The Naomi Wolf Challenge
I know I'm a little late to this one, but I was just thinking about preening puerile parrots today, and Naomi Wolf just popped in there.
Anyway, I want her to take what I call the 'Naomi Wolf challenge.' It's a fun game that in reality any leftist can play. Here it is:
Stop writing...stop speaking...stop writing books...and don't communicate a word until you've been thrown in jail for dissenting or for something you've written or said in the past. Just stop - prove you're the political martyr we all know you want to be, and put your money where you mouth is. Go to prison for 'being brave in the face of fascism,' and then write your books and do your book tours. Go ahead. Prove you're really as 'oppressed' as you make yourself out to be. Prove that yo don't have the right to speak out and make your voice heard. I dare you.
Don't write or say a damn thing unless the next word you publish or speak in public is from a prison cell for speaking out against the government.
Maybe then I'll listen to what you have to say. Maybe then what you write will have some meaning. Until then, you're just pissing up a rope.
Take the challenge. Fem up.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
07:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.
TSA Proflies the Real Suspects
Ever wonder what a total inversion of common sense looks like? Thank your government. The all-seeing, all-powerful, all-problem-solving government.
If there's a better pictorial representation of how the war on Islamic terrorism is being fought, I have yet to see it.
Chalk another one up to the genius liberals who assert (with no proof whatsoever, of course) that these people are simply innocents swept up in BOOSH's massive power grab for world domination.
The blood of anybody these pieces of human waste kill (including US soldiers who did their jobs by capturing them once already) is on the hands of the Democrats, the ACLU and the liberal morons supporting the release of these terrorists.
First, P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner pull out the street creds. The first sentence:
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism.
So, take their argument seriously!
The pair then go on to quote the Hamdi case, which declares all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They then go on to a laborious explanation of how it's not just torture that the Geneva Conventions prohibit, but also:
"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."
Which is true inasmuch as the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners of war. Then they go on to explain that an executive order prohibiting torture, but which might allow for humiliating or degrading treatment, is Presidential acquiescence to the breaking of the Geneva Conventions. And then warn:
that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
Be afraid Mr. President. Be very afraid!
Of course, it's not until far down into the editorial that the pair admit the obvious, which completely destroys their own argument:
Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.
They admit that al Qaeda members do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection. More than that, they say that there's not even an argument about it.
So, since they admit that the Conventions don't apply to al Qaeda, how exactly is he going to be prosecuted for the "war crime" of humiliating them?
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 814 words, total size 5 kb.
Osama's Son Marries Brit Grandma
(Cheshire, England) A 51-year-old British grandmother, Jane Felix-Browne, married 26-year-old Omar bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, in a Muslim ceremony in Egypt last April.
Besotted bride Jane told last night how she fell for the son of Bin Laden on holiday -- and now has the perfect hubby except for his NAME.
The 51-year-old mum of three, from Cheshire, confessed: "I won't be using it myself."
"Because my husband's name is Bin Laden he finds it very difficult to travel anywhere. He rarely leaves Saudi Arabia because of the problems he runs into at airports."
Parish councillor Jane tied the knot with the al-Qaeda supremo's 26-year-old lad Omar in Egypt. (pix)
She insisted: "He is the most beautiful person I have ever met."
"His heart is pure, he is pious, quiet -- a true gentleman. And he is my best friend."
She also stressed she did not mind the scrap metal dealer ALREADY having a wife -- and a child. Jane has been married five times before and has three grown-up sons and five grandkids.
Since she has had five marriages to learn, I suspect she probably thinks she has it right this time. Interestingly, she only met Omar ONCE prior to their wedding night and he doesn't speak English. Omar lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and seldom travels because people look at him suspiciously due to his name. Imagine that?
Hey, does this relationship make any sense?
Omar says he hasn't seen his father in seven years, when he returned to Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan. Now, logically, that means Omar was the 19-year-old son of Osama in Afghanistan during the planning stages for 9/11 -- not to mention the bombings of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the U.S. Embassies in Africa.
Being in Afghanistan while his father was at training camps plotting terror attacks leads me to assume that Omar, in all likelihood, was present. Even so, the son denies being in communication with Osama and has publicly voiced condemnation of Osama's terrorist atrocities. Omar does say he misses him, though.
Okay.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
11:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.
The University's logic? A student complained that they were being "intimidating" and were creating a "hostile environment" by doing so. Citing an oppressive speech code, the University "tried" them internally, but couldn't figure out exactly what to "try" them with.
It will be hilarious to watch the University try to fight this and uphold their censorship codes, but they'll eventually lose. FIRE and the Alliance Defense Fund are on the case.
Kiss another Stalinist speech restriction goodbye.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
09:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
Al Qaeda Trainees on British Police Force
The United Kingdom is being subverted through political correctness, the bane of all intelligent life:
Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda.
Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Their names feature on a secret list of alleged radicals said to be working in the Metropolitan and other forces...
...Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them.
Yes, it wouldn't be cricket to offend to tender sensibilities of the headloppers. The effect, of course, is that no British citizen can trust a police officer who looks middle eastern, i.e., the political correctness encourages prejudice. Duh.
1
"...Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them."
What was it that Bill Clinton claimed about not taking care of bin Laden before 9-11? No legal authority?
Posted by: Rep J at July 08, 2007 03:50 PM (PzQS1)
Here's audio of the County Attorney outlining the charges against Shirley "filthy" Phelps Roper. Audio link is in the right-hand column right underneath the picture.
Media Player required, and it doesn't work with Firefox, so here's the print gist of it for those who can't listen.
Polikov has filed charges against Shirley Phelps-Roper after she had her 10 year old son trample a U.S. flag while her group from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka protested at the funeral of Nebraska National Guard Specialist William Bailey. Along with charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, flag mutilation, and disorderly conduct; Polikov is considering whether to file child abuse charges for having her children at a protest that he says could have developed into a volatile situation.
Only if your intent is to hammer the First Amendment as well. Given the choice between respect for teh flag and respect for the Constitution, I'll take the latter.
Wait until other kids at school find out about this.
You think this Klan of inbreds sends their kids to public school. I'd lay my paycheck on their being home schooled.
You can kiss my ass moron. I spent six years in the US Army Infantry so
assholes like you can have the freedom to talk trash and I would dare
dream of harming the First Amendment.
5
RWR, go listen to the audio interview that I linked. The interviewer asks if this infringes on the First Amendment, and the County Attorney explains why it does not.
Posted by: Vinnie at June 07, 2007 08:02 PM (QV5B4)
6
Off subject but a funny happened in Alabama today. Dem Sen Barron called Rep Sen Bishop a SOB. Wrong! Sen Bishop punched him out right on public television.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 08:11 PM (Ol/Di)
7
RWR: You may be correct about home schooled but you're wrong when think people can disrespect the symbol of this nation in public. Our difference is you seem to think people should be allowed to do this. Whereas I believe they should have their asses kicked. Assholes do things such as this because people don't kick their asses.
Of course this crap goes back to religion again. And religion must be free to express itself. Eight year olds stomping on flags, 12 year olds cutting off heads. Aaaaaaah!
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 08:25 PM (Ol/Di)
8
I still don't understand just what this so called church is protesting? And why are they doing it at funerals. Sounds a bit Goulish to me. I thought only south Mississippi Baptists were nuts. They keep voting the county dry. Which means I break the law. Everyday. A lot. I fact I'll have another right now. My way of protesting against religious nuts who wish to run my life.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 08:31 PM (Ol/Di)
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes
ago
A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S.
unlawfully failed a crucial test vote Thursday, a stunning setback that could
spell its defeat for the year.
The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60
that the bill's supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block
Democrats' efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.
The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten
borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented
workers in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to
legal status.
Conceived by an improbable coalition that nicknamed the deal a "grand
bargain," the measure exposed deep rifts within both parties and is loathed by
most GOP conservatives.
Senate Majority Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., who had made
no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, said earlier he would move on
to other matters if the immigration measure's supporters didn't get 60 votes
Thursday night.
The defeat set off a bitter round of partisan recriminations, with
Democrats and Republicans each accusing the other of killing it.
Most Republicans voted against ending debate, saying they needed more time
to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more
arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants.
All but a handful of Democrats supported the move, but they, too, were
holding their noses at provisions of the bill. Many of them argued it makes
second-class citizens of a new crop of temporary workers and rips apart
families by prioritizing employability over blood ties in future
immigration.
Still, they had argued that the measure, on balance, was worth
advancing.
"We can all find different aspects of this legislation that we differ
with," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the leading Democratic
architect of the
bill.
Posted by: NorthernCross at June 07, 2007 09:22 PM (7MbG3)
10
Greyrooster, get your shit together and read the news, stupid ass.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 07, 2007 09:41 PM (b0FZu)
11
Darth Fag: If you're well versed on the subject it must have been in a gay newspaper. Faggot.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 11:54 PM (23jdi)
12
Poor Mississippi to have to have Gayrooster.and all the retired queers from Guerneville and the Bohemian Butt Club retiring there...
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 08, 2007 03:25 AM (b0FZu)
13
Dick -- what an appropriate name. I could care less about your military service (in this context) when I can point to a half-century of US Supreme Court precedent upholding the right to do precisely what this bitch has done. As disgusting as her actions are, they fall under the rubric of constitutionally protected speech.
Greyrooster -- clearly you say the inane stuff you do because no one has kicked your ass recently. Let me volunteer to supply you with the remedy for your offensive speech -- perhaps I can even kick the fear of God into your sorry ass. Oh, you suddenly wish to take refuge behind the First Amendment? Too bad -- your previous comments pretty well destroyed it. And by the way -- I don't think the Phelps Klan SHOULD be able to do this stuff, but rather that they are allowed to by our Constitution.
And Vinnie -- the prosecutor is wrong in his analysis. What he proposes does not even rise to the level of a heckler's veto -- it is actually a "hypothetical heckler's veto". I'm curious -- what higher office does the prosecutor in question aspire to?
Might i direct all of you to <a href="http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/229306.php>my fuller analysis of this case?</a>
14I could care less about your military service (in this context) when I
can point to a half-century of US Supreme Court precedent upholding the
right to do precisely what this bitch has done. As disgusting as her
actions are, they fall under the rubric of constitutionally protected
speech.
RWR,
That's the point you fucking moron. You don't care unless the subject suits your cause.
Once again, go fuck yourself you little trash talking twerp. You're
gutless, spineless, and don't have a clue as to what it takes to
perserve those Amendments. Nor could I imagine you ever placing your
chickenshit ass in the grass to do so.
You're a fierce warrior with a keyboard, otherwise you're a coward.
15
Let me guess -- you got a dishonorable discharge. If you didn't, you should have, because you clearly never took your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of
the United States" seriously. Indeed, your words here reveal you to fall in the category of "all enemies, foreign and domestic", along with the Islamists, twoofers, and garden variety anti-American Leftists.
16
And I cannot help but notice, that you are completely lacking in logical argumentation, but instead rely on profanity and insults. Could this be another indication of your threatened masculinity, as previously demonstrated by your website's false advertisement of your sexual adequacy?
In other words, why don't you rebut me on the facts?
17In other words, why don't you rebut me on the facts?
What facts? There are none that you've presented other than taking a lame ass shot at my name.
(Wow! That's never been done before, loser.)
Anyway, here's my point. The bitch should be hammered for her parental
skills, nothing more. She has the right to do whatever she wants to
with the flag and unlike you, I'll defend her right. You simply came
into this conversation and very boldly claimed I didn't.
18
As I pointed out, there is a half-century of Supreme Court precedent upholding her right to do as she did, and to have her son do so. I even tried to provide a link to a much longer discussion of why these charges are bogus.
And let's remind you -- if she and her son are engaged in Constitutionally protected activities, there is no basis for her being "hammered" for her parenting skills -- unless you wish to argue that holding the wrong religious views (and you don't get much more wrong than the Phelps Klan) or engaging in the wrong speech is a basis for losing custody of your children. That would would be an assault upon the First Amendment as well, which is the only way your position can be interpreted.
20
RWR: You couldn't whip the ass of you little sister. You know, the one you've been molesting all her life. Always available for ass kissing. Where, when? Got any money twerp? I like to place a wager on these ass kicking contests with punk assed fairies like you. Just bring it on. Have gun will travel.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2007 12:26 PM (WxzhO)
21
Darth Fag: You are pissed of at the Bohemian club. I can see why, since you are not good enough to get in the front door. You couldn't even get on the prospective list. And you know it. If you dress properly and say yes sir often enough we may allow you in the back door to clean the toilets. But don't expect to much. It's seasonal work. Of course if you are a nappy headed ho. The deals off. Don't need no Al Sharpton types mixing with their betters.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2007 12:35 PM (WxzhO)
22
OK, dick, I'm all for burying the hatchet here. Let's just write it off as over-heated rhetoric. My apologies for my part in it.
And for the record, I have two different teaching jobs -- the main one teaching world history to tenth graders, and my part-time gig teaching American Government on the college level.
25
If you watch all the BBC guy's series of videos on youtube (obviously you have no life either) you will see an incident where someone hurls a filled container at the crowd of protesting morons - it hit the boy in his head. That incident set a precedent and if they still bring the kid to those protesting lovefests then that my friends is reason enough to have her children removed from her care. God help that poor kid.
Posted by: tbone at June 08, 2007 05:18 PM (HGqHt)
26
Actually, someone should make sure the prosecutor Polikov is made aware of that video as it may help strengthen any child endangerment case. I'm gonna see if I can't contact the guy, damn I feel for that poor kid.
Posted by: tbone at June 08, 2007 05:29 PM (HGqHt)
27
RWR: So you're the only bitch in your family. Figured you would punk out.
And go out and get a real job asshole. Hiding in academia because you're not man enough to hack it in the competetive world shows what a sissy you are. Just another brainwashed academic nerd. Nothing more.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 11:49 AM (F6Vin)
OMAHA, Neb. -- A woman was arrested in Bellevue on Tuesday during the funeral for a fallen soldier.
Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested on suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allowing her 8-year-old son to stomp on an American flag.
Phelps-Roper is a member of a Topeka, Kan., church that conducts anti-homosexual picketing at funeral services for U.S. soldiers.
There's video at the link, if you can stomach it.
Yup, it's the Phelps that we've all come to know and hate. Score one for the good guys.
But, I can't help feeling bad for that poor little boy. What a hell it must be for him, so innocent still, to live surrounded by such vile hate, only doing what he knows, trying to make his parents proud.
1
I know what you mean about the boy. Still, it may work out. Good that someone charged his Mom for this abusive upbringing. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 07, 2007 01:22 AM (2OHpj)
2
I don't want a law against someone messing with the American flag.
Let them step on it, burn it what ever...
I want to know who these SOB;s are,
get them out in the open.
Let us see who they are...
Some freedoms are double edge swords,
G
Posted by: gerald at June 07, 2007 01:54 AM (foV9j)
3
Engaging in constitutionally protected speech or allowing your child to do so is now contributing to the delinquency of a minor? I don't particularly like that notion.
Just imagine -- CPS showing up at the door to haul away children whose parents have taken them to protest abortion.
And what about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion -- take your kid to the wrong church, go to jail.
No, this is definitely an unacceptable development -- as much as I despise the Fred Phelps Klan and all they stand for.
4
The interview you provide of this woman via a radio station is very insightful. She is a "classic true believer" in the Eric Hoffer sense. For her, the Bible is in fact words from God. It provides her with instructions and guidance. Do this and that shall happen, don't do this and this shall happen. Real simple.
And when one thinks about this way of living your life, doesn't it seem just like those Jihadists, those Islamofacists who are coming after us?
I think so. So, she is a sister to those who we consider our enemies. Perhaps she should go meet those people...on our front lines. I like this idea.
Yep, let's send her over there, sooner rather than later. Let's put her "truth to their power" right now!
Amen. Amen. Clap my brothers. God has told me to send her there now!
Posted by: RJ at June 07, 2007 08:40 AM (yyxO/)
5
You wonder what kind of crap and lies she is teaching her kid
Posted by: sandpiper at June 07, 2007 10:45 AM (mY5+n)
6
That fucking bitch who protests at funerals because she's glad they died. These soldiers didn't pick the wars they fight. They just served their country and deserve to have their funerals in piece. That bitch deserves to die.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 07, 2007 01:00 PM (TmLg9)
7<i>Engaging in constitutionally protected speech or allowing your child to do so is now contributing to the delinquency of a minor?</i>
Abuse of the flag isn't constitutionally protected; also, the female was charged under state codes in a law that was put into force in 1977. The female now claims that the law is "outdated," but that isn't a defense. I'd also like to point out that the county attorney believes that as "fighting words" they are not protected-- makes sense, since the malice of "fighting words" and the likelihood of causing harm meshes with the classic "yelling fire in a theater."
Posted by: Foxfier at June 07, 2007 02:01 PM (fMX2K)
8
The county attorney is a moron, and clearly incompetent.
SCOTUS upheld flag burning and desecration as constitutionally protected speech years ago. That is why there has been a move to get a flag-protection amendment into the Constitution.
Therefore the 1977 statute is not only outdated but is also unenforceable due to unconstitutionality. Similarly, since flag desecration is constitutionally protected speech, one cannot punish it under the rubric of "fighting words".
9
I can. By kicking the ass of anyone who does it front of me. Have attorney, have bail money, have size 13 shoe and ready and willing to use all of them.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 06:42 PM (aPM6U)
10The county attorney is a moron, and clearly incompetent. Wrong, Rhymes with Right.
The SCOTUS decision is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson It was a 5-4 decision, and from what I recall when I actually read it, the case was actually a very close call.
Two things to remember: 1. Stevens was in the dissent in Johnson. With the current court makeup, I don't know how this decision would shake out on "flag burning = free speech" grounds. But Johnson could very easily be reversed. 2. Even after Johnson, "breach of the peace" remains a viable prosecution to get flag burning punks. That crime does not target the expressive component of the flag burning, and thus this sort of prosecution is still constitutional (breach of the peace was explicitly not at issue in the Johnson case).
As a point of practice, Rhymes with Right, never claim a 5-4 SCOTUS decision is "clearly" one way or the other.
Posted by: wooga at June 07, 2007 06:52 PM (t9sT5)
11
Actually, wooga, the precedent is very clear, if you go back and read the decision and the prior decisions that were used to support it. For that matter, the following year the principle was upheld in US v. Eichman, striking down the federal flag burning statute. I see no court reaching out to overturn this decision, not without overturning a long line of precedents that would destroy roughly a half-century of First Amendment jurisprudence.
And yes, "breach of peace" does remain -- but only if they are desecrating someone else's flag or doing it on someone else's property. Doing it to one's own flag at a time and place where one has a permit for a demonstration could never meet the definition of "breach of peace" except under the most bizarre reading of the relevant precedents. As i point out on my website, Terminello v. Chicago generally mitigates against charging someone with a crime because their political speech provokes opponents, which pretty well undermines any application of the Chaplinsky "fighting words" doctrine in this instance.
Besides, if you really follow the logical path of the reasoning you and the supporters of these charges put forth, all it takes is for the Left to threaten violence to silence conservative speech. Do you really want to establish the precedent that your First Amendment rights are contingent upon there being nobody seriously offended by their exercise?
For more analysis, visit my post on the subject.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/229306.php
12
I am firmly aganist a "heckler's veto," for the very reason you point out. Plus, I agree that the law right now is quite clear that flag burning is expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. Personally, I think this is a good thing, and in line with the text and original intent of the constitution. My favorite justice is Thomas, after all (Scalia 2nd).
However, just because something is protected by the first amendment does not mean it is immune from restriction. Time, place, and manner restrictions are entirely appropriate, because they are "content neutral." As Scalia explained in R.A.V. v. St Paul, even though a law against "racist cross burnings" would be struck down, an "unlawful burning" statute CAN be used to prosecute someone who burns a cross (or flag). The key to passing the speech "balancing tests" is to avoid any superficial semblance of viewpoint discrimination. This was where I was going with my #2 point in post #10.
Second, my #1 point in post #10 was that there are current members of the court (such as Stevens) who would like to reverse Texas, breathe new life into the 'fighting words' doctrine, and classify flag burning as quintessential fighting words. The liberal wing of the court is fond of 'hate crime' laws, and this would be right up their alley. Similarly, a "republican, not conservative" justice (like dead Rehnquist) would join the liberal wing. Right now, I do not know where Alito or Roberts will fall: with Scalia or with Rehnquist? This is an unknown, and is far from clear.
The broad category of "anti-hate speech," "blasphemy," and "desecration" laws are embraced by judges of all political persuasions. I'm positive that Harriet Miers would have loved to join Stevens in upholding such laws. That's one reason the true conservatives objected so strongly to her.
Posted by: wooga at June 07, 2007 11:46 PM (R/8+4)
Life Imitating South Park (Again)
Are Trey Parker and Matt Stone prophets?
Some liberal morons at UNLV set up an exhibit they called the "Tunnel of Oppression" to "educate" students with a "multimedia experience" on "their roles" in the oppression of people they've never met and whatever other leftwingnut moonbat macacca they believe.
The kicker? South Park, in a 2002 episode entitled "The Death Camp of Tolerance," parodied liberal hypertolerance (which South Park correctly portrays as intolerance) by making the boys attend a "Museum of Tolerance" after they expressed dismay at Mr. Garrison's increasingly perverted in-school homosexual behavior with Mr. Slave.
The boys were made by the museum guide to go through a "Tunnel of Prejudice," in which racial and ethnic slurs were screamed at the boys in the darkness to make them "feel what it is like to be discriminated against." You can watch the full episode here.
You can't make this stuff up this stuff (as they say), but Trey and Matt have not only found a way to write it, they've found a way to predict with virtual certainty that it will actually happen. Unless the moronic UNLV High Priests of 'Tolerance' were doing a direct take-off of the episode, I think this cements my longstanding belief that Trey and Matt are the two leading anti-PC prophets of pop culture.
The museum tour rocks, love the part about the help being found asleep in the museum and everyone thought it a display.
Yeah South Park is full of potty humor but cut through the potty humor and the satire is great. However, some episodes are just potty humor and nothing else.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at June 04, 2007 12:32 AM (Aj6tl)
10
The best was Al Gore and Manbearpig, I'm super cereal. Excelsior!
Posted by: Troofer Hawat at June 04, 2007 12:11 PM (HGqHt)
11
I don't think it's so much prophetic wisdom, but having seen these things on college campuses for years. They intentionally set up in the main thuroughfares on a campus to try to get the most people going through at once. Earliest I've seen was in the leadup to the initial invasion of Iraq, but it was well-prepared and coordinated enough that it was obvious they'd been doing it for a while.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at June 04, 2007 01:23 PM (Ui835)
12
>>> WARNING: I clicked watch the full episode link and I got false dialog boxes popping up saying I had visited adult sites which is NOT true.
No such pop-ups here...you're not still using Internet Exploder, are you?
Posted by: salfter at June 04, 2007 04:34 PM (+Epz5)
A gay gang that allegedly raped victims lured on the Internet, drugged them and infected them with the AIDS virus has shocked the Netherlands and raised questions over its liberal sex culture.
Health Minister Ab Klink on Thursday called the case "horrible", as the press splashed the news across its front pages.
The matter came to light Wednesday, when police said they had arrested three seropositive homosexual men two weeks ago after four victims, men aged 25 to 50, accused them of rape and premeditated bodily harm.
If convicted, they face as much as 16 years. Wow, the Dutch are really tough.
2
The Dutch are kinda off in the head, perhaps. Last night, Glenn Beck did a segment on some sick new Dutch reality tv show that features a dying woman picking amongst several contestants who will get her kidney when she goes.
Posted by: NorthernCross at May 31, 2007 02:23 PM (7MbG3)
1
It is unfortunate that the statute of limitations on democrat comments to the public is only 3 days. Anything older than 3 days can not be looked upon as flip flopping or double speak.
Posted by: Rome at May 24, 2007 12:45 AM (/GrlO)
2
Al gore still a bare faced liar and big time ego with that big block of wood on his head namly that block of wood on his neck this gore would give chicken little a run for his money
Posted by: sandpiper at May 24, 2007 10:41 AM (uPdgJ)
3
The dems are a bunch of puppets being controlled by a very evil, dark shadowy person/persons. The lust for power keeps them on the stage. A recent interesting development in Iran has happened as one of George Soro's Open Society Institue thugs has been arrested, charges unknown. Why in the h*ll was he in Iran? I believe it is a smoke screen as someone must of found out about him being there and is an attempt to cover it up. Soro's is quite a puppet master. He learned from the best...namely Hitler. Imagine a Jew getting excited about turning in Jews. He was only in his teens I believe when he took part in this atrocity. Sorry about the ramble as my head is full of thoughts that I need to say.
Posted by: allahakchew at May 24, 2007 11:30 AM (BrndJ)
Middle Eastern Muslim Leaders Deplore "Terrorism"
Unfortunately, they don't define "the worst form of terrorism" as hijacking planes and using them to murder innocents. They define "the worst form of terrorism" as...Islamophobia.
Speaking at a special brainstorming session on the sidelines of the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia the worst form of terrorism and called for practical steps to counter it.
I can suggest a practical step: stop excusing real terrorists, you vile hog anuses.
These idiots actually had the gall to lament the murder of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim lunatic because it, "... was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims." Some frenzy; the only Muslims who have had their heads chopped off have had it done by fellow Muslims.
1
More "moderate" Muslims condemning terrorism again, right? Yawn...
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at May 17, 2007 05:31 PM (ou0cx)
2
Islamophobia only exists because of the muslim/islamic tendency for going BOOM...
Posted by: Don at May 17, 2007 08:03 PM (8xPMC)
3
HEY HEY, CALM DOWN A BIT! Of course you're right to be frustrated by these people, but you have to be patient and persistent.
ME hate politics is not just a new thing, it predated Islam. Middle Eastern hate politics go back at least as far as Hammurabi, ca 1700 B.C. Middle Eastern rulers have seldom died in their beds.
In other words, calm down, and hang in there, be persistent. It could well be that the wars against Middle Eastern hate will go on for a century.
We can be sure that they will be patient and persistent. They make carpets.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at May 17, 2007 11:42 PM (L/SIz)
4
Huh? Where's the multitude of Islamophobes strapping bombs to their bodies and killing Muslims? Words hurt more than bombs? Please... pull this fucking leg and it plays jingle bells. These idiots have got to be kidding. What a bunch of whiney, little pussies.
Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 18, 2007 11:00 AM (9ZqGe)
Afraid that they may not control the narrative or that there might not be enough pro-Democrat media support blasting across prime time. Of course, the GOP doesn't hide from obviously partisan networks or former Tip O'Neill (D) staffers / Carter speechwriters like Matthews and anti-Bush hatchetmen like Olbyloon.
I have never seen such a craven bunch of sniveling, spoiled little pansies in my entire life.
If they can't handle FOX, how will they handle al-Qaeda? They won't. They're cowards and pathetic miscreants.
29%. Keep it up, leftards.
UPDATE: A 29%er stops by in the comments to bloviate!
1 Yes, cowards unable and unwilling to actually debate. They are the "intellectuals".
And not to mention it's a tacit admission that all others besides Fox are slanted left. Yet the "intellectuals" will continue to deny it in the face of all facts and logic.
3
And if the Republicans can't handle friggin Comedy Central how can they handle Osama? Oh right, they can't. Osama was fine and well last time I checked. Why the fuck do you think Bush has a 29% approval rating?
And they've done nothing to catch Bin Laden. Nothing.
Nice try, though. Idiot.
Posted by: Good Lt at May 16, 2007 10:00 PM (yMbfY)
5
By the way, most of us don't go to Comedy Central for our political news.
Good to know where you get your news, though. Can't say I'm surprised.
Posted by: Good Lt at May 16, 2007 10:07 PM (yMbfY)
6
Do you mean The Daily Show is all a joke? I suppose The Onion is a farce too then.
Posted by: SeeMonk at May 16, 2007 10:28 PM (yKwZ2)
7
Wait a sec...next your going to be telling me that MTVs election coverage wasn't the dopest place to get the 911 on politics. Vote or die Dave...dude....man.
Posted by: Randman at May 16, 2007 10:58 PM (Sal3J)
10Results 1 - 10 of about 1,070 from dailykos.com for "war on terra" Results 1 - 10 of about 12,600 from democraticunderground.com for terra
Ah, Liberals only think the "terrarist" Bin Laden is a big deal when it suits them -- when they're back in their moonbat caves like above, the terrorists are just the bogeymen invented by 'rethuglicans' or "spin" "to take away our rights!111!!1
Posted by: davec at May 17, 2007 12:33 AM (63hdl)
11
Well, you morons kind of proved my point. Dems don't go on Fox News, Repubs don't go on Comedy Central.
Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2007 12:43 AM (5zxY/)
12
My apologies to all. Bush is way up to 34% My blunder. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
He's a fucking hero.
Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2007 01:02 AM (5zxY/)
13Well, ACTUALLY Dave...Republicans DO go on Comedy Central. Here is an abbreviated list of the Republicans who have been on either Stewart or Colbert:
John McCain
Trent Lott
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Pat Buchanan
Ken Mehlman
John Bolton
Ed Gillespie
Marc Racicot
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Bob Dole
Ari Fleischer
Christine Todd Whitman
John Ashcroft
Lynn Swann
Michael Steele
That is a cherry-picked PARTIAL list. Lesson? Republicans have a sense of humor and have no problem facing questions from liberals.
15
Ah, Liberals only think the "terrarist" Bin Laden is a big deal when it
suits them -- when they're back in their moonbat caves like above, the
terrorists are just the bogeymen invented by 'rethuglicans' or "spin" "to take away our rights!111!!1
A very good point. These are the same libruls that want higher gasoline taxes in order to force us into mass transit, and then whine about higher gas prices because of the "oil companies". They got both sides covered.
16
there is really no difference between the democratic party and islam.
the reason is they want to keep murdering babys by keeping roe v wade, one of the methods of murdering the unborn baby being amputation without using anesthesia. and the kingdom of saudi arabia produces the religion that amputates without antethesis besides beheadings etc.
i read on A New Dark Age Is Dawning website earlier this week that the saudi's have beheaded more than 70 people since January 1 2007.
and also the democratic party wants to control the news media just like islam's recently proclaiming that islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism.
Posted by: stephanie at May 17, 2007 10:03 AM (78G1j)
the Republicans aren't afraid of the main stream medium - like remember how they answered questions from chris matthews that shill for the democratic partry. and idiot dave your writing at 957pm on May 16 2007 also forgot how mike wallace in interviewing the president of iran asked real soft questions as about his clothing rather than face down iran's idiot president over the nuclear weapons he is developing.
Posted by: stephanie at May 17, 2007 11:22 AM (78G1j)
3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it's actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran's taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)
But he's not a Truther, oh no, and he's definitely not a conspiracy nutter or John Bircher crank. Nor is he some kind of Dogmatically Dopey Barroom Ideologue.
No, he's a Serious American Candidate with all sorts of Important Principles about Limited Constitutional Government and the Gold Standard and Suchlike Things.
Whatever. If I wanted a fruitcake candidate, I'd've supported Alan Freakin' Keyes in 2000 (or 1996, or 2002, or 2004, or any of the six thousand other times he's run haplessly for public office).
1
What an asshole. He says Iran has never done anything to us. I guess he doesn't give a fuck about their huge support of terrorism or the Kobar Towers bombing.
Posted by: Randman at May 10, 2007 11:15 AM (Sal3J)
2
Ron Paul wasn't even on my radar till this week, so its all news to me. Since I am getting new information, it doesn't surprise me that his followers would stack a poll, and make leftist style threats. I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 10, 2007 11:20 AM (2OHpj)
3
This ain't the same Ron Paul that we elected. He's been drinking the wrong flavor of Kool-Aid.
Posted by: John Galt at May 10, 2007 11:27 AM (A5mvC)
Posted by: pivalleygirl at May 10, 2007 11:33 AM (x/ji8)
5
Ron Paul may be a freak, but Alan Keyes is a far better man than you will ever be, Good Lt.
Posted by: Max at May 10, 2007 11:34 AM (FyqpZ)
6
Max, Ace made the comment about Alan Keyes, not Good Lt. It was part of the block he was quoting from Ace's site.
Posted by: Harpazo at May 10, 2007 11:50 AM (5owg9)
7
I grew up in Blanco Texas, In Paul's district.
My rancher neighbors and I love him.
Posted by: CountryDude at May 10, 2007 12:47 PM (+fakY)
8
Being a Texan and a little l libertarian I use to like aspects of Paul but after seeing that loony video...forget it. And his constitutional arguments are rather juvenile and ignorant.
Posted by: Randman at May 10, 2007 02:28 PM (Sal3J)
9
These guys are worse than fundies predicting the Apocolypse. I have been seeing predictions of an "Iranian Incident" since how long now?
Funny thing, is this give Iran license to create incidents.
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.
How radical? Watson thinks that the parasitical human population should be reduced to less than a billion, and those chosen to survive should inhabit colonies of twenty thousand or less, with uninterrupted wild areas separating them. They will all be vegans or vegetarians, of course, and reproduction will be limited to those who are responsible enough, in Watson's judgement, to handle parenthood.
more...
Posted by: towerclimber37 at May 07, 2007 12:46 AM (YWADR)
2
We had a UT Texas professor making the same argument a couple of years ago. Not really surprising as it is just the logical outcome of liberalism which sees only bad things in the world and themselves.
Posted by: Randman at May 07, 2007 07:43 AM (Sal3J)
3
My college roommarte from California said his family had a rule about flushing the toilet in order to conserve water.
If its yellow, then its mellow, if its brown, flush it down.
The problem with environmentalists is that its impossible to tell if they are joking or not (see Cheryl Crow).
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 07, 2007 09:51 AM (oC8nQ)
4
Paul Watson is real radical extremist i mean back a few years ago this nut was blabbering I GET THE IDEA THAT INSTEAD OF GOING OUT AND SHOOTING BIRDS I WOULD GO OUT AND SHOOT THE KIDS THAT SHOOT BIRDS frankly this jerk is a fanatic and so are all those who belong to the SEA SHAPARDS CONSERVATION SOIETY and well PAUL WATSON IS DEADLY EVIL VURUS. THE ANDROMADA STRAIN
Posted by: sandpiper at May 07, 2007 10:09 AM (aoHRB)
Westboro BC: VT Shootings Punishment for Hating Us
God hates VT and America for hating the Westboro Baptist Church? This is as vile and hateful as it can get in America. The throwing-things-at-the-screen factor is high in this video, so you've been warned:
1
That's the crazy group that says God hates "fags" (Their quote, not mine) so he has U.S soldiers killed. They protest at their funerals. A very sick group. Fred and his daughter Shirley run the group.
Posted by: George Ramos at May 04, 2007 04:16 PM (TmLg9)
I'm sorry, I love this blog and many others in which I find stories about these guys. However, this is exactly the kind of attention they are seeking with these kinds of statements or proclamations.
It is without a doubt an interesting study in psychology that these people exist but let's not give them what they want.
I hope the media (of all kinds) will soon start ignoring these nuts. It may not make them go away but it will certianly deny them the attention that they so desperately crave.
Posted by: Texag03 at May 04, 2007 04:26 PM (LHH4s)
3
The novelty of these clowns has long worn off. So why are we still giving them the attention they obviously crave so much?
4
There is nothing Christian about them. They use the term "Christian" like hardcore Marxists hide behind the word "progressive" These guys have turned HATE into thier religion, and now that is what they preach! I find myself wishing there was some way to send them to Talebanistan, where they would be warmly recieved, I'm sure.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 04, 2007 04:30 PM (2OHpj)
5
Those tards need a good old fashioned asswhuppin. God wants them to have it.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 04, 2007 08:40 PM (K/lgF)
11
If the AF wants a place to test MOABs, I have a suggestion......
Posted by: SDN at May 04, 2007 09:32 PM (rtOk5)
12
Is it wrong of me to wish that the 12y/o taliban head chopper would practice his new found skills on this asshole... No it really isnt wrong is it, its just wishful thinking.
Posted by: Viper1 at May 06, 2007 07:06 AM (EMEEf)
Update: RIU Student Senate B*tchslapped By RealityLearn it well, young leftists. We in America do not take kindly to the shredding of the First Amendment.
Better luck next time. I'm sure it won't be long.
Funny how it all changed when the ACLU joined the condemnations. Kudos go out to the FIRE and the RIU College Republicans for hanging in there and taking an unmovable stand for the US Constitution.
Here are some pics from the "offending" White Heterosexual Males Scholarship event.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 26, 2007 11:34 AM (yMbfY)
3
The ACLU has to pretend to be neutral every now and then, but anyone with a brain knows they're nothing but lowlife communist scum who should all be burned alive.
Posted by: Improbulus Maixmus at April 27, 2007 06:59 AM (jQsc/)
4
If you read thier letter to the Student Senate, you can see how they are actually trying to dodge the debate entirely. They are framing this as a threat to the greater agenda. Really, go read it. Save the PDF. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 27, 2007 04:19 PM (2OHpj)
It's funny, I have a few Greek friends and they dislike Mo-slime terrorist scum as much as I do.
As one of them correctly pointed out to me:
we may have been on opposing sides 25 centuries ago, but we sure as
heck are on the same side now and God willing will be for centuries to
come :-)
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at April 21, 2007 08:58 AM (EdIIN)
3
Strange. I have some Greek friends and they hate the muslims. They consider Iran to be muslim.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 09:31 AM (oChhC)
If Republicans are responsible for VT, then Democrats are responsible for every inner-city gun death in the nation.
I mean, since virtually every inner city in the United States is governed (into the ground) by the Democrat party, the responsibility for the high murder and crime rates (among other failures) are exclusively theirs.
Right? Boy - being a lefty is easy. No brain required.
1
These are the brilliant, "nuanced" liberals they keep telling us about. LOL. No matter that it was Liberal obsession with "privacy" and "rights" and "gun free zones" that allowed a clearly unhinged homicidal maniac to walk around free and unnopposed when he should have been institutionalized years ago. Mustn't "discriminate" against the clearly insane! Thank you, ACLU!
2
Anybody else feel like the only reason all of the liberal's in Congress are even there, is because they failed the intelligence test to work at Walmart ??????
Posted by: memphis761 at April 20, 2007 11:37 AM (YHZAl)
3
When a Leftard makes a moral comparison between the massacre at VT and Imus, that's "nuance", see? This is what makes the Leftard so brilliant. Only a "black or white" knuckle-dragging conservative would try to make any distinction. These are the depths to which the mental disorder that is Liberalism is taking this country.
4
Meanwhile more clowns are calling for impeachment in (drums roll)... non binding resolution. Suprise suprise...
Feel free to express your thoughts to the demagoues. As always please be civil but specific
From the look at lefty websites these politicians are like grass in the wind. Whoever writes them more, will get their "favor"
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 20, 2007 02:29 PM (gtZwa)
5
I want to watch this...I really do...But I can't bring myself to.I'd rather watch the beheading by a child because at least THATS WHAT THEY DO...This traitorous scum pisses me off to the point of apoplexy....
Posted by: Blitz at April 20, 2007 04:27 PM (cl1Cf)
6
Biden and Jomama pictured together. If they could only had added Hilarious Hillary and Tawana Brawley Sharpton.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 20, 2007 08:22 PM (E6u6Q)
