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

April 17, 2006

Frustrated Zawahiri Risks Detection to Send Email.

ItÂ’s hard hiding in a cave when you are supposed to be in command.

MSNBC :CAIRO - In January 2003, one of the two most wanted men in the world couldn't contain his frustration. From a hiding place probably somewhere in South Asia, he tapped out two lengthy e-mails to a fellow Egyptian who'd been criticizing him in public.
"I beg you, don't stop the Muslim souls who trust your opinions from joining the jihad against the Americans," wrote Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy leader of al-Qaeda. He fired off the message even though it risked exposing him.
"Let's put it this way: Tensions had been building up between us for a long time," explained the e-mail's recipient, Montasser el-Zayat, a Cairo lawyer who shared a prison cell with Zawahiri in the 1980s and provided this account. "He always thinks he is right, even if he is alone."
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Zawahiri has broadcast his views to the world relentlessly. Despite a $25 million price on his head, he has published memoirs, given interviews and recorded a dozen speeches that find their way to the Internet and television. Video of a speech was posted Thursday on a Web site.
Zawahiri's visibility, eclipsing Osama bin Laden's, reminds al-Qaeda's enemies that the network is capable of more attacks. But a closer look at his speeches and writings, and interviews with several longtime associates in radical Islamic circles, suggests another motive: fear of losing his ideological grip over a revolutionary movement he has nurtured for 40 years.

All who have power fear loosing it.

"He's trying to stay in control and give the impression that he's behind everything in the Middle East and everywhere else, fighting against the Americans in Iraq and against Britain in Europe," Rushdi said in an interview. "He is trying to take responsibility as a leader for what is going on in Iraq. But he knows, and everyone knows, that that is not true, that he has nothing to do with anything in Iraq."
Al-Qaeda was founded as a decentralized coalition of Islamic extremists. That structure has complicated efforts by intelligence services to penetrate the network. But the lack of clear chains of command also can make it difficult for leaders to maintain control.

And thatÂ’s a good thing. The lack of control means they will make even more errors than we do. In the long run al-QaedaÂ’s structure (or lack of) may become it's greatest weakness.

Posted by: Howie at 03:35 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

KY Adds New Joint Tax

Hey thatÂ’s one way to balance the budget.

Courier Journal :But careful readers of the final state budget bill can find a new tax on Page 624: 25 cents on each package of cigarette rolling papers. A typical pack of 32 papers costs $1.49 now.

This tax is about 0.78128 cents per doobie. Kentuckians are expected to burn about 959963 doobies this year resulting in an additional 750,000 bucks for the state. What? You didnÂ’t think those were actually for cigarettes did you? Just think how much they earn by taxing the stuff people put in Â“cigaretteÂ” papers. Bong makers efforts to lobby for an even greater tax failed to make the final budget. more...

Posted by: Howie at 03:20 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Will Iran use THE Bomb?

I seldom post over here at The Jawa Report, mainly because this site is usually flooded with quality posts, but I wanted to bring a matter to the attention of readers here. Much has been said about Iran's nuclear program, where it's going and what the intentions are, but I feel a key point is often missed.

That key point assumes Iran wants to acquire a nuclear weapon, which their own statements lead to that conclusion, and whether or not they will actually use a nuclear weapon if they sucessfully built one. That does not mean Iran equips one of their new Shahab class missiles (Shahab-3 has been announced and they working on Shahab-6) with a nuclear warhead and fires one into Tel Aviv, but the nation also has control over groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Lending even a small amount of radioactive waste in the form of a "dirty bomb" to either of those groups, not to mention any other radical Islamic group the nation at least supports ideologically, would change the face of this conflict and should rightly be considered when discussing whether striking Iran's nuclear facilities is in our best interests. This is not necessarily a debate of should we keep Iran from obtaining a bomb, the nation already has radioactive waste and with the announcement it will increase uranium enrichment more radioactive waste will be produced.

While a dirty bomb would create havoc wherever one is detonated, it is still a small type attack when compared to a suitcase nuke or a nuclear weapon. This is an important distinction to make because a dirty bomb would not do the damage to Israel that Iran seeks, and there is a religious belief it is the duty of the Islamic Republic of Iran to destroy Israel.

I believe Iran would have no qualms with sending a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv because it is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's firm belief he must wipe out Israel to pave the path for the return of the 12th Imam. It is his religious fanaticism that is alarming and needs to be considered while his nation continues their pursuit for nuclear weapons. Unfortunately many naysayers fail to even bring this up in discussion perhaps because we don't fully understand the role of the 12th Imam and Ahmadinejad's own belief he is one of the chosen people to help the 12th Imam return, but we must begin to.

That said, there are many Islamic religious structures in Israel that certainly would at least be damaged in such an attack. Would the nation that wants to be the center of the Islamic world risk damaging where Mohammed ascended into Heaven to sit by Allah?

Contrary to what is constantly being reported, Ahmadinejad's own statements confirm his quest to destroy Israel, but Israel's destruction must come after the United States has been put to the side. At a conference in Tehran dubbed "The World without Zionism," the imagery that was widely reported and republished included a globe bearing the markings of the Star of David, which is of course also the markings of the nation of Israel, falling from the rest of the world. Cropped from most pictures was that a globe bearing the American flag was already on the ground and broken as Israel's globe was falling.

This symbolism of taking down Israel after the United States however isn't the only evidence Ahmadinejad seeks to destroy the United States first. Also at the same conference Ahmadinejad proclaimed "to those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.Â” Naturally the crowd also threw in England for good measure.

The three nations of England, the U.S. and Israel comprise of what I have termed "the family satan." I certainly don't believe any of those nations are actually satanic, but over the course of the past few years in particular Iran has ramped up the rhetoric citing all three are in the same satanic family. The United States is the "great satan," whereas I would assume England is the "mother of satan" and Israel is the "incestual offspring of satan."

It is this reasoning that I believe Iran won't immediately strike Israel but rather they would strike the United States if the nation acquires a nuclear weapon. Iran knows any attack on Israel would be met with swift retribution by the United States. It must therefore end the "great satan" from protecting the "incestual offspring of satan" before it can once and for all pave the way for the 12th Imam to return the Islamic glory to the world.

In the religious battle of good versus evil the imagery of Satan is strong, and so too in Shia Islam is the imagery of the 12th Imam returning to the Earth to help build an Islamic state. To those unfamiliar with the comcpet of the 12th Imam, think any other religious end of days scenario that involved a prophet, the son of God or any other religious entity reappearing to punish those who do not believe and reward those who do.

To some of us, this type of scenario is nothing more than a story passed down through time and warped through the many translations and interpretations all religious texts have been through. To others, the religion we worship is right and the end of days scenario written in our religious texts is accurate.

But there's a huge difference with those that believe our end of days scenario is accurate and the end of days belief of Ahmadinejad. Most Christians who are proclaiming this is the end of life on Earth or that the end is near don't actually feel that it is their duty to accelerate the end of days. As many end of days sites as there are on the Internet, very few actually state they want the end to come now, but rather they are exposing what they believe are the signs towards that advancement.

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is a student of a religious belief that Allah wants his followers to wage war for his own fancies and die in his name; it is that belief that treasures death more than life. When he is not dropping notes to the 12th Imam who has been hiding in a well near Qom, Iran for centuries, Ahmadinejad is shining in divine light at the United Nations. Not only does Ahmadinejad feel he is chosen to help the return of the 12th Imam, he feels it is his duty and these notes he tosses down the well indicate he is trying to help the 12th Imam return.

We are stuck in a secular society, for good or bad that's for others to decide, that doesn't take into consideration the fanatical religious beliefs that predicate future events. In contrast, the government of Iran only knows religion and feels their own nation's quests are predetermined in an effort do Allah's bidding on this Earth. So while we as a nation and as an international community have now seemingly resigned ourselves to the fact Iran is a nuclear nation and while at least some diplomats, journalists and so-called pundits are resigned to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, we need to shift our discussion to whether Iran will use a nuclear weapon and if so, where would one be aimed.

I certainly believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon for the leaders of Iran see it is their religious duty to do so, and from the statements made by Ahmadinejad, I feel the United States will be the first hit in an effort to make the United States impotent in defending Iran's short-term religious goal which is the destruction of Israel. While other nations including Saudi Arabia realize Iran's nucler weapons won't only be pointed towards Tel Aviv, the same quieted condemnation out of the Middle East of Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" statements at "The World without Zionism" conference will likely be heard, or not heard of course, if Iran were to strike Israel first. There is no better target for Iran to strike that would strike up the religious fanaticism the nation exudes than to strike Israel, but it must first eliminate "the great satan" from protecting "the incestual offspring of satan."

Posted by Chad Evans of In the Bullpen

Posted by: Chad at 02:59 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 1415 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Even as fractionalized as American support in Iraq seems to be now, I believe that Mr. Ahmadinnerjacket would be repeating the historical error pointed out by (I think) Yamamoto, who expressed the fear that the Pearl Harbor attack "awakened a sleeping giant". If an attack on our shores was directly attributed to Iranian interests, the ensuing ass-whomping would be quick, complete, and devastating.

Posted by: EricInTexas at April 17, 2006 03:46 PM (b96R4)

2 I wish I could agree Eric, but liberals would just use it as another excuse to commit treason. We should nuke Iran and round up the liberals and muslims among us and shoot them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 04:26 PM (0yYS2)

3 We have been at war with Iran for over twenty years. They help Hezbolla, and Hezebolla blew up a lot of Marines back in 1983. I would rather see us contain Iran. We could start by having the rest of the world not help in any way Iran's oil, and gas production getting any larger. Many countries are trading with Iran, perhaps that could be slowed down. I doubt if France, Germany, Russia, and China will go along with any slow down in contract money flow. So, what will happen? I'm afraid this world will see a wider regional Middle East war. We will see oil go past $100.00, and I do not know where it will stop. The United States in it's attempt to maintain the New World Order will lanuch 1000 points of light within four months. Blow back, and the gobal recession will be a bitch. I hope I am wrong, I really do.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 17, 2006 04:55 PM (D2g/j)

4 The idea that jihadists would not destroy Tel-Aviv because it contains some holy sites is a bad joke. We've recently seen an important mosque in Iraq destroyed in an attempt to stoke civil war. Last year, the Saudis bulldozed Muhammed's house, for cryin' out loud! I don't think there's anything so holy that it could not be sacrificed to further the jihad.

Posted by: Anachronda at April 17, 2006 05:21 PM (Y7t14)

5 Mr. Chad Evans, You neither have balls nor should you be given a pen! Iran is no threat to anyone! It is incredible that such war mongers like you exist. This article is a clear incitement to violence. How can you call yourself a human being. Anyone with a grain of brain can see that: 1- Iran does not have a Nuclear weapon 2- Iran has repeatedly stated that it does not want nor need one. 3- If an enemy of Israeli government found a Nuclear bomb in their bag, do you really think they will use it when it would clearly destroy so many innocent people! WMD do not distinguish between friend or foe, hence why Iran would never use such weapons (which they do not have and do not want). Ahmadinejad maybe crazy, but so is George Bush and Sharon! You, along with many other people clearly have vested interest in the continuation of war and misery, including the death of innocent Jews and Muslims alike! With sick minds like yours, It is no wonder the Israeli/Palestinian problems just get worse and innocent people keep getting killed. People like you are a disgrace to the human race!

Posted by: James at April 17, 2006 05:21 PM (aA9oO)

6 Mr. Chad Evans, You neither have balls nor should you be given a pen! Iran is no threat to anyone! It is incredible that such war mongers like you exist. This article is a clear incitement to violence. How can you call yourself a human being. Anyone with a grain of brain can see that: 1- Iran does not have a Nuclear weapon 2- Iran has repeatedly stated that it does not want nor need one. 3- If an enemy of Israeli government found a Nuclear bomb in their bag, do you really think they will use it when it would clearly destroy so many innocent people! WMD do not distinguish between friend or foe, hence why Iran would never use such weapons (which they do not have and do not want). Ahmadinejad maybe crazy, but so is George Bush and Sharon! You, along with many other people clearly have vested interest in the continuation of war and misery, including the death of innocent Jews and Muslims alike! With sick minds like yours, It is no wonder the Israeli/Palestinian problems just get worse and innocent people keep getting killed. People like you are a disgrace to the human race!

Posted by: James at April 17, 2006 05:23 PM (aA9oO)

7 The fanaticism of Ahmadinejad is the real concern. Logic would hold Iran from any action, against the US or Israel. Both countries would be able to launch major nuclear attacks against Iran. However, Iran does not seem to be following logic, and I wouldn't put a kamikaze attack beyond the realm of possibility. I don't think fear of retribution is any of their concern. Diplomacy is not working with Iran. If reasonable countries (though I'm not sure how reasonable Russia is) don't show up to lend their support, I fear that force will be the only option.

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at April 17, 2006 05:24 PM (jz8oq)

8 James, I think you are a bit misguided. 1. Iran may not already have such a weapon, though accusations that they bought some do exist. 2. You're serious? You believe them? If, by that logic, you believe that they don't plan to acquire a nuke because "they said so", then you must also believe that they seek to destroy Israel, because they have said so repeatedly. If not by a nuke, then by what? 3. Yes. I believe that, and if you had read the article thoroughly (or, had at least understood it), you would see the multitude of reasons that offset logic from entering into Iran's decisions. Nobody wants war. I, and I suspect I also speak for Mr. Evans, wants to take the course of action that keeps America and our allies safe.

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at April 17, 2006 05:29 PM (jz8oq)

9 Between James and Maximus we could run the Starship Enterprise. It's like matter and antimatter.

Posted by: Cervus at April 17, 2006 05:49 PM (q44C4)

10 James, I just checked and I do have balls but thank you for asking. Because I am a guest here I won't whip 'em out for you to verify it. I have to ask, though if you respond I'll get some nutty answer. What might my vested interest be in a war with Iran? The only stock I own is in Forest Labs and Target. Unless either gets into rebuilding nations, and with Target the prices would be just slightly higher than Wal-Mart though with the convenience of less crowds (heh), there is nothing at all for me to gain. Anachronda, I largely agree with your point about holy sites, but it hasn't been proven Iran was behind the Al Askariya Shrine bombing. In fact all signs continue to point to Al Qaida in Iraq. Iranian munitions and explosives have been found in Iraq, but I have yet to see where they were used by AQ in Iraq. Of course we assume that's the case, I just haven't seen the direct link. If anyone has seen that, by all means I would love to see it. I also haven't heard about the Saudi laying wreck to Mohammed's house. I'll look that up and trust you on your word, but I still feel that since Iran's intention is to become the headquarters of the Islamic world it would be folly to even damage such a monument to the Muslim religion. As pointed out though, logic and Iran are like oil and water. That's a very valid point. And I largely agree with The Gentle Cricket too. No one wants war, period. If it were up to me, the entire world would be sitting around watching the Stanley Cup Playoffs bragging, boasting and betting on their teams. The problem is that doesn't fit into Ahmadinejad's plans, and I hear he is a fan of the dreadful Red Wings anyways. Anyhow, I just wanted to poke fun of James a bit and let him know I am of the human species, I do have a brain (one that can even function enough to actually read what is written) and I of course have balls.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 17, 2006 06:06 PM (vKISv)

11 The ones most likely to use nukes in the Mideast are the U.S. and Israel. Who else has them? Let's not forget the treasonous, David Pollard. May he rot in prison.

Posted by: Greg at April 17, 2006 06:15 PM (q5wwn)

12 I do hope I'm wrong, but the way the Iranian Hitler is just begging for the US to attack leads me to believe they not only have nukes, but they have them already in the US. There's no other explanation for the reckless actions of this fanatic.

Posted by: Richard at April 17, 2006 09:45 PM (7KF8r)

13 Maybe someone else can track this information down and verify it because I was not able to, but the following is in a letter to Mark Steyn. "It is a common misconception among the anti-intervention crowd that Iran is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Israel because such an attack would kill many Palestinians and destroy Jerusalem. Your column "Facing Down Iran" echoes this perception, but not the sentiment, when you mention "...Muslim deaths in an obliterated Jerusalem..." This thinking comes from both overestimating the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and underestimating the size of Israel. An atomic bomb of moderate yield, say 20 kT as used on Nagasaki, has an effective blast radius of 5-6 km for a ground-burst (truck or ship) and 10-12 km for an air-burst (missile or airplane). Tel Aviv, which would be Iran's most likely target, is 40 km from Jerusalem. Haifa at 90 km is a likely secondary target. Thus, given favorable winds to prevent fallout from reaching Jerusalem, a substantial portion of the Israeli population and infrastructure could be destroyed without significant damage to Jerusalem. Most of this information can be garnered from the Federation of American Scientists website." This is actually the first time I have heard this argument from anyone else and I thought I was the first, even if that argument is not correct.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 17, 2006 11:19 PM (vKISv)

14 >>>The ones most likely to use nukes in the Mideast are the U.S. and Israel. But they wouldn't use them against the U.S. or Israel-- and I think that's the whole point.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 11:47 PM (8e/V4)

15 Chad, I've been spreading this line for some time. Your presentation is terrific. Our logic is identical. I prefer the term profound belief over fanatical belief. A fanatic endures opposition and risks all. Ahmadi-Nejad faces no effective opposition nor does he perceive ANY risk. That is why everyone thinks he's mad. It's worse: he believes.

