October 20, 2009
Justice Department: African-Americans in NC Town Aren't Smart Enough to Vote Without Help
Enjoy the post-racial present, where a African-American Attorney General reporting to a mixed-race President can tell a majority-black community that they are
too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
This is a highly insulting and abusive overreach of power from the Holder DoJ, and an arrogant one as well. In no uncertain terms, Holder's DOJ is insisting that their poor dumb country cousins can't figure out how to vote "right" without the visual cue of a party affiliation to guide them.
Presumably, the inherent racism in the DOJ position assuming that African-Americans must vote Democrat to be voting in their own self interest goes utterly unnoticed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Amazing. DOJ is saying that these voters are so dumb that they want to vote for the Democratic black candidate but can't unless a (D) is beside the candidate's name?
1. Isn't that racist, or something?
2. Why is DOJ getting involved
specifically to assit voters elect Democrats?
Amazing.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 20, 2009 03:17 PM (FJRFk)
2
Shouldn't the voter be the one who determines who his "candidate of choice" is?
Posted by: Tim at October 20, 2009 04:15 PM (3Wewy)
3
Dumb is as Dumb does.
How big of an X do I make for a signature?
What if I want to vote for a mixed-race, Obama, candidate?
Where is ACORN when you need one?
Posted by: Oscar Pearson at October 20, 2009 04:25 PM (yKc6m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Surprises Here: WaPo/ABC Skews Poll for Public Option
Mercy me:
The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it's significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that's when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.
Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
Given that skew, it's hardly surprising that they find a 57% approval rating for Obama, up three points since last month, almost the entirety of the gap increase since the last poll. His 48% tie on health care should be a significant disapproval instead, and the 45%/51% slide on the deficit has probably expanded at the same rate as the deficit in a survey with a realistic sample.
The purposeful skewing of the polling data is an old political trick, and one increasingly popular among the media, especially when they are more interesting in influencing the news than reporting it. That Dan Balz and Jon Cohen of the Washington Post would use such obviously flawed data suggests they are more interested in advocacy than journalism.
The public does not support government-run health care.
Americans shocked politicians this summer with their opposition to another government takeover, and the they they were none too subtle about it as they showed up at townhall meetings, rallies, and marches.
No amount of media deception can change the fact that Americans are rejecting Obamacare, the media promoting it, and the politicians that an increasing number of Americans feel were put into office not by the American people, but by the media and special interests.
The media and their allied progressive politicians are increasing playing to an audience of themselves.
No wonder Fox News is causing the White House to scream in anger.
Along with a handful of newspapers and new media, they're the only "honest" news left.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The House plan and the one Senate plan have a Government Option, and the Democrats call it the Public Option, because polling has shown that wording polls more favorable then the term Government Option. The Senate Finance Committee has a Public Option that is not the Government Option, as it is structured to be a non-profit co-op. I wonder what the poll results would be if the public would be truthfully informed?
Posted by: Rick at October 20, 2009 03:42 PM (79jCL)
2
Fox News is the only reliable new source?
What has the world come to?
Posted by: MAModerate at October 20, 2009 04:58 PM (Rn8uU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bloody Chicago
This morning, with the image of a honor student Derrion Albert being
beaten to death by a Chicago mob still fresh in out minds, we discover that Chicago's police have
all but stopped hiring new officers to fill almost 600 vacant positions:
To save $10 million, Daley's 2009 budget slowed police hiring to a crawl -- with only 200 officers expected to be hired all year.
But, as city revenues plummeted, City Hall opted not to maintain even that snail's pace. Only one class of 46 officers entered the police academy this year.
As of Oct. 9, the Chicago Police Department was 591 officers short of its authorized strength of 13,500 -- and that's not counting hundreds of other officers on duty- and non-duty disability.
As citizens are barred from defending themselves by restrictive gun control, expect the decline in the number of officers to be taken advantage of by criminals.
Things will get worse in Chicago before they get better, and the citizens will have no one to blame but themselves for becoming willing victims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:34 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
..But the economy is so bad in Chitown, even the gangs have cut back on recruiting.
Posted by: Dave D. at October 20, 2009 09:49 AM (0IT+R)
2
Daley's Chicago? Pretty much SS/DD. That's the way it has ALWAYS been. That's the way it will ALWAYS be. Even the Taj Mahal has a toilet; Chicago happens to be ours.
I suspect the International Olympic Committee just breathed a huge sigh of relief!
Posted by: Dell at October 20, 2009 10:39 AM (PQZii)
3
This seems to be typical of most Democratic administrations. The first budgets to be cut are always Police, Fire and Hospitals to put the pressure on the people to accept tax increases. You'll never see them cut appointed positions. Those are worth political power.
Posted by: PeterT at October 20, 2009 11:21 AM (4I9p+)
4
Reports such as this, coming as they do on the heels of Dear Leader's failed attempt at getting Chicago selected for the Olympics, begs the question: Was Obama's personal effort a last ditch "all in" gamble to try and save Chicago from going bankrupt? My guess is that it was...and it failed miserably. Chicago wasn't even seriously considered. Out on the first ballot.
After all, a city that's so broke they can't even hire police officers isn't in any position to spend billions constructing the various venues for Olympic competition!
Californicate and Illinois are right on the verge of declaring statewide bankruptcy and Dear Leader is telling y'all that the "crisis is over".
The financial crisis, dear friends, is just beginning.
Posted by: Dell at October 20, 2009 11:22 AM (PQZii)
5
Well I am tired of paying all taxes. and high taxes to support a bloated police department falls within that range. Pensions so good socialists dream of them. That is the modern police force, and trying to get disability for hypertension due to eating too many donuts. Get rid of police pensions, give them a 401-k like the rest of us, and i will change my opinion. But right now, about 50% of the officers I meet are useless.
Posted by: dukester at October 20, 2009 03:57 PM (FyWoT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 19, 2009
An Armed Society...
The FBI says the number of police officers slain in the line of duty fell sharply last year.
Bureau statistics list 41 law enforcement officers killed in 2008. The list includes one FBI agent, Sam Hicks, who was shot and killed during a drug raid outside Pittsburgh.
Felony killings of police officers haven't been that low since 1999, although police officer support groups — which use different standards to count officer killings — say the number of officers killed hasn't been this low since the 1960s.
It doesn't fit any of the preferred narratives, so don't count on seeing this reported in too many places.
This is especially true considering it occurred during a year where concealed carry permit applications skyrocketed nationwide, along with the sale of ammunition, handguns, and so-called assault rifles.
Gun sales went up, and the killing of law enforcement officers went down. Just another inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:18 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What is the number of officers killed? I used to think that they were in a risky occupation. Then found out that in respect to risk they were at the bottom. They certainly make a big deal about the risk to justify the cruelty they dish out to suspects. The reason for my ire is that I had a 72 year old patient that was roughed up after being stopped for drunk driving. The only problem was that he had not been drinking and his odd behavior was secondary to an insulin reaction. The officer was never subjected to any abuse by this man yet he refused to even remove his handcuffs so that paramedics could start a life saving IV. I feel that the police have developed a very bad attitude that is being fueled by so called "reality shows". They need to get back to earth and start treating people in a reasonable manner. Many of my conservative friends are to the point that they feel it would be wise to remove their weapons.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 03:50 PM (Lh/sO)
2
Remove guns from the cops? Are you (and your "conservative friends") completely bonkers? Wow.
Posted by: DavidB at October 19, 2009 04:41 PM (/t8cv)
3
Statistically, cops have a less dangerous job than garbagemen, farmers, roofers, loggers, fishermen and construction workers. That's right, your garbageman is more likely to get killed on the job than a cop.
Cops are just a particularly annoying form of public employee. They routinely abuse disability pensions and their unions manipulate local politics to be sure to have sympathetic elected officials.
Cop unions are the first to use scare tactics when it's time to cut public budgets. Meanwhile, cops in California retire after 20 years with 90%+ pensions.
Posted by: fred suggs at October 19, 2009 05:45 PM (ofze/)
4
Re: '...so-called assault rifles.' Did you mean 'so-called assault weapons'? 'Assault rifle' is a descriptive term; 'assault weapon' is a legal term.
Posted by: RNB at October 19, 2009 05:54 PM (WkjqG)
5
DavidB
That's right. Either remove or significantly reduce the firepower that cops have. I used to live in New Orleans. The cops were so bad there that you actually preferred to confront a bad guy to a cop. I know from personel experience as I was almost rolled by two muggers. They were nice once they knew I would hurt them. On the other had I accidently had some paper caught by the wind and fly over a cop car. I thought the guy was going to kill me.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 05:55 PM (Lh/sO)
6
Of course this would not be widely reported in the media. Most journos are so ignorant about guns they think Double Action Only is something offered by an escort service in DC.
Posted by: zhombre at October 19, 2009 06:22 PM (kLU+g)
7
Most of you, I think your Momma still must support you. If you don't see where we going in the near future, you will be dead. Our course and current path is not hope and change. It is death and suffering. I hope you survive, We will.
Posted by: Marc at October 20, 2009 12:33 AM (Zoziv)
8
All you gun huggers should move to Baghdad.
Posted by: Alex at October 20, 2009 09:32 AM (cQhQZ)
9
Or Switzerland. Everyone is in the military there, and keeps their assault rifles at home. It is a very safe place...
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 20, 2009 09:48 AM (d1ae8)
10
All you gun huggers should move to Baghdad.
Posted by Alex at October 20, 2009 09:32 AM
But we won't. We will stay here in our country defending our families, our country, and ourselves.
And all you can do about it is post witless and impotent comments. Shame about that.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 20, 2009 12:08 PM (O8ebz)
11
Been to Baghdad. Been to Kabul.
Armed.
I don't go to Chicago or NYC.
My Concealed Carry Permit is not Honored.
Anywhere my Rights are not honored is a place I shouldn't be.
Next silly question?
Posted by: Old Trooper at October 20, 2009 03:56 PM (oNzU6)
12
Been to Baghdad. Been to Kabul.
Armed.
I don't go to Chicago or NYC.
My Concealed Carry Permit is not Honored.
Anywhere my Rights are not honored is a place I shouldn't be.
Next silly question?
Posted by Old Trooper at October 20, 2009 03:56 PM
Well said sir, and thank you for going to those places so I could sit on my ass in a classroom.
The Departed:
Oliver Queenan: We have a question: Do you want to be a cop, or do you want to appear to be a cop? It's an honest question. A lot of guys just want to appear to be cops. Gun, badge, pretend they're on TV.
Dignam: Yeah, a lot of people just wanna slam a nigger's head through a plate-glass window.
Not so much the racial thing, but the fact that a lot of people join to get the pepper spray, the taser, the baton and the gun. To drive fast, to confiscate property which they then keep, to have people bow and scrape. Then you have people who really do want to hurt people with the protection of the blue wall.
It is a problem, and you don't have a whining ACLU member or a hippie to think so.
The ideal:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
Can we get back to that?
Posted by: Britt at October 21, 2009 02:22 PM (DcWbe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Yes, We Cannabis
You'll be
hearing that quip a lot:
Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:56 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One of the only intelligent things this administration has done, in my opinion. The only time pot is hurting anybody is if it is being transported via Mexico, because they actually will kill over some weed. Elsewhere, it's grown by unkempt white kids in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. They're not exactly a threat to Western civilization.
It's like with traffic stops. The only reason the gov't pursues marijuana like it does is that it is a bulky product with a distinctive odor, even before smoked. Easy conviction. Sending some of those wide-eyed longhairs to prison with meth producers and street-sale crack dealers, drugs that actually do some harm, is almost sadistic.
Posted by: GS at October 19, 2009 10:15 AM (w8ZVR)
2
So the Feds will selectively enforce Federal law based upon adherence to specific State law?
Could this be useful in States that pass firearms laws intended to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment?
Selective enforcement being well, selective.
Posted by: ThomasD at October 19, 2009 11:15 AM (21H5U)
3
>>"prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time "
Great, this means they'll be spending their time cracking down on illegal immigration.
No? Then what WILL they spend their time doing? Prosecuting conservatives for "hate speech"?
Posted by: Steve at October 19, 2009 11:25 AM (1WsIY)
4
Now if they would only understand that the money being spent on all the other drugs is going to organized crime and terrorist and allow people to buy whatever they desired at the drug store without a prescription, then we will have a measure of returned freedom. Imagine the impact it would have on doctor's offices and ER's if you could go to Walgreens and simply buy what you needed. Some countries allow this without significant consequence.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 03:54 PM (Lh/sO)
5
Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? While threatening to tax those that aren't in reasonably good physical shape and taxing certain food items it doesn't approve of the government is now starting to trend towards allowing it's citizens to use a substance known to cause the munchies. Taxing food and encouraging the smoking of pot, that just might just provide enough tax revenues to take care of the deficit!
Posted by: Boss429 at October 19, 2009 07:56 PM (JtAl5)
6
Next up: Dorito Flavored Ice Cream!
Posted by: MunDane at October 19, 2009 08:47 PM (dlS06)
7
How do they know if people are using or providing pot within the strict confines of the law if they lay off and do no investigation?They're not saying that, though what they actually do remains to be seen. The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.
I agree with very little that comes out of this Administration, but I think they got this one right.
Posted by: Pablo at October 20, 2009 01:43 AM (yTndK)
8
I was going to write my own comment but this, which appeared at NRO's The Corner, covers most of what I would say:
Medical Marijuana and the States [Wesley J. Smith]
It is subversive of the rule of law for a president to refuse to enforce the law, and particularly to announce that unenforcement will be administration policy.
The correct answer to the medical-marijuana issue is for Congress to take it out of Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act (no legitimate medical use) and put it into a different schedule, which would allow the FDA to approve cannabis for prescribing, as is done with stronger drugs such as morphine and cocaine.
Once presidents get to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, we have ceased to be a nation of laws. I made that point in more detail in this San Francisco Chronicle column from a few years ago.
10/19 09:46 PMShare
PS:
I look forward to Obama applying this judicious application of US law to the ATF and firearms.
Posted by: Davod at October 20, 2009 05:14 AM (GUZAT)
9
will somebody please explain how a drug can be approved for medical use when it has never gone through FDA testing? And no it is not harmless.
Posted by: Max at October 21, 2009 10:59 AM (OiGcF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A White House Comfortable with Genocide?
You cannot expect to hold a person responsible all the actions and/or beliefs of their associates, but it is certainly fair to wonder about their judgment if the actions or beliefs are both particularly heinous and part of their core character.
That was part of the reason so many people were concerned about President Barack Obama's long-running association with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, a relationship that may have extended as far back as the 1980s, when Dohrn, Ayers, and Obama were part of the same community in Manhattan (Obama was a student at Columbia and beginning to explore political activism at the time Ayer's was at Bank Street College of Education. Bernadine Dohrn? She was sent to prison for a short time for refusing to cooperate with authorities and tell them what she knew about the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery across the Hudson River in Rockland County that left two police officers and a security guard dead).
Ayers and Obama are better known for their collaboration on multiple projects in Chicago, including the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama's first an only executive experience prior to winning the White House (and a verified failure), and for Ayers and Dohrn hosting Obama's very first political fundraiser in their home.
Through all of their relationship, Ayers and Dohrn were minor celebrities for their terrorism within the welcoming confines of Hyde Park's liberal elite. Obama knew Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of a terrorist group. He knew they had literally declared war against the United States. And he more than likely knew that Ayers, Dohrn, and the other terrorist leaders of the Weather Underground had dreams that included the imposition of communism on the United States, and the genocide of 25 million Americans in concentration camps.
It turns out Ayers and Dohrn aren't the only associates of Barack Obama comfortable with genocide. We can also include one of his closest four advisers, Anita Dunn. Victor David Hanson is among those outraged over Dunn's admiration of the greatest ">mass killer in human history:
I am not a big fan of saying that officials should resign for stupid remarks. But interim White House communications director Anita Dunn's praise of Mao Zedong as a "political philosopher" is so unhinged and morally repugnant, that she should hang it up, pronto.
Mao killed anywhere from 50 million to 70 million innocents in the initial cleansing of Nationalists, the scouring of the countryside, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Tibet, and the internal Chinese gulag. Dunn's praise of a genocidal monster was no inadvertent slip: She was reading from a written text and went into great detail to give the full context of the remark. Moreover, her comments were not some student outburst from 30 years ago; they were delivered on June 5, 2009. Her praise of Mao's insight and courage in defeating the Nationalists was offered long after the full extent of Mao's mass-murdering had been well documented. Mao killed more people than any other single mass killer in the history of civilization.
Once again, someone close to the President is found to be an admirer of political genocide. In that context, perhaps the Oath Keepers aren't so radical after all... at least as it comes to being willing to resist unlawful orders.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Just curious, are the ones that have the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in the same crowd as those who wear Che t-shirts and praise Mao as their favorite political philosophers?
Did the "Free Tibet" people vote the Dunn people into office?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 19, 2009 10:09 AM (FJRFk)
2
Learn more about Anita Dunn here at CommieBlaster.com
Obama communist facts organized all in one location: New Party, Ayers, Dunn, Jennings, Jones, Sunstein, Jarrett, Lloyd, Wright, School Indoctrinations, Soros, Cop-Killers, Cuban Spy Rings, Commie Media, Misinformation, Congress Investigation, plus details on Socialist/Communist Members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and over 80 others. Listen to Soviet Spy defector explain how communist takeovers are performed and Reagan's guidance on dealing with Communists. Learn what a Socialist, Communist, Progressive is. Examine ACORN, SEIU's and Union Communist leaders. See FBI files and testimonies. Catch up on Takeover News and study a Communist Takeover Plan from the 1960's, along with how to resist. Videos, links, pdfs.
Commies can run, but they can't hide!:
Posted by: Commie Blaster at October 19, 2009 04:08 PM (5tZ8N)
3
Just a bunch of people that lived in Obama's neighborhood, right? No reason to believe they had any effect on his philosophy, or that his philosophy mirrored theirs, right? We'd never elect a radical communist, socialist, terrorist, whatever, to the office of The President Of The United States, right ... dammit! :\
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:31 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 18, 2009
Applying Rights Equally
A letter to the editor in the Arizona
Daily Sun asks an
interesting question:
If I understand it correctly, a lot of folks are saying health care is a right for all and we all should help pay for it. I'm wondering: Since owning a gun is a right, do you think everyone can chip in and get me a new rifle?
That sounds like a better use of tax dollars than most.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:56 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well Announcing something doesn't make it so.
Air, water, and food are more immediately necessary to life itself than health care, and none of them are even mentioned in the Constitution, much less guaranteed as a Right. If you think health care is a right, then you think we are a nation divided into a Dependent class, and a Provider class that does all the work. Which are you? And what happens when all the Providers decide it's their turn to be dependent?
Posted by: Bill Smith at October 18, 2009 11:23 PM (G0jgH)
2
National health care is a "right" if you're a communist/socialist country, for sure! And that, boys and girls, is exactly where the fraud in the White House is taking this country, right down the socialist road.
I'll take a .270 Winchester, please.
Posted by: Dell at October 18, 2009 11:38 PM (PQZii)
3
If it counts for shotguns, I'd like a new 20 gauge Beretta O/U for upland bird please.
That and a freezer box full of Omaha Beef, since food is a right too.
Of course, both suppliers would get paid 75% of what they would bill. That is only fair, since they are providing products that I have a right to own...
Posted by: iconoclast at October 19, 2009 04:46 AM (O8ebz)
4
If it takes two or more people for you to have a right then you don't have a right.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 19, 2009 08:52 AM (Vo1wX)
5
If healthcare is a
right then why does Congress want to fine/tax you for not exercising that right? Will they fine/tax you for not voting? For not exercising free speech?
The healthcare is a right argument is a farce.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 19, 2009 09:23 AM (FJRFk)
6
I want to get in on this too. I'll take a 308 lever action please. It's my right. About 3000 rounds to go with it. And a chest freeezer full of beef, venison, lamb, pork, and buffalo. It's also my right. Heck, why not one of those new GMC trucks for good measure. And a bass boat.
And about $120K for personal spending. If Acorn gets millions, then why can't I. $120 is nothing, compared to that. It's my right.
Posted by: brando at October 19, 2009 09:29 AM (IPGju)
7
If healthcare is a right then why does Congress want to fine/tax you for not exercising that right?
It gets even better when you consider that Congress also wants to fine/tax you if you exercise the right to healthcare too much by taxing "Cadillac Plans"--unless you are a member of Congress or a government employees of course.
Some animals are just more equal than others....
Posted by: iconoclast at October 19, 2009 11:35 AM (O8ebz)
8
I'll take an M-24 SWS, please.
Posted by: Anthony at October 20, 2009 01:02 AM (Ich7i)
9
Putting aside the clarity of the Second Amendment stating the government can't INTERFERE with your right to bear arms (as opposed to "granting" you the right to "own" a gun), it's still a clever sentiment, and it begs the question: Even if healthcare were a "right," does that mean the government should tax citizens to pay for it?
With all the talk of bailing out the left-wing media, I'm beginning to think ALL our rights will soon be bought and paid for through taxation.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:43 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 16, 2009
I don't Get the Controversy
It's the only thing she's ever posted online that was worth the amount of time it took to understand it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Welcome to The World, Meghan - you know, the one that existed before you entered it and will continue to after you exit. All women need to understand that in order to look good (whether "good" is professional or sexy or fit or whatever's appropriate for the occasion), they must dress for their particular body type. Meghan has an awesome rack, but she needs to accept that if she posts a pic in which her GINORMOUS boobs are half exposed and the focal point of the photo, she will likely look like a tramp. Don't bitch about it. Just accept it. And put on real shirt.
Posted by: Sif at October 16, 2009 08:28 PM (od0G0)
2
I'm starting to think that she's a lot sharper than most folks realize.
Considering how dumb I think she is, that might be true and she'd STILL be rather stupid.
And people mocked Palin's intellect ....
Posted by: Steve at October 17, 2009 07:58 AM (TzDt5)
3
She'd call them "knockers," if she could spell it.
Posted by: Bleepless at October 17, 2009 06:50 PM (7l1hN)
4
The Democrat party is full of boobs, so I don't understand why they would object to Meggie Mac's ramblings. For most conservatives, she's just irrelevant.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 18, 2009 12:23 PM (5Fo+S)
5
Like someone else once said, "I'd snork her in the squeaker hole".
Posted by: Boss429 at October 18, 2009 04:32 PM (T/k/7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Re-grinding the Lancet
Reality Check:
IraqÂ’s government said at least 85,000 Iraqis were killed from 2004 to 2008, officially answering one of the biggest questions of the conflict - how many perished in the sectarian violence that nearly led to a civil war.
What remains unanswered by the government is how many died in the 2003 US invasion and in the months of chaos that followed it.
A report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed from the beginning of 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008 and 147,195 were wounded. The figures included Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover US military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 US-led invasion.
The Associated Press reported similar figures in April based on government statistics obtained by the AP showing that the government had recorded 87,215 Iraqi deaths from 2005 to February 2009. The toll included violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings.
The infamous Lancet study cited by every major media outlet and liberal blog was only off about half a million. I'll be expecting apologies for pushing this politically-concocted propaganda any minute now...
I wonder how many of the Lancet guys dabble in global warming research...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It's too bad they haven't calculated how many lives were saved or created...
Posted by: Pablo at October 17, 2009 07:51 AM (yTndK)
2
Moving to where the money is:
"A new advocacy and public health movement is needed urgently to bring together governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations, communities, and academics from all disciplines to adapt to the effects of climate change on health."
Managing the Health effects of Climate Change
Launched in London, UK, May 13, 2009
A collaboration between The Lancet and University College London, UK, resulting in the first UCL Lancet Commission report, setting out how climate change over the coming decades could have a disastrous effect on health across the globe. The report examines practical measures that can be taken now and in the short and medium term to control its effects.
Executive summary
Climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Effects on health of climate change will be felt by most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk. During this century, the earth’s average surface temperature rises are likely to exceed the safe threshold of 2°C above pre-industrial average temperature.
This report outlines the major threats—both direct and indirect—to global health from climate change through changing patterns of disease, water and food insecurity, vulnerable shelter and human settlements, extreme climatic events, and population migration. Although vector-borne diseases will expand their reach and death tolls, the indirect effects of climate change on water, food security, and extreme climatic events are likely to have the biggest effect on global health.
A new advocacy and public health movement is needed urgently to bring together governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations, communities, and academics from all disciplines to adapt to the effects of climate change on health.
www.thelancet.com/climate-change
Posted by: Davod at October 17, 2009 07:56 AM (GUZAT)
3
Lancet is already on the bandwagon:
Vegans forever.
September 13, 2007
Lancet: Eat less meat to combat global warming
The Lancet has released a report calling for a 10% cut in global meat consumption by 2050, a goal that would decrease greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture and improve health for both rich and poor nations.
According to the report, as much as 22% of greenhouse emissions are from agriculture -- a figure similar to that of industry and, quite surprisingly, more than that of transport. Livestock production, which includes transport of livestock and feed, accounts for nearly 80% of these emissions.
Put into perspective, a kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef generates the equivalent of 36.4 kilos (80.08 pounds) of carbon dioxide, more than the equivalent of driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
Some quotes from the paper:
"Assuming a 40-percent increase in global population by 2050 and no advance in livestock-related greenhouse-gas reduction practices, global meat consumption would have to fall to an average of 90 grammes per day just to stabilise emissions in this sector.""
Let me see - No meat! Little fish because of conservation programs and warnings about toxity in farmed fish. That leaves grain, corn an vegetables. Grain will be increasingly used as fuel. Likewise with corn. Vegetables will be grown on smallholdings to limit the effect on global warming. www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/09/lancet-eat-less-meat-to-combat-global.html
The Rich and Government will have its pick of what meat, fish, grain, corn and vegetables is grown and the rest of us will be left to fight for the leftovers to make gruel. That is if we can afford to pay for the water.
Mind you, this is not all bad. In the words of an Australian sometime ago (paraphrased), of the poor (some would say starvation) diet of allied POWS working on the Burma railroad, the diet probably helped explain the longivity of those who survived the war.
Posted by: davod at October 17, 2009 08:18 AM (GUZAT)
4
The Lancet Iraq casuualty fidures, Scott Beauchamp, Haditha massacre tales, anthropogenic global warming "peer" reviewed data, is there anything blinkered, moronic, frothing at the mouth, bedwetting, pillow-biting, fringe, loser lefties won't believe to advance their agendas?
Yes, they won't believe Obama is an empty suit and the least qualified President in history, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 17, 2009 01:33 PM (3O5/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ballon Bust?
Uh... this doesn't seem to match the Heene family balloon boy story:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:29 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Isn't it illegal to lauch a balloon of this nature?
Also, there seems to be a degree of acting in their alarm that their son may be in the balloon. Note that they did not verify the concept, only started reacting to it.
Posted by: David at October 17, 2009 12:52 PM (Lh/sO)
2
The family knew the boy wasn't in the balloon.
The father built it, he had to know how much it could lift.
Anyway, I went ahead and ran the numbers.
For the balloon to get off the ground with the boy in it, it would have had to hold 45,360 liters of He, or the equivalent of about 46 four foot weather balloons.
Posted by: Matt at October 18, 2009 09:15 AM (54Fjx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
White House to Use Hollywood For Propaganda Push
By itself,
this isn't unexpected:
President Barack Obama will return to Texas today for the first time since taking office nine months ago, sharing the stage with former President George H.W. Bush in a forum designed to "engage the nation" in a renewed conversation on volunteerism.
Volunteerism is a great thing and I strongly believe in it. I'm glad that a former and current President can get together to promote the idea of volunteerism.
But like so many things that President Obama has his hands on, there is a perverse selfishness and ideological opportunism associated with this effort.
Big Hollywood has now linked the Administration with the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) in a bid to use 60+ television programs to push for people to volunteer... for left wing political advocacy.
Here is a listing of the shows, by network, that have signed on to participate in stealth propaganda campaign organized by the White House and their allies in the entertainment industry.
We thought it was bad when the White House tried to use the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to push progressive political propaganda.
Obviously, they've set their sights on casting a much greater net, trying to co-op network and cable television to indoctrinate both adults and children.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'm really not clear on how this would be any different then what happens everyday now - other then now we have the white house commies and their useful idiots now admiting up front what they are doing, I mean.
Posted by: emdfl at October 16, 2009 01:08 PM (3ALAP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2009
"I'm Sure Everyone is Exploring Their Options Right Now."
I contacted several shooting industry sources regarding California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to sign oppressive ammunition restriction bill AB962.
The bill requires ammunition to be held behind the counter, restricts sales to individuals to a maximum of 50 rounds per month, bans direct mail and internet sales, and requires retailers to collect intrusive personal information for each sale including:
Date of transaction.
Buyer's date of birth, full address, driver's license number, right thumbprint and signature.
Brand, type and amount of ammunition purchased.
Name of the salesperson who processed the sale.
While the law theoretically affects only handgun ammunition, many rifles also shoot handgun-caliber ammunition and owners of those firearms will be affected as well. That information would be turned over to the government which would effectively be able to compile a backdoor handgun ownership database on all California gun owners.
The prohibition does not outlaw the unregistered ownership of handgun ammunition, nor does it stop individuals from crossing state lines to purchase as much ammunition as they desire. In effect, it penalizes law-abiding recreational shooters, while potentially creating a lucrative market for ammunition smuggling into California.
The California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) are highly critical of the bill, stating:
NSSF has estimated that AB 962 would cost California at least $2.92 million annually in lost sales taxes and $629,000 in increased operating costs for state agencies. Lost retail sales in California were estimated at $35.7 million. These estimates followed the recent release of a study by the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocate that show over-regulation of small businesses in California costing the state an estimated $492 billion, almost five times the stateÂ’s general fund budget and almost a third of the state's gross product. The Small Business Advocate study also found that California's regulatory burdens costs an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year. Small businesses are 98 percent of the state's enterprises and provide 52 percent of the jobs.
"Despite the excuses given this morning by the governor, nothing will change the fact that this legislation will drive many small, independent retailers already struggling in a poor economy out of business or force them to flee California's burdensome and hostile regulatory environment for greener economic pastures elsewhere-- taking with them their jobs and tax revenue," said CAFR President Marc Halcon.
I sent email to contacts within the ammunition industry, and few seem willing to talk about a possible response.
I asked them all the same specific question: Do you anticipate sanctions by manufacturers against the state of California in response for this law, perhaps similar to Barrett's refusal to sell or service CA state agencies after the ill-advised .50 BMG rilfe ban went into effect?
While anti-trust laws keeps the companies from discussing such an idea with one another, one highly-placed industry source was willing to provide his opinion off the record.
He would not rule out a decision by one or more ammunition manufacturers to refuse to do business with the State of California while the ban was in effect.
"Nothing would surprise me. I'm sure everyone is exploring their options right now."
If ammunition manufacturers do decide to go this route in response, state and local law enforcement agencies may have to find other vendors to supply their ammunition, or face running low on ammunition themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:44 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Arnold has as much to do with the conservative agenda as did Bush. Which is nothing.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 05:39 PM (Lh/sO)
2
I thought i read somewhere that the "50 round limit" part got cut at/before the signing?
the text/comments from ah-nold here: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=68596&catid=2
imply that there's no limit. but yes, the entire thing is stupid. In that article the governator even pats himself on the back for the .50 cal debacle.
Posted by: John at October 15, 2009 07:23 PM (iaV9O)
3
Well, since I fly to CA regularly and go shooting with my daughter I will just have to bring a couple thousand rounds each time I visit.
She can mark them up 100% and sell them to her friends.
Thank you, CA, for some more untraceable income.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 15, 2009 08:07 PM (FGCRY)
4
Most of you sound like folks we welcome to Texas. The more honest Gun owners the better.
We don't have earthquakes...Convinced?
Posted by: Marc at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (Zoziv)
5
Well lets just let Kalifornia slide into the ocean. They elect those idiots let them sort 'em out.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (8kQ8M)
6
with the upcoming census overcount of illegal aliens, CA looks to gain quite a few more gerrymandered ultra-liberal loons in Congress.
But by then CA will be its own 3rd world country.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2009 12:55 AM (O8ebz)
7
Marc: Glad to hear that. Bought my new house in the hill country 3 months ago.
Posted by: CFM at October 16, 2009 02:39 AM (vt8Y4)
8
Actually, with the increasing large amount of money the US owes to China, it wouldn't be surprising to see China demand ownership of California if the US defaults....
Posted by: _Jon at October 16, 2009 10:19 AM (ehN4c)
9
Step 1. Open a drive through store on the road from California to Los Vegas, right on the Nevada line.
Step 2. Sell bulk ammo. Let customers call ahead, use a website, or fax/email/twitter orders with Paypal or credit cards, so there is essentially a zero wait time at the store's loading docks.
Step 3. Profit.
And I did not have to collect underpants with gnomes.
Posted by: Mikee at October 16, 2009 11:07 AM (dChgD)
10
Yes hey should stop selling there. The truth is that in the long run it will just make Cali even more broke than they already are. They will loose all of that business and all of the taxes that go with those sales. They cant have thier cake and eat it too, if they want to be able to tax the crap out of thier citizens(oh my appolagies, SUBJECTS) they must give them something for it. If you are a decent and conservitive person VACATE the state and leave those Commie assholes to thier vices. Good luck and God speed
Posted by: Spook45 at October 16, 2009 11:53 AM (wmuk+)
11
This is the amount of incredulous influence the--OPEN BORDER--lobbyists (business power brokers and ethnic zealots)) have on certain Democratic devious rabble? Once again the senate top echelon have huddled secretly (BEHIND CLOSED DOORS), recklessly placing E-Verify worker identification system in jeopardy. The obnoxious
R-O-P-E Senate group as its being called on the Internet and nationwide, who are marked as Reid, Obama, Pelosi Emmanuel have indifferently pushed American Workers in the background, allowing the millions of illegal aliens to take their jobs. They have driven into the ground amendments from appearing in the final Homeland Security "conference committee" bill. They eradicated--ANY CHANCE--of a Senate's permanent authorization of the E-Verify program.
They have religiously under-funded, undermined the Senate's mandate to beef up and complete the final 300 mile Mexican border fence. Then again it was never the original border wall as designed by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Illegal Aliens would have first had to scale the--FIRST--fence, run across the two lane highway for the Border Patrol vehicles, then scale an identical--SECOND FENCE. Under funded and weakened just like E-Verify, the police 287(g) arrest and detainment and ceasing the massive ICE raids. Finally the ROPE group strangled the Senate (already) passed ability of countrywide businesses to run their previous hires employees through E-Verify. So you can guess this is a harbinger to drop on the AMERICAN WORKER YET ANOTHER ULTIMATELY EXPENSIVE BLANKET AMNESTY. THOSE TAXPAYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PICK UP A TRILLION DOLLAR TAB. Be advised that Reid D-NV , Pelosi D-CA have one of the largest population of illegal immigrants in the country, who they are subservient too. Remember to expend your frustration and anger at 202-224-3121on your lawmakers. They are juggling with millions of American Workers job lifeline, by pandering to people who shouldn't even be here?
MY SUGGESTION IS DON"T BUY ANY SERVICES FROM BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T DISPLAY THE E-VERIFY PLACARD. Remember the real conniving happens in rooms hidden from the public awareness in conference committees. In addition, Remember Harry Reid as an incumbent Senator who carries the blemish of being anti-American Worker, Anti-Sovereignty must not be re-elected. Speaker Pelosi must go? So must Emmanuel? They have proved they cannot be trusted As NUMBERSUSA president says," With no chance now of E-Verify dying in any minute, because they couldn't annul the 3 year extension? The pro-amnesty forces no longer can try to use it as a bargaining chip. States, counties, cities and businesses can now be quite confident that they can set policy based on the E-Verify program being around." IT'S NOT PERMANENT YET THANKS TO ROPE. This group has given preference to illegal workers instead of the 15 million authorized AMERICAN WORKERS. COMPREHEND MORE OF THE CORRUPTION THAT CANNOT BE DENIED BY POLITICIANS AT JUDICIAL WATCH. NUMBERSUSA will explain in detail the consequences, that includes the 2010 Census, Health Care, hidden welfare programs, Anchor babies, criminals amongst the illegal immigration occupiers. CAPSWEB for OVERPOPULATION information.
Posted by: Brittancus at October 16, 2009 01:42 PM (Kc4uK)
12
Hey CA, you made your bed, now lay in it!!!
Posted by: Andrew at October 16, 2009 07:18 PM (t9+Ir)
13
Just make sure that there's a hill or a curve between your store and the California border. Don't want the CHP surveilling your place from the CA side and harassing your customers, as MA did with people who brought liquor in NH,
Posted by: PKO Strany at October 20, 2009 01:30 PM (+IzXJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
53 House Republicans Call for Jennings Ouster
They see him pushing a pro-homosexuality agenda in his un-elected, un-vetted role as "safe school czar."
I find Jennings unfit for failing to report the serial statutory rape of one of his students, especially since his later activism at least hints that Jennings allowed the rape to go unreported because the 15-year-old male student was having a homosexual affair with a much older man. One is left to wonder if sympathy for their shared preference led him to cover up the crime, whereas he might have turned in heterosexual offenders.
If Obama keeps Jennings on-board, the public will likely remember him for the new position he will represent.
That of Home School Czar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree this guy is a creep with an agenda, but I remember reading about a later interview with the kid involved. He said he was 16 and actively gay at the time and that the sex was consensual. Whether this is a machination of the White House Ministry of Propaganda is another matter.
Better check on this or you'll have gay rights trolls showing up here in droves getting all bitchy and sanctimonious and stuff.
Funny that schools are permitted to (even reequired to) promote homosexuality in the early grades, but any mention of Christmas or any other trapping of reprehensible religious excess is grounds for instantaneous litigation from the ACLU.
Posted by: bobdog at October 16, 2009 07:32 AM (SKEgy)
2
The student himself has demonstrated that he was 16 at the time he met the older man in question, which is the age of consent in Massachusetts. So, there's nothing here about statutory rape. (For what it's worth, the student has also said that he had no sexual contact with the older man. So it's kind of a moot point.)
See here.
Concerning the "pro-homosexuality agenda" he espouses, if you did a little research, you might find that the education he advocates, as with most sex education advocated by liberals, is age-appropriate information about things like wanted and unwanted touching, attraction, romantic and non-romantic relationship building, asserting one's wants (in giving or withholding consent in relationships and/or sexual activities). Teaching children about sexuality is done with the hope (and with proven results: see the Netherlands) that with this information, kids won't think they're freaks for being attracted to people of the same sex, among other things.
So, the kind of thing you would have a problem with if you wanted to preserve the social stigma of non-heterosexual attraction and sexual expression of any kind from a woman.
Posted by: Evan at October 16, 2009 02:12 PM (BEJrz)
3
>>"the kind of thing you would have a problem with if you wanted to preserve the social stigma of non-heterosexual attraction and sexual expression of any kind from a woman."
Were you born this stupid or are you another victim of Americas system of "higher education"?
Posted by: Steve at October 16, 2009 04:02 PM (fjQAS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So... When are These Guys Getting Kicked Out?
It has now been confirmed that Rush Limbaugh is not longer part of the bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, a political move orchestrated by those willing to risk libel and slander lawsuits to derail a hated political commentator's desire to participate in an entirely legal business transaction.
Rush's "crime" was that he was accused of being a racist. These charges were supported by a series of poorly-faked quotes concocted anonymously online and repeated ad nauseum by liberals in the media who did not even attempt to verify if these smears were accurate before spreading them.
If the NFL is going to force Limbaugh to drop out of the running to buy the Rams based upon poorly-faked allegations, then the much more credible 471 arrests for real crimes documented against NFL players since 2000 should lead to all of the arrested players still active in the league immediately being immediately suspended, if not terminated.
After all, if accusation is the new standard of proof in the NFL, it needs to be applied to every player and owner evenly. If it isn't, then it's real bigotry... and we know the NFL hates that.
(h/t Rock Moran for the NFL crime database)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:13 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A businessman decided that having Rush Limbaugh as a partner was against his interests.
So, he decided not to do business with Limbaugh.
Last I checked, this is the kind of free-market solution conservatives believe in. The government didn't keep Limbaugh from becoming a minority owner of an NFL franchise. One of his prospective partners made that decision.
The outrage over this perfectly routine business decision reminds me of the conservative reaction to MSNBC's firing of Don Imus after he called used the term "nappy-headed hos" to refer to a group of college athletes. "Let the market decide!" Conservatives howled.
But the market did decide. MSNBC decided that its business interests were served better by firing Imus than by keeping him on the air. The government didn't take Imus off the air. His employer did. The market decided. Al Sharpton's civic activism amounted to nothing more than his own contribution to the marketplace of expressed ideas over Imus' comments. In that marketplace, Sharpton's ideas proved to have a higher value than those of Imus' defenders.
Now, I agree that the news media should have done a much better job of pointing out that there is no record of Limbaugh ever having praised James Earl Ray as a hero. But it is silly to suggest that Limbaugh has never expressed a racist thought. As just one example, it is racist to characterize a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids as something that happens in "Obama's America." It is intellectually dishonest to deny the bigotry inherent in that statement.
Limbaugh has built his career and his fortune by generating controversy. He admits this. However, the perfectly predictable and understandable flip side of the rewards he reaps is that he finds himself unwelcome in the company of those who prefer to avoid his brand of controversy. His prospective partners in the NFL venture did not demand that Limbaugh change the nature of his program in order to participate in the deal. They simply decided that his controversial profile presented to great a risk to their bid for the team. So, he's out. It's not personal. It's just business.
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 11:39 AM (XFDTk)
2
Last I checked, this is the kind of free-market solution conservatives believe in.
Slander and libel masquerading as news are not free market solutions. On the bright side, Limbaugh can now demonstrate damages. This should be fun.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 11:52 AM (yTndK)
3
As just one example, it is racist to characterize a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids as something that happens in "Obama's America." It is intellectually dishonest to deny the bigotry inherent in that statement.
Oh, do explain that.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 11:54 AM (yTndK)
4
right wing neocon network broke into a story about the afghanistan war to focus on....ta ta da
fatboy rushbo?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Senorita Bonita at October 15, 2009 11:57 AM (07xCS)
5
Ignoring R. Limbaugh's racism there are other reasons R. Limbaugh should have been barred from owning an NFL Team.
The prime reason being if R. Limbaugh were allowed to own a team the team doctors and trainers would have to worry about Limbaugh stealing all the Oxycontin from the locker room.
In addition to being a criminal drug addict, R. Limbaugh is also a chicken hawk coward who delights in making fun of people with handicaps.
Limbaugh also hates the Troops because he loves to see Americans die in wars, albeit from the safety of his EIB studioÂ…
Also god hates Limbaugh because Limbaugh is a god damned bigamist having been married and divorced 3 timesÂ…
Posted by: Grung_e_Gene at October 15, 2009 12:02 PM (DbDYN)
6
@Pablo:
President Obama had nothing to do with the fight.
Limbaugh said that in Obama's America, white kids get beat up while black kids stand around and say, "right on, right on, right on."
Racial identity was the only connection Obama had to the black kids on the school bus. It is racist to attribute characteristics of one person to another based on nothing but race. Using race as a factor in determining someone's character is actually the definition of racism.
It is, therefore, racist to say (not to imply, but to
say) that a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids was characteristic of "Obama's America."
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 12:04 PM (XFDTk)
7
UncommonSense - Your right
Whether you support Limbaugh or not no one can deny he is highly contraversial. It is in his business interest to be contraversial. Every businessman (owner) would have to consider the negative effect on his investment of this association versus the benefits of having him aboard. So we have a basic conflict, the owners desire to minimize public contraversy versus Limbaugh's need to generate contraversy for his business model.
If it was about politics the owners would have embraced him as they are mostly Republicans.
It appears they just did not want the PR problem of having Limbaugh among them.
This sounds like business.
Posted by: Wise Owl at October 15, 2009 01:08 PM (GiqPr)
8
And if all else fails - draw the race card.
Posted by: TWoPolitics at October 15, 2009 01:23 PM (+QfDC)
9
Oye Pablo;
The best defense against libel/slander (the same thing except whether written or spoken) is the literal truth of the contested statement. therefore betcha Fatboy does nothing of the kind. But I do agree it would be great fun: the most since Fox suing Al Franken.
Posted by: willdamon at October 15, 2009 01:45 PM (8isd0)
10
You guys don't get it. Rush's attempt to buy a team was just satire. You're taking it all out of context. He's just trying to entertain his listeners.
Posted by: beetroot at October 15, 2009 02:03 PM (vzU4z)
11
So if I understand the liberals who have made comments. It is now ok to be racist and to have behavior that uses race, ones thoughts, ones political affiliation, etc as a process to deny one the ability to do business. So lets say that someone comes in a store and I feel that he is liberal, or black or any thing else. Then I can refuse to do business with that person, in other words deny him service. It looks like we are back in the 50's according to the liberals and they are comfortable with that concept.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 03:47 PM (Lh/sO)
12
@David:
Um... what?
I have seen nothing in this thread suggesting liberals believe racism is okay.
Are you suggesting that Rush Limbaugh is a victim of racism?
If so, that is silly.
Limbaugh is simply experiencing an adverse effect of the burlesque on-air persona that he presents on his radio show. It is entirely possible that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist. However, there is ample evidence based on the things he says that "Rush Limbaugh," the character he plays on the radio, is a racist.
It should not surprise anybody that a group of investors seeking to purchase an NFL franchise would not want to associate themselves with someone who earns his living with inflammatory, even racist, rhetoric.
If Limbaugh is a victim of anything, it is of his own success.
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 04:18 PM (XFDTk)
13
So how much did they have to pay to get him to bow out?
Posted by: garrettc at October 15, 2009 04:45 PM (DQjJA)
14
Uncommonsense,
You and Jesse Jackson are obviously prejudiced toward Rush. I have never heard him utter anything even remotely racist. There are not any quotes that he has made that are racist except those that are unvetted. That means that you don't like him as he is a white, conservative. That statement makes as much sense as accusing Rush of racism. I lived in Mississippi in the 50's and find it unsual that you desire to return to that envirorment.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 05:37 PM (Lh/sO)
15
David,
Just because you have never heard him utter anything that is racist does not mean he has never uttered anything that is racist. It only means YOU did not interpret what he said as racist.
Everything you say is subjective. It is up for interpretation. Rush calls Obama a Halfrican American. You think that is fine. I think it is racist. Who is right? It doesn't matter. To the NFL's eyes, the fact that we're debating whether or not he is racist -- or to what level he is racist -- is in and of itself a discussion it would rather avoid. It is selling itself to mainstream America. And controversy is not a part of the sales pitch.
It is interesting that Rush is mentioned as an opponent of Jackson and Sharpton. I paint all three with the same brush. They are a trio of opportunistic windbags who use race and division to make themselves rich. If Sharpton and Jackson are race-baiters, so is Rush. Big Time
All three peddle controversy. They sell outrage. Rush is the SAME as Sharpton. They are two peas, the same pod.
Al Sharpton would not be welcomed to buy an NFL team either.
Posted by: Tim at October 15, 2009 06:22 PM (921kk)
16
This is an incredible indictment on any of you that believe condeming someone on something that they supposedly said. Rush makes my blood boil sometimes but he is no racist. Everything he has said for the last twenty years has been recorded and believe me if there were things that could burn him the MSM would be playing them 24/7. Also, why the name calling? Are you people that have to use name calling so immature that you don't have anything intelligent to offer? I for one have had enough of the black thugs of the NFL and no longer watch any of them. Image? Ha! There are so many social misfits in the league that Rush would be like adding a priest to a prison if were a part owner. And how about the teams that sell shares to anyone? Do they set a limit on how many a person can buy? As to the bus fight, all you had to do was watch it. The police chief that originally called it a racial fight was slapped down by the mayor and changed his story to just boys being boys. Thats why two of the boys were suspended and charged with assault.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 15, 2009 07:55 PM (Vo1wX)
17
It's ad nauseAm. Really this poor spelling makes me sick in my stomach!!!
Posted by: liamascorcaigh at October 16, 2009 06:56 AM (UpMxp)
18
It's Limbaugh vs. Sharpton and you've seen the end result with your own 2 eyes. TKO in the 1st round. It is what it is.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 16, 2009 10:49 AM (OX5qU)
19
As usual, Lippy, you are watching the wrong fight, and not even understanding the punches.
The fight is Limbaugh versus Obama, with news breaking that the NFL player rep who was involved in speaking out against Limbaugh has ties to the White House as part of his campaign staff.
As it now stands, only 43% of people would vote for Obama again.
By blocking Limbaugh's ownership, Obamaphiles threw out a good jab. That's all. As polls reveal, the judges--the American public--rather obviously have the anti-Obama team ahead on points.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2009 11:09 AM (gAi9Z)
20
President Obama had nothing to do with the fight.
Limbaugh said that in Obama's America, white kids get beat up while black kids stand around and say, "right on, right on, right on."
Racial identity was the only connection Obama had to the black kids on the school bus. It is racist to attribute characteristics of one person to another based on nothing but race. Using race as a factor in determining someone's character is actually the definition of racism.
Do we not live in Barack Obama's America? Had that happened last year and someone decried "George Bush's America" would that have been off base? Racist?
It is, therefore, racist to say (not to imply, but to say) that a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids was characteristic of "Obama's America."
You might want to look that word "racist" up. And when you get done with that, maybe you could take a look at Arne Duncan's Chicago schools. Google Derrion Albert.
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:15 PM (yTndK)
21
Limbaugh is simply experiencing an adverse effect of the burlesque on-air persona that he presents on his radio show.
If that's the case, then why were his detractors using false quotes, UncommonSense?
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:18 PM (yTndK)
22
As it now stands, only 43% of people would vote for Obama again.
America is clearly 57% racist, CY.
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:19 PM (yTndK)
23
Here is a list of comments I would like explained by people who claim Limbaugh has never uttered a racist word in his life.
My favorite: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."
Rush says that a sport with a lot of black players looks like a battle between two predominantly black street gangs. Raise your hand if you think he would say the same thing about a rugby game. And this is the sport in which he wants to own a franchise?
I also really like this one:
"The days of them [racial minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry; he's going to cut this country down to size. He's going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made -- its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on here."
Has anyone ever seen Barack Obama get angry? Is there any shred of evidence that he wants "retribution" from white people? No, Limbaugh is playing to a racist stereotype about black men being angry. (Ironic, since between Obama and Limbaugh, only one of them spends three hours a day screaming until he's red in the face.)
Posted by: Evan at October 16, 2009 02:28 PM (BEJrz)
24
CY...with all do respect, it's a serious stretch to blame this on Obama. Some of the racial comments that were referenced from Limbaugh (the real ones and not the bogus ones) were made way before anybody ever heard of Obama. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Limbaugh owning the team. Why not?!?! Owning a struggling football team shouldn't have to be political and if the money was good, the players (black or white) would've showed up for kick off. He's an entertainer and doesn't believe half the BS that comes out his own mouth but it makes him a lot of cash. But I don't care who is in the WH (Repub or Democrat), these blacks lead by the threat of Al Sharpton were never gonna let this happen. It's not Obama, its just simple, good old fashioned payback.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 16, 2009 02:54 PM (OX5qU)
25
CY...with all do respect, it's a serious stretch to blame this on Obama.
Yeah, Lippy, it's not like the White House made Limbaugh Public Enemy Number One a few months back. And it's not like DeMaurice Smith, the point man on this smear campaign, is in the Obama Administration.
Oh, wait. Both of those things are true.
Posted by: Pablo at October 17, 2009 07:55 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2009
Non-Felon Left Behind
Michael Vick get his rocks off getting dogs to fight each other to the death, and is welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, along with other
convicts and thugs. Rush Limbaugh gets tarred for things he didn't say by a series of dishonest hacks, and that enough to knock him
out of the bidding to buy a team.
Maybe if he had actually killed someone, he would have been accepted.
Anybody got Ray Lewis' number?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yeah, but at least they are letting international felon and Nazi collaborator George Soros stay in the Checketts group. After all, he's an Obama donor, which more than makes up for having helped Hitler out during the Holocaust.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 15, 2009 06:16 AM (2MEFn)
2
HEY! Easy there! Ray Lewis didn't kill anyone or any animal. He merely obstructed an investigation.
Posted by: MikeM at October 15, 2009 07:25 AM (30CMs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Climate Change Zealots: Stop Breathing, America!
I'm not sure anymore... should
this be categorized as religion, politics, or humor?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:20 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The whole "climate" problem could be solved in one day with my solution for decreasing CO2 emmissions.
All libtards that buy into climate change FKA global warming should hold their breath for 30 minutes on November 15, 2009 - now to be known as International Solve Climate Change Day. This will drastically reduce CO2 emmissions AND solve the problem with overpopulation.
Posted by: Penny at October 14, 2009 03:11 PM (5sGLG)
2
Have you noticed that in the US and Europe that the climate change problem is being solved by taxes. The taxes aren't going to anything to do with the climate but they are getting tax money and somehow that make the earth cooler.
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:34 PM (dccG2)
3
Yup! Even another OSM. For those who don't closely follow the issue, the most recent findings are that the claim for exceptional warming in the past century were based, primarily, on one tree used as proxy for temperature. There is so much more bad science associated with the Hockey Stick graphic used to excite the folks, that it is becoming a comedy.
Furthermore, the huge uproar over Arctic ice melt records in 2007 were coincident with a minimal Ice Melt Record in the Antarctic. Never heard about the latter did you?
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Posted by: CoRev at October 15, 2009 12:00 PM (0U8Ob)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rush Limbaugh's Critics are Big, Fat Idiots
I don't listen to talk radio, and so I only hear what Rush Limbaugh says when someone else mentions it. That said, he's been on the air as a conservative talker since the mid 1980s, with an audience of 20 million. His political and social views, vocabulary, and style are perhaps more well known than any person on the planet.
That is why recent attempts to attribute a series of false racist quotes to him is so unsettling.
Limbaugh has strong views on many topics, and if he was a hardcore racist, he would have been called out for it decades ago, boycotted, and perhaps forced off the air. But the simple logic it takes to process that thought is easily blinded by hate, and a number of left-wing journalists and bloggers have decided to post various false racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh in an attempt to ruin his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team.
None of the false quotes even sounds remotely like Limbaugh in tone or substance, and even more tellingly, none are sourced, a red flag to any competent journalist or blogger in a day and age when such things can be easily falsified on the Internet.
Why do these journalists and bloggers lie? Why do they commit an easily disproven libel and slander in order to tar an opponent?
It's about power and control, and the moral relativism that infects them, convincing them that even the most blatant smear is justified if it thwarts their political enemies or can help them achieve even the most temporary victory.
There is a very simple reason that conservative media are ascendant and liberal media are in decline. People have learned that liberal media cannot be trusted to get even basic facts right if their agenda can be forwarded with bias and fraud. Fox News and other conservative outlets may or may not be "fair and balanced," but they certainly comes closer to being the most trusted sources of news, because the American people simply find them more trustworthy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.
1
What the whole mess we now call the MSM has demonstrated is that there are consequences for allowing things to happen. For instance, we allowed most college campuses to be taken over and ruled like little fiefdoms by liberals. Free speech, free thoughts and free association has been eliminated through political correctness and outright intimidation. Conservative speakers now face outright bans on many campuses.
We now have journalism taught in most of the major colleges not as the what, when, why and where; but as facilitation for a particular ideology, and I think you know what that ideology is without me pointing it out.
Now we have a hate crimes bill coming before the Congress that will be passed with little or no fanfare that will do to the rest of the country what has been done on college campuses. Barack has signed on to a UN passed resolution that further restricts our rights. If we as a nation don't wake up damn soon, we will lose all our freedoms.
Posted by: templar knight at October 14, 2009 10:30 AM (968gv)
2
Conservative white is the new 1950s black. Gotta give the Left their target to polarize, hate, attack and blame for all the ills of their inept and corrupt administration.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 14, 2009 11:25 AM (7r7wy)
3
Rush is trying to get back at Jesse and the Reverand. The problem is that if he says something bad about them my response is "so, I know these guys suck." Why does anyone listen to them to begin with?
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:31 PM (dccG2)
4
The sad thing in this post are the terms conservative media and liberal media. When the word media is preceded by either of those words, we're certainly no longer talking about media (news). We're talking about editorial viewpoints.
I don't know nor care if Rush is or isn't a racist. For anyone who care to spend 10 minutes doing just a little bit of research, there is a preponderance of evidence that Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting "facts". His agenda is to divide the American people and play off their ignorance and fears. His very living and his wealth depend on it.
The only thing more disgusting than Rush's venom is the sad fact that so many people confuse it with Truth.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:01 PM (byA+E)
5
Such a preponderance of evidence that you don't offer proof of it? Perhaps you were going to use WikiQuotes or the irrefutable first-hand knowledge of a Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker?
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 04:43 PM (A5r0Z)
6
Dude said "Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting facts etc etc"
Dude, if you would pay any attention whatsoever to Rush you would realize how utterly incorrect that statement was. Why don't you listen to him for about a month, and then report back with what you actually find?
Posted by: Rick at October 14, 2009 05:17 PM (FWmwx)
7
AF, Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar" if you want to read some evidence. There's plenty of it there.
Rick, the thought of listening to Limbaugh for a month is revolting. Years ago I listened to him in order to learn how a conman operates. He's very good at what he does. Of course, he isn't to be taken seriously as any sort of news source. His success depends on keeping the right wing stirred up. That's what he does best and he surely isn't going to let the truth get in the way of that objective.
No thanks. I won't be listening to Rush anymore.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 06:27 PM (byA+E)
8
Dude, you're crazy in looking at Limbaugh as a news source. He's a news commentator, not a reporter, and his agenda is to make a living giving an opinion that can be taken or left. And if it promulgates the cause of conservatism as he sees it, that's just icing on the cake to him.
People listen to Rush to hear his take on the news...which he typically cites and then recites on-air along with relevant sound-clips if available. Citing a Google search as the basis of your accusations is about as baseless as the charges of racism made against him.
Posted by: Shwiggie at October 14, 2009 06:42 PM (Wr78s)
9
Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar"
...and the top two or three hundred hits will be lefty sites that have an axe to grind against him. About as trustworthy as the anonymice who invented these quotes and smeared him with them.
As for what sort of credibility you should give him: no less than any other commentator, and more than many. While he is neither as smart nor as well-informed as he thinks he is on many subjects, he's a very gifted political commentator. He's also one of the simplest, most straightforward men you'll ever meet. He is not a con man. He's not trying to trick anybody. He has two goals: to push the conservative political philosophy for as long as there's breath in his body, and to have as much fun as he can get away with while doing it.
Posted by: wolfwalker at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (c+TqP)
10
Dude, your answer to my observation that you cite nothing to back up your assertions is to suggest a Google search? Seriously? If I'm to understand this correctly, whatever I find on the internet will be true. Do you work for a major media outlet of some sort? You seem to exhibit the same work ethic as MSNBC or CNN when it comes to making an assertion and backing it up (Hint, that means none).
With the news that Rush has been dropped from the investment group making the bid, it'll be really interesting to see how many journalists, TV commentators and news organizations are named in the slander/libel lawsuit.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 08:05 PM (A5r0Z)
11
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him another non issue to stir up the ditto heads.
It would make no difference what links I might post showing that Rush wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face. Your very statement that the first 200-300 returns would be leftie sites proves my point that YOU wouldn't believe it. I'm not lazy. I'm just not going to do your work for you. Wouldn't do any good anyway. To be clear, no, I'm not suggesting that whatever you find on the internet is the truth; far from it! I am suggesting that you do a bit of research for yourself.
I KNOW that Rush isn't a news source. Many people who listen to him everyday (I don't know how they stand it) DO believe that he's in the news business.
There is one bit of hope that I get from Rush. As long as he's the face of the Republican Party and considered by many to be their spokesperson, that's good for those of us who are more reality based.
Rush needs one crisis after another to survive. If one doesn't exist, he'll create one. That's how he makes his living.
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:02 AM (byA+E)
12
Let's see, you're the one making the assertion that Rush lies yet you won't provide one example to back that up. I think it has more to do with you being unable to come up with something that isn't Wiki-libel, than any desire on your part to educate us to the vast wealth of truth you claim to possess. You don't agree with him, or most of us, which is quite clear but when your bluff is called to provide a concrete example you simply can't produce.
If it were truth, as you claim, and not a left-wing hack website that you obviously don't hold to the same standards that you claim Rush should follow, a simple copy/paste link should suffice to educate us supposedly "ignorant" folk. As it stands, you simply look like someone who points a gun with the giant red "BANG!" flag on a stick hanging out of the barrel.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 15, 2009 12:38 AM (A5r0Z)
Posted by: UNRR at October 15, 2009 07:24 AM (2D++g)
14
"Fire can't melt steel. Google it!" - Rosie
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:11 AM (IPGju)
15
Dude, be honest, you never did listen to Rush to any extent. If you did, and feel the way you do, then your brain is vapid.
I'm soory to be so offensive, but when up against an obstinate liberal as yourself is hard not to be.
Posted by: Rick at October 15, 2009 09:16 AM (FWmwx)
16
"Dude, be honest"
Good luck with that.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:31 AM (IPGju)
17
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him a cause of action to sue the people who've been sliming him.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 12:09 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2009
Failure to Launch
The only thing that can be said about
this level of ineptitude is that it takes a committee to screw things up to this level, so there should be plenty of blame to pass around.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
He's a Buddhist?
Apparently someone in Lakeville, MA decided that vandalizing a golf course was the best way to vent their disgust with President Obama,
carving into the green " I 卍Obama."
But even a casual glance at the defaced green immediately tells you something is off: The swastika is facing counterclockwise.
Instead of insisting Obama is a stealth Muslim, are some on the fringe now contending he is a Buddhist?
Symbols, like words, mean things.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Obama said: "There's not going to be 40K troops for Afganistan or anything, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness."
So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.
Posted by: brando at October 13, 2009 05:24 PM (IPGju)
2
I don't know what he is, but I know he is alien to America.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 13, 2009 05:45 PM (svkhS)
3
Reminds me of the J ews who paint swastikas on synagogues.
You have to ask yourself who benefits?
Posted by: num9 at October 14, 2009 08:01 AM (7eoif)
4
I was in Ann Arbor this weekend and saw one of those Mercedes Benz signs set in sidewalk concrete. It said "Peace", and had a heart, and had a Mercedes Benz symbol. There's really no way around it. Hippies love Mercedes.
And someone in Lakeville actually feels that Obama is the path to religious enlightenment. Symbols mean things. You know, we've been told that 52% of the US population literally believes he's the Messiah. They really believe that crap.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 09:18 AM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Chris Matthews Fantacizes About Rush Limbaugh Dying a Violent Death
Uttered this morning:
You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:29 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Whereas when matthews blows up it will be from drinking to long from obumble's crotch-fountain.
Posted by: emdfl at October 13, 2009 03:20 PM (sBfp9)
2
I'm holding my breath waiting for the left-wing blogs to slam him for this hate speech.
Holding .... holding ...
Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2009 04:14 PM (mruUD)
3
I thought Mathews was dead. Maybe only his brain died and he is a zombie.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2009 04:23 PM (dccG2)
4
Hmm, I thought all of the threatning langauge only came from the right. Well, at least that is what the Dems and their media tells me.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at October 13, 2009 06:43 PM (HD5QP)
5
So a radio commentator is a threat to the President of the USA now? The POTUS is that weak?
Truly, as Orrin Judd said - the clothes have no Emperor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at October 13, 2009 07:37 PM (TUWci)
6
Seems like a hate crime to me. Frog march him in, toss him in with another deviant and throw away the key.
Oh crap. He'd probably like that. We're screwed.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 13, 2009 07:58 PM (7r7wy)
7
Hard to believe what a piece of garbage matthews and many on the left have become.
Posted by: rog at October 14, 2009 08:35 AM (cFGyS)
8
Oh, I don't think that anyone is going to have "jam a big CO2 pellet in his face" for Rush to blow up. He's like the recorded messages in the opening scenes of, mmmm, I forget the name of the series, that self destruct. Thus it shall be with Rush.
I have a dream!!
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:09 PM (byA+E)
9
Dude is back!
Libs fantacising about detonating Rush Limbaugh, and Dude is right there confirming that he shares the same view about murder.
Not a big surprise there.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (IPGju)
10
Yep, Brando, I'm back. I can see that you haven't changed a bit while I was away. You're still in the habit of attributing things to people that they didn't say. You and Rush must be related. Neither of you will let the truth get in the way of your story, huh?
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:09 AM (byA+E)
11
Who's this "they" you keep talking about? Related? No. Just because I don't think he should be murdered, means that you declare that we must be related. That's just plain silly. We're not related. You got caught lying again.
Zing.
I'm right and you're wrong again. How many times is this now? It's fun on my end, but it must stink for you. Oh, and when I say wrong, I don't just mean 'mistaken', but rather 'wrong' as a person.
And I'll say it again. These dreams about blowing up people who disagree with you aren't healthy.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 01:20 AM (LjEkE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
139kb generated in CPU 0.033, elapsed 0.1628 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.1411 seconds, 320 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.