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

January 23, 2006

The New Know-Nothings

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters exposes the antics of Leftist virtual bookburners afflicting Amazon.com. Conservative titles have been systematically targeted for "egraffiti" including phony cover pictures and scurrilous "reviews". Captain Ed sums it up in his own inimitable fashion:

That's not the actions of people who have confidence in themselves. Those are the actions of a fearful, small-minded, vulgar group of Neanderthals who have suddenly seen Homo sapiens and realized that their days are numbered. These mouthbreathers cannot offer any new ideas, so instead of trying to compete with conservatives, they're busy with the electronic equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and shouting, "LA-LA-LA-LA, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU!!" as loudly as possible.

Michelle Malkin is on the case, as well.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 03:37 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Give it time - we will soon here of conservative books and publications being defaced, destroyed and supressed at your local Barnes & Noble and Mall book stores. They are losing - and they are losing it. Stunts like these may turn them on for a few moments - but backfiring is inevitable - and I'm loving it.

Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 03:53 PM (3aakz)

2 I wish I could at least feign surprise, but I am genuinely amused.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 03:56 PM (0yYS2)

3 I love a wordsmith. My hat is off to you for this succinct, blistering traducement of 'mouthbreathers'. "....who have suddenly seen Homo sapiens and realized their days are numbered." Bravo. Your sentiments are right on, and your words hit the bullseye.

Posted by: Phoenix at January 23, 2006 04:13 PM (ksj+Z)

4 The liberals just never waste an opportunity to make themselves look stupid. They so generously make it easy for the rest of us.

Posted by: Graeme at January 23, 2006 04:20 PM (j0Fnw)

5 Pitiful and laughable describe these little people. They also do such infantile things as steal political signs and key automobiles that have "Dubya" stickers on them. I'm beginning to agree with some who say "liberalism is a mental disorder".

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 04:57 PM (rUyw4)

6 These are the "tolerant" and "open-minded" ones who care about "freedom of speech"...... except when you don't agree with them. The evidence does indeed continue to mount-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 23, 2006 05:26 PM (paKD6)

7 And these people are worried about being wiretapped? Why would we need wiretapping for them when all one has to do is stand on any street corner with a bag of popcorn and take in the show? Only an insecure, small-minded twat would treat a book review forum as their own political blog.

Posted by: Oyster at January 23, 2006 05:40 PM (YudAC)

8 Oh I've got one you guys will love. I had a client go into a furious rage at me, (over the phone, of course, they never seem to have the nerve to do these things face to face), because I had told someone I wasn't a democrat when they asked, and he heard about it. I wasn't proselytizing, I just said "No, I'm not a Democrat.", and left it at that, but he got all stupid about it. Go figure. These people are sick in the head and should all be lock up or shot or sent to a leper colony or something.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 09:47 PM (0yYS2)

9 These NAZIS want to burn all conservative books what a bunch of rotten rats take them all out and hang them all

Posted by: sandpiper at January 24, 2006 11:00 AM (U+eLg)

10 That's the spirit Sandpiper! You're coming around nicely.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 11:23 AM (0yYS2)

11 Is this type of book review/politically blogging on Amazon only done by the left ? If so I guess that we should all pat ourselves on the back for being above that sort of behavior.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 24, 2006 12:38 PM (TcoRJ)

12 When I went over to Bluto's site to check I FOUND THAT AMAZON is one of his sponsors. This is like seeing the quote from the gay socialist at the top of this page !

Posted by: john Ryan at January 24, 2006 02:24 PM (TcoRJ)

13 John Amazon is everybody's sponsor! - time for you to get out of that cocoon!

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 04:40 PM (3aakz)

14 John, Amazon is one of the victims in this. They are not the ones vandalizing their own ads.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 24, 2006 05:01 PM (RHG+K)

15 eoioeux oxxirb

Posted by: Miles at March 02, 2006 11:31 PM (sY+Gn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If Michael Moore, Osama bin Laden, and Shamoo the Whale Were in the Same Room....

...could you tell them apart? Answer.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:09 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

January 21, 2006

Bad News For The Anti-War Movement

It appears that Michael Moore has departed from our fair earth while vacationing in England.

Our heartfelt sympathies go out to his family and friend.

UPDATE: It appears I may have erred. Sources are emailing me to say that Michael Moore is alive and well and rooting for the little guy from his million dollar pad on the Upper West Side.

Speculation is that the body found in the story is actually that of Rosie O'Donnell. I feel for the investigators, it's so hard to tell them apart.

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:18 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Portrait Of The Author As A Literary Whore

As I previously noted in this post, Allah at Link Mecca discovered that Osama's newly released audiotape contains a recommendation for William Blum's book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.

Of course, as a loyal American, Blum was shocked and disgusted to have his work cited by the world's most evil living human - not. Newhouse News Service reports that Blum is pretty much delighted with the publicity for his book:

"I was amazed and amused," Blum said. "It's good publicity for the book."

Blum explained that Osama had actually confused Rogue State with another in his anti-America collection: Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:05 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Just more confirmation that the Left and Al Qaida are on the same page.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 01:30 PM (8e/V4)

2 How much evidence does our idiot-led government need to start prosecuting people for treason?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 07:10 PM (0yYS2)

3 I came here for portraits of whores. Where are the pictures man? The pictures!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rusty at January 21, 2006 07:20 PM (JQjhA)

4 I guess you're right, Timmy. What was I thinking? Of course people who murder thousands of innocents and behead folks because they're "infidels" can't possibly be "evil" or "psycopathic". Idiot.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 22, 2006 01:44 AM (RHG+K)

5 Timmy, you're an idiot.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 22, 2006 09:51 AM (RHG+K)

6 Tim, you need to be killed for stupidity alone, but your willingness to apologize for terrorists is just the icing on the cake.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 22, 2006 10:33 AM (0yYS2)

7 For those who don't recognize Dr. Timmy's name, he is an American ex-patriate living in New Zealand, notorious for denying the involvement of al Qaeda in the Bali bombings. Dr. Timmy flirts with the notion that al Qaeda is a Rovian plot.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 22, 2006 10:54 AM (RHG+K)

8 Regardless of his nationality or identity, he is an enemy sympathizer and supporter, and doesn't deserve to live another day. We can't support killing terrorists without also supporting killing their supporters.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 22, 2006 12:43 PM (0yYS2)

9 I believe I labeled Blum a "whore". However, I was being polite, and IM is probably closer to the mark.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 22, 2006 07:48 PM (RHG+K)

10 Being an apologist, like you for example, is good enough for me. In for a penny, in for a pound, as it were. To me, you are no better or worse than Osama himself. No, I take that back. At least he is honest in that he is an open and declared enemy, though he may be a cowardly murderer. You, on the other hand, are a snivelling piece of shit content with being his waterboy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 22, 2006 11:01 PM (0yYS2)

11 Timmy, when somebody like Blum, or yourself, provides useful propaganda to the enemy, he performs the function of Josef Goebbels (though Goebbels, at least, worked for his own side). Are you sure you have a doctorate? I'm not used to having to explain such simple concepts to readers. You might be happier reading a blog written a bit lower on the Gunning-Fog Index.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 22, 2006 11:49 PM (RHG+K)

12 Oooh, Dr. Timmy didn't like the Gunning-Fog crack, did he? Tough. Deal with it. You uncritically accept every bad thing said about the US as gospel, and claim to stand for "truth"? You excuse the murders of innocent people (as long as they're Americans, anyway), and have the stones to call me "mean spirited"? Thanks for exposing your true self, Timmy.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2006 12:48 AM (RHG+K)

13 I have to take exception with all posters labeleing Mr. Behrend as an "idiot". He is quite well spoken in his equivocation propaganda, and therefore, "asshole" is more correct.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 23, 2006 03:53 AM (maXzk)

14 "Useful idiot" puts Timmy in historical perspective.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2006 09:42 AM (RHG+K)

15 You're correct SoTG, thanks for the correction. He is, indeed, a world class asshole, and definitely a useful idiot. He probably even thinks that they'll behead him last. Heh.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 11:35 AM (0yYS2)

16 Timmah, the Gunning-Fog Index is used to gauge the level of writing in literature for adults who are semi-literate. Timmah, why would I want to restrict the right of folks like you to spout all manner of nonsense? How can the NSA identify and neutralize you if you're flying under the radar?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2006 11:47 AM (RHG+K)

17 One more question, Timmah. Do you find it ironic that while you preen and preach about freedom of speech, you are able to do so openly, being a member in good standing of the academic liberal orthodoxy, while the creator of this blog, Dr. Rusty Shackleford, must remain anonymous because of the certainty of retaliation from the faculty and administration where he teaches? What does that tell you, Timmah?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2006 11:55 AM (RHG+K)

18 I think Timmy has converted to Islam, so maybe he is a honest whore. Is there such a thing as a honest whore? I'll leave that one for Timmy to answer.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 08:06 PM (rUyw4)

19 TIM: You are behind on your NAMBLA dues.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:45 PM (YjVDY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 20, 2006

Star Jones And The Talleywhacker War

From the New York Post:

Yesterday, the co-host of "The View" told viewers that the war on terror was nothing more than a clash of male egos between President Bush and Osama bin Laden.
"You know what? At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper," she said during a discussion of bin Laden's latest audio tape.

ABC's mouthy porkette has never been noted for deep thoughts, figuratively speaking, of course.

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

Posted by: Bluto at 01:06 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well er, she is an expert on egos now - isn't she?

Posted by: hondo at January 20, 2006 01:12 PM (3aakz)

2 More of what passes for "nuanced analysis" on the Left.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 01:27 PM (8e/V4)

3 FDR's "arsenal of democracy" was a great slogan during WWII. I'm not sure how well "schlong of democracy" would do in the present day.

Posted by: Graeme at January 20, 2006 01:34 PM (KEUFP)

4 Odd! Doesn't even acknowledging her give her existance? That's it for me on this topic.

Posted by: hondo at January 20, 2006 01:35 PM (3aakz)

5 Considering that one of the things that the two men disagree about is whether women should have the right to show their faces on TV, talk about penises, and insult political and religious leaders, you'd think the woman would be more prone to take sides. It's admirable objectivity from a modern political commentator, if that's what she's supposed to be.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 20, 2006 02:07 PM (dT1MB)

6 Good lord. And "feminists" wonder why women aren't taken seriously in politics.

Posted by: Darleen at January 20, 2006 02:28 PM (FgfaV)

7 Remember that the dimwitted bimbos on the View made the EXACT same comments about Pres Bush after ChiCom Pilot Wong Way had his mid-air with our P-3 in spring of 2001.

Posted by: JohnBo at January 21, 2006 01:55 AM (m4rua)

8 She really needs to be taken off TV. She is embarrassing to America. As a Canadian who respects the USA, I know this.

Posted by: The Atheist Jew at January 21, 2006 08:13 AM (s0z/Q)

9 Anyone remember the photo of W. in his flight suit on the carrier? That wasn't a cruise missile in his pocket, baby. In comparison, Osama wears a man-dress and hides in caves where he plots the deaths of innocent people. Star Jones may know one hundred ways to eat TwinkiesÂ™, but she damn sure doesn't know much else, least of all anything about men or warfare.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 10:12 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

He Ain't Heavy, He's My Traitor

Johnny Jihad's dad speaks out on his behalf:

SAN FRANCISCO -- The father of American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh is asking President George W. Bush for a grant of clemency.

Well, okay, I'm down wit dat. Grant him clemency, and then ship him to an Afghani federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:09 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

1 it sounds like the boys in the big house are using Johnny Jihad for sport. Allah has forsaken poor johnny and allowed unmentionables to be inserted in his rectum. I do recall reading shortly after 9/11 that a number of the boys from a couple of big houses raised a bunch of money, so it stands to reason that some of the boys would not look kindly on johnny and his kind

Posted by: goesh at January 20, 2006 08:45 AM (1w6Ud)

2 Bush will never commute John Walker Lindh's sentence. It would make him look weak to the terrorists. John's father is wasting his time.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 20, 2006 09:53 AM (5E0ex)

3 I don't want him sent to that cushy Gitmo joint either!

Posted by: jimmyb at January 20, 2006 10:43 AM (YG5NJ)

4 Maybe his idiot libtard hippie parents should have spent some time teaching him the virtues of being a good man and citizen instead of letting him "find himself". Isn't it odd how the child of pacifist hippies ends up as part of the world's most backward and oppresive thugocracy? I hope the little piece of shit gets sodomized every time he kneels to pray.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 20, 2006 10:55 AM (0yYS2)

5 If I'm not mistaken, serving voluntarily in another nation's armed forces is one of the few things that still count as a renunciation of citizenship. Presumably they didn't apply this to Lindh because it would have complicated the case against him, but there's no reason why it couldn't be applied now. If he were pardoned and de-naturalized (if that's the word) he could be deported to Afghanistan with ample justification; and considering what would be waiting for him there, I think more people would think it cruel rather than "soft." If we really wanted to be clever, once out of U.S. jurisdiction he could be chipped (tricky to do without his knowledge, but I'm sure the spooks could figure something out). On the odd chance his old pals let him back in, radio direction finding would provide us with a nice set of coordinates for our next missile strike.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 20, 2006 01:16 PM (dT1MB)

6 Given what the Taliban believed and stood for, I'm a bit surprised (not actually) that feminists haven't demanded he be re-educated and castrated. Johnny - you already got 2 breaks! We brought you "home" (not in a bag), and 20 years was not a bad deal. Live with - that's the best you are going to get.

Posted by: hondo at January 20, 2006 01:18 PM (3aakz)

7 Hondo, every anti-conservative ideology, i.e. feminism, gay rights, affirmative action, etc., is just each a part of the greater leftist agenda, and is subordinate in its interests to that agenda, which is essentially as Marx laid out a century and a half ago; to destroy Western civilization. Ever notice how the libtards often seem at odds with one another, yet never fight amongst themselves? Funny that...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 10:16 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 19, 2006

Osama Says Tomato, Left Says Tom-ah-to (Updated)

Tomato! Tom-ah-to! Let's call the whole thing off!

Fun with the purported Osama audiotape

Osama says:

But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

Moveon.org says:

...a majority of Americans, want U.S. troops to leave Iraq. ItÂ’s time for Congress to insist on an exit plan.

Osama says:

There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and war lords in America - those who supported Bush's electoral campaign - and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war.

Mother Jones says:

Since September 11, the Bush administration has awarded the world's second-largest oil-services company at least $2.2 billion in defense-generated business, mostly to support military operations overseas.

Osama says:

We are getting increasingly stronger while your situation is getting from bad to worse

John Murtha says:

"...[the Army] is "broken, worn out" [and] "living hand to mouth."

Update
Link Mecca reports that a full translation of the Osama tape includes a book recommendation for William Blum's The Rogue State. Congratulations to Mr. Blum on this ~~odious~~ important endorsement.

Newslinker has compiled quotes from the Democratic Underground and DailyKos insinuating that the Osama tape is all a Rovian GOP plot. Break out the tinfoil, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:13 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The Left is to Al Qaida what Sinn Fein is to the IRA. They're on the same side.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:26 PM (8e/V4)

2 Cute Moveon.org! ... a majority of Americans, want U.S. troops to leave Iraq ... I want US troops to leave Iraq too, as well as Bluto and all the rest of us too ... eventually - when the job is done. I can say safely 100% of Americans want US troops to leave Iraq. When they use lil' word gimmicks like this it just tells me how weak their shit is.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 02:27 PM (3aakz)

3 Sinn Fein goes drinking with the IRA - AQ would eat the Left - which is why the left supports them from as physically far away as possible.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 02:30 PM (3aakz)

4 Osama is just campaigning early for the '08 general elections on the Democratic ticket. He nearly made it through the primaries in '04. That wasn't Dean screaming you heard. He's got the talking points down perfectly now.

Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 02:35 PM (osKlJ)

5 Dang it. I mention talking points and then I scroll down to the latest comments in previous threads and everyone's talking about "talking points". I thought of it all by myself, really.

Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 02:39 PM (osKlJ)

6 >>>Sinn Fein goes drinking with the IRA - AQ would eat the Left - which is why the left supports them from as physically far away as possible. Not nearly far enough, as evidenced by the number of them that get taken hostage. And then we've got to spend all sorts of capital getting them released, only to have the morons praise the kidnappers.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:48 PM (8e/V4)

7 How long till Kerry demands we talk truce?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 19, 2006 02:52 PM (5ceWd)

8 Let me translate this tape for you. Osama and al-Queda are getting their asses kicked and they want a truce. They frame it in such a way as to appeal to the Leftists here in the US. Remember, they have used these truces in the past to build up their strength and renew their attacks. We have them on the ropes. Keep the pressure cooker on, and we'll bag some more of these bastards. Yeah!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 03:17 PM (rUyw4)

9 that was a fun tune

Posted by: Howie at January 19, 2006 08:03 PM (D3+20)

10 Osama says: when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq. Moveon.org says: ...a majority of Americans, want U.S. troops to leave Iraq. ItÂ’s time for Congress to insist on an exit plan. Bush says: I don't read newspapers. The whole "they are in collaboration in knowing simple facts that we choose not to" really has legs. Hell... they probably both believe global warming is real too. Bastards.

Posted by: Tank at January 20, 2006 09:08 AM (vxuX9)

11 Quote: "Newslinker has compiled quotes from the Democratic Underground and DailyKos insinuating that the Osama tape is all a Rovian GOP plot. Break out the tinfoil, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride." This would be less funny if your previous post wasn't about some guy using a library computer as part of his ambitious plot to create an atomic bomb. And when I say "guy" I don't mean "state diverting billions of dollars in research and development involving faciliites, staff, equipment, mathematic problems beyond belief, restricted resources and equipment over a period of many years in a project impossible for a small group of people at the top of all game in each specialised field". I mean that one guy you mentioned. Him. Making an atomic bomb. These guys might have tinfoil. You're wearing the whole lead-lined reinforced-bunker-model beanie pal. LMAO.

Posted by: Tank at January 20, 2006 09:22 AM (vxuX9)

12 I absolutely adore watching the Leftists floundering on this one. Thanks, Tank, you made my day.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 20, 2006 09:37 AM (RHG+K)

13 Tank, The second-guessing of our intelligence services by burger flippers like you is so annoying. But what about the one guy's pals? When you capture a terror cell, you don't usually capture them all together huddled around one pc. Is that what you were hoping for, mr. burger flipper? Usually, they catch one guy, and he leads them to the rest of the cell. Similarly, if this one guy leads to nowhere, then they all end up looking like idiots. But if he leads them to a terror cell, then we can say what geniuses they are, and what a moron you are.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

14 Cute how everyone on this forum ignores an obvious fact. That Bin Forgotten is still alive and well and apparently still making audio tapes. I guess Osama's freedom goes hand and hand with Bush's mantra of being a uniter and not a divider and WMDs. Pardon me for not believing shit that comes out this "constantly got it wrong" administrations' mouth.

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 11:30 AM (ya1ym)

15 Ayana, one fact that you are ignoring is that Osama would be dead right now if Clinton hadn't let him go. 9/11 wouldn't even have happenned, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 11:37 AM (8e/V4)

16 Well then Jaysusland, why would Bush follow in those same footsteps and also let Osama go? Tora Bora, anyone? If we're attacked again by Osama and his faithful band of thugs, will you finally take off your rose colored glasses, get off your knees in your Bush worship position, and finally hold Bush accountable for his incompetent bullshit, or will it once again, even years after Clinton left office, somehow be ole Bill's fault? How Sean Hannity of you!!