Posted by: blert at April 18, 2006 02:22 AM (hZAF3)

16 The one thing nobody called James on : "If an enemy of Israeli government found a Nuclear bomb in their bag, do you really think they will use it when it would clearly destroy so many innocent people!" Wake the F*** up buddy, why do you think these radical Islamists care anything about innocents. How many suicide bombings will it take for you to see what's going on here. They only care about the end result, total control of the planet. It doesn't matter in the least how many people die, if they are muslim they go to Allah for their reward. If they are non muslim, oh well another infidel bites the dust. When people like you wake up and see whats going on, you'll be standing before your maker going "DUH, what happened?"

Posted by: memphis761 at April 18, 2006 09:12 AM (D3+20)

17 Ever play poker? It's all a big bluff. The inbred half-brother of Bush is simply trying to curry favor from his cohorts Russia, France and China. He's gambling that we are spread too thin and that Hamas has strengthened his hand. Hit me!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 09:23 AM (FCC6c)

18 memphis761 makes a good point; how many times have we seen suicide/homicide bombers pull the trigger amongst innocent people in a crowded bus stop/train station/market, as opposed to attacks on "official" targets? It is very obvious that either 1) the bombers became extremely edgy with the idea of approaching a "semi-hardened" target area, and pulled the trigger out of panic, or 2) They don't give a flying shiite about who gets hit in this operation. I personally don't think the current Iraninan president would give a rat's ass about destroying muslim non-combatants, holy sites, or civilian populace to carry out his view of bringing the Global Caliphate to power. I don't think that he thinks that far in advance. It's interesting to note that the former leadership (RoughSonJohnny) has distanced himself from this wacko at every opportunity. I admit my initial post in this thread was rather Pollyanna-ish in nature; I just believe that most "Liberals" (as opposed to the hyper-radical "Libtards"' like Ward Churchill, et al) would even admit that letting these idiots obtain nuclear ability is akin to suicide on our part. I just hope it doesn't take a "24"-themed scenario within our own borders to enlighten them. Unless we have a Jack Bauer, that is... God Bless everyone (even that Churchill asshole) over this past Easter weekend.

Posted by: EricInTexas at April 18, 2006 09:37 AM (b96R4)

19 That's scary, blert. Heh. I see your point with profound perhaps being a better word than fanatical, but there are rumblings that the Mullahs oppose Ahmadinejad. Now whether they oppose him due to his religious beliefs or the more widely reported opposition to his strong stance I do not know. Also I think a major point in regards to nuclear weapons is that nations that have nuclear weapons now simply won't use them. I have no problem with India having nuclear weapons, nor China, nor Russia, and because of India, I think it's acceptable Pakistan has nuclear weapons as a counterbalance. Who though would Iran's counterbalance be? While it's generally accepted Israel has at least one nuclear warhead, we don't really know if they have one. And even still, we're talking about a handful versus an arsenal much less that Israel has shown they won't use a nuclear weapon. Iran has shown throughout the history of the Islamic Republic that they are aggressive towards their neighbors and the leadership openly states they want to destroy a nation; not regime change, but destroy all those who live within its borders to remove the "Jewish stain" from the Middle East. Couple the nation's own statements with the religious belief that it is pure to wipe out Israel to further the advance of Allah and it's a dangerous situation. I think rational people can openly debate about whether or not Iran would use a nuclear weapon with intelligent people falling on both sides of the issue, but the most left out piece to the puzzle (Ahmadinejad's own religious beliefs) seems to me to be the most important.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 18, 2006 12:24 PM (vKISv)

20 James, your a stupid moon god worshipper. Wake up, and read a bit of history. The correct version, and be careful to not get your head cut off.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 18, 2006 01:43 PM (D2g/j)

21 Chad is not just a guest! Our blog is his blog any time he so chooses.

Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 04:01 PM (D3+20)

22 CNN reported that the U.S. will test its tactical nuke in Nevada on June 2nd. Presumably, this weapon is being reviewed for potential deployment against Iran. Let's all head to the desert. Bring some marshmellows.

Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2006 05:07 PM (q5wwn)

23 Chad, The real question is... "Will the U.S. use THE Bomb?" or Will it be Israel?

Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2006 05:12 PM (q5wwn)

24 Greg... You mean the 700 ton conventional chemically energized shaped charge tomb maker?

Posted by: blert at April 18, 2006 09:06 PM (HjyLj)

25 >>>"Will the U.S. use THE Bomb?" or Will it be Israel? Greg, neither. But Iran would. Just one nuke off the coast of Tel Aviv with prevailing easterly winds and that's all it would take to "wipe Israel off the map."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 18, 2006 11:09 PM (8e/V4)

26 Let Israel do it. Save our ammo for North Korea, China, Russia, Germany and France

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:48 AM (FCC6c)

27 From Juan Cole, at www.juancole.com - So, I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.

Posted by: Billy F at May 04, 2006 01:13 PM (Da6a7)

28 Oh please it's hard to sneak by me. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/174928.php Professor Juan Cole does not know what he is talking about, in any language.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2006 01:19 PM (D3+20)

29 1:IRAN WILL NEVER ATTACK TO ISRAEL. 2:1 IRANIAN MISSILE WILL GET ANSWER WITH 187 ISREALI MISSILE WITH NUC WARHEAD 3:pr.AHMADINEJAD GOT NO POWER. 4.AYATOLLAH KHAMENEHYI IS THE ABSOLUTE MONARCH 5.YOU GUYS ARE SO SEEK THAT KEEP TALKING ABOUT SHIT AND 12TH IMAM. 6.WE SHOULD BLAME OUR SELF THAT WE PUT ARE FUCKING FINGER EVERY WHERE EXCEPT IN ARE OWN USA. 7.IF IN ANY TIME IRAN GET ATTACK IT WILL ANSWER BACK VERY QUICKLY SHUCH AS 9/11 . 8.IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN ATTACK IRAN WONT GO ALONE .(NEEDS RUSSIA AND CHINA )(GOOD OLD FRIENDS ) 9.DONT FUCK WITH THEM THEY WILL FIGHT BACK. IRANIAN STUDENT AND WEB MAKER SOHRAB LIVE IN US.

Posted by: Sohrab at May 09, 2006 08:03 PM (8JK10)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Americans Deliver Delivery Ward

IÂ’m almost impressed by Islamic charity except for the FACT that western nations out perform Islamic ones hands down. The terrorists talk about being for the common man and helping the poor but we actually do it. Who lowered infant mortality in Afghanistan? It was not the Taliban it was the USA.

Centcom :KABUL , Afghanistan Â– The command surgeon of Combined Forces Command Â– Afghanistan presented the renovated Rabia Balkhi Maternity Hospital to Afghanistan Â’s minister of public health in a ceremony here April 9.
The U.S. Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services invested a combined $10 million into renovations, Air Force Col. (Dr.) Donald Thompson said.
The renovations and related training programs have already improved the care provided by the Rabia Balkhi, which is Kabul Â’s second-busiest maternity hospital, delivering more than 15,000 babies each year. Â“When we first started, there were three to four maternal deaths per week. Last year, (Rabia Balkhi) had 18 maternal deaths for the entire year,Â” Thompson said.
While those numbers, plus the 50 percent decline in the mortality rate for newborns weighing more than 5.5 pounds, show a positive trend, there are still too many deaths, and that is what continuing programs will attempt to reduce, Thompson said.

Well done sheÂ’s a cutie.

Posted by: Howie at 10:57 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Unfortunately these "children" will only grow up to be suicide bombers and radical insurgents intent on destroying America. It is better to get rid of them now than to have to fight them in 15-20 years.

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 17, 2006 11:17 AM (y+196)

2 Why do you think they have straps around the baby's body? And BTW, Victory, that is a horrible thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Babs at April 17, 2006 11:20 AM (iZZlp)

3 The truth is not always an easy thing to speak but that does not make it any less factual. These arabs are incapable of forming and living in a peaceful society. They exist solely to create terror and disrupt the fabric of decent society. By removing the arab and eradicating his satanic religion worldwide we can truly have peace in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 17, 2006 11:26 AM (y+196)

4 test

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 11:47 AM (vXSuL)

5 I dunno victory it takes both fighting and aid. Did we have to kill every German to defeat the Nazis nope. Not even close.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 11:59 AM (D3+20)

6 >>>Unfortunately these "children" Victory, are they not real children? Why the quotes then.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 12:00 PM (8e/V4)

7 >>> By removing the arab and eradicating his satanic religion worldwide, we can truly have peace in our lifetimes. Victory, firstly, all muslims aren't arabs. Secondly, there has never been peace at any time in recorded human history. Due to human nature there is always a threat that needs to be confronted. Thirdly, it's easy to just say kill them all. How do you propose to kill 1+ billion people scattered throughout virtually every country? Like Howie said, it's a combination of fighting and aid. That child in the picture isn't born wanting to kill infidels. Showing compassion, educating people and helping them can go much farther than violence. Just look at Kurdistan.

Posted by: Graeme at April 17, 2006 12:39 PM (RJuG/)

8 Damn comment software. Make my post appear.

Posted by: Graeme at April 17, 2006 12:44 PM (RJuG/)

9 sorry larry got to test.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 01:13 PM (D3+20)

10 First of all, most Afghans are not Arabs. And this talk of killing all Arabs, killing all Muslims, killing all Mexicans is ridiculous. I wish the hell you would stop it, victory. We heard you the first time. You have made your stupid point. Enough. And thank you, Graeme, for being a sane voice, and pointing out places where we have succeeded, and where the entire ME could be were it not for the jihadists. Yes, kill all the jihadists. I have no problem with that, but if you were to try to kill one of my friends who is a Muslim, or another of my friends who is from Chile, or another who is from Mexico, I would stop you, victory.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 17, 2006 03:29 PM (rUyw4)

11 Sadly, $10,000,000 US tax dollars was poured down a rat-hole which most likely will be reduced to rubble by a suicide bomber while homeless and middle class workers in America continue with no health care coverage. Nice to know Larry, that you put the lives of Afghani babies behind your access to affordable healthcare, you do know that Canada and Britain both have a "free" socialist medical program and homeless welfare programs right? you can then take your paycheck home, knowing you've paid about 25% tax for some asshole to sit at home, and cash his state given Giro "job seeker" allowance, but hey no need to worry about third-world babies!

Posted by: davec at April 17, 2006 03:35 PM (CcXvt)

12 Now, if we could just bring all those babies we killed back to life... Oh, we can't?!

Posted by: Greg at April 17, 2006 06:20 PM (q5wwn)

13 Now Greg, Baby Killers?

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 06:25 PM (D3+20)

14 The thing about babies... They're a hell of a lot cuter when they're alive.

Posted by: Greg at April 17, 2006 07:33 PM (q5wwn)

15 So when were we intentionally targeting babies. I agree they are cuter alive and would rather have them that way. Who is the baby killer? (as I understand the meaning) he who recruits the baby as a soldier and sends him to battle or the soldier who kills him in battle? Or are you talking about babies killed (not intentionally) in bombing? adn why is always the children we acidentally kill greg there are others killed too and during operations targeting civilians exclusivly by our enemy.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 07:49 PM (D3+20)

16 Didn't say we intentionally target them. I'm saying there is no such thing as a smart bomb. And spray and pray doesn't help either. Who knows how many hundreds we've killed. Israel kills 4 times as many Palestinian children than the other way around. But when the New York Times reports on the death of a child, in the Palestinian/Israeli context, it is 7 times as likely to be about the death of an Israeli child, a 28 fold bias. I suspect the same is true of us in Iraq. Fix it or nix it. This ship is sinking and stinking.

Posted by: Greg at April 17, 2006 08:28 PM (q5wwn)

17 Larry, "potential suicide bombers" are you nuts? how many suicide bombings occurred before the Taliban brought their venomous teachings and rulings from Pakistan? The only thing I see convulsing is chicken little's like yourself telling everyone the sky is falling, wipe the froth from your chin and try being a little more objective.

Posted by: davec at April 17, 2006 08:30 PM (CcXvt)

18 I agree greg no bomb is that smart. But greg you know I don't want to anyone to have to die if that is possible. I see your media bias thing but I don't see how that relates to Iraq. I mean we can't be over reporting the deaths of American babies there. What about the babies they killed just one time for the hell of it. How do you feel about those to be fair it has to be the same. Can one be worse than the other?

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 08:44 PM (D3+20)

19 How many babies did we save in this hospital alone? The year before this hospital was revamped 200 babies died because of poor medical care. 18 died the next year due to improvements. My math says we saved about 180 babies. This is a good thing.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 17, 2006 09:35 PM (rUyw4)

20 What we're experiencing in this thread is the "dopelar effect" - The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly. Some are more susceptible to it than others. We have Victory who wants to kill everyone not like him. We have Greg who thinks a suicide bomber intentionally blowing up kids collecting candy is the same as a bomb intended to kill 20 jihadis and accidently kills a civilian. And we have Loose Lips Larry who can't decide what he hates more; Bush for sending troops in to kill terrorists or the fact that not enough are killed.

Posted by: Oyster at April 18, 2006 06:25 AM (YudAC)

21 "The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians reveals a compilation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies. The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal. That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war." http://www.information____clearinghouse.info/article11674.htm (Remove Underscores)

Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2006 12:42 PM (q5wwn)

22 So, I guess no one knows why they put the straps around the new-borns?

Posted by: Babs at April 18, 2006 01:12 PM (iZZlp)

23 Poll question is anyone else sick of Larry Hallius?

Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 03:52 PM (D3+20)

24 Ahh! The good old days! Before Larry Hallius took over this post!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 05:11 PM (FCC6c)

25 Ahh Yes the good old days.

Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 09:07 PM (/Y5s/)

26 Ahhh! Another morning on the blog. Whadda Ya got world?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 09:52 PM (FCC6c)

27 Hey! I'm just trying to survive here like everyone else! Just trying to put in my hours get through the day, clock out and go home. So let's just try and get through it the best we can! Okay? Now who's been messin' with my work?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 01:20 AM (FCC6c)

28 Who's been messing with my work? I suggest you show your host a just a teeny bit of respect. Since it is my post, my rules and all. My favorite rule is I son;t ahve to follow any. I get irritated I can check, check, check click and boom instant gratification.

Posted by: Howie at April 19, 2006 09:15 AM (D3+20)

29 I think Google has some openings in China..

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 09:28 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hamas Officially Endorses Suicide Attack

A Palestinian suicide bomber murdered 8 people outside a falafel house in Tel Aviv today, the carnage limited because a security guard prevented the teenager from entering the restaurant.

From the New York Times:

A Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri called the attack "a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people," adding that Palestinians were "in a state of self-defense and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves," according to Reuters.

So here we have the raionale used by brave jihadi babyhunters everywhere: self-defense - a view endorsed by a majority of the Palestinian people.

All those Jews armed with falafels; who knows what they might be capable of?

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:48 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Found this article from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs - "Understanding the Direction of the New Hamas Government: Between Tactical Pragmatism and Al-Qaeda Jihadism" This article should tell us what we expect to see from this new Hamas Â“governmentÂ”... Â“HamasÂ’ tactical agreement to play by the democratic rules was a Trojan horse. It exploited the fragmentation of Fatah and the weakness of the Palestinian Authority to achieve political dominance as a first stage toward establishing Islamic rule that will implement Sharia law and lead, in fact, to the eradication of democracy.Â” Â“Hamas Interior Minister Said Sayyam, who is responsible for the Palestinian security forces, publicly committed himself on March 24, 2006, not to order arrests of operatives who carry out terror attacksÂ…It should come as no surprise that the Palestinian Authority under Hamas rule is becoming a safe haven for Islamic terror organizationsÂ…Â” If you want to see the rest of this article.. http://www.jcp a.org/brief/brief005-22.htm

Posted by: JerusalmBlogger at April 17, 2006 10:15 AM (4sL4v)

2 A government endorses an attack by its citizens against the citizens of another country. That sounds like a declaration of war to me..........or rather, yet ANOTHER declaration of war.

Posted by: Graeme at April 17, 2006 10:20 AM (RJuG/)

3 A government endorses an attack by it citizens against the citizens of another country. That sounds like a declaration of war to me........or rather, yet ANOTHER declaration of war.

Posted by: Graeme at April 17, 2006 10:24 AM (RJuG/)

4 I like Hamas because it doesn't pussyfoot around like Fatah did. Hamas is the kind of enemy the IDF can do real business with.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 10:28 AM (8e/V4)

5 They are sooooo bombed. Hamas is just asking for it on the chin.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at April 17, 2006 10:30 AM (/lpvu)

6 If there were no more palestinians then there would be no more problem... Think about it.

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 17, 2006 10:31 AM (y+196)

7 "A Palestinian suicide bomber murdered 8 people outside a falafel house in Tel Aviv today..." I'm waiting for the driveby media to get 6 or 7 Israeli generals together to start bashing the Israeli political leadership... after all, Israel must be a poorly planned 'occupation'...because they haven't been able to ensure "the peace" and still suffer from suicide bombers. So by the logic of leftists and the MSM, the existance of Israel must be a failure also..right?

Posted by: mrclark at April 17, 2006 12:00 PM (S76hi)

8 The Israelis need to quit screwing around and exterminate the paleostinian animals.

Posted by: Improbulus maximus at April 17, 2006 12:35 PM (0yYS2)

9 I.M., the term animals is to good for them. I think something like demons, cancer, or worshippers of Satan. Something like that. Animals do not throw their young in the fire, or ask them to blow themselves up for their false god. Perhaps, it is time for Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth. I can not stand those sick Hamas eaters of swine, and dog.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 17, 2006 06:06 PM (D2g/j)

10 Hey Victory for the USA-- Read your history books. It was the Zionist movement during WW1 that decided to move into Israel and claim it form themselves, ousting the Palestinians who lived there for centuries. The real answer is maybe people shouldn't evict others from their ancient homelands. . . . . . tends to piss people off And no, I do not support Hamas.

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 01:23 PM (x7v0S)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hold On To Your Noggin.

Via Michelle Malkin we get this cool new Italian political cartoon.

Translation to English.

"Isn't that man there, split in two from head to navel, Mohammed?" Dante asks Virgil.
"Yes and he is cut in two because he has divided society," Virgil replies. "While that woman there, with the burning coals, represents the politics of Italy towards Islam

Cartoon Inspired by:

Fatwa Anyone? more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 2 kb.

TottenÂ’s Trip Part IV or V

This latest post Michael and his traveling buddy Sean get a little worried.

Michael Totton Via his blog: What do we do if he takes us to a bad place?" Sean said.
Hell if I knew. Fight him, I guess. It would be too late, though, once we figured out that such a thing would be necessary.
"Just make sure he sticks to the mountains," I said. "Mosul is down in the plains. As long as this road hugs the mountains, we're still on the way to Dohok."
I was annoyed at myself for feeling paranoid. I was the one who had earlier said We can hitchhike in Northern Iraq.
A half-hour later our driver took us back on the main road at a Peshmerga checkpoint. He turned the car toward the mountains, toward Dohok. Not toward the plains. Not toward the dangerous red zone and Mosul.
"I guess that was a shortcut," Sean said.
"
I guess so," I said. "He's fine. We're fine."

IÂ’m fine too. You guys OK? Good. I've really enjoyed these at it's the kind of thing I probably would never get to do but like to dream about.

Posted by: Howie at 08:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

April 16, 2006

In the Shadow of MacArthur

General Douglas MacArthur, a man used to winning wars, was deeply dissatisfied with the limited Allied goals in Korea. He bitterly resented sending men to die for such goals, and, while still Supreme Allied Commander, spoke out publicly about his frustration with the way Harry Truman was conducting the war.

Truman's response:

With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government and of the United Nations in matters pertaining to his official duties.

The President's hand was forced. Regardless of the relative merits of Truman's strategy versus what MacArthur believed was right, the American military must submit to civilian authority. We are not, after all, the Soviet Union. General MacArthur knew this, and spoke out anyway, knowing that it would lead to his relief from command, and the end of his long and distinguished service. Perhaps he considered the lives of the men he led more important than his career.

What then, to make of the six American generals who have publicly demanded the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Their statements about the conduct of the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror would suggest that things are quite dire indeed. Men are dying needlessly, they say.

Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career?

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:25 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

1 >>>Why then, did not one of these generals feel that these men were more important than his own career? I don't know what you mean by that. Presumably you mean that they should have spoken up while still in active service? Well, we don't know that they didn't do that. And had you heard they spoke up during their active service, would you now be calling for their firing due to insubordination?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 10:57 PM (8e/V4)

2 I am kicking this very topic around right now at Blogger Beer. I found an article from the Naval War College Review written in 2002. The author comes down clearly against the six generals speaking out. In fact, he talks about how Generals used to not vote in order to not become embroiled in politics and perhaps having to execute orders that offended their political sensibilities. This all changed throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s when the Democratic Party became overtly hostile to the military. The Republican party filled the vacuum and the Military realized the political situation and as we see the military generally votes for Republicans. Rumsfeld is referred to as being secretive. At first the secretness is taken as a bad thing but later the author goes onto explain he must be secret so the Pentagon Generals don't get wind of Rummy's ideas and then work to defeat them. It is also noted that Colin Powell is extremely effective at getting what he wants and managed to get quite a few of his policy preferences into official govt. policy during his tenure as the head of the JCS, this is one reason the current administration needed Rumsfeld in office to be able to counter Powell. One Pentagon general was quoted as referring to the civilians in charge of the Military as the enemy. Not a good thing.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:08 PM (43BLH)

3 JC, Military officers are supposed to advise and counsel their superiors. However, in the end their superiors give the orders and the subordinate officer's job is to execute those orders. The idea of those generals speaking up and criticizing their superior is bad. It is bad now, it was bad when they were calling their Commander in Chief a philandering, draft-dodging, dope-smoker. In fact, what does much of the criticism center on? The fact we did not invade with 300,000; 400,000; or 500,000+ troops. Something popularly known as the Powell Doctrine a policy Colin Powell finagled into national policy when he was a general.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 16, 2006 11:16 PM (43BLH)

4 DPB; This is an odd argument...MacArthur was fired because of a unilateral challenge to civilian rule, i.e. he wanted to begin the invasion of China immediately after their entry into the Korean war. No more, no less. Far from a hero who did what he felt he needed to do despite the consequences, MacArthur was a military man who forgot the role of the military in the US; he challenged not Truman, but the office of President, in direct contradiction of his duty to uphold civilian government. I myself have seen nothing to support the thesis he took these steps and sacrificed his career for his men. On the other hand, the current six recalled their place in civilian government, and supported its leadership until they could not and retired or resigned. These fellows did the right thing at the right time, at least by the measure of the Constitution. Again, speculation they sat in silence to further their careers is just that. What's to say those who have not retired or resigned are more deserving of that speculation?

Posted by: Glenn at April 16, 2006 11:21 PM (oxMjD)

5 JC, if these former generals felt that their complaints were so urgent that they needed to publicly attack the secretary of defense (and undermine civilian control of the military), then they SHOULD have done so while still serving and taken the consequences, as MacArthur did. If you thought people were dying needlessly and you might be able to address the situation by taking an action that would likely get you fired, wouldn't you do it anyway?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 12:17 AM (RHG+K)

6 By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil you have placed us on the bad side of our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ. http://www.deanberryministries.org/index3.html

Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 17, 2006 05:15 AM (h/YSB)

7 Don't you love how people who can't be bothered to make a legitimate argument think it's funny to create a script to post ignorant garbage for them? Ooooh, so clever. They must have picked up a Basic book and think they're awesome because they read the first 2 chapters.

Posted by: RanbaRal at April 17, 2006 07:44 AM (GyNTD)

8 Bluto, maybe those generals did speak up during their active service, but in a way that wasn't public and political. I'm willing to bet they did. And I don't see a problem with that. Now, because they're retired and because the lives of their men are that important, they're willing to make it political. I don't see the problem. The issue is whether what they're saying makes any sense. Will changing Rumsfeld make any difference now? I've heard that it won't.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:28 AM (8e/V4)

9 >>>By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil When do we finally get to see some of that oil?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:52 AM (8e/V4)

10 Glen, I don't agree with you. As former military commanders their voices still counts quite a bit as military commanders. After all McArthur did say something about old generals. These six are still out of line even though they are retired.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 08:59 AM (43BLH)

11 No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out. Otherwise, they're not generals anymore, they're just politicians. I'm willing to bet that Rumsfeld is one of those my-way-or-the-highway types; a managment style that I personally find needlessly abrasive, but common nonetheless. And even more common among high-ranking military officers, who have the full weight of the UMJC behind them. Therefore, the reason they didn't speak out is that this is more about bruised egos than anything else.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:02 AM (RHG+K)

12 Bluto those generals swore an oath to defend the constitution which places our military UNDER the control of our elected leaders. They resigned and gave up their promising careers with multiple stars so that they could speak freely. This was something that General MacArthur chose not to do. In this country our military should not publicly criticize their superiors neither civillian nor uniformed. It is part of the tradition called "chain of command" deemed esential to morale and discipline. I think that it was for their troops that they did resign and then go public.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 17, 2006 09:20 AM (TcoRJ)

13 John--yes, it is possible they out of line with their comments; perhaps they should remain silent in retirement rather than armchair quarterbacking after the fact. My response was more to Bluto's posit that MacArthur's anti-democratic insubordination was somehow noble and selfless in comparison to those recently speaking out against Rumsfeld -- an argument many if not most would find a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:33 AM (UHKaK)

14 Oops--comment above directed to Marcus...hello Monday.

Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:35 AM (UHKaK)

15 "No, JC, they're claiming they knew from the start that there would be problems. If so, and they feel this strongly about it, they should have risked their precious careers to speak out." Yes, they are and yes, they did, especially Shinseki.

Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 09:38 AM (UHKaK)

16 The reason we have not seen any oil yet is because of the bigger picture. The big business plan is to remain there as long as possible. That is good for business. In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win! That's why Rummy remains even though he states that he doesn't know if there are 3, 4, 5, or 6000 generals. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the fat cats keep getting fatter!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 09:53 AM (FCC6c)

17 Iraq at 75 % production at double the price is hardly sitting.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 10:13 AM (D3+20)

18 >>>In the meantime the oil sits, no one gets it. Not China nor India. We win! Larry, advanced dementia is a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Seek therapy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 10:24 AM (8e/V4)

19 I stand corrected on the oil. Happy day Exxon!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:26 AM (FCC6c)

20 Glenn: I'm not arguing that MacArthur was correct, only that he had the balls to speak out despite the consequences. These generals didn't.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:31 AM (RHG+K)

21 Bluto JC was right coming out the gate - you can't have it both ways. There is "disagreement" throughout the ranks - including myself. Hell, its natural! There is also plenty who don't - or have yet to make their opinion clear. I would love a discussion on the points involved - but not here on Jawa - it would only attract the anti-admin, anti-war rabble. There are three words to remember - MISSION, CONCEPT, EXECUTION. What you are hearing today is complaints about CONCEPT AND EXECUTION ..... NOT MISSION!!!! There is no discension on MISSION - they all believe in the purpose, original goal, victory etc. Because of this, the lib/left Dems CAN NOT really embrace them .... nor will they rally to a Dem ... a gung ho victory in Iraq Dem?????? Ain't no such animal. Bitchin' is a right within the military - accept it and respect it.

Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:37 AM (4mgfY)

22 Bluto, I see where you're coming from. But as for the current crop o' generals, how can you be certain they didn't speak up, though admittedly not with the drama (or insubordination) of MacArthur?

Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 10:57 AM (UHKaK)

23 Troll wrote - as he girlishly giggled and masturbated.

Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (4mgfY)

24 Administrator: The skull-fucker is back! Zap 'em!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 11:10 AM (FCC6c)

25 Glenn, Okay, I do agree with your point about McArthur. Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 11:27 AM (43BLH)

26 Glenn (and hondo and JC): I'm not addressing the merit of their complaints here. What I'm saying is that, if the situation is SO dire that they feel the need to attack the secretary of defense, then why wait? Whatever you think of MacArthur's position (and there's little doubt, that, like many generals, Mac was an egotistical prima donna) he felt that the situation was so dire that it was worth risking his career. These generals didn't. Therefore, either the situation is not as dire as they portray, or they felt their careers were more important than addressing it, while still serving. And to JC or hondo, or whoever mentioned the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the meaning of that oath is that protecting the Constitution takes precedence over protecting one's own life. Are you arguing that it doesn't take precedence over one's career?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)

27 Bluto, evidently they DID confront Rumsfeld; they merely chose to voice their disagreements in a way more fitting with our form of civilian-lead government by retiring rather than going on Fox News, CNN, etc. I feel that is eminently less self-serving than MacArthur's ploy.

Posted by: Glenn at April 17, 2006 12:00 PM (UHKaK)

28 >>>then why wait? I don't see how they "waited" at all. I'm assuming they appealed to the chain of command while they were in active service, then they went outside the chain of command when they retired. It seems to me they acted in the finest traditions of the military.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)

29 JC, Quite a few of the old school generals refused to even vote, lest it colored their actions against their civilian leadership. Now, we have generals actively working against the civilian leadership and even when they retire their voices carry much weight with their active duty colleagues.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 17, 2006 12:44 PM (43BLH)

30 Bluto Mac went public because he was an egomanic who felt he was above the rules. he wasn't nicknamed Lil' Ceasar for nothing (great book BTW - and a great general). Its not a good comparison. The retired generals complaints are varied, and in my opinion mostly valid - they are just being vocal about it now because they can - I accept public bitchin' under these circumstances. You and many others are making the mistake and seeing this as a partisan political thing - it is not! Attempting to make it partisan is the MSM, Libs/left and Dems. To them, attacking Rumsfeld = attacking Bush as part of pure partisan politics. This is what your being goaded into responding to. As prove I offer the following .... their complaints are very specific (I know what they are) - but the MSM and opposition ARE AVOIDING THE SPECIFICS! Instead they offer up generalities and the fact that there is disagreement in the first place (as if that alone is damning). I know these generals - their sole goal is victory for America - for the opposition it is defeat for Bush (and America if necessary)! Don't let yourself be conned into thinking its anything else but another attempt by the opposition to play whatever is available. These are good men Bluto - I'm just sorry an issue like this is being played out like this.

Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 02:12 PM (4mgfY)

31 Marcus, I don't mind generals voicing their opinions when it comes to how a war should be waged.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:44 PM (8e/V4)

32 >>>Mc was out of line and likewise so are the current crop of six generals. No, because McArthur did not respect the chain of command and politicized it while still serving in the military. He was therefore insubordinate. These generals, on the other hand, respected the chain of command, and waited until they were retired before they went public about it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 02:54 PM (8e/V4)

33 hondo, if their goal really is "victory for America" then they are idiots. JC- if MacArthur spoke up because he was a prima donna, then he was wrong. But if he spoke up because men under his command were dying needlessly, then he was morally right. Certainly, MacArthur knew there could be only one outcome for his career. I don't know which it was, but I do know that he was correct strategically, just as Patton was when he wanted to march on to Moscow after Berlin.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 09:14 PM (RHG+K)

34 Bluto Obviously we disagree - but we are both still marching to the same song. I'm just asking you to extend the same recognition to these generals (they may be idiots - including myself - who knows - I've been wrong - that's life). The opposition looking on sees this as an opportunity for them - they stupidly think that if we disagree - then one of us must agree with them. That is clearly far from the truth - let them dream on. You, I, JC and the others, the general etc. may disagree, but collectively we all can agree on telling the lib/left to go fuck itself.

Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 09:55 PM (4mgfY)

35 hondo, what I mean is: how could they have expected the press to play this any differently? They were generals for God's sake, they should know how this works by now. They come out demanding that Rumsfeld resign and they don't think it's going to be bad for the war effort? C'mon. And the MSM doesn't care what the generals really want; they got their dump Rumsfeld quote and that's all that matters to them.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 17, 2006 10:08 PM (RHG+K)

36 Bluto Ref Mac - I'm an old CAV hand - Scout RECON no less. for several generations we have harbored an anger and hatred for Mac over the horse incident of '35. History buffs will know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:13 PM (4mgfY)

37 HOndo--at least one of the generals was publicly opposed to the war in Iraq before it started (zinni) and another (newcomb) says he opposed it in the internal debate before it started. I agree the others were/are supporters of it. Also, there are "victory in Iraq" dems--Joe Lieberman is one. Bush loves him for a reason. Bluto--MacArthur was strategically correct? IE, we should have nuked bases in China? Did we have the manpower to defeat Red CHina in 52? 53? "Unleash Chiang Ka Shek" is a heck of a slogan, but it wasn't much of a reality. Before that, MacArthur assured centcom that China would not intervene to save NK as he approached the China border. I think the Chinese response shows that Mac was wrong. I also question whether America in 45 would have supported an invasion of Russia. Nor am I certain that we would have won where Hitler failed, without using nukes against the Russians (and remember, we didn't have any more for a several months after Aug 9, 1945). Our infantry and air force were quite good in 45, and our navy was far superior to the Soviet's. But I haven't seen a convincing war game that says we beat the Ruskies in 45, even assuming a unified alliance behind us. And, to put it mildly, if you are not in Moscow by November, you are fucked. Ask Rundstedt. Ask Napoleon. Patton was brilliant tactically, but I'm very thankful he was never involved in strategic planning. Ike was right about that.

Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 11:19 AM (uT71O)

38 jd, I said strategically, not tactically, specifically because of the nukes. Nukes were better as a threat, Mac wanted to use them as a first option. And Moscow wasn't the key, the Ukraine was. Militarily we would have run over the Russians; the last four years of their war effort against the Nazis were almost totally supplied by the Allies. The problem was political, as is the problem today with the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror. You can excuse people in forty-five, they had just been through a desparate struggle and convincing them that our erstwhile "valiant ally" Stalin was a monster would have been quite a stretch. Just because something isn't possible politically doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 18, 2006 11:41 AM (RHG+K)

39 Well, at least we agree that the right thing to do is often not politically possible! I just don't know if the Soviets would have collapsed like a cheap suit. There have been some interesting analyses about the worth of one soldier in WWII, as a fighting unit. The Germans were the best, in terms of professional killing prowess. Our economic dominance was impressive, and perhaps it would have carried us to victory, as it did not the Germans. Interesting discussion, surely.

Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 12:08 PM (uT71O)

40 My grandfather served under him twice. He disliked a couple things he did. One was about being left to the Japs when he went to Europe. Before Germany fell he says a lot of soldiers in the Pacific felt a bit under supported. He says he wanted/thought he should be President.

Posted by: Howie at April 18, 2006 04:12 PM (D3+20)

41 MacArthur went to Europe? My grandfather served with him too--twice. Once in WWII, and again in Korea. As an old China hand, my grandfather was less than thrilled with Mac. I never heard him say much about Mac, though, as he died when I was eight.

Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 10:00 PM (uT71O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Homeless Sleeping on Sidewalk Protected by Constitution

(San Francisco) Get a load of this. Obviously, a person has to be really, really smart to be a U.S. Appeals Court judge because, no matter how many times average people read the Constitution, they're not going to see what the judges find. This is from the 9th Circuit.

From SacBee.com:

The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," bars punishment of "involuntary sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles," said a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

I confess. They lost me at "involuntary sitting." And, truthfully, I have never thought about the "unavoidable consequence of being human."

The court specifically ruled that the city of Los Angeles could not roust derelicts off the streets unless the taxpayers had previously provided a cozy shelter for every conceivable vagrant that drifts in. In other words, the taxpayers must provide shelter or the homeless have the right, per the Constitution, to involuntarily sit, lie and sleep anywhere they damn well please on city sidewalks.

In conclusion, law school apparently not only teaches the law but also gives students X-ray vision. I still haven't found any reference to "homeless" in the Constitution, much less "involuntary sitting." I don't want to go to law school but I'd sure like to git some of that there X-ray vision.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 09:12 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The Ninth U.S. Circus Court of Schlemeels is the most overturned court in the nation. It's just a bunch of Liberal lawyers in black robes inventing rights as they go along and pretending they saw it in the Constitution. That's what Libs do! and that's why they're constantly overturned. Stop making a mockery of the Constitution you civilization-destroying Libs!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 09:41 PM (8e/V4)

2 I've got the USCON permanently loaded into Mobipocket for just such a situation. *beep* *tap tap* *search* Nope, nada. Maybe we should take up a collection to get the 9CCoA some copies.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at April 16, 2006 10:16 PM (yT/Rw)

3 And there are still those who can't see that we have to kill all the liberals sooner or later?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:08 AM (0yYS2)

4 Wa hoo! There is still some humanity left! Even if one has to go to LA to find it! Homelessness. Just a by-product of big business favored by tax laws. Oh good! I still have a thumb left on this hand ... and one on that hand! I'm good to go!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:00 AM (FCC6c)

5 The 9th curcut court the same bunch of idiots who says the pledge is unconstitutional what we need to do is give those idiot judges new jobs like cleaning up doggie doo with theor bare hands

Posted by: sandpiper at April 17, 2006 12:47 PM (g1M1/)

6 Constitution ... it's a sharp two-edged sword isn't it?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:42 AM (FCC6c)

7 For those of you slamming liberals.... Now that you've critisized, I'm interested in your opinion of exactly how the US government is supposed to interpret the Constitution and apply it to everyday life efficiently. If not judges, then who should be trusted with developing legal precedent? (which is necessary because the men who designed the constitution were not gifted with ESP and could not foresee every legal situation to come.) If you're so upset about the homeless, find them a place to live and work. I don't see any solutions offered here, feel free to chime in with your great ideas of restructuring the legal system to meet your narrowly defined needs.

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 01:34 PM (x7v0S)

8 looks like a very slippery slope... what about pooing and peeing? i would think those to be more involuntary human characteristics than sitting. what happens when a homeless person sues the city for being arrested for taking a wizz or dumping a load on the sidewalk? when our dogs do their business on the sidewalk, common area, street, etc... owners have to pick it up! usually, in one of those plastic baggies. i suppose that's what we'll do with the homeless as well. they can take a dump as long as they pick it up in one of those nice little plastic baggies and dispose of it properly in the nearest trash receptical. in keeping with the court's philosophy, the plastic baggie theory will have to do until the city provides more porta potties. but...what about fornication? i mean, that's pretty involuntary too. maybe not the whole fornication part, but you can't stop a guy from getting excited and when that happens he's going to need to relieve himself. so, again... do we allow these guys (and gals) the right to masterbate and/or fornicate on the sidewalks? i think that masterbation on the public sidewalk should also be cleaned up with those little plastic baggies. i suppose they can masterbate in the porta potty, too. but, you wouldn't want to fornicate in one of those. which brings me to my next question: should the city provide a proper place for the homeless to fornicate, as well? once a week, will the no-tell-motel-on-wheels park itself along the street in your neighborhood whilst the homeless run inside for a quickie? i would hope the service would provide condoms. but, in case they don't, we could always go back to the good ole plastic baggy! i think i'm going to run for mayor of l.a. and my slogan will be "plastic baggies for all!"

Posted by: kc at April 24, 2006 12:56 AM (wcYiB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Happy Easter

I wish all of you a happy Easter. May this celebration of our Lord's resurrection fill you all with a renewed sense of hope in the days we live in.

Remember this, it may seem that these are the darkest times, but, it just seems. Read your history, we've been here before.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:47 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

1 May your Easter be blessed!

Posted by: chrys at April 16, 2006 01:02 AM (PNqZ2)

2 Amen. I'll walk into church openly tomorrow with my family in tow and not have to worry about getting our heads hacked off by some fanatic for being Christian. Yet. Times have been worse. These are not the bad days, I don't think.

Posted by: See-Dubya at April 16, 2006 01:18 AM (rVuVw)

3 Happy Easter to all of you.

Posted by: enzo at April 16, 2006 03:40 AM (7BIKb)

4 Happy Easter all.

Posted by: Tim at April 16, 2006 04:42 AM (5rYy9)

5 Well, looks like Satan is alive and well with brokenbrains! Wish you all Happy Easter too! And pray for brokenbrain's misguided soul! Corncider this: In the Talmud, the Leviathan is mentioned a number of times: 1) Avoda Zara (3b): "Rav Yehuda says, there are twelve hours in a day. The first three hours God sits and learns the Torah, the second three hours he sits and judges the world. The third three hours God feeds the entire world... the fourth three hour period God plays with the Leviathan as it is written: "the Leviathan which you have created to play with".

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:26 AM (FCC6c)

6 Let those who have ears hear!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 07:10 AM (FCC6c)

7 I see a libtard has once again expended and displyed the sum total of his intellectual prowess, and is now, no doubt, amusing himself with something shiny.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:23 AM (0yYS2)

8 Happy Easter guys.

Posted by: Graeme at April 16, 2006 08:08 AM (JvxNP)

9 Christ is risen! A blessed Easter to you, and a blessed Passover to our Jewish friends!

Posted by: rightwingprof at April 16, 2006 09:08 AM (hj1Wx)

10 >>>Well, looks like Satan is alive and well with brokenbrains! That makes sense. He's a Liberal troll.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 09:10 AM (8e/V4)

11 Liberals hate christianity.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 01:10 PM (8e/V4)

12 Hmm....if this poster would say the same thing about Allah, I might not consider him brain dead. Misguided, but not brain dead.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 16, 2006 01:31 PM (rUyw4)

13 Happy Easter! Seems someone's lack of education and imagination is showing.

Posted by: Anna at April 16, 2006 01:32 PM (2c+/I)

14 Dennis Prager hits the nail on the head....THe left's enemy is the Judeo-Christian ethic which built America, and they are willing to ally themselves even with Islamic slime who would overturn everything INCLUDING and actually especially the left's beliefs such as their pro homo agenda, yes to abortion but no to the death penalty, etc....

Posted by: Steve Sharon at April 16, 2006 01:40 PM (mMdqP)

15 I think he/she/it/ fell asleep at the keyboard!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 01:42 PM (FCC6c)

16 Wonder if that now qualifies for braindead? Hope I'm not too close to JZtfsRd's URL when the lightning bolt strikes!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 01:54 PM (FCC6c)

17 " We've been here before " ? When have we ever not been here?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 01:58 PM (FCC6c)

18 Sheesh!!!! Who the heck has that kind of time to sit around typing that crap??? Anyway, have a blessed Easter, y'all!

Posted by: Lonevoice at April 16, 2006 02:02 PM (QnxoD)

19 Jesus came to this earth to be mocked and spit on and crucified (unlike Mohammed who sought to be exalted). That was true then, and it's true now.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 16, 2006 02:29 PM (8e/V4)

20 Right on! And people who mock that notion are falling right in line and doing Satan's work! I wish the she-demon would cut it out! It is getting increasingly more difficult to scroll through the bullshit to get the last word in!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 02:36 PM (FCC6c)

21 I give up! Let the she-demon have her way with this particular blog! I've been beat at my own game! It's off to greener pastures for me! Peace and Goodwill towards Man ( and woman, especially woman! )

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 03:06 PM (FCC6c)

22 Steve, you're right on. Leftism is Marxism, of which the stated goal is the destruction of Western civilization, to be replaced with totalitarian dystopia. For this reason alone, if no other were found, all liberals should be lined up and shot; they are literally undermining all of civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 05:51 PM (0yYS2)

23 Oh! No! The she-demon is back! Must be keeping the administrator busy zapping her nonsense! Wonder how long the she-deamon will prevail this time? I sure don't want to be around when the lightning bolt blasts that she-demon right out of her seat!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:28 PM (FCC6c)

24 Wow! That was fast! I didn't even get a chance to check the email address to see if it was the same one as before! I hope that's the end of that she-demon! She was beginning to put a damper on my Happy Easter mind-set!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:32 PM (FCC6c)

25 I spoke too soon. The she-demon is back! I did notice that the email address has changed is why the she-demon keeps getting back on. Gee! all that meticulous attention to detail going to waste! What a shame! I guess these Muslims really do need something to do, or else they just go completely stir-crazy!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:37 PM (FCC6c)

26 Hmm skullduggery goin on around here. No these are good times and we should enjoy it while it lasts and work out asses of to make damn sure it does last.

Posted by: Last word Howie at April 16, 2006 06:55 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 15, 2006

Mexicans Declare 'Nothing Gringo Day'

May 1st has been dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants" for the U.S. and, presumably, many illegal aliens will stay home from work to show the American public that trespassers from Mexico are indispensable. To coincide with the illegals playing hooky in the U.S., Mexican unions, political groups, media and government offices have called for a boycott of all American companies in Mexico.

Dubbed "Nothing Gringo Day," the intent is to discourage all Mexicans from conducting business with any American company on May 1st, ostensibly to harm sales and demonstrate the influence of a cross-border Mexican power-lobby. Paradoxically, the campaign to hurt American businesses south of the border targets the illegal aliens' strongest supporters for guest-worker and legalization initiatives. Of course, this is consistent with the ridiculousness of demonstrating for U.S. citizenship while carrying Mexican flags. Leave it to the Mexicans to be their own enemy.

For news junkies, May 1st will likely be very entertaining. From a personal perspective, if employees of my business took a unauthorized day off from work to demonstrate their political activism, they would likely be fired.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 03:51 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Interesting indeed! Last time they took off work to rally many of them got fired or suspended from school. I am looking forward to " Nothing Gringo " day. Maybe a job will open up for me!

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 04:06 PM (FCC6c)

2 Nothing like using the communist labor day to make your stand. Take a second and learn about American culture and when our Labor Day is. It sounds like May First would be a good day to get a driver's license or do anything else where you would normally have to wait in line a couple of hours to get done.

Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 04:16 PM (HJnrm)

3 I'm lovin' it!!! When all is said and done - this and the other stunts have to be the worse most idiotic public relations approaches imagined! Yes Yes! More of it! Mass demonstrations of/for illegals in every major city! Shut down traffic! Block roads and businesses! Please! Get tons of news coverage - 24 hours!!! Pols won't react unless its an actual crisis! All this will help fan the perception of pending crisis in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Americans! Yes! Bring it on! Please!

Posted by: hondo at April 15, 2006 04:33 PM (4mgfY)

4 Yes, these fools are burning their bridges and alienating a LOT of legal American citizens (who vote by the way). How appropos to hold this charade on May 1st. And why aren't they demonstrating against the mexican govt. for allowing their country to wallow in poverty and ignorance since time immemorial? They've copped a very strange attitude indeed. I think a little adjustment may be necessary.

Posted by: Richard at April 15, 2006 05:02 PM (7KF8r)

5 I am officially changing my handle to Last word Larry instead of Hailus. It has a nice ring to it. I hope that flys and I don't get booted! I hereby repent from my trolling, spoofing ways! Nothin' but the truth as I see it! Which is: No need to strike the enemy of the American middle class as long as he is busy shooting himself in the foot! For years I have been saying: Not to worry, Pres Bush is so stupid and arrogant that he will continue flying in the face of the American people and making bad decisions and nominations of convenience until his ratings are so low he will be impeached! Now just waiting for the remaining 37% of idiots to come around. Nothing unAmerican about wanting to save the country ASAP! Whether or not we should have attacked Iraq we do need sensible leadership at the helm so we can get the job done! So it goes also with the illegal immigrant issue. No need to strike the enemy as long as they are busy shooting themselves in the feet!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 05:29 PM (FCC6c)

6 Since you have no interest in any of the tread topics yet need to write commentary, why don't you simply write your own blog? Its not hard. You are not annoying if that's your goal - its very easy to simply ignore you - its all rather sad actually - some of us would help you if we can.

Posted by: hondo at April 15, 2006 05:43 PM (4mgfY)

7 Why don't legal American citizens have a "no illegal Mexican day"? Don't hire them, don't let them mow your lawn, don't eat at Mexican restaurants, not even Taco Bell. My patience is wearing thin with them.

Posted by: RepJ at April 15, 2006 06:21 PM (yedv2)

8 But Oh no! What if they havn't finished my roof and it rains that day? Point being, this country guided by big business and the almighty dollar will cave in like they have for the last several decades!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 06:38 PM (FCC6c)

9 What really pisses me off the most about this is how these parasites are creating a social divide in this country nad poisoning the melting pot, intentionally in my opinion, and screwing it up for the ones who only want to make a better life for themselves and their families. I have known many Latino immigrants and guest workers, and most of them have been damn fine people, not like this scum that wants nothing but to take what someone else has earned. Liberals, socialists, et al, should be shot on sight so that everyone else can live in peace without their constant instigation, agitation, and irritation. A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:49 PM (0yYS2)

10 Unfortunately, one day isn't enough to show how much illegals cost the taxpayers in social benefits such as welfare, medical costs, housing, etc.

Posted by: Norma at April 15, 2006 07:06 PM (i+b69)

11 Boot all illegals from our schools and hospital emergency rooms and deport illegal alien prisoners and let's see how much money we save that day.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:27 PM (8e/V4)

12 Maybe they could really teach us a lesson and stay away for a whole year.

Posted by: slug at April 15, 2006 07:58 PM (wYW63)

13 Yes, all Americans should refuse to allow Mexicans at Hospital Emergency Rooms, grocery stores, government offices, schools, or any other place they gather and use up free services. I, for one, am tired of their crap, and while I USED to feel sorry for them, my sympathy is now turning to anger. I want something done with these illegals, and it is immediate deportment. And I want the border secured, even if we have to call out the National Guard. And get rough with those who try to cross illegally, not legal immigrants, who are welcome. The fact that we are even having this arguement 5 years after 3000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by some ILLEGAL ALIENS is disgusting.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 08:19 PM (rUyw4)

14 Unfortunately this "immigration" issue will never be resolved until America takes the proper and tough stance. It is not an immigration issue in the first place it is a criminal trespassing issue. They are not immigrants they are people who have entered our contry illegally for the sole purpose to commit crimes, traffic drugs, and rape our women. Until our border patrol policy is "put a bullet in every mexicans head" we will continue to have this problem. America is collapsing under this tide of disease ridden illegal aliens.

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 15, 2006 09:46 PM (y+196)

15 i think that not all of the illegal immigrants are mexicans there are some from guatamala, el salvador, and other countries from south america. and i also think that they need more than a day to prove us that they can affect us.

Posted by: gabb* at April 15, 2006 09:49 PM (JPo1q)

16 Victory, you are a liberal troll trying to make us look bad, or you are stupid. If you are serious about trying to solve the problem, suggest something besides genocide. That takes away from the discussion.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 11:18 PM (rUyw4)

17 Genocide?? Genocide?? Protecting our borders and *real* citizens by shooting the filthy criminals that cross our borders is not genocide, it is justice. Genocide would be going illegally into THEIR country and killing large sections of their population. Your the one who sounds like a liberal whiner, at least get your definitions right. I stand up for America and am not afraid to put down the filth that tries to invade this country.

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 15, 2006 11:51 PM (y+196)

18 Hell.......Most of them buy American products with our own money....Welfare

Posted by: IR at April 16, 2006 12:23 AM (PlDGv)

19 How stupid do they think any of us are? Notice how no one said they'd refrain from using our emergency rooms for a day or said that they'd not use one day's worth of their welfare checks or that they'd keep their kids out of our schools for a day or sleep out under the stars for a night instead of the housing handed to them by the tax payers or ... I think it would only be fair. Then we'd get to see how much we've saved in one day's housing, one day's emergency room use, one days food stamps, etc ...

Posted by: Oyster at April 16, 2006 05:13 AM (YudAC)

20 I have a simple solution for the whole illegal immigration thing, so now I will present my arguments and state my case. Even with millions of illegals in the country, unemployment is at one of the lowest levels since World War II, so obviously, they aren't ruining the economy. Quite the opposite, they seem to be stimulating the economy in certain sectors by providing reliable, affordable labor, both skilled and unskilled, and boosting real estate markets by renting down-market properties, thus providing a dual benefit to the economy. We need them, but we need to know who they are, where they are, and how many of them there are; ergo, we need a better guest worker program which addresses our economic and security needs simultaneously. Because they are illegals, they are vulnerable to expolitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords, the coyote smugglers, and every other sort of scumbag, such as democrats. They also risk their lives every time they cross the border. From a human rights standpoint, this is unacceptable regardless of the politics involved. They're here, and we need them as much as they need us, so for the sake of humanity if nothing else, we should have a guest worker program which takes all the scumbags, including democrats, out of the equation. I propose this; a program which allows people who are native born to any nation to our South to go the the US consulate or embassy, or a border station, present themselves for fingerprints, retinal scans, dental X-rays, and DNA samples, give them a smart card identifying them as a guest worker, and let them come work without having to risk their lives or pay thousands to smugglers. This program would also take literally millions of smugglers' mules out of the system, because if they're able to pass back and forth legally, they won't be so inclined to break the law, knowing they will lose their guest worker status if they do. Time spent in the US under this program should not count toward citizenship, but could be used as evidence of good conduct when applying for citizenship; a probationary period of sorts. Once this system is in place, it will be easier to seperate the desirable workers from the undesirable criminal element, and more vigorously prosecute anyone found in the US illegally. Fines for citizens hiring illegals could be made so high that financial ruin would be the result, and lifetime prison sentences without the possibility of parole for smugglers of humans and drugs would almost immediately break smuggling rings and stop repeat offenders. The political element would be defused, and those who would be here legally could earn better wages and pay for their own medical care rather than relying on emergency rooms because they only make crap wages. We need them, and they need us. What's more, we're neighbors, and should not behave as enemies just because our politicians are idiots.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:20 AM (0yYS2)

21 Improbulus, that is about as improbable as peace and democracy in the middle east! Might be some credibility to your argument if we were actually winning any wars be it against drugs, poverty, homelessness, health care or global terrorism! Not to mention sterotypism and bigotry!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 08:50 AM (FCC6c)

22 if employees of my business took a unauthorized day off from work to demonstrate their political activism, they would likely be fired. Did you see this?

Posted by: rightwingprof at April 16, 2006 09:15 AM (hj1Wx)

23 It sounds like a reasonable plan IM, but will it be practical? There are several issues that would still need to be addressed. Firstly, you mentioned that this plan will be for any nation south of the US. There are alot of people south of the US in Central and South America alone, not to mention the caribbean. It's possible that the bureaucratic system could become bogged down to the point where it becomes easier and faster to once again to sneak across the border. Secondly, once all these guest workers enter the US, many will find jobs, but many will not. Who will then support these people? A condition for continued participation in the guest worker program might be proof of employment with a period of no longer than four months between jobs. Thirdly, what will be the impact on the countries as the skilled workers in the high demand professions (engineering, research, IT, financial) start heading to the US to find better jobs? Conditions will become worse and the US may find that in exchange for an abundant immigrant workforce it will have to support to a greater extent the populations that stay behind in their home countries. To solve the problem of illegal immigration will unfortunately call for some unneighbourly behaviour.

Posted by: Graeme at April 16, 2006 11:00 AM (JvxNP)

24 Just one day? Let's see how well we do without illegal immigrants for a month, or better yet, a year, or how 'bout perpetuity? We can get convicts to pick the fruit and high school students need to re-learn the American work ethic. They might actually enjoy their summer landscaping jobs if they weren't isolated from their coworkers due to a language barrier. May 1 should be celebrated by Gringos and legal immigrants all around!

Posted by: NuclearTinkerbell at April 16, 2006 11:45 AM (r78od)

25 I admit the plan is far from complete, but at least it's something, and I challenge anyone else to do better off the top of their head in just a few minutes. Or we could just go on the way we are, in a downward spiral to our doom.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 05:53 PM (0yYS2)

26 I'm afraid spiralling towards our doom is the inevitable outcome. In the 60's people were of one mind and of one culture. They rioted and taught the government a lesson. Then the government said there is too much unity. Plan: Let as many immigrants in of diverse cultures as possible so they are not likely to unite and cause problems with the bigger picture of corporate profit run big government. Big business has no concern these days for individual countries. With global economy in their sights they are not bound by any single country's laws and bylaws. So it's big business as usual and they could give a rat's ass about America or any other country.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:50 PM (FCC6c)

27 Oh! and if the immigrants are illegal and cannot speak English, all the better!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 07:01 PM (FCC6c)

28 Ok victory will you support going into Sudan and kicking ass and taking names there? If your aim is no genocide that is.

Posted by: Howie at April 16, 2006 07:06 PM (D3+20)

29 Woooooo! I can't wait for this day!! I hope the army is ready to go knocking at every door and start deporting filth out of here! Yaaay! for a day I will feel the real America, with its legal people, white, black, yellow and brown altogether with the power of LEGAL immigration! I will prolly miss work just to go out and see the beautiful country without the ugly people.

Posted by: Dave at April 17, 2006 01:10 AM (QAzSm)

30 Maxie, I agree with you on many levels, but I don't see any empirical evidence that they're stimulating any particular sector of the economy. Yes, we should have had a guest worker program decades ago, but in the eighties all they wanted to do was grant illegals amnesty and sweep the real problems under the rug. Now they want to do it again. They're focusing on who's here already and how many more to allow instead of controlling the border. We can't go through this every twenty years. The Democrats are too busy trying to make the Republicans look bad to really do anything and the Republicans are too busy kow-towing to businesses who like the cheap labor. The Mexican government has to do something too. A guest worker program has to have a limit or we'll have a stampede over the border because Mexico has no incentive, still, to make any overtures toward a solution. And when that limit is reached annually, if we don't have our borders under control, we're back to square one. Without a limit, too, the whole idea of "Buy American" is further eroded because even more American dollars aren't recycled back into our economy as much of their paycheck gets sent back to Mexico; the guest worker program is for the workers, not their entire families. The only one's who'll make out great is the government with the tax dollars. I have nothing against Mexicans. I lived in Texas on and off for years and met and grew fond of many of them. As a whole they're fine people, but we have to be practical.

Posted by: Oyster at April 17, 2006 04:13 AM (YudAC)

31 Newt has a great idea. Give the illegals a work permit, but 20% of their pay goes to a lockbox and can only be collected when they go home to Mexico.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 17, 2006 08:35 AM (8e/V4)

32 The Democrats have no need to make Republicans look bad. The Republicans are doing a splendid job of that on there own! Now they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Do they distance themselves from the incompetent President or do they side with him and look stupid?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:09 AM (FCC6c)

33 Is very interesting to see what is happening there in USA. I'm mexican, but I'm fine living here in Monterrey, Mexico. Thanks good here in Mexico we don't have that trouble, perhaps, if USA weren't where it is, all sudamericans would come to Mexico. I think that the probably new laws won't change nothing. SINCERE WORRY: What to me make me nervous is the path that all this is taking. I have seen provocative acts for both sides. I think that what comes is something that exceed our imagination. Sadly, I think it had just begun. Thanks God, i'm far, out there. FACT I: Poor people ALWAYS will be moving to places where people pays well, NO MATTER any law. FACT II: Smart and competitive people ALWAYS will try to save money paying low salaries, even if they have to make it "under water". SOLUTION: Help Mexico to be a better country (give ideas), it will be the best fence for americans. Greetings from some peaceful place in Mexico.

Posted by: Martin Regio at April 17, 2006 03:20 PM (VafwI)

34 I think that maybe I'm dreamin' .... down in Monterey! I think Regis means under the water table don't you? Or maybe water pipe?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:38 AM (FCC6c)

35 I think it will be great to have a day without any mexicans clogging our roads.

Posted by: jack at April 19, 2006 08:03 PM (hvOaZ)

36 Wow, where do I begin? First of all, the idea of illegal immigrants staging marches and boycotts against the country that they invited themselves into is offensive to me as an American. How odd that I, a lifetime liberal, find myself agreeing with George F. Will of all people, when he says that illegal immigrants have assimilated enough to have an Â“entitlementÂ” mentality regarding their demands. How dare they claim to have Â“rightsÂ” under the very laws that they snubbed when they came here illegally? Then thereÂ’s the criminal element. IÂ’ve read all the previous posts, and the only mention I saw was by Victory for the USA. There is indeed a huge gang problem in most large cities; where I live in the MD/DC/VA area, we have an infestation of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang. They are Salvadoran immigrants who are particularly vicious in their attacks (their weapon of choice is the machete), and they donÂ’t take deportation seriouslyÂ—they lie that theyÂ’re from Mexico and just come right back over the border. ThereÂ’s a case being prosecuted in MD right now that the Feds took over to make sure these guys got put away for real: four MS-13 members robbed a brothel within walking distance of where I grew up; they attempted to rape the female police officer who busted up the robbery, and it took a SWAT team to make the arrests. I donÂ’t know about everyone else, but I was hoping to die of old age in my home country without being forced to learn a foreign language (in addition to the one I learned in school). If the immigrants who do want to stay here peacefully would just freakinÂ’ melt already, instead of trying to have it both ways, it would go a long way towards making everyday Americans (as opposed to the bloodsucking businesses that enslave them) feel more comfortable. HereÂ’s another radical idea: how about taxing the hell out of all the millions of dollars being sent out of this country as a way to recoup some of the payroll taxes that arenÂ’t being collected? I do like the idea, however, of jailing the greedy business owners who repeatedly break the law instead of just fining them. I donÂ’t think many of them want to be some big hairy guyÂ’s Prison Bitch. Hallelujah!

Posted by: momosity at April 24, 2006 10:47 PM (tKREw)

37 Boy what a rats nest this entire issue is becoming. Its amazing that think-tanks do not take the lessons of the past and anticipate the future with them. I live in South Florida, we have experienced the so-called open border syndrome (wet-foot,dry-foot policies)it has been no picnic, and the cost to our cities is incalcuable. I will make it easy..check out Florida's department of corrections website. The gangs, the crime, is unfathomable. Someone mentioned the brutality of some of these people, you better believe it, its not enough for some of these criminals to put a gun to your head and take your money, they feel the need to rape you if your a woman, and slash you and your children's throats in the process.Even if this country comes up with a fair and equitable solution, it will never work, I say take a firm hand now and deport,trust me..enough will slip thru the cracks to make it fair.

Posted by: valigator at April 27, 2006 07:18 AM (QAKXw)

38 We will regain this country to its original owners: the native american , which for the uninformed, is the same native that moved south into central and south america. Europeans, back to Europe, with your syphillis!!!

Posted by: Fidel at April 28, 2006 01:28 PM (o37J4)

39 We will regain this country for its original owners: the native american , which for the uninformed, is the same native that moved south into central and south america. Europeans, back to Europe, with your syphillis!!!

Posted by: Fidel at April 28, 2006 01:28 PM (o37J4)

40 WHAT A DAMN MESS. THE INACTION OF OUR SO CALLED GOVERNMENT IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I FEAR FOR THIS COUNTRY. TO STAND IDLY BY WHILE THE U.S. IS BEING OVERRUN BY PEOPLE THAT HATE US IS OUTRAGEOUS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS THINK ABOUT THE "NOTHING GRINGO" DAY TO REALIZE WHAT THEY THINK OF US. AND THEY GET UPSET IF THEY ARE LABELED "ILLEGALS" WHICH THEY ARE. THE GREED OF THE BUSINESSES AND THE POLITICIANS WORRYING ABOUT THEIR CAREERS INSTEAD OF THE GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE OUR DOWNFALL. WHERE ARE THE THOMAS JEFFERSONS AND GEORGE WASHINGTONS OF THE PAST? I FEAR IT IS TOO LATE, AND NO ONE BUT TANCREDO HAS THE GUTS TO STAND UP FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE U.S. LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE SOUTH OF THE BORDER. DO YOU REALLY THINK IT WILL STAY SOUTH OF THE BORDER? NOW THEY ARE GOING TO LEGALIZE DRUGS IN MEXICO. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY WE HAD BUT IT IS SLIPPING OUT OF OUR HANDS. WITHOUT BORDER ENFORCEMENT THIS COUNTRY WILL DIE, WHILE THE POLITICIANS SIT IDLY BY, WHILE THE BORDER IS BEING OVERRUN NOT DOING A DAMN THING ABOUT IT WORRYING ABOUT THEIR NEXT ELECTION. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE AMOUNT OF ANGER IN THE U.S. ABOUT THIS ISSUE. GIVE ME A POLITICIAN WHO WILL STAND UP FOR THE U.S. CITIZENS AND HE HAS MY VOTE.

Posted by: Fed Up at April 29, 2006 05:19 AM (FWVPp)

41 Try living in my town...pickup the newspaper while your at it. Every police record, every drive by shooting involves the last name of Hernandez, Perez, Garcia and the list goes on. There was even an 18 yr old girl the other day (Mexican of course) that gave birth in the back yard of her apartment complex and then threw the baby in the dumpster. Now the tax paying people are paying for a funeral and headstone. I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a truck...It said "Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit" Thought that was rather amusing. These people have already taken over our country. We are building low income housing for them as fast as we can put them up. In our great town they are the only ones that own their own businesses anymore. You can't even buy a good paying city, state or government job here that pays well.....unless of course you are bilingual. Should we as Americans go back to night school and learn Spanish, just to get a good paying job with benefits? In our own country? Wake up America! They are already here.....we are not going to send them home. They are now well established. There is no American dream anymore for any of us. It is theirs. What it boils down to is the politicians are lining their pockets as well as big business. They want them here. Therefore they will stay.

Posted by: Gwen at April 29, 2006 08:55 AM (CiU7S)

42 Lets all make a deal...go out of your way not to employ or contract goods and services that come from either illegals or companies employing them. I read where if you had companies paying a decent wage there wouldnt be this problem. But look out, the minimum wage will increase, but only for the illegals...so your damned if you do, damned if you dont....all I can say is start asking, you dont get the answer you want dont give your money to them...

Posted by: valigator at April 29, 2006 10:05 AM (0/BHZ)

43 first and foremost.....mexicans beaners hispanics, whatever ya wanna call em, do contriubte to our ag. society, such as apples, and asparagus picking. Believe it or not this is very hard work, that ill admit i dont want to do! BUT the way that these individuals fuck the system and the government is unreal, how can they get approved for an auto loan on a 50000 dollar escalade when they live in a tuna can trailer house, but yet their car is sittin on "dubs" as they call it. Where i live in the great or what used to be great northwest, it is just over populated with these gangster wannabee welfare taking beaners, but yet, they are having a no gringo day in america? Id say they owe us gringos for putting up with there shit for the last 30 years....the murders, the drugs, the baby making, which not to mention that is all they are good at is makin meth and contaminating the rest of the world with there offspring, know what im sayin? With this whole "no gringo day" shit goin on, i think i am starting to like the blacks more and more everyday! POWER TO THE GRINGO POPULATION!! (if there is any left)

Posted by: Travis at April 29, 2006 12:40 PM (CiU7S)

44 I'm angry at our government for aiding and abetting illegal immigration. If only we could deport them all and secure our borders-yes-even with the aid of the National Guard. I have a question: Isn't Mexico supposedly a wealthy country? Aren't they supposedly sitting on top of massive amounts of oil? Yet their Govt. wants to keep its' people down and in turn is actually angry at the U.S. Govt. for attempting to secure our very own borders. The Mexican Govt. wants to keep their rich people rich while WE take care of their poor!!

Posted by: Judith at April 29, 2006 04:01 PM (BJYNn)

45 Nothing Gringo Day? Ok two can play that game. I am declaring the month of May, 2006 Nothing Mexican Month. No Mexican Beer , No Mexican Food and boycotting Mexican Restaurants. I suggest anyone who travels to Mexico, cancel the trip. This includes Acupulco, Cancun and other places. There are other places to to see in the world.

Posted by: ejhickey at April 30, 2006 02:42 AM (Avuuf)

46 I am already there...no more eating establishments ....thats big here, a mexican rest. on every corner...not happening, my dollars are not going towards this crap if I can help it...

Posted by: valigator at April 30, 2006 08:27 AM (ozLpm)

47 I rarely go to Walmart - I should definately go tomorrow; maybe I could actually get a decent parking space!

Posted by: csiegel at April 30, 2006 03:34 PM (5RC10)

48 I'm in agreement with ej hickey and valigator; boycott anything Mexican. Anyone out there with even an ounce of loyalty to our country shouldn't even think about "celebrating" Cinco De Mayo!! The Mexicans can take their Cinco De Mayo and shove it couth of the border, if you get my drift.

Posted by: Judith at April 30, 2006 04:53 PM (BJYNn)

49 How about a "Nothing Wetback" day. That means no trips to mexico, no Corona(piss water anyway!), or any mexican "cuisine"(if mashed beans and unleavened flour discs cooked in squalor can be considered as such). Lets teach these illiterate unwanted guest workers just who calls the tune here. Lets hope Homeland security has the cameras rolling on these protests,and massive deportations ensue.

Posted by: hombre at May 01, 2006 02:30 PM (QMrCf)

50 Well folks, the worst and best day of the year is almost over....did ya know that 1000000 immigrants from mexico find there way to america a year from the old mexican territory ? Sick and wrong is what it is...Today i have witnessed restaurants closed, mechanic shops, shipping and recieving plants, and even a Mcdonalds!!!!!!!!! Can you believe that shit? There are countrys with people and children starving to death, but yet these immigrants feel they need special treatment when they are illegal anyway?? Im down with what ol hombre said, nothing wetback day!!! Id like to see even taco bell go out of business, though it would never happen, it would be quite comical! From this day foward, today will be the designated "can" hunting day from the good ol american tradition! Get my drift?! Have a good day!

Posted by: redneck at May 01, 2006 06:02 PM (CiU7S)

51 Oh yea I get your drift, I am not usually into canned hunts ...but for this I'll make an exception.....

Posted by: valigator at May 02, 2006 10:00 AM (E47WC)

52 PS did you notice how most of the newscasters made a big deal about how peaceful the demonstrations were all day, then the sun went down and all hell broke loose....kinda like vermin coming out after dark....trust me if you just read the present crime stats in most cities, its a forecast of things to come...oh and by the way, think of this...the illegals get to come in, they lay low for six months..then they start protesting and walking off jobs for pay raises...dont laugh they are doing it here, they even have a union for illegals in Florida...now wouldnt you say, the old argument of illegals doing the jobs Americans wont do flies out the window that very day...Illegals will hold business's by the balls until they get paid what a citizen who jumped thru hoops to be here legally gets paid...mark my words...dont hire them, dont get near them, they will screw you the first opportunity...

Posted by: valigator at May 02, 2006 10:07 AM (E47WC)

53 ok... i just heard about this nonsince. you gotta be kidding me. a racial slur in another language is STILL a slur. They were defended saying "gringo" is just a word they use for white people. Bull. so who decides which slur is ok and which is not? They celebraited no gringo day, do we get a no spic day? while we're at it lets go all the way. May 1st-no honkey day May 5th- no beaner day May 20th- no nigger day May 30th- goomba day no kike, mick, maple-leaf, yank, limey, kraut, dot-head, carpet beater, pillow biter, muff diver dates to be posted thanks

Posted by: capthowdy at May 04, 2006 08:19 PM (MxLkj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Easter Bunny Brings Blogger Unemployment

Nashville Blogger Bill Hobs has resigned or lost his job at Belmont University over blogging.

Glenn Reynolds via Instapundit : BILL HOBBS HAS LOST HIS JOB FOR BLOGGING: The Knoxville News-Sentinel's Michael Silence calls it "sickening" and "pathetic." He's right

Just a bit more of that good old liberal "tolerance" .

Updated : Glenn Reynolds is on the case with this update: Glen makes a good point too

one crucial difference between bloggers and journalists: Get a columnist or reporter fired, and you might actually silence him/her. Get bloggers fired from their day jobs, and you've given them more time -- and more reason -- to go after you and yours

Posted by: Howie at 03:14 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, I guess I'll cancel registration for classes at Belmont University along with classes I canceled at Northern Kentucky University.

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 04:13 PM (FCC6c)

2 A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:49 PM (0yYS2)

3 But...but...what about freedom of speech and expression? Oh, I see, if freedom of speech or expression happens to offend a Muslim, them it must be suppressed. And besides, Dick Cheney shot a man!

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 08:25 PM (rUyw4)

4 Hey that's my line! Oh well, I should have used it if I was going to. Happy Easter everyone, I'm going to celebrate in my own special way; I'm going to the range.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:20 AM (0yYS2)

5 One point to consider--if Hobb had had tenure, this couldn't have happened. It was because he was a contract employee that the cowardly admin could pressure him to resign. And once again, our little genocidal friend, who has called for the extermination of all Muslims everywhere, an armed rebellion against our government of criminals, a boycott of all elections, has now claimed that the country would be better off if all the liberals were dead. Including the ones protecting this country as members of the military? Why am I the only one challenging these assertions? Is IM a well known crank or simply a violent genocidist you all have learned to appreciate and tolerate?

Posted by: jd at April 16, 2006 11:39 AM (uT71O)

6 I myself have had words with IM and tried to point out the error of he/she/it's Islamic ways! Though I tend to agree with much of what IM utters!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 01:49 PM (FCC6c)

7 Oh shut yer whiney little traps, nobody here gives a shit what you say. Now go deliver some pizzas before you get fired.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 05:55 PM (0yYS2)

8 Give us your address and your pizza will be on it's way! Hope you want fries with that!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 07:16 PM (FCC6c)

9 Well, let's take the post on this thread--do you think a good liberal is a dead liberal? You don't have any friends who are liberals? I've got several conservative friends, and even some family that are conservative. I don't think they are ruining this country, I don't think we'd be better off with them dead, I just disagree with them on a number of issues (although I agree with them on several as well). The country needs liberals, conservatives, and moderates, as well as radicals on both ends, for a full debate. Truth seldom resides with one group for very long, or entirely on any one question. IM's rhetoric, on Muslims, on liberals, is always exterminating, extreme, violent--and yet largely lacking in humor. If he were joking, then fine. But he seems pretty serious about overthrowing the oppressive federal government. Next time a federal building blows up and incinerates 158 innocent people, I've got a suspect.

Posted by: jd at April 16, 2006 10:36 PM (uT71O)

10 No jd, I don't have any liberal friends, as I only befriend people who are decent, hard-working, intelligent, patriotic, and fun to be around. As far as my rhetoric; yes, I want to kill all muslims and liberals, because their only goal is to destroy civilization. Likewise for the government; it is only making things worse, not better. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot. You won't last long when the fighting starts, which shouldn't be long, because you don't have the intelligence to see reality, or the balls to do anything about it; you're just a typical neutered male who is useless to society except as a harmless drone who works and pays taxes, and just wants everyone to get along. Don't waste your time responding to this comment, because I won't waste my time reading your response, as you have nothing to contribute to the survival of civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:32 AM (0yYS2)

11 Must be a small lonely world IM lives in. Hitler was lonely and frustrated too.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:31 AM (FCC6c)

12 OK, the first few posts were like Tim McVeigh, but this one has elements of Ted Kazinski...Of course, on the internet, anyone can be anything. Most likely, he's a frustrated downtrodden guy who has gotten the short end of the stick in life, so projects this tough guy image online. As for not having liberal friends, let's up the ante--do you have any friends at all? Note: imaginary ones do not count...

Posted by: jd at April 17, 2006 11:29 AM (aqTJB)

13 I'll be his friend if he promises not to shoot me or hang me.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:32 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

'Illegal Alien' Is New Ethnic Slur

Political correctness is changing the rules of 'free' speech daily. No longer are cartoonists able to freely draw the world as they see it and now 'illegal alien' is deemed offensive.

From AnnCoulter.com:

On CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Monday, Dobbs was interviewing Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican-American Political Association about his demand for "full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States."
Dobbs posed this innocuous question about Lopez's planned boycott, "You're talking about a boycott of all illegal aliens in this country?"
Lopez exploded: "Well, first off, I refute your terminology. You don't say 'kike,' 'patty,' 'WOP,' OK. You don't say "nigger"! ... You're using language that's offensive to me and offensive to my people! ... You pollute the air every day, Dobbs. ... That language is offensive, it's derogatory, it's denigrating, and don't use that terminology to me again, referring to my people!"

Jeez, I could understand a bit of snippiness if Dobbs had mentioned 'beaners' or 'wetbacks' but he didn't. Dobbs said 'illegal aliens' which, in my mind, is a fair and descriptive dictionary definition of people sneaking into the U.S. My preference would be 'trespassers' since it carries a more precise and accurate meaning. more...

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:36 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Frank Gaffney, Jr., and The Center for Security Policy offered a great idea on illegal immigration in the form of a Secure America Pledge. I have a post on it here with a link to an online petition in support of the pledge.

Posted by: Jim at April 15, 2006 11:55 AM (YkmII)

2 Call 'em as you see 'em! Don't succumb to the " political correctness " of playing sensitive to lawbreakers.

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 11:59 AM (FCC6c)

3 Lopez.... what a spaz

Posted by: Henry Jennings at April 15, 2006 12:02 PM (vqrMt)

4 How about for every illegal mexican they send us we send a convicted felon to mexico. Similar to our interstate compact process between prisons...

Posted by: Victory for the USA at April 15, 2006 12:14 PM (y+196)

5 Alas, I checked the CNN transcript and that is how it happened. "Illegal Immigrant" is offensive! But the best part was that Dobbs continued to mention "illegasm immigrants" after this guy's tirade against the, um, "slur."

Posted by: Mark at April 15, 2006 12:23 PM (N4eMw)

6 Okay. Let's just call 'em criminals.

Posted by: LindaSoG at April 15, 2006 12:29 PM (GBBmd)

7 Cardinal Mahony asked that illegals not to be called 'illegals', too. I wrote The Tidings and stated that that sort of instruction was cruel and what mental illness is made of. Let alone his silence on the Aztlan and pan-Hispicic aspect of the protests. i think he finally told the Phpyc mob to roll up the eagle and worm flag, that they werent scoring any points.

Posted by: garyperris at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (htv3Q)

8 >>>it's denigrating, and don't use that terminology to me again, referring to my people!" How dare that worm of a man, Nativo Lopez, to imply that when someone says "illegal aliens" he must be referring to all hispanics. It is HE, not Dobbs, that has made that implication by protesting the use of that term.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:55 PM (8e/V4)

9 We need to guard our language, and not give in to political correctness. Call it as you see it, and vigorously support your position, and debate anyone who tries to suggest the language you use is an ethic slur. They are not the ones who make up the rules.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:00 PM (rUyw4)

10 That's right! Guard our freedom of speech! Call 'em as we see 'em! And don't let anyone try to shut us up especially the likes of Inprobus Maximass, Oyster eater and Jesusland Joeblow!

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 02:41 PM (FCC6c)

11 How about "butt-pirate?" "Pillow-biter?" Are those out, now, too?

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 15, 2006 02:42 PM (ew/vq)

12 How about calling them the "aztlan a**holes"?

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 15, 2006 03:17 PM (ZRe7M)

13 I thought it was funny as hell! That whole approach has backfire written all over it! This is one argument that will inevitably blow up in the faces of the pro-illegal crowd - it is simply a question of time. For the Dems and some Republicans, this reminds me of the story of the dog with a bone in his mouth who sees his reflection in the water at the edge of a lake - and thinks its another dog with a bone - he then drops his bone in the water in an attempt to get "the other bone" ... and loses everything over an illusion. Does anyone seriously not believe that come the next US recession (which affects economic conditions south too!!! - and down there they are already deteriorating!!!) that illegals will continue to come - they will be competing openingly (they are now but its down quietly) with other illegals, Hispanic-American citizens, African-Americans, and unemployed whites? Nothing gets uglier faster than labor unrest - it may be localized and regionalized - but it will be a sight to see on the 24hr news cycle! Add to that mix localized voter fraud (you know its happening) and increased taxes for diminishing services ... what a combination!

Posted by: hondo at April 15, 2006 03:25 PM (4mgfY)

14 Well, we could always engage in ethnic sensitivity -- why not use the Spanish word "mojado" (pronounced "mo-ha-doh"). It means "wet", and refers to the fact that these foreign invaders need towels for their backs.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 15, 2006 04:02 PM (o4D7C)

15 Nativo Lopez (probably not even his real name), has been involved with the racist Aztlan movement for decades. The more these jokers cry about terminology, the more they need to hear it. There's a clear parallel with muslims' attempt to stifle free speech regarding statements about islam that they find "offensive". I say let's offend 'em every chance we get.

Posted by: Richard at April 15, 2006 05:08 PM (7KF8r)

16 I googled Nativo Lopez and discovered that he was Larry Lopez before changing to Nativo to have more latin appeal. It is merely coincidence that my handle also contains Larry in it. Disclaimer: All images, likenesses, and/or textual material are the property of their owners and creators. Last word Larry is in no way profiting from material displayed on this page. This page is here only for enjoyment and to promote anime, manga, and any related media. Credit for any material will be promptly and clearly posted on this web site (upon requests via e-mail). Please direct any inquiries here. Thank you.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 08:23 PM (FCC6c)

17 Larry Hailus, are you drunk, or just stupid? Never mind. I think stupid will do.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 08:29 PM (rUyw4)

18 Joe Blow it out your a**.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 08:58 PM (FCC6c)

19 HR4437

Posted by: Walter Haas at April 15, 2006 10:36 PM (8lHGf)

20 HR4437,stop free trade.We will have the power if we stop immigration.This is how the coporates keep the price of labor down.Greed is king and will destory our culture.There must be control of trade.International bankers,Federal Reserve,it is unconstitutional.No deficit no FR.Require states to use education model of before 1963.Have physical education manatory.Teach our children to be proud to be American.TAKE BACK AMERICA.Force a draft army,the majority will not fight,STOP WAR.PROSECUTE TRAITORS.

Posted by: Walter Haas at April 15, 2006 10:54 PM (8lHGf)

21 JJ, it does no good to tell Larry or Hailus what he is. Yes, he's a moron, yes he's an idiot. The problem is that he's too stupid to be bothered by it. This is what our government schools have wrought and foisted upon us. A bunch of ninnies whose self-esteem is impenetrable because their feelings take presedence over value and knowledge. They never feel pressured to produce anything of real value because they think their presence alone is all that's necessary.

Posted by: Oyster at April 16, 2006 05:25 AM (YudAC)

22 Feel the heat Oyster breath! Now get on all fours -- and bow to your superior!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 06:39 AM (FCC6c)

23 Larry, Hailus, whatever you feel the need to be today, since you can't even decide on a handle, let alone carry on an intellectual conversation with even the most lightweight of political opponents without resorting to the standard Bush bashing rhetoric or faking a strong conservative standpoint to weasel your way in with buzz words you don't even have a passing acquaintance with the definitions of, your best bet would be to just shut your pie hole and take the backseat you were born to because you are treading way too deep. Mental midgets like you get trampled everyday. I'd hate to see you get hurt. And the best you can do is, "Now get on all fours -- and bow to your superior!" What a child. And rest assured I won't address you again. Life is way too short to respond any further to your debasing and infantile remarks.

Posted by: Oyster at April 16, 2006 02:26 PM (YudAC)

24 Oops! I must have touched a nerve on that one! Now who's the oppressor here? I only verbally attack when verbally attacked. Oyster breath started this with insults of " moron " and " idiot " , not knowing me from Adam and now has wheezed out and grown red in the face! Typical! Now Oyster breath has resorted to veiled threats of physical harm. If it's too hot in the kitchen .... and if you want people to shut-up then there are plenty like you over in the Muslim dominated areas of the world! The one piece of advice you gave yourself I agree with, and that is if you can't take it then don't dish it out ... and please don't strap on a suicide belt! I actually do enjoy reading some of your posts.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 02:59 PM (FCC6c)

25 Did,nt they used to call them wetbacks?

Posted by: sandpiper at April 16, 2006 03:45 PM (6rkkO)

26 So suddenly "illegal" is a word that belongs in the same locked box that holds "kike," "nigger," and "spic," eh? Fine. Maybe I'll start calling the Hispanics "Aztlanofascists" from now on.

Posted by: Aitch748 at April 16, 2006 04:06 PM (SA7JJ)

27 Larry, if Oyster says you're an idiot, then you're a complete idiot. Fuck off and die troll.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:34 AM (0yYS2)

28 Inprobe-ass Maximus: Feel free to strap on your suicide belt. It will make you feel better. Just do it in the privacy of your own home so as not to take out any innocents. Maybe you can have that other troll Oyster breath whom you are so fond of join you.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:43 AM (FCC6c)

29 Larry you want banned don't you? So I can save you from yourself.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 10:54 AM (D3+20)

30 Oh! I get it! Are you all in cahoots with each other? It's okay for them to antagonize and break the rules? Is that the sort of rabid annihilate ranting that elevates ones position here? Well, I am armed too so anyone who wants to come hunt me down can feel the sting of hot lead if that is their wish.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 11:32 AM (FCC6c)

31 Now don't get all huffy.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 12:26 PM (D3+20)

32 I am trying to resist the urge to sink to the level of rabid foaming annihilate the lefties or the righties mentalities displayed by some here .... can't we all just get along? And anyone who calls me an idiot is due for some mental pain and humiliation! Ooh! I love this blog!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 01:39 PM (FCC6c)

33 Yello. Not only have I snuck accross the border and stole your yob, i'm banging your wife and your daughter. who do u thinks at you home mowing the lawn and eating you wife and daughter's shaved pussy while your at work? PS. I have 2 yobs.

Posted by: Your yob & Wife at April 18, 2006 02:03 PM (va7MX)

34 My wife and daughter's pussy's are done professionally ... naw ... must be someone else ...

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 10:45 PM (FCC6c)

35 Wow.. the moonbats have swarmed all over this post.

Posted by: The Other Dave at April 21, 2006 07:15 PM (zvBf9)

36 Yay beaners rule.

Posted by: Dabeaner at May 02, 2006 10:42 AM (IO8LW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Norman Kember is Thankful to Be Free

Peace Activist Norman Kember has given an interview to BBC. Kember is one classy peace activist. Norman was on eof the four CPT hostages. Kember also speaks well of Tom Fox who was murdered by the terrorists who held them.

Via BBC :Peace campaigner Norman Kember has given an emotional account of his ordeal as a hostage in Iraq.
Mr Kember, 74, of Pinner in north west London, was held in Baghdad for four months before his rescue on 23 March.
American peace worker Tom Fox, 54, was killed weeks before the rescue. When asked about his fellow hostage, Mr Kember said he was a "remarkable man".
His voice breaking with emotion, he spoke of the moment his rescuers arrived.
"We had this sort of futon thing on the floor, and we were lying there, and suddenly we heard noise outside and then somebody calling out and then the breaking of glass and then up the stairs came these SAS gents," he said.
"It's unbelievable because it was so sudden and first of all, because they were British, they wanted to know if 'Mr Kember' was there, and I said, 'Yes' and then they said, because I was the person at that stage chained to the door, 'This is a bolt-cutter job,' so they went down and cut the padlock and released me."
Mr Kember said he "continues to thank" his rescuers.
"They were brave. I disagree with their profession, but it is ironic isn't it - you go as a peace activist and you are rescued by the SAS, which is perhaps the most violent of all the British forces.
"Anyway I am grateful to them. I met one of them by chance on the way out of Baghdad and he was quite happy to chat to me and I was happy to chat to him."

We are glad you are safe too Mr. Kember.

Norman Kember Acrchive here.

The Jawa Report's Hostage Archive Here.

Don't forget hostage Jeffrey Ake and many others are still missing.

Posted by: Howie at 10:51 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

1 "They were brave. I disagree with their profession, but it is ironic isn't it - you go as a peace activist and you are rescued by the SAS, which is perhaps the most violent of all the British forces. Violence comeasurate to the threat. I'm only sorry they didn't get the opportunity to kill their captors, a job they do efficiently and expediently.

Posted by: davec at April 15, 2006 11:35 AM (CcXvt)

2 "I disagree with their profession, but it is ironic isn't it - you go as a peace activist and you are rescued by the SAS, which is perhaps the most violent of all the British forces." Of course he gave no word about how violent the terrorists are that he loves so much. Classy my ass; he's a piece of shit liberal, and I'm sorry he didn't get the chop.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:35 PM (0yYS2)

3 Charlie Sheen takes his 9-11 Truth Movement message to the Jimmy Kimmel Show. 10,000,000 viewers. Boooya! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/150406sheentv.htm

Posted by: Greg at April 15, 2006 10:33 PM (q5wwn)

4 I saw the Kember interview, he was very upset, at the part where he mentions the SAS breaking in and asking for "Mr Kember" he broke down in tears. I truly think he is grateful and it might even have changed his angle on the use of violence.

Posted by: dave clarke at April 16, 2006 06:32 AM (dVZID)

5 Man alive, with Charlie Sheen on the bandwagon now, I'm definitely buying stock in Reynolds and Alcoa!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:24 AM (0yYS2)

6 I doubt if Kember learned anything, as his sort is usually so full of self-righteous delusion that they can barely function in the real world. It's too bad they didn't gack him, because one fewer leftard would have been a good thing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:29 AM (0yYS2)

7 Improbulus you make yourself laughable when pointing the self-righteous delusion finger in any direction than your own! Ha Ha! You and Oyster breath make a good team! Ha Ha!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 02:20 PM (FCC6c)

8 Okay Larry. Oops, you didn't get the last word! Sorry dumbass.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 05:54 PM (0yYS2)

9 Oh Yeah? Now who looks like the dumbass?

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 07:22 PM (FCC6c)

10 word

Posted by: Last word Howie at April 16, 2006 07:32 PM (p/kW4)

11 Hey!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 09:03 PM (FCC6c)

12 So Larry, do you have to work at being stupid, or is it a natural talent?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:34 AM (0yYS2)

13 Maximusm, your first post killed me thanks for the humor! What we think--but are hesitant to say! Peace...

Posted by: Capster at April 17, 2006 05:59 AM (JF5DO)

14 In-probe Assimax: Something tells me that Mr. Kember is a much better man than you, if indeed you are a man. I'm sure he has a lot more balls than you as he was over in the hot-bed trying to make a change while you are here hiding behind a keyboard and ranting and raving violence. You are a snivelling coward!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 10:52 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Taliban Gets Good Old Fashion A$$ Kicking

In fact 41 Taliban butts were terminated. They had gathered in preparation for an attack. Coalition forces took advantage of the fact they were all on one place made the first move. They of course tried to run but not before we got 41 of em. Now thatÂ’s a swift kick in the hindquarters if I ever saw one.

AP via Yahoo News : "Acting on intelligence reports that Taliban have gathered in Sangisar to plan an attack in Kandahar, we launched this operation Friday and the fighting continued from morning to evening," he said.
Khalid said security forces were pursuing Taliban fighters who fled to a nearby village. He said security forces had seen the bodies of 41 rebels but had only retrieved 11.
AH-64 Apache helicopters provided by coalition forces fired rockets to support Afghan forces on the ground, said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Mike Cody. He declined to comment on casualty figures.

Posted by: Howie at 10:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I love the smell of jihadi carcasses in the morning.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:36 AM (8e/V4)

2 "...security forces had seen the bodies of 41 rebels but had only retrieved 11" ?

Posted by: Dan at April 15, 2006 10:50 AM (Z2OsI)

3 The Taliban and the Afghan fighter are hyped as fierce and tough fighters. The only times they seem fierce and tough is when they are winning. Were we not supplying the Afghan resistance during the USSR occupation they would have performed as badly as this current group performs. I recall one commentary section discussion. IIRC it was in the Belmnont Club. A guy said the typical Afghan fighter shoots like they drive. They point the gun in the general direction of their target, shoot, and Inshallah (If God wills) they hit their target. No aiming just point and pull. On one of the History channel/military channel channels I was watching a narrative on an attack launched during the October/November/December '01 thumping of the Taliban and things were not going well but they were not bad either. Who were the first to turn tail and run? Yeap, the Afghans. It took one of our guys to stand up and lead a charge against the Taliban defenses. Fortunately the show of bravery turned the tide and our team carried the day.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 15, 2006 11:07 AM (43BLH)

4 Marcus: Very similar to what went down in France when we rescued them from the German occupation! Bravo Americano!

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 12:04 PM (FCC6c)

5 One of the greatest jobs in the world beside novelist and pro athelete must be counting dead islamofacist shitbaggs. "I got forty one!"

Posted by: Dave K at April 15, 2006 12:49 PM (YaR8u)

6 Wow, I bet they're taking this news badly over at kos and Dumbass Underground, especially since the both wars are going our way. Also, regarding the fighting abilities of muslims in general; they only tend to do well when they surprise women and children, as muslims are gutless cowards who have to be stoned off their asses to stay put and fight, for all the good it does them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:41 PM (0yYS2)

7 a hooka hooka burnin' thai

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:30 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Seixon Finds Evidence of Â“Hydrogen Cover StoryÂ”

Not only that but he also points out that Iraq had imported 17 larger Â“hydrogen generatorsÂ” with a much higher capacity. Being a red neck I see people but one thing to scavenge parts for another thing all the time. After ClintonÂ’s article and now this itÂ’s fairly clear that whatever Iraq was doing they werenÂ’t too keen on sharing information. I have a few quotes (one from each section) below but I suggest you go read the entire post as itÂ’s very detailed.

SEIXON : Thought I would pass along the news that Iraq imported over a dozen hydrogen generators right up until the Iraq war that had twice the production rate of the supposed hydrogen carriages.

The ISG bought into the hydrogen production story mostly due to documents provided by the Director General of the Al Kindi State Company. On 4 June 2003, a week after the CIA and DIA published their report claiming the trailers to be BW facilities, he sent a dossier of 12 documents to the American Authority in Mosul. One listed the 10 people who had worked on the trailers and other supporting documents that seemed to show a contract from the Republican Guard to produce the vehicles.
With these facts, which have most likely never been revealed until now, it would seem that Dr. David Kay may have been more right than wrong in suggesting the notion of hydrogen production to have been a rather silly one.....(continued in extended entry)

more...

Posted by: Howie at 10:00 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

1 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/iraq-mobile-bw-plant_cia28may2003.htm from the Clinton thread, not only were these vehicles produced by a facility that was involved in Saddam's original biological/chemical warfare production, but noone has explained why the labs would require a gas compression chamber, or why a hydrogen generator would require something masking the gas emissions other than to allow covert production of chemicals inside. Oh and also the pesky fact why these vehicles were not declared to the U.N, if they were for the peaceful use of filling target balloons. Like you would create a vehicle like that so you can drive around Iraq to fill artillary balloons. Please.

Posted by: davec at April 15, 2006 11:45 AM (CcXvt)

2 Howie after all this time I think that if Saddam actually had credible WMD programs we would have been able to find them. The infamous D0ctor Germ and Mrs Anthrax were released from US custody months ago. If we believed that they were still hiding any information I don't think they would have been released.We have offered huge $$$$ rewards for any information none have been paid. There undoubtedly were some leftovers from the war with Iran. But that was way back when Saddam was our friend. This is a case where the simpest answer is probably correct. Why have no WMD been found ? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/19/90650.shtml Here is the link to NEWSmax about the 2 most wanted doctors being released.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 15, 2006 11:55 AM (TcoRJ)

3 We also continue to offer a twenty-five million dollars bounty for Bin Laden, John. Perhaps using your argument, we can then say Bin Laden doesn't exist, because no-one has claimed the reward.

Posted by: davec at April 15, 2006 12:18 PM (CcXvt)

4 Oh John I guess I should say you know I'm all sorry that this I liked this guy who wrote this. He worked hard on it and asked me to link him and I did. Ok so here goes : Fuck Off.

Posted by: Howie at April 15, 2006 03:30 PM (D3+20)

5 John Ryan: if only you were so willing to offer the benefit of the doubt to your own countrymen or military that you extend to tyrants and jihadis each and every time something of this nature comes up. Questionable finds in Iraq? John: "No problem! It was just a weather balloon factory." Islamic kidnappers in Nigeria? John: "No way! It must've been the Christians." Innocent people beheaded in Iraq? John: "Hey! Did I mention Americans were torturing Iraqis?" You know, if I didn't think real hard on this I'd say John isn't very fond of his country or the freedoms he enjoys. He seems to think we're the bad guys.

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:16 PM (YudAC)

6 The Doctors cooperated and were rewarded. Naturally, they split town ASAP. Figure them to be in witness protection. Many of the cards are still face down and must remain so. All of this stuff is too sensitive to be aired in any public domain. With each passing revelation, Saddam & Co get dirtier and dirtier. It is so much easier to manufacture hydrogen from natural gas which would be close at hand for a nation flaring it from their wells that construction of these rolling chemical plants begs explanation. For the quantities required, every other power has used bottled compressed hydrogen whenever it was reasonably available. It is notable that some of the most nasty germs CANNOT survive in oxygen or air. They absolutely require reducing conditions: ie under a blanket of hydrogen gas. Botulism immediately comes to mind. With a small parent culture, fresh batches could be brewed up under hydrogen gas much in the manner of Penicillin. ( which requires a pure oxygen bath stirred in the manner of an ice cream maker ) If that was the product, then you'd never, ever, ever want to run out of hydrogen. Hence, on site production would be a bargin. You'd never need much, so cost per pound is meaningless; and no tank leakage or air strike would put you out of business. These rigs ONLY make sense as rolling bio-weapons factories. All other explanations fall apart on military economic grounds.

Posted by: blert at April 15, 2006 08:50 PM (cGOkr)

7 ironic that you say that blert, The manufacturer of the vehicle -- the Al-Kindi company was a suspected site of botulinum toxin production, and as such their facility was targeted and destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War.

Posted by: davec at April 16, 2006 12:20 AM (CcXvt)

8 One more point: Local air current intel is never used in conventional artillery shoots. One merely adjusts the shot. That is not so with NBC shells. The local instantaneous drift of air is of paramount concern. Hence 'weather balloon' specialists are attached to such formations. The first use of chemical agents in WWI was delayed quite some time because the Germans normally would have had the gas (chlorine) blow back into their rear areas. It was understood from the get go that chemical weapons troops needed an organic weather team. The evidence is in plain view: met balloons are used if and only if you intend to INITIATE NBC warfare. The gas generator could do double duty since hydrogen would be a very effective 'sweep' for oxygen in any fermentor. Indeed, it would permit a much simpler fermenter design. By feeding from below and exhausting from above you have a terrific way to stir the broth without a mechanical contrivance. Perfect. BTW, though hydrogen would work perfectly, that is not the style in western bio-labs. They don't like the flame risk. Naturally the experts would not think towards hydrogen as a cover and mixing gas. This last angle is something that just would not cross their minds. It's just not the way THEY would do things. They do admit they're still puzzled by it -- they really can't dope it out -- they're still guessing!

Posted by: blert at April 16, 2006 01:38 PM (m+wVa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This One is Truly Unhinged

The Washington Post profiles one of the folks who bring us those shrieking lefty emo blogs:

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Unfortunately for America, the Democratic party is pandering to loons just like Maryscott O'Connor, who writes for DailyKos (of course) and her own blog, My Left Wing.

Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):

Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.

Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:01 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Isn't it sweet when 2 moonbats are in the same room. The electricity is in the air I tells ya. David Finkel & Maryscott O'Conner are just the cutest things. If she feels that way about Catholics, how does she feel about Evangelicals? Now that would be a fun read. I love the "IT'S ALL THE CONSERVATIVES FAULT WERE A BUNCH OF HATE FILLED LOONS" tag the WashCompost wrote in there.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM (blNMI)

2 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. But hey, the end of his term were my college days so maybe I just missed all of the right-wing protests on university grounds over Conservative pundits giving speeches, military recruiters over a law signed into effect by President Clinton, calling Clinton a liar over intelligence related to one of many military campaigns he waged (Trivia: Clinton sent the U.S. military to more nations than any president since WW II), any program he pushed or any of that other garbage. I thought the quote of that entire article was when she said she's almost insane. Lady, you've passed that marker long ago. And don't you love how the picture shows here in, what else, her pajamas?

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM (vKISv)

3 "Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite." Ahem. When the Democrats held the majority there was no where near the anger and petty bickering from their political counterparts. Conservatives didn't crucify their judicial candidates, they didn't go on marches carrying signs saying "Clinton=Hitler", they didn't oppose every piece of legislation that came down the pipe without having an alternative plan, etc. And the left was comparatively polite? hahaha. Polite in the way an animal is if you keep feeding it meat. 40 years of owning the government and then losing it sent them in a tailspin I wonder if they'll ever recover from. Not that the Republicans aren't heading down the same path of complacency, but let's be honest; these two people wouldn't know the truth if you slapped them with it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:19 AM (YudAC)

4 How can anyone be so stupid as to find equivalence between the spirited grumbling from certain quarters during dhimmicrap administrations, and the unhinged lunacy of the leftards at all times?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:53 AM (0yYS2)

5 >>>Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. Even back in my Lib days in the early 80s I can recall how we used to call conservatives "fascists". I suppose that is "comparatively polite" compared to some of the things Lefties are saying nowadays.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:52 AM (8e/V4)

6 was she smoking that cigarette INSIDE!!!!!

Posted by: Cindy at April 15, 2006 07:53 AM (N22Ci)

7 I hope she keeps smoking...the sooner her brain will be fried completely and then become sooo nonrelevant. Curious though what kind of cigerette? Regular tobacco or some other variety....

Posted by: Debby at April 15, 2006 08:48 AM (j3bQ5)

8 M.A.: "The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become . . . " Oh, so you're an idiot too. I get it now. All joking aside, and that was a joke, you make a valid point in that the article is not exactly a puff piece. But to conclude Michelle Malking is as comparatively unhinged in anger as even the bloggers highlighted by the WaPo is right out of left field. Further more, to conclude the WaPo is right-wing . . . I am just speechless really.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 09:11 AM (vKISv)

9 M.A. Nice try. The article tried to justify Maryscott's anger. It was not a fluff piece for the Right. It actually "Softened" the truth which is that Maryscott isn't angry but that she is an obsessive hate-filled blogger who wakes up hating GWB - she is pathetic. As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?

Posted by: chez diva at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM (zmJNe)

10 As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate? The answer is yes, all the time -- and not by obscure online people but by people in government and the conservative media. They called him "a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country" and more, every single day. Do a usenet search, or start with this Glenn Greenwald post, or read Byron York's article on the decline of the American Spectator during the Clinton years. Hatred of Bush does not begin to compare to the foam-flecked hatred of Clinton.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:25 AM (Gv+sz)

11 Drinking non-alcohol beer in the morning? That's her real problem.

Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 10:39 AM (HJnrm)

12 As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM (Gv+sz)

13 So now we know that when Leftwingers accuse conservatives of being "angry" and filled with "hate", they are just projecting. Same thing when they constantly accuse Bush of "lying." They're looking at themselves in the mirror, for how many times have we busted these Leftwingers in outright lies and distortions, not to mention sheer ignorance of the plain facts.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)

14 M.A. I read the article you directed me to and I can't find anything that can be compared to the screams of "Bush Lied, People Died". I don't doubt that Clinton did have his "haters" but they pale in comparison to the Bush "haters" such as the WaPo and NY Times journalist and editors who have declared open season on Bush. Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous. If anything can be learned about the Media with regards to Clinton is that they loved him and protected him. If it wasn't for Drudge breaking the Monica story then "we the people" would never ever have learned about it. The NY Times and other news outlets where mum. They didn't come forward with the story until it was already out and they were embarrassed to have been scooped by some internet guy/journalist.

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:00 AM (zmJNe)

15 M.A. You wrote: "As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war;" So are you saying that if you support one or more of the items above it is an indication that one leans toward the political "right wing"? If so then: President Clinton is "right-wing" he led not one but two "unprovoked wars" in Bosnia and Kosovo - no one attacked us and neither one was sanctioned by the UN. However the Left and the Media didn't question Clinton's motives for an unprovoked war but they are all over Bush for what is a legitimate, legal and provoked war. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats supported the Iraq War that Bush prosecuted with UN approval - the Iraq War resulted from Hussein thumbing his nose at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and others dating back to the early 1990's. So does that make Sen. Clinton and other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - "right wingers"?

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:14 AM (zmJNe)

16 Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous. - Statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo action. Also, as Jonathan Chait wrote: " The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard." There is simply nothing among mainstream Democrats to compare with the insane, unhinged Clinton hatred of the Republicans in Congress. As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues, yet the unhinged right attacked him as if he were some sort of left-winger, and the mainstream media followed suit. Because the mainstream media has a conservative bias, and has had one ever since the '80s at least.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 11:41 AM (Gv+sz)

17 MA, you seem like an intelligent sort, but you're coming off as mentally ill, or simply a dishonest propagandist. The WaPo rightwing? Please, this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, and as someone who, evidently unlike you, is old enough to remember what went on during the Clinton years, comparing the criticism (mostly self-inflicted) that Clinton heard with a BLOGGER BEING MENTIONED IN THE WAPO FOR WISHING CANCER ON BUSH - well, you need therapy, dude. Soon.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (RHG+K)

18 >>>this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, It shows how deranged the Left has become when even an apology for their excesses comes off as an indictment.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:58 PM (8e/V4)

19 It shows the Left to be mentally ill, which is where this particular commenter posting under the name M.A. is. The next thing you know, he will accuse dKos of being a flaming neocon. Good grief, M.A., you strained at a gnat, and swollowed a camel.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:15 PM (rUyw4)

20 MA is actually correct on many points. There most definitely was an intense Clinton hatred among some on the Right in the 90's but I don't recall it ever being as widespread or as loud. Perhaps if as many folks had access to the internet and blogs, etc. back then... Today, BDS manifests itself in everything from popular films to television to music. One cannot escape the constant reminders that our President is an unelected warmongering stupid chimp, blah, blah, blah. It really is tiresome. Clinton hatred, on the other hand, was (with the exception of some talk radio) nowhere near as ubiquitous. Yes, there were the "Arkancide" theorists (Foster, Brown, etc) and copied VHS cassettes passed around that purported to show President Clinton had a private airstrip to smuggle cocaine, etc. But that anti-Clinton stuff was like really hardcore "prOn"--you had to know where to look and then you had to go get it. Maybe like "prOn", the widespread use of the 'Net today makes it seem like there's more President bashing but I think it's real and it's even worse than the Reagan years when I lived in Ithaca, NY, and Madison, WI, where he was not well liked, to put it mildly. Our profs had us convinced he would blow up the planet. MA is also right that the piece on the 'blogger is sensationalistic and unfair to the thoughtful Lefties out there. But that's the nature on the MSM. But MA, there is no way that WaPo is a 'right wing' paper. It maybe more button down preppie than it's bohemian sister, the NYT, but it is still 'center left' on it's most conservative day.

Posted by: JDB at April 15, 2006 01:19 PM (gHLyo)

21 M.A., just pray that I don't find you when the time of retribution comes, because you and your kind, along with the muslims and other anti-American scum, won't last long then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

22 I don't know whether to laugh or cry at M.A. insuating more than once that A) WaPo is "right-wing" and B) the media is conservative. And then: "As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues" Now I'm laughing. Dude! Did you just wake up from a 15 year coma?

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:23 PM (YudAC)

23 Did he wake from a coma? No, he just ate a mushroom that he found growing in his laundry hamper.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:52 PM (0yYS2)

24 IM, I think M.A. ate some of those mushrooms that grow in cow manure. How else can you explain all the BS coming from he/she/it?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:23 PM (rUyw4)

25 This is a test - I've tried to post here three times tonight - but can't seem to - just don't want to waste my time writing my thoughts again if it won't post - this seems to be an ongoin g problem with righty sites - must be the VRWC!

Posted by: Zeus at April 16, 2006 01:49 AM (vlreT)

26 Hey Zeus, you should write in Notepad or something, then transfer it, or you could just hit the back button on your browser if you get an error message. I don't know what it is, but this site has lots of comment problems.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:27 AM (0yYS2)

27 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. So did you have your head fully up your ass during the 1990s, or were you just in a persistent vegetative state back then?

Posted by: ned fucking flanders at April 16, 2006 04:16 PM (XEZ3U)

28 I was calling for the lynching of Billary, along with every other leftard moron, and I still am.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)

29 I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11685. Isn't that crazy!

Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 23, 2006 08:03 AM (F1CfC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 14, 2006

"The Man" is Keeping Rusty Down

Stupid "the man" is always keeping me down. Can you believe these fascists around here want me to "work"? Anyway, I'll be back a week from Monday.

A reminder to any Chicagoland area bloggers that I'll be in the area. It looks like a few of us are going to get together next week if you're game.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:24 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Fearsome Mujahadeen

Vonski has obtained and published a new Jihadi Video. LMAO- A must see!.

Posted by: Howie at 03:23 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I wonder if his rifle sounds like pocketa pocketa pocketa when he fires? Whoever can guess what the hell I'm talking about will win a bowl of couscous.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 14, 2006 05:59 PM (0yYS2)

2 Maxie, make that a ribeye and yer on. (isn't it ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa?)

Posted by: Oyster at April 14, 2006 06:58 PM (YudAC)

3 Wa-hoo! I'm back on! Thanks to the powers that be! And a little prodding and begging! Ya'll have a Happy Easter! And corncider this: Rumsfeld: " There are I don't know 3, 4, 5, 6,000 generals .... " Shouldn't the Secretary of Defense have a better idea how many generals there are? That's cause enough to step down! But then again he has the backing of President Bush ... however much that is worth!?

Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 07:52 PM (FCC6c)

4 Oh crap. Why do we keep letting these petty minds back in? Nary a word of substance comes from their keyboards. It's all shallow-end gene pool stuff.

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:23 AM (YudAC)

5 Yes Oyster, it is. And I think we've found him. Regarding Hailus; who is this idiot, and why is he posting OT?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:51 AM (0yYS2)

6 Nee ner Nee ner! Okay then! Don't have a Happy Easter! If you feel insecure with my keen insight there are plenty other blogs where you can go to mind-masturbate amongst yourselves. Meanwhile, I'll call 'em as I see 'em!

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 11:21 AM (FCC6c)

7 Oyster and IM, so that's what this fool Hailus is doing, mind masturbating. That explains his propensity to blow off his mouth.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:20 PM (rUyw4)

8 Improbus Assmaximus, Oyster eater and Jesusland joeblow let's all nod our heads in static agreement .... ready? 1, 2, 3 ... Did you learn anything?

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 01:48 PM (FCC6c)

9 Oh wow, that stung. Or at least it might have if I was still in middle school. Okay, go back to surfing midget porn now hailus.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:47 PM (0yYS2)

10 Actually maxie, I feel a lil' sorry for him - clearly he needs some attention which he is not getting from family or friends. The cold reality is the existance of a troll is a pathetic and lonely one.

Posted by: hondo at April 15, 2006 03:35 PM (4mgfY)

11 I should have stayed on topic. I had not considered that it might be too much a stretch for some feable minds...

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 04:33 PM (FCC6c)

12 I think one of those guys might have been my grandpa. Well, that's how my grandpa runs, anyway. Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:28 PM (rUyw4)

13 Hmmm, no definition for feable in the dictionary. I wonder if it means; "irony so delicious it must be fattening".

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 05:58 PM (0yYS2)

14 Does anyone else ever notice how all the leftards who come here sound pretty much exactly the same? Is it something in the water, or are head injuries that common in our society?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:46 AM (0yYS2)

15 hmmm, I wonder if such 'fearsome' jihadi videos instructed the september 11th attacks? Sure they seems they did a pretty complete job there. you're just afraid.

Posted by: d at April 17, 2006 03:19 PM (SIHWm)

16 No D, the "pilots" were trained in the States from what we understand. Hence, their unfortunately good aim.

Posted by: Vonski at April 17, 2006 06:02 PM (aJDow)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Surely Not

IÂ’m speechless. At the risk of making people feel unsafe I recommend people read the Dune series if you wonder what human culture could devolve into if Islamic ideals alone shape our future.

Allied Defense Fund :COLUMBUS, Ohio Â— Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for Â“sexual harassmentÂ” after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. ADF has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges Â“seriously.Â”
Â“Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America,Â” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADFÂ’s Center for Academic Freedom. Â“It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.Â”

Ace of Spades HQ adds

Given the fact that these charges come from adult f*&!ing women claiming to feel "unsafe" based on book recommendations, I retract all skepticism. This is unbelievable.

Eugene Volokh reports that these women were upset that one of the books, Â“The marketing of EvilÂ” may be anti-gay. I suspect these women may be Â“Bad GayÂ”.

Northern Kentucky University professor Sally Jacobsen tears the "Cemetery of Innocents" sign on Wednesday evening.

Sheesh these Â“tolerantÂ” liberals arenÂ’t very tolerant of others opinions and hard work. What's the word for that oh yeah hypocrit. And yes I would file charges too if all my hard work was ripped up. She wonÂ’t need the abortion she is fighting for because well look at her. Going to be tough to get some man toÂ…Â….never mind, itÂ’s Good Friday.

Posted by: Howie at 03:23 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This shit is out of control. We must start hanging liberals soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 14, 2006 06:01 PM (0yYS2)

2 I followed this through four different links and I still can't find a connection between conservative reading material and sexual harassment. I am truly confused. How do they do it? How the hell do they justify half the crap they come up with? It's mind boggling. "...claiming that it takes the charges "seriously."" They can't be serious! Can they?

Posted by: Oyster at April 14, 2006 07:31 PM (YudAC)

3 I think this stuff comes from a your-not-the-boss-of-me mentality. It's like these people got older but never grew up. They're still rebelling against their parents. But their parents are probably dead! We have a whole generation of aging boomers who are still fighting authority. It's actually pretty funny because they just get sooooo pissed off. LOL.

Posted by: Richard at April 14, 2006 07:32 PM (7KF8r)

4 Gee! Not to offend anyone but look how fat those people are wrecking the right to life crosses! We sure don't need those kind of people throwing their weight around! If there is an upside maybe they burned off a few calories in doing so! And, I think I will cancel my registration for classes at Northern Kentucky University! What a gaggle of Fat Hicks!

Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 09:06 PM (FCC6c)

5 Sorry I should have been a little more sensitive and said a gaggle of calorically challenged hicks! These must be people who live without love and force-feed themselves out of anguish! Feel sorry for them in a way. But not too much! A ghastly thought occured to me. Which side might benefit exercising their freedom of speech by placing aborted fetuses ( or toys, for the faint of heart and the lawful ) at each cross?

Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 10:19 PM (FCC6c)

6 Yep! That would no doubt bring the issue to a head! Yup!

Posted by: Hailus at April 14, 2006 10:23 PM (FCC6c)

7 Hailus, you're an idiot, so please shut up and move on, because nobody here wants to waste time reading your incoherent drivel.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:48 AM (0yYS2)

8 Improbulus Maximus, if you are threatened by my wisdom then I suggest you skip over my discourses or go to another blog where everyone agrees with you. Maybe I touched a nerve talking about fat people or maybe you are of the kind who has nothing better to do than pump yourself up by deflating others. That goes for Oyster too!

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 11:28 AM (FCC6c)

9 Fat people? What's that got to do with me? I'm 185 lbs of fairly solid muscle. And not that I mind deflating idiots, I just normally prefer to do it with a rifle or K-Bar.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:46 PM (0yYS2)

10 Stupid is as stupid does! I weighed 185 3 years ago. Now I'm maintaining 160 lbs. so there! If you are shorter than 5' 11" then you are fat just like I was! Max, your violent shoot anyone who doesn't agree with you puts you on the same level as the enemy we are fighting...

Posted by: Hailus at April 15, 2006 04:01 PM (FCC6c)

11 I am officially changing my handle to Last word Larry instead of Hailus. It has a nice ring to it. I hope that flys and I don't get booted! I hereby repent from my trolling, spoofing ways! Nothin' but the truth as I see it!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 05:13 PM (FCC6c)

12 Now it's not a little extra girl that's a problem hallius er uh larry. It's those mean steamy sweaty ones with the pissed off jowles and permanent red cheeks carved into an immutable frowning scowl coming at you with a skillet! Usually but not always with red hair and if it is red be extra scared. If lady who's a bit over the norm and still cute might be just the ticket. Might rock your world you never know. Hot chicks don't have to try quite so hard. Live a little learn a little. Now I will say in my opinion the lady in the post probably doesn't qualify in personality or cuteness to grant her a pardon on the well you know. Good luck on that, How about New Leaf Larry. Naw whatever.

Posted by: Howie at April 15, 2006 08:25 PM (D3+20)

13 Not to mention the relentless pounding of the sweaty fat globules up and down and on and on with increasing fervor! Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll stick with Last word Larry for now!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 15, 2006 09:10 PM (FCC6c)

14 Never mind me I'm just screwing over larry so he has to type more.

Posted by: Howie at April 16, 2006 07:44 PM (p/kW4)

15 Not to worry! Hard to compete with me. I got all day everyday since my job was outsourced. That's why I have an advantage overall except for the illegal immigrants and drug dealers to get in the last word. But then again most of those 2 groups of people are computer illiterate anyway and can't speak english. That's why I am that I am Last word Larry! Trouble is I am hooked on this silly blogging sure as any drug and I spend all day everyday scrolling up and down and long into the night searching for fresh input or responses to my drabble when I should get a life and a job!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 16, 2006 09:27 PM (FCC6c)

16 160 lbs? How tall are you, about 5'5"?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:45 AM (0yYS2)

17 Welcome to the hooked on blogging club larry so. We have two openings here for energetic computer nuts probably more. Or jhey direct that energy and start a blog. Heck I'll even give you one free linky linky.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 07:50 AM (D3+20)

18 Nice trick Maximus. If I told you I was 5' 10" and a half it would be easier for you to pick me out of the crowd and line me up in the scope of your rifle. Anyhow I lost 25 lbs. by exercise, changing to a healthier diet with less cholestoral and consequently my blood pressure and hypertension, heartburn and constant tissue inflammation went away! Try it. It might help. Little or no dairy for me, thanks! Been there and done that and barely lived to talk about it!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 01:59 PM (FCC6c)

19 Howie: If it pays better than what I'm making now ( $00.00 ) I might be interested!

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 02:05 PM (FCC6c)

20 It does pay not all that good but benefits are damn good. Puts food on the tabble. And you can make money blogging i've made 20 bucks in three months. Keep looking may there are jobs if you beat around for them. If you get really interested email me. Always some kind work in DP. right time of year to start mowing too. Old ladies need the help and you are your own boss.

Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 02:13 PM (vXSuL)

21 Oooooh! That is soooo tempting! To think it might be that easy to make more than the average American worker.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 05:18 PM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

268kb generated in CPU 0.0523, elapsed 0.1619 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.1266 seconds, 667 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 24403
Files: 11
Bytes: 146.4M
CPU Time: 15:52
Queries: 2166262

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

April 17, 2006

April 16, 2006

April 15, 2006

April 14, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds