a post office in California, so I suppose this thing may come to a head before long. It's apparent to me that illegal aliens can do whatever they want with California's electoral votes, as they are likely to vote, and vote often. The illegal alien will decide the fate of California.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 28, 2006 09:59 AM (rUyw4)

12 "Duh. How can a system be "hard?"

It can be hard to understand. I dont think thats the case here though.

"Equal protection and due process much? Apparently, those constitutional mandates only apply when Democrats are chaning the system that they were fine with a decade ago."

But those mandates would still apply.

"That sentence makes no sense. "

Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee that the majority vote in a state is what determines that states electoral college allocation. A state is free to do it anyway it pleases, so long as it follows other constitutional rules, like equal protection, due process, the voting rights of women or 18 year olds, etc...

But plain old having a direct right to vote for president? that you don't have.

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 10:05 AM (nnhSu)

13 Exactly, actus, and that is exactly what the founders intended not to have happen. A better question would be why. Why would the founders have created such a system, a system that disallows a direct vote for a president?

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 28, 2006 10:16 AM (rUyw4)

14 "But those mandates would still apply."

Yup. The entire system in which they functioned, however, would be altered because Democrats can't nationalize elections effectively and dammit they're not going to take it anymore.

"Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee that the majority vote in a state is what determines that states electoral college allocation. A state is free to do it anyway it pleases, so long as it follows other constitutional rules, like equal protection, due process, the voting rights of women or 18 year olds, etc..."

Nobody was denying them these rights. They have nothing to do with the central argument.

Like I said - Democrats tossing out the 200+ year old system is just fine by actus. How very Stalinist of you.

Read the argument, and argue with it (instead of yourself):

"First, the direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000 Al Gore won 677 counties and George Bush 2,434, but Mr. Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the Electoral College and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns.
Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn't matter much compared with New York's 7.4 million or California's 12.4 million votes. Rural states' issues wouldn't matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents.

Second, in any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.4 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. "Finding" three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing, or as former presidential scholar and Kennedy advisor Theodore White testified before the Congress in 1970, "There is an almost unprecedented chaos that comes in the system where the change of one or two votes per precinct can switch the national election of the United States."

Washington state's 2004 governor's race was decided by just 129 votes. A judge found 1,678 illegal votes were cast, and it turned out that 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of people recorded as voting. This affected just Washington state, but in a direct national election where everything hangs on a small number of urban districts, such manipulations could easily decide presidencies.

Third, direct election would lead to a multicandidate, multiparty system instead of the two-party system we have. Many candidates would run on narrow issues: anti-immigration, pro-gun, environment, national security, antiwar, socialist or labor candidates, for they would have a microphone for their issues. Then there would be political power seekers--Al Sharpton or Michael Moore--and Hollywood pols like Barbra Streisand or Warren Beatty. Even Paris Hilton could advance her career through a presidential campaign.

For such candidates to run under the present system is very difficult, for they have to win state by state electoral votes. But if all you need is national fame and fortune to win popular votes, many candidates would run and presidential campaigns would become unfocused, confused, and about political advocacy instead of presidential substance.

Finally, direct election would also lead to weaker presidents. There are no run-offs in the Interstate Compact--that would require either a constitutional amendment or the agreement of all 50 states and the District of Columbia--so the highest percentage winner, no matter how small (perhaps 25% or 30% in a six- or eight-candidate field) would become president. Such a winner would not have an Electoral College majority and therefore not be seen as a legitimate president.

So rather that trying to eviscerate the Electoral College, we should be embracing it. It was put in the Constitution to allow states to choose presidents, for we are a republic based on the separation of powers, not a direct democracy. And the Electoral College--just like the Senate--was intended to protect the residents of small states. As James Madison said, the Electoral College included the will of the nation--every congressional district gets an electoral vote--and "the will of the states in their distinct and independent capacities" since every state gets two additional electors."
- - -

If it were the Republicans bucking 200+ years of electoral procedure and tradition, however, then we all know it would be an "unprecedented threat to the democratic process," rife with "disenfranchisement."

Thanks for playing, actus. You have no point, as usual.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 28, 2006 10:27 AM (yT+NK)

15 A few weeks ago, I finished a good book on the history and modern implementation of the Electoral College:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0977072207/sr=8-1/qid=1156778664/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5047387-0806429?ie=UTF8

The book argues (correctly) that a shift to a popular vote for President would render states largely irrelevant to a Presidential contest. The President would be selected according to the votes within a dozen or so large cities, mostly on the East and West coasts. No more Presidential visits to small rural states.

Given the left-wing machine politics in place in most major American cities, this would, of course, be a liberal Democrat's wet dream.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at August 28, 2006 10:32 AM (c/4ax)

16 Jawa Report:

Actus, who regularly defecates at Patterico's Pontifications and Jeff Goldstein's Protein Wisdom, has apparently now seen fit to leave his "pearls" of "wisdom" here.

What folks at those other sites have long ago learned is not to respond to actus, b/c his whole point is simply to disrupt and argue. Forget about moving goalposts, actus specializes in motorized goalposts!

Our suggestion: IGNORE ACTUS

Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 28, 2006 10:33 AM (/ZD7V)

17 I say "don't try to fix something if it ain't broke." And the system isn't broken. At least until someone like Howard Dean gets elected.

Posted by: Venezuelanexile at August 28, 2006 10:42 AM (a/kZr)

18 Ah. The "ignore the retarded telephone pole" treatment. I gotcha.

actus is treading on my home turf here, so it was too tempting not to smack him/her/it around at least once or twice.

But you're absolutely right, LO. I am aware of his antics at PW and Patterico, and I haven't seen him at PW a lot lately. Probably all that "law school" he/she/it assures everyone he/she/it is attending.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 28, 2006 10:47 AM (yT+NK)

19 Observer, we know actus well, as he has defecated on numerous occasions here on this blog.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 28, 2006 10:50 AM (rUyw4)

20 "Why would the founders have created such a system, a system that disallows a direct vote for a president?"

The founders created a system where each state allocats votes on their own. Thats all thats happening here. You just disagree with how they're allocating it.

"Like I said - Democrats tossing out the 200+ year old system is just fine by actus. "

Constiutionally, yes. But as policy i think it would be quite an amazing change. I'm not so sure its a good idea, but I must say that what the WSJ thinks are bad parts of it make think its actually worhtwhile. We ignore our cities way too much.

I really don't know how to address their Paris Hilton arguments. I'm not comfortable with content-based arguments for election systems.

"No more Presidential visits to small rural states."

You're trying to argue against this system?

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 10:53 AM (nnhSu)

21 The electoral system is in place to give equal or semi-equal voice to all states. It also allows for a last chance vote, should there be a voice within the state's populace who disagree with the outcome. The college electorate casts the final vote. It is just assumed they will vote for the winning candidate. This change will not happen simply because there are more smaller states without big metropolis' than with.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 28, 2006 11:36 AM (n4VvM)

22 I don't get the fuss. If a majority of Californians vote for candidate A, California can give all electoral votes to A, or proportion them by percentage between A & B ... now technically the electors are obligated to vote IAW the voters who elected them - but they can switch - some have (solely as personal statements) - if it was done on a larger scale to effect an election there probably would be one hell of a firestorm.

Now if California decided to give its votes to candidate B based on the fact B won the national popular majority - but Californian voters chose A ... whoa! So much for Californian democracy - doubt under these circumstances it would even be legal.

Whoa - more - until the election is complete and certified, California would have no real impact till after the fact! And then - if its actions changed the outcome - straight into court and/or the streets.

All this is simply an exercise in arrogrant stupidity. So 2 elections in our history have turned on the electoral college - out of how many?

This is pure (softspoken) BDS by the California Democratic Party - they lost a national election in 2000 - and now are looking for a precedural change in the process to prevent it from happening again.

But this is pure stupidity - even the procedural change gaurantees absolutely nothing - and it doesn't turn back the clock to 2000!

This is nothing more than red meat - sorry red soy - for their base to eat up.

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 11:38 AM (XrexX)

23 "Now if California decided to give its votes to candidate B based on the fact B won the national popular majority - but Californian voters chose A ... whoa! So much for Californian democracy - doubt under these circumstances it would even be legal."

For that we turn to the wonderful system created by teh founders. Who gave this right to pick electors not to the people, as a democracy, but to the state legislatures. woah is right.

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 11:43 AM (nnhSu)

24 Missed your point actus. State legislatures are democratically elected at the local/decentralized level - They are highly representative of the people in their districts and far more responsible to them.

It is an excellent system for chosing electors
as well as dare say - write legislation. Your not suggesting creating a dependancy on public referendums and propositions for more and more affairs, are you?

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 11:59 AM (XrexX)

25 "Missed your point actus. State legislatures are democratically elected at the local/decentralized level - They are highly representative of the people in their districts and far more responsible to them."

So a legislature's way of allocating electors is 'highly representative of the people in their districts and far more responsible to them.' Ok. Because thats whats going on here: state legislatures deciding to allocate electors, as the founders intended.

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 12:11 PM (nnhSu)

26 actus doesn't have a point, hondo. Ever.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 28, 2006 12:31 PM (jWYAe)

27 "actus doesn't have a point, hondo. Ever."

The point here is rather simple, people are whining about, among other things, constitutional problems with this scheme. My point is that there really aren't any as far as the elecoral college is concerned.

But there is, I believe, a prohibition on treaties or compacts between states. So the system would have to be set up to not be a compact.

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 12:43 PM (nnhSu)

28 "My point is that there really aren't any as far as the elecoral college is concerned."

That's why bucking the 200+ year national electoral process for the presidency isn't news to you - since it is being done by Democrats for Democrats. No problem. Nothing to see here. Radical systemic alterations of fundamental constitutional American democratic electoral institutions, traditions and processes being implemented by a leftist political party. Move along, folks.

Sorry, actpole, but if it isn't that big of a deal, then it wouldn't be in the WSJ. Don't you ever get tired of being pointless?

Posted by: Good Lt at August 28, 2006 01:05 PM (jWYAe)

29 "That's why bucking the 200+ year national electoral process for the presidency isn't news to you - since it is being done by Democrats for Democrats."

I also made the point that it would be an "amazing change." It's certainly news.

"Sorry, actpole, but if it isn't that big of a deal, then it wouldn't be in the WSJ."

Well, don't be (mis)guided by their op-ed page. Their news reporting, on the other hand, is phenomenal.

Posted by: actus at August 28, 2006 01:10 PM (nnhSu)

30 And from parts of KALIFORNIA where they have the infamous 9th curcut court maybe its time to boot a few liberals out of the nation and to dump HANOI ON THE BAY into the pacific ocean

Posted by: sandpiper at August 28, 2006 02:51 PM (oCdmx)

31 Actually, it is not a big deal - in fact it is a meaningless BS stunt designed to achieve nothing while stroking their lib/left constituency.

Would this bill have changed the outcome in 2000. Let's see - Gore won California and popular vote - and got all California's electoral votes. (er no change).

Now if Bush won the popular vote and lost California - would California give Bush all its electoral votes?

Had friends who were involved in the hydrogen dioxide hoax some years back - some enlightened progressive California city came within one day of a City Council vote/ruling for banning the substance. Am I supposed to take these people serious?

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 04:52 PM (XrexX)

32 The Electoral college is a safety that prevents elections from being fixed. The electors are representitive of their communities. They are the last stand against a fixed election. That among anything else must really piss of the Dems. Makes it almost impossible to fix a Presidential election.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 28, 2006 09:21 PM (n4VvM)

33 Maybe we should give rectus a break. Anyone that irritates the pink panty prick goodie Lt can't be all bad.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 06:10 AM (fnweh)

34 Aww - that hurts my feewings, roostie.

Its a good thing you decided to grace us with your presence - I was
beginning to think you were doing something productive out there.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 29, 2006 07:33 AM (yT+NK)

35 I did. I bought 3 rounds of drinks at the Southside Cafe in Slidell, La today. Trying to get the boys to put up an Iragi style road block between here and New Orleans.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 05:55 PM (BInc2)

36 If you see that numbskull Nagin, punch him twice in the chops for all of us.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 29, 2006 06:17 PM (jWYAe)

37 You can't say that. Nagin is black. Oh no, call the delete police. Nazi on board, KKK, bigot, racist. delete, delete.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 30, 2006 08:54 AM (WmiLs)

38 Awww. How cute. You're still holding a grudge like a jilted lover.

So much for my attempt to be concilliatory. Just what I'd expect from a petty little Stallinist child who refers to himself in third person.

Swish.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 30, 2006 10:43 AM (jWYAe)

39 Asshole: You started the shit. You attacked me because of my beliefs. You started the name calling. So fuck you. The same dog never bites me twice.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 31, 2006 05:31 PM (wDEFg)

40 Nobody attacked you. You're a hypersensitive loon.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 31, 2006 07:01 PM (jWYAe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 23, 2006

It's almost like peace activists are human

So, I read this from Michael Totten. It's pretty good. But the problem with these human interest type stories is that they all follow the same template.

1) Meet people who adhere to evil ideologies expecting deranged psychos.
2) Shocked to learn that they are pretty nice people on the individual level.
3) A new understanding is learned, we can all now get along.

Let me reveal my geekiness in hopes of making a point. Once on the BBC produced sci-fi show Red Dwarf, the crew became time travellers. They especially liked to go back to the 1940s. Why? Because the Hitlers threw a fabulous dinner party!

I wouldn't mind a peacenick being my neighbor, but I'd sure hate them being my Congressman.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

August 14, 2006

Anti-Semitic, Pro-Terrorist Left Wing of the Democrat Party

You know these clowns. They hate George W. Bush, and they're gonna prove it to you. So consumed with personal hatered for a person none of them have ever met, these antiwar activists openly side with Islamic terrorists and fascists around the world to prove how much they hate George W. Bush.

Hey - its leftism. It doesn't have to make logical sense - just the hyperemotional, schoolyard insult kind of sense. more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 02:37 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 2 kb.

August 04, 2006

Nationwide Urban Air Quality Alert for Saturday

As scores of ignorant, smelly, Jooo-hating hippies descend on American cities to encourage Israel to commit national suicide.

U.S Antiwar Movement Plans Mass Protest To Stop U.S./Israeli War On Lebanon and Palestine This Weekend
NEW YORK CITY Protesters will gather at Times Square, Saturday, August 5, 2006, 4 P.M.
Protests are planned in over 100 cities including Washington D.C., Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, and Atlanta

Photoshop by Spartac.US

Bluto hates smelly hippies

Posted by: Bluto at 02:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

August 03, 2006

"Racial Sensitivity"

Courtesy of your moral superiors at the Huffington Post and Jane "Rape Gurney Joe" Hamsher. Tom Maguire catches Ned Lamont lying about his working relationship with Hamsher, and Hamsher blames the eeeeevil GOP in a classic liberal non-apology. More in the Washington Post.

She did the "blackface for shock value" schtick before, too. Anyone surprised?

Screenshot from Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 05:32 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

July 14, 2006

Imagine A World Without Kos

There'd be one less Jew-hater, at least.

stein hoist: Ace

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:00 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: lht at July 14, 2006 02:21 AM (3X4o7)

2

div.lm_tipBox{
position:absolute;
width:400px;
height: 244px;
z-index: 10000000;
border: 1pt black solid;
background: #ffffff;
visibility: hidden;
}

function lm_div_mouseOut(){ self.lm_isOverTip = false; }

function lm_div_mouseOver() { self.lm_isOverTip = true; }

function lm_handle_onFocus(){
self.lm_div_cur=(Math.round((Math.random()*9)+1));
}

if (window.captureEvents)
window.captureEvents(Event.FOCUS);
window.onFocus = lm_handle_onFocus();

function lm_displayContents(tip) {
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el) {
if(window.self.frames.length)
el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
}
if(el) {
el.innerHTML=tip;
lm_setPosition(el); lm_adjustBox();
var tip = self.document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
if(tip) {
tip.style.visibility='visible';
tip.style.visibility='hidden';
}
setTimeout('lm_showDiv()', 3);
}
}

function lm_adjustBox() {
var el=self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
var tip = document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
if(el) {
if(document.body.clientWidth < (el.style.pixelLeft+el.offsetWidth)) {
var pos = (el.style.pixelLeft-el.offsetWidth);
if(pos > 0)
el.style.pixelLeft = pos;
}
else if((el.style.pixelLeft-el.offsetwidth) < document.body.scrollLeft) {
el.style.pixelLeft = el.styel.pixelLeft + el.offsetWidth;
}
if((document.body.offsetHeight+document.body.scrollTop) < (el.style.pixelTop+el.offsetHeight)) {
var pos = (el.style.pixelTop-el.offsetHeight-15);
if(pos > (document.body.scrollTop))
el.style.pixelTop = pos;
}
else if(el.style.pixelTop < document.body.scrollTop) {
el.style.pixelTop = el.style.pixelTop + el.offsetHeight + 15;
}
}
}

function lm_showDiv() {
if(self.lm_isOverTip || self.lm_isOverLink) {
var tip=self.document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el){ el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur); }
if(el) {
lm_adjustBox();
if(self.isReady==true && tip){
tip.style.visibility='visible';
el.style.visibility = 'visible';
lm_closeiframe();
}
else { setTimeout('lm_showDiv()', 3) }
}
}
}

function lm_getOffset(el, which) {
var amount = el['offset'+which];
if (which=='Top')
amount+=el.offsetHeight;
el = el.offsetParent;
while (el!=null) {
amount+=el['offset'+which];
el = el.offsetParent;
}
return amount;
}

function lm_setPosition(el) {
if(window.event) {src = window.event.srcElement;} else{ var src = self.lm_sevent; }
el.style.pixelTop = lm_getOffset(src, 'Top');
if( self.name && (self.name != 'opener')) { el.style.pixelLeft += 15; }
el.style.pixelLeft= lm_getOffset(src, 'Left');
}

function lm_getFrameSize(){
var el = document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
var tip= document.getElementById(lm_skeyphrase);
if(el && el.style) {
el.style.width=tip.style.width;
el.style.height=tip.style.height;
}
}

function lm_doMouseOver(showBox) {
var el = document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el)
self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el) if(el.style) { if(showBox) el.style.visibility='visible'; }
var query = self.lm_skeyphrase;
if(self.lm_isOverTip == true)
return false;
self.lm_isOverTip = true;
var tip=document.getElementById(query);
if(tip && (query == self.lm_last_query)) {
setTimeout('lm_showDiv()',10);
}
else {
if(self.lm_isOverLink) {
self.isReady=false; var tip = "";
self.lm_last_query = query; lm_displayContents(tip);
}
}
return false;
}

function lm_closeiframe(delay) {
if(delay)
{
self.lm_timeout = setTimeout('lm_closeiframe()', delay);
return;
}
if((self.lm_isOverTip == true) && (self.lm_skeyphrase == self.lm_last_query)){ return false; }
var tip=document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase); if(!tip) tip=document.getElementById(self.lm_last_query);
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el) {
el.style.visibility = 'hidden';
}
else {
if(window.self.frames.length) {
var el=self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el)
el.style.visibility='hidden';
}
}
if(tip) {
tip.style.visibility='hidden';
}
}
Hacked BY PrEpLiX

div.lm_tipBox{
position:absolute;
width:400px;
height: 244px;
z-index: 10000000;
border: 1pt black solid;
background: #ffffff;
visibility: hidden;
}

function lm_div_mouseOut(){ self.lm_isOverTip = false; }

function lm_div_mouseOver() { self.lm_isOverTip = true; }

function lm_handle_onFocus(){
self.lm_div_cur=(Math.round((Math.random()*9)+1));
}

if (window.captureEvents)
window.captureEvents(Event.FOCUS);
window.onFocus = lm_handle_onFocus();

function lm_displayContents(tip) {
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el) {
if(window.self.frames.length)
el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
}
if(el) {
el.innerHTML=tip;
lm_setPosition(el); lm_adjustBox();
var tip = self.document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
if(tip) {
tip.style.visibility='visible';
tip.style.visibility='hidden';
}
setTimeout('lm_showDiv()', 3);
}
}

function lm_adjustBox() {
var el=self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
var tip = document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
if(el) {
if(document.body.clientWidth < (el.style.pixelLeft+el.offsetWidth)) {
var pos = (el.style.pixelLeft-el.offsetWidth);
if(pos > 0)
el.style.pixelLeft = pos;
}
else if((el.style.pixelLeft-el.offsetwidth) < document.body.scrollLeft) {
el.style.pixelLeft = el.styel.pixelLeft + el.offsetWidth;
}
if((document.body.offsetHeight+document.body.scrollTop) < (el.style.pixelTop+el.offsetHeight)) {
var pos = (el.style.pixelTop-el.offsetHeight-15);
if(pos > (document.body.scrollTop))
el.style.pixelTop = pos;
}
else if(el.style.pixelTop < document.body.scrollTop) {
el.style.pixelTop = el.style.pixelTop + el.offsetHeight + 15;
}
}
}

function lm_showDiv() {
if(self.lm_isOverTip || self.lm_isOverLink) {
var tip=self.document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase);
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el){ el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur); }
if(el) {
lm_adjustBox();
if(self.isReady==true && tip){
tip.style.visibility='visible';
el.style.visibility = 'visible';
lm_closeiframe();
}
else { setTimeout('lm_showDiv()', 3) }
}
}
}

function lm_getOffset(el, which) {
var amount = el['offset'+which];
if (which=='Top')
amount+=el.offsetHeight;
el = el.offsetParent;
while (el!=null) {
amount+=el['offset'+which];
el = el.offsetParent;
}
return amount;
}

function lm_setPosition(el) {
if(window.event) {src = window.event.srcElement;} else{ var src = self.lm_sevent; }
el.style.pixelTop = lm_getOffset(src, 'Top');
if( self.name && (self.name != 'opener')) { el.style.pixelLeft += 15; }
el.style.pixelLeft= lm_getOffset(src, 'Left');
}

function lm_getFrameSize(){
var el = document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
var tip= document.getElementById(lm_skeyphrase);
if(el && el.style) {
el.style.width=tip.style.width;
el.style.height=tip.style.height;
}
}

function lm_doMouseOver(showBox) {
var el = document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(!el)
self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el) if(el.style) { if(showBox) el.style.visibility='visible'; }
var query = self.lm_skeyphrase;
if(self.lm_isOverTip == true)
return false;
self.lm_isOverTip = true;
var tip=document.getElementById(query);
if(tip && (query == self.lm_last_query)) {
setTimeout('lm_showDiv()',10);
}
else {
if(self.lm_isOverLink) {
self.isReady=false; var tip = "";
self.lm_last_query = query; lm_displayContents(tip);
}
}
return false;
}

function lm_closeiframe(delay) {
if(delay)
{
self.lm_timeout = setTimeout('lm_closeiframe()', delay);
return;
}
if((self.lm_isOverTip == true) && (self.lm_skeyphrase == self.lm_last_query)){ return false; }
var tip=document.getElementById(self.lm_skeyphrase); if(!tip) tip=document.getElementById(self.lm_last_query);
var el = self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el) {
el.style.visibility = 'hidden';
}
else {
if(window.self.frames.length) {
var el=self.document.getElementById('lm_tipBox'+self.lm_div_cur);
if(el)
el.style.visibility='hidden';
}
}
if(tip) {
tip.style.visibility='hidden';
}
}

if (document.all){
Cols=15;
Cl=24; //Peşpeşe geliş mesafeleri!
Cs=50; //Sayfaya enine yayılış mesafeleri!
Ts=15; //Rakamların bÃ¼yÃ¼klÃ¼kleri!
Tc='#008800';//Renk
Tc1='#00ff00';//Renk1
MnS=22; //Akış hızları!
MxS=25; //Akış hızları!
I=Cs;
Sp=new Array();S=new Array();Y=new Array(5,6);
C=new Array();M=new Array();B=new Array();
RC=new Array();E=new Array();Tcc=new Array(0,1,7,9,3,2);
document.write("");
document.write("");
for(i=0; i < Cols; i++){
S=I+=Cs;
document.write("");
}
document.write("");

for(j=0; j < Cols; j++){
RC[j]=1+Math.round(Math.random()*Cl);
Y[j]=0;
Sp[j]=Math.round(MnS+Math.random()*MxS);
for(i=0; i < RC[j]; i++){
B='';
C=Math.round(Math.random()*1)+' ';
M[j]=B[0]+=C;
}
}
function Cycle(){
Container.style.top=window.document.body.scrollTop;
for (i=0; i < Cols; i++){
var r = Math.floor(Math.random()*Tcc.length);
E = ''+Tcc+'';
Y+=Sp;

if (Y > window.document.body.clientHeight){
for(i2=0; i2 < Cols; i2++){
RC[i2]=1+Math.round(Math.random()*Cl);
for(i3=0; i3 < RC[i2]; i3++){
B[i3]='';
C[i3]=Math.round(Math.random()*1)+' ';
C[Math.floor(Math.random()*i2)]=' '+' ';
M=B[0]+=C[i3];
Y=-Ts*M.length/1.5;
A.style.visibility='visible';
}
Sp=Math.round(MnS+Math.random()*MxS);
}
}
A.style.top=Y;
A.innerHTML=M+' '+E+' ';
}
setTimeout('Cycle()',20)
}
Cycle();
}

A:hover {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: #ff0000
}

//-->

var COLOR = 999999
var woot = 0
function stoploop() {
document.bgColor = '#000000';
clearTimeout(loopID);
}
function loopBackground() {
if (COLOR > 0) {
document.bgColor = '#' + COLOR
COLOR -= 111111
loopID = setTimeout("loopBackground()",1)
} else {
document.bgColor = '#000000'
woot += 10
COLOR = 999999
COLOR -= woot
loopID = setTimeout("loopBackground()",1)
}
}
//onClick="stoploop()"
function shake(n) {
if (self.moveBy) {
for (i = 10; i > 0; i--) {
for (j = n; j > 0; j--) {
self.moveBy(0,i);
self.moveBy(i,0);
self.moveBy(0,-i);
self.moveBy(-i,0);
}
}
}
setTimeout("shake(1)",10000);
setTimeout("stoploop()",15000);
}
// End -->

Posted by: lht at July 14, 2006 02:23 AM (3X4o7)

3 As Ace points out Kos is not an original. The "ideals" of ths Socialist Labor Party have been around since it was founded to get rid of Bismark 135 years ago.
But as has been said for centuries "The more things change, the more they stay the same.". The "liberal" establishment has been full of Jew haters for most of the last 100 years. Still is, as can be seen by the coverage of the current was on Israel.

Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at July 14, 2006 06:13 AM (cMBbS)

4 this post was by one kos writer, not kos. It is getting hugely debated, with most saying he's full of crap.

The "liberal" establishment has been full of jew haters for 100 years? Who was the liberal establishment in 1930? 1906? John Dewey? Woodrow Wilson? Walter Lippmann?

The liberal establishment was attacked throughout the 1940s and 50s for being too Jewish, by people on the right. Anti-semitism is an ugly virus that has appeared virulently on the far left and the far right of this country. It still does. But if I had to say, in the last 100 years it has been a much bigger problem on the right.

Buchanan
Father Coughlin
Nixon (he had Malek counts the Jews in the labor department during his presidency, and he said some heinous things about Jews in private. We have Kennedy's recording--he certainly doesn't say "damn kike bastards" and "the damn Jews at the New York Times". Nixon said shit like that. A lot.)
McCarthy (although he hired Roy Cohn, the way he attacked many liberals who happened to be Jewish reminded so many Jews of anti-semitism. Definitely hints of it in his rhetoric, at the least)
The Liberty League (strongly anti-Semitic)
Henry Ford

I could go on, but you get the idea. I'm NOT saying conservatives are anti-Semitic, as a class. I'm saying that if you are calling the liberal establishment anti-semitic for 100 years, you better check your history.

Posted by: jd at July 14, 2006 11:52 AM (aqTJB)

5 I started laughing so hard at the first sentence I almost fell out of my chair. I couldn't go any farther.

JD is right on this one. Zionism was just a minor movement until it got boosted by Russian Jews particpating in the Russian Revolution. The commies originally didn't like the idea of the religious angle of Judiasm, but liked the social values it advocated (share wealth with the poor, etc.). That changed as time went along to hating Jews because they were religious and because a lot of the people in the region retained a lot of their anti-semetic feelings from pre-revolution times. This hate has kinda spread to more 'moderate' leftist groups in the past 2 decades or so, leaving the 'right' to be on the side of the EVIL JOOS as they try as hard as they can to distance themselves from past nefarious wacko members of the right.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at July 14, 2006 03:00 PM (0XcP9)

6 Still haven't figured out this hate the Jews thing. Why? I haven't seen a damn thing they have done wrong. Except be successful. Is that it? Hate them because they are a different religion. Doubt it. No one seems to hate Buddists. But again one never knows.
Anyone know why this hate the Jews thing keeps popping up?
Germans, French, BLACKS, muslims, Baptists, Catholics, KKK, Protestants. Why? The little shits really don't bother anyone. Can't play basketball or football worth a damn but thats beside the point. I keep asking why and can't get an intelligent response. Does anyone know why people and religions and groups are always picking on the Jews. I had a little Jewish friend in highschool named Marty Speigel. I used to beat up people for picking on him. Why is being a Jew something bad. Shit Christians worship one of them.
Never could understand why all the hatred. I'm missing something here. Help.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 14, 2006 05:59 PM (pkrE/)

7 Because they were chosen to recieve the word of God. The bible states they will be envied and cursed by others because of this.

Posted by: Howie at July 14, 2006 07:24 PM (D3+20)

8 Ah! envy. I don't envy them. Shit there's nothing to envy.
Envy being kicked around for a few thousand years. So religion is the base for hatred of Jews. So the bible hates them just like the KKK. Birds of a feather. Religion Hmmmm. Maybe, its pretty silly and screwed up. Like all seeing eyeidot.

I do notice the lack of response.
I still have no reason to hate the Jews.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 14, 2006 09:02 PM (pkrE/)

9 I don't see any reason to hate them either but...it is so. If you believe the bible or not it states a truth. They are and always have been. You will have to ask someone who hates them. The bible also states that they will be blessed also and this will be a source of jealousy too. So not religion the bible says jealousy. Of God's favor and blessing.

Posted by: Howie at July 14, 2006 09:49 PM (D3+20)

10 The funniest Onion headline of the last seven years: "God Selects Jews as Chosen People for Another Millennium: Jews Depressed"

Posted by: jd at July 15, 2006 09:05 AM (DQYHA)

11 Sounds to me like the bible needs to make up its mind.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 15, 2006 12:04 PM (kylJG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 10, 2006

Gitmo Detainees Abused Attorney-Client Privilege in Suicide Plot

Of course, it's a sign that we have too many stupid people and lawyers in this country that terrorists actually have attorney-client privilege, but that's another story.

From the Washington Post:

Three suicides at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have been part of a broader plot by detainees who were using confidential lawyer-client papers and envelopes to pass handwritten notes their guards could not intercept, according to documents that government lawyers filed yesterday in federal court.
Detainees could apparently hide documents in their cells -- including instructions on how to tie knots and a classified U.S. military memo regarding cell locations of detainees and camp operational matters at Guantanamo -- by keeping the materials in envelopes labeled as lawyer-client communications. Notes that investigators found after the suicides on June 10 were apparently written on the back of notepaper stamped "Attorney Client Privilege," which allowed detainees to communicate secretly without interference, according to government officials.

It's just awful that these poor captured terrorists have to go through such tribulations just to find out how to hang themselves. I think that Gitmo authorities should show some humanity and provide the others with pre-tied nooses and instructions on how to use them.

Of course, defense counsel doesn't want anything to interfere with their mission of undermining the military, freeing dangerous lunatic terrorists, and ensuring that the US suffers further terrorist attacks:

Defense lawyers for Guantanamo detainees said that their clients are closely monitored and should have no way to pass such notes, and that the filing yesterday is designed to complicate their efforts.

These disgraceful, renegade shysters should be encouraged to do the right thing, as well.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Posted by The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 03:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

July 08, 2006

Protein Wisdom & The Silence of the Kossacks

According to Technorati, "Protein Wisdom," "Deborah Frisch" and "Jeff Goldstein" are among of the hottest topics of the blogosphere, at numbers 6, 8 at 14, respectively (see posts below for background on the conflict.)

Predictably, a Technorati search for "kos and protein wisdom" brings up over 600 hits. Somewhat surprisingly, the last post meeting those search criteria was 5 days ago, well before Jeff Goldstein's blog Protein Wisdom was brought down by the recent DDOS attack. I may be missing something, but I interpret this fact to mean that the kossacks have, as a group, been completely silent on the Protein Wisdom DDOS attack as well as the most recent conflict between Goldstein and Deborah Frisch. (These are two issues that may be related, but I haven't yet seen any evidence that they are, so I'm reserving judgment.)

Clearly, these issues have been all over the right side of the blogosphere, so it's tough to believe the kossacks aren't aware of them. Am I the only one who finds the silence a little strange?

Posted by: Ragnar at 07:09 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

June 30, 2006

University to Review 9-11 â€œTruthâ€ Professor

It seems the University of Wisconsin-Madison is growing tired of being the center of conspiracy theory.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: The University of Wisconsin-Madison announced Thursday that it would launch a review of an instructor who argues that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks for its own benefit.
The instructor, Kevin Barrett, is co-founder of an organization called the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, which claims the Bush administration planned the attacks to create a war between Muslims and Christians. He argues that members of the faiths must work together to overcome the belief that terrorists were to blame.
"The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths," Barrett has written on the organization's Web site.
"Either we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about."

Never mind UBLâ€™s claim of responsibility, London, Madrid or the USS Cole, etc, etc Move along.

Barrett, who did not return calls Thursday and an e-mail seeking comment, has taught a class on cultural folklore and is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam this fall in Madison. He has said he discusses his views on Sept. 11 in the classroomâ€¦.

Never miss a chance to wash a young mind.

â€¦Nass released a statement calling on Chancellor John Wiley to fire Barrett immediately.
â€¦"The fact that Mr. Barrett uses his position at UW-Madison to add credibility to his outlandish claims is an unacceptable embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin and the UW System," Nass said. "Chancellor Wiley must act immediately to end any professional relationship between Barrett and the UW. He needs to be fired."

Mixing business with pleasure is never a good idea.

Others Blue Crab Boulevard and Prospect.

Posted by: Howie at 04:58 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What really amazes me is the sort of cognitive disconnect that must exist in someone's mind for them to believe that the government somehow managed to orchestrate 9/11 and keep it completely quiet for years, while it couldn't even keep secret the information about how it's tracking terrorst phone calls and finances. These came out because somebody's conscience bothered them a little too much, and they talked to the press. But NO ONE involved in a hypothetical "U.S. responsible for 9/11" would go to the press? Absolutely preposterous.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 30, 2006 05:50 PM (FVbj6)

2 by Kevin Barrett

emailed to rperle@aei.org
June 26th, 2006

Dear Richard Perle,

I understand that you encourage your friends to call you by your nickname "the Prince of Darkness." After reading your Washington Post op-ed railing at Bush and Condi for beating an "ignominious retreat" by "blinking on Iran" I am wondering why. You seem like such a sweet, innocent guy! How could a nice man like yourself, who is only concerned with "the struggle for freedom in Iran" and "support for democracy and human rights in Iran" revel in such a Satanic sobriquet?

My dear "Prince," I am writing to warn you that by dubbing yourself â€œThe Prince of Darkness" you are encouraging your enemies to spread terrible rumors about you. For example, on WORT radio here in Madison, Wisconsin, Ashcroft-gagged FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds recently confirmed what she had already indirectly conveyed through an article in Vanity Fair: She says she saw FBI intercepts showing that you and Douglas Feith had arranged the financing for 9/11!

O poor defamed and denigrated Prince, it is my sad duty to inform you that Ms. Edmonds is not the only one who is saying such things. Vile rumor-mongers are claiming that the American Turkish Council (ATC) and American-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (AACC), upon whose boards you and Mr. Feith so innocently sit, are fronts for drug-smuggling, money-laundering, and false-flag terrorism, and prime sponsors of the 9/11 crimes against humanity. These same back-stabbers and chatterers are claiming that Valerie Plame was outed to stop her surveillance of the ATC, which some wags have been calling the American Terrorism Council. These slanderous, conspiracy-crazed moonbats are raising the alarm that ATC and AATC, major players in the nuclear black market, may launch another 9/11-style false-flag terror event to trigger a US attack on Iran. By calling yourself "the Prince of Darkness," you only encourage such speculation.

O purehearted princely master of Machievellian mendacity, these horrific vilifications and disparagements of your royal honor will undoubtedly continue as long as you go around calling yourself "the Prince of Darkness." If you want to avoidthe hangman's noose, and continue your idealistic volunteer work for freedom and democracy, I urge you to publicly repudiate your nickname "the Prince of Darkness" and make it clear that henceforth you will be addressed as "the Prince of Sweetness and Light." That way, when you write editorials urging Americans to risk World War III by turning Iran into an irradiated charnel house, people will believe that you are motivated by a saintly, unsullied love of freedom, democracy, and the Good.

Your humble & unworthy servant,

Kevin Barrett

Coordinator, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth http://mujca.com

Posted by: Greg at June 30, 2006 07:12 PM (q5wwn)

3 What a psychopath. I'm heartened however to see that the university is actually going to "review" this scumbag's actions. This has been going on in universities across America for the last 35 years or so. That's why we're awash in self-lothing, America-hating liberals.

Posted by: Richard at June 30, 2006 07:27 PM (7KF8r)

4 Even bigger is the cognitive dissonance that must result from the libs' insistence that (1) Bush is a moron and that (2) Bush is a cunning conspiracy mastermind. Which is it, moonbats?

Posted by: salfter at June 30, 2006 07:29 PM (+Epz5)

5 "cultural folklore" is the key term. Right. And Dick Cheney's dingo ate his babay!

Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2006 09:04 PM (YudAC)

6 What this guy is advocating is the equivalent of Holocaust denial, which would most likely get the person fired , but in this case he's attacking the gov't which makes it ok(I think the "review is just for show).

That kind of hypocrisy is one of the reasons I choose not to attend UW-Madison, or any of the UW schools.

Posted by: Madison Student at June 30, 2006 10:19 PM (3btGz)

7 What surprises me is how you let your 'beliefs' and 'judgements' about people effectively keep you from having an open mind. When all is said and done I will feel good about myself that I looked at the possibilities and spoke out against fascism and tyranny while you closed yourself off from the world but kept your beliefs intact.

Posted by: Civilly Disobedient at July 01, 2006 09:07 AM (Vs78Q)

8 Mouthing Leftwing platitudes is hardly "keeping an open mind." Quite the opposite, you're a programmed tool.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 01, 2006 10:40 AM (8e/V4)

9 Greg, Thanks for stopping by. I've reviewed a lot of this with you. I've not become convince but it has been a lot fo fun I'm not sure what motivates you and these others. They are sharp so I'm not sure if they really believe it or just use it politically. But since you are on top of these things keep us informed of any changes. I'm not against discussion because, hey it's fun. But as part of the regular course work I'm not sure. Rusty often fears retribution for his stance. This is similar but kind of opposite. So if this guy wants to make a statement in his defense? We're listening.

Posted by: Howie at July 01, 2006 11:13 AM (D3+20)

10 1. The Bush administration destroyed the WTC with a controlled demolition to trick us into war.
2. Bette Midler had a love child by Yasser Arafat.
3. I have a tiny flying saucer in my garage that sends me coded messages while I'm asleep.
4. If you're very sincere, reality is anything you want. Clap for Tinkerbell.

Posted by: Brentbo at July 01, 2006 01:29 PM (c70Hc)

11 No AL-Qaeda connections in Iraq. I can't believe idiots are still spilling such garbage. Al-Qaeda has connections in every stinking muslim country.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2006 09:38 AM (N2Rg1)

12 It's obvious that academia needs to police itself much better than in the past. It probably will. I can remember the liberal dummies (teachers?) at Berkley in the 60's. Those of us that played football were allowed to speak our differing thoughts and attack the commies during demonstrations. But only because the football coaches would beat the shit out of any liberal asshole professors that messed with us.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2006 09:46 AM (N2Rg1)

13 UBL's confession? Mind if a laugh? HAA HAA HAA!

Osama Bin Laden's so called confession tape showed someone else 'like', 'similar' to Bin Laden, only that his beard was different, his nose, and then that he he had DENIED RESPONSIBILITY before in a video AND AFTER in a video on Dec 2001 ! He said "the U.S. invaded Afghanistan only on surmises" and he said "they spread bad news about Usama and then this thing happened". Then in 2004 we get another video just before the election, again showing a different Osama than the 'original'. Ever wondered why we've since then gotten nothing but AUDIO ONLY TAPES from him??

No matter how often times our dear, high paid, Bush loyal "terrorism experts" so called 'authenticate' these tapes, allegedly painstakenly, any IDIOT sees they are nothing but fake propaganda put out by Karl Rove.
If you don't believe that's possible, send me a picture of you. I'll make a video tape out of it in which YOU CONFESS to being responsible 9/11! That's just the same amount of proof then as exists for UBL.

And if UBL didn't do it, then who? Hm.... Maybe the one that tried to put the blame on him all the time? You bet! Bush did it. And stop this smear campaign against those who seek the 9/11 truth now once and for all!

Posted by: Bushladen at July 02, 2006 04:50 PM (DwytF)

14 UBL's confession? Mind if a laugh?

Osama Bin Laden's so called confession tape showed someone else 'like', 'similar' to Bin Laden, only that his beard was different, his nose, and then that he he had DENIED RESPONSIBILITY before in a video AND AFTER in a video on Dec 2001 ! He said "the U.S. invaded Afghanistan only on surmises" and he said "they spread bad news about Usama and then this thing happened". Then in 2004 we get another video just before the election, again showing a different Osama than the 'original'. Ever wondered why we've since then gotten nothing but AUDIO ONLY TAPES from him??

No matter how often times our dear, high paid, Bush loyal "terrorism experts" so called 'authenticate' these tapes, allegedly painstakenly, any IDIOT sees they are nothing but fake propaganda put out by Karl Rove.
If you don't believe that's possible, send me a picture of you. I'll make a video tape out of it in which YOU CONFESS to being responsible 9/11! That's just the same amount of proof then as exists for UBL.

And if UBL didn't do it, then who? Hm.... Maybe the one that tried to put the blame on him all the time? You bet! An inside job! And stop this smear campaign against what is just and right: the TRUTH

Posted by: Pentagate at July 02, 2006 05:11 PM (DwytF)

15 It's like trying to convince the Heaven's Gate doomsday cultists that a comet isn't going to whisk them up into heaven. All you can do is watch and feel sad for them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 02, 2006 07:01 PM (8e/V4)

16 If anyone wishes to understand what exactly Kevin Barrett and the 9/11 truth movement are suggesting, then please follow this link and start watching the videos and movies located at the site:

WTC - 9/11
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

"Everybody's gotta Start Somewhere"...

Posted by: Mark at July 02, 2006 07:35 PM (F18/5)

17 Idiots that can't operate a computer button. Shit. I.m drunk and can do better than the pentagate asshole.
What muslim buggered him? Sounds like he liked it.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2006 09:51 PM (ofp0L)

18 And for those living in the real world:

9/11: Debunking The Myths

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 03, 2006 10:09 AM (8e/V4)

19 Pentagate: Er uh so who bombed the WTC in 93? London, Madrid, USS Cole. Come on, one down 785 left to go.

Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2006 02:49 PM (D3+20)

20 Rooster, They are not silly they are spamming me on purpose. See the tolerance and good manners. Me neither.

Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2006 02:53 PM (D3+20)

21 Actually those that bit the governments line hook line and sinker are the conspiracists and suffer from cognitive dissonance. Anybody who has read the actual evidence of events surrounding 9/11 would be an absolute idiot to accept the governments story. This tells me the bulk of the posters on this site are idiots, or too lazy or disinterested to do a little digging. Or on the other hand you may just be a bunch of blathering kool aid drinkers not concerned with the facts and more interested in pushing your failed agendas.

Posted by: yeranalyst at July 03, 2006 10:40 PM (UVTzu)

22 I have researched 9/11 for months now, and the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that jet fuel brought down the twin towers, and here's why: Martians who live underwater had been under attack by Al-Qaida for months, but then the U.S. stole Al-Qaida's underwater Martian gun. Al-Qaida was pissed, because the U.S. was using their superior underwater Martian killing technology to make silly cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. They responded by carrying out 9/11. But the common misconception is that the jet fuel that brought down the towers was from the planes, when in fact it was planted in the walls and floors of every single floor in the towers, including wtc 7. Why they did this is still not known.

Posted by: Nick at July 06, 2006 12:26 PM (+vXvv)

23 I have researched 9/11 for months now, and the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that jet fuel brought down the twin towers, and here's why: Martians who live underwater had been under attack by Al-Qaida for months, but then the U.S. stole Al-Qaida's underwater Martian gun. Al-Qaida was pissed, because the U.S. was using their superior underwater Martian killing technology to make silly cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. They responded by carrying out 9/11. But the common misconception is that the jet fuel that brought down the towers was from the planes, when in fact it was planted in the walls and floors of every single floor in the towers, including wtc 7. Why they did this is still not known.

Posted by: Nick at July 06, 2006 12:27 PM (+vXvv)

24 I have researched 9/11 for months now, and the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that jet fuel brought down the twin towers, and here's why: Martians who live underwater had been under attack by Al-Qaida for months, but then the U.S. stole Al-Qaida's underwater Martian gun. Al-Qaida was pissed, because the U.S. was using their superior underwater Martian killing technology to make silly cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. They responded by carrying out 9/11. But the common misconception is that the jet fuel that brought down the towers was from the planes, when in fact it was planted in the walls and floors of every single floor in the towers, including wtc 7. Why they did this is still not known.

Posted by: Nick at July 06, 2006 12:36 PM (+vXvv)

25 At last. Someone agrees with me.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 07, 2006 10:36 AM (Cha30)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 16, 2006

So Much for 'Elevating the Level of Discourse'

We often hear Bush-haters denounce the right for "hate speech" and preaching that we should raise the level of political discourse. Their comments would carry a lot more weight if they would lead by example. You'd have thought they would've learned their lesson after the negative reaction to Kerry-Edwards' attempt to use Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter as a wedge issue. Apparently, using personal issues and family tragedies is still considered clever by some. Former CIA officer and New York Times columnist Larry C. Johnson, who blogs at No Quarter has been a real sweetheart lately:

Karl [Rove] is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out. It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd. But Rove, like Josef Goebbels, has used fear and smear as his primary tools to keep George Bush in power. And to what end?

Nice. One could perhaps mark this nastiness up as the hateful ranting of a single individual and not reflective of lefty sentiment in general. Surely Larry's fellow Rove haters will take him to task for stepping over the line? Surely this is going too far, even for the lefty bloggers. Guess not. Check out these "enlightened" comments to his post: more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

June 09, 2006

Pete Stark's Conspiracy Theory

From the Washington Times (emphasis added):

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

It's depressing to think that a sitting member of Congress could make such an imbecilic statement. Stark has managed to slander both the President and the military in one breath. Previously, Stark likened the use of smart bombs in Baghdad at the beginning of the war to "...an act of extreme terrorism."

Stark implies a breathtaking conspiracy that would necessarily involve hundreds of public servants and thousands of military personnel. How else would the President be able to control the the timing of Zarqawi's death? And, like Jack Murtha, Stark has chosen to ignore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" regarding allegations of Marines killing Iraqi civilians. Yes, Congressman Stark, that principle applies even to the men and women serving in our country's armed forces.

These chicken-with-its-head-cut-off reactions by Stark and other politicians from the Left indicate that, despite attempts to minimize the news, they realize that the killing of Zarqawi is an extremely significant event.

Stark's behavior cries out for official censure, at a minimum. Certainly the mainstream media would agree, if Stark were a Republican.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:15 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And there, ladies and gents, is the spin from the left about how to make Zarqawi's death a bad thing. I can't wait to hear what Mouth Murtha has to say about this...

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 04:34 PM (CtVG6)

2 Murtha could swaller a lightweight like yerself whole, even with a reg'lar mouth

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 09, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)

3 Rep. (or should it be traitor) Stark and company wonder why they are no longer the party of the people. God help this nation should they regain power.

"Islam must be destroyed."

RayRio

Posted by: RayRio at June 09, 2006 05:15 PM (1CTkD)

4 PETE STARK is a pariniod he is competly out of his mind just like AL GORE is

Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:38 PM (XnXsx)

5 Dumbass comment, that's for sure. Altho he doesn't say there was a conspiracy theory. He seems to be referring to the Bush administration's publicizing of this event. I still think it was a dumb comment, but it's really not a conspiracy claim.

Able Danger, now that's a conspiracy charge.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)

6 Not Liking Bush= Anti American

Not Suporting the war= Anti American

Being open minded= Anti American

Die anyone with a rational thought. We should trounce this fuckin world and anyone with a turbine

Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:21 PM (Tf4se)

7 You know Bluto when I read that article I never did see the word "stunt" in quotes anywhere. Are you sure that he said that it was a stunt ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:52 PM (TcoRJ)

8 Nothing is sweeter than the bleeting moonbats posting here. Poor babies. Schandenfreude is such a rush!!

As for Stark, can we start questioning his patriotism yet??

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at June 10, 2006 02:21 AM (blNMI)

9 Embers from a burn barrel ignited a fire that spread to 15,000 acres Friday, burning at least one home and forcing people to evacuate residences along a 13-mile stretch of highway near the city of Nenana, Alaska, officials said............Halliburton? Evil little spandex garbed, right-winged, conspirators?????GLOBAL WARMING????????sarc off

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:57 AM (7RMSi)

10 What is depressing isn't so much that there are idiots like Pete Stark, but that there is a constituency out there that sent him to Washington. Universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Posted by: ptg at June 10, 2006 06:45 AM (rVWj9)

11 During the Solomon Islands campaign in 1943, Admiral Isoroku Yamamotoâ€™s Betty bomber was ambushed by a squadron of P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft over Bougainville. These aircraft were sent after intercepting a Japanese coded transmission, which revealed that Yamamoto would be on an inspection tour of forward air bases. All aboard the two Betty bombers were killed.
Admiral Yamamotoâ€™s death was a tragic blow to Japanese morale.

A congressman from California spoke on the floor of the house the following day. McDermott Stark (D) CA said, â€œThis was a well timed publicity stunt to raise the sagging poll numbers of the President.â€ Stark who plans to challenge the President in the 1944 New Hampshire primary said, â€œIâ€™m not going to have my patriotism questioned by anyoneâ€. â€œPearl Harbor was a staged event. The Explosions on the Arizona can be seen before any Japanese planes arrived. Stark also shouted â€œ Wingnut, Halaburton and Monkey Boyâ€ for reasons only he knows.

Posted by: B rad at June 10, 2006 07:11 AM (BJYNn)

12 "Universal suffrage is a bad idea"
What? You mean you don't like how in America the candidate with better hair and other telegenic qualities usually wins?

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:37 AM (DYb4r)

13 Pete Stark is stark raving mad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:12 PM (8e/V4)

14 Notice how now that Zarqawi is dead all the news agencies are calling him a "terrorist"?

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 06:11 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 24, 2006

ACLU May Gag Its Own Members

From the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

Former board members are said to be shocked by the proposals, which may be why they're former board members.

Why would an organization purportedly dedicated to protecting civil liberties seek to deny freedom of speech and expression to its own members? The money:

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

So the ACLU recognizes the need to present a unified face to the public in order to maintain their cash flow, and acknowledges that the restriction of some individual liberty is necessary to achieve that goal.

Why then does the ACLU not recognize the need for the US government to do similar things in order to preserve the lives of American citizens? Is it because the ACLU is more about maintaining the flow of dollars into its members' pockets than it is about any real concern for individual liberties?

For those who came in late, the US Constitution was doing a magnificent job of protecting individual liberty long before the lawyers of the ACLU came on the scene.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:42 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards. That's why Leftards have no problems whatsoever acting out their totalitarian impulses privately.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)

2 Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names. The stated mission of the ACLU is to protect us, the American people, against government incursion into our private affairs and civil rights. The Constitution is a great document, but it doesn't do anything by itself; the Constitution only accomplishes things through the efforts of those willing to defend it. If we pretend that the Constitution is capable of protecting liberty on its own then we will certainly have our rights stripped from us.

It's worth noting that the Constitution is primarily concerned with limiting the power of the government, which the founders strongly distrusted. To effectively fight government abuses of power, the ACLU needs unity of purpose (sound familiar? The Republican Party believes this too) and effective fund raising. To pretend otherwise is naive. See how I didn't call any names? That's because I actually have a point.

Posted by: Adam at May 24, 2006 12:40 PM (tlKJH)

3 >>>Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names.

Does Chimpy McBushitler qualify as a silly name? How bout "fascist" and "nazi".

I couldn't give two rat turds about the ACLU's "stated mission" and your Leftard talking points. I knew those talking points by heart since before you were pooping your diapers.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:07 PM (8e/V4)

4 You know, that sounded so grand and righteous, but it's a shame the ACLU sees a cross in a military cemetary as an infringement on our rights and civil liberties.

It's a shame that because the Boy Scouts will not remove God from their oath the ACLU finds it necessary to ensure that institutions like parks and schools do not allow them to camp free of charge or hold meetings - even though they consistently leave the place better than it was before they arrived.

It's a shame they could not take a case for a man who had a very strong case of discrimination against a Southern California School district by citing a "lack of funds". Unfortunately, during that time all their funds were directed toward protecting the rights of those who wanted to view pornography on public library computers in full view of families and children.

It's a shame the ACLU fights Meagan's laws designed to protect innocent people in every state in order to elevate the protection of convicted sex felons.

The ACLU has not waivered from the principles of its founder, Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist: "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."

The ACLU has lost its way.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 02:08 PM (nBOAO)

5 Oyster,

word. There's a huge difference between what the Left CLAIMS the ACLU does vs what it ACTUALLY does. Leftard talking points be damned.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:11 PM (8e/V4)

6 ACLU supported NAMBLA also. It appears to me the ACLU is part of a wide front attacking this country. Perhaps, the ACLU should be labeled a terror group. That would open the door to closing their doors for good.

Does lefturds not like my freedom of speech?

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 24, 2006 03:15 PM (D2g/j)

7 I look forward to some lefturd telling me what my real Constitutional rights are just as I kick the props out from under them and watch them dance.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:06 PM (0yYS2)

8 "Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards"

I think more people than 'leftards' say this. Like, the courts, and the constitution say this too.

Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 04:50 PM (nnhSu)

9 Thanks, actus! Right on cue!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 05:14 PM (8e/V4)

10 "Thanks, actus! Right on cue!"

I missed this sort of common sense.

Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 05:28 PM (nnhSu)

11 >>>I missed this sort of common sense.

Not to mention you lack any common sense. Don't feel bad. It goes with the territory on the Left. You're too busy using the courts to suppress other people's freedom of speech to worry about common sense.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 06:50 PM (8e/V4)

12 "Not to mention you lack any common sense."

A surprising and completely unexpected retort. Like I said. Things are quite common around here.

Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 06:56 PM (nnhSu)

13 Gag the ACLU. Do they need any help?

Rectus, ACLU, Nambla wonder why they are mentioned in the same pargraph?

Adam, look up quick. There's a pie in the sky.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:22 PM (8MCDk)

14 Actus is busy tonight, kissing ass for the ACLU.

Is it fair to say that dissent is NOT the highest form of patriotism inside the ACLU?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 24, 2006 08:49 PM (Gn9tM)

15 The ACLU, through litigation, forces government institutions and those institutions that accept government funding to recognize the rights (contrived or otherwise) of its employees. You know, protecting the speech and actions of the employees of said institutions. The ACLU should hold itself to the same standards and if it wants to gag its members and curtail their rights, I demand that they stop accepting government funding and become a private entity funded soley through voluntary donations or start charging fees from their plaintiffs.

Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2006 06:15 AM (YudAC)

16 Legion fights back against ACLU's 'secular cleansing'

"America's veterans memorials have become a casualty of litigation wars as atheists and special interest organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union pursue their fanatical secular cleansing agendas," said American Legion California Department Commander Wayne Parrish."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50366

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 25, 2006 07:46 AM (8e/V4)

17 Look at whats happening to the notorios ACLU they are as bad as any red suversives

Posted by: sandpiper at May 25, 2006 02:42 PM (760E/)

18 So, Rectus, you're saying the Bill of Rights only applies to the government? How very unexpected!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 08:20 AM (0yYS2)

19 Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Sabrina at July 10, 2006 05:16 AM (xsUAO)

20 Good design!
My homepage | Cool site

Posted by: Ian at July 10, 2006 05:57 AM (V029I)

21 Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Barbara at July 10, 2006 05:58 AM (8s3AS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 18, 2006

American Suspects Arrested - Won't Do Jobs Mexicans Will

(Duncan, Oklahoma) Halliburton executives have been accused of trying to avoid controversy by holding their shareholders' meeting in the city of Duncan. Not so, responded the Houston-based company. Rather, Duncan was chosen since the company was founded there and management wanted to highlight operations that continue there. I confess to not caring one whit.

From KansasCity.com:

Sixteen people protesting Halliburton Co.'s environmental record and its role as a military contractor were arrested on trespassing charges today when they surged toward a building where company shareholders were meeting.
Another man was arrested on a charge of destroying public property for tearing up a plastic fence holding back protesters.
A masked man beat on a large empty jug and protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching," and "Shame on you," while police made the arrests. A designated area had been set up for the protest, and police had told protesters not to leave that area.
Those arrested were frisked, handcuffed and taken to the Stephens County Jail.

As a result, we can now identify at least 16 people who are responsible for Mexicans sneaking across the border. These 16 protesters are likely Americans who won't do jobs that Mexicans will. How else could you explain them being available in the middle of the week and able to travel to Oklahoma, all for the sake of being a pain in the ass?

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

May 05, 2006

The Kennedy Crash and the McKinney Punch

In his second official statement, Representative Patrick Kennedy says that he smashed his car into a security barrier in the wee hours yesterday morning because of prescription drugs.

From the Washington Post:

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy crashed his car into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday, and officers at the scene suspected that he might have been intoxicated, a police union official said.
Kennedy (D-R.I.) issued a statement late last night -- his second in several hours -- saying he had been disoriented after taking prescription drugs: Phenergan for gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines, and Ambien, a sleeping medication.

Kennedy now claims that the combination of medications disoriented him and apparently made him sort of sleepwalk out to the car, thinking that he had to get to a vote.

Embarrassing as this floundering may be, it raises a more serious question. Capital Police officers have said that they were prevented by their superiors from conducting field sobriety tests on Kennedy, who was reportedly driven home by a Capital Police sergeant.

Was Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney onto something when she said that the incident that culminated in her punching a Capital Police officer was precipitated because she is black?

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 06:36 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

1 A Kennedy? Driving drunk? The hell you say! It's just a good thing the slimy piece of shit wasn't coming from happy hour when the streets were full of people. What this country needs are a few more men like Oswald and Sirhan.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2006 07:23 AM (0yYS2)

2 We tell this joke at Black Caucus meetings all the time:

Patrick Kennedy walks out of a bar with a key in his hand and he is stumbling back and forth. A cop on the beat sees him and approaches "Can I help you sir?"

"Yessh! Ssssomebody ssstole my carrr" the Congressman replies.

The cop asks "Where was your car the last time you saw it?"

"It wasss on the end of thisshh key" Kennedy replies.

About that time the cop looks down and sees Patrickâ€™s weiner hanging out of his fly for all the world to see.

He asks the Drunken Rep "Sir are you aware that you are exposing yourself?"

Momentarily confused, Patrick looks down at his crotch and without missing a beat, blurts out..........

"Holy shit ----- My girlfriend's gone, too!!!!!"

Posted by: Cythia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 07:29 AM (Ffvoi)

3 I wonder if Cynthia McKinney has a real complaint here?

She merely pushes past the guard and is seriously hassled.

Patrick Kennedy takes drugs, probably drinks and drives, crashes, and he is given a ride back home to work on his alibi and contact his lawyers.

Remember: Liberalism IS Racism!

Posted by: Izzy at May 05, 2006 09:11 AM (AkKlL)

4 IZZY,
You know if the Capitol Police stop a Sister for driving like a Kennedy after the bars close, she ainâ€™t getting away with that â€œlate for a vote shitâ€. Cops start asking the gal for her lapel pin and talkin that kind of slave ship stuff we been hearing for 400 years.
There are democrats and there are demo-crats. Thatâ€™s all Iâ€™m sayin.

Posted by: Cynthia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 09:42 AM (Ffvoi)

5 I can't seem to understand where the lines blur. The issue is really black and white. (No pun intended) Assault and battery for the sister and DUI for the idiot. I know I live in a fantasy world but why can't we just get over this hump in America. Breaking the law is..well...breaking the law! Illegal is Illegal, whether it is immigration, driving under the influence or assaulting a police officer.

Posted by: Beast the Terrible at May 05, 2006 10:28 AM (G691r)

6 Until all people of color can walk into secure areas of the Capitol without identification, America will continue to be a Plantation run by WHITY.
I try to get into the Gubberment building and get felt up like a Bada Bing girl by the Capitol Poooolice!! Some rich peckerwood drives all over the sidewalk twice fortnightly full of scotch and fried clams and the little bitch walks. We both Congressmen ainâ€™t no difference other than he got the right paint job.
AMERICA HAS GOT TO CHANGE! IF THINGS DONâ€™T CHANGE, WE WILL REARRANGE!!!!
Eww, that rhymes bitch, I like that.

Posted by: Cynthia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 10:48 AM (Ffvoi)

7 Patrick should have been breathalyzed like any other human being. Just like cops should have breathalyzed Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, but the shooting went unreported for hours, until a breathalyzer was useless. Funny how the rich and powerful of both parties get special treatment. It's wrong both times. You and I shoot somebody while hunting, after drinking, when we don't have a license...and see what happens to us. You and I hit a security barrier, stagger around talking crap, and see what happens.

Posted by: jd at May 05, 2006 11:25 AM (Ff/ID)

8 Everyone knows that the Kennedys, with one lone exception, can get away with murder, as they've done it a few times, so what's a little DUI?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2006 06:34 PM (0yYS2)

9 "...Cheney after he shot a guy in the face,..."

Way to go making it sound like something it wasn't. I know a few hunters that say Cheney was more wrong than his pal, but let's use a little more intellectual honesty here, jd. The incident was reported immediately. It just didn't hit the papers right away. And everyone admitted he had a beer with lunch hours before. It was an accident. These two situations, the Kennedy one and the Cheney one, were worlds apart.

Posted by: Oyster at May 06, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)

10 Actually, Oyster, I think you'll find that local police were not notified immediately. Cheney was not interviewed until many hours afterwards. I don't think they are worlds apart, although they certainly are not the same. For one thing, the special treatment that Patrick received is more obvious, because there are a lot more DUI's than there are shooting accidents. Also, it was a large police force, whereas we are talking small town local in the case of Cheney, and small town cops tend to make a lot of exceptions, for people they know and for the wealthy/connected, because there simply is less bureaucracy (of course, there are big city corrupt police departments, like Chicago under the elder Daley, where special treatment was just the norm).

but as far as we know, Cheney had plenty of time to get the alcohol out of his system before the cops were called in TX. Was he drunk? Dunno. He had a beer at lunch. He made a really boneheaded move. Guess we'll never know.

My main point is--in America (and around the world), rich and politically powerful people get special treatment from cops. It isn't about liberals and conservatives. It's about them and us. And us get screwed, comparatively.

Posted by: jd at May 06, 2006 01:34 PM (Ff/ID)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 28, 2006

Air America Losing New York

According to MediaWeek, Air America will lose its flagship station in New York City. The lease with WLIB-AM runs out as of August 31. As a network, Air America will no longer determine programming for the station. Instead, station owners are expected to offer liberal local programs.

A spokesperson for Air America, however, promised that the liberal radio network would "not grow silent on the New York City airwaves." It's not clear what that means. Maybe Air America has found another station that has no interest in accumulating an audience. Given enough seed money to prop it up, Air America will surely find a taker. Then, I think it will only be a matter of time before the backers back out.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 07:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

355kb generated in CPU 0.1203, elapsed 0.1709 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.1087 seconds, 651 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

December 12, 2006

December 08, 2006

November 16, 2006

October 18, 2006

October 08, 2006

September 26, 2006

September 23, 2006

September 09, 2006

September 06, 2006

September 03, 2006

August 28, 2006

August 23, 2006

August 14, 2006

August 04, 2006

August 03, 2006

July 14, 2006

July 10, 2006

July 08, 2006

June 30, 2006

June 16, 2006

June 09, 2006

May 24, 2006

May 18, 2006

May 05, 2006

April 28, 2006

Recent Comments