mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

February 01, 2006

On Begging for a Fatwa

I just have to play this game...

Posted by: wineaholic at 10:32 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Peace Be Upon Him

And I say to you

All ummah are equal, but some ummah are more equal than others.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:39 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

That Fatwa Is MINE

Inspired by Rusty, who was, uh, inspired by other people.

Then again, I may have been inspired by this.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:02 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I Hope I Live to Regret This

Posted by: Howie at 07:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Issue a Fatwa. I Dare You. (#273)

If Ted Rall is an edgy political cartoonist, then so am I. Only I'm actually putting my life on the line over this. Inspired by Draw Mohammed Week (Warning: NSFW) and classic Frank J.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:22 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Lol Rusty, it ain't NSFH either. Number 1 might have killed me over that

Posted by: Tim at February 01, 2006 06:41 PM (5rYy9)

2 Being baptized a catholic I only had to defend the marriage of Joseph to Mary at an age of 12-14 years. http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.1.6 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm Really though 9 years is too young. Buddha married at 16 to a girl the same age.

Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 07:24 PM (TcoRJ)

3 John, Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6. He was kind enough to wait until she was 9 to consummate it.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 01, 2006 07:28 PM (f289O)

4 Although the Danish newspaper apologised, many European newspapers have reprinted the slanderous cartoons. Some have called it solidarity, I call it collective slander. Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between Â‘freedom of speechÂ’ and unacceptable slander. At least Great Britain did not jump on the bandwagon like the rest of these losers did. While supposed Â‘freedom of speechÂ’ advocates chant on one side and Muslims argue for an apology on the other, I wonder whether this row would be so popular if it had not centered on Islam. The media has already proven to be islamophobic, and reading comments on this issue at this blog and others will evidence that many backing the newspapers are also against Islam. As stated by Omar and Aquacool, the inconsistency is that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust there was an uproar and calls for him to retract his Â“anti-semiticÂ” words. When a photograph that showed American coffins on their way back from Iraq was deemed offensive there was an uproar and the photographer lost her job. In each case action was taken against the so-called transgressor and the world did not come together to reprieve them, chanting freedom of speech and expression as a justification. The first consistency so far in this issue is that Managing Editor of France Soir, the paper which has reprinted the cartoons, has been sacked. No doubt many will argue this is wrong, when the reality is that this should have been the standard from the outset.

Posted by: jamal at February 01, 2006 07:41 PM (Sq+yy)

5 jamal, you haven't articulated a reason why anyone would need to apologize for printing pictures of Mohammed. And what is slanderous about these pictures? And you lie if you say that images of Mohammed have not been published for hundreds of years. As a matter of fact, one of your favorite Islamic Republics? has been selling reproductions of Mohammed for years. This is nothing but an attempt to silence your critics. And we will not be silent. The majority of criticism I have seen of Islam I have found to be quite valid.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:55 PM (rUyw4)

6 Jamal - show me the slander.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at February 02, 2006 01:44 AM (maXzk)

7 slanÃ‚Â·der 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. So it seems that no slander has happened, if you molest children and someone draws a cartoon of it then no slander has happened.

Posted by: dave clarke at February 02, 2006 08:34 AM (V8wjL)

8 Yep, Mohammed=Child Molester. Can we get mosques and the people who lead them to be placed on sex-offender lists?

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at February 02, 2006 02:20 PM (/lpvu)

9 See also Parody and Satire, which can commonly be defenses against claims of slander or libel.

Posted by: abb3w at February 03, 2006 12:22 PM (7KIjM)

10 "" can you stupid f****** idiots stop going on about islam, leave our religion alone,just why you have no religion or faith and you feel it is ok to talk about islam,you have no right what so ever to discuss islam ,mind your own business,you are nothing but a bunch of p** eating,fanny licking sons of million dad's,just go home and ask your slag,whore mother's who your father's are and you will be given the names of all the men in the neighbour hood,go to hell you pigs

Posted by: vanezza hashmi at June 14, 2006 04:53 PM (lU+Vi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Helena Houdova: The Spy We'd Love to Shag

Hollywood meet real life. Seriously, Mike Myers should get Ms. Houdova to star in the next Austin Powers flick. How often does an international supermodel and former Miss Czech Republic smuggle photos out of a Communist country in her unmentionables? Not nearly enough, that's how often!

Just remember the mantra of the Left when it comes to Castro's socialist paradise: at least they have free health care. Newsmax via Junkyard Blog:

Top Czech model Helena Houdova was arrested in Cuba last week while taking photographs of Havana's slums Â– but she managed to smuggle out pictures she hid in her bra.
Houdova Â– Miss Czech Republic 1999 Â– was arrested along with fellow model Mariana Kroftova, and Cuban police confiscated a roll of film in the womenÂ’s camera. However, Houdova concealed the memory card of her digital camera insider her brassiere.
"The revolution's watchmen rose up because I was taking pictures of something they do not like," Houdova told journalists after returning to the Czech Republic.

See Dub sent this along, obviously not wanting to post it for fear of Mrs. See Dub. And in case Mrs. Shackleford asks, remember, it was See Dub that was cruising the internet for this stuff, not me! I'm just posting this for educational purposes, that's all. I swear.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:46 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Brad Pitt: Bad Gay

As you know, there is good gay and bad gay. An Angelina Jolie cameo on The L Word is good gay. Any gay with Brad Pitt in it is bad gay. Via Ace of Spades comes word that Brad Pitt desperately wants a gay role, presumably so he can up his Hollywood legits as a 'serious actor'. But if Brad Pitt has never played a gay cowboy eating pudding, what the hell was that Troy movie I just rented?

Posted by: Rusty at 04:59 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Does George Bush Hate Women and Black People?

Clinton Taylor says no. Proof? The fact that Bush sent troops in to Liberia and now that country has the first woman president in Africa. Ever. Check out his article at Town Hall. Here's my favorite part, if somewhat unrelated to the rest of the article, still a helluva good point:

The old hippies at Rolling Stone magazine try once again to get a rise out of us Jesus-folk by running a cover photo of rapper Kanye West in a crown of thorns, beaten and bloodied, as if he were the subject of the Crucifixion. Ho-hum. Back when I was a teenager, MadonnaÂ’s Like a Prayer video actually attracted some attention. Today, though, Rolling Stone is going to have to work harder to cause a blasphemous splashÂ—perhaps they could run a cover photo of Jewish shock-comic Sarah Silverman dressed as the Prophet Mohammed, and see if that gets some feedback.

Indeed.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:31 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Eric Alterman: Bush = Jill Carroll Hostage Takers

Is Eric Alterman dumb or just evil? To equivocate between U.S. forces detaining women who have ties to terrorists and terrorists who kidnap, hold hostage, and threaten to murder civilians is dumb and evil, so I guess the answer is both.

Such equivocation minimizes the barbarity of hostage taking. Further, it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States who fight us because they actually believe such equivocations are true. Next time bin Laden delivers an audio tape to al Jazeera, I fully expect him to quote Eric Alterman.

Eric Alterman:

IÂ’d like to congratulate the Bush administration for having the good taste to not make too big a deal about the kidnapping of U.S. journalist Jill Carroll by Iraqi insurgents. Since the Bush administration is in the business of politically kidnapping innocent people too, including the wives of people it wants to surrender. I hate to say it because of the all the baggage it carries but it reminds me of the deliberate murder of the innocent Ethel Rosenberg, to try to get a confession out of her husband.

Alterman basis this evil and dumb comparison based on an al Jazeera.com report that he embeds a link to in his post. Alterman is too stupid to realize that al Jazeera.com is not the actual al Jazeera you hear so much about on TV. No, al Jazeera.com is much much worse than al Jazeera. This is an English language outlet for the type of Muslims who think that the al Jazeera satellite television station is far too cozy with the West. These terror supporters simply grabbed the .com domain before the Qatar based station could buy it.

But that goes only to Alterman's stupidity. What about the evil accusation?

As regular readers know, I spend a good deal of my free time watching media produced by terrorists and reading what they say on bulletin boards. Alterman's accusations are identical to those made by jihadis all around the world. They justify the murdering of people like Jill Carroll as simple tit-for-tat.

The Americans murder Iraqi women, therefore murdering American women is justified.

They actually believe this. Why would they not? Their media tells them so. They even have images of crying women making the same accusations. It only makes matters worse that the American Left also seems to enjoy believing the most outrageous accusations made against the U.S.

So, we should not be surprised that when terrorists in Iraq cut off the head of an American civilian that they first dress him up in the orange jumpsuits so familiar from picturs of Abu Ghraib. They justify their actions because they equivocate the abuse at Abu Ghraib with torture and murder.

Just as Eric Alterman equivocates detaining security threats who happen to be women with the kidnapping of civilians.

The views of the people holding Jill Carroll hostage are shaped by the outrageous lies of the Arab, Islamist, and Western Leftist media. For nearly two years now, with every single female hostage that has been taken there has been a demand that all female Iraqi prisoners must be released from prison. These demands came long before Jill Carroll was taken hostage because these media outlets made outlandish accusations that thousands of Iraq women were in prison, being tortured, raped, forced to watch as American soldiers sadistically killed their small children, and murdered.

All of which are lies, and all of which outlets such as the one cited by the ignoramous Eric Alterman--al Jazeera.com--have been running for years.

So, when the U.S. military admits that it occassionally detains women for questioning in a country that has more than its fair share of female suicide bombers, how exactly are we to come to the conclusion that we are guilty of hostage taking? Even when these women are only detained for questioning because their husbands are terrorists, such equivocation is unfounded. The wives of criminals are routinely questioned in the United States, even in peacetime. And charging the loved ones of a criminal is routinely done in the U.S. as leverage against the real target of the criminal investigation--the husbands.

Under war conditions is it surprising that we might need to detain the wife of a terrorist who may know the time and location of the next bombing of a cafe that her husband is planning? That soldiers might occasionally overstep the normal bounds of detention if they think that holding a woman might lead to the arrest of the kind of man that beheads hostages? That the same procedural rules that apply in Chicago don't necessarily apply in Baghdad?

It takes a sick, demented, and perverted mind to come to the conclusion that American soldiers are engaged in the same activities as Islmic terrorists. Eric Alterman has such a mind.

More at Newsbusters who have a similar disdain of Alterman.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:22 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I'd go with dumb and useful idiot. He's not quite evil. Diet Evil perhaps. One calorie evil. /Dr. Evil...

Posted by: lawhawk at February 01, 2006 01:30 PM (eppTH)

2 It makes perfect sense that if Iraqis see their wives taken into custody (or hostage) without due process (or human rights) by Americans (fitting the pattern of prison abuse as directed by higher chain of command) then they of course will feel justified in taking American women hostage (or into custody). You use the semantics (or propaganda) sustains your arrogance or ignorance, I'm not sure which. Either way you are bliss, but this is what causes different peoples to fight for decades, centuries -- lack of understanding the other.