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 11:49 AM (ya1ym)

17 Ayanan, there's a difference between letting someone go vs someone escaping. So nice try. Bush himself isn't in the Special Forces fighting if Afghanistan-- he's a politician in Washington. So if Osama slipped through the military's net, it only makes you look silly when you try to pin it on Bush. Clinton, however, was PERSONALLY responsible for choosing not to take Osama into custody when so offered by Sudan. It's so funny watching you folks try to do the two-step around that one. Quickly now, change the subject. Must...find...nother... red herring.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 12:04 PM (8e/V4)

18 Silly little misguided misinformed lemming. "CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora BoraÂ—intelligence operatives had tracked himÂ—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK" Oh let me guess Jaysusland, the CIA operative really wasn't a covert agent. Or he's a liar. Or he's a liberal. Or he voted for Kerry. Or "fleeing" doesn't mean to escape. Or whatever pathetic attempt you repuglicans use to discredit anyone who offers dissent. And why, darling, would I ever change the subject when I so enjoy how stupid you people sound blaming everyone but the people who are actually in office?

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 12:18 PM (ya1ym)

19 Ayana, nobody here has yet disputed that Osama was probably holed up in Tora Bora. So what exactly do you think you've proven by stating the obvious? How bout of instead of stating the obvious, you actually respond to what I said in my post. And I'll repeat: 1) Bush is a politician in Washington, not a Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, so trying to pin Osama's escape on him only makes you look silly, and 2) Clinton, on the other hand, was PERSONALLY responsible for HIS decision not to take Osama into custody, and 3) Letting someone go is far worse than letting someone escape. [Now I'll sit back and watch you dance.]

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 12:45 PM (8e/V4)

20 Don't waste pixels arguing with the leftards, they're too stupid and dishonest to comprehend or admit reality. The only interaction anyone should have with them is to put a bullet into their empty heads.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 20, 2006 01:00 PM (0yYS2)

21 IM, I should be amused by their sheer moronity, instead they just bug the hell out of me. Serioulsy, they are basically parodies of themselves. If some rightwinger wanted to write an SNL skit about clueless moonbats they would sound just like the trolls on this board.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 01:26 PM (8e/V4)

22 Jaysusland stated "one fact that you are ignoring is that Osama would be dead right now if Clinton hadn't let him go. 9/11 wouldn't even have happenned, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation." To which I replied by posting this: "CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora BoraÂ—intelligence operatives had tracked himÂ—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK"" To which you ignored. And then you made this comment "nobody here has yet disputed that Osama was probably holed up in Tora Bora. So what exactly do you think you've proven by stating the obvious?" Eye roll, let me restate on remedial speed so even a republican can understand. The point is Bush PERSONALLY decided to give up the pursuit of Osama to chase Saddam, his daddy's ex-buddy, on the pretext of a supposed threat from Iraq since proven to be a big ass lie. And let me remind you, Bush has full control of your military, there march orders come from him. And as the CIA agent stated, they had him cornered and let him go, per Bush, your Lord and Savior. Thank ya Jaysus...

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 02:13 PM (ya1ym)

23 To Improbulus: Liberals will always take insults as compliments considering the opposing side issuing the insults are mentally challenged. Only someone with the IQ of a garbage bag would vote for a president with a 25 word vocabulary and only uses 15 of those words in the correct context. Want to know how to tell a republican from a democrat on first glance? Tell Bush to announce to the nation that the sky is falling, all the morons who are in the ducking position are republicans.

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 02:19 PM (ya1ym)

24 Well goodbye Bush loving ass kissers. It's been a really honor debating with you blind following dumbasses. May Bush allow you into the Pearly Gates in your afterlife. And may all you democracy hating assholes find an island of your very own where Pat Robertson will become your new ruler, you'll fear your own shadow because "terrorist" are jealous of your "freedom". Where everyone thinks alike, are one color, one religion, sharing one brain. Just like the direction you someday hope you'll take this country. Well fuck all you retards, democracy is hear to stay, we'll fucking say what we want and if you think that our difference of opinions makes us terrorist, take your hillybilly asses to that island ASAP

Posted by: Ayana at January 20, 2006 02:28 PM (ya1ym)

25 I think Ayana is a jihadist sympathizer. I could be wrong, though, but suffice it to say she is not a lady.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 03:39 PM (rUyw4)

26 Perhaps more than just a sympathizer. Such people are the reason they invented Echalon.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 04:32 PM (8e/V4)

27 I think she is a Muslim. Her English is too poor for her to be a native American. Terrorist enabler may be a closer fit. She is probably a student at a US college or university. A better reason than ever to keep a close watch on these people who are not American citizens. Yep, we might just here from her again.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 05:39 PM (rUyw4)

28 JJ, or it could be an IQ problem.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 06:33 PM (8e/V4)

29 You're right Carlos, but I possess neither subtlety nor moderation. I'm either your best friend or your worst enemy, and I do not quibble or waver. That's one of the advantages of being mildly bipolar.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 10:21 AM (0yYS2)

30 @ Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 09:51 AM "The second-guessing of our intelligence services by burger flippers like you is so annoying. But what about the one guy's pals? When you capture a terror cell, you don't usually capture them all together huddled around one pc. Is that what you were hoping for, mr. burger flipper?" LOL no. I also wasn't hoping for uncovering a "cell" to rely on finding one guy advertising childish notions of world donimation through achieving his own nuclear program as though he had somehow misplaced the rest of his "cell". Gee it's almost like using that reasoning every kid with a GI Joe doll is part of an army that they haven't got around to founding yet. Likewise, when he buys the GI Joe F18 action pack he's progressed just as far in adding an airforce to his shadowy military ambitions as this guy did in his nuclear strike capabilities. Might want to save the "burger flipper" insults for when you aren't dealing in fantasy yourself Narnia-boy. Or perhaps I'm wrong, maybe the gullible do fair well in the job market. "Usually, they catch one guy, and he leads them to the rest of the cell. Similarly, if this one guy leads to nowhere, then they all end up looking like idiots. But if he leads them to a terror cell, then we can say what geniuses they are, and what a moron you are." And until then you'll remain the moron here. Great work.

Posted by: Tank at January 21, 2006 07:35 PM (vxuX9)

31 @ The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 20, 2006 09:37 AM "I absolutely adore watching the Leftists floundering on this one. Thanks, Tank, you made my day." No doubt I'll qualify as a fully fledged moonbat when I ask you how happy you are to continue supporting bullshit political theatre like this nuclear library guy and his hypothetical cell instead of recognising that Indonesia just caught 4 members of the actual terrorist cell who were involved in a series of actual terrorist attacks which actually killed hundreds of people. So I'll be the leftist and you be the kind of retard who's interest in addressing the threat of terrorism is confined to how entertaining it is rather than how effective. I guess this is the position of the right. If only those Indonesians had used a test audience they would have found out dead brown guys don't sell the tickets that dead white guys do. Oh and best work a nuke into the script too, just for the action fans. That's entertainment! Wanker.

Posted by: Tank at January 21, 2006 07:59 PM (vxuX9)

32 @ Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 12:04 PM "Clinton, however, was PERSONALLY responsible for choosing not to take Osama into custody when so offered by Sudan. It's so funny watching you folks try to do the two-step around that one. Quickly now, change the subject. Must...find...nother... red herring." How about we don't dodge that issue or change the subject then. You seem to be keen on discussing this. So have you got a first-hand reference for the suggesting that [1] Sudan made this offer to the US and that [2] the US declined this offer for the handover of OBL ? Because this is the first I've heard of it after reading around half a dozen accounts of OBLs time in Sudan and the actions of the US, Sudan and Saudi Arabia at that time. I must say I find it odd the counterterrorism officials, heads of CIA stations, investigative reporters covering OBL since the 90s and those actually intent on writing "tell-all expose" accounts who wrote all these accounts of the OBL threat never thought to mention this once... while at the same time mentioning offers that Sudan did make about turning things over to the US which didn't include OBL personally as well as negotiations for states to extradite OBL which didn't include the US. Lot of authors who spent a lot of money travelling throughout the middle east, africa and south asia to compile first hand accounts, interviews and research who didn't come back with that little gem you have apparently uncovered on your own. Well... not most of them... all of them. Or do you wanna maybe do a bit of sidestepping yourself Jesusland Carlos and tell us the dog ate your source for that rather than admit you're talking shit ?

Posted by: Tank at January 21, 2006 08:26 PM (vxuX9)

33 Gee, you found a few quotes by Osama and a few by the left. Congratulations. Here, let me do the same with the right and Osama: I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen. -Jerry Falwell We call [Americans] of manners, principles, honor, and purity;to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants gambling and usury. -Osama. So bin Laden said a handful of things similar to the left, the right says just as many. John McCain is all for pulling out, so's Hastert, Pat Buchanan was NEVER for the war. As for the left being the mouthpiece to al-Qaeda... please show me the proof of Noam Chomsky demanding we overthrow the US government and install an Islamic sharian-style theocracy, or Bill Clinton forcing Hilary to wear a veil and pray to Mecca 5 times a day like his other 3 wives. Does Howard Dean live in a cave and deliver his fatwas via audiotape? Trying to infer that either side of the US political spectrum is FOR Osama is abdsurd. Even Reagan supported him and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's but that was to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets, it doesn't mean he was a card Carrying member of Al-Qaeda. So please, have some civility and stop thinking your political detractors are 2-dimensional villains trying to destroy America.

Posted by: Sarno at January 22, 2006 02:42 PM (TX7n3)

34 Guess what, fucktards? You know why Osama bin Laden said the same things as intelligent Americans? Because they're fucking true. If Satan himself walks his flaming red ass up to you and says that one plus one equals two, it doesn't fucking mean that math teachers worship the devil. Perhaps the fact that people on all sides of the political spectrum are making the same criticisms should make it fucking obvious that there's something behind them. But no, obviously it means that they're on the same team. Are you all a bunch of fucking braindead morons? My God, and you call yourselves the leaders of the free fucking world. Well you know what? I'm going to perpetuate one of your stupid goddamned sterotypes. Yes, I'm from fucking Canada. We kick your ass at quality of life, eh? And we're not so fucking stupid that we equate the ACLU with Al Qaeda because they both see what a god damned manipulative criminal government you have. My fucking god. Oh, and another thing -- you're descended from a monkey, mandatory minimum sentences DON'T reduce crime, and gays have a right to marry whoever the fuck they want to. Asshats.

Posted by: Kai at January 22, 2006 10:42 PM (MOLul)

35 Oh, Kai, that was funny! Thank you so very much. The desperation of the Left is a beautiful thing. "Fucking" beautiful, actually. Don't stroke out on us, now.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2006 12:41 AM (RHG+K)

36 Kai, I like how you put that last part in, "Gays can marry too". Look, eh! If your gay, just say so. we won't hate you for that. But don't hate America because the vast majority doesn't agree with rod riding, eh! BUTT PIRATE! arrrr!!!! And the reason Bin-Ladin can even talk the way we do is because we taught him. Our infidel asses paid for his non-soap using camel loving ass. You think AL-QUEADA agrees with you? Go there, shake their hand and let me know. Oh, yeah! They'll love you Graham Honky! You'll be Head over Heels when there done. And tell that last part about you being GAY, I'm sure they'll make you bite the PILLOW, before they off ya. O, bring your knee pads too. And you should be quiet! America has carried your country for decades. Get off our back! I mean really! We should have sawwed your sorry country off and glued you right next to the French! I'm Out FUCKTARD! the TACO BANDIT

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 23, 2006 01:17 PM (MOKXn)

37 I take back what I said. Not all Canadians are bad. Most do appreciate good neighbors. It's when you get Flower sniffers like Kai who like to do nothing but argue and play butt darts all day. it really racks your brain. Someone please stick him in raft and push him out to sea. But, do point him towards the french. Like I said, my bad Canada

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 23, 2006 01:47 PM (MOKXn)

38 (Sorry for the bad English, I'm French Canadian...) I do support the American initiative against terrorism. In fact, a lot of my friends, guys or girls, in the army or not, are happy to see that the US do the work, not like our government who is afraid of it's own shadow.

Posted by: Max at January 23, 2006 02:56 PM (WM45z)

39 MAX, Your are what makes the respectable part of the human race proud. Thank you and your friends for your support. America and its allies are fighting hard to give the Iraqi people there freedom they diserve. If most of them seek Allah, then let them. Let the others deside what they seek out in thier future. There is plenty of room for all of us to live and make choices.

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 23, 2006 03:14 PM (MOKXn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 18, 2006

Center for Constitutional Rights a Sham

Here is the lesser known of the two groups suing the NSA for wiretapping their friends conversations with their other friends, known terrorists. Does this sound like a civil liberties group to you? Center for Constitutional Rights:

We hope to create a movement in support of the adoption of a Uniting for Peace Resolution by the United Nations General Assembly to prevent an attack on Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom and other nations.

Dan Riehl debunks other myths about The Center of Constitutional Rights here.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:58 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

January 17, 2006

ACLU, Journalists To Sue NSA For Eavesdropping on Terrorists

In an early morning press release the ACLU has announced its intention to sue the National Security Agency for intercepting suspected terrorist international calls and emails. The lawsuit is obviously timed to take advantage of a New York Times article critical of NSA intercepts. The ACLU lawsuit also has as plaintiffs several "prominent journalists", raising the possibility of a conspiracy between leftwing journalists and activist groups.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program.

The arrogance of the ACLU/MSM lawsuit is breathtaking; that Americans should be put at risk because a few paranoid elitists believe without any evidence that some of their calls may have been monitored - and also, of course, that they're unhappy with the 2000 and 2004 elections and would like to stage a coup d'etat.

Thanks to Jay at Stop the ACLU for emailing me about the press release.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:17 AM | Comments (93) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program." In other words, they were talking to terrorists (or the terrorist's friends)and now they are pissed that the government knows it, and afraid that their records will be leaked linking them to????

Posted by: Fred Fry at January 17, 2006 06:40 AM (JXdhy)

2 The ACLU has been trying to destroy America for 55 years. They are still at it. We used to call this behavior stubbornness. I think their America hatred for so many decades is more aptly described as pigheadedness.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 17, 2006 07:08 AM (xcy9v)

3 The fact that they're able to sue and aren't all in jail is indicative of the restraint and selectivity of the wiretapping program. As a matter of fact, it's a testament to the level of tolerance of the general public. I wonder if CAIR is on that list of "nonprofit" (read: nebulous) organizations.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 08:11 AM (osKlJ)

4 "/MSM " Yes. Chris hitchens and the Hudson Institute.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 08:45 AM (TEHSD)

5 Nevermind. I see CAIR is in there. And the odds are better for winning the lottery than guessing what side Hitchens will choose for any given issue. He's been disowned by the left for his stance on the war and now he's trying to alienate the rest.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 08:56 AM (osKlJ)

6 Prosecute the ACLU under RICO racketeering statutes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 09:10 AM (8e/V4)

7 I am glad to see your complete confidence in the government...I mean it's not like they don't have an agenda or ever make mistakes, right? Anyone who is against this type of spying must have something to hide. It can't be because they don't trust the government when it says 'trust me I only listen to terrorists'. Makes one wonder why we even bothered with the whole Constitution thing doesn't it? All we ever needed was a wise and benevolent Republican government and all will just super!

Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 09:25 AM (agTB+)

8 The fact that they're able to sue and aren't all in jail is indicative of the restraint and selectivity of the wiretapping program. Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped. The logical flaws in your statement are astounding. Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended? Are you saying that only guilty people file lawsuits? If there were any evidence at all that the people being tapped had any kind of tie to any kind of terrorist or terrorist group, then the FISA court would have gladly issued a warrant. If you hand the government the power to engage in warrantless surveillance, it will come back to bite you in the ass. Don't you people see that?

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 10:41 AM (xMayo)

9 "few paranoid elitists believe without any evidence" So how do you suggest they get evidence for a secret program? I'm sure if they ask they'll get an honest answer right? Given the rights hatred of President Clinton, I wonder would they be so trusting if he was in office?

Posted by: David at January 17, 2006 10:43 AM (BhVb3)

10 From commie pinko Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Posted by: jim at January 17, 2006 10:58 AM (l+abj)

11 Jim, you've used the wrong modifier. Franklin didn't say "a little liberty", he said "essential liberty". Few people outside the ACLU would describe the freedom to communicate freely with terrorists as "essential". But thanks for playing. David, the Clinton administration engaged in warrantless physical searches, not just cell phone intercepts. I don't recall the ACLU filing suit against them, do you? Again, thanks for playing. Joel, read the response to David, and note that the government has the right and the duty to gather intelligence to protect us against another terrorist attack. And thanks for playing. Adam, if the President or another elected official screws up, he can be voted out of office. If the ACLU and/or CAIR and/or co-conspirators in the MSM manage to get us attacked again, where do we go to vote them out of their jobs? But thanks for playing.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 11:31 AM (RHG+K)

12 Funny how the libtards never made a peep when the BATF and FBI under the Klintons were murdering white Christians in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but they scream bloody murder when it's a Republican president fighting fascists. Why is that I wonder? Let me repeat it once again, in plain words: Liberals are enemies of America and Liberty, and should, must, all be killed, because they are actively aiding those who seek to destroy us. This is war, and they are the enemy as surely as Osama ever was, because they support him unconditionally.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:48 AM (0yYS2)

13 "Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped." Do any of these people have any evidence whatsoever that they were wiretapped? The fact that CAIR and the ACLU, given their histories, are all over this is suspect in itself. Don't be naive. "Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended?" Are you willing to say there isn't?

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 11:57 AM (osKlJ)

14 Bluto - Yes, the government does have the right and duty to gather intelligence. We have this really neat law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act that says how to do it too. All material present to the court is classified - no chance of a leak - and things can be brought to it after the fact if speed is a necessity. None of that sounds particularly onerous, does it? You claim you *know* those being surveiled are talking to terrorists - so what's the problem with going to a court and proving it? Again, mind you, a closed court. No chance of a leak. Nobody will get tipped off. Improbulus Maximus - That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Threatening wholesale slaughter of Americans and attacking our way of life. Even President Bush has said that the right to disagree is one of our most defining American qualities. You'd better hope the NSA isn't reading this.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 11:58 AM (GF8EU)

15 Joel, read the response to David, and note that the government has the right and the duty to gather intelligence to protect us against another terrorist attack. No one is suggesting that the government shouldn't engage in surveillance. It is my undestanding that physical searches were not covered by FISA; once that loophole was closed, Clinton terminated them. The "Clinton Did It Too!" argument is, frankly, laughable. If true, it would mean that a Republican-controlled Congress sat idly by and allowed him to break the law, finally deciding to impeach him on a private affair that had no bearing on national security. Can I also remind you that one of the Bush administration's many excuses for why 9/11 happened was that we didn't have enough people to analyze the intelligence data in time to catch the specifics of the plot. How does increasing the amount of data without increasing the number of people to analyze it make us safer, exactly?

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 12:01 PM (xMayo)

16 Nothing like answering a question with a question. Care to actually answer my questions?

Posted by: David at January 17, 2006 12:05 PM (BhVb3)

17 "Adam, if the President or another elected official screws up, he can be voted out of office. If the ACLU and/or CAIR and/or co-conspirators in the MSM manage to get us attacked again, where do we go to vote them out of their jobs?" You assume that we would ever know what the President is doing. Remember, he wants this kept secret, no oversight. Those of us who disagree say we don't trust the government to violate liberty in secret because they can be trusted. As for the ACLU and the press, they don't run the country, nor do they have the ability to govern, declare war, spend public money etc. Your question is puzzling, almost as if you have elevated anyone who doesn't agree with everything that this administration wants as somehow dangerous. Are you saying the Constitution isn't robust enough to protect us? Ridiculous. Bush has all the tools he needs to investigate terrorists, he just doesn't FEEL like he has to do it right. That is the problem. People who don't agree with you don't like terrorists, we just want the President to follow the darn law instead of acting like a dicatator and then using fear to justify his actions. And, for the record, I voted for this pissant in 2000 and am a registered Republican. I was raised to be suspicious of government and that to be conservative meant LESS goverment intrusion, not more. Also, for the other poster, Ruby Ridge was on Bush's watch (aug 1992). You can't blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. Republicans ARE fallible too.

Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM (agTB+)

18 "Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped." Do any of these people have any evidence whatsoever that they were wiretapped? The fact that CAIR and the ACLU, given their histories, are all over this is suspect in itself. Don't be naive. Maybe they do. I don't know. That's why people file lawsuits: to uncover the truth. "Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended?" Are you willing to say there isn't? Yes. I am. And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up? Obviously their civil liberties aren't a problem. So...?

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 12:13 PM (xMayo)

19 For the millionth time, stop quoting Ben Franklin on "Liberty", when the issue at hand is "Privacy." Liberty means you can DO things. Privacy means you aren't allowed to SEE me do those things. Two separate and distinct issues. I don't have less Liberty just because you happen to be LOOKING at me DO something. Thus quoting Ben Franklin is ridiculous in the extreme. But you Libs tend to be ridiculous in the extreme.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:18 PM (8e/V4)

20 >>>And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up? Is that was passes for logic in the "reality-based" camp? If thousands of common criminals haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of pedophiles haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of traitorous Liberals haven't been rounded up yet, does that mean they aren't out there? That's funny, I'm laughing.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:23 PM (8e/V4)

21 Having the government listen to your phone calls without a warrant isn't a loss of liberty? And, on another note, some believed that 'waterboarding' wasn't torture. Tomato, tomahto...let's call the whole Constitution off.

Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 12:32 PM (agTB+)

22 DistantAntennas: This isn't about criminal prosecution, it's about interdiction; stopping terrorist acts of war before they occur. And that makes it the province of the executive branch, not the judicial. We don't (at least not yet) expect Marines to obtain a warrant before searching a mosque from which they're taking fire. "no chance of a leak" - are you f'ing serious? I must say, you seem to display the career bureacrat's touching and naive faith in process, rather than results. Do you work for the government, by any chance?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 12:33 PM (RHG+K)

23 I actually welcome it - and the reasons can be found in what joel wrote. The ACLU and the left (and possibly the Dems (they are still holding back)) are betting the farm that this program was abused and expanded to cover topics and target beyond AQ. They are hoping their actions expose instances covering hundreds and possibly thousands of "AMERICAN CITIZENS" of "NON-ISLAMIC DESENT" with no possible tie or connection to AQ and terrorism. Read the Lib MSM articles about this closely - notice how they all virtually return in expanded detail to the 60's & 70's with past abuses. the Walter Pincus article from a few weeks ago was probably the most glaring of the lot. They are hoping (praying) for a re-play of their past glory and success. This is BDS! I am fairly confident that the program (however used) 1) STAYED ON TARGET, and 2) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TREMONDOUS SUCCESSES IN THE WAR ON TERROR AQAINST AQ HERE AT HOME AND ABROAD! If the above is true - then not only does this blow up in their faces - it provides (am being political here)Bush & company with a MAJOR ELECTION TOOL FOR '06! The overwhelming majority of the American public (including some libs who won't admit it) WILL SHRUG IT OFF AS A FACT OF WAR AND PUBLIC SAFETY! There are successes - they are classified - the time is now to start putting them out there TO BE PRAISED! Don't believe me? Watch the Dems - they will get first shot at the info - watch closely if they start to dance and wonder off. This doesn't compromise security! Note - the bulk of all info to date refers to the first few years immediately after 9/11!!! This is old material - programs and procedures adapt as required over time. Let's get the old shit out there NOW! Guaranteed - lib/left that respond to me will waffle in with esotic hypothetical arguments - and not adress the reality that the American people will not give a damn about muslim "residents" here or those who might be "naturalized citizens" - not with a real war against AQ/fundementalist Islam!!!!!

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 12:34 PM (3aakz)

24 >>>Having the government listen to your phone calls without a warrant isn't a loss of liberty? It is-- if you're a terrorist. Otherwise, no. You can still spout off about your inane personal matters that nobody gives a crap about, and nobody's going to stop you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:50 PM (8e/V4)

25 >>>And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up? Is that was passes for logic in the "reality-based" camp? If thousands of common criminals haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of pedophiles haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of traitorous Liberals haven't been rounded up yet, does that mean they aren't out there? That's funny, I'm laughing. You're vastly misunderstanding my point. The premise of a lot of the argument from your side is that these people who have been wiretapped MUST be involved in terrorism. Therefore, that makes them "known terrorists". I'm not questioning whether there are terrorists in the US, there clearly are, but not in the numbers that would justify the amount of warrant-less surveillance that the NSA has been conducting. The question here is whether the president can suspend our Constitutional rights in order to "protect" us. Your side says "yes". If he can do so to wiretap, then why shouldn't he do so to incarcerate these "known terrorists"?

Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 12:51 PM (xMayo)

26 and ps., the more muslims you Libs let into this country, the more of your "Freedom" is going to be threatened, because we aren't going to bend over and let another 9/11 happen. Got it? Ball's in your court.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:53 PM (8e/V4)

27 Bluto - FISA restrictions don't apply to soldiers in active combat. That's a bogus arguement and you know it. It's the province of the judicial branch because Congress passed a law that says it is. If you don't like that, get Congress to change the law, but the President can't just ignore the law. That's called treason. As for process...I call it 'law', and we all have to follow it. If you want to crown Bush as a King, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take it lying down.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 12:54 PM (GF8EU)

28 Carlos - You mean like how we bent over and let the first one happen? Does the phrase "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" ring a bell? I agree, we shouldn't let that happen again. Maybe we should have competant leaders who pay attention to the information given them rather than screwing off and going on a month long vacation. Just a radical thought.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 12:57 PM (GF8EU)

29 >>>Just a radical thought. Distant, Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver plate-- he refused the offer. News to you? And then 9/11 happenned. How many millions of times have I informed an ignorant liberal about that. You people bore me to death.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:02 PM (8e/V4)

30 and ps., the more muslims you Libs let into this country, the more of your "Freedom" is going to be threatened, because we aren't going to bend over and let another 9/11 happen. Got it? Ball's in your court. I will restate what I said earlier: The data flow pre-9/11 was too much for our intelligence agencies to handle; increasing the data flow means an even smaller chance to uncover the specifics of the next attack before it happens. It's that simple. What you are supporting will virtually guarantee another 9/11. You've already bent over and let Bin Laden destroy the America that existed on 9/10, and now you're prepared to hand a crown to the incompetent that helped him do it. And now I'm off to check on that shipment of Muslims I'm expecting this afternoon.

Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 01:03 PM (xMayo)

31 Joel, that's actually a valid and rational counter-argument. A rarity these days. But the answer is not to decrease the flow of information, rather it is to INCREASE our ability to analyze it. Also, I'd prefer let the folks at the NSA determine how much info they can handle-- not some check out clerk at Whole Foods.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:13 PM (8e/V4)

32 Carlos - Read 'Ghost Wars'. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around, and Clinton did make mistakes. Nobody's perfect. Including Bush. When he says that there's no way they could have predicted 9/11, that's manifestly untrue. When Cheney says that they could have prevented 9/11 if only they'd violated the consitution, that's manifestly untrue too. There was no sense that any of this information should be acted on. If the administration stepped up, admitted there were mistakes and set about fixing them, that I could respect and understand (even if, at times, disagreeing with specifics). They haven't done that. 9/11 is used as a justification for massive power grab and wielded as a club against anybody who tries to disagree. That's dangerous, and it's unamerican and I, for one, refuse to be cowed by it.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:17 PM (GF8EU)

33 Joel, that's actually a valid and rational counter-argument. A rarity these days. No, actually, it isn't. I see them all the time. And they are usually greeted from your side with personal attacks, charges of treason, and snide comments about the "reality-based" community. But the answer is not to decrease the flow of information, rather it is to INCREASE our ability to analyze it. The answer is also not to violate the Constitution, which is what makes America America. Also, I'd prefer let the folks at the NSA determine how much info they can handle-- not some check out clerk at Whole Foods. That's quite condescending. But again, the question is whether we have a president who is bound by the law, or a king.

Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 01:21 PM (xMayo)

34 >>>If the administration stepped up, admitted there were mistakes and set about fixing them, that I could respect and understand (even if, at times, disagreeing with specifics). They haven't done that. Distant, Hindsight is 20/20. Knowing that mega-terror is likely to happen doesn't mean you know WHEN, HOW, or WHERE. Even today we are told it's not a matter of IF but WHEN. And to make things worse, the naysayers would tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies based on largely irrelevant Ben Franklin MISquotes. But what mistakes should they fix to allegedly gain back your confidence. Be specific.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)

35 Distant: You rock.

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:26 PM (xMayo)

36 >>>The answer is also not to violate the Constitution, which is what makes America America. That just begs the question. You've yet to prove wiretaps on incoming foreign calls is anymore "unconstitutional" than Customs checking foreign packages in the mail, or randomly searching people at airports. If the latter is kosher, then so is the former.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:28 PM (8e/V4)

37 In a polarized political environment (covering unspoken issues way off this topic) never - never ever admit a mistake! It solves nothing but feeds the BDS. mistakes can be reviewed and discussed later for corrective purposes - and not political ones.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:31 PM (3aakz)

38 hondo, correct. Clinton was long gone from office before he finally admitted that watching 400,000 rwandans get slaughtered probably wasn't the right thing to do.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

39 And to make things worse, the naysayers would tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies based on largely irrelevant Ben Franklin MISquotes. Willful misinformation. The FISA court requirements were "come up with something, ANYTHING, within the first 72 hours and we'll issue a warrant". A warrant makes the surveillance -- and any evidence subsequently uncovered because of them -- legal. Airtight legal. No warrant = questionable legality. Personally, I would prefer that cases against terrorists be on rock solid legal ground.

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:33 PM (xMayo)

40 "72 hours" A phone called takes SECONDS, and then it's over.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:36 PM (8e/V4)

41 Carlos - While it's clear we disagree on many things, I'll give you credit for being honest. There will be another terrorist attack. It's pretty much inevitable. This is what makes me very skeptical about a President claiming 'war powers', particularly powers that go far beyond even the flexibility given during more conventional wars. As for specifics...at this stage, I'm not sure there's anything *this* administration could do to regain my trust. However, in general, the report of the 9/11 commission highlights many of the problems. Chapter 8 of the report details how in the summer of 2001 alarm bells kept going off but none of it was properly integrated or acted upon. To reiterate Joel's point - getting more data does you no good if you can't analyze it, integrate it and act on it. As for attempts to 'tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies'...that's what the constitution is all about - placing limits on the power of the state to protect the freedoms of the individual. At times these limits are inconvenient and troublesome but in my mind, they're worth it. The alternative is a police state. Law like FISA don't tie the hands of the intelligence agencies as much as you may think. Again, going back to pre 9/11 - they had the data, but it wasn't integrated or acted on. Those are problems of management and organization that can be fixed with litte changes to current practices. And, if changes are needed they should be brought to Congress, debated and voted upon. If you think warrentless wiretaps should be legal - fine. Clearly I disagree, but I'd hope we could agree that making that decision is the role of Congress.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:40 PM (GF8EU)

42 Carlos - That's 72 hours after the fact. Not something I would want to happen often, but I don't think it's unreasonable. If something is detected that needs to be tapped immediately, it can be. It's entirely legal. FISA allows for it. Within seventy two hours, those doing the tapping have to go to the FISA court and say 'Hey, we had this phone call, here's why we thought we needed to do the tap right away.' Then the FISA court rules and issues, or doesn't issue, a warrant after the fact.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:43 PM (GF8EU)

43 Do note - when the left talks about this they will bend over backwards NOT TO USE THE TERMS AQ, RADICAL ISLAM, MUSLIMS, TERRORISM, 9/11 ETC. They need to keep their arguments separate, hypothetical and procedural - for very clearly understood reasons! It won't work. I am ready n' want to play "politics" with this issue!

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:44 PM (3aakz)

44 All of the leftie trolls are still missing the point (or, more likely, deliberately obfuscating it). The NSA intercepts (not "wiretaps", this isn't 1967) were not intended to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions. They were about identifying terrorist plots and foiling them before they occurred. And that is why they come under the authority of the executive branch.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 01:46 PM (RHG+K)

45 Do note - when the left talks about this they will bend over backwards NOT TO USE THE TERMS AQ, RADICAL ISLAM, MUSLIMS, TERRORISM, 9/11 ETC. They need to keep their arguments separate, hypothetical and procedural - for very clearly understood reasons! It won't work. I am ready n' want to play "politics" with this issue! If you're going to make stuff up, try not to have it directly contradicted by more than one previous post.

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:47 PM (xMayo)

46 >>>Then the FISA court rules and issues, or doesn't issue, a warrant after the fact. Do you have a link/source for that?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:49 PM (8e/V4)

47 That's it? Your comeback?

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:56 PM (3aakz)

48 Bluto - I do understand the difference between intercepts and wiretaps. Your point is taken and I'll be clearer in the future. So let's say that an intercept points to some American doing something illegal. Okay, fine. I think we both agree that something should be done. Since you've got evidence, great. Arrest him. Try him. Send him to prison for life. I've got no problem with that. Terrorists can and should be found and punished, but we can do that within the law. What's your alternative? Capture the guy and send him to Guantanmo? Summary execution? All of that sounds remarkably fascist. I thought we were against something like that. Every time we capture and prosecute a terrorist we put our values on display. We show that we can keep ourselves safe without abandoning our principles. If we do what you suggest, we'll be going to a very dark place. Hondo - Huh? I have no problem talking about terrorism, 9/11 and Al Qaeda. I've done it numerous times on this board. It's a real threat, but not one I think we need to shred the constitution to stop. If we do, we'll just be doing their work for them.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:56 PM (GF8EU)

49 Carlos - Indeed I do. Check out this: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html For reference, this is Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1805, Subsection F (yes, I know, a mouthfull), titled "Emergency Orders". It says that the Attorney General "he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 02:02 PM (GF8EU)

50 The overwhelming majority of left and articles written do in fact avoid commentary on the reasons why this is occuring. Instead, they "personalize" it - and wrap it up with generalizations of daily life - and often express their own fears of gov't intrusion and targeting of they themselves. Sorry, your not the target - your not as important as you think you are - and no one (nor the govt) gives a damn about your personal lives. Capture and prosecute? To you it is a crime - to me (and I am fairly confident the majority of Americans) it is a war. "Their work" is to explode bombs and other weapons inside American cities and kill as many men, women and children as possible - beyond that they don't give a damn. Keep it simple - you clearly believe there is an acceptable risk - you clearly believe that there is some degree of "expendiblity" of American life - Ok, now clarify how far, how much? In your mind the image is how you (and others) feel about yourselves. In mine, its (not) putting body parts in a bag (AGAIN).

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:18 PM (3aakz)

51 "72 hours retroactive" Distant, Joel, fair enough. I will concede on that point. But in return, could you please do me a favor and read this short article about the technology being used and why the FISA rules are inadequate for the purpose? Thank you: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/13468947.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 02:23 PM (8e/V4)

52 "Let me repeat it once again, in plain words: Liberals are enemies of America and Liberty, and should, must, all be killed" The true feelings of the right come through. The right is no different than the terrorists. God help us all. Very telling that nobody here condemns this hate speech, so I will have to assume every right wing poster here is for killing all liberals. Scary! /IM are you really just an adolescent fat piece of shit who can't get a date? Does Daddy coming in your room at night get to you and you take it out on the internet? Poor fucking baby WAAAA I'm scared the terrists and liberals are the boogeyman, what a pussy.

Posted by: Angryflower at January 17, 2006 02:27 PM (Bss6w)

53 Hondo: Your concerns regarding terrorists are valid, and no one -- not on the left, nor or the right -- wants to hamper government efforts to protect us from it. However, you seem to think that adhering to FISA's standards is somehow interfering with anti-terrorism efforts. Can you offer one example of how following existing laws resulted in the failure to prevent any act of terrorism? In an era where dissent is characterized as treason, being classified by a government agency as a terrorist and hauled off to a secret prison is a valid concern. What mechanism would prevent the government from doing so if we suspend all legal requirements whenever the administration calls someone a terrorist? I don't think you are following this power beyond the goal of eradicating terrorism. Once it's out of your hands, it's out of your hands.

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 02:37 PM (xMayo)

54 Carlos - An interesting article that raises points at least worthy of discussion. I'm not sure I agree with them - I'm pretty skeptical, honestly - but I think this is something that can be reasonably debated. Again, this is a large source of my anger over Bush's actions. If the law - FISA or any other law - is no longer useful or relevant, the proper action is to change the law, not just ignore it. That's what being a nation of laws and not of men is all about. Hondo - Joel's exactly right. You need to think beyond today. History has show us that government uses the powers it has whenever it can. There's numerous examples - the Palmer raids, the COINTELPRO - where wide swaths of the population were caught in a driftnet, hounded for political purposes. Given that you want to kill all people with my viewpoints, I'd hope you can see how I might be a little concerned. AngryFlower - Okay, let's knock it down just a notch. The Right may say lots of crazy things, but few of them are blowing people up. Really only a couple, and most of them have been convicted. See, it is possible to prosecute and imprison terrorists.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 02:46 PM (GF8EU)

55 The FBI agents who actually had to work the phone numbers coming out of this NSA program said they were pretty much all worthless. Innocent schoolteachers, Pizza Hut stores, people with no connection to terrorists whatsoever. Floods of them. The VERY few legitimate leads that came out of the program, the FBI already knew about!

Posted by: Michael Hampton at January 17, 2006 02:53 PM (FVbj6)

56 Contrary to popular belief, and what some would tell you, the idea that the FISA procedures are streamlined for urgency sake, is not entirely correct. The steps necessary to get to the point where it's so "quick" and "streamlined" is cumbersome and involved. It takes a considerable amount of time to come up with the paperwork and if all ducks are not in a row with all t's crossed and all i's dotted, it's back to square one and in the meantime said surveillance is stopped and it's back to square one. It's not a matter of someone just walking into the office and saying, "Hey, we had this phone call, here's why we thought we needed to do the tap right away." The telling phrase is "...if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable..." This fantasy of "come up with something, ANYTHING" is just that. Fantasy. And I like how Distant "rocks": "...rather than screwing off and going on a month long vacation." Yeah, that was intelligent. As if a President, any President, actually takes a vacation in the sense that we do. Where we go off for a period of time and are absolved of any requirements related to our jobs. That was petty and part of the reason it's hard to take someone seriously if they have to devolve into BDS tendencies to make a point. And you, Joel, are conveniently referring to "terrorists" as if they are each and every one plotting mass murder on their own. When in essence, the term is applied to their supporters, logistically, monetarily and ideologically. Yes, there are thousands "wandering around out there". Furthermore, this armchair lawyering is ridiculous. There is considerable opinion out there defending these actions as well as opposing it without any actual court decision on its legality. But if it sounds like maybe someone did something wrong there are an awful lot of you out there who have already played judge, jury and executioner. I've said here before, somewhere, there is a delicate balance between, say, the complete supression of Able Danger's information, as we've already seen, and unfettered violations of everyone's privacy. We are nowhere near that point as is being portrayed here by some.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 02:56 PM (osKlJ)

57 angryflower (or raging tulip) Maxie is maxie - he is in a league of his own. If you want to react off him, attempt to define topics, etc that way, then I suggest you email each other.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:11 PM (3aakz)

58 The steps necessary to get to the point where it's so "quick" and "streamlined" is cumbersome and involved. It takes a considerable amount of time to come up with the paperwork and if all ducks are not in a row with all t's crossed and all i's dotted, it's back to square one and in the meantime said surveillance is stopped and it's back to square one. Well I guess that explains how four out of 10,000 warrant requests were rejected. Four. Oh the terrible, terrible burden. You know, I'm even willing to give the NSA a little wiggle room on the 72 hours thing, as long as they get clearance from the FISA court eventually. You don't seem to get this: it's not about the spying, it's about there being no oversight whatsoever on the spying. And you, Joel, are conveniently referring to "terrorists" as if they are each and every one plotting mass murder on their own. When in essence, the term is applied to their supporters, logistically, monetarily and ideologically. Yes, there are thousands "wandering around out there". See, there you're clearly just inventing a reason to dispute me because I'm a liberal. I made no distiction between those who launder the money and those who plant the bombs because there is really no distinction to be made. So let's say for the sake of argument that there are literally thousands of "real" terrorists and their support staff walking around the US right now. If it's okay to suspend their civil liberties to spy on them, why isn't it also okay to suspend their civil liberties and take them into custody? Ignoring US law to protect us is okay in some circumstances, but not in others? Who draws that line, exactly, and on what basis? This is the dangerous territory we've entered.

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 03:15 PM (xMayo)

59 Time for all of the ACLU to be indited for aiding and abeting terrorist tear down their HQ in hanoi on the bay SAN FRANCISCO

Posted by: sandpiper at January 17, 2006 03:23 PM (U/q87)

60 joel FISA's standards are adhered to on the vast bulk of material! What we are here discussing are the "exceptions". You will not accept any "exceptions" for any reason - be up front about that - state it - and accept responsibility for it! THERE HAS BEEN NO FAILURE TO PREVENT ANY ACT OF AQ TERRORISM IN THIS COUNTRY! YOU KNOW THAT .... WHY IS THAT SO? What kind of idiotic question is that anyway - prove something didn't happen? Be freakin' honest here with everyone! Your opposition/complaint is based solely on your own personal fear of the GOVT! ... and your argument is totally dependent on hypothetical extrapolations of "what if", "in the future", and "me - my life - my privacy". In your mind - the greater threat to you is your own government - and I guess dependent on whatever administration. I don't have that fear - and consider it irrational and grossly exaggerated - and I suspect when all this is said and done - the majority of Americans will agree. Because I believe this "opposition" is politically motivated (BDS), I welcome this whole thing into the light of day!

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:45 PM (3aakz)

61 Joel, there's no sense in my discussing this with you because of your snide attitude toward me for a flippant remark. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities with my opening remark. Even when you concede a point you do it grudgingly and with disdain. The point I made in the end was that there is no concrete evidence yet that what has been done is illegal. If you're so concerned about the legality of it then why not wait until you know something illegal has been done? Unless you're a con law scholar, I'll wait for the conclusion. Your assumption that there is no oversight is just that, an assumption. The nature of the enemy here is why things have taken the turns they have. They are insidious in the way they use our own laws against us. They hide behind our goodwill and tolerance. Unusual measures have been taken to curb this, but I'm not convinced our rights have been abused. If you or any of us had answers to your last couple questions we wouldn't even be discussing this. And the previous questions imply you can't see the difference, or imply that there is no difference, between listening in on a phone call and just flat out arresting someone, then you've gone too far afield. Quite frankly, I don't think the government has gone too far. If I find that they've used this for more than uncovering those hiding here planning to hurt us, I'll jump right on the bandwagon with you. Until then I have nothing further to say to you.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 03:49 PM (osKlJ)

62 distantwhatever I have never used the language you imply or expressed any sentiment remotely similiar - I personally find it useless and counterproductive. AND EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT. If you think you can backup your argument based on your fears of future abuse at the hand of "fellow Americans" then your in sad shape. I'm not interested in the details of all this - I fully know that the "interests and fears" in it are politically motivated. And because of this - I see this all as a potential powerful winning issue in '06. I want the Left to be the Left - because I know in the end - its a losing issue that backfires.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:57 PM (3aakz)

63 Michael Hampton Read the article - interesting you pick out one very tiny piece from an un-named source (interesting still - the source allegedly is a former FBI official - not involved with the program but getting some information from it). I laughed! You desperately need this program to be widespread encompassing thousands of innocent un-related Americans (Pizzahut line funy!)- and a failure to boot! And when it not .... I'll campaign on this one in a heartbeat - that's what its all about isn't it? - politics - and I can see a winner in 06/08, and all you can see is a faded documentary on the '60s. Groovy!

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:14 PM (3aakz)

64 Oyster: I apologize. I had no idea you had exclusive license to be snarky here. Hondo: I don't fear the government. I fear the incompetent fascists that are currently occupying it. (Though I concede, with appropriate Oyster-approved disdain, that Distant was somewhat out of line in saying that you specifically wanted to kill liberals -- but we do hear a lot of that from your side, I think that was his/her point). So I'm gonna leave you all with this thought: How would you feel if it were Clinton instead of Bush?

Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 05:14 PM (xMayo)

65 You don't hear it alot from our side - you hear it a lot from few - and then extend it to the others. Incompetent fascists? Such a grossly self-serving exaggeration and you can't see that that is the reason your on the outside looking in. Fine. If it were Clinton I could only hope he would do the same right thing - without taking a hundred polls firsts and fretting about his image. I actually believe that is the first time I have ever on this blog mentioned the name Clinton (except my senator)- a former president. Can anyone verify that for me? I don't look back and dawdle. I didn't like Clinton - didn't vote for him - and I wasn't afraid of him either. Your governed by your own irrational personal fears, and want us to accommodate you at the expense of our own lives (not hypothetical for me). It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 06:10 PM (3aakz)

66 Here we go again. Seems that some here think the President has the power to do anything and everything to protect his people. To them I ask, "Why is Saddam on trial?" Torture? Murder? Big deal!! He was doing everything in his power to protect his people against Islamofacists during time of war. What would you rather he do? Side w/ the Liberals and the ACLU who want him to whisper sweet nothings in the ears of his enemies? Personally, I don't think the President has free rein to do anything he wants, and excuse it by saying its to protect his people. But, then again, I'm not a big fan of Saddam.

Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2006 06:36 PM (ByaZN)

67 A rather poor attempt to be intellectually cute - actually quite junvenile. But your welcome to it - a lame argument is a good argument - for the other side. Another one of joel's problems is he has intellects like you for an ally. Sorry joel.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 06:59 PM (3aakz)

68 hondo, Nothing juvenile about taking the words of someone and putting it right back at them. Which side are you on? Saddam's or those that want to coddle the enemy? Just wondering?

Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2006 07:23 PM (ByaZN)

69 How about faux-intellectual or simply idiotic and plain stupid. Obviously you can't see how stupid you sounded. Great! I'll make you happy ... I'm on Saddam's side, I want to coddle the enemy, torture, murder big deal! Yeah! And that achieve's what for you? Bush's impeachment?, withdrawn from Iraq?, What? Tell me. I see the issue for the joke that it is, and laugh at the fools who desperately latch on it in the frantic belief THIS will change the course of history as they see it. Dream on you silly boy. Don't worry - you will find another "issue" in a few weeks that will CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY (AND GET RID OF BUSH)! ha ha

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 07:57 PM (3aakz)

70 Hondo: You're willing to hand over your civil liberties to Bush on the shaky premise that he's protecting you, without any evidence demonstrating that you are, in fact, safer because of his actions. Not having been blown up yet is hardly proof of that. And somehow you don't see that as "trembling in fear". Whatever.

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 08:23 AM (xMayo)

71 If they really are only targeting "terrorists," it is hard to understand why they didn't follow the law and get the secret warrants that can be obtained retroactively up to 72 hours after the tap. So it is a reasonable suspicion that they are also listening in on people for whom there is not even probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court that has almost never rejected a warrant request.

Posted by: trrll at January 18, 2006 10:01 AM (6ORla)

72 Those who favor this expansion of presidential power might want to consider the virtual certainty that the "War on Terror" will outlast Bush's presidency, and considering the narrowness of the Bush victories, there is no guarantee that all future presidents will be conservative. Would you really want to place this level of unfettered power in the hands of, say, President Hillary?

Posted by: trrll at January 18, 2006 10:06 AM (6ORla)

73 Apologies Hondo. I confused somebody else's post with one of yours. Please excuse my carelessness.

Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 18, 2006 10:47 AM (GF8EU)

74 Your all an hysterical joke filled and blinded by your bizzaro fantasies of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE being just five minutes away like a bad Sci fi movie - and you and vigilance the only safeguard. It isn't and you aren't! Sorry joel and others - they are no plans for concentration camps in Kansas, your next door neighbor is not CIA spying on you, satellites don't peek into your windows etc etc etc. because you are nobody - NOBODY - do you understand? The only heroic important pedestal your on is in you mind. You expect us to seriously accommodate your anxieties, fears, and "what if" nightmare fantasies? Because? - Especially when all this is soooo blantantly driven by your current personal political beliefs ... You know what - before this story - you already had these same very fears and concerns! Because that is key to your belief system - you need the fantasy of AMERIKA to give you meaning. Why continue .... Suffice to say - this attempt at BDS will achieve absolutely NOTHING like all the lame others in the past. Bush & company and policies will continue on!!! You will fail because you are incompetant joke who alienates more and more Americans (who are not conservative) every day! and you are too stupid and smugly arrogant to see it. Fine. All I care about right know is seeing how this NSA issue can work in 06/08 for Bush and fellow Conservatives to win and increase their majorities in the Congress .... and it will! And I'm lovin' this! ... so help me out here joel ... run down to your local mall .. hand out flyers ... get a bullhorn ... AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE!! ... yeah, they been hearin' that since the 60's - a real winning issue - yeah ... like they haven't hear it from the lib/left for decades.

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:14 AM (3aakz)

75 Oh forgot - When the people in the Mall blow you off - don't forget to insult them (stupid, fascist, racist, sexist etc etc etc) - then ask them to vote liberal and Democratic. (I have actually seen this technique utilized several times over the years - and works every time - for the other side of course .. use it .. your good at it! You'll lose but you will feel good about yourself - I can live with that.)

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:25 AM (3aakz)

76 hondo, And if all the things you say joel fears do come true, you will ignore them, cite 911, and continue Bush's blind faith initiative program. BTW, Boo!

Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 11:46 AM (ByaZN)

77 Ooooooo! A "what if" argument! How predictable ha ha! And you actually think it signifys intelligence and thoughtfullness on your part ... how flacid. Oh - remember - I support Saddam, murder, torture - now didn't that achieve something for you? Make your day - end world hunger, depose Bush? Bush wins - left loses (again) - thats what matters! And I love it!

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 12:08 PM (3aakz)

78 Sorry joel and others - they are no plans for concentration camps in Kansas, your next door neighbor is not CIA spying on you, satellites don't peek into your windows etc etc etc. because you are nobody - NOBODY - do you understand? The only heroic important pedestal your on is in you mind. A nobody? I'm an American citizen. That means I'm entitled to certain rights that your precious god-king thinks he can ignore any time he feels like it. Or is it that in this demented episode of "24" you seem to inhabit, rights are reserved only for "somebodies"? And if Bush wanted to set up concentration camps in Kansas, exactly what would prevent him from doing so if Americans like you support him no matter what he does? Shut your eyes and tremble away, coward. President Daddy will take care of you.

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 12:36 PM (xMayo)

79 And you really think your dark juvenile fantasies of AMERIKA are a selling point & winning issue with the majority of Americans (conservative or otherwise). Dream on in your silly lil' mental closet of personal obsessive fears and anxieties. Your kind has been marketing them for decades, and they don't sell on Main Street. And you hope to achieve ... what is it exactly? How? The only one trembling is you - which you remind us constantly of your fears over and over and over again. I remember counterparts to you in the 80's - obsessively terrified & confident Ronald Reagan would start WW3 and nuke the world. They were a joke - strange isn't it - positively convinced and hoping for the worse - just to prove their lil' point - and not realizing how totally idiotic that sounds to everyone else watching. So, no concentration camps, no police state, no Nazi parades, no dark nightmare fantasies ... and you would be soooooo disapointed! Now that is funny! - And you can't get the joke!

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 01:32 PM (3aakz)

80 One of my favorite things is someone trying to put down someone else's intellect, and using the most horrendous spelling and grammar to do so. Hondo: It's ironic that while you ridicule people who have enough imagination to foresee abuse-of-power problems, you are advocating the steps that would lead to those same abuse-of-power problems. "You dumb liberals, the government will never be able to create a police state; and to prove it we should tear down existing obstacles that prevent the creation of a police state." That is what I hear in your comments -- but to be fair, there's a lot of baseless speculation on my fantasies to wade through to find any coherent message. The level of discourse you seem to be looking for is about half a step above "I know you are but what am I".

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 02:12 PM (xMayo)

81 Typical first comment and often repeated by fresh-faced smug lil' wannabe intellects who think the world should be dazzled with the brilliance of their thoughts. I saw that coming - commented on this aspect numerous time in the past - and laugh about it. I don't bother to preview and proof - not for a blog. joel - I have a 4th grade education, I can barely write my name! .. And speaking! Why that's a chore in itself! Only read books with pictures! ... I could go on ... Does this make you feel better, joel? Make you feel - smarter?, enlightened?, wise beyond your years? That's nice. You call it imagination? That's funny! Your hopeless lil' dark fantasy - can you sell it to the masses joel? Can you convince others to act on your feelings? No? Then its all worthless BS that achieves absolutely nothing 'cept get you off and make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But that OK with me. Because what's important is who's in charge, in power, calling the shots ... it ain't you or anyone like you ... and it ain't ever going to be ... because your to lame, moronic, and blind to see how un-marketable you are.

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 02:37 PM (3aakz)

82 Because what's important is who's in charge, in power, calling the shots ... it ain't you or anyone like you ... and it ain't ever going to be ... because your to lame, moronic, and blind to see how un-marketable you are. So you're a whore for power. That explains a lot.

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 02:47 PM (xMayo)

83 Yes Feel better now? Have you achieved something - anything?

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 03:12 PM (3aakz)

84 Have you?

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 03:24 PM (xMayo)

85 Yes - defeated Gore/Kerry, toppled Saddam, threw out the Taliban, trying to reshape the Middle East equation (verdict still out), decimated AQ (both on and off camera), prevented any further attacks inside the US, re-shaping the Supreme Court for the next 20 years, fighting liberalism and leftism here in America - sometimes successfully - sometimes checking them in place for another day - but they are not winning anything - anywhere, holding on to the House and Senate for what - 12 years now?, and looking to turn thins like this topic into a winning issue to increase that strength .... I could go on .. right? And you? ....

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 03:52 PM (3aakz)

86 Congratulations. You're a good little fascist.

Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 04:36 PM (xMayo)

87 Thank you - that was fully anticipated.

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 04:40 PM (3aakz)

88 What would make me feel better is if Americans (I'm talking to you, hondo) would open their eyes to see what's happening to their country. hondo = lemming Here's a little trick for you, hondo. Take your arguement and change the word 'Bush' to 'Clinton'. Now do you get it?

Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 07:22 PM (ByaZN)

89 First of all, let me write a few words about winning. Abramoff, Diebold, MSM. You're right about one thing. It's an absolute embarrassment that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of Ice Cream, but the greatest nation in the history of mankind has 2 political parties: Republican and Republican-Lite. Yes, I am a loser. I'm just an American not an American Corporation. BTW, why would terrorists waste their time coming to America to attack Americans? They're not made of money. All they need to do is wait for Dear Leader to put Americans in another country (without the proper armor, no less) to be attacked. He may be a moron President, but he's OUR moron President.

Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 07:41 PM (ByaZN)

90 Your upset - its starting to dawn on you that you are indeed outside looking in - and going to stay that way. Myself and many many others don't see as you see - so feel free to call us lemmings, stupid, fascists or whatever ... I'm playing the numbers game here - don't hesitiate to insult us - then ask us to vote for your side - I like that logic - a lot. Continue to see your failures and lack of influence as a conspiracy and plot - and not as a personal failing of lack of marketable skills. Carry on with my blessings.

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM (3aakz)

91 Please don't vote for "my side" (i.e. Americans). Stay at home and keep your ignorance to yourself. Peace out!!

Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 08:09 PM (ByaZN)

92 But I don't stay home - and you already know I am not actually ignorant - now don't you?

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 08:14 PM (3aakz)

93 The law requiring warrants for physical searches was passed in 1995, and was supported by Clinton. The Clinton administration engaged in physical seraches in the Ames case, which occurred in 1992. Hence, the Clinton administration could not have broken the law since the law was not on the books. Hence, there were no reasons for the ACLU to sue. Do check your facts before commenting. As far as the ACLU is concerned, it protects the right to free speech for groups across the political spectrum, regardless of how unsavory these groups are. As for example, the right of neo-Nazis to march in Peoria, and the KKK to hold demonstrations. The ACLU protects the right of the rightwingers to spew hate, lies, and distortions, as much as it protects other political groups. You people should be glad the organization exists.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 19, 2006 06:40 AM (dUpW1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 16, 2006

An Exploitative Martin Luther King Day

ACLU Compares MLK To Terrorist Suspects
Jay at Stop The ACLU notes a new fullpage ad in the Washington Post taken out by the ACLU. The ad compares surveillance of terrorist suspects receiving overseas calls from known al Qaeda terrorists to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK is morally equivalent to terrorists, nice message.

Al Gore Compares MLK To Terrorist Suspects
Speaking on Martin Luther King Day, the former Vice President took advantage of the opportunity to fly into one of his patented femmy snits and launch an attack on the President, again, comparing FBI wiretapping of Dr. King to NSA monitoring of al Qaeda terrorists. Wasn't the wiretapping of Dr. King carried out by Democratic administrations? Whoops.

New Orleans Mayor Compares Blacks To 'Chocolate'
And finally, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin used his MLK Day pulpit to say that "God is mad at America" and declare that New Orleans will once again be a "chocolate city". The mayor was speaking of the racial makeup of the city, which was 60% black prior to Hurricane Katrina. No crackers wanted - unless you're tourists with money.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 07:37 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ray Nagin is nothing but a sorry racist. What us non-chocolates need to do is point these statements out to our representatives and make sure that New Orleans doesn't get any tax money to rebuild until this man is gone. Any tax money given to Nagin is likely to be wasted, anyway.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 16, 2006 08:04 PM (rUyw4)

2 "Wasn't the wiretapping of Dr. King carried out by Democratic administrations? Whoops." If you can call J Edgar Hoover a 'democratic administration.'

Posted by: actus at January 16, 2006 09:24 PM (TEHSD)

3 What nobody ever mentions though is that King was under surveillence because he was consorting with known Soviet agents and sympathizers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 16, 2006 11:07 PM (0yYS2)

4 Hillary also took this opportunity (I'm shocked) to launch an attack on the GOP. Speaking at an Al Sharpton sponsored event celebrating MLK, she said, Â“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I'm talking about..." Leave it to the fringe party to play the frikkin race card. It never fails.

Posted by: Richard at January 16, 2006 11:15 PM (W8EsU)

5 "What nobody ever mentions though is that King was under surveillence because he was consorting with known Soviet agents and sympathizers." Yup. Leave it to MLK day for the wingnutters to come out of the closet and show their love.

Posted by: actus at January 16, 2006 11:18 PM (TEHSD)

6 MLK was a great man. He may have fooled around but he gave his life for his country. He was no more a Commie than I am. Pretty hard to square "God's Drum Major for Justice" with the Atheistic Dictatorship of the Proletariat that holds religion (and God) as the opiate of the Masses. King DID work early on with ex-Communists who were among the few to offer support; but there were a LOT of people who were liberal/leftist who broke with Party. Bud Schulberg and Elia Kazan come to mind. Others not so public. At any rate, the SPINELESS JFK and LBJ Admins allowed Hoover to go on his Commie hunt and blackmail expedition against a man who was not only no threat but of great patriotic service to his country. By contrast Al Qaeda brutally murdered 3,000 people in 9/11 and has sworn by their God to kill many more as often as they can. It would be dereliction of duty in the strongest sense NOT to listen in on calls from Al Qaeda terrorists abroad, warrant be damned. Legalism protected Jim Crow and segregation and it was Dr. King's moral call to live up to the ideals of the American Dream that forced politicians to end Segregation. Despite all the Democrats like George Wallace standing in the Schoolhouse doorway. Nagin sigh, was the best there was in New Orleans which should tell you something. Nearly forty years after Camille of corruption, incompetence, and business as usual left New Orleans with corruptly built (by locals) levees that were improperly managed; and the destruction of most of the town. Nagin can pander to a community that hates him already (he was booed at a meeting to discuss rebuilding) all he wants, reality for New Orleans is this: 1. New Orleans is filled with illegal Mexican immigrants who take the jobs that might otherwise go to Katrina refugees returning, at a fraction of the cost and in deplorable conditions for safety and health and human dignity. This is lamentable and utterly predictable with Dems and the Administration supporting illegal immigration. 2. The remaining people in New Orleans are mostly white and wealthy people in the sliver by the river, where flooding was minimal and private militias kept looting down. 3. Legal wrangling in the 9th Ward, Lakeview (million dollar plus mansions), East New Orleans, and Fauburg Marigny will lead to the worst of all worlds. No bulldozing of the devastated areas and redevelopment with payouts to private property owners; and no rebuilding in areas unsafe for human habitation and lacking all infrastructure. 4. New Orleans has gone from a city of 500,000 to a city of 50,000, mostly wealthy whites and very poor illegal immigrants from Mexico. This is reality and it's not changing. Nagin's a lame duck and he knows it; even if people could return they'd vote him out despite all the pandering. New Orleans is a small town and likely to stay that way for a very long time.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at January 17, 2006 01:21 AM (4878o)

7 actus is still clueless I see. I think it's disgusting that some have used MLK Day to campaign for office and bash others. If memory serves me right, that wasn't at all what King stood for. And Hillary sure took a giant step left, didn't she? She's all over the board and some are trying to portray her as a centrist? If it wasn't so ridiculous, I'd laugh.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 06:12 AM (YudAC)

8 Actus, Why should anyone love stupid leftists? Feel sorry for, why yes, I do. Because it must be miserable to have to try to control someone else all the time. Give me your money, your time, everything you own because I am so smart I know what should be done with it, now that is the provence of the leftist. So why should I love someone who is trying to destroy me and my family?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 10:36 AM (rUyw4)

9 Fuck you rectus, I have no love for King or you, or any other piece of shit enemy of America. I wish we could meet, I really do. Piece of shit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:50 AM (0yYS2)

10 Actus JEH was a Democatic Insititution - from FDR on - with a talent for blackmailing both sides as he saw fit - a strange man indeed. But it doesn't change the fact or reality that 2 Dem admins (JFK and LBJ) were the ones reading the intel on King. Sorry - but nice spin try - extra credit.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 12:51 PM (3aakz)

11 "But it doesn't change the fact or reality that 2 Dem admins (JFK and LBJ) were the ones reading the intel on King. Sorry - but nice spin try - extra credit." Like I said. Hard to say that Hoover was a democrat.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 01:58 PM (CqheE)

12 I always wonder what would happen if one of those overseas terrorists dialed a wrong number, and wound up talking to Bluto, or Rusty. How long do you think NSA would keep them under surveillance?

Posted by: Michael Hampton at January 17, 2006 02:33 PM (FVbj6)

13 actus Your funny! OK! What Hoover was reference all this was clearly "AN ENABLER". And who was enabled? It all still brings you back to JFK & LBJ - I know - a problem of image.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:42 PM (3aakz)

14 mikey h. Oh, about a minute ... and your point? I don't believe Bluto, Rusty or I are concerned about a wrong number ... are you? ... why?

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:44 PM (3aakz)

15 Are you going to answer my question, actus?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 05:08 PM (rUyw4)

16 "Are you going to answer my question, actus?" love? thats your problem.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 06:13 PM (CqheE)

17 Let's keep it real on the TRUE history of this country. Its ashamed that in the year of 2006 Black people have to be ashamed of being black. I'm not sure what everyone's TV covered on New Orleans Hurricane, but what horrified me the most was not the Hurricane However, it was the relief and the treatment that the survior's endured. Who were most if not all low income Blacks people, where they were left stranded who the roofs of their homes for more than 3 days, were grandmothers, to infant bodies were found floating in the water. Now is not the time, Wake up people! We do not live in no COLOR BlIND society, cause you sure are not blind and dame sure have color. TRUE racism and discrimination still exist today. In conclusion, Black people should not have to be confidential of being proud of being BLACk.

Posted by: Nzinga Jones at January 18, 2006 06:04 PM (Ffvoi)

18 We are adverstising on our Product to you buyers out there which is Mobile phones we are specialise on mobile phones and we are authorise dealers. We are selling different kind of mobile phones.The phones We are selling Are all brand new and unlock they are sealed in complete box with all the complete accessories with international 1 Year warranty. We are selling the phones at affordable price. Below are List of mobile phones.....God bless you.Thank you as you buy from us. WE ARE SELLING ALL KINDS OF MOBILE PHONES LIKE: MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST $140usd, NEXTEL i930 AT JUST $130usd, NEXTEL i860 AT JUST $110usd, SONY ERICSSON P910i AT JUST $160usd, SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST $160usd SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST $145usd MOTOROLA MPX 220 AT JUST $140usd, MOTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST $180usd, SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST $140usd SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST $160usd NOKIA 9500 AT JUST $210usd, NOKIA N92 AT JUST $230usd, NOKIA N80 AT JUST $200usd, NOKIA N70 AT JUST $170usd, MICROSOFT XBOX 360 AT JUST $120usd, SONY ERICSSON P990 AT JUST $180usd, NOKIA 8800 AT JUST $180usd, NOKIA 9300 AT JUST $190usd, NOKIA N90 AT JUST $210usd NOKIA N91 AT JUST $230usd SAMSUNG D500 AT JUST $180usd, SAMSUNG D415 AT JUST $150usd, SAMSUNG D600 AT JUST $180usd, SIDEKICK II AT JUST $120usd, phonesellerltd@myway.com

Posted by: Gary at January 24, 2006 07:20 PM (PvMN9)

19 WE ARE BIG STRONG INDEPENDENT AND ACREADEBLE SELLING ALL KIND OF MOBILE PHONES IN UNIT AND LARGE GUNTITY ALL IN AN AFFORDABLE PRICES CHEACK OUT OUR LIST OF PRODUCT BELOW AND LET US HAVE YOUR PURCHASSING ORDERS THANKS AND GOD BLEES YOU. FOR SALE X BOX 360 AT JUST $160USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson K500i AT JUST $190 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson P800 AT JUST $200 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson P900 AT JUST $170 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson P910i AT JUST $200 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson T230 AT JUST $140 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson S700i AT JUST $200 USD FOR SALE Sony Ericsson S750i AT JUST $190 USD FOR SALE Nokia 6650 AT JUST $150USD FOR SALE Nokia 6670 Smartphone AT JUST $180USD FOR SALE Nokia 7610 AT JUST $150 USD FOR SALE Nokia 8910 AT JUST $190 USD FOR SALE Nokia 8910i AT JUST $170 USD FOR SALE Nokia 9210i Communicator AT JUST $210 USD FOR SALE Nokia 9500 Communicator AT JUST $220USD FOR SALE Nokia 9300 Communicator AT JUST $270USD FOR SALE Nokia 6681 AT JUST $200USD FOR SALE Nokia 8800 AT JUST $230USD FOR SALE Nokia N80 AT JUST $170 USD FOR SALE Nokia N90 AT JUST $180 USD FOR SALE Nokia N91 AT JUST $195 USD FOR SALE Nokia N70 AT JUST $160 USD FOR SALE Motorola E36 AT JUST $1200USD FOR SALE Motorola E398 AT JUST $150USD FOR SALE Motorola RAZR V3 AT JUST $200USD FOR SALE Motorola V3x AT JUST $230 USD FOR SALE Motorola V600 (OEM) w/ Bluetooth Headset $240 USD FOR SALE Motorola V80 with Bluetooth. AT JUST $210 USD FOR SALE Motorola V872 AT JUST $150 USD FOR SALE Motorola V878 AT JUST $180 USD FOR SALE Motorola V300 AT JUST $150 USD FOR SALE Samsung D500 AT JUST $220 USD FOR SALE Samsung E600 AT JUST $150 USD FOR SALE Samsung E800 AT JUST $200 USD FOR SALE Samsung P510 AT JUST $160USD FOR SELL NEXTEL i930 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $180usd FOR SELL NEXTEL i860 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $150usd LEGIT BUYER WANTED THANKS AND GOD BLESS YOU AS YOU GET BACK TO US THROUGH OUR E-MAIL ADDRESS= rollexgsmcellulars@hotmail.com

Posted by: Roland Micheal at February 07, 2006 03:36 PM (OQm4j)

20 Dear We are mobile phones wholesalers.We deals on all brands and models of mobile phones such as Nokia,Motorola,Samsung,Sony Ericsson,Sagem,Nextel,Sidekick II,Sprint and many more at very cheap prices.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones. Do kindly reply back if you are interested and as you do you will be glad you do, you can reach us through our email address. Thank's and God bless Anita Willson mobiletradingltd@earthlink.net Nokia 7610-- US$195 Nokia 7650-- US$160 Nokia 8910i-- US$185 Nokia 8890-- US$115 Nokia 8800 --US$250 Nokia 6680......US$155 Nokia 6681......US$160 Nokia N90......US$200 Nokia N91......US$230 Nokia N70......US$195 Nokia 6060......US$150 Nokia 6111......US$260 Sony Ericsson P800-- US$155 Sony Ericsson P900-- US$180 Sony Ericsson P910i-- US$185 Sony Ericsson S700-- US$175 Sony Ericsson K500i-- US$180 Sony Ericsson K700i-- US$189 Sony Ericsson K750i-- US$200 Samsung SGH D500-- US$155 Samsung SGH P400-- US$135 Samsung SGH P510-- US$139 Samsung SGH N188-- US$110 Samsung SGH S200-- US$100 Samsung SGH S300-- US$105 Samsung SGH S307-- US$130 Motorola MPX200-- US$180 Motorola V3Razor-- US$200 Motorola V525-- US$139 Motorola V300-- US$130 Motorola V400-- US$125 Motorola V500-- US$130 Motorola V600-- US$140 Nextel i830-- US$115 Nextel i860-- US$125 Nextel i930-- US$140 PDA's HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 ========= $190 Asus MyPal A716 ================= $175 HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350 ========= $185 Toshiba Pocket PC E405 ========== $120 Sony Clie PEG-TH55 ============== $155 Toshiba Pocket PC E800 ========== $220 PalmOne Zire 72=========$120 PalmOne Tungsten E ==== $90 PalmOne Tungsten C === $140 PalmOne Zire 31 === ==$65 palm Treo 650======$240 SERIOUS AND LEGIT BUYERS mobiletradingltd@earthlink.net

Posted by: Anita Willson at February 10, 2006 06:09 PM (dvlL3)

21 Dear Buyers We have all kind of Mobile Phones For Sale. Our Mobile Phones are:- 1) Brand new gsm phones (this includes accessories, Manuals, software and boxes) 2) Unlocked / sim free 3) Brand oem (original manufacturer) box - no copies 4) All phones have English language as default 5) All material (software, manual) - Car chargers - Home chargers - USB data cables - holsters/belt clips - Wireless headsets (Bluetooth) - Leather and non-leather carrying cases - Batteries If you are interested, Foward your questions and enquires to us via email with your order and Shipping details. We give 1 year warranty for every phone sold out to Our costumers, our phones are company class 1 tested And approved by global standard organization of Wireless industries, brand new phones with complete Accessory, extra charger and battery. Sorry we don't do business with Africa Or Nigeria. Regards LONDON PHONES MART 12 OAKLEY SQUARE LONDON ,NW1 1PQ Company No. 05223230, VAT:GB 333022421 Tel: +447031846233 Fax: +447031846423 Email:John_mmmm01@yahoo.co.uk

Posted by: john at February 10, 2006 07:45 PM (ARPas)

22 Dear Buyers We have all kind of Mobile Phones For Sale. Our Mobile Phones are:- 1) Brand new gsm phones (this includes accessories, Manuals, software and boxes) 2) Unlocked / sim free 3) Brand oem (original manufacturer) box - no copies 4) All phones have English language as default 5) All material (software, manual) - Car chargers - Home chargers - USB data cables - holsters/belt clips - Wireless headsets (Bluetooth) - Leather and non-leather carrying cases - Batteries If you are interested, Foward your questions and enquires to us via email with your order and Shipping details. We give 1 year warranty for every phone sold out to Our costumers, our phones are company class 1 tested And approved by global standard organization of Wireless industries, brand new phones with complete Accessory, extra charger and battery. Sorry we don't do business with Africa Or Nigeria. Best regards. 12 OAKLEY SQUARE LONDON ,NW1 1PQ Company No. 05223230, VAT:GB 333022421 Tel: +447031846233 Fax: +447031846423 Email:londonphonemart@hotmail.com

Posted by: john at February 12, 2006 06:19 PM (ak43y)

23 Dear Buyers We have all kind of Mobile Phones For Sale. Our Mobile Phones are:- 1) Brand new gsm phones (this includes accessories, Manuals, software and boxes) 2) Unlocked / sim free 3) Brand oem (original manufacturer) box - no copies 4) All phones have English language as default 5) All material (software, manual) - Car chargers - Home chargers - USB data cables - holsters/belt clips - Wireless headsets (Bluetooth) - Leather and non-leather carrying cases - Batteries If you are interested, Foward your questions and enquires to us via email with your order and Shipping details. We give 1 year warranty for every phone sold out to Our costumers, our phones are company class 1 tested And approved by global standard organization of Wireless industries, brand new phones with complete Accessory, extra charger and battery. Sorry we don't do business with Africa Or Nigeria. Best regards. PHONES MART 12 OAKLEY SQUARE LONDON ,NW1 1PQ Company No. 05223230, VAT:GB 333022421 Tel: +447031846233 Fax: +447031846423 Email:londonphonemart@hotmail.com

Posted by: john at February 12, 2006 06:26 PM (ak43y)

24 We have all kind of Mobile Phones For Sale. We have All kind of Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, Motorola, Nextel, Qtek, BenQ, Os and all kind of Mobile Phones Our Mobile Phones are:- 1) Brand new gsm phones (this includes accessories, Manuals, software and boxes) (2) Unlocked / sim free 3) Brand oem (original manufacturer) box - no copies 4) All phones have English language as default 5) All material (software, manual) - Car chargers - Home chargers - USB data cables - holsters/belt clips - Wireless headsets (Bluetooth) - Leather and non-leather carrying cases - Batteries Nokia 1100-- US$55 Nokia 2100-- US$45 Nokia 2300-- US$60 Nokia 3100-- US$65 Nokia 3108-- US$60 Nokia 3200-- US$75 Nokia 3230-- US$95 Nokia 3300 - US$85 Nokia 3310-- US$25 Nokia 3315-- US$29 Nokia 3330-- US$30 Nokia 3350-- US$35 Nokia 3410-- US$35 Nokia 3510-- US$40 Nokia 3510i-- US$45 Nokia 3530-- US$50 Nokia 3595-- US$45 Nokia 3610-- US$55 Nokia 3650-- US$185 Nokia 3660-- US$195 Nokia 5100-- US$65 Nokia 5140-- US$110 Nokia 5210-- US$40 Nokia 5510-- US$105 Nokia 5550-- US$50 Nokia 5170iR-- US$39 Nokia 6020-- US$130 Nokia 6670-- US$105 Nokia 6630-- US$175 Nokia 6100-- US$80 Nokia 6108-- US$90 Nokia 6220-- US$105 Nokia 6230-- US$110 Nokia 6260-- US$135 Nokia 6310-- US$69 Nokia 6310i-- US$70 Nokia 6500-- US$60 Nokia 6510-- US$60 Nokia 6600-- US$135 Nokia 6610-- US$80 Nokia 6630-- US$175 Nokia 6170-- US$145 Nokia 6650-- US$82 Nokia 6800-- US$105 Nokia 6820-- US$110 Nokia 7200-- US$185 Nokia 7210 Turquoise-- US$100 Nokia 7230-- US$120 Nokia 7250-- US$120 Nokia 7250i-- US$120 Nokia 7260-- US$135 Nokia 7280-- US$155 Nokia 7600-- US$165 Nokia 7610-- US$195 Nokia 7650-- US$160 Nokia 8250-- US$65 Nokia 8310-- US$90 Nokia 8910 Titanium-- US$160 Nokia 8910 Black-- US$165 Nokia 8910i-- US$185 Nokia 8890-- US$115 Nokia 8850 Special Edition-- US$105 Nokia 8850 Gold Edition-- US$110 Nokia 8800 ------------ US$250 Nokia 6680......US $220 Nokia 6681......US $220 Nokia N90......US $250 Nokia N91......US $250 Nokia N91......US $300 Nokia N70......US $250 Nokia 6060......US $230 Nokia 6111......US $260 Nokia 8855-- US$100 Nokia 9210 Communicator-- US$195 Nokia 9210i Communicator-- US$195 Nokia N-Gage-- US$110 Nokia 9500 (communicator)-- US$210 Nokia 9500 (communicator)-- US$200 Sony Ericsson P800-- US$155 Sony Ericsson P900-- US$205 Sony Ericsson P910i-- US$210 Sony Ericsson T20e-- US$35 Sony Ericsson T20s-- US$39 Sony Ericsson T28s-- US$39 Sony Ericsson T28 World-- US$45 Sony Ericsson T29s-- US$49 Sony Ericsson T100-- US$30 Sony Ericsson T105-- US$35 Sony Ericsson T200-- US$45 Sony Ericsson T230-- US$55 Sony Ericsson T300-- US$55 Sony Ericsson T310-- US$50 Sony Ericsson T600-- US$69 Sony Ericsson T610-- US$130 Sony Ericsson T630-- US$135 Sony Ericsson T68i-- US$105 Sony Ericsson T68m-- US$110 Sony Ericsson Z200-- US$100 Sony Ericsson Z600-- US$170 Sony CMD-J5-- US$30 Sony CMD-Z7-- US$35 Sony CMD-J7-- US$40 Sony CMD-J6-- US$40 Sony CMD-Z5-- US$90 Sony CMD-MZ5-- US$155 Sony Ericsson R520m-- US$100 Sony Ericsson R380 World-- US$90 Sony Ericsson R380s-- US$105 Sony Ericsson R600-- US$35 Sony Ericsson S700-- US$175 Sony Ericsson K500i-- US$180 Sony Ericsson K700i-- US$189 Sony Ericsson K750i-- US$200 Samsung SGH A200-- US$50 Samsung SGH A300-- US$40 Samsung SGH A500-- US$70 Samsung SGH A800-- US$70 Samsung SGH C100-- US$85 Samsung SGH E400-- US$125 Samsung SGH E600-- US$129 Samsung SGH E700-- US$130 Samsung SGH E715-- US$155 Samsung SGH-E810-- US$140 Samsung SGH-E820-- US$150 Samsung SGH-E800-- US$155 Samsung SGH-E850-- US$140 Samsung SGH D410-- US$150 Samsung SGH D500-- US$155 Samsung SGH P400-- US$135 Samsung SGH P510-- US$139 Samsung SGH N188-- US$110 Samsung SGH N288-- US$60 Samsung SGH N500-- US$60 Samsung SGH N620-- US$60 Samsung SGH M100-- US$45 Samsung SGH P400-- US$140 Samsung SGH P410-- US$145 Samsung SGH P500-- US$155 Samsung SGH Q105-- US$40 Samsung SGH Q300--- US$70 Samsung SGH R220-- US$30 Samsung SGH R225-- US$25 Samsung SGH S100-- US$90 Samsung SGH S200-- US$100 Samsung SGH S300-- US$105 Samsung SGH S307-- US$130 Samsung SGH S500-- US$109 Samsung SGH T100-- US$100 samsung SGH S105-- US$35 Samsung SGH T200-- US$125 Samsung SGH T400-- US$60 Samsung SGH T500-- US$90 Samsung SGH T700-- US$99 Samsung SGH V200-- US$105 Samsung SGH VM680-- US$100 Samsung SGH X400-- US$105 Samsung SGH X410-- US$130 Samsung SGH X426-- US$129 Samsung SGH-C200-- US$125 Samsung SGH-X460-- US$140 Samsung SGH-X450-- US$130 Samsung SGH-X120-- US$99 Samsung SGH X600-- US$145 Samsung SGH-X610-- US$140 Samsung SGH-Z105-- US$120 Motorola A008-- US$50 Motorola A388-- US$70 Motorola A388c-- US$120 Motorola A820-- US$65 Motorola C330-- US$20 Motorola C331-- US$25 Motorola C332-- US$30 Motorola C333-- US$35 Motorola C350-- US$69 Motorola E360-- US$60 Motorola E365-- US$110 Motorola E380-- US$95 Motorola E398-- US$125 Motorola MPX200-- US$180 Motorola Accompli 008-- US$49 Motorola Timeport 280-- US$80 Motorola T190T-- US$25 Motorola Talkabout 191-- US$25 Motorola T720-- US$65 Motorola T720i-- US$85 Motorola V3Razor-- US$145 Motorola V66-- US$60 Motorola V60-- US$70 Motorola V60i-- US$75 Motorola V70-- US$105 Motorola V80-- US$115 Motorola V290-- US$80 Motorola V750-- US$125 Motorola V3688+-- US$20 Motorola V8088-- US$30 Motorola V525-- US$139 Motorola V300-- US$130 Motorola V400-- US$125 Motorola V500-- US$130 Motorola V600-- US$140 Siemens A35-- US$15 Siemens A40-- US$19 Siemens A50-- US$25 Siemens A52-- US$29 Siemens A55-- US$30 Siemens C45-- US$30 Siemens C55-- US$35 Siemens CL50-- US$70 Siemens CL55-- US$65 Siemens CT56-- US$30 Siemens M50-- US$35 Siemens M55-- US$120 Siemens MC60-- US$79 Siemens ME45-- US$50 Siemens S45-- US$60 Siemens SL42-- US$65 Siemens SL45i-- US$69 Siemens S55-- US$85 Siemens SL55-- US$125 Siemens SX45-- US$155 Siemens SX1-- US$180 Siemens Xelibri 1-- US$60 Siemens Xelibri 2-- US$70 Siemens Xelibri 3-- US$110 Siemens Xelibri 4-- US$80 Siemens Xelibri 5-- US$65 Siemens Xelibri 6-- US$85 Siemens Xelibri 7-- US$85 Siemens Xelibri 8-- US$95 Nextel i55sr-- US$65 Nextel i2000plus-- US$35 Nextel i58sr-- US$30 Nextel i530-- US$35 Nextel i205-- US$20 Nextel i305-- US$25 Nextel i35s-- US$29 Nextel i88-- US$30 Nextel i90-- US$59 Nextel i95cl-- US$70 Nextel i60c-- US$40 Nextel 6510TM-- US$110 Nextel i730-- US$85 Nextel i733-- US$95 Nextel i736-- US$105 Nextel i830-- US$115 Nextel i860-- US$125 Nextel i930-- US$140 PDA's HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 ========= $190 Asus MyPal A716 ================= $175 HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350 ========= $185 Toshiba Pocket PC E405 ========== $120 Sony Clie PEG-TH55 ============== $155 Toshiba Pocket PC E800 ========== $220 PalmOne Zire 72================== $120 PalmOne Tungsten E ============== $90 PalmOne Tungsten C ============== $140 PalmOne Zire 31 ================= $65 palm Treo 650=====================$240 SONY VAIO A217S 100GB 512MB RAM XP HOME $700 SONY VAIO B1VP 40GB HD 512MB RAM XP PRO $690 SONY VAIO T370P/L 60GB HD 512MB RAM XP $700 SONY VAIO A215Z 60GB HD 512MB RAM XP $750 SONY VAIO A397XP 80GB HD 512MB RAM XP $780 SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD 512MB RAM XP $750 SONY VAIO FS295VP 80GB HD 512MB RAM XP $850 SONY VAIO FS215Z 100GB HD 512MB RAM XP $880 SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD 512MB RAM XP $750 SONY VAIO B1VP 40GB HD 512MB RAM XP PRO $720 SONY VAIO T370P/L 60GB HD 512MB RAM XP PRO $710 SONY VAIO LAPTOP VGN A117S $700 SONY VAIO LAPTOP VGN S1XP $800 ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP $530 APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY $850 APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.0GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER $900 APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 17 INCH DISPLAY $750 APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.5GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER $1000 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP P20 102 $700 APPLE 5GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR $2500 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP P10 803 $700 ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP $690 ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP PACK WIFI VERSION $700 OQO MODEL 01 ULTRA PERSONAL COMPUTER (XP PRO) $650 TOSHIBA SATELLITE PRO A60 40GB C2.8GHZ 15INCH DVD/CDR $750 FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK WI FI GPRS BLUETOOTH 1GHZ (BLACK) $690 FUJITSU SIEMENS LIFEBOOK P7010 60GB P4 1.1GHZ 10.6INCH DVD/CDRW $800 ASUS A4744K LH AMD64 POWER WORKSTATION LAPTOP $650 FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK WI FI GPRS BLUETOOTH 1GHZ (RED) $690 FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK WI FI GPRS BLUETOOTH 1GHZ (BLUE) $600 ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP $450 FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK WI FI GPRS BLUETOOTH 1GHZ (YELLOW) $700 TOSHIBA TECRA M2 40GB PM 1.5GHZ 14INCH WIFI DVD CDRW $700 FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK WI FI GPRS BLUETOOTH 1GHZ (SILVER) $700 TOSHIBA PORTEGE R100 40GB 512MB XP PRO $700 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP M30 742 $750 APPLE G5 POWERMAC 1.8GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER $700 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZD7145EA $700 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZD7255EA $750 APPLE CINEMA HD 23 INCH TFT LCD MONITOR $800 SONY VAIO LAPTOP VGN PCGK21 5Z $710 SAMSUNG LAPTOP X30 LWC 1500 $720 G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY $800 SONY VAIO PCVW2 DESKTOP $750 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZX5151EA PHOTOSMART $720 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP M30 832 $700 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZT3215EA $850 SAMSUNG LAPTOP M40 HWM 745 $800 APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.3GHZ COMBO WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY $900 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP P20 801 $700 APPLE GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR $690 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZX5275EA $700 SONY VAIO LAPTOP VGN PCGK21 5S $700 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZT3350EA $700 SAMSUNG LAPTOP X15PLUS HZM $750 APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ COMBO WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY $850 SONY VAIO LAPTOP PCGK215M $700 SONY VAIO DESKTOP RS504 $700 HP PAVILION LAPTOP ZX5030 $700 TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP M30 106 $700 HP MEDIA CENTER DESKTOP COMPUTER M1080 PHOTOSMART $710 APPLE IBOOK 1.2GHZ COMBO WITH 14.1 INCH DISPLAY $720 APPLE GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 17 INCH MONITOR $700 AND MANY MORE

Posted by: John Bill at February 20, 2006 08:28 PM (sDi9c)

25 Mobile phones for sale at a cheaper rate you can contact Mac ruby on +2348054168861 or hellen4world81@hotmail.com, macrubyphonedealer@gmail.com

Posted by: Sony Ericsson p990i......$450usd at February 22, 2006 05:01 AM (yaAy1)

26 Mobile phones for sale at a cheaper rate you can contact Mac ruby on +2348054168861 or hellen4world81@hotmail.com, macrubyphonedealer@gmail.com

Posted by: Nokia 8800......$250usd at February 22, 2006 05:06 AM (yaAy1)

27 Mobile phones for sale at a cheaper rate you can contact Mac ruby on +2348054168861 or hellen4world81@hotmail.com, macrubyphonedealer@gmail.com

Posted by: Sony Ericsson w990i......$300usd at February 22, 2006 05:12 AM (yaAy1)

28 Hello Buyers, Scot Mobile Ltd now selling all kind of mobile phones with all accessories, We sell at cheap price, We only do business with reliable company, we deal with mobile phone dealers only. Minimum order: 20 Maximum order: 2000 with 6 free mobile phone Shipping Methd: UPS, EMS, FEDEX and DHL, 2 to 3 days delivery with tracking number and invoice. Shipping charge per phone: $20 Payment Method: Western Union Money Transfer, Wire Transfer/ Bank to bank transfer. We reship order if Damage,the phones is 1 year warranty. We are looking forward to do business with a reliable company. If interested do not hesitate to contac us by email or call us. Thank you. Gen Sales Manager. Paulio SCOT SLOT LIMITED Registered No. SC242067 10 ALBERT PLACE STIRLING,STIRLINGSHIRE FK8 2QL Phone:447024060532 Fax :447024060532 Email:scotmobileltdzwallet.com :scotmobileltd@myway.com :scotmobileltd@hotmail.com Website:http://scotlimited.8m.com

Posted by: Niato at February 27, 2006 06:37 AM (WmIL7)

29 Hello Buyers, Scot Mobile Ltd now selling all kind of mobile phones with all accessories, We sell at cheap price, We only do business with reliable company, we deal with mobile phone dealers only. Minimum order: 20 Maximum order: 2000 with 6 free mobile phone Shipping Methd: UPS, EMS, FEDEX and DHL, 2 to 3 days delivery with tracking number and invoice. Shipping charge per phone: $20 Payment Method: Western Union Money Transfer, Wire Transfer/ Bank to bank transfer. We reship order if Damage,the phones is 1 year warranty. We are looking forward to do business with a reliable company. If interested do not hesitate to contac us by email or call us. Thank you. Gen Sales Manager. Paulio SCOT SLOT LIMITED Registered No. SC242067 10 ALBERT PLACE STIRLING,STIRLINGSHIRE FK8 2QL Phone:447024060532 Fax :447024060532 Email:scotmobileltd@zwallet.com :scotmobileltd@myway.com :scotmobileltd@hotmail.com Website:http://scotlimited.8m.com

Posted by: paulio at February 27, 2006 06:51 AM (WmIL7)

30 MAC-RUBY PHONEDEALER a leading professional Exporter/Distributor of communication products, specializes in selling the brand new mobilephones such as Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Motorolla e.t.c Contact: 23, Afolabi street, ikeja lagos, Nigeria. macrubyphone@yahoo.com, macrubyphonedealer@gmail.com +2348054168861 WARRANTY. ======================= All handsets sold by MAC-RUBY PHONEDEALER come with a one-year International warranty WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD FOR YOUR FAVOURABLE REPLY

Posted by: Sony ericsson w900i........$300usd at February 28, 2006 01:29 PM (uee9Y)

31 MAC-RUBY PHONEDEALER a leading professional Exporter/Distributor of communication products, specializes in selling the brand new mobilephones such as Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Motorolla e.t.c Contact: 23, Afolabi street, ikeja lagos, Nigeria. macrubyphone@yahoo.com, macrubyphonedealer@gmail.com +2348054168861 WARRANTY. ======================= All handsets sold by MAC-RUBY PHONEDEALER come with a one-year International warranty WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD FOR YOUR FAVOURABLE REPLY

Posted by: Nokia 8800, n90, n92 for $220usd at February 28, 2006 01:32 PM (uee9Y)

32 BUY MOTOROLA V3 AT $165:00 NEXTEL i930 AT $120:00 NOKIA 9500 AT Anonymous, July 16, 2005 - 11:53am BUY MOTOROLA V3 AT $165:00 NEXTEL i930 AT $120:00 NOKIA 9500 AT $220:00 Email Address:worldmarketers76@yahoo.com Dear Buyers, LETTER OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP We are mobile phones wholesalers.We deals on all brands and models of mobile phones such as Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Sagem, Nextel, Sidekick II, Sprint and many more at very cheap prices.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones.Do kindly reply back if you are interested and as you do you will be glad you do, you can reach us through our email address: worldmarketers76@yahoo.com Thank's and God bless. meyers jay Director. Reply Your name: Anonymous Subject:

Posted by: meyers jay at March 02, 2006 05:53 PM (CvSRf)

33 BUY MOTOROLA V3 AT $165:00 NEXTEL i930 AT $120:00 NOKIA 9500 AT Anonymous, July 16, 2005 - 11:53am BUY MOTOROLA V3 AT $165:00 NEXTEL i930 AT $120:00 NOKIA 9500 AT $220:00 Email Address:worldmarketers76@yahoo.com Dear Buyers, LETTER OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP We are mobile phones wholesalers.We deals on all brands and models of mobile phones such as Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Sagem, Nextel, Sidekick II, Sprint and many more at very cheap prices.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones.Do kindly reply back if you are interested and as you do you will be glad you do, you can reach us through our email address:globalphonezltd@yahoo.com worldmarketers76@yahoo.com Thank's and God bless. meyers jay Director. Reply Your name: Anonymous Subject:

Posted by: meyers jay at March 02, 2006 05:56 PM (CvSRf)

34 You can't be 30878 serious?!?

Posted by: Mary Box at July 06, 2006 03:21 PM (IoBJc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gray Lady's 30 Layers of Editors Screw Up Again

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker points us to this photo (which can still be seen here).

This is the caption that ran with the photo originally:

Â“Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.Â”

What the New York Time's editors failed to notice is that the object is not part of a missile, but an old artillery shell. In fact, the sort of thing that terrorists use to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The caption was corrected after its propaganda value had been exploited.

Isn't it odd that the NYT's 'errors' always seem to be on the side of America's enemies?

Via Michelle Malkin.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:19 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Isn't it odd that the NYT's errors always seem to be on the side of America's enemies?" No, not odd at all, when the NYTs is obviously on the side of our enemy. They knew this photo was not from a missle strike, as is evident to anyone with only spotty knowledge of military ordinance. A missle has tail fins and would only be in pieces when recovered from an area struck. The photo is an easily recognizable artillery shell.

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

2 U.S. airstrikes, inasmuch as they are targetting AQ terrorists, are an act of self-defense. The sooner those Pakis hand over their jihadis, the sooner they won't get j-dammed anymore. Their choice.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 16, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

3 "Isn't it odd that the NYT's 'errors' always seem to be on the side of America's enemies?" Nothing odd about it. In fact, it's only odd that it's taken most of a century for people to catch on. When Stalin was murdering twenty million of his own people, the NYT was right there cheering him on the whole time. When Hitler was preparing the ground for the greatest calamity of human history, they were rooting for him. When Castro et al were murdering tens of thousands and enslaving millions in our own back yard, they were lying to us the whole time and fellating him in print. They are all traitors and accessories to crimes against humanity countless times over, and they should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 16, 2006 01:33 PM (0yYS2)

4 I should be banned for this, but...I'm glad Ahmacrackhead is coming out of the closet

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 16, 2006 01:45 PM (LVVcX)

5 Good points about the NYTs. I had forgotten about the Gray Lady's rotten coverage of Stalin's atrocities. Seems like the reporter received the Pulitzer Prize for his fabrications and ruminations of the Stalin Regime.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 16, 2006 01:46 PM (rUyw4)

6 When I went to Bluto's link (indicated by "here") it showed that the photo was taken by "Thir Khan" and distributed by Getty. I tried to find out more about the photographer but little was available through google concerning him; he seems to be an enigma. I am not really skilled in internet research, perhaps AGENT SMITH would use his skills in finding out more about the source of this photo. It is obviously staged, but why and by whom ?

Posted by: john Ryan at January 16, 2006 02:10 PM (TcoRJ)

7 Vercingetorix - SemtexÂ™ butt-plugs? You hang around a really sick bunch. Funny stuff!

Posted by: Oyster at January 16, 2006 02:26 PM (osKlJ)

8 Part of a long line of fakes and hoaxes on the part of the MSM - some stories these past few years have been real doozi's. The MSM in the true sense is not sympathetic to the oposition - its just an opportunity to bash America and Bush n' company. The truly amazing thing though (and few have noticed) is how pathetically bad and inept these attempts have been. Being biased is one thing - but being incompetent at it is amazing! The MSM and the left have a defiite quality control problem!

Posted by: hondo at January 16, 2006 02:52 PM (3aakz)

9 Bit of an odd item (artillery shell) to have in a humble peaceful lil' village isn't it? Maybe it a nik-nak.

Posted by: hondo at January 16, 2006 03:09 PM (3aakz)

10 Yeah, a nik-nak on its way to becoming an IED. Another big red flag in this whole incident is that most of the 'bodies' had been buried by the time Paki authorities got there. Not a lot of mention of that in the MSM. This whole tribal region is full of AQ collaborators. This time they reaped what they sewed. Tough.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 16, 2006 03:37 PM (RHG+K)

11 I'd say we'll know more about Dr. Demento soon, because if he doesn't release another video, it would not look good for him if he's alive.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 16, 2006 04:08 PM (0yYS2)

12 Bluto If he was there and is dead - I would fully expect the locals and his people to conceal his body - like with OBL - a live "hero" myth ""IS"" worth more than a dead marytr.

Posted by: hondo at January 16, 2006 06:46 PM (3aakz)

13 not to nit pick a nit that's already been picked, but... the NYT online edition shows the correction, but calls it "ordinance".... maybe they could ask William Safire to come back and explain the difference between "ordinance" and "ORDNANCE"... just saying...

Posted by: MajMike at January 17, 2006 09:37 AM (zXWkt)

14 The difference can be summed up thusly: And ordinance says "don't do that", whereas ordnance says "stop now".

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:58 AM (0yYS2)

15 I think that al Queda will be happy to announce his death as a martyr whether or not his death is caused by us. Although it may be delayed a few days. C and C is a little slow over their. It is to bad that Thir Khan the photographer didn't provide us with more photos. The manufacturing lot numbers might have been more interesting as to the history of that artillery round.Even over there it is worth a substantial amount of money. So any answers as to: Why the photo was taken ? Certainly not to prove it was the USA that caused the deaths. Was it taken as proof that the village deserved what happened ? To prove how inept the editors at the NYT are ? In the free market economy it is the advertisers who really decide what the content will be: they foot the bill not the readers.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 17, 2006 01:02 PM (TcoRJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 14, 2006

Dem Surrender Monkey Murtha To Appear On 60 Minutes

Representative John Murtha (D, FRANCE) is to appear on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday to do what he can to weaken the US war effort and get more troops killed. Murtha is the partisan Democrat who called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq (prior to the December vote) and was humiliated when Republicans called his bluff and put the proposal to a vote. It was overwhelmingly defeated.

From Breitbart:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken Democratic critic of the Iraq war, said in remarks to be aired on Sunday that voter pressure in the November congressional election could force President George W. Bush to pull U.S. forces from Iraq.
"I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year and I'm hopeful it will be sooner than that," Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, told the CBS "60 Minutes" show.

The Bush administration has already announced plans to reduce troop levels throughout 2006. Murtha's interview is a transparent attempt to recharacterize any troop drawdowns for partisan purposes. Unfortunately, Murtha's party is invested in US defeat. More unfortunately, Murtha's partisan antics will most likely give false hope to our enemies, resulting in more soldiers being put at risk.

Past service does not excuse betraying your country later. Just ask Benedict Arnold.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:30 AM | Comments (71) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yes, ex marine and pentagon insdier murtha is a "surrender monkey", unlike titan of virtue jean schmidt, house republican from ohio. Facts and realit vs. thick ideology and obedience to kings...all on display. im no fan of murtha, but the guy is looking at reality and trying to save the republic from really bad ideas derived from really bad ideology. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 12:20 PM (X4Dyg)

2 The troops are coming home, and GEORGE BUSH should get the credit, not Murtha and his bunch, who advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and then didn't have the guts to vote for it when a vote came up. Yep, surrender monkey just about describes him alright, but I would add senile, washed-up ex-Marine. Pathetic is what he is.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 12:45 PM (rUyw4)

3 Past service does not excuse betraying your country later. Just ask Benedict Arnold. Or ask Timothy McVeigh.

Posted by: 4THGENERATIONBUCK at January 14, 2006 01:23 PM (ffDOr)

4 Blind obedience to authority is a betrayal to the country as well, especially when the authority claims to be autocratic while disguising really bad policy. The USA is not a kingdon, but a republic, and democracy is not practiced through the blind obedience to leaders. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 02:06 PM (X4Dyg)

5 All these triggerhappy, warmongering idiots who dont understand the limitations of the American forces who call Murtha a 'surrender monkey' probably are a bunch of draft skippers like Cheney,Bush Jr., Limbaugh etc. If youve ever read anything about G.S. Patton you know of his distaste for troops being used as police, as is being done in Iraq. Why dont you bunch of panty lovin draft skippers who call Murtha a surrendermonkey go commit suicide by Iraqii nationalist who just want the fkin Anglosaxon bastards out of their country. Go home you bunch of loser Yanks. Go drop bombs on kids somewhere else. I hope you get your ass blown off as long as youre around Iraq. Every person who dies over there had their shot at not fighting a stupid war. If they passed up the chance to exit such a stupid war they deserve to get dead.

Posted by: gary perris at January 14, 2006 02:26 PM (htv3Q)

6 ernie, if Murtha had a spine, he'd stand up and proclaim LOUDLY that he believes it would be in America and Iraqs best interest to have Hussein returned to power. BTW, since we're not a democracy and were never intended to be a democracy, we don't practice mob rule when it comes to National Security. We tried that during Vietnam and it weakened us and made the attacks on September 11th possible.

Posted by: Sarah Van at January 14, 2006 02:28 PM (8U8DH)

7 gary and ernie show the true face of the Left. They loathe the military and hope that our soldiers die, but they're not above using a dotard like Murtha to further their partisan goals. Even more disgusting is that gary, whose real name is probably Ahmed, is taking advantage of the US educational system at a well-known California university.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 02:46 PM (RHG+K)

8 Thank goodness Bluto relies on no particular partisan prism whatsover to guide his analyses and responses. Oh, my IP will show I am not part of a California University, but a member of a suburban neighborhood in northeast Wisconsin that prizes rationality above all.

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 03:40 PM (oxMjD)

9 Wisconsin gave us Proxmire. You have a lot to answer for, Drew. The "prism" I look at these things through is what's best for the country. Right now, Dems, with one notable exception, don't care what happens so long as their party prospers.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 03:44 PM (RHG+K)

10 well i guess from Blutos logic then murtha is anti-military too, which is a claim i find amazing. the right wing in this counrty, given their exposure as criminals frauds and hypocritical "hyper-patriotis" has them grasping at straws, this is obvious...it must be rough thinking as you do these days. now for sara van who openly and proudly asserts that "we dont live in a demcoracy" of course we dont honey, and you should be a truly proud soviet, or maybe a serf...in any event,,,,soccer mom from hell for sure... so blinded by ideology you happily help destroy the USA...dumb...dumb...dumb... ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 03:54 PM (X4Dyg)

11 " cowards cut and run, marines never do" - republican representative jean schmidt. hyper patriot. Hair pulled back too tight, wearing the flag as a sweater....america has finally caught on to the hypocrite "hyper patriots"...see in america people are kinda on the fence, but nobody wants to look like the dumb guy, or girl, that cant see that their president is stupid and his policies suck. A new political trend has developed, it doesnt look good for republicans in 2006. Abramoff, Frist, Downing Street, NSA domestic spying, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Jean Schmidt, No WMDs, August 6 memo, etc etc etc.....get ready to lose some seats right wingers, your corruption has awoken the sleeping giant of voter apathy....and gay marriage will not save you this time...sorry karl rove. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 03:59 PM (X4Dyg)

12 Well, Sen. Robert Kennedy would I believe agree wholeheartedly with you on your choice, but that's for another day. Your concern for America is laudible, and deserves to be taken on its face. It's just that I've noticed what's "best" for the country from the Bluto camp seems to often fall in with what's best for the furthest rightwing of Republican thought. Isn't that, well, partisanship by definition? I think its somewhat disingenuous on your part to accuse one group of partisanship without holding the other group to the same or at least similar standards. By the way, who's the Dem exception? God's sake don't say Lieberman....Regards

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 04:11 PM (oxMjD)

13 You liberal chickenshits never met an enemy of America whose boots you wouldn't lick. You should all be taken out and shot, so STFU.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 04:26 PM (0yYS2)

14 What's the "Bluto camp"? And yes, Lieberman is the only notable Dem who displays good sense and concern for the country. What the Dems are doing now, many Republicans were guilty of during WWII, but, since Vietnam, investing in American defeat has been a phenomenon of the Left.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 04:27 PM (RHG+K)

15 "It doesn't look good for Republicans in 2006....blah..blah..blah. Ernie, you leftists said the same thing in 2000, 2002, 2004, ect. ad infinium. Here's the bottom line, dopehead, the American people won't trust Democratic SURRENDER MONKEYS to run this country. You're either drunk, high, or just plain stupid if you can't see that, or perhaps you have taken enough dope to be completely delusional. And you shits won't do nothing. I looked at all the dumb asses over at DU calling for a revolution and I say, get it on, you cowardly bastards. You don't have the balls for it, and you know it. Bring it on, anytime!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 04:33 PM (rUyw4)

16 Bluto: Well, Leiberman defied Bush on the secret prison investigations, so I'm with you there. We probably have vastly different definitions of "good sense" and "concern" as politics go, but what is this "investment in American defeat since Vietnam?"

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)

17 Also, what is DU?

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:09 PM (oxMjD)

18 Uh, Drew, Democratic Underground. Where you will find the finest of the Left and liberal persuasion. Take a trip over there and see what your allies in the swamp are advocating. I just wish they would get on with their revolution.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:15 PM (rUyw4)

19 Thank you, I never heard of it. I don't waste my time with a whole lot of blogging, just this one every week or so and another one even less frequently. Where I'm from, DU is Ducks Unlimited--a hunting organization to which I gladly belong.

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:22 PM (oxMjD)

20 Yeah, where I come from DU means Ducks Unlimited, also, but when you blog DU means Democratic Underground when you are being civil. I call it other things most of the time.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:28 PM (rUyw4)

21 I was wondering why you guys held duck hunters in such low esteem...

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:31 PM (oxMjD)

22 Drew, if you want to know what "investment in defeat" means, you could google Nancy Soderberg + Carson Daily. That interview was priceless, and very telling.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 05:33 PM (RHG+K)

23 Nope, duck hunters are held in high esteem in my household. I am eating duck gumbo as I type. And it is great, expecially with Texas Champaign added.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:41 PM (rUyw4)

24 ...Lone Star?

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:43 PM (oxMjD)

25 D.L. Jardine's cayenne pepper sauce!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:44 PM (rUyw4)

26 Aghhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:45 PM (oxMjD)

27 Thats funny, ive never heard of DU either, i guess Jesusland joe made it up. I promote you guys blogging, it is great "ya'll need to be shot" hahaha. But again, reality matters, all that corruption matters. By the time November comes around there will be many indictments and court cases gaining speed, hopefully the weenie democrats can use republican tactics. and again, im not a democrat, but good god, reason keeps me from being as stupid and hateful as you all sound. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:03 PM (X4Dyg)

28 ernie, you're a liar.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:08 PM (rUyw4)

29 jesusland joe of dumbfuckistan, i know in your totalitarian littel world of tv ideology my above post sounds impossible, but neverhteless, it is true, i am not a democrat nor have i heard of the "DU". Im an american citizen who stands for liberty and freedom...especially from irrational fear. have fun being limited and hateful. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:12 PM (X4Dyg)

30 and folks, this is obvious...patriotism...murtha or jean schmidt...come on! Kerrys scratches vs Bush AWOL Cleelands missing legs vs. cheneys deferments. NSA spying, downing street memo, yello cake from niger, PNAC, vs....lewinsky.... time for an impeachment ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:16 PM (X4Dyg)

31 Whose being hateful? I've seen enough of your comments to know what you are. Don't try to play a role you're useless at. You're a hateful little shit, yourself, so don't judge me, you little lying bastard. Oh, now that was hateful.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)

32 but see. the difference is i hate hate, while you just hate. ive read enough of your responses to know that youre not to be taken seriously, hiding in your house full of weapons and such, but nevertheless it is quite fun to make fun of you. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:19 PM (X4Dyg)

33 The Democratic surrender monkeys trying to impeach Bush. Now that is funny. Ernie is now a comedian....ha..ha..albeit a dumb one. That's a good one, ernie. The dope you've been smoking must be bad. Why don't you go hang out at the corner and see if someone will give you a ride? Obvious what a loser you are!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:22 PM (rUyw4)

34 nice response, i almost feel bad for you except for the fact that i despise you who are hell bent on destroying the chidlren's future for your emotional problems and personal "short" comings... ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:24 PM (X4Dyg)

35 ernie, you are a sick little kid. Why don't you go seek the company of the little band of losers you run with? They will give you a little more dope on credit. You can paint your eyes black, get high, and change the world with your bullshit delusions. When you are a little older, or when you get a job and become a productive citizen, and get off the welfare roles, then come back and talk to us men. Now, begone, you little troll!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:31 PM (rUyw4)

36 Hey ernie, ever seen anything skinned before? Look in the mirror and raise your chin; that point at the very bottom is where I start when I want the whole pelt.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 09:40 PM (0yYS2)

37 IM, ernie is nothing more than a little troll. He is basically harmless, as he and his ilk don't have the balls to do anything drastic. They wouldn't want to have to spend the night in the real dark, like it is outside my farmhouse. I heard coyotes when I went outside to take a whiz. This would scare the shit out of those city boys like ernie. More worrisome to me are these jihadist bastards who now get on websites and post their drivel, and are a possible security risk here in the US. We need to know who these people are. Most are attending US colleges and universities, and they should have their activities monitered. And I'm not talking about US citizens here, but others who do not have nor deserve the rights of Americans, as they are trying to kill us.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 11:05 PM (rUyw4)

38 I wouldn't worry too much about them either JJ, because if they ever become enough of a threat, they'll simply find it impossible to go out in public without getting beaten to death. I look forward to the day when they feel brave enough to rise up in America, because then I show them the meaning of terror.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximusi at January 15, 2006 01:49 AM (0yYS2)

39 Isn't this the guy who coined the phrase "Cut 'n' Run"? Coward.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 01:51 AM (8e/V4)

40 >>>but see. the difference is i hate hate But you're still a retard.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 01:53 AM (8e/V4)

41 wow. you guys are really pathetic...seriously, read what you just wrote and imagine that this info is open to the entire world. maximus wants bloody slaughter, while jesus only wants total monitoring of peoples activities. you are supposed to be the patriots of the freedom and liberty of these United States? I think you are both mentally ill, and i bet would hope the appropriaet authorities are wathcing you...(they are now..) Maximus, you cant just threaten people over the net like that, its a crime. we will see you soon. maximus, what violent crimes are you currently or recnetly involved in? you are insane. we will see you soon. remember, some of us "liberals" have power, and you have openly threatened someone on the net with death, personally. maximus, i feel sorry for you, enjoy prison. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:48 AM (X4Dyg)

42 and carlos, youre next. how many illegal weapons you have? dont fuck with the FBI boys. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:51 AM (X4Dyg)

43 and yes, this is the last time you hear from me, but i am turning you in for open threats to my life...enjoy your fbi visit. you are the terrorists. eat shit . ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:53 AM (X4Dyg)

44 maximus, just copied and sent your threats to the appropriate authorities...enjoy. remember, death threats, even on the net are illegal, and we will lock your asses up. good bye all. see you soon. ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:57 AM (X4Dyg)

45 Somewhere a village is missing an idiot.

Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)

46 ernie, you keep threatening to leave. Do it, will ya? You were still posting even after this last "goodbye".

Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 07:19 AM (YudAC)

47 the one who posted this article, did u attend any military services? and which war did u attended?

Posted by: cris at January 15, 2006 09:12 AM (OIlpU)

48 Heh, now ernie's with the FBI! Agent Walter Mitty, reporting for service!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2006 09:34 AM (0yYS2)

49 aahh ywes and on the infamous 60 minutes they same place where DAN RATHER went on and it cost him his job and no wonder i dont watch the news anymore

Posted by: sandpiper at January 15, 2006 10:03 AM (6rkkO)

50 >>>and carlos, youre next. how many illegal weapons you have? None. Pray tell, why do you ask?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 10:33 AM (8e/V4)

51 >>>and yes, this is the last time you hear from me, We should be so lucky.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 10:34 AM (8e/V4)

52 cris: the one who posted this article didn't attended any wars. the one who posted this article did, however, enter Federal service following 9/11, and risked his life on several occasions while earning a substantially lower salary than he enjoyed in the private sector. the one who posted this article is currently recovering from a serious injury suffered while in Federal service. the one who wrote this article asks, "What sacrifices have you, cris, made for your country?", while reminding cris, that, even if he hasn't made any such sacrifices, the Constitution still gives him the right have an opinion, and to express it. the one who posted this article wishes to inform cris that he is not merely laughing at cris' demonstrated lack of English skills by imitating them. the one who posted this article is mocking cris. While laughing at him.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 10:40 AM (RHG+K)

53 Bluto, by the way you took Cris to task, I take it you're not overly fond of the way he called into question not only your sincerity, but your credibility -- especiallyin light of the services you've already given. Can't say I blame you.

Posted by: Drew at January 15, 2006 11:37 AM (oxMjD)

54 I guess ernie's caught us guys, we might as well give up, we've been bested by an internet genius!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2006 01:16 PM (0yYS2)

55 I'm shaking in my boots, boys! I can see it now. Lil' ernie and his posse of surrender monkey democrats riding down the road in one of those low riders with the spinning hubs. Oh, my!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 01:41 PM (rUyw4)

56 Bluto, I've seen the e-mail address for cris somewhere on this site before. He might be one of the jihadist bastards who comment here infrequently. I do not believe him to be an American. And thank you for your service.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 01:58 PM (rUyw4)

57 "Surrender Monkey"... what is it with you people and the thoughtless, uninventive namecalling? Clearly someone who reads and appreciates and quotes Thomas Mann (who is widely understood as someone who struggled with deep conflicts over his feelings for young boys) would be able to grasp the complexity of the situation in Iraq without having to call people "surrender monkey." Murtha is not asking to surrender. He is looking at the objectives, costs, and the likelihood of success. He is drawing upon years of experience and strong support for the military and considering the lives of thousands of troops and families that he has visited in VA hospitals. You might not like what he says. You might disagree with him. But a man like Murtha deserves a little more respect than someone like you or me. He has earned it. And it is really tragic to hear someone who fancies himself to be moral and politically aware spout off stupid slogans when his position is supposed to be better than Murtha's. Conservativism is really going down the drain... in the eighties you all had a reputation for good ideas.

Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 04:28 PM (1WdUw)

58 Murtha loses all claim to respect when he tries to get his former comrades killed for the advantage of his political party. You might not like my stating the obvious, you might disagree with the obvious, but if you and your ilk don't pull your heads out of the sand, they will be pulled out of it for you.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 04:42 PM (RHG+K)

59 What is the obvious? The only thing that is obvious to me is that we cannot afford to occupy Iraq forever. Someday we have to bring the troops home. Why not start talking about it now? Bush is talking about "reducing troop levels," anyways. Condi seems to be, too. The only thing "wrong" with what Murtha is doing is that he is a Democrat talking about reducing troop levels. And if you got Murtha talking about it... and then the White House does it... they look like flipfloppers. But if you trash Murtha first... and then use his plan and call it something else... you look like a shrewd leader. Murtha's idea is good enough that the Republicans are copying it. Attacking him is a pretty transparent attempt to salvage some votes for the next election.

Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 04:53 PM (1WdUw)

60 "Surely someone who reads and quotes Thomas Mann...would be able to grasp the complexity of the situation in Iraq." And Murtha's call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is a well thought out strategy that takes the complex situation in Iraq into account. I don't think so, Big Tobacco, so maybe you had better explain to me how that particular strategy would be beneficial to all concerned.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 04:56 PM (rUyw4)

61 Uh, Big Tobacco, now you and the Dems are trying to spin Murtha's big idea into something it wasn't. He called for an IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL from Iraq. His big idea was brought up for a vote in the House and Murtha and his allies blinked. Where do you get the idea that someone is copying Murtha?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:05 PM (rUyw4)

62 http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007586 Read what the WSJ says about it. There is a lot of bad information out there... especially if you listen to pundits. But this ought to clarify things a little. Murtha suggested withdrawing troops and putting in place quick response units. He is also someone who is willing to discuss options, change his mind if a better argument is made. He is no John Kerry and it is disingenuous to try and paint him as one. He came as someone willing to discuss changes. Duncan Hunter, to score some political points, introduced a caricatured resolution calling for immediate withdrawal which Murtha had not been calling for in the first place. Murtha wants to have a discussion about this. The man even helped Dick Cheney by throwing his credibility behind him way back when. Seriously, you can think what you want. And I know what people have been saying about his medals and all that other nonsense. But when you spend as much time visiting troops in the VA. When you take them seriously. When you are well-connected and widely respected in the Pentagon. And when you volunteered like Murtha did and served like he did. It's just not right to call him names and try to make him into some straw man that you can knock down. And, honestly, I don't think that you would trash a good man like Murtha if you knew the truth about him... you're probably just basing your argument on bad information (which is something we all do from time to time).

Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 05:19 PM (1WdUw)

63 Well, if the information is bad, it came out of his own mouth. I saw him on CNN. That is what he said. What else is there?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:29 PM (rUyw4)

64 George Bush said on TV that this war was about WMDs. And everybody wants to hold him to that single little soundbite. It's more complicated than that. There were many other factors... not just one. To try and hold up WMDs as proof that the War in Iraq was foolish isn't fair to Bush. There's more to it. He was only speaking to a particular part of it. If you want to criticize Bush, you should at least consider his side carefully before saying he's wrong. You should give Murtha the same respect. It's just the decent thing to do... to treat people as we would have them treat us. Maybe Murtha did say something to this effect on CNN... but there is a larger context to it that is worth thinking about. Kant supports this idea. Jesus supports this idea. It's just fair. If you don't want to do that, that's your business. But you should understand that people will regard you as an unethical person.

Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 05:41 PM (1WdUw)

65 Frankly, the least of my concern is whether someone who doesn't know me regards me as unethical. Couldn't care less. My point is that you and others are trying to spin Murtha's statements into Bush's policy of reducing troops in Iraq. Troops are coming home because the overall situation in Iraq is improving. Is it perfect? Hardly. But my point has always been that Murtha and many on the Left have encouraged the terrorists and insurgents with these statements they make. The facts are that these kinds of ill-advised statements have cost soldiers their lives, and that is the point I want to make. Why couldn't Murtha just say that we want the troops to come home as soon as the situation is stabilized? Whether you agree with the war or not, everyone's concern should be with protecting the troops in Iraq and getting this thing over ASAP. Prolonging the war by encouraging the enemy is just plain wrong, I don't care how you cut it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:54 PM (rUyw4)

66 Wrong, BT. Murtha advocates withdrawing ALL troops within six months and stationing a "quick reaction force" of 20,000 somewhere nearby, probably in Kuwait. Of course this is diametrically opposed to his position last year, when he wanted to prevent a civil war in Iraq. Now he says that the Iraqis must fight for their own democracy, by themselves. His 'policy', to dignify it with a term it doesn't deserve, is to cut and run, abandoning everything we've accomplished to the Islamist terrorists. Ask yourself why Hillary, Biden, and Kerry won't endorse Murtha's plan. It's because, as an old donkey with no higher aspirations, he has nothing to lose politically by helping to create the illusion that they are somehow 'moderate'. By staking out a ridiculous ultra-radical position, Murtha seeks to legitimize the merely radical position of the other Dems. Murtha's defeatist proposal was a coldy calculated black political op from start to finish. That is why I call Murtha a political hack. He's willing to harm his country to further the interests of his party.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 06:43 PM (RHG+K)

67 Bluto: I believe what Murtha is calling for is removal of American troops from what is becoming an untenable situation. Here's a direct quote from President Bush's speech at the Naval Academy on December 1--two weeks after Murtha called for a withdrawal plan from the White House. "As Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change. We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide, to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys." The essence of Bush's drawndown strategy is, as Iraqi forces take over responsibility for fighting the insurgency and become the primary means for ensuring law and order, the American forces can limit their mission to countering the terrorists in Iraq. That doesn't require 150,000 troops -- or even 80-100,000. It's something that can be done with far fewer troops. That's exactly what Murtha proposed when he argued for redeploying US forces. As part of this redeployment, Murtha proposed the deployment of an "over-the-horizon" contingent of Marines, probably as you say in Kuwait. Bush likely wants to maintain them in Iraq. It seems to me more of a tactical difference than a strategic one. So what's the problem with Bush's approach? He assumes that Iraqi security forces can deal with the insurgency and keep law and order. Murtha does not. And for all the rosy statistics Bush cited to back up this assumption, he's likely wrong. Not only do Iraqi security forces lack the skills and training to get the job done -- as James Fallows has documented -- but there can be no such thing as an Iraqi security force until there is such a thing as Iraq. Instead of a single Iraq, there is still a deeply divided country, December elections not withstanding. And until the Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni political leaders find a way to truly create a legitimate and unified Iraq -- not just one on paper-- no amount of training is going to create an effective set of security forces.

Posted by: Drew at January 15, 2006 11:43 PM (oxMjD)

68 Drew, tonight, on 60 Minutes, Murtha proposed exactly what I posted - all US troops out of Iraq within six months, and a quick reaction force of 20,000 nearby. He noted that this would lead to civil war in Iraq. Your post, therefore, is simply incorrect on the facts.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 16, 2006 12:17 AM (RHG+K)

69 And the "broken military" and "hand-to-mouth" quotes? The partisan attacks and vivid portrayals of abject failure? Quoting unscientific polls? If Murtha wants credibility, I'd say he shot himself in the foot coming off the block. Murtha was playing to a crowd. Nothing more. His comments were beyond prudence and reason.

Posted by: Oyster at January 16, 2006 07:57 AM (YudAC)

70 This is why we have a military-- to USE it. It isn't a social service program just so kids can get some college money and a new pair of shoes. Murtha doesn't have any more confidence in the Iraqi military than Bush does. He just doesn't care if it all falls apart. In fact, like most Dems, he WANTS it to fall apart. They figure they can squeeze and election or two out of that, and it's a small price to pay. And don't tell me it's because you "care" about our troops. Your behaviour over the Abu Graib incident dispelled any doubts I might have had about how much you really "care".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 16, 2006 09:08 AM (8e/V4)

71 Oh NOOOOOOO!!! We've been busted by BIG TOBACCO!!! He's discovered our secrets!!! This war isn't about oil, it's about tobacco company profits!!! Foiled again!!! You sir, are a genius!!! Dammit, these libtards are so stupid that they don't even surprise me anymore. Oh well, at least he didn't go on about the JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZ.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 16, 2006 09:49 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 13, 2006

Holocaust Denying Imam's New York Mosque Visited by Mayor Bloomberg

The spiritual leader of a New York City Shia mosque, the Al Khoei Islamic Center, has gone on record as a holocaust denyer. Sheik Fadhel al Sahlani told the New York Sun that the Nazi massacre of an estimated 6 million Jews during World War II "has been exaggerated". Al Sahlani joins the radical leader of Iran, President Ahmadinejad, in denying the extent of the Holocaust and calling for an international scholarly conference to reopen debate on it.

The al Khoei Islamic Center was visited by the Jewish mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg in April of 2003. The mosque's website proudly displays images of Mayor Bloomberg with the Holocaust denying al Sahlani. The mayor delivered a speech on how there would be no discrimination against Muslim-Americans. Apparently those Muslims would not be so kind to those of Bloomberg's faith.

Other images show al Sahlani presiding over graduation ceremonies at the Islamic Center's school. One of the pictures shows what appears to be a high school comedy skit. One of the comedic characters appears to be a Jew coming on to a blonde woman.

And there are those who do not think antisemetism runs rampant in mosques?

The photos are posted below. Thanks to Drew who runs Michael Savage's website for the tip on the story. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:34 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 6 kb.

1 It seems to me that muslims from the middle east at least have made their anti-semitism perfectly clear. I guess it's not surprising that the rest of the world follows suit. I wonder what they hope to gain by denying the holocaust?

Posted by: BWE at January 13, 2006 03:04 PM (yQGkF)

2 I don't think that girl is a natural blonde.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 13, 2006 03:12 PM (dT1MB)

3 Is this the same Imam who spoke at the National Cathedral during the memorial service that took place after 911?

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 13, 2006 03:16 PM (GQQZr)

4 Sue Bob, Do you have a link to something that shows that the Imam spoke at the National Cathederal?

Posted by: Rusty at January 13, 2006 03:25 PM (JQjhA)

5 I can try to find one. I just remember watching the service and seeing the Iman who spoke (gave a prayer) and I remember that he looked like the guy you are talking about here.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 13, 2006 03:43 PM (GQQZr)

6 From what I've found it appears that Muzammil H. Siddiqi gave the prayer at the 911 Memorial service, so I must have seen a picture of Sahlani somewhere else.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 13, 2006 04:01 PM (GQQZr)

7 Bloomberg perfectly illustrates that even Jews can be good dhimmis. He's probably hoping that they'll kill him last. I hope they get next.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 04:18 PM (0yYS2)

8 Oh, this just takes the cake. Bloomberg needs to get off the P.C. band wagon and start seeing the truth of these racist and sexist animals.

Posted by: RepJ at January 13, 2006 05:57 PM (y6n8O)

9 Get off the racists, Turkey!

Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2006 08:05 PM (AWtJU)

10 How can muslims be racists? You have white ones, yellow ones, black ones and brown ones. Muslims are not racists. Muslim are scum sucking pigs. Stupid dorks. But not true racists. Like me.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2006 08:08 PM (AWtJU)

11 If they're not racists, how come they don't let their daughters marry black muslims?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 10:20 PM (0yYS2)

12 Some are racists, IM, but we must remember that Islam is not a race. The Left is trying to paint that portrait in an attempt to gain political leverage by using the race-baiting techniques of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. We know that these have worked in the past, so we must not let them frame this as a racial conflict.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 13, 2006 11:06 PM (rUyw4)

13 Another victory for worldwide terrorism.

Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 07:50 AM (+Gl1m)

14 I know islam isn't a race, it's just a plague.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 04:35 PM (0yYS2)

15 Wow...Long live this Cleric..He is speaking the truth..Congrats..We need more people like him..

Posted by: Anti Zions.. at January 27, 2006 12:27 PM (ZH0Dv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Documentary Evidence of Saddam's Terror Links Revealed

Say the following mantra one-hundred times while genuflecting: there were no links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Via Hyscience, this pretty damning report. I'll note that the GSPC referenced here is the same group that had planned a 9/11 style attack against the U.S, but which the domestic media overlooked when the plot was foiled.

The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes consulted 11 federal officials before concluding that documents U.S. troops captured in Iraq prove that "the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion."
Hayes reports, "Secret training took place primarily at three camps - in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak - and was directed by elite Iraqi military units." Al-Qaida-affiliated fanatics, such as Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army, were among the 8,000 or so murderers instructed between 1999 and 2002.
Handwritten notes, computer discs and other "exploitable items" confirm Saddam's philanthropy of terror, Hayes says. But America has translated only some 2.5 percent of this huge cache. Federal officials barely discuss what they have learned. Even unclassified papers remain unavailable. Absurd.
Having studied some of these artifacts, one intelligence expert says: "As much as we overestimated WMD (weapons of mass destruction), it appears we underestimated (Saddam's) support for transregional terrorists."

Posted by: Rusty at 11:03 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Why is Hayes the only guy working this beat? You'd think that with the treasure trove of documents found in Iraq, someone would want to go through 'em just to see what the heck was going on. It appears that there's been a collective cluster%$@^ to make sure that no one knows anything... And that could be intentional because the documents might be extremely damaging to our 'allies' and diplomatic efforts - especially if it came to light that certain individuals and countries were on the Saddam dole, that Saddam was a nexus of the terrorism business, etc. Or it could be nothing of the kind. Or somewhere in the middle. We have no way of knowing.

Posted by: lawhawk at January 13, 2006 02:33 PM (eppTH)

2 A little logic here, people: If this were in fact true, the Bush administration - which touted alleged terrorist ties as the #2 (sometimes even #1) reason for invading Iraq - would be shouting this from the rooftops; they'd call a surprise interrupt-all-regular-programming press conference, if that's what it took. But have they? No. So this story is yet another phony. QED. It's public knowledge that there were terrorist training camps in Irag, but they were in the Kurdish region, which Saddam DID NOT CONTROL; Hayes is simply switching city names to try and create another false meme in a transparent attempt to shore up the neocon's thoroughly-discredited claims. SR

Posted by: SergeiRostov at January 13, 2006 02:33 PM (7gIjC)

3 Weekly standard:Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq, the former high-ranking military intelligence officer says: "There is no question about the fact that AI had reach into Baghdad. There was an intelligence connection between that group and the regime, a financial connection between that group and the regime, and there was an equipment connection. It may have been the case that the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] support for AI was meant to operate against the [anti-Saddam] Kurds. But there is no question IIS was supporting AI." There are some areas of Iraqi Kurdistan that are not really in control of Bahgdad or the Kurds. A no mans land if you will. (Eastern area Kurd power is greater in the far northwest of Iraq) Zarqawi is not with the Kurds now. All they have in common really are that they are Sunni. Plus there are reports that old pegleg got his new leg in Bahgdad and was in Bahgdad when he first arrived in Iraq.

Posted by: Howie at January 13, 2006 02:49 PM (D3+20)

4 Unlike SergeiRostov says, Salman Pak was a known terrorist training camp before the invasion and it is not far from Baghdad (hardly Kurdish territory). Some of the "trainees" were still there and engaged arriving American troops. I saw a report on it from the embedded reporter at the time and know one of the participants (who told me about it when he came back). Time or Newsweek even had a sat photo of Salman Pak before the war.

Posted by: Don Miguel at January 13, 2006 03:15 PM (+KixN)

5 Sergei, in case you haven't noticed, Bush is about actions, not words. If you want words, tune in to the dhimmicraps, they've got nothing but.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximusi at January 15, 2006 01:51 AM (0yYS2)

6 Not only all that, but Salman Pak was originally a plant for producing chemicals for warfare and "bad viruses" throughout the 80's and until '91. And guess who built part of it and gave the Iraqis the necessary support, air filters, refrigeration, etc. for maintaining it .... The Germans. It wasn't until after the Gulf War that it was transformed into a training camp (around '95) And perhaps Sergei would like to explain to us how Saddam didn't know anything about terror training as at the SE entrance to Salman Pak he had an opulent villa built to stay in while he visited.

Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 05:58 AM (YudAC)

7 also I failed to note that the Kurds are of two factiosn and fight each other as well. So each side would seek and be sought out by Saddam for support. I'm sure he would have chosed one over the other.

Posted by: Howie at January 15, 2006 10:07 AM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 12, 2006

ACLU to Defend (yet another) Terrorist

I don't know why this is "news" anymore. John from Stop the ACLU also notes that this particular lawyer has a track record of representing Hamas. Typical.

Two civil liberties groups filed legal briefs this week in support of a Virginia man accused of helping to fund Mideast terrorists, arguing that federal agents had no right to search his home without a warrant in 1993. [More]

Posted by: Rusty at 08:59 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ACLU and lawyer will get a platform - client will lose and go to jail. Recall an old movie from the 50's (BW) about a Puerto Rican kid on trial for murder in NY - he's got a Public Defender (Glenn Ford?) but an ACLU type group and Kunstler type lawyer talk his mom in letting them join the team. The Rad lawyer turns the trial into a circus about race, class, and bigotry. Platform stuff for leftist groups. The Public Defender (supposedly a 2nd rate lawyer) stays on course and punches hole in the State's case (actually weak). Public Defender scores one bigtime - acquital looks good - but Rad Lawyer turns around and throws the case deliberately! He and his group want a convicted martyr for the cause - not an aquitted kid.

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 09:33 PM (3aakz)

2 Sounds like a pretty good flick. What's it called? Reminds me of the recent story where DNA proved an executed man was indeed the murderer after all. I could picture all the Leftard activists pulling their hair out in frustration because an erroneously executed man would have been so good for their cause!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 13, 2006 12:17 PM (8e/V4)

3 "Trial" 1955 - haven't seen it in over 25 years - maybe again this weekend if I can find it. Its worth it - if I remember - not a great movie - but controversial and pissed off the left in the 50s.

Posted by: hondo at January 13, 2006 12:30 PM (3aakz)

4 Glenn Ford never popular with the Hollywood left considered "too patriotic". Quiet guy - reserved in his personal believes (leaned conservative) but not out-spoken like Wayne. Good guy - though some Righters might consider his too easy going and accommodating.

Posted by: hondo at January 13, 2006 12:37 PM (3aakz)

5 Libs love it when innocent people get killed, that way they can prove they were "right". They actually hate people, and it's only "the cause" they really care about. I worked in the non-profit sector for 5 years so I saw it up close. They spouted off about "the poor", but treated the poor folks who came calling like dirt, and made volunteers cry out of sheer assholeness, because they couldn't care less about people on an individual basis. And I was a Lib when I figured that out, so I had no axe to grind at the time.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 13, 2006 01:43 PM (8e/V4)

6 The ACLU is a cover up for their real organization. NAMBLA.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2006 08:37 PM (AWtJU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dear Weird Emailing Guy

Please don't bother my co-bloggers anymore. You're more than welcome to continue to email me though, I think you're a laugh riot.

Anyway, I forgot to add this to my reply to you; I'm sorry you can't find your stapler, but I didn't take it.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:47 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a terrorist (now put me on T.V.!)

Personally, I'd take the porn-star option. But that's just me.

Acting teacher recommends terrorism as a way to 'break in' to showbiz. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:03 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I know of him vaguely - he's a loony - which is probably why he's an Intel Officer (as I'm currently an Intel NCO - we have to keep our eyes on these guys!). His material is part put-on and part tongue-in-cheek serious (weird huh). He's OK - don't read too much into the newswire piece. Hey! This is NY! There aren't too many conservatives around here, so we tend to get a lil' odd sometimes. (yeah - he's passable for a conservative). Believe he's back home now from Iraq tour - some of my E8 buddies were hooked up with him in Tikrit - think most of the 42nd has rotated back. Intel joke- Intel Officer say to Intel NCOIC ... Hey! If I'm in charge, how come you have all the keys, the combinations to the safes, n' get to keep two full 9mm magazines in your desk draw? Intel NCOIC ... You say something Sir? Cup of coffee? Its fresh.

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 09:14 PM (3aakz)

2 How can u say "don't read much into the report"?? He said you should be a terrorist. That is only a small part of the article. In the full article which is linked to at the top, it gives a link to his old site and I loaded it up and his list which said "By Monroe Mann' on it at the top said you should be a terrorist, become a pornstar, get arrested and some other stupid stuff just like the report said. He doesn't seem to be "OK" like you suggest. Youre just sticking up 4 him as he's in the army like you. I've never heard anybody tell people to be terrorists or criminals to get ahead. Evn if it was meant to be tounge in cheek (which I doubt it was if you read up more about him) then it is still an incredibly stupid thing to say, especially coming from an army person. What sort of person in New York city would go around telling people to be terrorists? He should be locked up.

Posted by: dale at January 13, 2006 04:47 AM (TbDdZ)

3 Obviously you don't know when your being put on.

Posted by: hondo at January 13, 2006 10:24 AM (3aakz)

4 Put on? Check it out! It is real. Monroe Mann exists. His suggestions to actors exists. His own website monroemann.com has a big banner saying "Oscard bound" on it.

Posted by: dale at January 13, 2006 01:37 PM (E3X9v)

5 I don't get it - what's your point? I told you his comments were a gag.

Posted by: hondo at January 13, 2006 06:34 PM (3aakz)

6 Hi, sorry I thought you meant the story was a gag. Sorry for that.

Posted by: dale at January 14, 2006 07:22 AM (cnMaw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

City Concilman Sues for right to pray to Allah

Right. As if the ACLU would be opposed to that. Fredericksburg city Councilman fights for right to pray in Jesus name.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

1 A nondenominational prayer? Isn't the whole point of a prayer is to ask assistance from at least one specific higher power?

Posted by: Graeme at January 12, 2006 09:40 AM (25nFa)

2 Ya know, I'm all for people praying, until they try to make prayer part of the official process of government. There is no priestly caste in America, and religion has no place in government. If any government officials want to pray, there are lots of hours in the day to do it in private. Here are some relevant scriptures: Mat 23:1-2 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: In other words, they're putting themselves where they don't belong. Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Kelo v. new London, anyone? Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Perhaps they should see to the business of state, rather than that of the temple. Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. The GOP corruption scandal springs to mind here. For all their holier-than-thou churchiness, the Republicans sure don't seem to mind dirty money any more than the dhimmicraps do. Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. No more need be said.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 10:27 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Clinton Fundraising With Moonbat Belafonte

The face of a 'moderate' Democrat revealed. (But how about that Sheri Belafonte? Hot, hot, hot!)

Posted by: Rusty at 08:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Teddy Kennedy And The He-Man, Woman-Haters Club

From the Washington Times:

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.
A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.
"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."
Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.

So there.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

297kb generated in CPU 0.0556, elapsed 0.1671 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.13 seconds, 661 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 32668
Files: 187
Bytes: 471.7M
CPU Time: 66:54
Queries: 3307316

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

January 23, 2006

January 21, 2006

January 20, 2006

January 19, 2006

January 18, 2006

January 17, 2006

January 16, 2006

January 14, 2006

January 13, 2006

January 12, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds