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

May 23, 2006

Bentsen Obits Point Out Shallowness of MSM

The death of Lloyd Bentsen emphasized the lowbrow mentality of mainstream journalists, with virtually every media outlet referring to a contrived soundbite Bentsen delivered during the 1988 Vice Presidential debate:

In the Oct. 5, 1988, vice presidential debate, Quayle said: Â“I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.Â”
BentsenÂ’s retort in the televised event caused a sensation. Â“Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy,Â” he said. Â“I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, youÂ’re no Jack Kennedy.Â”

By all accounts, Bentsen was an honorable man, who completed over 50 bombing missions during WWII and served three decades in public life. Unfortunately, today's media have boiled his life down to a thirty second cheapshot that Bentsen was probably ashamed of as soon as it was uttered. A pathetic epitaph indeed.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:27 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Is there a way to filed this under "Duh"? You complain about corporate media's shallowness in reporting news, and lament the days when there was actual meaning to be found in the major outlets, but what you don't focus on is the fact that this type of news sells to the sheeple. The media is corporatized. It's entire point is making money. Fox news is final proof of this, as the entire concept was to swoop in an snatch an entire "market" that was (by perception) not occupied. The others are the same way, they were just more established so most people didn't notice the transition to money-grubbing. The problem is not the media. As always, the problem is the people. If the people start to demand more meaningful, honest news, they'll get it. All they have to do is vote with their wallets. I, for example, continue to habitually visit CNN for my "news". Since I can't break the habit, I did the next best thing: every ad on the site is blocked, so I might as well have never been there. Not the ideal solution, of course, but at least I'm not paying for the privilege of being fed garbage. Poorly proofread garbage at that.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:46 PM (ZNd6p)

2 I was never thoroughly impressed by this guy, nor his son. He was a yellow dog Democrat. God rest his soul. (In other words, if Old Yeller were running as a Democrat against any Republican human being, he'd voted for Old Yeller)

Posted by: RepJ at May 23, 2006 09:29 PM (pTcGU)

3 I agree that it is quite typical of the media to hone in on that moment because they dont care about Bentsen, they just hate the other side. HOWEVER....Lloyd Bentsen should always be remembered for his infamous "Breakfast WIth Bentsen," where if you paid 10 Thousand dollars, you got a chance to eat breakfast with Senator Bentsen. He was never censured in any way for this, just eventually forced to stop but only because of political pressure. Imagine a Republican trying that one....

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 24, 2006 12:45 AM (dezgF)

4 Another greedy crook takes a dirt nap; I'll drink to that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:24 AM (0yYS2)

5 Oh, relax. It's what most people remember about Lloyd Benson, like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "major combat operations have ended in Iraq". And what planet is Steve on, chiding a dead man for what "the other side" is neck deep in right now? Sheesh. As if lobbying wasn't disgusting enough already, it was "the other side" that came up with the K Street Project.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 04:35 AM (7AEHv)

6 Pretty much all politicians are a notch below pond scum, regardless of party affiliation, and there are very few who don't deserve a hemp necktie. The question is what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue the status quo for spite, or stop supporting the legal organized crime syndicate which we call the two-party system? Vote for any nutcase you like in November, just don't vote Republican or Democrat; kick the bastards out.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 05:38 AM (0yYS2)

7 If my memory has been sufficiently caffinated, I believe Tom Brokaw investigated Benson's claim that "Kennedy was a friend of mine.." and found absolutely no evidence of said claim. Typical politician, never let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite.

Posted by: KobeClan at May 24, 2006 07:43 AM (iJmNW)

8 Back when the voting age in the U.S. was 21, Lloyd Bentsen was the first person I ever voted against. In West Texas, Bentsen was running against George H.W. Bush (ex-President and Daddy of current Prez) for Senate. Of course I was disappointed when Bush lost to Bentsen; however, Bush went on to bigger and better things (e.g. UN Ambassador, A presidential security advisor, a VP for 8 years under Reagan, and then President). So I tribute Pres. George H.W. Bush's great career to Lloyd Bentsen beating him for the Senate (@1972).

Posted by: Gary at May 24, 2006 08:18 AM (fC2pg)

9 THEO: YOu miss the point. I had no desire to use this time to bring up Breakfast With Bentsen. I think today comments on him should be Apolitical. However, it was the MEDIA which turned it into the D vs R sideshow, and if that is the way they are going to play it, well then thats the way it will be played both ways. The original comments by Rusty were perfect. He should be remembered for his very honorable military service to his country, and that millions of Texans liked him enough to vote for him several times. Of course the MSM cant be classy enough to do that.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 24, 2006 09:13 AM (JHA+Z)

10 ONE MORE THING.... There is one big exception to the honor the dead rule. When Jimmy Carter dies...we should throw the biggest parties we can afford. That piece of disgusting shit whose four years in office were by a massive margin the worse in US History are still costing us billions of dollars and numerous lives lost. That piece of garbage and his whole trash family should move to Gaza and live with Hamas since he loves them so much...he always has loved any Arabs who blow up Jews.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 24, 2006 09:17 AM (JHA+Z)

11 I watched that debate live, and it struck me at the time that this comment was rehearsed. It wasn't difficult during rehearsals to assume that a question about Dan Quayle's age would come up, and that his likely response was to mention JFK's age. So, some vicious staffer probably came up with the rebuttal line, and Bentsen (under the heat and pressure of a live debate) used it with great flourish when the opportunity came. It's even possible that the questioner (a leftist media hack) planted the question with Bentsen's staffers, but it's not necessary to believe in this level of conspiracy to agree with my theory that it was just a lucky bit of show prep by the Bentsen camp, and a piss-poor bit of prep by the Quayle camp.

Posted by: Gary Watson at May 24, 2006 10:58 AM (UBumm)

12 >>When Jimmy Carter dies...we should throw the biggest parties we can afford Typical. You know, I HATED Ronald Reagan's presidency, but at least I was respectful enough to keep my yap shut when he died when the media was basically fellating his corpse. I'm not surprised that right-wingers are incapable of the same level of basic courtesy.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 24, 2006 02:21 PM (gOPcw)

13 Fuck you TxMxP, how's that for courtesy you piece of shit? Just be glad I can't get my hands on you, or I'd show you some downright rudeness. You support the enemies of my country and so are and enemy, so go cry about it and piss off.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:10 PM (0yYS2)

14 Beavis: corpse fellating! Butthead: chh .. chh .. yeah! chh .. chh .. corpse fellating chh .. chh .. Beavis: yeah! chh .. corpse .. chh .. yeah! fellating .. chh .. chh .. Last gasp Larry sez: For God's sake please have some respect for the dead!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 09:18 PM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

U.S. Abu Ghraib Abuser on Trial--Why George Orwell still matters

Jury selection has begun in the Court Martial of Sgt. Santos Cardona, the dog handler shown in the now infamous Abu Ghraib photos. Cardona is one of dozens of soldiers indicted for the Abu Ghraib scandal.

In a civilized democracy, this his how cases of abuse are handled. Contrast that to those we fight in Iraq--Islamofascists who take hostages, torture, and behead their victims.

There is no equivalence here except in the warped minds of America haters.

Army Times:

A soldier charged with abusing Abu Ghraib detainees with a military working dog went on trial Monday.
The case of Sgt. Santos Cardona, 32, is important because his attorney, Harvey Volzer, hopes to prove Cardona was following orders from much further up the chain of command than has been shown so far....

I've often said that the Left's reaction to abuses by the U.S. military is like turning Jesus' words about a beam in our own eye and a mote in another's on its head: they criticize the minuteness of our wrongs while ignoring the much greater wrongs of our enemies.

The reaction from the Left over Abu Ghraib brings to mind the words of George Orwell from his classic essay Notes on Nationalism (1945) about pacifists of his time:

Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries.

The real crux of Orwell's essay being that it is not so much that the Left is anti-nationalism as it is that the Left is objectively nationalistic--but that the nations they so often cling to are those other than their own!

So, when defining Anglophobia, Orwell notes that:

During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong.

Oh how so little has changed!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:05 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Amen and Amen. Just wondering. Who are the witnesses against Sgt Cordova? Could they be terrorists? Of course people who kill, and bomb and cut the heads off innocent U. S. Citizens can certainly be relied on to tell the truth. Especially when accusing a person who has jailed them for the same. THE GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF BULLSHIT ON THIS ONE. Merely, an attempt to pacify the worthless liberal crybabies. MSN should be on triail as an organization representing the enemy in a time of war.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:32 PM (BEvWK)

2 Well, yes. The leftists don't want justice, they just want America to lose. They hate America because it was the exemplification of how wrong they are about the world. Capitalism, not socialism, leads to human liberation and prosperity. They don't want to see socialism win - no, thats already been proven impossible. They just want to see the country that most exemplifies the opposite principles lose. What happens afterwards doesn't matter to them, so long as that is accomplished.

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 04:42 PM (B9sDR)

3 Anglo-phobia-- the anti-Americanism of it's day. Orwell saw it then, and we see it now.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 05:20 PM (8e/V4)

4 I see Willie Clinton is being accused of using his willie again. Imagine Slick Willie in the white house again. Caught with his pants down and 8years later hires Monica Lewinsky as an ASSIST ANT. The she monster probably wouldn't mind. That is, as long as he shares. Democrats always whinning and yelling about what they are against. Never what they are for. Senator Benson dead today. Awwwwww. All the turkey was ever known for was embarassing another politian on national television.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:54 PM (BEvWK)

5 There is not one new thing under the sun

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 07:09 PM (D3+20)

6 I think it is a little deeper MiB. The last great nation state has to be weakened to allow a one world government. So, the universities are full of left leaning professors, gay marriage, NAMBLA, abortion, morality out the window, etc... Perhaps, soon we will see if I am close to being correct.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 23, 2006 07:17 PM (D2g/j)

7 Like in ANIMAL FARM dont you think were being bullied by the ruling pigs of the UN?

Posted by: sandpiper at May 23, 2006 09:54 PM (K3hNB)

8 Clearly, you guys skipped over "1984". But hey, go ahead and cherry pick. Wars have been started that way...

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 04:38 AM (7AEHv)

9 Theo, moron, 1984 is about lefturdism, of which you are a carrier, but being an idiot as you are, you can't be expected to see that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)

10 Theo, 1984 is the best argument against Leftardism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 08:55 AM (8e/V4)

11 "cherry pick" lmao! you Lefties are hopeless.

Posted by: dcb at May 24, 2006 08:57 AM (8e/V4)

12 Theo (assuming he's read it) obviously doesn't understand the central premises of 1984, and "endless wars" are instead cherrypicked out of Orwell's text to the support left-wing lunatics Orwell was railing against. Pot, meet Kettle. Hint: He wasn't writing about the evils of free market capitalism or representative republics (or America, for that matter). More? http://aredphishhead.blogspot.com/2005/08/1984-and-left.html

Posted by: Good Lt at May 24, 2006 09:31 AM (yT+NK)

13 I've read it.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 10:40 AM (D3+20)

14 There certainly is a radical left in this country that is basically against America on general principle. It would be foolish to deny this. But there is also a much larger left-leaning population that wants this kind of nonsense stopped not because we hate America, but because we believe that Americans should be the good guys. That doesn't just mean that we're better than a bunch of murderers in Iraq, but that we're as good as we *can* be. The abuses at Abu Ghraib are an embarrassment to a righteous nation. It's what we *do*, not who we *are*, that makes us worth fighting to preserve. I would see us preserved, but as free men - not as animals. If we're going to become animals then it's better that we disappear.

Posted by: Adam at May 24, 2006 12:24 PM (tlKJH)

15 When will we be "good enough," in your estimation? The Abu Gharib scandal is OVER. GET OVER IT. The Army is prosecuting those involved and it was less than a dozen people. It does not imply that the whole military or country is anything, unless you live in CNN. It's a war, and bad things happen. The difference is that we make amends, while our enemies kill indescriminately, kill civilians and cut off heads. And the Islamists don't whine about it like you whine about our troops, who you admit are better anyway. Please grow a stronger spine. Nothing personal. :-)

Posted by: Good Lt at May 24, 2006 12:48 PM (jWYAe)

16 >>>The abuses at Abu Ghraib are an embarrassment to a righteous nation. Adam, On the contrary, Abu Graib is to our credit. The guilty were investigated, indicted and punished. And this process was in motion BEFORE you Leftwing hate mongers ever got wind of it. Why? Because we are a nation of laws and not of monsters as you Leftwingers would have the world believe of us. So if the army was already investigating and prossecuting people BEFORE any of you anti-American Leftard do-gooders even heard about it, why did you feel the need to drag America's name through the mud? Precisely BECAUSE you are anti-American, not because you are do-gooders. You wanted to make sure America PAID for the sins of a few bad apples. Who cares if the bad apples were already being prosecuted. America DESERVES to be dragged through the mud. You people suck.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:22 PM (8e/V4)

17 you know. I actually came to this site because of the whole Google debacle and i wanted to know what exactly it was that was said on here that was so bad. Some of the other sites seemed to be using racial slurs and generally nasty remarks that anyone with an ounce of integrity would not find themselves resorting to, but this one really seems to simply give an alternate view of events so far i've been impressed with it. Just one thing, first i wanted to make a comment about this particular post. It's not that pacifists are only against acts of violence coming from western countries. True pacifists are against all forms of violence which is why it appears to people who feel that violence by their side is justified that any pacifist who doesn't advocate it must be on the other side (since both sides are committing violent acts). What they fail to realize is that pacifists are outside of that argument all-together. Also i'm amazed at some of the talk on here. "Lefties"? Just the sound of that leaves a bad taste in my mouth and i'm not even a democrat. It reminds me of the way that i used to hear the people in my neighborhood say the word "nigger." It just sounds so dismissive as to say that someones ideals have no value and are not worth considering. I mean i find myself here learning about your views and taking your thoughts into consideration as i try to do for all people. The idea that because i am the type of person who cares enough about his fellow human being to care about what they think that MY views are therefore irrellevant...just seems fascist. Maybe the "lefties" were right about you people maybe you don't actually care about what's best for the people as you claim to, maybe you only care about what you think is best for YOU!

Posted by: carbonautomoton at May 24, 2006 02:30 PM (ABB7P)

18 We are the good guys dumbass, and if you can't see that, move your stupid ass to Cuba.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:12 PM (0yYS2)

19 >>>>Maybe the "lefties" were right about you people maybe you don't actually care about what's best for the people as you claim to, maybe you only care about what you think is best for YOU! How bout letting THE PEOPLE decide what's best for the people instead of activist Liberals elites using the courts to shove down our throats what's allegedly good for the people.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 06:54 PM (8e/V4)

20 Adam so disappear. You first and I'll follow. Friggin idiot.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 26, 2006 09:52 PM (pfOwp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

President Vicente Fox Visits Utah

(Salt Lake City) Mexican President Vicente Fox arrived in Utah earlier today on the first day of a three-day, three-state tour of the United States. Fox was greeted by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., first lady Mary Kaye Huntsman and local leaders. A dinner is planned for Fox at the governor's mansion this evening.

Fox's itinerary also includes visits to the states of Washington and California.

Tomorrow, Fox is scheduled to address the Utah Legislature prior to a noon departure. It is speculated that Fox will direct the lawmakers to implement measures which facilitate a timely Mexican takeover of the entire western United States.

Or, maybe he'll talk about something else.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 03:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Because, gorsh, all mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, must be loyal first to Mexico and wish for the western United States to become just like the place they left for their very survival.

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 04:30 PM (B9sDR)

2 Christ, I don't care as long as he actually LEAVES after he gives his speeches. We have enough unskilled Mexicans without this moron politician.

Posted by: Thrill at May 23, 2006 06:08 PM (DYb4r)

3 Who's this "we" stuff, Thrill? Apparently American employers don't seem to be included in it.

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 06:33 PM (B9sDR)

4 Well, I'll agree with you on that one. Everyone, boycott Tyson Foods!

Posted by: Thrill at May 23, 2006 07:18 PM (DYb4r)

5 If he goes to the hospital, will the American tax payer pay for his stay also?

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 23, 2006 07:38 PM (D2g/j)

6 God not are we getting illegal aleins but the outlaw leader of a outlaw nation now dictating how we will be formed into one big nation the nation of bigger mexico why done he dare come to a nation where he is consitered a outlaw?

Posted by: sandpiper at May 23, 2006 09:59 PM (K3hNB)

7 Here's what's happening on the Left Coast. Theodore R. Kulongoski Governor NEWS ADVISORY FOR NEWS PLANNING May 23, 2006 Contact: Lonn Hoklin, 503.559.1034 Information on Obtaining Press Credentials for President Fox and Kulongoski Meeting Tomorrow (Wednesday, May 24, 2006) What: Governor Kulongoski to meet with President Vicente Fox Where: Yakima Air Terminal, McAllister Field in Yakima Media parking in employee parking lot. Media access gate and check in: Directed on-site. When: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:45 pm Â– meeting 3:45 pm Â– media availability Note: Governor Gregoire of Washington and President Fox will be departing the Yakima airport at approximately 3:30 pm; Governor Kulongoski will be available for media questions after their departure. Credential Contact: Please call Governor GregoireÂ’s office by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning (5/24) at 360.902.4136 Check-in Instructions: 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. - TV satellite/microwave trucks and other media with equipment (e.g. cameras, radio equipment) arrive at the employee parking lot (directly in front of airport administration building) at McAllister Air Field in Yakima. This early arrival is required to stage equipment for screening by security. 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. - Print media arrive at McAllister Air Field in Yakima Note: Print media should only bring a notepad, pen, and cell phone (no extra bags, cameras, or other equipment). - 30 -

Posted by: OregonGuy at May 24, 2006 07:30 AM (715ae)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Blog Sabbath Caption Contest: Rusty In England Edition **Fatwas Issued**

Caption this photo of Islamofascists realizing that Rusty was there, and they failed to kill him.

capt.f3d184516f3f467bbe1b317c4c32417f.iraq_bag104.jpg

Fatwas issued.

Someday. Usually on Monday. But, Venom controls that.

FATWAS ISSUED!!!!

i will cut ur neck fatwa:

Brad, for:

Four Islamic Students react after an unsuccessful beheading attempt on Dr. Rusty Shackelford.

Muhammad: Let us not tell anyone of our ass beating by the great Satan Rusty Shackelford.

Abdullah: The roundhouse kicks to my groin prevented me from cutting his head off.

Nassar: Why did he keep yelling Â“bad gay soombithchÂ” over and over as he was punching me?

Mibalz Izhary: Is he really coming back Â“fortnightlyÂ” to kick our ass? How often is that anyway?

devil will do meetballs from your bodies fatwa:

Graeme, for:

As Kofi Annan would soon learn, Rusty's repeated use of his "pull my finger for 72 virgins" joke had set back the 'Alliance of Civilisations' program by 50 years.

why you insult the holly quoran fatwa:

Rodney Dill, for:

Oh Crap, We coulda had V-8's

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:35 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Jawa on the Radio--I am Carrot Top

I'll be on Hoist the Black Flag Radio today some time after 4:30 P.M. (EST) to discuss the left-leaning tendencies of academia.

Ace tells me I'm in the second slot. In David Letterman terms, that puts me right after the musical act and right before stupid animal tricks. The first slot--the one I call the Angelina Jolie slot--is being filled by Greyhawk. It will be worth tuning in just to see if Greyhawk reacts the same way to me as Angelina Jolie reacts to having to sit on the couch while Carrot Top yammers on about his latest cameo on a straight to video film.

While I can't promise you I'll say anything intelligent or funny, I can promise that I will be more intelligent and funny than Carrot Top.

Which isn't really saying much, but, hey, we all can't be as funny and sophisticated as Margaret Cho or Janeane Garofalo.

UPDATE: It wasn't my two minutes of fame, but at least I got to meet Greyhawk and Smash.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:17 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Iran Shuts Down Newspapers

Iran has closed down another newspaper after a cartoon depicting the Azeri as cockroaches caused rioting. The report says the rioting took place in the northwest part of Iran. There has been quite a bit of unrest there as the Iranian Kurds also have been resisting there with help from Iraqi Kurds. The conflict between the Iran and the Kurds even resulted in reports of cross border incursions and shelling into Iraq by Iranian government forces.

Seattle PI : TEHRAN, Iran -- The government closed one of the country's top three newspapers Tuesday, detaining its editor and cartoonist for publishing a caricature that caused members of Iran's Azeri minority to riot in protest.
State television reported that the Press Supervisory Body had closed the state-owned newspaper Iran "due to its publication of divisive and provocative materials."
The closure was indefinite, the television reported. It was the first time a newspaper had been banned since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office last year.
On Friday, the Farsi-language newspaper published a cartoon showing a cockroach speaking Azeri, the language of an ethnic group in northwestern IranÂ…
Â…Iran's conservative judiciary has closed more than 100 newspapers, mostly pro-reform, since 2000. Tuesday's closure, however, came from the Press Supervisory Body, not the judges.

ThatÂ’s and average of 20 newspapers closed per year since 2000. Iran, the international beacon of intellectual freedom and expression. Ha! More like an example of how to crush freedom with Islamic rule in ten years or less.

Posted by: Howie at 11:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Jordan Captures Â“SeniorÂ” al-Qaeda Leader

We have no word yet on who this subject is but they plan to put him on TV in Jordan this evening. That should be soon our time.

News 24 Amman: Jordan has arrested a senior member of the al-Qaeda in Iraq militant group, a senior official said on Monday.

"The Jordanian intelligence services have arrested an important figure in the al-Qaeda in Iraq organisation led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his testimony will be broadcast by Jordanian television on Tuesday evening," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
The official declined to elaborate on the identity of the detainee or the manner of his capture.
But another Jordanian official hailed the suspect's arrest as "one of the most important foreign operations ever carried out by the Jordanian intelligence services".

You know what IÂ’m hoping, probably not Muscab though. DevelopingÂ….

Update: FOXNEWS is reporting the identity of the terrorist.

The Iraqi, Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, was detained by Jordanian intelligence agents and special anti-terrorism forces, according to a government announcement on Jordanian TV.
It said he worked as a customs clearing agent on Iraq's border with Jordan, where he handled stolen goods under direct orders from Al Qaeda in Iraq leadersÂ…
Â…It also broadcast his confession, in which he admitted to being a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq and gave details of some attempts to attack Jordanian citizens, including truck drivers on routes between Iraq and the kingdom.

Not as good as Muscab, but we'll take what we can get.

Posted by: Howie at 09:43 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Rusty is Back in Black

I'm back. Thought I would have more time to blog from London, but didn't. I even set up a whole new archive page dedicated to my London trip in anticipation of my reports from the ground. Nope, no time whatsoever.

Who would have thought that pubs and internet cafes closed about the same time?

Anyway, what did I miss?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:50 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Man you are a sight for sore eyes! Welcome home Master. Err uh you missed lots of stuff. Scroll down.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 08:53 AM (5ZSfM)

2 Let's see. What did you miss? Karl Rove? Still not indicted. Illegal immigration? The Senate still hasn't bought a clue. Good news from Iraq? Film at eleven (just not on *TOM). Culture of Coruption? Quietly off the 2006 table. Lorie Byrd? Now Explosively Unique The Davinci Code? The Blogiversary Code, a better alternative. Other than that? Just welcome back! *The Old Media

Posted by: Jim at May 23, 2006 09:07 AM (YkmII)

3 I have been constantly threatened and harrassed while you were gone Rusty. Come to think of it, they were all picking on me even before you left! Open up a can of Whoop-ass on 'em Rusty!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:39 AM (FCC6c)

4 No lipstick lesbian related news to report on? Because THAT would be interesting ;-) Duly noted Larry.

Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 09:43 AM (JQjhA)

5 Welcome back Rusty. Men are such pigs. No need to thank Howie for slaving over a hot pc for the last couple weeks making sure that the bloghouse was kept in order. Nooooooooo. Men just waltz in the door and say "Hey, what'd I miss?" Howie, I think it's time to hit the doctor upside the head with a virtual rolling pin.

Posted by: Graeme at May 23, 2006 09:44 AM (3enBg)

6 I only see one problem with you plan Graeme. He may not want to blog after that. It's my pleasure to help the good Dr. Rusty Shackleford what I can.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 09:59 AM (D3+20)

7 Welcome back.

Posted by: KG at May 23, 2006 10:07 AM (hyH5v)

8 Better yet - What did WE miss?

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:28 AM (nBOAO)

9 What did you miss? IÂ’m sure some of the readers here canÂ’t get too happy about this as it may be another sign of the coming apocalypse; But...... the Seattle Mariners have won 4 games in a row!

Posted by: Brad at May 23, 2006 11:36 AM (3OPZt)

10 Here's what you missed: it turns out there is an Irish phrase that even little old ladies seem to utter in just about every sentence. Phonetically, I think it's spelled "fyook et".

Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 06:53 PM (JQjhA)

11 {{{Rusty}}}

Posted by: RepJ at May 23, 2006 07:01 PM (pTcGU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Iran Jailing Political, Intellectual Dissenters

Iran is claiming security and foreigners are stirring dissent. True, but Iran is not quite the model of political freedom either. All who have power fear loosing it, even the Jedi. (obligatory Sith Quote of the day).

NPRÂ’s Morning Edition: Some observers fear a new round of crackdowns on intellectuals is taking place in Iran. They point to a prominent Iranian scholar who has been held in a Tehran prison for more than three weeks. The government has not leveled specific charges against the man.

There is more at the link to the audio above.

Posted by: Howie at 08:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Sandcrawler PSA

Howie's PC says, "You have 125 emails." This may take a bit. Meanwhile, you people behave. I don't have time for this BS, so my tolerance may be in short supply. No calls for Genocide, killing all of anything, nuking everybody, anybody preemtively and other stuff like that. Argue all you want though. Insults too. more...

Posted by: Howie at 07:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Israel Captures Hamas Military Leader

Using an army bulldozer to break down the walls of his hideout, the Israelis captured Ibrahim Hamed, the most-wanted Hamas terrorist leader on the West Bank.

From Haaretz.com:

After an eight-year manhunt, Israeli security forces early Tuesday seized the Ramallah-area commander of Hamas' military wing, Israel's most wanted man in the West Bank.
Sheikh Ibrahim Hamed, 41, has been wanted since 1998 for terror attacks that claimed the lives of 78 of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Hamed was arrested at a hideout in the al-Balua neighborhood of Ramallah, surrendering to a combined force of Israel Defense Forces Dukefat troops, the Shin Bet security service, and the police anti-terror unit.

Apparently, Hamed decided to surrender, alone and unarmed, when the walls started collapsing. An Israeli military spokesman stated that the capture will significantly impede Hamas' capabilities since Hamed will be hard to replace. He was known to be a creative bomber who allegedly masterminded attacks resulting in the deaths of scores of people.

From the BBC, check out this astonishing statement.

BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.

Excuse me! I'd suggest that the BBC hire a new correspondent to report from Jerusalem.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:18 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I thought these pali terrorists were ferocious fighters? Hands in the air wearing nothing but underwear and surrendering to Jews - my, my, talk about tarnishing an image. Now why isn't a picture of that being splashed all over the blogsphere? Hey, I'd even pay a couple of bucks to see a picture of that....

Posted by: goesh at May 23, 2006 06:40 AM (1w6Ud)

2 "....it is not clear......" What stupendous ignorance.....

Posted by: n.a. palm at May 23, 2006 07:11 AM (jybaQ)

3 >>>BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad. Naturally, because since Hamas won the election people like him are no longer "activists" but rather "government officials."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 07:14 AM (8e/V4)

4 I like how you can't seem to make any points without being dishonest: -- snip -- BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad. Hamas has not carried out any suicide attacks for 15 months and Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead on the militant Islamic Jihad group, which has been responsible for most of the recent bombs. -- snip -- The entire thought, then, makes perfect sense. The military has been focusing on Islamic Jihad because they've been the biggest threat lately, so it's unclear why the military shifted focus back to him all of a sudden. In other words, did they get some new information that he was about to do something, a tip, or did they simply see an opportunity? It only implies innocence on the part of the terrorist if you don't quote properly. If you can't make your point without lying, you don't have one.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:37 AM (gOPcw)

5 TxMxP: The statement sounded stupid. Adding that Hamas hasn't claimed responsibility for attacks for 15 months and the Israelis have of late been going after other, more recent, terror groups does not make it sound any smarter. That would be like saying, Police bulldozed the Zodiac Killer's apartment yesterday and arrested him. It isn't clear why they moved against him. He hasn't committed a murder in years and the police have instead focused on other serial killers since then. You'll have to do better than that.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 09:09 AM (nBOAO)

6 TxMxP, just because Hamas may (or may not) have committed any atrocities LATELY doesn't mean someone (here Sheikh Ibrahim Hamed) who has been on a Most Wanted list simply falls off that most wanted list. So for an MSM to scratch their heads in puzzlement naturally shows they are quite dimwitted or intentionally obtuse about how Israelis view terrorism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:10 AM (8e/V4)

7 p.s., add to that Hamas has not dissavowed terrorism or their intentions to destroy Israel and it makes the BBC reporter sound all that more clueless.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:12 AM (8e/V4)

8 Uh, TexMexP, there is no statute of limitations on murder. Just so you know.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (rUyw4)

9 All it says when quoted in context is "Some new development must have triggered this shift in focus, but we don't know what that development was". It doesn't say anything about him not deserving to be arrested. It doesn't say anything about some bizarre natural amnesty after so many months. The only way you can rationally read those things into it is when the first sentence is quoted out of context. What is your problem with that? Why does it bother you that the BBC doesn't know what the catalyst was for the focus shift?

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:47 AM (gOPcw)

10 >>>"Some new development must have triggered this shift in focus, but we don't know what that development was". TxMxP, because there was no "new development" and there was no "shift in focus". What's so hard for you (and the BBC) to understand about that? Same ol terrorist, same ol Hamas. End of story.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 10:08 AM (8e/V4)

11 I don't believe that's the case. Israel could have rolled in and taken him anytime they wanted if he's just been sitting there for fifteen months. The long period of inaction coupled with the sudden shift of focus strongly implies that some catalyst caused the raid. Regardless, it's irrelevant. The point was that the single-line quote was out of context and the correspondent was in no way implying that she didn't know why he deserved to be arrested.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:16 AM (gOPcw)

12 TxMxP: It doesn't bother me. I just think it sounded stupid. They simply finally found him. That fact doesn't imply a "shift in focus". Unless of course, that is indeed what the writer is implying.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 10:19 AM (nBOAO)

13 No, I mean, this is what the entire relevant portion of that article seems to be communicating, to me: "The military has been focusing on Jihad because they've been doing all the attacks. It's unclear why after 15 months they shifted their focus back to Hamad, but we think there's some sort of catalyst for the event" The comment that's quoted sort of comes out of nowhere in the article, but that says more to me about poor editing of that particular section than it does anything else. I think it might be a bit clearer what the intent was if they'd placed in the actual quote rather than just saying "she said this". I don't disgree that the quote is bizarre, but my point was that the blurb clearly misquotes it and creates an image that just isn't there.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:28 AM (gOPcw)

14 Why do you bother to list a trackback when it results in: HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:29:36 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.4.1 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_ssl/2.8.25 OpenSSL/0.9.7a Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 194 403 Forbidden Forbidden You don't have permission to access /cgi/mt-tb.cgi/169228 on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/1.3.34 Server at www.blog.mu.nu Port 80 0 blog.mu.nu /cgi/mt-tb.cgi/169228

Posted by: Don Singleton at May 23, 2006 10:30 AM (+Yrlm)

15 Then you admit it's a matter of interpretation. If one is expecting this blog to be dishonest or to not be in line with one's thoughts, one will easily find any number of ways to interpret every post the way they want. We already have a few people here who do that regularly. Mike interpreted it as an "astonishing statement" then after a number of back and forth comments you finally admit that you "don't disgree that the quote is bizarre", but you continue to berate anyone else who thinks so too. Allow me to try and make myself clearer even though this may seem petty: The following statement, "...Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead..." seems to be saying to me that the author is implying that they can't or aren't multi-tasking and have had no focus on his capture. What I'm saying is that this is assuming too much. If al Qaeda stops attacks for 15 months and we then capture Osama, have we 'changed focus' because other groups have vied for attention? And how would saying that justify a statement made like the stupid one we're arguing about? Asserting that we should assume what they said really means a particular thing then why can't we assume that Mike didn't mean anything more than it was a stupid statement without qualifying it with other assumptions? If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:06 AM (nBOAO)

16 My problem is strictly that the individual peice of text quoted is out of context. The entire thought forms the message, but only one small piece of it is conveyed here. Whatever you think the motivation may have been for that piece of text being in the BBC article, it creates the impression that the correspondent is saying "I don't know why they chose to arrest this man", when the entire thought doesn't convey that at all. Regardless of whether you love or hate the BBC piece, the fact is that here it was quoted out of context. >>If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this. I agree, but they didn't, so as far as the article goes the only thing that can be honestly concluded is that it's meaning is unclear due to a poor choice of words.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:39 AM (gOPcw)

17 "...it creates the impression that the correspondent is saying "I don't know why they chose to arrest this man"," I didn't get that impression. But hey, it seems you did. Whether or not it was intended is another thing. If you keep looking for a snake, you'll find one. I think you're looking for snakes.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:52 AM (nBOAO)

18 Interesting thread and Oyster is exactly right. My point was that the statement is bizarre. As for context, there is none. This comment thread attests to several contextual versions of what is possible. So, in reality, the statement wasn't taken out of context because the context was create-your-own. And, even if you disagree with that, the statement is still astonishing in my opinion. Personally, I tend to think that TxMxP has a hard spot with me specifically, calling me dishonest and a liar. I have no idea where the ad hominem attack came from. I do know that attacking me won't make the BBC statement any less bizarre.

Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2006 04:47 PM (bRGNw)

19 Anyone who hears something different than the texmexicanpee is a liar. This turkey should apply for a job with the Clintons.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:49 PM (BEvWK)

20 >>Personally, I tend to think that TxMxP has a hard spot with me specifically, calling me dishonest and a liar. Note in general, only as far as this goes. Beyond this, I don't know anything about you. It could have been an honest mistake. The point remains: the context changes when you only quote that one little piece. The entire thought was contained in two paragraphs, and you should have quoted the entire thought, especially considering what you did quote was a summary of a statement, not an actual piece of speech.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:53 PM (ZNd6p)

21 Why is it the lefturds are so quick to run their mouths when a terrorist gets killed or captured, but are deafeningly silent when one kills a bunch of innocent people?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:46 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 22, 2006

Not In My Name

From this point forward, comments on my posts (read: Vinnie's posts) exhorting the faithful to kill everyone but themselves (do it! oh, please!) will be deleted.

You know who I'm referring to. Or maybe not, since your comment in response has been deleted.

I'm still reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and frankly (Charles Martel!) speaking, you have a lot in common with 7th century Mohammedism.

Methinks we have some (as they say on 24) moles.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:49 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sounds like you're starting to get an inkling as to why Google has to filter you out. They've got their brand to protect, and don't want to be associated with threatening content. I've been on left-wing and right-wing discussion boards, and the left-wing boards police their objectionable content (death threats and the like) much better than the right-wing boards do. Lefties are also a lot less likely to make the threats in the first place. I'm sure someone here could quote some instances of that sort of thing on left-wing boards, but they're generally removed when pointed out. Here, as on other right-wing boards, they tend to be left alone or even encouraged. I commend you for taking a step in the right direction, Vin.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:17 PM (7AEHv)

2 Case in point. (Although changehappens gets points for originality - killing people to use them for chum. Nice.) I should add that it isn't just the boards that Google is taking umbrage with - it's the content, as well. You're completely within your rights to taunt Muslims, post Muhammad cartoons, and the like - just don't expect a corporation like Google to go along with it (any more than Viacom did with South Park). I'm sure Google still links to counterterrorism blogs - just ones that conduct themselves in a more civil manner. Don't blame Google for making a business decision. Rupert Murdoch would do the same thing.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:39 PM (7AEHv)

3 This isn't a forum, it's a blog. Big difference. I could care less about Google, Google is just a thing. I care about people, like my good friend Rusty Shackleford, and his reputation, which is being tarnished by some commenters.

Posted by: Vinnie at May 22, 2006 11:49 PM (/qy9A)

4 OK, fine. I'm just saying your cohorts cared enough to post about it, and linked to two other blogs that did, too. Just thought it was ironic that die-hard capitalists couldn't see it as a business decision, rather a conspiracy by "left-leaning Google". Left, right - they go wherever the money is. Pardon me for ranting on in your thread. I'm done now.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:59 PM (7AEHv)

5 How about killing everyone but Jennifer Love Hewitt, Alyssa Milano, Tiffani Theissen and myself?

Posted by: MKL at May 23, 2006 12:22 AM (GKZaQ)

6 Now it's been a couple months since I've spent any time reading a left-wing blog, but personally, I always found it odd that the left-wing sites rarely (and I mean very rarely) featured a dissenting voice, respectfully or otherwise. Think they're over-policing? I do. I've posted at Kos, DU and HuffPo and seen my comments disappear or never appear at all, even though I took special pains to be respectful. They have the right to delete anything they want, but in doing so, they present an inaccurate picture and promulgate a single and narrow view. Some people feel more comfortable sitting around and patting each other on the back with no challenges cluttering their world view or monitors. It's not for me though. We get a lot of dissent at Jawa. And a lot of healthy argument that is bound to produce a few insults. Sometimes it goes overboard with the threats and the "kill 'em all" comments, but ... I think the real complaint being made here is not as Theo suggests, that Jawa is too hateful for Google news feeds, but that Google regularly features "news" sites that consistently disseminate glaringly false information and obvious propaganda while eliminating other sites almost arbitrarily. There are far too many instances belying their "fairness doctrine" and "pecking order" assertions. I guess it's all in "how" one promotes hatred and encouragement toward ill action. Just do it subtley and look "official" and voila! you're in. Google shouldn't remove Jawa from its news feeds because of complaints or for not censoring its comments, but because it's a blog and not set up as a real news site. Google has a blog search function. We don't see Kos or DU or command-post in their news feeds, but we sure have HuffPo and uruknet! The fact that Google's officers and staff do not hide their leftist, even socialist, views doesn't help them. The fact that they so willingly censor content for certain markets doesn't lend much credence to their denials. The fact that for years now you can still type in "failure" and George Bush's bio is still the first result doesn't help.

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

7 The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with the left-wing consensus is often instantly branded a "troll." Daily Kos, for example, has a ruthlessly efficient post deletion mechanism. In my case, I learned that just asking questions about the post deletion mechanism can get you branded as a troll. Once a poster is branded a troll, his or her posts will be summarily deleted, as nothing he or she says, no matter how well-reasoned and rational, is considered worth listening to. The left perceives a need to control speech, while the right-wing blogs are generally much more accepting of free speech. This is a microcosm of the world. Where the right runs things in the world (e.g., modern Europe, the U.S.), we have often seen noise, disagreement and disorder. Where the left runs things (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) things are generally much quieter and orderly. Some may believe it is because communists are just a lot happier. I don't. Free speech, while it certainly has its benefits, also has its attendant costs (dissention, hurt feelings, mixed messages to outsiders, etc.). Controlled speech, while it has its own benefits, often carries a much greater price (fear, supression of good ideas, gulags, massacres, etc.).

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at May 23, 2006 04:24 AM (Y0zGO)

8 Very well put, Ragnar.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)

9 Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:27 AM (0yYS2)

10 Can you just shut up and kill someone or try to so we don't have to listen to your inane rantings anymore? I'll even give you my address and you can come and try for me. How about it, IM?

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 05:35 AM (B9sDR)

11 >>Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest. Seriously, kid, you listen to way too much Insane Clown Posse. Put the CD down, drop the copy of Rage, take off the trenchcoat, and re-integrate into modern society.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:42 AM (gOPcw)

12 I'm all for excluding rabid ranting - it detracts from the quality of any Blog and makes the host look dumb and besides, anyone who can use a computer can express themselves in better ways if they want to. I'm all for excluding repeat trolls as well, but then since I'm too lazy to create a blog, my opinion doesn't count for a whole lot in such matters.

Posted by: goesh at May 23, 2006 06:48 AM (1w6Ud)

13 >>>The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world. That's why I don't bother with Leftwing blogs. First they force you to register, and if you don't tow the party line your comments get deleted even when you walk on eggshells to be respectful so as not to get deleted! But yet in their minds they're all about "free speech." lol! when you point out the obvious to them, they say the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not private entities and if you don't like it just leave.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 07:21 AM (8e/V4)

14 The common masses are morally incapable of handling freedom and must have right imposed upon them.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (FCC6c)

15 I disagree about your collective ascertions that liberal blogs police content any more than right wing blogs. Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity... On the majority of Lefty blogs, you're definitely going to be labeled a troll for dropping rascist, ignorant, disruptive, or abusive comments, but rarely are you banned outright without warning. That's a Pajamas Media/ Freeper M.O. To my knowledge, I've never heard of a lefty blog banning without several warnings... No offense to this fine sight, of course. As for the Google thing, well, no shit, they don't want to be associated with hate speech. Call it what it is. Terms like "Gutter Religion" (Grey Turkey) Or sweeping baseless denegration of a race of people is hate speech. Just because some don't have a problem using it (being comfortable in your own rascist skin must feel good) doesn't mean its acceptable for public consumption. It's just a sign of the growing ignorance in some quarters. More Education would be a good start. Read a book, for christ's sake. I've been to Northern Africa- yeah, it's a troubled region, but that doesn't mean they couldn't use some honest help into the 21st century. People's people, ya know? Just the situations that we find ourselves in differ.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (yFm36)

16 >>>Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... >>>They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity. Blue Patriot, that's not true. If you spent any time at all at LGF you'd know a Lefty troll called "Gordon" has been posting their for years. He gets harrassed, but he never gets deleted and he hasn't been banned. Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:09 AM (8e/V4)

17 OK, Carlos, I had the exact same treatment at LGF, Confederate Yankee, and Free Republic. In fact, I never got to post a second comment after disagreeing with someone at FR. Just banned. I think we agree that civil discourse is probably best, that some people don't like to hear discenting opinions, and people with their own blogs can do WTF they want. YEAH, AMERICA!

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 08:13 AM (yFm36)

18 >>Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother. Well, here's the thing, Carlos. Since I've been here I've seen you post almost nothing but strings of insults and profanity. In fact, the very first post I saw from you was exactly that, and it continued through the rest of the thread. To some extent you've shown an ability to have a rational discussion, as in the "Cold, Hard Cash" post, but the majority of what I've seen from you is still irrational and profane ranting. As an observer here, what do you think is more likely to me to be the cause of your ban? That you were mistreated, or that you were just being abusive and you were banned for it? This is why I hate blogs and bloggers. All this whining, yet, for the most part, it seems to me that all the people being kicked out of left/right/up/down/over/under blogs are simply being treated like children because they were acting like children. As an aside, my experience with LGF was a bit different. I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there. The message this sends, of course, is that if you annoy us, we'll ban you, but we don't have a problem with our members making death threats. So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior".

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:29 AM (gOPcw)

19 The key term there is annoyed. It's more the overall level of annoyance that gets you. TxMxP thinks he was the first annoying thing that ever happened. I doubt it. probably just the straw the broke the camels back. Wrong place wrong time.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 08:40 AM (D3+20)

20 Are you implying that LGF doesn't ban blatant trolls? I will assure you, they do, when/if they're discovered, as do most other sites.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:43 AM (gOPcw)

21 >>>So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior". TmMxP, "bad behaviour" is where commenters personally harrass other commenters, kinda like what you constantly do. You see, I have stong opinions about Liberalism, and the Left, and radical islam, etc. It's no secret I loathe them. But I generally refrain from personally harrassing other commenters who happen to be Leftwingers. I let them say their peace and respond to the substance of their comments without feeling the need to personally attack them-- the way you do. That is unless they themselves are personal harrassers-- like you are. Then I feel free to get on their case and make their lives miserable while they're on this blog. I've found they don't last very long here after that. You're getting pretty close to the point.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)

22 Carlos, this is the very first thing you said to me: >>You come hear to troll, and then you pretend outrage when you're told to fuck off. lol! Lefty orwellianism knows no bounds. Come hear with a respectful attitude to argue the issues, and you'll be treated respectfully. Otherwise kindly fuckoff. After I took exception to Bluto issuing a string of epithets, threats, and insults as a way to ask that another poster stop being abrasive. WHO is the harrasser here?

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:01 AM (gOPcw)

23 Suddenly everyone seems obsessed here with "rational discourse." I actually like a fair amount of random ranting. But then I actually like heavy metal. TxMxP: you say that you hate blogs and bloggers - I don't understand why you continue to read and comment. I think you just don't like people with opinions different than yours, and you are trying to either change them, or stop them.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 09:04 AM (aH6Zf)

24 JC personally sees to it that ratings go up and numbers increase!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:13 AM (FCC6c)

25 TxMxP, like I've told you numerous times before, if you come here with attitude (in that case towards Bluto), you'll get attitude back. But if you come here realizing you are on other people's turf and act respectfully you'll be treated respectfully in return, at least by me. I treat people they way they deserve to be treated. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to blow off steam from time to time, but you came here and were rude right off the bat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:22 AM (8e/V4)

26 First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing. Second of all, there's nothing wrong with trying to change opinions. I realize that some on this type of site feel otherwise, but I happen to think that honest dialogue between competing ideologies is usually better than worse. Finally, I hate blogs and bloggers for the simple reason that they basically stop anything approaching honest dialogue. Most people who hold strong enough opinions to rant on things seem to also have an amazing lack of perspective on those opinions, and a complete and total lack of evidence to support them. I blame things like blogs for that problem because they create echo chambers where the most "amusing" post wins, no matter how devoid of any actual information it might be. I'd rather try and fix that problem (though I realize I can't) than just ignore it. Besides, why do you care? If your opinion is so firmly rooted in fact that it won't change, the worst that can happen is that I'll give you the opportunity to exercise your arguments so you can better make them in the future.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (gOPcw)

27 Wow, a halfway decent back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives on the internet. Maybe there's hope for us, after all. Being an independent thinker (but not necessarily and Independent) means applying the same standard to both parties. In other words, if the situation were reversed, would you argue the same way? Or are you parroting party talking points? Example: Would conservatives be up in arms if Bill Clinton was trampling on the Constitution or spending us into monstrous debt? Or do you defend the $90,000-in-his-freezer Democratic congressman, yet say nasty things about Tom DeLay's indictment? etc. etc.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 09:36 AM (7AEHv)

28 I don't like ANY of them. As far as I'm concerned this entire ridiculous government is out of control and has been since at LEAST Nixon, probably before that. I'm sometimes inclined to think that the entire thing started falling apart after the Spanish-American war. However, at the moment the "right" is in control and it's tearing things apart, so that's who I complain the most about. When the liberals are in control and everybody has to wear a fanny pack to filter their farts in case it might kill a common housefly, then I'll be up in arms against them. All I want is to be left alone. I hate politics. I hate government. But I can't just ignore them because they're constantly forcing their way into my life. If it's the liberals, they're trying to tell me I have to put something new on my car to improve the emissions or I can't put a manger scene on the sidewalk by my house (although I'm not religious) because it might offend some mysterious shadowperson in the bushes. If it's the conservatives they're telling me I can't watch certain TV shows because they're "bad" for showing a nipple or I have to worry about them snooping on my damn library records. I just want left alone. I don't want to be fighting with everybody all the time. But, frankly, if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it. That goes for BOTH sides because BOTH side are constantly trying to screw me.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:09 AM (gOPcw)

29 Hey, TxMxP - that's a swell bubble you're living in. You may live enough of a hermitous existence not to affect anyone, but I doubt it. Government is a very necessary "evil", because without it, we'd tear each other apart, quite frankly. Humanity isn't exactly a noble species. Government keeps us (sometimes) playing by the same rules and (sometimes) keeps us safe. No one said it's perfect - all the better reason to get involved and right what's wrong with it.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 10:15 AM (7AEHv)

30 I don't want anarchy, I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:08 AM (gOPcw)

31 TxMxP: you write: "First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing." then you write: "...if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it." regarding LGF, you write: "I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there." I say: I think trolling for kicks is one way of stopping opinions. I think it's a little ridiculous to admit to be trolling for kicks and then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. And you're annoyed because they still post there. Were they trolling for kicks? Probably not. As Howie noted, it sounds like annoy is the key word here.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 11:14 AM (aH6Zf)

32 "I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues." Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:34 AM (nBOAO)

33 Heroic, Trolling for kicks, in this case, sounds more like going to a site like LGF when your political flag blows to the left. You know that the majority of opinions may be counter to your own, but you go to that blog for the lively discussion, or to laugh at the monkeys, or whatever. That in itself isn't wrong, but you cross a line when you tear down meaningful discussions for the sake of name calling, topic hi-jacking, etc. We all could probably be accused of being a bit quick to jump on a person who's first post has an obvious slant that opposes our own. "Shut them up and shut them down."

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 11:43 AM (yFm36)

34 How do you figure I'm "stopping opinions". What action have I taken that is preventing anybody from stating their opinion on any matter on this or any other site? How does trolling do that? I'd argue to the contrary, in fact. When you troll people, half the time you wind up with BETTER discussions than if you just left them alone. If it weren't for slashdot trolls, there'd NEVER be a decent discussion on that site. And when I say "bash heads", I mean like what I'm doing here. My coming in here and forcefully stating my opinions in no way prevents anybody from stating theirs. To the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it hasn't ENCOURAGED people to state their opinions. >>...then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. Uh. Yea. Sorry for finding death threats directed at me offensive. >>Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent. But, it will never happen because people are too busy radicalizing on either side of the fence.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:50 AM (gOPcw)

35 TxMxP: I think you're too pessimistic. There are a number of decent blogs out there where rational discourse and good ideas are being discussed. I won't recommend any because that is something that is determined by the reader. But I visit a few that are quite reasonable and logical and the comment sections are populated with some very smart people. I tend to lean a little right. (According to a couple people here recently though, I'm anywhere from a socialist to a bigot to a nazi and today I go called a hypocrite.) I'm not so unreasonable though and I can dish it out, but I can take it too. I only get worked up when someone keeps telling me I'm wrong on just about every thing I say and like anyone else here, I'm not ALWAYS wrong. I know that looks like one big run-on sentence and it probably is, but well, I just want to be clear.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 12:20 PM (nBOAO)

36 The problem here isn't liberal vs. conservative and who carries the biggest stick. It's the problem that the MSM caused and it's now returning with the likes of Google. The MSM squelched diversity on the airwaves. As a result the internet became a competiting way to express almost overnight. Well done too. Now here comes Google, using public infrstructure, much like the public airwaves the MSM uses, trying to impose its own vision of acceptable thought. Anyone that has read MyPetJawa for about 10 minutes would know its edgy, opinionated from the right but not hate. How many other sites are excluded from search engine results at Google because Google doesn't like them? Or how many sites are returned but so low in the hierarchy that nobody would scroll down to find it, just because Google may not like their editorial slant? Censorship sucks anyway the cuts are made. Today it's from the left, tomorrow it could be from the right.

Posted by: changehappens at May 23, 2006 03:00 PM (Bmhbf)

37 Isn't it wonderful I slipped through the cracks!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:01 PM (FCC6c)

38 Guys, why do you bother trying to speak truth to these lefturd trolls? They lie in every post, and if they ever utter the truth, it's by accident and they repent immediately and tell a lie twice as great to cover it up. They're liars and idiots, and you're not going to get anywhere wasting your time on them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:54 AM (0yYS2)

39 Blue dress patriot by his own admission above is a troll.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:00 PM (pzM6K)

40 Notice blue dress patriot now decides for us what is acceptable for public consumption. Thats exactly what the mad moolas in islam decide also. Don't know who this marxist prick is but he sure doesn't believe in freedom of expression for all. Only for his commie leaning leftard buddies. Change your dress leftard sissy.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:06 PM (pzM6K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Iran Religious Dress Code Update

Amir Taheri has posted a response to TehranÂ’s Denial of a new law there alleged to implement dress codes by religious affiliation. I will quote him here as well as add links to the prior posts below.

Amir Taheri via benadorassociates.com: PRESS RELEASE: AMIR TAHERI ADDRESSES QUERIES ABOUT DRESS CODE STORY
by Amir Taheri
Benador Associates
May 22, 2006
Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun. As far as my article is concerned I stand by it.
The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation.
Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation,including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 190 .
I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004. I do not know which of these ideas or any will be eventually adopted. We will know once the committee appointed to discuss them presents its report, perhaps in September.
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an
official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities.
I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.
Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Hat Tip: Allahpundit again, I guess a Blog God can be everywhere all the time.

Posted by: Howie at 08:43 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Howie, you kickass. I know you get this stuff from elsewhere, but you and the Jawa gang save us from having to go around looking for it and probably never finding it. Thanks a bunch.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 09:06 PM (8e/V4)

2 Abdul thinks this guy is a tool of the iranian intel. He spreads the misinformation thick, stupid yankee news media reprint ridiculous b-c without out doing journalism 101 fact check, then iranians slap world upside head with real info( a la AP press release of the actual law) and yankees look like day old turds hyperventaliting at their own shadows. Score iran.

Posted by: abdul at May 23, 2006 12:02 AM (T4Bto)

3 Son Of The Godfather thinks abdul is off his meds.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at May 23, 2006 02:47 AM (maXzk)

4 Your politicians constantly demonize the Iranians and your media prints propaganda from Exiles (the hoax about the badges for Jews), while the Saudis are your best friends. You are so addicted to oil! You sacrifice moral values and national security interests. We in Europe are not much better. Why don't have some outrage against the Saudi textbooks, who still preach hatred against Jews and Christians. Even after "major reforms"? The Wash Post has a major article about it. In first grade Saudi kids learn: "Every religion other than Islam is false." And in eighth grade: "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html

Posted by: David Gale at May 23, 2006 03:13 AM (ikt6y)

5 David Gale: "Why don't [you?] have some outrage against the Saudi textbooks, who still preach hatred against Jews and Christians. Even after "major reforms"?" Check the archives.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 04:25 AM (YudAC)

6 >>> We in Europe are not much better. Actually, that's not true David, Europe is far, far worse off than the United States. Yes the US' approach to Islamic fundamentalism is far from perfect, but while the government tries to look the other way, there's a massive movement within the population to keep the pressure on. Unlike Europe, which at all levels of government and within the population, with the exception of a few lonely voices who are often ridiculed and slandered, are determined to generously provide the ass, the lube and the cigarettes (or rather the hookah in this case) for afterwards.

Posted by: Graeme at May 23, 2006 05:19 AM (3enBg)

7 David, you're confusing the corrupt government with the people it's supposed to represent. Just because most of us here voted for Bush doesn't mean we necessarily liked him, but just because Kerry was an exponentially worse choice. The Republicans can only act stupid because the Democrats are ten times worse; they keep the bar set so high that the Republicans can do almost anything and get away with it, and the media lies about it all.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:31 AM (0yYS2)

8 (Howie blushing) Thanks JC, Twerent nothing. Be careful, I may actually develop an ego if you keep that up.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 07:50 AM (D3+20)

9 Don't mention it Howie. You Fightin' Keyboardists should be getting paid for this, but you aren't. So acknowledging your service is the least we could do.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:13 AM (8e/V4)

10 Yes I did not have a lot to add, but I can just by posting I can help move Allah's post up and get the google train out of the station. It's not me it's Rusty's fine machine that does it.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 08:48 AM (5ZSfM)

11 Why do we care what Iranians in that backward country wears.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:56 PM (BEvWK)

12 That greyrooster is because that's what we'll be wearing if we don't start lobbing a few big ones! Know what I mean?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:04 PM (FCC6c)

13 Well, I live in France and I'm not afraid of wearing suching clothes one day.....because this will never happen, that's all. Why the hell are you so convinced about some sort of "invasion" or "muslim" attack (different types of attack, physical, mental,..).? Is it because of the 11th Sep events? I may look a bit naive to you but please be informed that the people who did it aren't muslim. And please translate correctly: Allah is not a God in its own, it's the arabic translation of God. I'm always mad at stupid translation mentionning Allah being a separate entity, is it to explicitly mention a difference between Muslim's God and the Judeo-Chretien's one?! (sorry for my english guys, I don't know how to translate this last word).

Posted by: Moses at May 24, 2006 06:22 AM (SL48Z)

14 Moses: Ignorance is bliss. People like you are why France is overun with Muslims and is forced to change laws to suit their whims. Don't worry, run along back up the mountain where you belong, we'll take care of it!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 09:09 AM (FCC6c)

15 I have a few interesting facts I want to share. Iran's nutsack leader believes he will be the one to facillitate the arrival of the 12th Imam. The clothing thing is in preparation of this event. He wants the change over to be complete in 5 years, or just before he believes the 12th Imam will reveal himself to the world and herald in the New world wide caliphate. Add 5 to 2006 and you come up with the year 2011. So by 2011 he wants to be ready for this event. The Mayan calendar has predicted the end of the world to occur in the year 2012.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 12:11 PM (7teJ9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Google Afraid of Whiners

Seems to me the common thread to all this is that some person(s) gets upset. Then, rather than use their speech, they pull the good old 3rd grade trick, Â“IÂ’m going to tell!Â” So Google responds to those complaints becauseÂ… well, thatÂ’s what corporations do. Rather than risk (the money) taking a stand you always attempt to make the whiner happy or at least make him think you did.

American Thinker: Something frighteningly ominous has been happening on the Internet lately: Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals.

The overriding interest of the company is to get the whiner to STFU. All other concerns are secondary. IÂ’m not sure Google is leaning either way. The reason the right gets this treatment may be because some have a talent for/habit of running to mommy when they donÂ’t get their way. There just are not many of those folks on the right.

Hat Tip: Allahpundit via Hot Air.

Posted by: Howie at 04:18 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's why I no longer use Google. I use Yahoo for everything and frankly I get better hits.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 04:48 PM (8e/V4)

2 Damn, I could have used that advice, but instead I got stuck like a pathetic blood-sucking parasite, leeching onto the very first blog ( JawaReports ) that came into my Google sites! Like a good parasite I am doomed to remain, never seeking greener pastures until my present host is sucked dry, withers and expires ... life might have been so different ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:07 PM (FCC6c)

3 Larry, that's because Google will always direct you to rightwing sites if you're looking for 'racists', 'hate mongers', 'war criminals', etc.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 05:15 PM (8e/V4)

4 I think it was a search on " muslim " or " muhammed caricatures " which turned my life around and put it on the ill-fated fast track of full foaming frontal frothing blogging.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:36 PM (FCC6c)

5 I can't speak for Google, but I would certainly be unwilling to be a company giving a voice to sites that propgate comments regularly calling for all out Civil War, murder of anybody deemed to "liberal", and endless racism. If you don't think that sort of comment is orthogonal to your site, ax the posters who make them and let them go somewhere like Stormfront where they're welcome (maybe, since even Stormfront won't tolerate most calls for violence). If you think that the comments accurately reflect the spirit of the site, then deal with the fact that your views are extreme and will be relegated. Google is under no obligation to give you a voice, so if your voice is unwelcome by digital society - which it must be unless Google is making poor business decisions, which is not a conclusion borne out by the facts - deal with the fact that your painting yourself into a corner by hosting and encouraging extremist thinking. Seems to me that the only whiners here, then, are the ones complaining that they're being relegated to a minority status in a society where they ARE a minority status. You have every right to speak (though the extreme, violent rhetoric very likely is illegal in most cases), but you have no right to any private channel you want. As a random aside, the content filter on this site is atrocious and needs some major retooling. It just blocked my comment because it contained "h0st com" as part of "h0st comments".

Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 06:02 PM (ZNd6p)

6 TxMxP: The Jawa Report is carried as a news site by Google, but perhaps you might get some perspective by reading the comments at say, DailyKos or Democratic Underground.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 22, 2006 06:28 PM (RHG+K)

7 TxMxP, seems to me you'd rather be living in China, or Liberal lalaland. My preference is for freedom, and a search engine that doesn't make those decisions based on the ideology of its owners but rather on my search specifications as well as the popularity of the particular website.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 06:47 PM (8e/V4)

8 txmfp: You idiot this is the Jawa report. We report on the Jawas and what they are doing. If you don't like our reports move your butt to some liberal, crybaby site that we more suit your ideas. People seem to forget this is the JAWA REPORT. May I suggest your read jawas explained to the left of screen. I hate the muslim animals causing so much misery in this world. THIS MAKES ME A RACIST, BIGOT, ETC: Proud to be one.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 07:09 PM (pSK/I)

9 None the less Google only acted on complaints. And I'm not racist. I don't care if you are white, black, arab or orange. I don't care if you are Christian Jew or Muslim. What I care about is terrorism. My highly unfavorable negative opinion is due to their actions only. Stop terror and I go home. Peoples relationship whith their god is none of my business unless it leads them to try and kill me and my countymen. After that well, All is fair in love and war.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 07:34 PM (D3+20)

10 >>TxMxP: The Jawa Report is carried as a news site by Google, but perhaps you might get some perspective by reading the comments at say, DailyKos or Democratic Underground. KoS and kin have a number of truly absurd and idiotic posts, on the same level as LGF, Freep, etc. Rarely, however, do they devolve into discussions calling for homegrown genocide and terrorism. They seem content to keep their spittle-laced ranting to calling neocons "stupid". LGF, as an example of a hate site which Google has continually refused to carry, routinely houses discussions threatening indiscriminate violence within the mainland and calls for ethnic cleansing. Treating LGF "stories" as valid news would be of no practical difference from carrying anti-semetic Stormfront content as "news". Google is making a smart business decision by not treating such disgusting gibberish as "news". >>seems to me you'd rather be living in China, or Liberal lalaland. My preference is for freedom, and a search engine that doesn't make those decisions based on the ideology of its owners but rather on my search specifications as well as the popularity of the particular website. Google carries LGF and all the other "whining" sites in its search results. It does not carry them in its news section, because they are not news sites. In fact, the only problem with Google's news section is that it still carries far too much psuedo-news as it is. >>txmfp: You idiot this is the Jawa report. Thank you for taking the time to post such an intelligent retort. Excuse me for not reading past the first sentence, but I was afraid the rest of it might have something on the same general IQ level as "borderline retarded" and the sudden contrast could blind me. As a point of reference, THAT was an insult, your pedestrian nonsense was merely an embarassing display of testicular shriveling. In the future, if you're going to expend the energy pounding at your keyboard like that, do at least do everyone the service of making it entertaining, since you've apparently forfeited any attempt to make it meaningful.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 07:37 PM (ZNd6p)

11 What Rooster said. But with more hatred for muslims and libturds.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 07:40 PM (0yYS2)

12 lol! good one, IM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 07:56 PM (8e/V4)

13 Dear Mr. Temp. So do you work for a temp agency? Just trying to figure that out. Yes, welcome to the smokey pool room of the internet. #2 yahoo search for pedestrian nonsense http://forums.men.style.com/thread.jspa?messageID=86361 I think you missed your pick of sites there Temp man. The derogatory connotation of pedestrian derives from class discrimination in england. I'm correct on that right? Just so we all know that we lower classes can comprehend your subtle weak insult there.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 08:17 PM (D3+20)

14 Such is the red-brown-green alliance. This tactic isnÂ’t new, but has gained new life since MarKOS accused the right of having a Â“noise machine,Â” an organization dedicated to protesting out unflattering news. When youÂ’re convinced Â‘the other side is doing it,Â’ just about anything can then be justified in closing the gap. The part about them conspiring with Moveon for Internet regulation legislation is the most dangerous aspect for liberty. The code for Google News is open-source, so anyone can compete with little capital necessary, but Internet regulation, especially if it has a provision against "hate speech," could push anti-jihad rhetoric, or anything abhorrent to the red-brown-green alliance, deep into the shadows.