Posted by: Bob at February 01, 2006 01:40 PM (SXT77)

3 Bob, Words mean things. To equivocate a lesser evil with a greater evil is to diminish the greater. Many Sunnis in Iraq believe the U.S. is guilty of the worst crimes possible because of people, like yourself, who equivocate a naked pyramid with cutting out tongues. Please see this post for elucidation: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/153317.php Further, since the vast majority of Iraqis support the American presence in the exact way that the majority of Americans do--as a temporary state until Iraq is capable of self-sustaing government--your statement shows your own ignorance. It would be well if the American and European Left remembered that al Jazeera is not the mouthpiece of the Iraqi people, the duly elected government there is. As you say, ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Rust at February 01, 2006 01:54 PM (JQjhA)

4 Both Alterman and Bob prefectly represent those who constitute the greatest threat to Western civilization - the traitors. Following Cicero, the enemy at the gate is less to be feared than the traitor who goes about whispering of defeat and despair.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:02 PM (0yYS2)

5 These people like Alterman don't seem to realize that everything they say is out there for the public to see. And there will soon come a time when these traitors will be required to explain their actions. It won't come soon enough for me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 03:39 PM (rUyw4)

6 This always seems coordinated to me. Jill Carroll is kidnapped and the media is outraged (always when a media member is involved.) A week later, Amnesty International comes out with an accusation that the US puts pressure on terrorists in Iraq by detaining their wives (a tactic used by US prosecutors to some extent). This press release is put on the wires with no origianl reporting by Reuters and AP. Then comes Wesley Clarke. So, it's the terrorists to AI to left media. See, the US is to blame for poor Jill, not the terrorists. I read somewhere that to the global left the entire nation of Iraq is one huge friendly fire zone where negative thing that happens is the fault of the US>

Posted by: Kate at February 01, 2006 04:09 PM (0DFVm)

7 Rusty - they believed all this long before Iraq - and will continue long afterwards. It is all so transparent! Iraq is just the vehicle for the continuing domestic cultural divide - a battle begun in the 60's - and one they have been slowing losing for sometime now. I welcome their antics - everyday they alienate more and more of the fence-sitters.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 04:32 PM (3aakz)

8 I got here via one of my Google News alerts. I am astounded by the nationalism and patriotism in the writing here and in the comments -- it defies reason and empirical evidence. How do you justify the 30,000+ Iraqi's and 2,000+ Americans who have been killed thanks to the US invasion of Iraq? Do you believe it is justified to kill over a dozen civilians to achieve a military aim (cf. the Damadola bombing in Pakistan)? If so, welcome to the mind of the terrorist because that is exactly how they think -- the end justifies the means. I am not partisan. I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot, but I don't recall anywhere it said I had to support Bush or the "War on Terror" to be an American. I refuse to believe much of anything I hear from the media unless I cross validate it with sources outside the US. I've seen too much sloppy reporting on both sides. But to bring things back down to this topic for a second, how can you justify imprisoning a woman to coerce her husband? Without equivocating anything at all can't you see that that is wrong? Don't let the extreme left "pundits" or whomever push you so far away that you begin to believe the bullshit of politicians. If you aren't just as suspect of what the US is doing over there in the Middle East as what al Qaeda is up to, then I think you've lost perspective. Who's the one dropping the bombs on other countries day after day? Who's the one forcing their admirable but highly culturally and religiously biased message down the throats of other peoples? Hmm, I think anyone with a little imagination can make a case that it's the US or it's the Muslim extremists, Israel or Palestine, etc. Don't choose sides. Be shocked and disgusted at all of it, all of the war mongers who choose violence and threats instead of compassion and diplomacy.

Posted by: Scott Stirling at February 01, 2006 05:59 PM (/of+J)

9 Guess someone misses the days when pulling the comforter over their head and turning on a nightlight made everything right in the world.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:09 PM (3aakz)

10 That's the problem, Scott, you're using outside sources not to corroborate your findings, but to justify your beliefs. "...how can you justify imprisoning a woman to coerce her husband?" If you want to believe that's why they are in custody for any period of time at all and that's what some "partisan" media hack says, then fine with me. We've already had that discussion here. You're a couple of days late. "...forcing their admirable but highly culturally and religiously biased message down the throats of other peoples?" Yep, the Iraqis in particular! We're forcing them to the polls and the election centers. They didn't want to go! We made them. You may not want to choose sides. That too is your perogative. Not me. I know who the bad guys are. I don't sit around equating Islamic extremists and suicide bombers with the US military. You're confused. I understand.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:21 PM (YudAC)

11 Does anyone else get the impression that Scott still sleeps with a night light on?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:29 PM (0yYS2)

12 If you peruse Scott Stirling's blog, you will discover that Scottie opposed the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court and supported the Kerry call for a filibuster. Uh, Scottie, my investment in Reynolds Aluminum seems to be paying off. Keep it up, please.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 09:49 PM (rUyw4)

13 Quothe Scott: "...I don't recall anywhere it said I had to support Bush or the "War on Terror" to be an American." Yeah, you can still be a patriot and cheer for the enemy. Sure.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:14 AM (0yYS2)

14 Update: I dropped Eric an email, yesterday. It wasn't very nice. I can provide a copy, if any would like. He actually responded. I'll give him props for that. After spewing forth my displeasure with his story and commenting on his journalistic prowess and ethics (or lack thereof), he replied: "blow me" ... it made me laugh. Now, if only I could get Rall to respond. Then again, I was much more ... um ... what's a word or term that better states that I was being "a complete dick, but he deserved it"?

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 11:33 AM (Stkxb)

15 The war we are fighting in the Middle East could possibly turn into another Viet Nam. There are simularities between the two wars. First of all, we wanted something from both countries. Second of all, we lost many American lives; and last of all, neither country never had or wanted democracy. I thought it rather interesting when in one of Pres. Bush's speeches, he said: "We will give Irag back their democracy". How can we give them something they never had in the first place? The Middle East has been fighting between themselves for two thousand years. They are not going to abide by some some ballot box for very long. And who are we? The United States should take care of our own people and not become global police. We have people in our country in need of healthcare, housing, social security, homeless, and other social issues that needs to be on the list of priority.

Posted by: Margaret at February 02, 2006 11:35 AM (GtykD)

16 No black pajamas - and definitely noooooo putang! If those are your top 3 comparisons then you got some seriously weak poo!

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:03 PM (3aakz)

17 If things like securing our southern borders and limiting chinese imports were addressed,then I think more Americans would support the war effort.If the administration was serious about homeland security,it would agressively curved illegal entry into the country.We are talking millions entering illegally each year and I consider the trade deficit very serious as well.

Posted by: mitch at February 02, 2006 08:51 PM (xd6Dx)

18 Honestly Margaret, you idiot socialist, if that's the best argument you can come up with, then you should pat yourself on the back, because you're almost stupid enough to be chairman of the DNC, but not quite stupid enough to me a senator from Taxachusettes. Let me point out your mistakes, if you're bright enough to comprehend: First, South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam, with backing from China and Russia. And we still kicked their asses. We didn't lose the war, our politicians just lost their nerve and made the sacrifices of 58,000 Americans and countless South Vietnamese in vain. We quit in Vietnam, just like you and the rest of your idiot libtard friends want us to quit Iraq and Afghanistan, and condemn them to the same fate as they were already suffering. You liberals are so stupid it's really beyond words. Second, Iraq did have democracy for a short while after WW2, but British meddling and other factors did away with that, so that's two points you got wrong, moron. As for our healthcare, housing, etc., if you want the government to provide that for you, they will, but you have to join the military first, or just get yourself put in prison, but otherwise, this is no place for the stupid, lazy, or liberal, so you should move to Cuba or something. Idiot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 02:24 AM (0yYS2)

19 Challenge your preconceptions before they challenge you.

Posted by: fuk-u at February 03, 2006 08:14 AM (lHwhe)

20 War is in "Our" hearts.

Posted by: Yidmar at February 05, 2006 12:14 PM (w94tQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Freedom of Speech Breaking Out All Over Europe: Dogs and Cats Living Together

Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse? Word on the streets is that French and German newspapers have begun to reprint cartoons deemed so offensive by Muslims that the offending countries should be a) boycotted b) condemned by the U.N. c) cyber attacked d) bombed.

(UPDATE: Italy and Spain too)

We at The Jawa Report have been doing our part for some time. Vinnie reprinted the offending cartoons here with the caveat that he must receive the first death fatwa.

Nu-huh, he din't! Aint no way nobody is ge'in no fatwa before me!

Our adoptive blogfather The Commissar is starting a campaign to urge the reprinting of these cartoons. If your blog hasn't printed them, please stand up for freedom. Better yet, enourage the MSM to carry the cartoons in their pages. They'll print Ted Rall's garbage, why not this?

We've also called for a boycott of the boycott by buying Danish products. But via Beth we learn that others are beginning to organize the effort with images for your blog. Keep it up and support the effort!

Steal these images: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:31 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Well this is completely unexpected. Hopefully the firm stand taken will last. But for now, I'll express my support using a quote from an SNL sketch with Bill Clinton: "SUCK ON THAT!"

Posted by: Graeme at February 01, 2006 01:05 PM (WtwuU)

2 *Sigh* I got my Presidential sketches wrong, it actually featured President Bush.

Posted by: Graeme at February 01, 2006 01:11 PM (WtwuU)

3 It's like "Casablanca" in reverse. Welcome back to the fight.

Posted by: Bill Dautrive at February 01, 2006 01:26 PM (G95Uf)

4 Isn't Carlsberg a Danish beer? I might have to stock up!

Posted by: Dan-O at February 01, 2006 02:00 PM (yMnY4)

5 Well I guess hell is freezing as I write this.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:03 PM (0yYS2)

6 If your blog hasn't printed them, please stand up for freedom. I did run them, on several sites. I've apparently also cornered myself into a certain permanent committment on Vinnie's site.

Posted by: tee bee at February 01, 2006 03:25 PM (q1JHF)

7 I have to give tee bee credit, she has gone out of her way to get these images noticed, in addition to making sure I get fatwah'd first.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 01, 2006 03:36 PM (f289O)

8 If you get a fatwa first I will personally come down there and open up a can of whoop-ass!

Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 03:47 PM (JQjhA)

9 Just as long as it's Danish whoop-ass. And thanks, V!

Posted by: tee bee at February 01, 2006 04:10 PM (q1JHF)

10 Hey Tee Bee! Fancy bumping into you here! Your Co-BBA Bllogger Marcus!

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 01, 2006 05:24 PM (Ox5i9)

11 You guys impress easy! I'll wait and see - running cartoons in a few newspapers and magazines? When did that get to be ballsy?

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 03:08 AM (3aakz)

12 Hondo, that's kind of the whole point. I shouldn't be, let alone send anyone into hiding and have Prime Ministers in a tizzy. What's the worst that could happen? A few canceled subscriptions, a little bump in daily circulation from the looky-loos, and some slightly terse letters to the editor? How about bomb threats, protests, nations boycotting your products, death threats, and embassies pulling out? And all this over several months, because certain "objectors" didn't get the response they wanted right away? We can't stand for one group priviliging its voice at the expense of the rest, particularly when it comes to the control of a private entity like a newspaper. That's the kind of cultural creep that has to be cut off at the roots. ------------------------------------------ Marcus Aurelius! I'm still amazed that the border patrol let you back in... (heh - that's what you get for taunting the great white upper Midwesterners with all your tropical shenanigans.) These days you can find me just by following the trail of cartoons.

Posted by: tee bee at February 02, 2006 08:05 AM (q1JHF)

13 All the dannemarks and frenshs , they must wait oussama ben laden

Posted by: mohamed at February 04, 2006 05:17 AM (FCfiu)

14 Exploited by the Danish Imams and their Islamic leaders. http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/more_lies_from_.html and also read about how all muslims must make JIHAD. http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/

Posted by: Islamic Agenda at February 07, 2006 04:28 PM (/pSWA)

15 people in Europe think they are cleaver and have thier right under the name of Democracy and they forget that they are the tail for Jews, and they are paying the blood of thier hart under the game of the lie of burning of jews. They proved thier foolish behavior.

Posted by: Adwerd at February 08, 2006 04:25 PM (s5Fab)

16 motherfucker ....germans fuckers! u ppl r respecktless... u ppl would sell ur mother for a fix! fucking ur Priest missbehave u when u where children... ppl of euro r scrums..no faith no life! father is fucking his owen child, school teacher lieing, covering up! freedom of speech my ass! u ppl r only making it worse! all muslims will hate u ppl in euro...world is chaning for the good off muslims! histori WILL repeat it self!

Posted by: Dil at February 10, 2006 12:08 PM (sQu8s)

17 No one in Euro has the balls to take a stand infront of any muslim in euro! that y u make sites like this...to show ur balls in the dark! motherfuckers get a life... and come face to face! then weÃ‚Â´ll show u!

Posted by: DesiSher at February 10, 2006 12:12 PM (sQu8s)

18 Well, I thought the last 3 comment were particularly sensitive, intelectually well balanced, well written and stupefyingly stupid. Back to the dark ages with you. And take your pÃƒÂ¦dofile prophet with you.

Posted by: Mohammed at February 10, 2006 04:40 PM (RIGjx)

19 bubb rpkmnonaw

Posted by: Cecily at February 27, 2006 07:30 PM (CSYge)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mr Bean Defends Freedom to Make Fun of Islam in UK

I always loved Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean. I loved him even more as Black Adder. But my favorite Rowan Atkinson is defender of free speech and anti-dhimmitude. Notice that the Jew in the story thinks one ought to have the right to poke fun at religion. And what is the reaction from Muslims? Do I even have to say?

WaPo:

After protests outside the Houses of Parliament, British lawmakers Tuesday watered down a bill banning religious hate speech, then narrowly voted it into law.
Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to make it a criminal offense to incite religious hatred through threatening words or actions, insults and abuse.
Britain's upper chamber Tuesday eliminated the ban on insults and abuse, and inserted a provision allowing proselytizing, discussion, criticism, and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice...
Hundreds of people had demonstrated against the proposal outside the Houses of Parliament, saying it would curtail freedom of speech. Opponents included Rowan Atkinson, a comedian who claimed the law would infringe on artistic expression. Supporters said religious groups should have the same protection as racial groups, which are already covered by a similar law...
"No one secure in their religious beliefs need fear laughter," said Rabbi Jonathan Romain, an opponent of the legislation and spokesman for the Movement for Reform Judaism.
Mohammed Sarwar, the first Muslim lawmaker elected to Britain's parliament, said the result would disappoint those of all faiths.
"It would have been beneficial not only to Muslims but to those of other faiths and of none. It is very unfortunate," he said.

Can you imagine Monty Python under such odious restrictions?

Big hat tip to Bill Dauterieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:10 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The tide is turning in our favor, but just barely at this point.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:25 AM (0yYS2)

2 news.b_bc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669360.stm Even the French are growing a pair. (You'll have to take theunderscore out. "Questionable content" you know.)

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:45 AM (5pqct)

3 This is good news. It was stupid of Blair to propose such an absurd law in the first place. I love how muslim leaders always feel the need to speak "for all faiths". Let me know when a Buddist or even a Catholic expresses his disappointment at this outcome.

Posted by: Graeme at February 01, 2006 11:54 AM (WtwuU)

4 Wherever there is a Muslim/Leftwing convergence, there you will find a threat to free speech.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 12:28 PM (8e/V4)

5 I'm here for my argument?

Posted by: dick at February 01, 2006 12:29 PM (XlQVK)

6 Dick, You're a snivelling twit. Oh, wait, arguements are next door. Sorry. This is insults.

Posted by: Rust at February 01, 2006 12:38 PM (JQjhA)

7 I can't even look at Atkinson without laughing. You? All the guy has to do is walk into a room and hysterical laughter ensues.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 12:46 PM (5pqct)

8 Free speech should always be protected, whether on a t-shirt or on a blog.

Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 01:36 PM (TcoRJ)

9 When Mr. Bean takes comes out swinging, the battle is pretty much over. We've got Bean, what've the libtard/islamofascist alliance got? They've got a bunch of Hollyweird types making movies about gay cowboys. They've got nothing, that's what.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:07 PM (0yYS2)

10 Im with you john - im surprised no one alluded to British authorities banning and convicting several ppl of wearing "jesus is a kunt" t-shirts just because some ppl felt offended by it. And what about jerry springer the opera? Idiot Xtians have been protesting day and night outside the theatre. These examples are often overlooked when citing threats to free speech because they are becoming commonplace amongst this particular community.

Posted by: Taylor at February 01, 2006 02:15 PM (vCywT)

11 Youve forgotten o'reilly, maximus. BUT, i seem to remember him bitching a few weeks ago about some leftist newspaper calling the Virgin Mary an unwed single mother. Respect ppls religion he said. Geez what a pussy. Cant he appreciate that the paper is expressing its right to free speech. Fuk respect. respect is for libtards

Posted by: Taylor at February 01, 2006 02:19 PM (vCywT)

12 Taylor, protesting outside a theater because you don't like a play isn't quite the same as passing a law in Parliament to ban that play, now is it? One is called freedom of speech, and the other is called official state censorship. I know the distinction is oh so subtle, but you Libs are famous worldwide for being oh so subtle and "nuanced", so I expect you'll have no problem picking up on that distinction.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:42 PM (8e/V4)

13 Where did Maxie advocate O'Reilly?

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 03:17 PM (5pqct)

14 CArlos I am trying to point out that ppl will bend over backwards to assauge public concerns. Xtians particularly are notorious, both here and in the US for crying foul when xtianity is the subject of some satire or deserved criticism. My point is , im glad the bill was not passed in parliament, but it wont make a difference as it is public pressure taht really counts. INcidentally, the same theatre that has started showing jerry springer the opera had to cancel a play several months ago because Sikhs found it offensive to their religion and subs protested. One wonders when the theatre will pull Jerry Springer beacsue some ill-informed xtians get worked up over pulpit hear-say and start their whining.

Posted by: taylor at February 01, 2006 03:39 PM (vCywT)

15 A distinction needs to be made. Bill O'Reilly saying he is offended and people should be sensitive to other peoples religion: free speech and constructive dialog. A government making the same thing a law: censorship. The key is the rule of law, not the content of the statement.

Posted by: billhedrick at February 01, 2006 04:04 PM (OWcCI)

16 You see, Taylor, you completely missed the distinction. And here it is, right under your nose. The particular religion that threatens violence against someone who makes fun of it is not Christianity(that's real cute what you do with the X). All religious people have the right to peaceably protest, write letters, e-mails, or perform any other actions that are within the law to try to change someone's mind about something. It is the threat of violence or other illegal acts that is wrong. And the State should not interfere one way or the other, as long as the actions are legal and non-violent or contain no threat of violence. And by the way, Christians have freedom of speech, just like you, so if they "whine" about something, and it offends you, lighten up and remember you offend people with your speech. Being offended should not trump free speech, and when Christians can legally silence you, let me know and I will go to bat for you. And lewd speech is not necessarily protected, but I digress as it sometimes changes based on your jurisdiction. What would get you arrested in Texas might not be anything but passe in Californistan.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 04:05 PM (rUyw4)

17 Heck, Rowan Atkinson is Jewish too. One of his extended routines from when he was a stand-up comedian was an impersonation of Satan: "All right, Christians line up on the right, Muslims on the left; yes, I hate to tell you this, but it turns out the Jews were right all along." Obviously not the kind of guy who would appreciated having his freedom of expression squelched.

Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at February 01, 2006 04:08 PM (9pkhB)

18 Taylor, I don't mind public pressure. And you don't mind it either when it falls your way. It's terroristic threats that I mind, which you don't see coming from christians. And it's government censorship that I mind, which is coming from their Leftwing allies.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:09 PM (8e/V4)

19 ...government censorship, which is coming from muslim's Leftwing allies.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:10 PM (8e/V4)

20 Um, I am pretty sure both Rowan Atkinson and his vicar at St. Mary's C of E parish church in Waterperry, England would be surprised to hear that he is Jewish. The remark, "the Jews were right, I'm afraid" was part of a sketch!!

Posted by: cat at February 01, 2006 04:55 PM (lYpPl)

21 Oh. I didn't know what Taylor was getting at with "xtians". I thought it was a religion I hadn't heard of yet and wondered if I was pronouncing right.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 05:38 PM (YudAC)

22 I don't get down with O'Reilly, he goes way too easy on anti-Americanism now that an arab owns part of Fox.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:32 PM (0yYS2)

23 Why is it that libtards can never differentiate between personal protests and government proscription? Are they really that stupid and simple mineded that they can't distinguish between individuals and the government?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:16 AM (0yYS2)

24 They can, Maxie, they just think we can't. Go figure.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 10:30 AM (rUyw4)

25 well, good news would be they'd have to ban the koran.

Posted by: teri at February 17, 2006 11:22 PM (VdE78)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ted Rall: US Military = bin Laden (updated)

Go see Ted Rall's latest outrage and tell me he doesn't deserve a swift kick in the [insert body part here]. (via Bluto)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has this offensive cartoon by Tom Toles. The brass is not too happy, and either am I.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:59 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Is anyone surprised? Ted Rall is a slimy piece of shit and deserves to die a traitor's death.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:25 AM (0yYS2)

2 Don't you think Ted Rall is doing us a favor though? The louder the idiot left speaks, the further out of the mainstream they are pushed.

Posted by: MPH at February 01, 2006 11:27 AM (2+Gbb)

3 Ted Rall is toilet scum.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 12:19 PM (8e/V4)

4 I'm sorry. I can't bring myself to click the link.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 12:48 PM (5pqct)

5 I can see why the Army's ticked at the Toles cartoon, but I must say it's quite funny.

Posted by: jes' me at February 01, 2006 01:14 PM (c+ohC)

6 Ever notice how this crap is "free speech", while criticism of Islamotards (or cartoons of same) is "hate speech"?

Posted by: trentk269 at February 01, 2006 01:40 PM (WUM14)

7 Amusing that you're all more upset about a cartoon than you are about the military's negligence regarding injured soldiers. God Bless Republicans!

Posted by: t at February 01, 2006 01:51 PM (SEFvy)

8 (shrug) "Free Speech" Anything that offends Republicans or conservatives. "Hate Speech" Anything Republicans or conservatives say.

Posted by: Phillep at February 01, 2006 02:00 PM (Xg00m)

9 It's amusing that idiot libtards think they're going to get away with their crap. I'm going to hang a lot of you pieces of shit before it's over.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:04 PM (0yYS2)

10 "You're about to kill innocent people!" Mr. Rall (aka toilet scum), yeah, I'm sure Al Qaida sit around in their caves handwringing about how many innocent people they're going to kill. They TARGET those innocent people you FUCKING IDIOT.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:10 PM (8e/V4)

11 It is awfully easy to offend Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at February 01, 2006 03:27 PM (00DOn)

12 What negligence, t?

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 04:12 PM (rUyw4)

13 The thing that ted rall doesn't understand is that islamists don't care at all whether they target 'innocent' or 'guilty' people. To them, we are all 'guilty'. Ted rall is an asshole, yes, but that's the least of his problems. What's truly revolting is that he makes so much money spewing intellectually devoid hate.

Posted by: indolene at February 01, 2006 05:29 PM (YHcxM)

14 Don't bother JJ - t's the self-appointed ombudsman for military personnel (who he probably holds in contempt in the first place).

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 03:12 AM (3aakz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Impeach Lynn Woolsey Now!

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D, CA.jpg Last night Cindy Sheehan was arrested and expelled from the gallery for disruptive behavior. I don't blame Cindy one bit. Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan was just doing what Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan does. To claim that you didn't see that coming is worse than sheer stupidity, it's a lie.

So, who is responsible for the Cindy Sheehan train wreck? Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

Rep. Woolsey is directly responsible for disrupting the President's State of the Union Speech. It was she who gave her one invitation to last night's event to a known anti-American activist and traitor.

No, Cindy Sheehan is not an anti-war activist as the MSM constantly reports, she is an anti-American activist. The kind of anti-American activist who believes in a global Jewish conspiracy. The kind of anti-American activist who believes Washington takes its marching orders from Tel Aviv. The kind of anti-American activist who embraces strong-men like Hugo Chavez because they both share the same vision of a weak America which will not meddle in the affairs of third-rate countries' schemes to oppress their own people.

Cindy Sheehan is more than an anti-war activist, she is a traitor to her own son who volunteered to fight in Iraq. She believes her own son was in Iraq to oppress the Iraqi people and to steal their oil.

If that wasn't enough, she is a criminal. And a criminal with poor manners, at that. Arrested on numerous occasions in acts of civil-disobedience, what the hell did any one expect she would do last night? Frown at the President.

So, the person responsible for bringing her to the State of the Union address had to have known what she was planning. To say Lynn Woolsey didn't know is to say Lynn Woolsey is stupid.

Lynn Woolsey ought to be impeached and removed from the House of Representatives for her part in facilitating an unlawful act. At the very least, she should be immediately censured by that body.

I will update this post later and see what other people are saying about Lynn Woolsey and Cindy Sheehan. I hope I'm not alone in my utter disgust at one very irresponsible Congresswoman's actions. Excuse any typos but I banged this out pretty fast and no time to check it now.

Yet another update: It looks like Lynn Woolsey isn't the only Congressperson who stands in dire need of censure. Add to that list Rep. Pete Stark, D-CA.

Some other members were upset about SheehanÂ’s arrest. Â“IÂ’m still trying to find out why the presidentÂ’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. Â… It shows he still has a thin skin,Â’Â’ said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.

Apparently, the Capital police are content neutral. They also ejected a Congressman's wife for wearing a shirt calling which read: "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom." , which really sucks. Lawhawk has more on that here.

Let me just say this to all the conservatives out there who are saying something like, "Well, it's okay to throw Cindy out because they also threw out Pete Stark's wife." Look, if you want to equivocate Cindy Sheehan's anti-Americanism with Mrs. Stark's patriotism, be my guest. However, doing so is kinda, I dunno, wimpy. Like, who on earth are we to judge the content of the speech being said? Screw that. I'll judge if you aren't willing to. Cindy Sheehan's very presence in the Capital building is an offense to that institution after she went down and hugged Hugo Chavez last week. But to allow her to come into that building wearing that shirt is even worse.

And to the 'free speech' crowd who seem so well versed in the 1st Amendment, let me remind you of Article 1, sec. 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

UPDATES: Ah, I knew Michelle Malkin and I would be on the same page on this one. Of course, I call for greater sanctions than revoking her tickets, but other than that Michelle is right on:

When it comes to whether she knew Sheehan would pull the stunt she pulled, Woolsey has absolutely no plausible deniability. She is one of disruptive guerilla group Code Pink's biggest advocates.

I find myself with a couple of extra minutes so I'm trying to see what the blog reaction is. Rob Port says:

It is bad enough that Rep. Woolsey would lend credence to the kind of vile, vicious rhetroric spewed by Cindy Sheehan but to invite such a loose cannon into a Presidential speech with the clear intent on disrupting it is beyond the pale.

For a good rundown on bloggie reaction check out Sista Toldjah.

Another update: At the request of John Ryan, here is what Mother Saint Cindy's shirt says. 2,242 DEAD How Many More?

Here is an image from Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan's reaction over at big fat traitor's website here.

I won't bother to look, but I'm sure the Leftards are up in arms over this.

UPDATISHNESS: Interested Participant: It looks to me like an anti-Bush and anti-America T-shirt. Heh.

Traderrob: Thinking straight has perenially been an issue for you Ms. Sheehan. Bwahahaha!!

Taylor: I can see a teenager who thinks that showing up at Â“The ManÂ’sÂ” place to show him what for with a placard or shirt would be speaking truth to power and all that, but I continue to be amazed at Ms. SheehanÂ’s puerile, and indeed often juvenile, attempts at scoring political points.

Dan Riehl's sure bet: But what do you think the chances are that Cindy Sheehan gets invited to the Oscars, gets a prominent seat and at some point some Hollywood moonbat will point out that she's among friends and not subject to arrest?

Kevin Aylward: What's next for Mama Moonbat, streaking through a presidential press conference? My eyes, they burn!

Goldstein: Whereas, Elaine Benes being forced to remove her OriolesÂ’ cap while sitting in one of the YankeesÂ’ ownersÂ’ boxesÂ—now weÂ’re talking restriction of speech that are unconscionableÂ…

Posted by: Rusty at 08:55 AM | Comments (111) | Add Comment
Post contains 1020 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Rusty, I'm well beyond disgust at that clownish attention whore. I'm also disgusted with our legal system that arrests these traitors in the evening and lets them go in the morning. It's ridiculous. Why bother even arresting them. She should do 30 days in jail, MINIMUM, every time she gets arrested for her attention whore behaviour.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 08:34 AM (8e/V4)

2 Nope, Rusty, you're not alone. It is disgraceful for an elected offical to aid and abet these disrespectful and childish -- not to mention criminal -- antics. Rep. Woolsey has shown a complete lack of regard for not only the office of the President, but the halls of Congress, her colleagues, and her position of trust as an elected official. It shows a lack of integrity and character, and she should be censured, at the very least.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 01, 2006 08:41 AM (IEpte)

3 You're not alone in your disgust. There is a place and time for protest, dissent, criticism. But the State of the Union speech is not one of them. This is not adult behavior. Give the man 1 hour to freaking speak his mind for godsakes! Can you imagine someone giving Paula Jones a pass to see Clinton's speech. For what gain? Even if Sheehan is completely right, how does this help anything? "What? The NSA is spying on phone conversations with al-Qaeda? Impeach the president! Yea!!! We're a bunch of retarded monkeys who shit in our own food supply." Do these people realize that we're all in the same mess together? I really feel bad for the President who has such an immense burden on his shoulders of basically saving Western civilization and Liberal Democracy while our own people are pulling retarded, anarchic, immature stunts like this.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 01, 2006 08:47 AM (VNPtA)

4 I was shocked, shocked! I say, by O Glorious And Righteous Holy Mother Of Peace And Tranquility's actions. I fully expected her to do no more than frown at the President. Seriously though, this wasn't just a patented Cindy attention-whoring, judging from her claim in her letter I linked to below, this was also a stunt to raise funds by picking the taxpayer's pockets. Assuming she files suit against the feddle gubmint like she claims to be thinking of.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 01, 2006 08:49 AM (f289O)

5 I won't bother ranting, you all know my standard response by now. It sounds a little less extreme with each passing day, doesn't it?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:19 AM (0yYS2)

6 Rusty how about telling us what the bad words written on her shirt were? I haven't been able to actually see a picture that is really readable.

Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 09:53 AM (TcoRJ)

7 What bad words were on Cathy's shirt? Well, none at all. All that was on her shirt was a number. It just so happened that it was the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. I guess that the President didn't want anyone reminded of how many of our brave Men and Women have been killed fighting his dirty war...just like his administration doesn't want anyone seeing pictures of honorable troops coming home in caskets... While the President speaks of spreading freedom, Miss Sheehan was kicked out and arrested for wearing a shirt with a number on it. Last time I checked, this was not illegal. I guess that the Bush administration's idea of freedom is a little different than mine.

Posted by: What Country are we in? at February 01, 2006 10:24 AM (Xxdrc)

8 Of course. Your idea of freedom is whatever the exact opposite of anything Bush says. "Last time I checked, this was not illegal." Maybe you need to check again. There is a time and a place for protest and inside the Capitol Building during the State of the Union address is not that time. She's an attention whore and you are an idiot.

Posted by: slug at February 01, 2006 10:33 AM (wcNc2)

9 Dear "What country are we in?" I guess our idea of getting the facts is different than yours. Sheehan's shirt said: "2245 Dead. How many more?"

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:26 AM (5pqct)

10 Of course nobody is talking about a US Representative's wife who was also asked to leave because she had a shirt with a slogan on it - a pro-America slogan. Yeah. Apparently the rules don't allow any form of demonstration, but the media, leftards, and other pieces of shit who should be killed are only talking about the attention whore du jour. What country are we in? Well it damn sure isn't Russia, China, Cuba, or North Korea you stupid piece of shit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:28 AM (0yYS2)

11 I have a hard time understanding why some of you guys get so worked up over this. Cindy's a marginalized fool with a one-way ticket to obscurity, hell bent to further alienate the bulk of the American people on her journey. In reality, she has become a bizzare asset - another "there they go again" moment. Rep Woosley? One of 435 - participating in an idiotic stunt for the sole benefit of her latte crowd back in her California district - totally necessary for her if she doesn't want to get challenged by a GreenDem in '06. Just her version of a "Maxime Waters" moment. They want your anger - your rage - over over-reaction - its the only freakin' thing left they've got they can pass off to themselves as "success". I laugh at them - dismiss them as inept and incompetent - and they hate that more than anything else!

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 11:49 AM (3aakz)

12 she has posted some sob story on her site, posting on Kos as well.

Posted by: Howie at February 01, 2006 11:51 AM (D3+20)

13 I keep reading on these lefty sites that if they get the "neocons" upset, they're doing something right. I would venture to guess that if your biggest goal in life is to get others upset, it might be time to re-evaluate your goals.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:57 AM (5pqct)

14 Cindy Sheman(she fits in well with other liberals Reno, Boxer, Helen Thomas, etc...) They are not only the most classless group in America, they are hands down the ugliest women in America

Posted by: Andy at February 01, 2006 11:58 AM (tMU4W)

15 All that was on her shirt was a number. I'm surprised it wasn't "88" given the rhetoric she loves to spew from time to time.

Posted by: h0mi at February 01, 2006 12:05 PM (zpJBl)

16 Ummm, first of all, Cindy Sheehan didn't "disrupt" anything. She took her coat off a half hour before the speech. By most accounts, when she was forcefully escorted out, she didn't make a peep. Secondly, this business that "she had been warned" seems a little sketchy too. If T-shirts were so clearly off limits, wouldn't the Republican congressman's wife be equally guilty? Is there a reason she wasn't arrested, even though (unlike Cindy) she argued with the House staff during her ejection, calling them "idiots"? How come Cindy's the only one who ends up in cuffs?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:11 PM (xoDSv)

17 pdq: You're going under the assumption that Cindy didn't want to be arrested. Now she's got a lawsuit! A national headline! international attention! It must be terrible to be oppressed.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 12:15 PM (CcXvt)

18 >>>It must be terrible to be oppressed. On the contrary, the Left THRIVES on "oppression". Without "oppression" they would literally cease to exist. FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 12:27 PM (8e/V4)

19 Her goal was to be arrested - sorry she got it - a clownish stunt remains a clownish stunt. would have preferred the Cap police wore clown outfits - to keep things in perspective.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 12:29 PM (3aakz)

20 pdq: You're going under the assumption that Cindy didn't want to be arrested. If you just want to be arrested, wouldn't you, um, make a stink or something? Wait until the speech started before you took off your coat? Resist a little? Cindy wore a T-shirt, and took off her coat. When she was escorted out she did so quietly. That didn't used to get you arrested, at least not in this country. FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial Hmm. That was a trial, and his shirt said "Clinton sucks". Just for fun, you ought to try attending a trial with a Tshirt that says the defendant "sucks" and see what happens. Last night was a speech, ostensibly open to the public. Do you see any differences here? If you guessed the guy at the trial was not arrested, but the war mom who left quietly was, why then, you'd be right.

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:43 PM (xoDSv)

21 What country are we in? Uhm, Iran? No, she was not buried up to her waist and stoned to death. Cuba? No, she was not taken out and shot. China? No, she and her family were not taken out and shot. Bolivia? No, she was not taken out and beaten to death.

Posted by: Phillep at February 01, 2006 12:49 PM (Xg00m)

22 What country are we in? Well, I would hope that we we're in a country like Britain. When they ejected (not arrested, mind you) a man from a Labor Party conference who audibly called Jack Straw's comments about the Iraq war "nonsense", the chairman later apologised to the man. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1580432,00.html What are the chances of that happening here?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:58 PM (xoDSv)

23 pdq: I'd see your point if her T-shirt read "Nike - Just do it" but she was wearing a protest T-shirt, to get the response that she hoped for.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 01:14 PM (CcXvt)

24 ...to get the response that she hoped for. Just out of curiousity, what response do you think Representative Young's wife was hoping for with her T-shirt? If she'd been arrested, would you be here saying she just got what she was hoping for?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 01:28 PM (xoDSv)

25 pdq, I don't know if you've been reading the accounts or not, but maybe this will help you: According to Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider, "She was asked to cover the shirt up and did not." Another report said: Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond. We have a case of he said/she said here and it's obvious you've already decided who is lying. You're assuming you know and using your bias to make that assumption. Notice too that one source was a direct quote and the other is not. I'd say the context changes a bit with the quoted account. Looks to me like one is more of an editorial than the other. As to why one was arrested and the other wasn't - I don't know any more than you do. Neither of us were there. So you probably shoudn't make assumptions on something you didn't witness.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 01:38 PM (5pqct)

26 So you probably shoudn't make assumptions on something you didn't witness Umm, did you witness this? Did any of the folks above calling Cindy a "whore" see what happened? CNN said she "unfurled a banner" and even helpfully supplied bogus video which they have now pulled. Other sources said she was "boisterous", and that she caused a "disruption". Several people here have managed to read her mind and are certain she was trying to get arrested. I'm just trying to point out that after all the BS that got floated initially, it seems most reputable news reports agree that she was removed within moments of taking off her coat, that she left quietly and without resistance, and was handcuffed and arrested for "demonstrating", which was later changed to "unlawful conduct"...for wearing a T-shirt...the same T-shirt she'd been wearing all day. For what it's worth, Rep. Young says a guard at the house chambers called his wife "a demonstrator and a protester". But she wasn't arrested. Why is that?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:03 PM (xoDSv)

27 Ed, Only if you equivocate between Cindy Sheehan's anti-Americanism and Rep. Young's pro-Americanism. To quote the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sec 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

28 A friend of mine was in some city, possibly Atlanta or NO, I can't remember, but he's a truck driver and was stuck there because they stopped traffic in the whole city for Klintoon's visit, and he found a vendor on the motorcade route who was selling T-shirts that said "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him the most?", and he said some Secret Service guys arrested him and put him in the back of a hot van for two hours, then let him go. Free speech? Not when a liberal is in charge. What we need is a good old fashioned American revolution, in which we can eradicate this scum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:12 PM (0yYS2)

29 hey pdq, read: "The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom." http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html mkay? Now stfu.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:13 PM (8e/V4)

30 Ed, getting arrested is the whole object of Lefty protests. It's a high honor among you moonbats and you're granted instant hero status. Stop pretending you're all upset about it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:15 PM (8e/V4)

31 According to Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider, "She was asked to cover the shirt up and did not." Moonbats are habitual liars. So who you gonna believe? A cop? or a lying moonbat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:24 PM (8e/V4)

32 If she'd been arrested, would you be here saying she just got what she was hoping for? Last time I checked she wasn't going to other countries and bashing the United States, or going to the Whitehouse threatening to chain herself to the fence, or camping outside the home of the president with a gang of smelly hippies, so with that in mind I would say she probably was not trying to get arrested. Imagine that.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 02:27 PM (CcXvt)

33 Stop pretending you're all upset about it Not all upset about it. Just seems odd to me that the lady who gave her only son to the Iraq war effort and who left quietly when she was physically ejected for wearing a T-shirt gets arrested, cuffed, and charged but the other lady wearing a T-shirt, who called the guards (who considered her a "demonstrator" and a "protester") "idiots" doesn't. Can you think of a plausible reason why?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:31 PM (xoDSv)

34 >>>Can you think of a plausible reason why? pdq, Is the fact that the cop said Cindy refused to comply not plausible enough for you?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:36 PM (8e/V4)

35 Maybe because the cops don't like her because she is a traitor who thinks her son died for a Zionist conspiracy while they thought it was stupid that they had to remove the other one for wearing a patriotic t-shirt? She's lucky they didn't use the tazer.

Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 02:39 PM (JQjhA)

36 Rusty, that reason works for me too.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:46 PM (8e/V4)

37 Is the fact that the cop said Cindy refused to comply not plausible enough for you? Referring to not covering her T-shirt? Neither did Mrs. Young. She raised a stink, and called the guards "idiots" to boot. Why wasn't she arrested?

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:54 PM (xoDSv)

38 "Umm, did you witness this?" I said I didn't. And I'm not speaking for anyone else here. Thank you. Casey was not her only son. So don't even try that. Let the facts stand on their own without making stuff up. The difference here is that some are expressing an opinion and you're masquerading yours as facts. I can't answer your question why one was arrested and not the other. As I said - I wasn't there.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 02:56 PM (5pqct)

39 Just seems odd to me that the lady who gave her only son to the Iraq war effort For the umpteenth time: She did not GIVE her sone to the war effort, HE chose AS AN ADULT to VOLUNTEER. Fuckwit. Can you think of a plausible reason why? Couldn't have anything to do with her behavior, could it? Nah. We know that all anti-war protestor are gentle as doves. Must be an eeevil RethugliKKKan conspiracy.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 02:59 PM (rGfpg)

40 Why wasn't she arrested? Ask the Capitol Police.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 03:01 PM (rGfpg)

41 "Why wasn't she arrested?" pdq, Because protesting inside the chambers is illegal, and Mrs. Young's "I heart the troops" t-shirt wasn't a protest, but rather a message of support. See the diff? That's why she was so pissed about it. SHE WASN'T PROTESTING.

Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 03:25 PM (8e/V4)

42 >>>Â“Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? ummm, since never?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:27 PM (8e/V4)

43 Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war It's almost biblical, Cindy Sheenan holding aloft her son, and offering him as a sacrifice. As Brian pointed out earlier, she did not give anything, it wasn't hers to give. Her son gave HIS life, in the line of duty. Claiming otherwise makes it sound like he did not volunteer for Iraq, did not die because he felt his comrades were in danger and raises Cindy in status, and not her son.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 03:33 PM (CcXvt)

44 Okay, folks...I know that when people that don't know me start calling me "fuckwit" that it's probably time to go. But you know what I think? I think a few of you are sensitive about this all because deep inside you're a little uncomfortable about a president that only appears in front of screened, friendly audiences. You're not really sure why he needs to have news conference questions pre-scripted. And even though you vehemently disagree with his critics, you're just a little uneasy about how dissent has become unpatriotic lately...and sometimes just plain illegal, even if you're a grieving parent who's lost a son and can't understand why. Maybe I'm wrong- maybe this doesn't bother you, not even a little bit. But it should.

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 03:38 PM (xoDSv)

45 >>>raises Cindy in status, and not her son. Excellent point. The attention whore has brought him no honor nor glory for his sacrifice, but has instead used her son only to raise her own status, while diminishing his. It's disgusting. And yet the Leftards can't see it. Simply amazing.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:43 PM (8e/V4)

46 Okay, folks...I know that when people that don't know me start calling me "fuckwit" that it's probably time to go. Ya think? Wow, nothing gets past you, does it? Oh, and Ed? Did it ever occur to you that Cindy might just um... embellish... the story a bit to make herself look like the victim? I'll say essentially what I said earlier in another thread -- her story sounds like the kind of excuse offered by someone who gets caught red-handed doing something wrong, and has to concoct an Occam's Razor-defying, convoluted story to explain why what happened really wasn't their fault. It's cute when a 5-year-old does it. When an aging hippy does it, it's just tiresome.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 03:46 PM (rGfpg)

47 pdq, It doesn't make me uncomfortable. To me it just means he's not a natural politician, nor public speaker. We all hate politicians, remember? Now that we got a non-schlickmeister up there, it's supposed to upset me? Hardly. And your dissent IS unpatriotic. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to voice it, but let's not kid ourselves about it being patriotic. It's not.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:48 PM (8e/V4)

48 she lost her son long before his death, probably around the time she threatened to run him over with a vehicle in order to stop him going to Iraq. Her views, were not his. You piss all over his sacrifice, while holding Cindy up as a shining example of "grief". She even said after his death if she thought about it, she wouldn't have buried him in his uniform. Obviously that is not something her son would have wanted. You see Casey cut the strings, but Cindy still plays like she was the puppetmaster, and continues to try and make decisions her son wouldn't wanted, when I think of Cindy, I see her using the skull of her son as a puppet, with her trying to talk through it.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 03:50 PM (CcXvt)

49 "Stifled?" And since when is this "truth" being stifled? She's gotten how much airtime, print space and video? We and those at the SOTU are not required to give her a platform for her free speech. The sole purpose for her actions is to invade and make a mockery of everything she simply disagrees with. How much more time and space does this woman require? There are precious few mediums she hasn't abused and seized upon to keep the spotlight upon herself. Enough! Her message has become muddled and shrill and most people are just damn sick and tired of it. It's almost as if it's become a game for her. And pdq, dear dear, I'm not in the least uneasy. I'm sick and damn tired.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 03:54 PM (5pqct)

50 >>>There are precious few mediums she hasn't abused and seized upon to keep the spotlight upon herself. Enough! hahaha! excellently put. Far from being "stifled", her 15 minutes are long up.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:57 PM (8e/V4)

51 "People's State of the Union"??? Well - seems she been working on the vernacular. Its all comical really when you just sit back and watch the "show".

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 04:10 PM (3aakz)

52 >>>"The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested -- once again -- that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq." Sorry, but I listen to the same Bush speeches these Lefties do, and I've yet to hear him make that claim. And yet they keep repeating that accusation over and over hoping it sticks. Simply orwellian.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:16 PM (8e/V4)

53 Sorry- just one more post, which I'll keep as informational as possible: NBC is now reporting that the Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges against Cindy Sheehan. We screwed up,Â” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 04:30 PM (xoDSv)

54 >>>charges just dropped. See now nice George Bush is? Now say thank you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:32 PM (8e/V4)

55 "We screwed up,Â”" No you didn't! You did GREAT!

Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 04:34 PM (8e/V4)

56 The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young. Well, they screwed up in arresting Mrs. Young too. Cindy got tossed, and so did pro-troops Mrs. Young, so we're all none the worse for wear.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:37 PM (8e/V4)

57 We screwed up,Â” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws. Spoken like a truth-stifling, free-speech-quashing unconstitutional stormtrooper. That was our point, right?

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 04:49 PM (rGfpg)

58 Your point, that is.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 04:59 PM (rGfpg)

59 Much ado about nothin' and nobody. You all noticed that Cindy hadn't been able to get any attention on her "World Socialist Justice Tour" - especially the anti-globalization stop in Venezula. Is this the best she/they can do for a try at another 15 minutes?

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 05:25 PM (3aakz)

60 Since I see the dreadlocked Starbucks employees really came out on this one, here is the pertinent information via a commenter at Patterico's. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt For those of you too lazy to look it up yourself, "An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly: (C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress; (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings." Next, you "mainstreamers" will try to redefine what 'disturbing the peace', 'disorderly conduct', and 'protest' mean and how it doesn't apply here. Go further and you will read, if you are able, "... (2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement." Explain how her banner that she tried to unfurl doesn't meet the definition of 'banner' in the House rules. You Cindy-lovers are a)ignorant and b) have the worst taste in a 'human-being' that I've ever seen. She just makes herself look more pathetic every day. Those who support her are even more pathetic because you look up to someone like her. Here is a woman who would normally be a sympathetic figure by losing her son because he was doing what he thought was right. Instead, her husband divorces her for being stupid and bashes her for denigrating their son's name and service to his country. She continues to embarass herself more and more every day. It won't be long before we see her French-kissing Castro. Isn't there a single one of you that has the good sense to know that this cow is dragging all of you and your party down with her? I know you actually think you are the mainstream and believe she is your savior so keep up the good work. It really is comical to those of us who are watching. Go ahead and trot her out for a Senate seat. I dare you.

Posted by: slug at February 01, 2006 05:29 PM (0YdQw)

61 Explain how her banner that she tried to unfurl doesn't meet the definition of 'banner' in the House rules. slug... ...that "banner" thing? Didja hear about that on CNN? Turns out there wasn't one. Just one mom, and her T-shirt. CNN sorta, kinda made that banner thing up. Don't feel bad- these guys here were falling all over themselves just a few hours ago explaining why sitting quietly wearing a T shirt is now illegal in America. Except it's not. Yet.

Posted by: roger&me at February 01, 2006 05:38 PM (xoDSv)

62 back that up! paste where someone said wearing a T-Shirt was illegal in America. Lefty exaggeration, at it's best again. The people that were commenting, were correct that her T-shirt fit the definition under the Capital Building laws, as slug described above. "Yet" lol you guys are funny.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 05:43 PM (CcXvt)

63 ed, and they tossed Mrs. Young out on her ass too. So what exactly is your point? That the Capitol cops need to brush up on the house rules? Good, then maybe we finally agree on something. If they were following the house rules, then they're heroes. If they weren't, then they end up with egg on their face. Got it. Does that make this some kind of a great victory for World Socialism or something? This all about the house rules, nothing more. It's not some greater struggle for "Free Speech" and World Socialism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 05:58 PM (8e/V4)

64 Wearing a T-shirt is not illegal in America - but you know that - as you know "stunts" aren't allowed by anyone in the format. You just want to be cute. Fine by me. Does any of this actually have any influence on Mainstreet America - the general public? No - it a typical leftist joke - like bringing the paper mache puppets to one of their "perfomance art" demonstrations. Enjoy the moment - Cindy & kind appeal to a very limited crowd - and stuff like this doesn't broaden it - in fact - often it helps the opposition. I actually wanted her to make a fool of herself and fellow travellers on Prime time - I'm truly disapointed!

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 05:58 PM (3aakz)

65 Why was Sheehan arrested while Young was not? Because when each was asked to leave due to the t-shirts, Young cooperated yet Sheehan refused. Simple. Sheehan forced it.

Posted by: Carl at February 01, 2006 06:01 PM (GfsZK)

66 You still don't get it do you roger&me? The SOTU address is done with dignity and purpose once a year, no matter how you feel about what's being said or who is saying it. It's not a friggin' rock concert or a political opposition march where everyone gets imaginative with t-shirt slogans and whatnot to "express themselves". This august body stands before members of the House and Senate, Governors and those representing noble institutions, along with many others as a President speaks to the nation and it deserves a little respect EVEN IF ONE HAS TO FAKE IT FOR AN HOUR! There were any number of people there who absolutely despise Bush, yet they had the wherewithall to treat the institution with enough respect to dress appropriately and refrain from trying to draw attention to themselves until after the speech and someone actively seeks their opinion. Some people actually have respect for the President and want to hear what he has to say without the all pervasive Cindy Sheehan antics in their faces, regardless what you or Sheehan's friends think. There's a time and a place, get it? It's called decorum. Look it up.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:02 PM (YudAC)

67 >>It's called decorum. Look it up. Decorum (like patriotism, honor, faith, mom and apple pie) is just another "social construct" created by the Man to keep the little guy down. They spit on decorum. Any day they can disrupt a gathering of the Man is a good day to a Lefty.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:07 PM (8e/V4)

68 And just for the record, Young shouldn't have worn hers either.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:09 PM (YudAC)

69 Y'all owe Lynn Woolsey a giant apology--and you deserve to wear a dunce hat. Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan WASHINGTON - Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages. ADVERTISEMENT "The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday. "The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine." The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said. "Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:13 PM (2yc8s)

70 Btw, I believe there's a word for people who believe that those who defy the state should be punished--even when the state is clearly in the wrong. Tell me, Dr. Shackleford, who do you admire more--Stalin or Mussolini?

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:17 PM (2yc8s)

71 >>>Y'all owe Lynn Woolsey a giant apology--and you deserve to wear a dunce hat." I fail to see how I owe her any apology. You seem to believe this is a 1st Ammendment issue. It isn't. This is merely a house rules issue. If the Capitol cops were fuzzy on the rules, how's that my problem?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:21 PM (8e/V4)

72 Well, the proto-fascist who runs this site was demanding that the Representative who invited Sheehan be removed from office or otherwise punished. Where neither the Representative nor Sheehan had broken any rules. Last time I checked, we don't punish people for having the wrong viewpoint in the United States of America.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:24 PM (2yc8s)

73 Hell! I would have let her stay! I know she would lose it and start yelling with a goal to disrupt the national address on Prime Time! I know she would have made a fool of herself and pissed of (believe it or not) DEMS at other DEMS - you think they want the Left to upstage and embarrass them on National TV - when they are soooooo uncertain of their own image and positions? Nothing hurts the Left more than an unscripted confrontation they aren't carefully coordinating - and Cindy was the ultimate loose canon set to go off to a 26market share. Oh, the same applys to the DEMS.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:25 PM (3aakz)

74 >>>I believe there's a word for people who believe that those who defy the state should be punished--even when the state is clearly in the wrong. Geek, then why were you cheering so loudly when Clinton burned all those children alive at Waco?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:26 PM (8e/V4)

75 I don't owe Lynn Woolsey anything.

Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:28 PM (YudAC)

76 JC: I'll bet you can't even guess which state I was in when WACO happened, let alone my reaction as it unfolded. Care to prove me wrong?

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:28 PM (2yc8s)

77 Guess we'll never find out if Cindy had plotted to make a spectacle of herself during the speech because she was weeded out in advance, however I can only imagine the T-shirt was the tip of the iceburg. Oh well, I'm sure they'll be plenty of other times she'll get arrested, or make some other media storm. Geek isn't it time bushhitler kitted you out with some sort of iron-on donkey patch or a tattoo? so you can be identified by the 'regime'? I thought with the 'fascist' Government you guys banter about, you would have all be fitted for disposal by now, guess it's all bullshit eh.

Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 06:32 PM (CcXvt)

78 Geek, but it didn't keep you from re-electing Clinton, did it? I guess that makes you a fascist too, just like Rusty.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:32 PM (8e/V4)

79 Proto???? What's with the Left and their idiotic obsession with qualifying adjectives? It case you aske me - Mussolini, because he was snappy dresser. So many tired, lame, worn-out cliches! Jesus Christ! somebody write some new material for the Left!

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:33 PM (3aakz)

80 I'll bet you can't even guess which state I'm guessing the state of denial. parampump!!!

Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 06:59 PM (8e/V4)

81 Cindy Sheehan is NOT anti-American activist. Webster's definition of anti-American: opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the U.S. -webster's definition of hostility: overt acts of warfare Hostility and dissent are not one in the same sir. So according to your statement of her being anti-American, Sheehan is- doing overt actions of warfare against the policies and people of the US government. What act of warfare? The t-shirt is her gun? The message were her bullets? I think not. Against who? Bush? Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? (remember they all are members of our government). I come from a long line of DAR women, and am a direct discendant of President Pierce's family myself, just as Barbara Bush is. So don't say I don't know your view; I also have personnel connections in this war. However, I would NEVER call someone with a dissenting opinion from my own a anti-American activist. What she did at the State of the Union may not have been a classy move; however, Lyyn Woolsey is no more responsible for Sheehan's actions than a parent is responsible for his child's speeding ticktes- so no blame on Lynn Woolsey. Impeachment according to webster: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. So... Woolsey guilty by association? Is that what you what her impeachment based on? What is her crime? Inviting a guest to the State of the Union who wore a shirt you didn't agree with? So should we impeach the person who brought the lady who wore the "support the troops" shirt? As he is equally as guilty as Woolsey, if you are placing the blame on the mere fact Woolsey invited Sheehan. Honestly Woolsey and the person who invited the other guest (who was removed) did actions that were one in the same- merely invited someone they wish to attend. Oh that's right, I forgot that's a basis for impeachemnt, oh wait- it's NOT.

Posted by: M.B. at February 01, 2006 07:50 PM (nE+02)

82 MBs got ya there guys! You do over-react - and in this case over a non-event nobody. Shame on you all! Especially since the wacko fringe feeds on your over-reaction. Its like that StarTrek episode (OS) with the Klingons and Kirk & crew fight on while the ship is on runaway - and that freaky light thing is all a glowin' watchin' the action. On behalf of all right-wing fascists sexists whatever here - I send out a massive group hug to Cindy & gang. Now geek & MB - shrivel up and fade away.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 08:02 PM (3aakz)

83 welldidn't this turn out to be something. I for one enjoyed the absurdity of it all;both the incident AND the comments. For more than one reason I am glad the Capitol Police did not order her to take the t-shirt off.

Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 09:48 PM (TcoRJ)

84 I wish the Capitol Police had pulled the Sheeman's shirt over her face. Oh, the humanity of it all!

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:03 PM (rUyw4)

85 Wow! I finally agree with John Ryan! I sure as hell don't want to see here ta ta's .. JJ! You do? Damn! This is Wash DC ... not New Orleans! Am I missing something here?

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 10:31 PM (3aakz)

86 Oh, I don't know, hondo. It does seem like a circus up there in Washington to me, so perhaps a Mardi Gras is in order, but no Sheeman ta ta's for me, either. I just wanted her face covered up.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:53 AM (rUyw4)

87 I love how the left uses technicalities and the law when it's to their benefit yelling triumphantly, but when the law is not on their side, they just make stuff up or ignore inconvenient facts. Hey, M.B. Ding! Fries are done! You looked up webster's definition of anti-American and futher go on to define "hostile" while ignoring "opposed"? Nice try. I don't think either woman should have worn such t shirts to a State of the Union Address, but at least Congressman Young's wife didn't just get back from kissing and hugging Venezuela's dictator, Chavez, standing on a platform with him and denigrating her country. Never mind that Sheehan NEVER would have been permitted to pull such stunts there as a citizen of Venezuela.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 06:28 AM (YudAC)

88 Dear douchebags - As you all know by now, the Capitol Police have apologized and said Sheehan didn't break any laws and should not have been arrested. This has got to be one of the sorriest, stupidest groups of walnut-brained know-nothings I have ever seen. Impeach a congresswoman because she invited an anti-war protester to the SOTU? Are you kidding me? Why leave it at that? Why not tie her to the podium and shoot her? Bush is not a fascist. I voted for the guy, in fact (in 2000 at least). But many of you here are genuine fascists. I do not mean that figuratively.

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 09:25 AM (vUlAq)

89 Oh no! How will I sleep at night, Pete called me a fascist! -- well actually he said 'genuine fascists' I guess there are just so many 'fake fascists' around, that Pete feels the need to distinguish.

Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 09:41 AM (CcXvt)

90 What is your specific objection?

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:03 AM (vUlAq)

91 Dear Pete, We know the new news. We are still entitled to our opinions and you're entitled to yours. I'm glad you got that off your chest. Love, Douchebag

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 10:09 AM (5pqct)

92 That's a classic wingerism. You say you know the news - ie, that Sheehan didn't break any laws or rules - but you're still entitled to an opinion that contradicts reality. Further evidence that relativism's new home is the wingnut right.

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:17 AM (Rw/yc)

93 Wow, lookitall the comments! Pizza delivery times must have been outrageous for a while there.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:24 AM (0yYS2)

94 Nay, Pete, relativism is still the provence of the Left. And the post is tongue-in-cheek, you dumb ass.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)

95 "We are still entitled to our opinion, and you are entitled to yours." This statement was tongue-in-cheek? Do you actually believe that?

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:45 AM (Rw/yc)

96 Pete, the day I'm not entitled to my opinion, regardless of any law, is the day you and I both have lost everything. Let me spell it out for you. Since you don't seem inclined to read my previous comments. It is my opinion that Ms. Sheehan should have used decorum when entering an esteemed institution and refrained from her usual antics. Whether or not the rules state that she must has no bearing on how I feel about it. And before you jump on me for that, I also believe that Ms. Young should have refrained from wearing her shirt as well. So no, my statement was certainly NOT tongue in cheek.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 12:07 PM (5pqct)

97 When did I say that you shouldn't be permitted to have an opinion? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 12:17 PM (Rw/yc)

98 Pete, I took your statement here, "That's a classic wingerism. You say you know the news - ie, that Sheehan didn't break any laws or rules - but you're still entitled to an opinion that contradicts reality," to imply that my opinion was contradictory and therefore invalid. And wrapped it up in your snide remark, "classic wingerism". This is after your widely distributed "douchebag" label. Perhaps you didn't imply that I couldn't actually have an opinion, but contradictory to reality? Do you want a kiss and a hug after that? Capitulation? Adoration for your wise and insightful commentary? Good day, sir.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 12:52 PM (5pqct)

99 You should be able to wear whatever you want at the SOTU. Case Closed. Cheney and Hastert had on the same tie. It was red, you know, to match the pitchfork they carry around. By the way, when are we getting to Mars? Bush = Murderer

Posted by: Brian at February 02, 2006 01:01 PM (m9tb8)

100 Is that all you have? It wasn't even illegal, but for argument sake, let's say it is. Is this truly your threshold for impleachment. If so, but wouldn't have lasted a week. Or perhaps you're just engaging in some shiny hyperbole... hoping that people look away from the Bush boy admin crimes. Not so. The sweet smell of impeachment is in the air. You might as well get used to it and start planning for '08. bok bok Chicken Hawks

Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 01:44 PM (NXi5I)

101 This is not adult behavior. Give the man 1 hour to freaking speak his mind for godsakes! AND Can you imagine someone giving Paula Jones a pass to see Clinton's speech. Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 1, 2006 08:47 AM He had is hour, all he could come up with was Werewolves! Perhaps bush boy should scale it down to 5 minutes. He already played the 'man to mars' card. He's got nothing. To your second point, Paula Jones DID attend a Clinton SOTU speech! The Republicowards were crowing the entire time. How quickly you forget the facts.

Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 01:49 PM (NXi5I)

102 Congressman Young's wife didn't just get back from kissing and hugging Venezuela's dictator, Chavez, standing on a platform with him and denigrating her country. Posted by: Oyster at February 2, 2006 06:28 AM Ummmm... 1. Chavez was democratically elected twice. 2. Bush supported a failed military coup against Chavez. Now THAT would have resulted in a dictatorship. Possibly a right-wing dictatorship, but I get the feeling that would be OK with you. I think your comments really well illustrate why you support bush boy some much... because you cannot tell the difference between democracy and dictatorship. That would certainly explain your apologies for bush boy's lying and abuses of power. You may not like Chavez. I don't like him because he hides behind the guise of the military, exactly like bush boy does when he plays 'dress up'. But just because you don't like him, doesn't transform the reality of his winning the popular vote into a dictatorship. It ends up just giving you the same lack of credibility of Pat Robertson. History is bitch, especially when you don't study it. And to you, you have some studying to do before you put yourself, and your credibility, on the line with false statements. bok bok Chicken Hawk

Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 02:01 PM (NXi5I)

103 To leap off the diving boards right into the deep end, it may very well be one's opinion that you shouldn't wear a T-shirt to the SOTU. That's all well and good. The issue is whether or not you can be arrested for wearing one. I happen to think lavender looks awful on Sen. Clinton. I wouldn't arrest her for it, I just think it is tacky.

Posted by: Tom in Texas at February 02, 2006 02:08 PM (pemuP)

104 Lars is creating his very own echo chamber in an old thread. What a hero.

Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 02:34 PM (CcXvt)

105 Oyster, Wondering if you have a problem with those that showed at last year's SOTU speech with their fingers in purple ink? Wash your damn hands!! Don't these people have any respect or decorum during the President's hour long commercial, I mean speech?

Posted by: Robert at February 02, 2006 02:47 PM (ByaZN)

106 Lars Gruber? Is that a name? Yes, Chavez was democratically elected just like Castro was democratically elected. I'm glad we agree on your interpretation of democratic elections. And don't call a woman a chickenhawk, or anyone else for that matter, as you are in no position to judge or even know whether that person has performed military service or is even eligible for service. This is a tactic of the Left to try to silence people on the Right. I tell you what, only if you have served in the military do you have the right to freedom of speech or any other right. Only a veteran or an active military person should have the right to govern the country. Right, bok bok!

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:56 PM (rUyw4)

107 This country has gotten to the point that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are writing letters to complain about a cartoon and people are being arrested for wearing certain T-shirts. Has it always been like this? Did I just not see it?

Posted by: Jason at February 02, 2006 05:02 PM (QlIxf)

108 What's wrong with the Joint Chiefs writing a letter to complain about a cartoon that was the creation of a sick mind? Did they make a death threat? That's what I thought, you Lefties always want freedom for yourselves to say and do anything, but seek to censor the rest of us. You're a real freedom fighter there, Jason.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:15 PM (rUyw4)

109 Jason, It's even worse than you think! I'm hearing that Chicken Little reported seeing parts of the sky falling.

Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 06:15 PM (CcXvt)

110 For some, Dave, the sky never ceases to threaten imminent collapse.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 11:14 AM (0yYS2)

111 I'll apologize to Lynn Woolsey right after she makes a sincere apology about trying to get a rapist a lighter sentence...because he stuffed campaign envelopes for her.

Posted by: Der Tommissar at February 03, 2006 12:45 PM (7cVlV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

WTW Make Sweet Love to Me Bill

I was upset over the snooty look on her face during the speech last night. Now I just feel sorry for Bill don't you?

Here are your White Trash Wednesday bloggers

more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:54 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

It Brought Tears, I Do Declare

If only the Fox All Stars could do SOTU analysis like this.

The money quotes:

"Alito, wearing robe, enters the hall. Instinctively, Amanda Marcotte clenches her vaginal muscles to protect her uterus."

"Cut to Pelosi: Beelzebub in heels, her face stretched like an Ed Gein lampshade: applauds politely."

Happy Birthday to PW, btw. The cupcakes are in the mail.

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Woodruff Incident: Soldiers React To Press Coverage (Updated)

'...you'd think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.'

US troops in Iraq are reacting to a phenomenon I first mentioned here, as displayed by CNN's Christiane Amanpour in her unprofessional and shameful appearance on Larry King Live Monday:

So when something happens to people that we identify, like Bob and like Doug, we wake up again and realize, no, this is not acceptable, what's going on there.

It's not surprising that Amanpour can't identify with "ordinary" people. Journalism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, rocket science, and the standards of television place many dense and self-absorbed newsreaders, like Amanpour, in front of the public as "authorities". This idea that journalists, who follow undemanding courses of study to attain their positions (I studied journalism in college - absolute cake courses) are somehow an elite group of intellectuals is at the root of all problems with news reporting today.

Not being dense and self-absorbed; in fact, being pretty much the opposite, American servicepeople were quick to pick up on this. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 08:25 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The narcissism and elitism of our Fifth Column Fourth Estate strikes again.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 01, 2006 08:32 AM (IEpte)

2 Strike, not strikes. Sorry.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 01, 2006 08:32 AM (IEpte)

3 I couldn't figure out why it was such big headline news either. One mention would have sufficed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 09:03 AM (8e/V4)

4 It's okay Insomniac, given the state of our libtard run reeducation camps, very few people would catch the mistake.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:22 AM (0yYS2)

5 Ah, Bluto, you have touched on one of my pet peaves. While attending college I started working part time for a newspaper as a staff reporter, worked my way up to sports editor, then to news editor, and finally to managing editor. My major was in geology. The point I'm trying to make is that the newspaper and media business is pretty easy stuff. These people who major in journalism and media studies are hardly what one would call the intelligent students, and are normally too slow for math and science. Most of them I met were yearbook editors and such in high school and were looking for something easy after they lost their interest in elementary education.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:13 AM (rUyw4)

6 Oh, yeah, and there is one other thing that really pisses me off about these media people. They can cover something a time of two and then they try to pass themselves off as experts on the subject. And apparently the people who manage them allow it. That flames my britches, I tell you.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:21 AM (rUyw4)

7 Not much to be said that hasn't been said already, but I'll add this: war correspondents consider themselves to be the epitomy of field reporting. Everyone else, even other journalists are way below them. Just a few weeks ago, wasn't a plane load of journalists lost enroute to Iranian military exercises? Did anyone, including journalists come down on the Iranian government for it?

Posted by: Graeme at February 01, 2006 11:01 AM (WtwuU)

8 An uncle of mine is a professor of journalism at a major state university, (I won't say which one of course because the moonbats might start stalking him too, then I'd have to go on a killing spree), and he is disgusted by the state of the modern media. The ironic thing is that he has taught in countries where the press is government controlled, and he says that students from the repressed countries have a much better grasp on the ethics of journalism, whereas most American students just want to be propagandists for the dhimmicraps.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:33 AM (0yYS2)

9 i posted on this days ago. befire the Hess article. i just reposted with her info. NEWSANCHOR INJURED IN IRAQ!!! TIME TO REDEPLOY ALL REPORTERS!!! UPDATED AND BUMPED UP: THE TROOPS AGREE WITH ME! TELEVISION ANCHORMAN INJURED IN IRAQ!!! IRAQ IS STILL DANGEROUS FDOR REPORTERS!!! WHAT MUST WE DO? "Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy for the MSM. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of all MSM reporters from Iraq. Some claim the answer is to put even more reporters on the ground, but many of our reporters are already on their third deployment, our MSM cannot recruit to its current target, even as they lower recruiting standards. My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of reporting in Iraq to the Iraqi reporters. MSM reporting in in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. The MSM has become a catalyst for violence. That's why we must redeploy reporters immediately!" (SATIRE OFF.) First, I want to extend my condolences to the Woodruff anf Vogt families. I am praying for their swift and complete recovery. Now.... here's the truth: EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT ACCIDENTALLY ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS ATTACK WAS A CELEBRITY, THERE IS NO NEWS-WORTHINESS IN THIS STORY. The enemy hasn't surrendered and they continue to target soft targets: mosques; funerals; weddings; children getting candy; Iraqi police; Iraqi Army and and reporters riding in Iraq Army vehicles. My sarcastic little pitch was only meant to further expose Murtha and his Leftie comrades, fellow appeasers, dupes, and doves who MISCONTRUE THE DATA (IOW: LIE) and advocate cutting and running. Cutting and running is a stupid policy and a worse strategy. Why does the Left advocate the wrong policy, a policy of premature withdrawal and appeasement!? THEY ALWAYS HAVE. They ran out on the South Vietnamese, they abandoned the CONTRAS, and they would do the same to the Iraqis - and the Israelis. The best strategy is to destroy the enemy. That's how you win wars. The best strategy is to intercept all the sigint - NO MATTTER WHERE IT EMANATES FROM AND NO MATTER WHERE IT GOES. The Leftie doves - and the Old Media and Democrat Party they control - would rather we purchased temporary truce at the price of eternal chains and everlasting shame. For that is all you ever really get when you give into blackmail and terror. The Left's denial of this fact is no different than their denial of the fact that socialism was not only a abject failure at providing the goods, but the single biggest cause of genocide in all of human history. We should no more listen to the Left now, then jump off a bridge. The Bolsheviks were wrong in 1917 and they are wrong now. 2/1/06 - UPDATE: THE TROOPS AGREE WITH ME! UPI/PAMELA HESS: The American media stood up and took notice when an improvised explosive device grievously injured an ABC News crew Sunday. In Iraq, and throughout the military, there is sympathy and concern for anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt, but there is also this question: "Why do you think this is such a huge story?" wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. "It's a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you'd think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something. "There's a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That's a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it's what you would hear over here." ... "The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday. The troops are EXACTLY RIGHT: the Old Media care more about themselves than our troops our our cause. That's one big reason the Old Media is scum. And their ratings reflect the fact that patriotic Americans realize this!

Posted by: reliapundit at February 01, 2006 11:51 AM (75WzH)

10 A Geraldo moment! Keep that camera on me unless I point to something - n' then keep me centershot in focus! I'm old enough to remember when reporters stayed off camera while adding narration/commentary - and emerged only at the opening and closing. Those days are gone! When your the star - your THE STAR. JJ! A rockhound? Same here - among other related fields. Noticed that too about college "journalism". It has become the new "Phs ED Degree" for faux-intellectuals. Noted the total lack of secondary substance fields - shows in their work when they cover areas they have absolutely no knowledge and understanding of.

Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 12:15 PM (3aakz)

11 Yep, hondo, I plead guilty to the "rockhound" nick. There was a time when I chased quartz crystals, novaculite, pyrite and many another mineral up and down the Ouachita Mountains. What a blast! Then I discovered fossils. So I traveled from one dig to another seeking everything from sharks's teeth to dinosaurs. But couldn't make a living at it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:23 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Michael Jackson, Eat Your Heart Out

Sure, we believe you.

"Muscle spasms."

Heh.

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:06 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Funny how she's published that letter claiming to have lost her First Amendment rights, which would include the right to... wait for it... publish that letter.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 08:16 AM (rGfpg)

2 Interesting pic of Woolsey, Conyers and Sheehan in front of their hand-made "People's State of the Union" poster. What's the appropriate term for a multiplicity of moonbats all gathered in one place? A gaggle? A nest?

Posted by: Insomniac at February 01, 2006 08:45 AM (IEpte)

3 She's a bloody idiot. Let her sue, and learn a few things about the 1st Amendment. I guarantee one thing she'll learn is that it doesn't give her the right to spout off and disrupt during any time or any place of her choosing. Idiot.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 09:36 AM (8e/V4)

4 Yup, Cindy's "speechless" alrighty. She only managed 957 words. Did anybody bother to read it?

Posted by: mojo at February 01, 2006 10:24 AM (YcJA8)

5 Yeah, I read it. It reads like the convoluted excuse-making of anyone who's been caught doing something wrong and is trying to come up with some version of the events that flies in the face of Occam's Razor but explains perfectly why she really wasn't doing anything wrong.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 11:05 AM (rGfpg)

6 I made it through a couple of sentences but had to stop when I could feel my brain cells committing suicide.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:35 AM (0yYS2)

7 The loony left must be having spasms: Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 145 Warning: mysql_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 150 Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 166 Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 172 Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 230 Warning: mysql_fetch_assoc(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /var/www/moore/mustread/index.php on line 239 Previous Must Read | Next Must Read Ever throw a rubber snake into a hen house?

Posted by: Phillep at February 01, 2006 12:58 PM (Xg00m)

8 i love every thing about it....

Posted by: sizzlars at February 03, 2006 04:38 AM (hdBhF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last Night's Must View TV

Man, that was a classic episode of South Park last night, wasn't it? And, call me a geek if you will, but the history of lumber mills is wicked cool. And no, I regret not watching that other show about as much as I regret not watching Desperate Housewives.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

206kb generated in CPU 0.0821, elapsed 0.2492 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.1915 seconds, 585 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 88341
Files: 363
Bytes: 955.6M
CPU Time: 167:58
Queries: 9042162

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

February 01, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds