(Las Vegas, Nevada) The infamous Hollywood Madam, Heidi Fleiss, who was put out of business and prosecuted in California, now has plans of opening a brothel in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

From KLAS-TV.com:

She has a long way to go before her brothel becomes a reality. Fleiss has spent months looking at other bordellos and properties in Nevada, from Reno to Pahrump and in between. Because of her criminal record, she will need to latch on with an existing licensee for a period. She's talked to several but hasn't reached a deal.

[ ... ]

In order to stand out from other brothels, and from the all-but-legal hooker rackets in Las Vegas, Fleiss has a grand design in mind -- a replica of the White House. She'll even call it the White House, but isn't trying to make a political statement, just a marketing one.

"It will work. They have the Eiffel Tower there, the Pyramids. So it's time for the White House. You build the White House and it will work. You want something the way it should be. Natural, beautiful, and that's what it is. It's just sex."

Five grand for a fresh face! I'm going to guess that customers will be wanting more than face for that amount. Nonetheless, she claims to have backers prepared to invest millions in her White House.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:08 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, modeling a brothel after the White House is such an original idea. I guess she never saw the whitehouse .com website before she had this grand "new" idea.

Posted by: Drew at May 28, 2005 11:38 AM (zEdFo)

2 WOuld this be a good time for a "If you build it, he will come" joke?

Posted by: ccwbass at May 28, 2005 12:10 PM (6gRId)

3 It would make for an interesting "menu." A friend of mine...yeah thats it.....visited one of these brothels called "Mables." They actually hand you a menu and the one I found.........er........he found interesting was something called "Midnight snack." I.........er........he still doesn't know what it is.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 28, 2005 12:12 PM (xkIHW)

4 Well you know what they say, "You can't keep a good woman down", but in this case I think it would be "You can't keep a good woman up".

Posted by: Butch at May 31, 2005 03:45 PM (Gqhi9)

5 Heidi, can I work for you???????? When do you think you will be opening a business in Las Vegas? I live here. Ginnie

Posted by: Ginnie at June 08, 2005 07:59 PM (sOC76)

6 If she did the prostitution business so well, why did she get convicted of pandering?? I think her 15 minutes of fame is over and she is trying to stretch it out to 20 minutes. There is no way any county in NV. would ever license her, she is a convicted felon. Brothels have survived in NV. because they are low key and discreet. They won't change the laws for her, it's time she get over herself~ Besides, I have been to her little shop of sex, and know people who work for her. She is a drug addict, and her LSoS is a disaster. Heidi, get off the drugs, get a REAL JOB, and stay in LA. where you belong!

Posted by: Alicia at June 15, 2005 06:35 AM (YCk9L)

7 What next Heidi? The Pentagon?

Posted by: heidi at September 29, 2005 10:58 AM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to the AP, another group of veterans has managed to become offended. This time over the unveiling of a statue. It seems that in Ft. Edward, NY, a statue of Maj. Robert Rogers is being unveiled this Memorial Day weekend. For those of you not "in the know", Maj. Rogers wrote a field manual that became the basis for modern Army Ranger fighting tactics. So why would this statue offend anyone? Well, it's not the statue so much as the timing.

But some veterans believe unveiling the monument on Memorial Day is insensitive because Rogers was loyal to England during the Revolutionary War.

"I think it's a travesty that we would think about honoring a person, especially someone who fought against us, on that day," said Bob Bearor, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division in the 1960s. "It's a sacred day. ... Let's honor our dead who died for our country."

OK, being a vet myself, I'm as sensitive to veterans' causes as anyone. But come on, let's get real here. No one is trying to offend anyone by unveiling this statue on Memorial Day. The thought process is easy to see. Maj. Rogers was a military man, and Memorial Day is the day to honor the military. If you're getting offended because of this, you're looking too hard for something to offend you. Seriously. Lighten up a bit.

With the number of stories like this appearing, I really have to wonder if media editors don't send their reporters out looking for them.

Cross posted at Consevative Friends

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw a link to this long essay by Orson Scott Card--quite possibly one of the best anti-idiotarian Mormon sci-fi authors out there--at Way Off Bass a while back. Since then it's shown up all over the place and I finally broke down and read it. Why didn't I just listen to Cam when he first posted it? It's a great tying-it-all-together piece, and probably one you're going to e-mail to your family and friends.

Since Rusty's back from DC I will be blogging less here in Jawatown, but I will be showing up over at Patterico's Pontifications in the coming week or two while he studies for some kind of big test. I'll still pop up here now and then throughout the summer. I'm just like some sort of blog hobo, wandering around and posting on other people's blogs. Anyway, thanks for reading, commenting, and linking and I'll talk at you again real soon.

--See Dubya

Posted by: seedubya at 01:34 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

By Demosophist

Larry Johnson has a new post up that puts a lash or two across the back of John Bolton. The value of Larry's contribution is that he knows some of the principles who Bolton is supposed to have retaliated against for their intelligence assessments. There's no substitute for being close to the action. But there are two things, besides the reasoning of Larry's co-blogger, Andrew Cochran that prevent me from being excessively concerned about the "chilling" of the intelligence community's professional objectivity. Or, to be more precise, I'm probably concerned about a different aspect of the problem. Those things are: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 03:28 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 5 kb.

UPDATE 5/27: This deserves some cowbell, with apologies to Ace....

Via LGF this from Hammorabi blogging from Iraq:

The Jordanian thug Fadhel Nazal Al-Khalayla (Zarqawi) 38 years has died.

He received treatment from Arab doctors who were not very experts and lacking intensive care equipments which he needed for his puncture in the right lung. His wounds infection gets resistance to the antibiotics. He had what is called septicemia which is according to doctors an infection of the blood resulted from infected wound. Zarqawi's systems started to fail including his kidney and liver.

He died and now in the hands of the Keepers of the Hell in its worst level.

And now a Saudi publication publishes this (hat tip: Gateway Pundit):

The family of injured Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - al-Qaeda's pointman in Iraq - is already preparing his obituary, the Saudi daily al-Watan said on Friday, quoting sources close to the family. Al-Zarqawi's close relatives, all of whom live in the Jordanian city of Zarqa, are reported to be in state of high tension over the conflicting reports circulating over his state of health, and are only waiting for officials to confirm his death before releasing the death notice.Jordanian security forces have surrounded the Ramzi quarter of Zarqa where al-Zarqawi's family lives, al-Watan said. Relatives have confirmed that al-Zarqawi's wife and four children fled to Iraq in secret six months ago.

Forbes:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq said its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the country's most wanted man, was 'in good health', in a statement posted Friday on the Internet whose authenticity could not be confirmed.

'Our leader is in good health. He is directing the jihadist operations and has been following the details right up to the time that this statement was drafted,' the statement said.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:28 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, that would be the headline if there was justice in this world. Unfortunately, there isn't. Friend of The Jawa Report Clinton W. Taylor has this article in The American Spectator:

On May 17, the Right Honorable George Galloway, MP, gave a blustery and animated performance in front of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Pundits conceded he ran rhetorical circles around the plodding, staid Senators who couldn't quite catch him out on his relationship to the Oil-for-Food Scandal. But the Senate tortoises may yet have the last laugh. Mr. Galloway seems to have told a big, fat whopper under oath, and a tech-savvy blogger has dug up some proof.

During the hearing (which, though not released by the Senate, has been transcribed here), Senator Norm Coleman pressed Mr. Galloway about his links to Saddam crony, Oil-for-Food beneficiary, and super-rich businessman Fawaz Zureikat, who was a major donor to Mr. Galloway's Mariam Appeal charity. Did Galloway know Zureikat was trading oil for Saddam? Mr. Galloway responded that:

Not only did I know that, but I told everyone about it. I emblazoned it in our literature, on our Web site, precisely so that people like you could not later credibly question my bona fides in that regard. So I did better than that. I never asked him if he was trading in oil. I knew he was a big trader with Iraq, and I told everybody about it.

On his website? Well, the Mariam Appeal site (www.Mariamappeal.com) is long gone, the domain name snapped up by Internet squatters, so we'll just have to take Mr. Galloway's word for it, right?

Not quite. There's this nifty thing called the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (here), which takes "snapshots" of websites over time. It works a little like Google's vast searchable cache, sending out an automated "webcrawler" that remembers the HTML code of the sites it encounters. Brand-new blogger George Gooding at Seixon.com used it to find the snapshots of the old Mariam Appeal site and verify whether Zureikat's identity was, in fact, emblazoned thereon. [READ THE REST]

As for George Gooding, he's keeping on top of this. Check his site for updates.

Both Gooding and Taylor make an excellent point: that Galloway was lying. But let me point out the obvious problem in the logic which many of their readers may conclude from their posts--which seems to be the same logic the rest of the right is using in impeaching the character of Galloway and his ilk who benefited from the Hussein regime's kickbacks. If I follow the Right's logic, it goes something like this:

1) Saddam Hussein used lucrative oil contracts to transfer money to various Western officials and UN bureaucrats.
2) The intent of the Baathist dictator's regime was to influence these Western politicians and UN bureaucrats.
3) These Western politicians used their influence to oppose the UN sanctions on Iraq and the later US led war because of these kickbacks.

The problem with this logic is that it attributes the causal factors all wrong. That is, the normal right-wing theory seems to be that Western politicians, such as Galloway, supported ending the UN sanctions because of the kickbacks. It is the standard if you want to know why something happens then follow the money explanation of politics.

While such a hypothesis may sometimes be true, it cannot always be true, otherwise it leaves the realm of theory and becomes a non-falsifiable truism.

Look, people like George Galloway don't need their votes bought by the likes of Saddam Hussein. If you think he supported Husseing because of the money you just don't get it. With or without Hussein's money he would have opposed the UN sanctions and the later US led invasion. It's not the money, it's the ideology.

The ideology of the left divides the world into two groups: the powerful and the weak. It is the forgotten legacy of Marx that he rejected notions of good and evil in favor of a morality of power.

The left is unable to make any other moral distinction. Therefore Iraq is good because it is weak and the US/UK are bad because they are strong. Further, any position taken by any powerful country is seen as bad when such position pits weak countries against the strong.

The left around the world hates America because of her strength. America is bad, mmmmkay, because it is strong.

It is the same reason Galloway and his ilk support the Palestinians over Israel, Hugo Chavez over the democratic opposition, and lavish Fidel Castro with loving adoration.

Castro, Chavez, and Saddam Hussein don't need to buy Galloway's support. Galloway and the rest of the left have already pledged it.

The UN oil-for-food scandal does not represent graft with the intention of buying Western influence. The UN oil-for-food scandal represents money given as a reward to the already faithful.

Support did not follow the money. The money was a reward for support.

In our rush to judgement let us not forget that while blood is thicker than money, to the true ideologue, hate for America is thicker than anything else.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:49 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

Hey end-of-the-world alarmists, I have just the story to make the pamphlets about the end of the world come raining down. (I mean that affectionately.) Michael Chertoff, the new Director of Homeland Security, is pushing Britain to use the same ID technology as the US is planning to implement in their national ID cards (see here for my previous post on that). This would allow British and US screeners to access each others' databases to check for terrorists (always the surface goal, right?). In other words, not only will the state AND the Feds have access to our private information, but now our friends across the pond will too.

From The Independent:

The United States wants Britain's proposed identity cards to have the same microchip and technology as the ones used on American documents.

The aim of getting the same microchip is to ensure compatability in screening terrorist suspects. But it will also mean that information contained in the British cards can be accessed across the Atlantic.

Posted by: Suzanne at 12:39 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

Neil Doyle is the author of Terror Tracker and runs his own website here. I've been aware of Neil's work for some time. Much of what he publishes on his website mirrors my own anti-terrorism posts.

A new and updated paperback version of Terror Tracker is soon to be available in both the U.S. and U.K. In the U.S. you can order it at Amazon here. One important aspect of the book is that it reveals statements from a former imam at London's Finsburry Park Mosque, the radical hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri. Abu Hamza was arrested one year ago today in London on charges that he conspired to build a terrorist network in Oregon. He is currently rotting--literally, his body is covered in sores because he refuses to shower--in a Belmarsh prison.

However, UK readers may not know much of Abu Hamza's statements. UK newspapers are barred from reporting this at the moment, as the case is subject to censorship pending extradition hearings. So, no mention of Terror Tracker in the UK because enquiring Britons may just want to read what Abu Hamza has been thinking all these many years. The book is also a tad embarrassing for the police, as their key evidence was out in print before they even charged the guy, yet the public is not allowed to know this.

Free speech indeed.

In the spirit of free speech and wishing the British people to know what kind of filth has been living amongst them and taking advantage of their good will these past decades, all the while plotting the destruction of their liberty and democratic institutions, The Jawa Report presents quotes from Neil Doyle's Terror Tracker. Warning: If you're a UK blogger do not reprint as that might get you thrown in jail. Or, you know, reprint them, in an act of civil disobedience.

According to Abu Hamza, Jewish people were subhuman and no further up the evolutionary scale than monkeys. It was Allah's will that they should be exterminated. He even seemed to suggest that Adolf Hitler had been sent to earth by Allah to carry out the task. 'Not only did they become monkeys, but Allah put a law on Earth that wherever always Allah will send in people to humiliate them, to kill them, and to punish them. And Hitler is not far from us,' said Hamza....

"All the Israelis are fighters. They all fight. That's why anybody over 15
he is a warrior and he should be killed!"

Posted by: Rusty at 10:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Sad day in Iraq. Usually these guys do little damage to our aircraft. The location being in Western Iraq, expect an al Qaeda propaganda video within the next 24 hours. Xinhua:

Two US soldiers were killed when their helicopter was shot down north of Baghdad, according to the US military here Friday.

Two helicopters were under attack by small arms fire at 22:50(1850 GMT) while supporting coalition forces near Baquba, 56 km northeast of Baghdad, the military said in a statement.

One of two OH-58 Kiowa crashed by the fire, killing two US soldiers, while the second landed safely at a nearby base after sustaining damage, the statement added.

The US forces rushed to the scene and secured the site, said the statement, adding the incident was under investigation.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:02 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

You know the bad guys are in bad shape when the run out of 'volunteers' for suicide bombing missions. Where is PETA when they're really needed?

Terrorists tie bomb belt to dog in Iraq:

Insurgents in Iraq attached explosives to a dog and tried to blow up a military convoy near the northern oil centre of Kirkuk.

The canine bomb went off but the only casualty was the unfortunate animal, said police. The militants wrapped an explosive belt around the dog and detonated it as the convoy passed through Dakuk, 25 miles south of Kirkuk, said the town's police chief, Col Mohammed Barzaji.

"The dog was torn apart by the explosion which caused neither injury among the soldiers nor any damage."

Posted by: Rusty at 09:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Clinton appointee 1998.

A federal judge has told the government it will have to release additional pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, civil rights lawyers said.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, finding the public has a right to see the pictures, told the government Thursday he will sign an order requiring it to release them to the American Civil Liberties Union, the lawyers said.

The judge made the decision after he and government attorneys privately viewed a sampling of nine pictures resulting from an Army probe into abuse and torture at the prison. The pictures were given to the Army by a military policeman assigned there.

Any wonder why we fight over judgeships like there's no tommorrow?

Traderrob

Posted by: Traderrob at 08:40 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Any wonder why we fight for over judgeships like there's no tommorrow?"-Traderrob Is it because you want to suppress the truth at all costs?

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 08:58 AM (/+dAV)

2 "Any wonder why we fight for over judgeships like there's no tommorrow?" Why? do you think a different judge would rule differently?

Posted by: actus at May 27, 2005 09:00 AM (Ygl+x)

3 It's a balance between the "peoples right to know" and the potential harm to security efforts. We are in a time of war and it certainly would be prudent to keep certain potentially volatile things under wraps. It has been done in times of war since we became a nation. Only recently have satisfying the insatiable voyeurism of certain segments of the public become paramount. Releasing the infornmation is not in question, most everything is made public eventually, the problem is timing. Does anyone honestly believe that the benefit of this material being released now will offset the potential damage it will elicit? This ain't bean bag, this is war, and if one soldiers life is jeopardized because some judge makes an arbitrary decision in a vacuum a greater injustice will have been done.

Posted by: traderrob at May 27, 2005 09:31 AM (3al54)

4 Facts do not the truth make. All facts must be seen in context in order to be understood. Further, when facts would lead to the deaths of American soldiers then yes, I would suppress the facts. Releasing the photos will only lead to more death. I value American lives over the public's 'right to see'.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 27, 2005 09:33 AM (JQjhA)

5 That's cool. The military should do it by the book, and transparency helps ensure that. Keeps us honest. But I know the ACLU's motivation is purely political.

Posted by: Carlos at May 27, 2005 09:34 AM (8e/V4)

6 good point Rusty.

Posted by: Carlos at May 27, 2005 09:35 AM (8e/V4)

7 "Releasing the photos will only lead to more death."-Rusty It was the behavior that put American lives in danger, not the photos. We already know the photos exist and have been told by Congress critters that the second batch of photos dwarfs the first batch in terms of negative impact. The best way to ensure that such incidents don't occur again is to expose them and prosecute offenders stringently. To not do so makes the military heirarchy seem complicit.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 09:42 AM (/+dAV)

8 "It's a balance between the "peoples right to know" and the potential harm to security efforts. " Are you saying what the law is or what it should be? And which way should a judge go?

Posted by: actus at May 27, 2005 10:16 AM (Ygl+x)

9 Judges should abide by the law but also exercise common sense.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 10:17 AM (x+5JB)

10 Releasing these images to the American public is the right thing to do. We pay the taxes that the military spends fighting the war and paying the troops. We have a right to see how our money is being spent. The reason they want to keep these images from getting out is because it will enrage AMERICANS, and we might get off our asses and put a stop to this war. That's the real reason, not because they don't want to inflame the Iraqi freedom fighters. They did that by releasing Saddam in his underwear.

Posted by: Free the Photos! at May 27, 2005 10:28 AM (h0FT+)

11 Unfortunately I have to say that exposure of current wrongs is the only way to ensure that they don't happen again. Of course there will be a price to pay, but those who committed these stupid acts must be held fully accountable, but not only at the lower levels. I was in the Army, and I know for a guaranteed 100% fact that nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib happens without someone knowing about it. An officer's job is to know everything that goes on in their unit; the Army is fanatical about reports, and either officers weren't doing their jobs and leaving it up to the NCO's, (very likely by the way), or the NCO's were lying to the officers, which may also be the case. I personally believe the breakdown of professionalism that led to this scandal is nothing less than an Army-wide epidemic. I saw it when I was at Ft. Bragg and other places. The Army began to die in the 60's, when mass conscription combined with lack of purpose to erode morale. The trend continued in the 70's, and peaked in the 80's, regardless of the threat of the Cold War, which everyone thought would be strictly nuclear, so many Army units lost their sense of self, and scandal piled on top of scandal, though the public rarely ever heard. When Peanut Jim turned the Army over to the liberals lock, stock, and barrel in the late 70's, he almost killed it. The old, hard-core professional soldiers started leaving in droves, especially with the new rule that you had to get promoted by a certain timeline or get out; this ensured that only those who met the PC test would remain, and those who were a little too "Army" for the Army had to go. By the time Komrade Klinton got into office, the Army had managed to recover some of its pride and dignity through several successful engagements under Regan and Bush the Elder, but Bill the idiot had to finish what Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter had begun; the destruction of the US military as the last bastion of traditional American values in the government. And so now we have Abu Ghraib. What bothers me about the who mess is not the fact that the prisoners were mistreated; I have no sympathy for them, but the looks of perverted glee on the faces of those who piled them naked into myramids is too much. It's one thing to soften someone up to make them more cooperative, but it's another to enjoy it so much. The Army won't be right until every Klintonite officer is purged and the old values brought back. Officers and NCO's used to get promoted based on their accomplishments and the respect of their peers and superiors, but now it's about promoting so many blacks, so many Asians, so many Hispanics, so many females, etc. ad nauseum. Maybe officers and NCO's should get promoted based strictly on their merit, rather than by some PC social engineering scheme. But hey, what do I know? I was just a soldier.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2005 10:28 AM (0yYS2)

12 It will serve no purpose other than to keep the anger coming at our troops. You won't see pictures of 9/11 on the anniversary anymore, but keeping this story on the front burner for as long as possible is a necessity? Yeah, right, pull the other one.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 27, 2005 10:30 AM (jPCiN)

13 Greg, we're talking about photos, not facts or whether any crimes committed are being tried in the courts. If one wants to provoke more outrage and more anti-American sentiment then the photos would serve that purpose well. I see no other reason to do so. We know the photos exist and those who have seen them say they are worse than what has been released. That is enough for me. Do I have to see them to believe it? No. In contrast, I don't hear the ACLU or those like you insisting that we air videos of beheadings to offset why things like this do indeed occur. I don't condone torture, but I think that we're beating a dead horse here. There are greater and lesser sins in this world and to continually emphasize the lesser while ignoring the greater is a sin in itself.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 10:31 AM (fl6E1)

14 Actus, what I am saying is a judge can interpret the law any way he chooses.

Posted by: traderrob at May 27, 2005 10:33 AM (3al54)

15 Improbulus, I agree with your comment except on one point. Your argument that the decline in morality that the military has undergone is the exclusive fault of Democrats rings hollow. Oyster, It's this simple, if we are to continue living in a free society the government should stop pulling the wool over are heads.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 10:57 AM (/+dAV)

16 our heads.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 10:58 AM (/+dAV)

17 "Actus, what I am saying is a judge can interpret the law any way he chooses." So any result can be reached? I don't follow.

Posted by: actus at May 27, 2005 11:16 AM (Ygl+x)

18 No, I think you do understand. Judicial interpretation by two judges with diametrically opposing ideological temperaments can very well result in opposite rulings.

Posted by: traderrob at May 27, 2005 11:23 AM (3al54)

19 "Judicial interpretation by two judges with diametrically opposing ideological temperaments can very well result in opposite rulings." In this situation?

Posted by: actus at May 27, 2005 11:56 AM (Ygl+x)

20 I have an idea...maybe the soldiers can stop acting like children and photo-bragging stupid shit to save their lives? What they did was about as stupid as fucking someone's wife, taking pictures, then running the photos in the town paper and not expecting the husband to get pissed and react. Don't blame the Democrats or judges...they aren't the ones producing this garbage in the first place. What is it with Red Staters always trying to censor everything? It's so counterproductive...*BLEEP!*

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 27, 2005 01:41 PM (XXCz1)

21 Actus, In ANY situation. Why do you think the Democrats have tried so hard to block Bush's nominations? They want liberal rulings, the Republicans want conservative rulings and we just hope we can get the "correct" interpretaion of the law by our judges rather than legislation. Some situations need special consideration and to release these pictures to the ACLU of all people is a mistake.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 01:46 PM (fl6E1)

22 The Libs pretent they're mad because Bush policies are making the world hate us. And then they sue to make photos public that will make the world hate us. See how full of shit they are.

Posted by: Carlos at May 27, 2005 02:00 PM (8e/V4)

23 Oyster: I think laws on release of government information are pretty clear. I don't think there's much wiggle room for interpretation.

Posted by: actus at May 27, 2005 02:17 PM (Ygl+x)

24 Carlos, you're so full of shit, it's ASStounding! 1-It's not just "Libs" who are mad at Bush...why don't you try almost every moderate Republican with common sense, while you're at it? Nobody wants this idiot fucking up our country further...evidence is in the polls. 2-Most people don't take kindly to our government controlling and censoring and hiding information. Do you prefer being lied to or kept in the dark? 3-The world wouldn't hate us if we didn't do stupid shit in the first place. If you just don't like being held accountable for our soldier's actions then why don't you go tell them to stop distributing the evidence themselves!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 27, 2005 02:47 PM (XXCz1)

25 "Most people don't take kindly to our government controlling and censoring and hiding information. Do you prefer being lied to or kept in the dark?"-Osama to Carlos Yes, he does. He loves slurping the sweet government popsicle and licking boot. He has devouted his life to the New American Fascism. He loves the Fuhrer. Sig Heil! Sig Heil! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWAA (Nazis cheering by the thousands).

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 03:02 PM (/+dAV)

26 Greg, we're talking about photos, not facts or whether any crimes committed are being tried in the courts. Oyster, How many sets of photos, reports, or any other story coming out of the prisons or the war have to be reported on before people will wake up and realize that our government and the administration are the real terrorists in this world. I feel sorry for the soldiers and their families, especially for the parents of Pat Tillman (you remember him, right?). It has become all too apparent our nation has been lied to. Why else would the government and military seek to keep things like these photos from us. Since Bush took (and I mean literally took) the presidency, reclassification of documents no matter how mundane or unrelated to the war, have been removed from public view and access. The last estimate I saw earlier this year was somewhere around 98 million documents. That's nearly three times the number Clinton, and Bush 1 did. Why? People of the world don't hate America because of a few photos, or because of Saddam in his underwear, or because of a small article in Newsweek. People of the world hate Americas leaders because they choose to attack innocents (Saddam not included)and provoke further suffering through might. Bush stands in the oval office and proclaims his belief in the preciousness of life, while at the same time ordering the total destruction of others lives (US soldiers included). Pat Tillman was praised as the epitomy of heros last year by many well known people. His name was in the press for weeks. Now that we know the truth about his death, where is the discussion? Where has everyone gone too? It should be apparent to all here that Pat Tillman was worth more to Bush dead that he was alive. Sean Hannity has been running a fundraiser for the kids of fallen soldiers to help pay for college. It's a nice jesture and one of the few things about Sean I find good. But what's going to happen the nearly 20,000 soldiers who are permanently disabled, many with kids, and will never be able to hold a decent job? Who's going to help them? I guarantee it won't be George W Bush. The more the evidence piles up, the harder people such as Rusty and others work to try and refute, divert and distract us from what's really going on. Even as we all read this site, Bush is harboring a known terrorist. Why? I love America and I respect the office of the president. I do not, however, respect people who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. This is what Bush really is. Him and his band of criminals deserve to be in prison. And if it was anyone else in the world doing what Bush is doing, prison is exactly what Rusty and others would be calling for. Why should it be any different for our own leaders whom we know have done wrong?

Posted by: deccles at May 27, 2005 03:41 PM (SoKjy)

27 Damn, that couldn't have been put better. Once again, intelligence and common sense prevail where the red states fail... I would celebrate the day that Bush, Inc. is treated as they treat others. Maybe we could start by detaining them without rights, trial or representation indefinitely? Cheney would look great in one of those orange jumpsuits!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 27, 2005 04:09 PM (XXCz1)

28 deccles, if you don't like people who lie - then why do you do it yourself? You've lied above about the coverup of Pat Tillman's death - which took place at the unit level not higher up as you slanderously imply. Your slander about the election is long since debunked. Basically, you are as full of false stories and fantasies as greg is.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 27, 2005 04:15 PM (xauGB)

29 Robin, Deccles didn't lie he kicked your puny ass and it was a Super Bowl blowout! Bravo Deccles.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 04:27 PM (/+dAV)

30 (In the voice of Bevis and Butthead) "Yeah! Yeah! He kicked your ass! he he. he he..."

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 27, 2005 04:45 PM (XXCz1)

31 Robin, don't you have an election to rig/manipulate somewhere? It's not our fault that you can't actually WIN an election... The state of Washington's GOP needs your help!

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 27, 2005 04:48 PM (XXCz1)

32 All of the election fraud in 2004 was Democrat, terroristlover.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 27, 2005 05:07 PM (xauGB)

33 Robin you twat: So that's why every time a voting machine spit out extra numbers they were all for Bush, Inc. What fucking planet do you live on? I'm a "terrorist lover"? You're the fucking AMERICAN TALIBAN! Why don't you go put a burka on your winkie before you have any dirty thoughts...

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 27, 2005 05:31 PM (XXCz1)

34 Yeah! Finally this blog is overrun with anti-Americans and leftists. Only a ban flood can cure this. Start from me. I'm bored anyway.

Posted by: A fatwa Finn at May 30, 2005 06:38 AM (cWMi4)

35 I went looking for info on this judges senate confrimation. (my god the web is polluted with crap) Anyway I Found that Senate Republicans blocked this guys nomination for at least six months (short compared to some now). Well we ended up caving for whatever reason. We were holding him up by use of guess what??? A fillibuster Still want to change the rule??? anyone find any more on this guy. I'll spend the rest of my life digging through this mess. Just wonder what the final vote on his confirmation was and what deal got the fillibuster lifted.

Posted by: Howie at May 30, 2005 11:29 AM (D3+20)

36 Who wants to see pictures of naked Iraqie men in humiliating situations anyway? Perverse people with an Arab-fetish, that's who. Since there are only a few people in the world with that kind of mental illness (judge Alvin Hellerstein and the people who took the pictures), no one really WANTS or NEEDS to see them.

Posted by: A fatwad Finn at May 31, 2005 06:30 AM (cWMi4)

37 I do agree with IM about the reporting. I was in both the Army and Marine Corp, and both are anal about reports. Once again it could of been the company officiers failing to report up the chain or the Staff NCO trying to proctect the enlist from the stupid stuff the enlist was doing. As for releasing the photos, I am really divided. Part of me believe that they should be release to try and show we still have some integridy and we will punish those responisble. The other part of me believes that the photos will just cause more harm to our soldiers in the field. So in the end, I would probably go with protecting our soldiers now, and at a later time, come back and prosecute the personal later.

Posted by: Butch at May 31, 2005 04:41 PM (Gqhi9)

38 If showing the pictures is the "right" thing to do, why did all the networks quit showing the destruction of the towers caused by the animals impersonating humans? Why aren't all the pictures of all the be-headings, done to westerners, by the Islamic sub- humans shown on a regular basis, if ever. It's because that, no matter what the US military does, they are the bad guys, according to socialist, anti- American, ACLU wackos and the communist, America hating Clinton judges.

Posted by: Schoendog at June 03, 2005 11:16 AM (2Dp3N)

39 You on the far left just want more propaganda to jerk off to. I hope you enjoy getting buttfucked by Satin in hell!

Posted by: fogamster at September 29, 2005 07:13 PM (ZdCgI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So many great blogs, so little time. If you have a post you need plugged, just send a trackback here. We'll see if there are any takers and whether or not to make this a regular feature. (Translation: for the love of all that is holy send a trackback!!)

Update: Of course this might work better if trackbacks were working......*sigh*
Update II: Ok, all seems normal again.

In the meantime:

Cheers to Martini Pundit on his one year blogoversary.

The Dread Pundit Bluto catches a case of the funny.

WunderKraut notices that NPR uses the 'I' word. As in "Illegal Alien".

Jason has more on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.

Jane from Armies of Liberation has an excellent post in The Religion Journal on the ongoing government sponsored al Qaeda jihad in Yemen.

Secret note to Preston: Forget the boring TN scandal, focus all remaing strength on tonight's 'meeting'.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:01 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Failed foreign policy. Imperialism. No blood for oil. Zionist neocons. Blah-blah-blah. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is actually a negative development. With the new law, the only people that can run against the president need to be approved by the president. Therefore, he ensures his competition is weak. The opposition (Kafeya) attempted to boycott the vote, as it is much difficult to ammend a law once it is in place. They believe that the entire law needs to be rewritten to allow anyone the opportunity to run in the election. Thus, this vote for "democracy" was a sham to ensure Mubarak stays in power

Posted by: Nick at May 26, 2005 04:32 PM (osgBA)

2 "The opposition says the conditions on presidential candidates are so restrictive that the ruling party would not face a credible challenge. " This way we can both point to change and not change at all. Sure to be ho-hum happy for the wingers at home.

Posted by: actus at May 26, 2005 05:54 PM (Ygl+x)

3 Dude, what is your obsession with Kip Winger's fans? I'm guessing you're a big Hanson fanboy, right? Fag.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 26, 2005 08:59 PM (0yYS2)

4 Hosni Mubarak is Egypts Urho K. Kekkonen, he will rule until he gets so old he goes all mumbly and wierd. Also, after he goes, Egypt will most likely fall into depression for 5 years after which they get companies like Al-Nokiak or Masah-Yardsni to give them an economic booster followed by a fast growth in economy.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 05:08 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Whoever is behind the Flush The Koran site ought to get a fatwa......

Posted by: Rusty at 02:25 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is the e-mail (with thanks to Italian blogger KrilliX) for the fascist who is prosecuting Oriana Fallaci for daring to speak out against the Islamification of Europe.

Armando Grasso
tribunale.bergamo@giustizia.it

Here is my letter

Sir,
You are a fascist for prosecuting a women for exercising her right of free speech.

I stand in solidarity with Ms. Fallaci and beg you to also prosecute me. I have said much worse about Islam that she has.

For instance, I have publicly called Mohammed a child molester since the most reliable Hadiths claim he married his last wife Aisha at the age of six and raped her at the age of nine.

Also, as we speak, I am burning a copy of the Koran. A shit stained copy of the Koran, I might add, since I have recently taken to using its pages for toilet paper. I have no excuse for this obvious act of desecration other than to provoke a response from Islamofascists and their European dhimmis (like you) bent on extinguishing liberty.

If you call yourself a man then you will immediately indict me for 'crimes' much worse than Ms. Fallaci is charged with and begin extradition hearings.

--
Dr. Rusty Shackleford
www.mypetjawa.mu.nu

Let me make something perfectly clear: I do not hate Muslims. I do not believe Muslims go to hell. I do not believe Muslims are bad people.

What I am is a lover of liberty.

What I hate about Islam is not what most Christians hate about Islam. What I hate about Islam is that it seems to be anti-libertarian. I could care less if Muslims want to condemn me to hell. Most Christians also believe I am going to hell. Thank you one and all for your concern for my eternal soul.

What I do object to is Muslims using the law to put people in prison (or worse) for exercising basic human rights such as the right to say bad things about, well, Islam.

I doubt if I represent what most Americans think, but I can say without reservation that I for one do not hate Muslims. But I do hate Islam. I also do not hate communists, but I do hate Communism. Islam in its historical and mainstream manifestation is every bit as evil as Communism was. It quashes the individual. It makes him a slave to the religious community.

Even liberal Islamic law is still Islamic law.

I have been told that thousands of slave owners were very nice. Despite the law, they educated their slaves, provided good food and shelter (certainly better than many free smallholders had), did not break up families, and allowed them a great deal of freedom of movement and worship. But no matter how pleasent the master may seem he is still the master. A happy slave is still a slave.

I will not be a willing participant in the Islamification of Europe. Too many Americans died to free the Continent from the slavery of Fascism. Countless billions of American dollars were spent protecting the Continent from the slavery of Communism.

We are now engaged in a great war of ideas. This war is not between Christians and Muslims. It is a war between freedom and Islam. It is a war of ideas. We cannot afford to lose this war.

While others are focusing on the veracity of the Koran story, let me pause to say, "So what?" What if the story is true? What does that mean exactly? So a dipshit 21 year old soldier flushes a copy of the Koran? It might offend people, but who has he hurt? No one.

UPDATE: Ron Wright has similar thoughts.

UPDATE II: McQ too.

PS- more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:11 PM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Well said.

Posted by: kjl at May 26, 2005 01:36 PM (NfZYP)

2 The big deal probably is that she's publishing an anti-Muslim book in a time of EUs Muslim country invasion. (membership negotiations with Turkish Cyprus, Turkey, Morocco, Albania and (Former Yugoslavian Republic of) Macedonia) Nothing is allowed to mess with the EUs plans of continental domination, so naturally these voices of pro-Americanism and crusades must be silenced so we don't have to adjust any behaviour when the Muslims submit to EUs command.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:50 PM (lGolT)

3 Wow, very well said indeed Rusty. If that letter doesn't provoke some sort of reaction, I dunno what would.

Posted by: tyler at May 26, 2005 02:03 PM (Y9Lwb)

4 You've got it all backward. With current demographic trends the EU will be Muslim in 100 years or so. YOu wouldn't want to piss off your new masters, would you?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 26, 2005 02:03 PM (JQjhA)

5 "Also, as we speak, I am burning a copy of the Koran." You sir, owe me a new keyboard. I will await remittance through the usual VRWC channels.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 26, 2005 02:07 PM (jPCiN)

6 And to my country, Fascism brought nothing but a chance to get lost land back from Soviets, and thanks to Hitler forcing us to prove our might once more, the Communists became quite peaceful, and useful business assosiates. You should've kept your artificial noses out of it, so they could've fallen peacefully on their own, and we could've benefited more of their distress. If you wouldn't have messed with them they wouldn't have wasted all their effort on war machinery and space exploring instead of economy, wellfare and agriculture. I don't see anything wrong with Sosialism. I see greedy people who destroyed a great goal, just because they didn't want to have a world where they got no power with their money and resources. And before you start saying: "but the people in Soviet countries were suffering and being oppressed, blaa blaa blaa", I say it's your fault for declaring yourself their enemy and opposing to everything they tried to do, and in that way forcing them to use everything they had to defend from you instead of creating their ideal society. Yes, Stalin was an asshole, but you could've just killed him back in 1946 instead of increasing your military expenditures.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:12 PM (lGolT)

7 Lol. When was the last time Muslims actually got power over something else than Spain or other deserts?

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:14 PM (lGolT)

8 On the other hand, I wouldn't mind switching to Progressive Islam like Turkeys.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:16 PM (lGolT)

9 Finn Once again your view of history is just wrong. I realize that you want to have a nice neat world where everything can be blamed on the US, but it just isn't the case.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 26, 2005 02:17 PM (jPCiN)

10 Finn, I suggest going to Turkey and saying something anti-Islamic. You will find yourself in jail.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 26, 2005 02:24 PM (JQjhA)

11 Finn, ya gotta see the bombed out synagogue tour when you visit moderate Turkey. I can just see them buying you drinks when you start with your “God doesn’t exist speech” Actually, that kind of talk may land you in a Turkish prison. If that happens, I hope you packed your herring oil.

Posted by: Brad at May 26, 2005 02:36 PM (B54Lt)

12 Well, why didn't Mighty Finland knock off Mr. Stalin???? Have we got to do everything?? (Answer : usually). Plus you are a lot closer.

Posted by: Howie at May 26, 2005 02:40 PM (D3+20)

13 Finn, Whatever you do, don't come to America and go to a rally for George Bush wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt. You will find yourself in jail. Such is the state of democracy in America.

Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 02:43 PM (/+dAV)

14 Hey! I've been to Turkey, and everything was fine there. Their Islam is just like North European Protestant Christianity: As long as you don't start mocking it out loud in public places you can say anything want about it without consequences. Besides, we 'knocked off' several 'Stalins', pretty much every single one that dared leave Moscow, but since Stalin had many brothers and several other look-a-likes we could've used some help at the UN conventions the actual Stalin visited (you know, not being from a UN country (joined somewhere in the mid-1950s) makes it pretty difficult to sneak in with a rifle)

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:49 PM (lGolT)

15 Besides, Turkish prisons have only isolation chambers, not some stupid buttfucking breaks outside when the big bad bikers and steroid apes rape your average fraud convict. And Islam is strickly against gay, so gay people in jails would be (tortured? No, they're adjusting to EU regulations) put in a dark room for months.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:54 PM (lGolT)

16 Rusty, am I holding my Koran (Qu'ran-Quran-Q'u'r'a'n-whatever) correctly? http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/05/msms-distain-for-military-newsweek.html You may now return to your ululating.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at May 26, 2005 03:03 PM (PJ4Iq)

17 Ululate... Interresting word for making annoying howling noices. Never seen it anywhere before... Almost draws my attention away from the republicans here.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:10 PM (lGolT)

18 Oh yeah, gotta get 8 hours of sleep this night, so guutbai. (Sud vrait moor in pronaunsiaisson-moud) ((And that's English written the way I would say it, and includes no insults))

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:22 PM (lGolT)

19 Greg, You sure they just don't drag you out of the convention by your feet face down and turn you loose outside with a nice case of road rash on your nose. Just jerkin' yer chain Finn. I have some buddies who have been to prison. Most raping is done by the "Disciples". The "White Pride" biker gangs like Hell's Angels, Outlaws, Storm Riders will be the ones you pay or join to protect your rectum from Disciples, Crypts and Bloods. I grew up around a bunch of Outlaw's(joliet chapter) Former President was from my hometown. They came in every summer for a week or two and parents rushed to take their kids in while they snuck back out the back door to wave at the Harleys. Not one bad incident. Most were pretty nice guys. You wouldn't want to cross them, but have a beer with them. No problem. Just people like anyone else. Except they might have their old lady dance for you if they like you.

Posted by: Howie at May 26, 2005 03:22 PM (D3+20)

20 CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated. http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-19144.html OREGON TEACHERS KICKED OUT OF BUSH SPEECH FOR SHIRTS SAYING “PROTECT OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and escorted from the event after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties." http://monsterp.blogs.com/monster_blog/2004/10/civil_liberties.html When retired Pittsburgh steelworker Bill Neel learned that President George W. Bush was coming to town last year, he decided he would be on hand to protest the president's economic policies. Neel and his sister made a hand-lettered sign - The Bush family must surely love the poor! They have made so many of us! - and headed for a road where the motorcade would pass. But he never got to display his sign for Bush to see. As he stood among milling groups of Bush supporters, he was approached by a local police detective and told that he and his sister had to move to a "free-speech area" for protesters, on orders of the U.S. Secret Service. "He pointed out a relatively remote baseball diamond that was enclosed in a chain-link fence," Neel recalls. "I could see these people behind the fence, with their faces up against it, and their hands on the wire. "It looked more like a concentration camp than a free-speech area to me, so I said, `I'm not going in there. I thought the whole country was a free-speech area.'" After refusing several times to go to the area, he was handcuffed and arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/free_speech_denied_protest_pens.html et cetera, et cetera, et cetera Some Democracy!

Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 03:22 PM (/+dAV)

21 So in other words, greg, the story doesn't back your lies. No surprise.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 26, 2005 04:12 PM (xauGB)

22 Robin, What dream world are you living in? I cited 3 stories. In the first there were two arrests. Stupid Bitch!

Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 04:23 PM (/+dAV)

23 Gee, I could have sworn that Rus told you guys (Greg, Baber boys, so on) that he would tolerate your crap if you would avoid personal attacks. Yet every time I come in here, Greg is calling somebody a f... or calling Robin a 'stupid bitch'. So nice to see the Jawa crumble. Every day this place looks more and more like Kosville. Come on little Greggy, call me a bad word. You're a big tough one, aren't you, coming in with your crap quotes from moonbat land. Then when someone doesn't accept your pov you call them a stupid bitch. You must have gotten picked on a lot when you were a child...oh wait, you still are a child!

Posted by: Gregisatool at May 26, 2005 05:50 PM (YAEN3)

24 Yes, gregisatool, greg's disgusting filthy mouth got old long ago. In neither case was anyone arrested for a t-shirt as your lie claimed, greg. Each was arrested for protesting where they were not allowed. A lot of anti-Bush protestors believe that freedom of speech means that they get to invade events where they were not invited. This is false. Evidently the difference is too difficult for you to comprehend. Not a surprise.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 26, 2005 08:32 PM (xauGB)

25 More proof that Liberals are a threat to freedom. I also sent the Liberal fascista an email.

Posted by: Carlos at May 26, 2005 09:45 PM (8e/V4)

26 Howie: So if (ok, when) I go to an US prison, I need to find "White Pride"-people? Thanks for the advice, man. Änd thö seim in pronaunsieisson-Inglis: Hauvie: Sou if (oukei, wen) ai gou tu än juues prisn, ai niid tu faind "vait praid"-piipol? Tänks for thö ädvais, mään.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 02:44 AM (cWMi4)

27 Hey, almost forgot to mention this somewhere: Bush got a grenade thrown at him in Georgia,(the former part of Soviet Union, not the one you have) but the darn thing was a dud, otherwise he'd be missing the right half of his face and bodyparts. (or a bodyguard)

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:19 AM (cWMi4)

28 Sir, THANKS for your letter to the fascist. It's just great. And thanks for spreading his e-mail. I hope more bloggers will follow your example. I'm going to spread the news on italian newspapers

Posted by: KrilliX at May 27, 2005 03:20 AM (/7AIJ)

29 Robin, wait a minute, you can't protest everywhere you want in your country? Don't you have freedom of expression? You can just say what you want as long as you don't get many people together to say it out loud in public near the people you need to say it to? Your system is worse than Turkeys, at least they arrest people for public blasphemy instead of saying "Bush ain't so great" near Bush supporters.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:45 AM (cWMi4)

30 I thought the news report about it was exaggerated, but I guess you do have a person-cult for your presidents like Russians

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 04:00 AM (cWMi4)

31 THANKS for your letter to the (leftist)fascist! Freedom of word in Italy! il sorvegliato speciale (a italian blog)

Posted by: sorvy at May 27, 2005 05:44 AM (rIvGw)

32 Gerg and A Finn, I have nothing against protesters in general. For the most part, they're conscientious people who simply want to make a statement. However, a few bad apples have used the "protest" as a tool to become verbally and physically abusive and our police, in most cases, are simply trying to prevent a situation from escalating. Their job is to protect us. Too often those who protest want to be accepted as excersizing their right of free speech and when another uses their right to tell them to shut up, we end up with the protester expecting a double standard to be employed. Separating these protesters from the general audience who want to hear a certain message is often the only recourse to avoid confrontation. Many of these instances whereby a protester wears a t-shirt with their message is removed from the festivities has done more than just wear a t-shirt. These instance are often not reported as they actually happen and people become more agitated as a result. Sometimes they are actually removed wrongly, but I would venture to guess it's not as often as we're led to believe. I've always been of the mind that, if I wasn't actually there, I can't pass judgement on the individual or individuals involved. We have some here too that will pass judgement without knowing the facts or being there simply because they already have a preconceived notion of events or people's feelings.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 08:51 AM (fl6E1)

33 Gerg? Oh well, I kinda like it better than Greg.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 08:52 AM (fl6E1)

34 "Sometimes they are actually removed wrongly, but I would venture to guess it's not as often as we're led to believe."-Oyster You're damn right. And you're not bothered. Typical Neocon,. They chat up democracy inn Iraq but ignore it at home. IIt's just lip service from fascist enablers. "I've always been of the mind that, if I wasn't actually there, I can't pass judgement on the individual or individuals involved."-Oyster Well you sure do yap a lot about the war even though you aren''t "actually there". Your argument is hollow.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 09:06 AM (/+dAV)

35 greg, the problem with these protesters is that often they're really just rioters playing as protesters. If they can't self-police the more violent elements in their midst, then we'll send in the cops with the bean bags and microwaves to disperse them. That's not anti-democratic.

Posted by: Carlos at May 27, 2005 09:42 AM (8e/V4)

36 Carlos:"the problem with these protesters is that often they're really just rioters playing as protesters." That's bullshit! Read the damn first article and then comment. The were peaceful. You're just being an enabler of facism. In WWII there were milions of "good" Germans just like you who made excuses for the government as it sequentually desended into a state of Fascism. Good job!

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 09:51 AM (/+dAV)

37 A Finn, freedom of expression is not freedom to trespass. Nor is it freedom to interfere with other people's rights. Thugs like greg don't understand this.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 27, 2005 10:00 AM (xauGB)

38 Robin, Read this, stupid! No trespassing involved, just a fascist government, you Nazi. OREGON TEACHERS KICKED OUT OF BUSH SPEECH FOR SHIRTS SAYING “PROTECT OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and escorted from the event after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties." http://monsterp.blogs.com/monster_blog/2004/10/civil_liberties.html "Protect Our Civil Liberties". Oh my God. What nerve! Sounds like terrorism to me!

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 10:18 AM (/+dAV)

39 They misrepresent themselves (lie) to get tickets to Bush rally. The plan is to disrupt free speech (the campaign rally by the President) or get favorable press from their liberal pals in the media when they are asked to leave. Greg, we are wise to this shit and it just doesnÂ’t fly with most of America anymore.

Posted by: Brad at May 27, 2005 10:33 AM (pO1tP)

40 Robin, And read this: A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated. http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-19144.html There is no trespassing involved. Nazi Ho!

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 10:35 AM (/+dAV)

41 " The plan is to disrupt free speech"-Brad Brad, How does wearing a T-shirt disrupt free speech? Are you hearing yourself? You're advocating a totalitarian society.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 10:39 AM (/+dAV)

42 greg It is interesting that you start your litany of truth-telling about protesters under the Bush administration. I bet you know that this started even before he took his first oath of office. It's not new, and neither is your partisan view of, well, everything.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 27, 2005 10:47 AM (jPCiN)

43 We tolerate you, Greg. And at our peril, too.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 10:47 AM (fl6E1)

44 "....and neither is your partisan view of, well, everything." Back atcha.

Posted by: Oyster at May 27, 2005 10:49 AM (fl6E1)

45 Greg, The tickets are obviously issued to people who represent themselves as supporters of the President. These people and their tactics are well known. Once they gain entrance to the event, they scream slogans over and over denying the speaker and the people who came the chance to hear the message. Or, they are asked to leave. Either way, it’s a public relations win for them because they are given a free pass by the MSM to pull these tactics. If someone shows up at my son’s birthday party with a T-shirt that says, “MARK IS A TURD,” they would be asked to leave.

Posted by: Brad at May 27, 2005 10:55 AM (pO1tP)

46 Oyster Show me my partisan viewpoints, and I may concede your point.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 27, 2005 11:01 AM (jPCiN)

47 "If someone shows up at my son’s birthday party with a T-shirt that says, “MARK IS A TURD,” they would be asked to leave."-Brad Brad,, How is a T-shirt bearing the woords, "Protect Our Civil Liberties" disruptive? How is a T--shirt bearing the word Bush with a cicle around it and a line striking through the word "bush"disruptive. You all can argue until youu turn blue but you;'re just advocating fascism. Please stop ruining our country..

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 11:09 AM (/+dAV)

48 Fascism invented the tactic of disrupting other party's political rallies.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 27, 2005 04:25 PM (xauGB)

49 Whatever Robin. Everytime you open your pathetic little mouth you lose more credibility.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 04:30 PM (/+dAV)

50 Nah, fascists just made it famous. Ever since 1917, the start of 'Finnish democracy', parties have been sending their biggest loudmouths to make loud comments and difficult questions, as well as just to get drunk and mess 'em up, to each others speeches and meetings. The loud comments and difficult questions are actually a good thing in finding out how witty the politicians answering actually are, and dumb people can't get in charge (unless they do great with the drunken disturbers, then they make good army leaders). Might do some good to your system too.

Posted by: A Finn at May 28, 2005 03:32 PM (lGolT)

51 Islam is a trouble in India too, we are planning to stop the jihadi supply line , by genociding the muslims here.

Posted by: Jagjit at June 13, 2005 08:28 AM (ANiCZ)

52 You better get this in your thick head because Muhammad (PBUH) did so not marry Aisha(RA)at the age of six he got engaged to her, and he got married to her at the age of nine because she was a fully grown mature woman. (she had reached puberty). By the way he did NOT rape her. SHE was his wife, but at the age of nine she was still at her fathers house. i think u should get ur facts checked before you start being racist. If u think dat islam is not the true religion then i think you should tell me dat hw cum the quran is the only book that hasnt been changed from the day it was revaeled till now. Atleast our book is originally from the angel unlike yours people wrote it themselves. if u think the bible is right then tell me how come saint paul has written in one of his letters dat "religious law is a curse and jesus christ came to relieve us from that curse." but in the old testament the religious law is that u shouldnt steal, forcinate, shouldnt give trouble to ur neighbour, shouldnt disobey parents,etc. but wen the entire religious law is a curse, it will also be a curse to obey these injunctions as these injunctions are also the part of the religious law and the very core of it. If what Saint Paul said is correct then Christians should also steal, forcinate and commit other such sins. Isn't that kind of weird. In one place it says something and in a different it denies it. DO YOU CALL THAT A TRUE RELIGION???

Posted by: SAHARA YUSUF at July 23, 2005 02:20 PM (25YDP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I find John from Wuzzadem's lack of faith in the Force disturbing....

Posted by: Rusty at 11:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

I sense a major terrorist insurgent dirtbag a$$woopin imminent.....

Iraq's government will pour tens of thousands of Iraqi troops into Baghdad in an unprecedented operation to seal off the city and hunt insurgents who have launched a fresh wave of violence, ministers said on Thursday.

Defense Minister Sadoun al-Dulaimi said 40,000 Iraqi troops would be deployed in Baghdad for Operation Thunder, the biggest Iraqi military operation since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Backed by the 10,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad, they will set up hundreds of checkpoints and block roads into the capital.

The dramatic rise in suicide bombings and ambushes by mostly Sunni Arab guerrillas has killed more than 600 Iraqis in the last four weeks and raised fears that Iraq could slide toward civil war if the Shi'ite-led government does not deliver on pledges of stability.

We shall not leave any place for terrorists or those who shelter them and incite terrorism in Iraq," Dulaimi said. "We will stand against all those who try to shed Iraqi blood ... We will implement the law with everything we've got."

Traderrob

Posted by: Traderrob at 11:31 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Peggy's been a little off her game lately. I think Sept. 11 rattled her. There have been a few too many "sweetness" columns and not enough iron.

But she's still got it. Here's a look at the Fantastic Fourteen and their magnificent egos.

Posted by: seedubya at 05:00 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

I received word of American Mohamed Monaf's release from Romanian reader Adi a few days ago. It's just hitting the Western press today, though. Three Romanian journalists were also released. As Adi reminded me in his e-mail, though, there are many questions that remain unanswered about this hostage crisis. Most important of these questions is that Monaf did not return to Romania where it seems he is now wanted in connection for unrelated crimes committed with Omar Hayssam. Omar Hayssam is also the man who is said to be responsible for freeing the hostages. Very odd and sordid tale indeed. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:16 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

The Islamic Army in Iraq released a video today of an attack near the Baghdad Airport. Images below. The video can be downloaded from the Islamic Army in Iraq webpage here (via uber-hacker Vlad). The main page is dead but the cyber-terrorist pukes continue to use the site as an archive and place to spread jihadi propaganda. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.