Posted by: Typewriter King at May 22, 2006 08:21 PM (qjJ88)

15 I yahoo it's good stuff. Google too. Yahoo brings it to you google you go after it. Googles tools are cool too if not exactly user friendly.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 08:23 PM (D3+20)

16 Little does that little shithead know. Anyway. A report on the 4 mexicans I hired yesterday. We had breakfast at started to work about 8:00. Showed mondo how to drive tractor and drive metal posts with front in loader. By 10:00 AM they ran me off saying they no longer needed me in the way. Had to go to Biloxi to pick up more field fence and t-posts. Returned at 1:30 PM to find all line posts and corner posts installed on west side of west pasture. Ready to pull field fence. They had the brains to copy the front fence exactly. Fence in perfectly straight for 1200 ft. Concreted posts will be ready tomorrow. Wife said she didn't think they stopped for lunch. They said they didn't want to stop because it would be hotter later. Knocked them off at 3:00. Gave them a ice chest full of Dos Equis and sodas. They went to the river for awhile and relaxed. I went out to check the new cows as some are calving. They had cleaned out the water troughs and were sweeping the barn on their own. I asked if they needed an advance on their wages. They replied they had plenty of money as they have been working here for 8 weeks. They are from Chihuahua. Where ever that is. Now I understand how these guys make it. You have to respect these guys. They smile all the time. Being normally anti immigration I am now rethinking the guest worker idea. Two weeks with these guys and I'll have my place back to pre Katrina. Without the trees.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 08:23 PM (pSK/I)

17 TxMxP: I don't understand why you bother to read and comment on this site if you don't approve of it. It's a free country! And so far, a free web! move on! (no pun intended) and find another site.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 22, 2006 08:32 PM (aH6Zf)

18 txmxp: If you check the archives you will find at least 10 exactly worked paragraphs like the one you wrote above. Do you liberal assholes have a certain book you read before turning your computer on? Same replys from different libturds. Bunch of friggin clones. Nothing ever new from them. Just one replaces the last with the same crap almost verbatim.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 08:35 PM (pSK/I)

19 "LGF, as an example of a hate site which Google has continually refused to carry, routinely houses discussions threatening indiscriminate violence within the mainland and calls for ethnic cleansing. Treating LGF "stories" as valid news would be of no practical difference from carrying anti-semetic Stormfront content as "news"." TxMxP: Are you freaking kidding? I assume you mean littlegreenfootballs. There certainly are hateful comments made, but I see a lot more comments about botany and homemade cookies. Are we reading the same site?

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 22, 2006 08:46 PM (ZB+tY)

20 rooster, that's the silver lining to the Mexico invasion. They are hard working, generally christian (not muslim), and morally conservative and anti-pudding, etc. If they assimilate they'll make fantastic citizens and taxpayers-- unless the Libtards get to them first and turn them into victims. In that case this country will go further into decline.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 08:48 PM (8e/V4)

21 TxMxP- 1. We're at war 2. We didn't attack them, they attacked us. 3. Hate is part of our instinct for self-preservation and as such enables us to stay alive. 4. The word for a culture that can't (or won't) use their hate to defend itself is "defeated" There's a season for all things, and it's the season of war. We'll live or die by our ability to hate. Here's a news flash for you. The hate you see here is ugly to be sure. Not so ugly though as having to bow to those who would bring about our end though. Or to lose your head for not bowing. Personally, I think that the left wingers would be the first to bow down, because they never had any steel to begin with. Just sophistry. Pity the liberal. They are truly empty.

Posted by: jamsler at May 22, 2006 09:10 PM (VqA/E)

22 I think the head whiner has a name. Al Gore Junior He owns 50 mil in stock in Google.

Posted by: RepJ at May 22, 2006 09:29 PM (pTcGU)

23 JC: "anti-pudding" lol! Followed by coffe through the nose.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 02:46 AM (YudAC)

24 That's my point Rooster; most Mexicans I've met, to about the 99th percentile, are the nicest, friendliest, most hard-working people you could ask for, and if the Mexican government wasn't so corrupt, I'd move there when I retire. Plus, real Mexican food is only rivalled by Indian or Lebanese in its deliciosity. Deliciosity is a word, isn't it? Well it is now.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:24 AM (0yYS2)

25 Seems that Googles news is filtering Jawa too. Jawa is in the news search, but this post is missing.

Posted by: Fred Fry at May 23, 2006 05:38 AM (JXdhy)

26 >>The derogatory connotation of pedestrian derives from class discrimination in england. I'm correct on that right? Just so we all know that we lower classes can comprehend your subtle weak insult there. Don't act like a buffoon and you won't be treated like one. I can tolerate a difference in intelligence since I wouldn't want the many people out there who are smarter than me to look down on me for god-given traits I can't control anymore than you would. What I refuse to tolerate is willful ignorance, which is what this site is made of. In other words, if you really are an idiot, I apologize for making a point of it. If, however, as I suspect, you are merely acting like an idiot, feel free to stop and I'll be happy to provide the appropriate level of respect. It takes a few moments to become tacitly familiar with most conversation topics in this day and age. I don't think it's that you're not equipped to do that, it's that you choose not to. >>TxMxP: I don't understand why you bother to read and comment on this site if you don't approve of it. It's a free country! Why shouldn't I? I have better things to do than sit around in an echo chamber with people who are just stroking my ego. It really doesn't mean much to have a position on something if all you're going to do is talk about it with people who will always agree with you. >>Here's a news flash for you. The hate you see here is ugly to be sure. Not so ugly though as having to bow to those who would bring about our end though. Or to lose your head for not bowing. If you think the best way to fight is out of blind rage, you must lose a lot of fights. The biggest mistake you could possibly make against a competent opponent, regardless of the battlefield, is to lose your head, do something rash, and wind up getting everybody killed. In fact, one of the things any competent teacher will teach you about a fight is not to be put off by apparently wild and random flailing. An experienced opponent will immediately recognize it, wait for you to wear out or open a hole, and knock your teeth right down your throat. If you didn't think your way to the solution, you don't have one, and if you execute your plan your only hope is that luck is on your side.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:29 AM (gOPcw)

27 Fred, Google does filter Jawa, that's why I switched to Yahoo. I prefer my search engines ideology free.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)

28 I'm thinking of starting a company. I want me to make the descisions strait up like my post. I want TxMxP to supply the bullshit at press conferences.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 09:12 AM (D3+20)

29 TxMxP- To have a hatred of the enemy is not the same as lashing out blindly (flailing). The hate that I refer to is the hard heart it takes to win a fight. I've never advocated genocide or indiscriminate killing, nor will I. I don't know how old you are or how much you have conversed with those who were alive during WW2, but it seems to me that they had the proper mind-set to win a war. And a big part of that is a hate so deeply instilled that for many it hasn't ceased from that day to this. In war we must lower ourselves nearly to the enemy's level or else they will prevail. Sooner or later I think, the islamic enemy's actions will incur the hatred of the American public. Only then will this war end. Oh yeah, TxMxP I've been in a few fights and still have my full set of teeth.

Posted by: jamsler at May 23, 2006 10:38 AM (ZVOFa)

30 >>In war we must lower ourselves nearly to the enemy's level or else they will prevail. I don't recall the U.S. setting up gas chambers to murder millions of innocent Japanese immigrants during WWII...

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:10 AM (gOPcw)

31 Google blows: "Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam Â– the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50323

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:39 AM (8e/V4)

32 Gas chambers?, yeah the H-bomb pretty much trumped the need for gas chambers. Remember Iwo Jima? Not much left to gas after that. Indeed the war will end when the American public is fed up and realizes it is in a serious tooth and nail fight for it's life. That's when the practically minded will outweigh the " goody-goody " mentality and the first round of nukes will begin to set things right.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 12:14 PM (FCC6c)

33 TxMxP- Nor do I. And I don't see any gas chambers today, either. Seems like the only ones committing mass murder are the islamists, the ones you seem to be inclined to defend.

Posted by: jamsler at May 23, 2006 02:47 PM (ZVOFa)

34 txmxp. The difference between an educated punk and a punk is very little. Punk.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:05 PM (BEvWK)

35 >>Seems like the only ones committing mass murder are the islamists, the ones you seem to be inclined to defend. I fail to see why I need to defend Muslims. Being a Muslim isn't inherently a bad thing. Of course, if you meant to conflate terrorists with Muslims, I wouldn't know. I don't conflate the two anymore than I conflate the KKK and Protestants. >>txmxp. The difference between an educated punk and a punk is very little. Punk. You know, Dirty Harry was a stupid movie. Clint Eastwood did far better elsewhere.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 07:02 PM (ZNd6p)

36 >>>Of course, if you meant to conflate terrorists with Muslims, I wouldn't know. I don't conflate the two anymore than I conflate the KKK and Protestants. Isn't it odd then how Liberals DO appear to equate muslims with terrorists when they say terrorism is the result of U.S. policies in Arab lands. The conclusion: that terrorists are acting on behalf of the legitimate interests of those Arab lands (and presumably its people). So who's really conflating terrorists with Muslims? Not conservatives. Liberalism is such a mess. It's amazing it can survive with so many internal contradictions. That's one of them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 09:03 AM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

25 Million + Veteran's Data Stolen.

Via Mike Hampton :

The Department of Veterans Affairs reported Monday that a laptop computer containing the names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of over 26,000,000 veterans was stolen from the home of an employee who had taken the data home without authorization.
In response, the VA is sending the following letter (PDF) to veterans whose names were on the list. It has also published a list of Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) about the data breach, as if they already know what questions will be frequently asked.

I hate laptops. You call a box of chicklets a workstation? One company IÂ’m familiar with can encrypt the whole PC for you. They are called Pointsec. IÂ’m sure there are more.

Posted by: Howie at 04:01 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Let's see here; a government employee, and therefore a member of the union, and therefore likely a raving libturd, unlawfully and for purposes unknown takes a list of millions of veterans' personal info, and it goes missing. Gee, I wonder if it's been sold to ID thieves or terrorists or such? Nah, a piece-of-shit liberal wouldn't do something like that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 04:11 PM (0yYS2)

2 It would be easy enough to fake a burglary. The thought crossed my mind as well, though at least on my own blog I tend to steer clear of speculation. In any case, if you're a veteran, now's a good time to request your free credit report and to call the credit reporting agencies and request a fraud alert put on your accounts. With this, if anybody tries to open a line of credit in your name, they contact you first before the application goes through.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 22, 2006 04:27 PM (vhWf1)

3 Get ready for your phone ringing off the hook. With the culture of corruption in full sway this lends more creedence to the argument against amnesty for illegal lawbreakers. To accept the illegals only further undermines the meaning of law and order. " Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil "

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:17 PM (FCC6c)

4 Gee, I hope someone finally got John Kerry's records.

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 05:20 PM (YudAC)

5 >>Let's see here; a government employee, and therefore a member of the union, and therefore likely a raving libturd, unlawfully and for purposes unknown takes a list of millions of veterans' personal info, and it goes missing. Gee, I wonder if it's been sold to ID thieves or terrorists or such? Nah, a piece-of-shit liberal wouldn't do something like that. Care to cite any evidence to back up any of that incoherent rambling? Or are you just making things up on the fly, as always?

Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 06:05 PM (ZNd6p)

6 Gee, IM, I'm a government employee and a union member. Care to call me a libturd? Please, oh please call me a libturd.

Posted by: Vinnie at May 22, 2006 06:29 PM (/qy9A)

7 hmmm, ... un-authorized domestic spying, followed by un-authorized phone record tapping, followed by Veteran's personal data stolen .... something fishy going on here ... Feel the crunch! Too late to impeach, just cast a wiser vote next time!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 06:51 PM (FCC6c)

8 Oh Vinnie, you work for the government and belong to a union? Oh Jeez, why not just join the CPUSA already? Seriously though, I did say likely. Besides, ever hear of many of our types doing crap like this? No. Criminality is a high indicator of libturd status. Here's an anecdote: I used to work for a contractor for Bell South, and once in the course of my work, I found O.J. Simpson's phone number, street address, and e-mail address. I hate O.J. Simpson with a burning passion and would happily watch him burn alive should the opportunity present itself. I could have made life hell for him. But I didn't. I wouldn't have given up his information for any amount of money, because that would have been unethical and illegal. Let a libturd get hold of Rush Limbaugh's home phone number or private e-mail address and see what they do with it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 07:40 PM (0yYS2)

9 Am I missing something here. What's the big deal? I've had a few so could be little slow to get why this is a big deal. The stupid government employee was probably going to sell the list to some telemarketer. Why is this so dangerous to veterans? Should I sleep with my pistol tonight? Shit, I allready do that.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 08:52 PM (pSK/I)

10 Rooster, Laptops have become a very polular smash and grab item, 90 percent of the time it's for the hardware but it's becomming popular among identity thieves as well. Just jerk the drive and slap it in another system as (not the boot) device and well it get's easy from there especially with windows.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 08:57 PM (D3+20)

11 Since I got my laptop a few years back, I hardly ever use a desktop. I can take the laptop to bed with me, it keeps me warm, and it's whirring sound lulls me to sleep. I hardly know how to sleep without it! I'm trying to write a program that alerts me when a new JAWA comment comes in. Then I don't have to keep scrolling endlessly and waking up repeatedly through the night seeking rebuttals to my comments. Once I pass that hurdle I will program it to give me a regular alert for any regular comment, and a high priority alert if it is a rebuttal to one of my posts! ( My Blogchiatrist says I need to get a life ) ( confessions of a blog addict )

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 12:08 AM (FCC6c)

12 What better way to demoralize the troops than for terrorists to get hold of the names and addresses of veterans and start murdering them and their families? Does anyone here honestly think the muslims haven't thought of this? All they do is think of ways to kill people, but that's okay, we can all go back to sleep now that we've told ourselves it was just a bad dream.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:18 AM (0yYS2)

13 >>What better way to demoralize the troops than for terrorists to get hold of the names and addresses of veterans and start murdering them and their families? Does anyone here honestly think the muslims haven't thought of this? All they do is think of ways to kill people, but that's okay, we can all go back to sleep now that we've told ourselves it was just a bad dream. Yes, because if they get into the country to kill people, it would clearly be much easier and more effective to kill people within a specific subset of society one at a time rather than create an enormous scene with a bomb or similarly destructive weapon, killing at random. Obviously, people would be more fearful for their safety if veterans only were being targetted than if massive attacks against random people were being staged. Feel free to start posting something that makes at least a tiny bit of sense any day now.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:34 AM (gOPcw)

14 Howie: I still don't see why this veterans info is so important. My service record is in Kansas with millions of others. I was under the impression it is public record. I have received mail from organizations requesting that I join on the basis of awards (ribbons/metals) I received during Vietnam. I have allways assumed they got the imformation from my service record. I even get a free license tag. I assume they check.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:23 PM (BEvWK)

15 TxMxP, you're a lefturd troll and just because you want to sling your crap like a monkey at the zoo doesn't mean I'm going to duck, because you're too stupid to hit anything. Your posts are only convincing to yourself and the other lefturd idiots that troll here, so don't bother.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:59 AM (0yYS2)

16 Duh ... greyroastduck. I don't think your social security number is public information. If I'm wrong I'll take back the " Duh ".

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 09:13 AM (FCC6c)

17 Last suck larry. Your social security # is you service #, your drivers license # is requested when you write a check. When you apply for credit. I guess a $7.00 per clerk would keep it secret. Friggin idiot.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:43 PM (8MCDk)

18 What! Are you driving greydickroost?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 09:40 PM (FCC6c)

19 What am I driving? You nuts? Let me see. a 2005 trailblazer, a 2005 Explorer, A 2004 Toyota Tundra, a 2004 towncar, a 2003 Jeep Liberty. 2 tractors, 1 honda 4 wheeler, three boats, two jet skis, a kubota lawn mower. I'm sure that has something to do with the conversation.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 09:52 PM (pzM6K)

20 You have far more toys in your sandbox ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 26, 2006 09:03 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ransom Paid for Iraq Hostages.

Why do the terrorists take hostages? Because sometimes it pays.

The Times: FRANCE, Italy and Germany sanctioned the payment of $45 million in deals to free nine hostages abducted in Iraq, according to documents seen by The Times.
All three governments have publicly denied paying ransom money. But according to the documents, held by security officials in Baghdad who have played a crucial role in hostage negotiations, sums from $2.5 million to $10 million per person have been paid over the past 21 months. Among those said to have received cash ransoms was the gang responsible for seizing British hostages including Kenneth Bigley, the murdered Liverpool engineer.

There is a lot more at the above link. IÂ’m glad these people are free. My concern is we have funded the enemy and only encouraged more kidnappings. The UAE Diplomatic hostage comes to mind. There is still no word on his release. Maybe the terrorists think they can get more and are holding out for a better deal. Given this, itÂ’s a reasonable assumption.

Hat Tip : Guy who getÂ’s pissed off too easy. more...

Posted by: Howie at 03:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Euro weenies have been paying off terrorists since the Barbary pirates. Then along came Thomas Jefferson, president of the new kickass country called America, and he wiped them all out rather than pay the dhimmi tax. Our first war on terror. Same thing happenning today. The Euros pay the dhimmi tax and we don't.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 04:47 PM (8e/V4)

2 More than likely the UAE Diplomat " hostage " is resting with his hookah comfortably on plush cushions while being entertained by belly-dancers and watching Al-queda training films.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:25 PM (FCC6c)

3 No Carlos maybe that was in some movie. If you look in Wikipedia you will find that Thomas Jefferson had to pay a ransom of 60,000 dollars at the conclusion of the First Barbary War 1805. (see aricle 2 of the treaty) in order to affect the release of some 300 American prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War The Second Barbary War 1815 was somewhat more successfull they paid the USA 10000 and agreed to stop enslaving our cirtizens. However after we left the failed to honor that treaty and it took the Anglo_Dutch and a 9 hour bombardment to settle things right. this is the link to the wikipedia Second Barbary Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

Posted by: john Ryan at May 22, 2006 09:53 PM (TcoRJ)

4 john, "Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Jefferson had advocated war against the Barbarys for years, but the peacenik president John Adams chose instead to pay the dhimmi tax. Not Jefferson's fault. When he became president he quickly ended the dhimmi tax and when GWOT on them. http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 10:21 PM (8e/V4)

5 john, but notice how you Libs always find yourself dissing your country no matter what the argument. I point out that our country's history is exceptional, you try to find a way to deny it. You're not even factual in your dissing! I guess if you're a Lib it just goes with the territory! No wonder so many people think you're all traitorous scum and want you hung from overpasses!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 10:28 PM (8e/V4)

6 I am just trying to set the historical record straight. At the end of the first Barbary Pirates War we did pay a ransom of 60000 dollars. Is that a fact ? It is in wikipedia. Carlos was a ransom of 60000 paid ? And when did we wipe them out ? Wasn't the major engagement done by the euro weenies ? the Anglo Dutch ? The ransom was paid durring the time Jefferson was president in 1805. Are these facts in dispute ? Also it was the federalists under Adams hardly a peacenik, that built up the navy, backed by New England shipbuilders and ship owners. here is more from wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson

Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:45 AM (FBW1e)

7 Also according to wikipedia the US continued to make payments until 1815 POlewas see the section titled Barbary Pirates and the US Navy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:58 AM (FBW1e)

8 >>>are these facts in dispute ? Yes, they kinda are. I am not aware that a ransom was paid while Jefferson was president. It would obviously be contrary to his well-known feelings about paying such ransoms. "On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war (hmmm, sound familiar?), they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Furthermore, the euroweenies did not wipe out the Barbarys. The extent of their engagements previous to America's efforts was the occassional bombing of Barbary ports, but never as part of a campaign to end their pillaging. Too much time and trouble, easier just to pay the dhimmi tax. They were weenies then, just as they are now. Nothing has changed. It took American resolve to get the Barbary's to start signing peace treaties. Nothing has changed apparently. If you want to know more, read: Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786712325/104-9077234-3113568?v=glance&n=283155

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:20 AM (8e/V4)

9 It seems that during the War of 1812 against the Brits, the dhimmi tax was paid to the Barbarys because we couldn't afford to send a fleet over there. But once that war ended with the Brits we once again went to war with the Barbarys, and it was then that we finished the job in 1815. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War The Euroweenies apparently continued to pay the dhimmi tax until 1830. lol!!!! "It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#Barbary_pirates_and_the_U.S._Navy

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:35 AM (8e/V4)

10 Not so. Terrorists take hostages because they are to cowardly to fight straight up.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:27 PM (BEvWK)

11 Allways the them kidnapping people for ramson was the reason the America sent my beloved Marine Corps to kick their asses. A great tradition still in use today.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:35 PM (BEvWK)

12 I can agree with marines kickine their asses as being great but not the kidnapping.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:15 PM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CAIR Upset at LGF

This time they point the ROP finger at LGF for comments made by those upset over statements made by Islamic Jihad after the murder of Daniel Wultz. He was an American victim of a terrorist attack by Islamic Jihad in Israel. CAIR conveniently left out what upset the commentersÂ…

Fontpagemag :Many of the blog comments offered prayers to the Wultz family. Others dealt with the terrorist groupsÂ’ reactions to WultzÂ’s injuries. In an interview with Aaron Klein from World Net Daily, Abu Ayman, a PIJ leader, said, Â“Our hero believed in Allah and died while fighting for Allah but your pig was killed in a restaurant in an area full of prostitution.Â” And Abu Nasser, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the other group responsible for the attack, stated, "This is a gift from Allah. We wish this young dog will go directly with no transit to hell.Â”

More fine Representative of the ROP chime in here.

Worldnetdaily: JERUSALEM Â– Daniel Wultz, a Florida teenager lying in a coma after being critically injured last week in a suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant, is the "best target combination we can dream of Â– American and Zionist," Abu Nasser, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the groups responsible for the deadly blast, told WorldNetDaily.
Abu Ayman, a leader of the Islamic Jihad, which also took responsibility for the April 17 bombing in which Wultz was injured, threatened all Americans and Jews worldwide and expressed regret Wultz is still alive.
"If we know there are Americans in a place we plan to attack, we will not cancel the operation. On the contrary this would be a sign from Allah that this is a more blessed operation. Killing Americans and Jews in one operation Â– it can be great."

Killing Americans and Jew can be great! Just like frosted Flakes! The westerners are justifiably outraged. So are we intolerant for making war and killing those who murder us and call us pigs. Of course the Islamic terrorists always blame it on being Â“oppressedÂ” or Â“mistreatedÂ” when in fact they are responsible for the state of their nations. But when did they ever work at making anything better? Never, they are lazy! They destroy and whine hoping someone will come in and fix their lands which they have ruined. Why? Because itÂ’s easy, Taking responsibility for their actions and building a future for themselves is just too much work. So their brilliant minds all seem to land on, Â“Lets blow shit upÂ”. The lazy cowards, how about you Mr. Abu Ayman, when will you martyr yourself? Or, being the coward that you are, will you leave that to some brainwashed teen?

Original Post a LGF here.

More here at LGF and Hyscience.

Posted by: Howie at 12:41 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

1 >>>>Taking responsibility for their actions and building a future for themselves is just too much work. So their brilliant minds all seem to land on, Â“Lets blow shit upÂ” Their dilemna is that Islam should have elevated their civilization above all others. Instead it is at the bottom of the heap. It does not speak well of Islam. So therefore the only explanation is that it is because of outside interference and colonialism. Yet their decline has been centuries in coming. When the Brits came to Arabia in the early 20th century, those lands were worse sewers than they are today. This proves that Islamic supremacy is a lie, and in the minds of muslims it must prove that the kuffar God is superior to their own. They would rather you stick an ice pick in their ear drums than admit to that. So they fall back on victimhood and hating all things non-muslim and blowing shit up in frustration rather than admit their societies are grossly dysfunctional and Islam is no help at all. That in a nutshell is why we are now fighting a war on terror.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 01:26 PM (8e/V4)

2 Muslim nations have never created anything of value. Oh, wait. They invented the zero? But they needed westerners to tell them what to do with it. Arab nations have never bred anything but poverty, violence, and fanaticism. It's ironic that this area of the world is called the "cradle of civilization".

Posted by: Richard at May 22, 2006 01:51 PM (U+YqD)

3 Religious Zealotry- regardless of affiliation- leads to no good end. Bring me a country headed by sceptics and atheists, so that government for the people and by the people can be just that. Jesus didn't come with an army to reign as king, and he said give to Cesar what is Cesar's... The GOP should remember those two points when they get in bed with Pat Robertson, Dobson, and the rest of the Kooky Religious Right. Intolerance masked as religiosity... Disgusting.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 01:54 PM (yFm36)

4 Richard, Actually, while Europe languished in the dark ages, the Muslim world had advanced medicine, universities, math, trade, and tolerance for other cultures... What you look at today might have more to do with the results of 500 years of repeated invasion by the European Christians and the 19th and 20th century results of Empire Building. I'm just saying get your facts straight...

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 01:58 PM (yFm36)

5 There they go again.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 01:59 PM (D3+20)

6 I don't disagree with your premise, Jesusland, but the state of the Muslim world today isn't a comment on their religion. The Muslim world is a remnant- A remainder of a once-powerful, educated, and civilized society. Rome was the home of barbarians and tribesman for a hundred generations after the last emperor fell, but nobody would say that Rome was nothing more than a tribal society of hunter-gatherers, right? The shape of the middle east today not-withstanding, the pinocle of higher learning, art and science once stood squarely in the Muslim world.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 02:09 PM (yFm36)

7 The left has trouble with the words "is" and "was" you know.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 02:18 PM (D3+20)

8 >>>I don't disagree with your premise, Jesusland, but the state of the Muslim world today isn't a comment on their religion. Actually that wasn't my point. My point was that to THEM it's a comment on their religion. To THEM their religion should have created an islamic superpower-- a Caliphate. But the Caliphate of old simply declined under Islam. Unlike christianity, Islam is a religion that's supposed to create a better life in the here and now, but their decline flies in the face of that. It's driving them crazy and they're blowing shit up in frustration and denial.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 02:20 PM (8e/V4)

9 "Their dilemna is that Islam should have elevated their civilization above all others. Instead it is at the bottom of the heap. It does not speak well of Islam." My point was the their civilization WAS raised above all others, but nothing lasts forever. The inhabitants of the middle-east are those same tribesman who hold on to a long dead and half-remembered society, instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the present, such as it is. Not unlike the Reaganites? (kidding, kidding...)

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 02:33 PM (yFm36)

10 There we go! Now that made sense. We can take a little ribbing. Salright.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 02:35 PM (D3+20)

11 Computer burp. Mea Culpa.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 02:35 PM (yFm36)

12 >>>My point was the their civilization WAS raised above all others, but nothing lasts forever. Or maybe their civilization was great for a time DESPITE islam and it slowly declined BECAUSE of islam. Regardless, they believe Islam should make them great and it's killing them that it hasn't. Christians don't have that problem. Their religion comforts them when they're in the dumps, it doesn't compel them to blame the world for putting them there.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 02:38 PM (8e/V4)

13 There is no conversation as subjective as a comparison of religion. Carlos, at best, your comment above is a sweeping generalization. Don't you think that when Christians were being fed to the lions, some of those people weren't asking "God, WTF???" Yeah, you could suppose that Islamic culture was great inspite of Islam, but you'd also have to apply that to Western Culture being great inspite of Christo-Judaic principles. It don't hold water. At some point, the weight and mass of a culture will cause it to topple. It's the way of the world.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 02:46 PM (yFm36)

14 happens, I can fix the double post if you like. Update: done. Hope it's right. People get upset about their speech. Right Larry?

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 02:46 PM (D3+20)

15 The weight and the mass of an uncompromising religion chained to a culture will cause it to topple. It's not the culture, it's the religion, and how it's being taught. Never mind the fact it was perverted by some evil people for their own causes. Christianity was poisened for a while, luckily that poison was burned out of it. Could you imagine what Christianity would be today if the likes of Torquemada were still around? It would be a mirrior image of what the Islamofacists are up to now.

Posted by: SPO at May 22, 2006 02:56 PM (OZn2O)

16 >>>Don't you think that when Christians were being fed to the lions, some of those people weren't asking "God, WTF???" Blue, Yes, of course christians say "WTF???" That is called a crisis of faith. It's as old as religion itself. But I am talking about doctrines that shape worldviews. Christianity is more of an individual thing and does not have doctrines that teach it will make a society great and promise the good times collectively. Some christians may believe that, but it's not a christian doctrine. On the contrary, it teaches that persecution and bad times will come BECAUSE of our faith, so be prepared for it. So when we are mocked and denigrated and persecuted, we expect it. After all, our Lord and Saviour came to be mocked and persecuted, while Mohammed came to be glorified. THAT'S WHY CHRISTIANS DON'T RIOT WHEN THEIR RELIGION IS MOCKED, while muslims do. Because our doctrines promote very different worldviews. To sum it up, Islam teaches that it will make a society great and that's why they have sharia. Thus their worldview is in sharp contrast with the reality surrounding them. Sharia doesn't do squat for them, so somebody external must be to blame.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 03:01 PM (8e/V4)

17 Blue patriot: Bullshit. Another way of looking at arab ability is that they had a 800 year head start and then couldn't keep up. As Jesusland says. They produce nothing of value to the civilized world. Twenty international patents in the last 50 years. Hewlet Packard averages 9 per day. They do nothing but copy the western world and are jealous of every thing we invent, produce and have. They know of their hatred and inferiority. Strange that others haven't figured it out. Islam and its followers are a cancer on this earth and should be removed the same as polio.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 03:01 PM (pSK/I)

18 I believe the state of the Muslim world today is a direct result of the gutter religion. All the rest is bullshit. Their wars, intolerance of other religions, cruelty, barbarity and backwardness in general was caused by religion not invasions by others. Rome was invaded repeatedly. Same as they invaded Germany, France and England. Did they turn out to be the backward assholes the muslim nations did? Invasions by the west caused this problem. BULLSHIT! The fucking turks invaded and rules Greece for 400 years. Have the Greeks become the animals muslims have? Muslims ruled much of Spain for hundreds of years. Do Spanish run around cutting people heads off? Most of middle east was ruled by other muslims (Turks) far longer than by western nations. Blue Patriot: Quit listening to that liberal bullshit. The vast majority of the suffering in Asia, Africa, India and the middle east is caused by Islam and the backward shits who practice it. Every son of a bitch who attacked on 9/11 was a fucking low life muslim pig. Everyone who applauded the death of 3000 innocents was a muslim pig. Every terrorist theatening civilized countries is a muslim pig. Blameing today's problems on the west is Stupid excuse making. If child molesting murderers were raised different maybe they wouldn't be like they are. Should we make excuses for them and blame it on western society. DIPSHIT:

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 03:33 PM (pSK/I)

19 I think what JC is trying to say is that many are suffering from a cognitive dissonance. But I believe it's not the Islamic rulers that suffer from that. They instill this hatred of all that is non-Muslim in their people, feeding them many half-truths and lies and no way to find out what is truth and what isn't. But when their eyes behold something different than what they're told or taught it causes that hiccup in the reasoning processes of some. They can't reconcile it. Frankly, it was a brilliant idea for a long time. Until the information age began to fully mature and jets could fly you around the world in hours. They had successfully solidified relations between the haves and the have-nots in the Muslim community by creating a common foe and declaring all Muslims superior to even the richest or most sublime jew or christian or hindu by simple virtue of their religion, Islam. That foe, they were taught, was unclean and wanted to destroy them for various fabricated reasons, when in fact the vast majority of people would rather trade goods and services with them. And by controlling who they spoke to or who they did business with through religious doctrine - forbidding it for fear of hell and damnation - it was a good run. But the gig is up. Now that the whole of Islam has run amok with infighting and fanatic sects and killing as many of each other as they do the infidel, there are a very few scrambling desperately to salvage a religion that has been left unattended and uncared for like a weed.

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 03:56 PM (YudAC)

20 Blue Patriot seems to me to be someone who doesn't want to be an idiot liberal, but has been indoctrinated to be, and his head is full of pseudo-history and islamic propaganda. Islam doesn't create anything; it only steals and destroys. The Arabs didn't invent the concept of zero, but rather got it from India, where they also got their numbers. They didn't invent medicine, but rather took advantage of the remains of Greek and Roman libraries from centuries past, where men like Galen left their legacies written on parchment and papyrus. Arabs don't invent, they don't contribute, they just take and kill and destroy. They should be exterminated like the subhuman vermin they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 04:19 PM (0yYS2)

21 FUCK CAIR!

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 22, 2006 04:21 PM (D2g/j)

22 Well IM they did translate, copy and preserve some of the works you speak of.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 04:31 PM (D3+20)

23 Well said IM: I'm tired of idiots assuming we haven't studied the past as much as they. Difference being some of us have the common sense to understand the real causes of this mess. It's called ISLAM. muslims are a backward, ignorant, silly, cruel bunch of retards because of their religion. Also they must be a stupid people not to understand that.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 04:36 PM (pSK/I)

24 Yes they did Howie, but that's still a pretty damn far cry from actually creating anything. Muslims are parasites on humanity, nothing more.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 05:49 PM (0yYS2)

25 That's right Howie. You sure do!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 06:01 PM (FCC6c)

26 " That foe, they were taught, was unclean and wanted to destroy them for various fabricated reasons, when in fact the vast majority of people would rather trade goods and services with them. " Hmmm ... sure sounds reminiscient of the fate of the American Indians.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 06:13 PM (FCC6c)

27 BP. I'm aware of muslim history. Ok, they did have a magnificent empire but that ended 500 years ago. I don't think we can really blame christians for the their current state of decay. It's Islam itself that has destroyed them. Islam is not compatable with the modern world. That seems pretty obvious.

Posted by: Richard at May 22, 2006 06:43 PM (7KF8r)

28 Shit! Back to the American Indian thing again. Poor fellows.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 07:22 PM (pSK/I)

29 Ah... Fuck you, Grey Rooster. What makes you think you know any more about this than anyone else? Besides the fact that your agrument is rascist at its core, It lacks a foundation in REALITY, DIPSHIT. Richard, All I'm saying is we're watching the last breaths of an old culture. And we're watching it from the view of a relatively young and blessed nation. It colors your perspective. Although calling Islam a gutter religion or blaming it for the world's ills is simplistic and ignorant. Wouldn't it be great if we could boil down the complexities of international global relations, and just figure out who to fucking bomb?

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 22, 2006 09:59 PM (4xYSu)

30 fall out, fortify and nuke any and all threats ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 12:19 AM (FCC6c)

31 Oh no Rooster, a lefturd troll called you a racist! You know that means he automatically wins, right? Definition of a racist: A conservative who's winning an argument against a liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 05:01 AM (0yYS2)

32 "Muslims are a parasite on humanity, nothing more."- IM Yeah, you really have no ground to stand on, IM, You inbred fuck. Take your "white power" chanting ignorance back to the 1930's where you belong. Fucking Closet nazis... you don't even have the balls to just come out and admit you're a racist. Dumb as rock.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 25, 2006 08:10 AM (yFm36)

33 Blue Balls, Have you ever tried getting laid? It might help you calm down. I.M. is just writting the truth about subjects the MSM is to afraid to show. Just look at all the ROP individuals who are in the news. It is crazy, and so are you. Fuck Off and Die Blue Balls!

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 25, 2006 07:28 PM (D2g/j)

34 Semper Fi. 2nd batt, 26th marines, Que Son.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 09:33 PM (pzM6K)

35 Sounds like blue dress patriot is the racist. Most leftards are. They hate white Americans. The reason. They are lonely little pricks. Friendless. Left out by normal people. Never invited out with the boys. Why because they are assholes. So they turn on their own government, their own people, their own institutions. Maybe that way they may make a friend. A sorry lot. Think back guys. A clone of many in the past. The main thing is that we keep up the fight and let the prick know no one of substance listens to his commie, liberal bullshit. Go fuck yourself blue dress faggot. I believe you are the kind that can do it.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 09:45 PM (pzM6K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cold Hard Cash

Or The Democratic Â“Culture of CorruptionÂ” Revealed. IÂ’ve been waiting to say that.

Washinton Post : Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a 14-month public corruption probe, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire, according to a search warrant affidavit released yesterday.
A few days later, on Aug. 3, 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers, the document said.

Line him up with the rest of the crooks. Like I said before, Politician often equals crook.

Hat Tip, Others: Just about everybody.

Posted by: Howie at 09:39 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The whole "culture of corruption" was to be the cornerstone of the Democrat election strategy for 08. Now they got bupkis. lol!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 09:48 AM (8e/V4)

2 Carlos why would anyone want to bribe someone who was a member of the minortiy party ? Maybe this just shows that you can bribe a democrat cheaper than a republican. If so then I am planning on voting democrat, it would save us all money and reduce the cost of doing business in Washington. The new democrat slogan will be "We are cheaper !"

Posted by: john Ryan at May 22, 2006 10:16 AM (TcoRJ)

3 High time for a major house-cleaning ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 10:40 AM (FCC6c)

4 You bet, I would not want to have the word incumbant next to my name in Nov. for either party. Things are pretty good when you look at it. But the mood isn't.

Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 10:53 AM (D3+20)

5 $90,000 in his freezer? Hey, check his mattress.

Posted by: Mike at May 22, 2006 11:13 AM (sdQkU)

6 Now that's what I call " cold hard cash " !

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 12:42 PM (FCC6c)

7 Sorry, I thought I was being clever and inventive with my last comment, much to my dismay I saw the title of this report even as my trigger finger was leaving the mouse after firing! Okay! I'll except the moonbat award of the week for that one!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 12:45 PM (FCC6c)

8 >>The whole "culture of corruption" was to be the cornerstone of the Democrat election strategy for 08. Now they got bupkis. In two years nobody is going to remember this guy's name. I'd wager that even the people in his district won't remember him. This relative non-event will not change the anti-corruption platform for '08 because not one person running for office would be dumb enough to try and leverage such a non-memorable thing to their advantage. And, if you think that's hypocritical, you're either young or extremely ignorant. What's more hypocritical is the fact that back in the early 90s the Dems were in exactly the same sleazy stew pot that the Republicans are in right now, and that in another dozen years or so the Republicans are going to be the ones running the "anti-corruption" campaigns against the Democrats again, just like they did a dozen years ago. The reason the republicans are in trouble in relation to corruption is quite simple: people with very big mouths like Tom DeLay engaged in highly suspect behavior and now, because they combined bluster and ethical fence-riding, they've become a very visible liability for their party. It's not that one group is necessarily composed of more corrupt people than the other, it's that the opportunity goes to the people in power, and that in this case the people who took that opportunity happened to do it in very flagrant, high-profile ways. They're not WORSE, they're more visible.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 01:02 PM (gOPcw)

9 I hear the over/under is 48 hours. If I had 90k in my freezer, I would put it all on the under. (Las Vegas book on how long it takes Jefferson to claim the racist FBI set him up).

Posted by: Brad at May 22, 2006 01:21 PM (3OPZt)

10 >>>In two years nobody is going to remember this guy's name. TxMxP, there is no such thing as a "culture of corruption", only corrupt politicians. But if the Dems run on anti-corruption in 2008, the name William J. Jefferson will become a household name. Trust me on this, the GOP isn't just going to sit idle. That issue is hereby dead for the Democrats.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 01:42 PM (8e/V4)

11 I think " flagrant and high-profile and more visible " pretty much defines a culture of corruption. Meaning that everyone is doing it, therefore there is no need to hide.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 01:52 PM (FCC6c)

12 This same guy was busted during Katrina for using national guardsmen and equipment to help get himself to his own house to grab some personal stuff. This was at the same time that 10s of thousands of people were looking for some leadership and were in grave danger. He's a real loser.

Posted by: Richard at May 22, 2006 01:54 PM (U+YqD)

13 >>Trust me on this, the GOP isn't just going to sit idle. That issue is hereby dead for the Democrats. I'll pretty much guarantee it's not. Politics is about popularity and making flashes in the pan right before the election. People like Cunningham are memorable for the sheer scope of the crime, and DeLay is memorable, even if he's acquitted, because of his big mouth prior to the indictment. Jefferson is a nobody outside his district. Without that focus, he's pretty much useless as a political tool. Ironically, with Richard's revelation, it seems to me he's probably one of the worst kinds of politicians. At least Cunningham and DeLay did work for their constituents. This guy, on the other hand, appears to have been there for little more than his own personal gain. It's ironic that he's probably so much worse for having focused on it, but that focus is exactly what will detach him in people's minds because he didn't do anything to make himself memorable. If there's one thing you can count on in an election, though, it's usually that the best man will only win if he got lucky. Rational arguments are not that effective in the modern world compared to mudslinging and cross-charging, unfortunately. They MIGHT be able to leverage it later this year to an extent, but even that I'd doubt. He's just not visible enough to make a good target. >>there is no such thing as a "culture of corruption" I would agree that it's not a material thing, but I would disagree that it's not a valid concept. During the early 90s the Democrats defined it fairly clearly through their bribes and pandering, and the Republicans have since refined it to a political art form by organizing K-Street into little more than a temple market for people looking to buy and peddle influence. While there probably isn't an inherent culture driving it, once the corrupt solidify to a certain extent through appointments and monetary connections, there is a cultural aspect of corruption to the social network that develops.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 02:13 PM (gOPcw)

14 Jefferson be inacent like O.J. De white mofuckers set him up. A jury of his pears goin find him be inacent like O.J. Dem thar peoples in Nawlins relect him jus lik de boss o de choclate city/

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 03:48 PM (pSK/I)

15 48 hours to claim the FBI set him up? Hmmm... it's hard to say, considering that the media will try hard to bury this as fast as possible, all except for the hated Fox, of course.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 04:22 PM (0yYS2)

16 These politicians, these elite self-aggrandizing, "I know what's good for you better than you do", ivory-tower intellectuals are far, far too powerful. And while the conservative base in this country is showing some honest-to-goodness anger at what their elected officials are doing, the Democrats are circling the wagons and propping up halos over each others heads. Just the whole immigration debate between them is enough to make one puke; rying to one-up each other on who's the most compassionate in the hopes they'll get their votes on down the road. No one seems to know that the amnesty of 1986 never ended. It was extended and expanded for 15 years and people can still apply for amnesty under that legislation even today. So just who do they think they're fooling with all this new legislation? What this is, is just another quick fix for the current bad Social Security system. There were 380,000 births in the US to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all births in the United States [from the Center for Immigration Studies]. What do you think it is now? They want these kids to shore up Social Security for the next few decades and at least to get through the retirement of the boomers. What happens when the explosion of illegal kids retire? Think the current politicians give a damn?

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 04:32 PM (YudAC)

17 Oyster, ten percent of Mexico is now living in the U.S., including 1 out of 7 of Mexico's workers.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 04:42 PM (8e/V4)

18 I know Carlos. And while we have politicians who think that making something easier or legal fixes that which is hard or illegal it will get worse. Mexico is our friend? Hardly. While we're making our laws more lax for them, they're passing new laws saying that if you want to move there, don't ever expect to be anything more than a second-class citizen. Fox is talking out both sides of his mouth.

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 04:56 PM (YudAC)

19 >>>While we're making our laws more lax for them, they're passing new laws saying that if you want to move there, don't ever expect to be anything more than a second-class citizen. Exactly. The Mexicans are full of shit. Trying to bully us or guilt us into doing what they themselves wouldn't dream of doing: Mexico bars non-natives from jobs http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_limiting_immigrants&printer%3D1 But guess what, we're "racists" and "xenophobes" just because we don't accept being invaded and colonized by a foreign country. And the amazing Leftards play along under the impression it makes them magnanimous when in fact it just makes them anti-American suckers, and even the craven business interests are starting to sound like Liberals if they can see dollar signs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 05:23 PM (8e/V4)

20 He doesn't want a job, he wants a position. Maybe that $100,000.00 is the lawyer fund for the two moongod worshippers that jumbed on the Florida school bus today. Just saying.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 22, 2006 07:53 PM (D2g/j)

21 What amazes me it that this seems to be news to some. Willie Jefferson has been a crook for some time. This is small potatoes. The last bride he took was $400,000 from some Louisville people. They pleaded guilty. He says everyone is after him because he is black. Blacks in La say he shouldn't have to resigh because white have been taking brides for years. I'll not argue the fact of corruption in La. But the Sambos need a better excuse.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 09:07 PM (pSK/I)

22 Thats odd, didnt I read a post here talking about America's centuries of jurisprudence and innocent until proven guilty? Oh I forgot, that is only for situations when US marines shoot children in the head.

Posted by: Sonic at May 22, 2006 10:03 PM (Gsn6c)

23 >>>>Thats odd, didnt I read a post here talking about America's centuries of jurisprudence and innocent until proven guilty? Show me a dated comment where you make the same argument defending Tom Delay. Otherwise STFU.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 10:33 PM (8e/V4)

24 Sonic, in his haste to cry hypocrisy! has shown his own hypocrisy in asserting guilt in another case where guilt has yet to be determined.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 02:25 AM (YudAC)

25 Yeah, becuase GOP voters never jump to conclusion before a trial is concluded... Swiftboaters, Clinton's running drugs and murdering people, etc. etc. Gimme a Fucking Break. You ARE a hypocrite, Carlos and Oyster! Major difference between the Dems and Jefferson and GOP and Delay. Jefferson is getting kicked out, and Delay was ralleyed behind, had his defense funded by his party, and had the rules rewritten to save his post as the head of the party. Yeah, that's not hypocrisy... that's pure stupidity.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 08:04 AM (yFm36)

26 >>>You ARE a hypocrite, Carlos and Oyster! I fail to see where I'm a "hypocrite" just because I pointed out someone else's obvious hypocrisy. >>>Swiftboaters, Clinton's running drugs and murdering people, etc. etc. lol! We were supposed to wait for a trial by jury before concluding anything about John Kerry's fraudulent Viet Nam claims? Don't be so silly. He wasn't being accused of a crime, only of being a liar. As far as Clinton "running drugs and murdering people", I'm skeptical. But I'm surprised you didn't mention all the women who came forward to claim he raped them. Wasn't it the Liberal feminists who insist that women don't lie about rape? Oh, except when they accuse Democrats! lol! In that case women always lie about rape! William Jefferson was busted ON TAPE, so the Dems would be stupid not to distance themselves. Tom Delay has yet to be found guilty of anything. He's the victim of a Democrat smear campaign, nothing more.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:31 AM (8e/V4)

27 Sooo... when Kerry holds up official government documentation of his service awards, that's fraud, but when Bush holds up pay stubs that don't show him being paid for large gaps in time, that's proof that he did his duty to the country? Kind of like how when Bush skips his physical and gets his flight status revoked that makes him an American hero, and when Kerry engages in gun battles during the Vietnam war (which most of the people who were actually there attest to), that makes him a yellow coward. Alice, I think we're through the Looking Glass here.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:53 AM (gOPcw)

28 TxMxP, see, that was a great post where you address the subtance of the issue without feeling the need to personally harrass/attack your opponent. That's what i'm talkin bout!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:03 AM (8e/V4)

29 Bush is a reckless moron who despises ordinary Americans. JC you are full of it! Kettle calling the pot black!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:24 AM (FCC6c)

30 >>>Bush is a reckless moron who despises ordinary Americans. You mean not just "black people", he hates ALL Americans now? Gee, you make such a cogent point! lol! bushitler hatred is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:32 AM (8e/V4)

31 No JC, I didn't say ALL Americans. I said ordinary Americans, including blacks, poor, middle class. The only peoples Bush loves more than his big business cohorts and his Saudi buddies are the Iraqis. Now gimper on back to your sandbox ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:55 AM (FCC6c)

32 Lost his grasp, the only people who despise "ordinary Americans" are you Libs. Because it's these ordinary Americans love Jaaysus and who elect the Rethuglikkkans and who hate gays and librruuuls. That's why you resort to the courts and despise democracy. Because "ordinary people" don't buy into your Leftwing social engineering lunacy. So when you accuse "Bush" of hating "ordinary Americans" you are looking at yourself in the mirror. It's called projection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 10:12 AM (8e/V4)

33 Carlos, Now, you're just being retarded. You shit on the military by saying that their records lie about a decorated war vet, Kerry, who came back, spoke his mind, and then served his country for 30 years as a prosecutor and legislator while Dub'ya was downing lines and driving drunk to baseball games... You're a wingnut, dude. You have no credibility. You hate Liberals and you swallow whatever spin backs that hate up. Get some therapy- you're pathetic. "The only people who hate Americans are Libs"... So, half the country hates... themselves. Good logic there, Einstein. Maybe you, as a true blue American HEE-ROW could tell us how it is that Hating Gays and Democrats and the COURTS (You fucking facist) are American values? You're a mess, and you should just shut your mouth now before you do any more damage to your reputation. Christ, some people...

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 12:57 PM (yFm36)

34 OMFG... Old Grey Cock, did you really use the term "Sambo" to refer to black people? How do you see the keyboard with that white hood on, you K-K-Kracker? Jesus, that was some in-your-face inbred racism, right there. Wow.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 01:01 PM (yFm36)

35 >>How do you see the keyboard with that white hood on, you K-K-Kracker? Er. KKK members are pretty dumb, but they're still usually smart enough to cut eyeholes in their hoods. Plus most people don't need to look at the keyboard to type...

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 01:53 PM (gOPcw)

36 >>>You shit on the military by saying that their records lie about a decorated war vet, Don't you Leftards WISH I would shut my mouth. A conservative minority is your WORST nightmare. Without all the little victim brown people you Libs seek to create you'd be dead in the water politically. Liberalism would meet it complete oblivion. You need the little victim brownies who can't fend for themselves but for the "charity" of guilty white Libs! Lying sacks of shit like John Kerry simply pulled a fast one on the military. If shitting on our military is what really bothers you then you wouldn't be a Liberal and such a huge fan of Cindy Sheeehan and and Michael Moore. Obviously your "shitting on our military" comment is just a Leftard tactic expedient for the moment. Later you'll revert back to your military loathing ways. Enough said about that. I don't hate all Liberals, given half of my family are Libs (not that hating Libs has any bearing on my credibility). It's Liberalism and Leftardism I hate because of the mind jobs it's played on the people I love. But I do despise the mindless Chimpy Mcbushitler hating variety of Libs as well as the "controlled demolition"/"terrorists are people too" variety of Libs. But I'm in good company because most people (even a few Libs) hate them. As far as "half the country" being Libs, just because people might vote Democrat that's supposed to mean they're Liberal? hahaha! You can keep dreaming. I guess that's what you folks do best in the "reality-based community". Last poll as I saw only about 15% of people referred to themselves as Liberal, while almost 30% reported themselves as conservative. So it's not my "logic" that is at issue, it's your ignorance.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 02:02 PM (8e/V4)

37 Damn Carlos: Tell it like it is.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 06:07 PM (BEvWK)

38 Blue Patriot: Everyone on this blog knows I am a racist and member of the Great and Glorious Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. Gee, calling me a racist and kkk'r really hurt. Friggin Idiot. RACISTS ARE NOT BORN, THEY ARE MADE. If you live near the Chocolate City they are made in a hurry. But you continue to kiss their asses. I'm taking a different approach. One that a cowardly little weasel like yourself wouldn't understand.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:59 PM (8MCDk)

39 Rooster, You're comfortable with your own inability to think. That's fine. Racism is born of the frustration a person like yourself to figure out why he is in the situation he's in, and your little brain latches on to the easiest target. Brown people. It makes you feel better to assume that you're better because of the tinge of your skin. But, we all know that that is just plain stupid. You're right- racists ARE made. By ignorance, neglect, and fear. I don't think this very often, but you might be a lost cause. I hope you've been fixed. Cowardly weasle... Like someone who wears a hood and has to carry an axe handle to make himself feel like a big man? Fuck you, Rooster. You're a relic, an ugly reminder of what's wrong with this nation.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 25, 2006 08:24 AM (yFm36)

40 TxPxM, OK, first of all, I was refering to Old Grey Rooster, and I think you're stretching to state that he types without looking at the keyboard. I mean, come on. Really...

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 25, 2006 08:26 AM (yFm36)

41 Carlos, Do you have a link for that "15% are Libs" declaration, or are you just trying to pull one over? Don't be offended if I don't take your word for it. Besides, nobody is as good as the GOP at playing word games. Yeah, "Liberal" is a dirty word. Progressive, Democrat, anti-republican, etc. they all work, and you know that the GOP is going to get burried this fall, with good reason. Oh, did you hear that Dennis Hastert is now under investigation by the FBI for the Abramoff scandal? I bet you 29%ers will still vote for-em all, though. What choice do you have? Democrats might outlaw ignorant fucks like Rooster, and then you'd be all alone.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 25, 2006 08:31 AM (yFm36)

42 Blue dress patriot: Kiss their asses if it makes you feel safer. What's wrong with this country is somewhere along the line it changed from what it was to what it is now. Namely, it allows cowardly little pricks like yourself to open their ass kissing mouths. Most who feel the way you do are either one or being fucked by one. Which are you? Don't know how brown people got into the conversation. Another cowardly way of seeking security by kissing up to someone who has nothing to do with the subject. Can't think? I've done more, achieved more, seen more, have more, experienced more than a sissified little kiss ass punk like you could or will ever do. You're nothing but bullshit without nuts. You know it. I know it. Anyone who has ever spent much time on this blog knows it. Now put your dress on and shut up.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 09:26 PM (pzM6K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Taliban Suffering Heavy Losses.

You knew the Taliban would try to make some noise this spring. Despite the Â“massiveÂ” (cough) offensiveÂ” the only thing they have accomplished so far is getting killed.

Yahoo News: KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - U.S.-led coalition aircraft killed up to 80 suspected Taliban militants in a night airstrike in southern
Afghanistan, the coalition said Monday. The local governor said 16 civilians also died.
A coalition statement said it had confirmed 20 Taliban killed in the attack on a suspected Taliban stronghold in the village of Azizi in Kandahar province late Sunday and early Monday, while there were "an unconfirmed 60 additional Taliban casualties."
Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid said he believed 60 militants were killed, as well as the civilians.

Complaints about civilian casualties were strong. However NPR reported that one man admitted that Taliban fighters were using his rooftop (they did not post a link because that was positive news I guess). My advice to any civilians is; when the Taliban show up, get the heck out or run them off. If you support them and feed them, then make your will and stand where you are. Remember a key part of the terrorist strategy is to claim mistreatment at every turn. This is to distract from their use of terror, beheadings, hiding behind civilians, posing as civilians, targeting civilians, you name the war crime they do it openly and somehow escape the fearsome MSM.

Posted by: Howie at 09:30 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But according to the twisted reasoning of the Left this just proves we're losing the war because if we were actually winning it we wouldn't have need to kill any Taliban.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 09:57 AM (8e/V4)

2 Good point Carlos! I say as long as civilians are dieing, why not just nuke 'em and be done with it? Mission accomplished!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 10:44 AM (FCC6c)

3 Lost his grasp, there's never been a war in the history of mankind where civilians haven't died-- even those wars Liberals approve of, gasp!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 11:29 AM (8e/V4)

4 Kind of an idea which is outdated, that of civilians being somehow exempt from war, when it is behavior of civilians that causes war. In a long bygone era, rules of war were tidy and polite and well-mannered, came from the British. Now it's an all-out fight and much of these clean fighting ethics from a bygone era have been dropped, at least by the enemy. That is why it is time to drop the pretenses, pick up the nuke and lob it towards mecca!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 12:55 PM (FCC6c)

5 We musta been using those "smart bombs" The ones that kill only insurgents but are smart and only wound civillians. The spring offensive also coincidentally takes place after the opium harvest. That is something that both sides agree is worth fighting for control over. Especially since only a very small amount will reach the USA. So where does it all go ? Mostly it goes to Pakistan and to Iran. So it seems that we are in a stand-off here: we are addicted to oil BUT we are in control of the drug that Iran is addicted to. Here is a link about the afghan opium http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/405/kabul2.shtml

Posted by: john Ryan at May 22, 2006 03:31 PM (TcoRJ)

6 john, smart bombs hurt civilians because terrorists hide among civilians hoping we won't try to kill them because of all the bad press collateral casualties will generate among the Leftard community. Thus it can be said that in the GWOT terrorists are our enemy abroad and Leftards are the enemy at home. I regret collateral casualties, but I don't apologize for them-- that's war, so Leftards can shove it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 03:41 PM (8e/V4)

7 Innocent civilans. Must be the ones supporting, feeding, clothing and hiding weapons for the non innocents. Was anyone killed on 9/11 an innocent civilan?

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 04:01 PM (pSK/I)

8 No, Rooster, they were all "little Eichmanns", according to the lefturds. Liberals and muslims are scum and should all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 05:50 PM (0yYS2)

9 I think it is shameful to scoff at a loss of life; i do not support terrorist organisations in any way, but the way that this post seems to mock them and treat the "up to 80" deaths this lightly is terrible. Even hardened combat soldiers do not show this contempt.

Posted by: Cole at May 29, 2006 09:08 AM (Se2NL)

10 I think it is shameful to scoff at a loss of life; i do not support terrorist organisations in any way, but the way that this post seems to mock them and treat the "up to 80" deaths this lightly is terrible. Even hardened combat soldiers do not show this contempt, and having been to countries with conscription, and spoken to locals there, I know this.

Posted by: Cole at May 29, 2006 09:10 AM (Se2NL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Conventional Muslim Thought on Raping Prisoners

In a question and answer column in the Arab News, the subject of having sex with prisoners of war is discussed. One reader relates that elderly Muslim men have spoken enthusiastically of sex with prisoners of war. Here's an excerpt of the scholarly answer.

The reader raises the possibility of reciprocal treatment, and asks how would Muslims react to American soldiers practicing this ghastly crime in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, American soldiers have been practicing terrible atrocities in both countries, as well as at Guantanamo and in many other countries, while the American president refused to endorse the creation of an international court to try those who are accused of committing war crimes. His reason is that under the treaty, American soldiers might have to face such trials.
He wants those guilty of war atrocities to remain immune. The photos that were published about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq show more than rape.

It appears that the conventional thinking among Muslims is that Americans are regularly having sex with prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and committing "other atrocities," whatever that means. However, thanks to the mainstream media, I have repeatedly seen photos of the exceedingly dumb and irresponsible practices employed at Abu Ghraib, including the use of dogs, mock executions, and humiliation but I don't recall any evidence of sex with prisoners nor "other atrocities."

I also recall that the military has investigated the incidents and prosecuted offenders. To my knowledge, no one has been granted immunity. With regard to "other atrocities," I know of no instances of eyes being gouged out, hands being lopped off, nor beheadings.

Nonetheless, the generally-accepted beliefs of the followers of the religion of peace are considerably distorted from what the actual evidence has shown regarding Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And, the MSM should get most of the credit for fostering the misconceptions. After all, the MSM have Muslims believing that a Koran can be flushed down the toilet. My experience has been that a large wad of toilet paper has trouble being flushed. Of course, I've never seen a magic toilet.

In a nutshell, not only have the MSM been able to get Muslims to believe in magic toilets, they have also enabled them to adopt the erroneous belief that the American military regularly rapes prisoners of war.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:06 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

1 OR... perhaps they, like us, are a scattered collection of indevidual factions that do not possess any unified ideals, principles or even... religion. Perhaps all these big bad muslems have very little in common with all the other 15 man muslem factions that dot the countryside. Well... I would suspect they don't like being bombed. I guess that is a unifying factor wouldn't you say? You know come to think of it, it really doesn't matter if you are baptist or penycostal or mormon or protestant- Us Americans don't like being bombed either. You know what, I think if a bunch of foreign occupiers came over and WOOPS accidently killed off my family... yep I wouldn't mind raping them so long as I could be guarenteed that they would not enjoy it.

Posted by: Calist at May 22, 2006 08:27 AM (dybt/)

2 Calist: you wrote "penycostal" - I think you must mean "Pennycoastal" - that Malibu religious cult known to collect pennies...among other things?

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 22, 2006 08:39 AM (aH6Zf)

3 While I know of no prison rape allegations against our troops in this conflict that have withstood scrutiny, and while eye-gouging and beheading are not even rumored, it should be made clear that Abu was more than the conduct shown in the photos. Objects were inserted into the anuses of prisoners to humiliate them. Prisoners were forced to be naked in front of women, and stacked on top of each other, naked, to play off of Muslim homophobia. And people were killed. One guy was beaten (not at abu, at another camp in Iraq) with a metal bat. He later died. Another guy, in Afghanistan, was being interrogated, and a young CIA guy said, hey, tie him up, leave him outside, he'll talk in the morning. This was Afghanistan in winter. The guy was dead in the morning. No punishment, although the facts are not in doubt. I'd still much rather be captured by our guys than by the jihadis. We have behaved better than they have, by a vast factor. And the actions of a few cannot alter the nobility of the actions of the many. Our troops are doing a difficult job, and most of them are doing it in a fashion that meets or exceeds the high tradition of our military. But let us never forget the memos from the white house and justice and dod that allowed these actions to take place. Someday, we'll stop blaming the little guys, the corporals and sarges, and start going after those truly responsible.

Posted by: jd at May 22, 2006 08:59 AM (GZdxw)

4 "You know what, I think if a bunch of foreign occupiers came over and WOOPS accidently killed off my family... yep I wouldn't mind raping them so long as I could be guarenteed that they would not enjoy it. " But that's not the question. The question is whether Islam condones these things. Since the rule of thumb is always to defer to the Koran, which is left open to such wide interpretation, one can further one's personal agenda and always find justification there. There are more instances of Muhammed telling his followers they can take slaves and "wives" of those they defeat than one can count. And nearly as many instances contradicting it.

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 09:10 AM (QQzPp)

5 Not CAN take slaves, Oyster, but ARE taking slaves. There are slaves in Africa under Muslim control in Sudan and perhaps other countries, and now we hear from The Times of London that Christian children are being kidnapped and sold into slavery in Pakistan. Thanks Islam for a return to the Dark Ages, and thanks also to your liberal appologists such as jd and Calist, although I think this Calist is possibly a dirty jihadist who supports the Dark Ages mentality of Islam. If you are something other than that, Calist, then I am wrong about that, but I stand by my other statements.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 22, 2006 09:27 AM (rUyw4)

6 I apologized for Islamic extremism? I loathe it with every fiber of my being. I just don't think that their evil justifies our own violations of our constitution. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: jd at May 22, 2006 09:50 AM (GZdxw)

7 Joe it is not a return to the Dark Ages...... much of the culture in muslim lands never left it. As for the difference in what the koran says from what the old testament says I don't see a dimes worth of difference. That old testament was HARSH ! Stoning, forced circumscion, killing all the women and children, polygamy, these are all in both books. IP MSM is not to blame. I have not seen what the suscription rates for the New YORK TIMES are in Afghanistan but I expect quite low. What happened in Abu Gharib was known in Iraq before it was known here.

Posted by: john Ryan at May 22, 2006 10:02 AM (TcoRJ)

8 Catlitter sez: " yep I wouldn't mind raping them so long as I could be guarenteed that they would not enjoy it.

" I think that is a given, Catlitter

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 10:57 AM (FCC6c)

9 It's not whether there is any difference between the Old Testament and the Koran. It's whether it is used as justification for any action in this modern day and age. If you'd read what I said, rather than engaging in equivalencies, you would understand that.

Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2006 12:25 PM (QQzPp)

10 God became completely fed up with man, went into retirement and sent Jesus Christ to finish the job of salvation. Old Testament ( Holy Q'auran ) is obsolete. New Testament is in!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 01:03 PM (FCC6c)

11 Joey, have you ever been in a, in a Turkish prison?

Posted by: Capt Oveur at May 22, 2006 01:33 PM (3OPZt)

12 In a nutshell, not only have the MSM been able to get Muslims to believe in magic toilets... To muslims, a toilet must be magic, because they can't see through the hole in the floor, so a little demon must come and take the little mini-muslim away. These people want to rule the world but they still shit through a hole in the floor and wipe their asses with their hands. ...they have also enabled them to adopt the erroneous belief that the American military regularly rapes prisoners of war. It's called projection, because it's what they would do. Muslims are plague-rats and should be exterminated like the verminous scum they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 04:29 PM (0yYS2)

13 abdul gives fatwa: yes you may bang captured prisoners as long as they are pretty, no banging fatties under any circumstances. What if they are dudes? If you don't tell my son , i won't ask. Condom?, i don't understand, it doesn't matter where you bang them , a tent a condominium, it's all good.

Posted by: abdul at May 23, 2006 12:09 AM (T4Bto)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

260kb generated in CPU 0.1081, elapsed 0.2308 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.1926 seconds, 636 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 119411
Files: 1017
Bytes: 1690.0M
CPU Time: 115:35
Queries: 11787189

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

May 23, 2006

May 22, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds