April 30, 2006
Mexican Lawmakers Pass Bill to Legalize Drugs
The federal legislature of Mexico has passed a bill to legalize "small amounts of cocaine, heroin, even ecstasy" for personal use. President Vicente Fox's signature is expected to be forthcoming since his office has voiced support for the measure.
From KFMB.com:
Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use."Specifically, the new law would allow a person to carry the following:The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs, and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.
- Marijuana (5 gms),I am stunned! A person could be a legal walking pharmacy. More surprising is the fact that the measure is being pushed while drug addiction among Mexicans is increasing.
- Heroin (25 mgms),
- Cocaine (0.5 gm),
- Peyote (2.2 lbs), and
- An array of other drugs, including:- Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA),
- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Ecstasy (MDMA),
- Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), and
- Amphetamines.
To be fair, though, the bill reportedly stiffens some penalties for trafficking and possession by government employees and near schools. In support of the bill, backers say it will free up police to go after major drug traffickers and avoid crowding jails with small-time offenders. Of course, using their logic, Mexico should legalize convenience store robberies to allow police to focus on bank heists. more...
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
05:16 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 4 kb.
1
A couple of notes:
May 1 is "Labor Day" in the rest of the world. It's primarily in the U.S. that the date was changed, so as to obscure its socialist origin.
And I have to wonder if the illegal border traffic won't start flowing two ways, with certain Americans going down to Mexico to get high.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:00 AM (FVbj6)
2
I think the US should legalize some drugs, particularly marijuana. The war on drugs drains enormous amounts of money from the government and has not improved the overall situation. People can still get drugs at a reasonable price. The only thing the war on drugs is doing is filling our prisons with pot heads.
Posted by: Scott at April 30, 2006 07:11 AM (a7tCL)
3
the government admits that it is able to stop only about 10% of the drugs at the border. Take all that money and use it where it will do the most good, on prevention and treatment..
Posted by: john Ryan at April 30, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)
4
DOPE IS FOR DOPES and mexco is run by dopes
Posted by: sandpiper at April 30, 2006 08:08 AM (b1Fi6)
5
I think that Michael has it right. If a government is willing to unashamedly encourage its citizens to cross into a neighbouring country illegally, just for the revenue it brings, it's highly likely that decriminalising an array of drugs is a strategy to get young Americans to visit in larger numbers and spend more money. Particularly when rampant corruption and strong links to the drug trade are present at all levels of the government.
Posted by: Graeme at April 30, 2006 08:46 AM (IX6/9)
6
Great strategy on the part of Mexico! A country going nowhere plagued by crime, corruption and total lack of hope ... export significant segments of their population and keep much of the poor reminder stoned!
Mexico will never change - build a wall 20' high - with a sufficent number of doors for the best, brightest, ambitious, and decent.
Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:25 AM (SeBrl)
7
Great opportunity for the tourist trade! A drug haven for affluent Americans and westerners - add an explosion in the sex trade (drugs help) and the Mexican government is gonna make some nice change!
Local Mexican police aren't stupid! This will be a great opportunity for selective drug enforcement with tourists! Think of the blackmail and extortion opportunities! an affluent American will pay 10-20 thou easy to keep their pothead children out of a Mexican prision!
Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:33 AM (SeBrl)
8
Suppose another country had almost no drug problem. Suppose
that country had less than a small fraction of one percent
of our drug arrests. And suppose that country had almost no
"drug-related crime" and that their robbery rate was a tiny
fraction of our robbery rate.
Do you think is might be wise and prudent to carefully observe
that other country's drug policy and that we should model that
other country's drug policy?
Well, there is such a country: The Czech Republic.
The Czech Republic is the only country in the world where adult
citizens can legally use, possess and grow small quantities of
marijuana. (In the Netherlands, marijuana is quasi-legal - not
officially legal.)
The Czech overall drug arrest rate is 1 per 100,000 population. The
United States' overall drug arrest rate is 585 per 100,000 population.
The Czech robbery rate is 2 per 100,000 population. The United States'
robbery rate is 145.9 per 100,000 population, according to our FBI.
According to our drug war cheerleaders, tolerant marijuana laws cause
people to use other, much more dangerous drugs, like methamphetamine
and heroin. Obviously, this doesn't happen in the Czech Republic.
Why not?
Could it be that when people can legally obtain marijuana at an
affordable price, they tend not to use or desire any other recreational
drugs?
Could it be that marijuana legalization actually creates a roadblock to
hard drug use - not a gateway?
Could it be that the vast majority our so-called "drug-related crime"
is caused by our marijuana prohibition policies?
Could it be that if we keep doing what we have been doing, we will
probably get the same results? Should we throw another trillion
dollars down the drug war rat hole? Or should we do something
different--dramatically different?
Kirk Muse
1741 S. Clearview Ave.
Mesa, 85209
(480) 396-3399
Thank you for considering this letter for publication.
Source for the 145.9 robberies per 100,000 population
statistic is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 final
statistics.
Source for the Czech Republic's marijuana legalization
policy: "A Czech Toke on Freedom," by Jeffrey Fleishman in the
Los Angeles Times, Jan. 24 2006.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-weed24jan24,0,7449540.story
Source for Czech crime rate statistics:
http://www.notebooktravel.co.uk/travellersguide/travellersguidepages/czechrepublic.htm
(Scroll to bottom of the page).
Posted by: Kirk Muse at April 30, 2006 12:49 PM (/ZDpr)
9
http://profiles.emcdda.eu.int/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.Content&nNodeID=2348&sLanguageISO=EN
If anyone's interested in the detailed realities of Czech/drugs .... which of course ... is totally lacking from the above.
Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:22 PM (SeBrl)
10
Wow! So cool! Two sources on Czech drug laws!!! One is an article for the LA Times (???) and the other is from a British Travel guide (???). What! No Czech sources????
Crime stats courtesy the FBI (????).
Kirk's been toting the weed too long! Wanna compare/talk about Czech drug laws etc. ...... well ... duh! ... some Czech input would, like, be helpful ... or is that too much to absorb thru the haze?
Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:33 PM (SeBrl)
11
I was just in Acapulco yesterday, and ten days ago a drug gang decapitated two cops who had participated in a lethal drug raid, and left their bodies on the front steps of a police station, with a sign saying "so that you will learn respect". I don't know about decriminalizing small amounts as a way of getting bigger fish, but it seems worth a try. Hondo, the danger of cops going after tourists with phony charges exists much more under the current law--many tourists say the cops plant a small amount of drugs, then ask for a bribe in return for not arresting them.
It is amazing how instructive travel is. I spoke to a lot of people down there about the upcoming elections, and the working assumption of many is that the PAN will steal the election, just as the PRI did in 88. By comparison, our own electoral system, for all its flaws, seems okay. Of course, they have several things we could learn from--like national voter registration and uniform election laws and a holiday for the election.
Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 03:25 PM (uT71O)
12
JD:
If decapitated people makes you want to offer criminals amnesty, when do we offer it to the Taliban / Al-Qaeda?
I'm sure there is a lot of things we could learn from Mexico, like how to make a hut out of a sheet of plastic, and three sheets of corrugated steel or how to export poverty.
Posted by: davec at April 30, 2006 04:39 PM (CcXvt)
13
So wait, rather than try to help people overcome a drug addiction, it seems like a good idea to just legalize it so we don't have to chase after the drug dealers and addicts all the time. This will really boost moral in a country. Hey-maybe this will make people stay in Mexico, rather than come over to America...all our immigration problems are solved!
Posted by: crazy cat lady at April 30, 2006 04:45 PM (rjg51)
14
jd
You miss the point friend ... you speak of planting drugs and phony charges ... new senario ... no need for planting and the charges are real ... tailor made for an increase in corruption reference tourists.
Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 05:07 PM (SeBrl)
15
When the police ARE the criminals, they're bound to get decapitated every so often.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:16 PM (FVbj6)
16
I don't think I was understood. I'm not suggesting the decapitaters should get amnesty. The stated purpose of the law is so the police can focus on the traffickers, the ones who did the decapitating. The decapitations show that the drug problems they are facing in Mexico are simply much larger than the ones we face.
And yes, the Mexican police are badly corrupt. Some of the people I met down there said the attitude of most Mexicans is if your house gets robbed, don't call the police--they'll just case it for another robbery. Hondo, you may be right that as opposed to planting drugs in small amounts, the police can now arrest someone and exaggerate the amount he had. We'll see, I guess.
One thing we ARE learning from Mexico, Dave, is to tolerate increasing gaps between the richest and the poorest. If current trends of exacerbating the share of national income held by the top 1% and top .1% continue, we may have to learn many things that Mexico has known for years about money and class and social rigidity. Hopefully, it won't come to learning about hut creation.
Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 09:04 PM (uT71O)
17
" Dave's not here man! "
" No, no, no! This is Dave! "
" Dave's not here man! "
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 30, 2006 11:32 PM (h4PzP)
18
Ted Carpenter at Cato's new blog thinks criminalization only increases the profit potential of illegal drugs and gives them a more lucrative, coveted place on the market.
Unfortunately, Mexican leaders show no willingness to legalize the manufacture or sale of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Indeed, they have argued that the new law will enable law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to supressing trafficking. That means the huge potential profit in the drug trade will persist—and so will the corruption and violence that is tearing Mexico’s society apart.
Posted by: Anastasia at May 01, 2006 09:55 AM (lcebH)
19
At least one country has figured out the drug war is a COMPLETE waste of time, money, and resources.
Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:13 PM (CMKoe)
20
As for Mikes "a person can be a legal walking pharmacy" comment, alot of people are walking pharmacys. Ever heard of the ghetto and drug dealers?
Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:17 PM (CMKoe)
21
Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana its all for money
Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:24 AM (2N1xj)
22
Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana a lot of people do it anyway and it would make it easier for everyone... drinking is worse for you so why not?
Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:25 AM (2N1xj)
23
Not a good idea afterall, oh the mood swings ... pass that pipe ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 04, 2006 11:41 AM (FCC6c)
24
The drug war has failed. Consumers want drugs. Making drugs illegal only makes them more expensive and inconvienient to obtain. If you want to get drunk, you have to drive 5-10 minutes to the grocery store and spend about $10. If you want to get stoned, you have to drive 15-20 minutes to your buddy's house and spend about $40.
The best solution is to legalize and educate.
Policing, jailing, and court costs are large. Not only would legalization reduce the necessary sizes of our police forces, jails, and court systems; it would also make a very large market available for taxation.
Young people should be educated that drugs are often harmful. Education has been the main influence in the sharp decline in teen tobacco consumption. Should a person find themselves with a problem, the facilities should exist to help them recover.
Posted by: Yummy at May 14, 2006 04:06 PM (r99Fg)
April 23, 2006
Yale Looking For Face-Saving Way to Oust Talibani Student
Evidently Yale doesn't like the negative publicity it's received since welcoming Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the unreconstructed Taliban knuckle-dragger admitted under their non-traditional student program. Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund reports that Yale plans to toughen up admission standards for non-traditional degree students, which currently accept three quarters of applicants (compared to the 10% of applying high school students).
This will allow Yale to reject Hashemi's application to a degree program without admitting that they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt for admitting him in the first place. Or maybe they're just afraid they'll be beheaded.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:53 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
1
>>>they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt
They are morally bankrupt. They're only concerned about the bad publicity. That's what relativism does to people.
Take the exact same guy, but with white skin, and suddenly Libs see him as evil. But if he's brown, his deeds are irrelevant. Brown people are like monkeys to Libs. Pets. Monkeys can do no wrong because they don't know any better. That's why a fascist like Rahmatullah Hashemi can be invited to their institutions of higher indoctrination with no moral qualms whatsoever. That's why Arabs are good and Israelis are bad. Monkeys. That's how Libs see their Arab pets.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 11:03 PM (8e/V4)
2
Yep. And I think it also has to do with politcal corretness. People want to be sure to be seen as "tolerant" and "open-minded" above all else. Somehow it's seen as a virtue to be able to say, "Who are we to judge?" It's almost as if the more heinous the act that one is able to tolerate, the more enlightened that person is seen as being. It's absolutely crazy.
Posted by: Richard at April 23, 2006 11:24 PM (7KF8r)
3
I think that the more important question is "How did he get a visa to enter the country ?" I would have thought that he would have been laughed ot of the embassy for even applying for one. It is not Yale that issues student visas.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 23, 2006 11:36 PM (TcoRJ)
4
I hate to be uncharitable, and this probably won't say much about me as a christian, but this problem could be solved with 158 grains of jacketed hollowpoint....
Posted by: Lonevoice at April 24, 2006 12:44 AM (QnxoD)
5
john ryan,
you make a very valid point. Isn't it the job of the State Department and their consuls to issue such visas? State is infested with these Libs.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 01:03 AM (8e/V4)
6
I want to know which Yale alumni or board member pulled what strings at the State Department to get this cretin admitted into our country to even breathe our air let alone take up a space that a more deserving student was refused. This is more than just liberalism. This is a profound debasement.
I found a link in the comments section to this story about Yale at Clint Taylors blog at Townhall.com a while back. Yale is riddled with backstabbing, self-aggrandizing ego-maniacs as well as intellectually bankrupt elitists and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find they have their own dupes in the State Department.
Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 04:45 AM (YudAC)
7
John Ryan
Yes, State does issue the visas ... but Oyster zeros in on the point. Someone(s) pulled strings and used powerful influence on State to pull this off - and no one's talking on the details. This has become an embarrassment for Yale - and someone(s) else. I am curious who.
Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 05:47 AM (gdxQ2)
8
One Yale dumps Hashemi his student visa would no longer be valid and he'll have to leave the country. Hopefully some agency is gearing up to ensure that he does so and that he ends up in Gitmo after all. Or can we expect to see him at the next illegal immigrant rights march?
How Yale ever expected this to go unchallenged is beyond me.
Posted by: Graeme at April 24, 2006 07:00 AM (nCrWY)
9
If it was a mistake by the State Department than his visa should be withdrawn and he should be deported. How this man could not be considered a security risk is incredible, to me. As for the Stae Department being infested with libs I think it is more properly discribed as being infested with idiots. Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State she should simply revoke his visa. My sister has been teaching law in Cambodia for 10 years. The only student visas she can get for her students are for 20 or so Fulbright scholars that she has each year.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 07:23 AM (TcoRJ)
10
The State Department is a side issue. I'm more concerned about the culture of contempt for America indicated by Yale's eagerness to accept Hashemi.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 24, 2006 07:59 AM (RHG+K)
11
Greetings, hondo, and it looks like you're going to get your Egg McMuffins after all, but I still have Moon's boy in the runoff. A very small chance, indeed.
Now, back to the topic at hand. Oyster, I am very much interested in the same questions as you, and one would think an enterprising newspaper might seek the truth behind these shenanigans. But most of them are too busy leaking classified information to be concerned about this very much more important story.
What happened here when an enemy of the US and civilization period gained entry to not only the US, but one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in America is symbolic of the problem we have. Who let this guy in? Why? How?
If we do not put a stop to this, in twenty years or less we will be exactly where France is right now. There is a mentality in the State Department that is anti-American, and they are doing everything they can in their little way to Balkinize the US. They see this as being cosmopolitan. Liberalism sees the US as the enemy of the world, and it is doing everything possible to destroy the US, hence its support of illegal immigration.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 08:18 AM (rUyw4)
12
I am more concerned over the security issuses involved in allowing one of our (ex?)sworn enemies entry into the country. I do not financially suport Yale. I have higher expectations for my government than I do forn some private institution. His visa should be withdrawn immediately by the State Departmentr. Wait maybe that is too harsh lol we should perhaps keep him out AT LEAST UNTIL THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN IS OVER l
Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 08:35 AM (TcoRJ)
13
If you pay taxes, John Ryan, you support Yale, whether you know it or not. It would be interesting to know how much government aid Yale receives in a year, and I include government student loans and grants as being supportive of an institution, whether public or private. The money still goes to the institution and helps support it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)
14
john ryan: They're not idiots. It's too easy to just write them off as idiots or say, "What were they thinking?" It was not idiocy. They knew what they were doing. And I want to know who it was.
Bluot: You're right, but this "culture of contempt" has bled over into our government by elite college graduates who adopt government careers and those who get in cahoots with government employees through professional connections. We know that some turd out west (I don't have time to look him up) took on this idea of getting Hashemi in on a student visa. So he uses his connections to ask around for help and someone tells him, "Hey, I have a connection at the State Department," and bingo! favors are done and everyone's on the hush-hush.
We've been asleep at the wheel for far too long and now we're seeing the bitter fruits of it.
Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:16 AM (f70+e)
15
Bluot? er... Bluto.
Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:31 AM (f70+e)
16
Not sure if anyone caught this but it seems perfectly inline that the Chinese pres wrapped up his trip with a tour of Yale as well. Yale spreading the love around to terrorist and commies!
Posted by: tomb at April 24, 2006 09:00 PM (FqhsP)
April 21, 2006
Danish Supermodel Arrested
Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for assaulting a flight attendant. Fox News:
Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for hitting a flight attendant on a flight from Amsterdam to Miami, police said.Obviously, Andersen can be dangerous, but the mug shot below isn't a particularly good likeness. Therefore, as a public service, The Jawa Report has uncovered some other pictures of Andersen to aid concerned citizens in identifying her and taking appropriate precautions.Airport police arrested the woman when the flight landed. She continued her unruly behavior with officers, police said.
Posted by: Bluto at
04:30 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It looks like she picked on a flight attendant with cage fighting skills.
Posted by: Graeme at April 21, 2006 05:08 PM (csTil)
2
It wouldn't do her any harm to smile once in a while.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 05:37 PM (8e/V4)
3
If you've got any pics of vertical smiles, email 'em to me, wouldja?
Posted by: Vinnie at April 21, 2006 05:46 PM (/qy9A)
4
Vinnie,
I'm not even going to ask what you mean by that.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 05:50 PM (8e/V4)
5
Is she trying to squander all the good will Denmark got from publishing certain cartoons? I hope she finds her meds.
Posted by: Merv Benson at April 21, 2006 05:55 PM (t5XIz)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 21, 2006 06:04 PM (RHG+K)
7
Thanks Bluto for that important public service announcement 
Curse you Bluto for that last link.
Curse you Bluto for that last link.
Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 07:20 PM (D3+20)
8
No one told her that Heroin Chic is so 90Â’s? What is she doing? Her Courtney Love impression?
Posted by: Cindy at April 21, 2006 07:37 PM (C9GXD)
9
Yep she's got a buzz look at that one eyeball looking over the wrong way.
Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 07:52 PM (D3+20)
10
She looks like a meth addict. Please don't smile, May, or at least wait until after the county sends you to the dentist. Geez, what a change.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 21, 2006 08:07 PM (rUyw4)
11
Many thanks for the perp pics, protection 0n.
Posted by: Rubin at April 21, 2006 09:06 PM (sFRps)
12
Amazing what a hair brush and an air brush can do.
Posted by: Oyster at April 22, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)
13
Went a little too long without a fix?!? The girls in County are gonna love that little chicken.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at April 22, 2006 09:45 AM (WOQ34)
14
I am a cowardly piece of shit from San Diego. I perform fellatio on men to make a living. My mother was a crack whore who died of AIDS last year. My father? Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: San Diego Hacker at April 22, 2006 10:47 AM (icNN3)
15
Oh...Her! Now I recognize the pose...
Posted by: Kermit at April 22, 2006 06:02 PM (RTy2V)
16
No wonder she was cranky--the girl has gone too long without a square meal.
Posted by: miriam at April 23, 2006 11:58 AM (72CJg)
April 15, 2006
This One is Truly Unhinged
The Washington Post profiles one of the folks who bring us those shrieking lefty emo blogs: 
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?Unfortunately for America, the Democratic party is pandering to loons just like Maryscott O'Connor, who writes for DailyKos (of course) and her own blog, My Left Wing.
Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):
Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
01:01 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Isn't it sweet when 2 moonbats are in the same room. The electricity is in the air I tells ya. David Finkel & Maryscott O'Conner are just the cutest things.
If she feels that way about Catholics, how does she feel about Evangelicals? Now that would be a fun read. I love the "IT'S ALL THE CONSERVATIVES FAULT WERE A BUNCH OF HATE FILLED LOONS" tag the WashCompost wrote in there.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM (blNMI)
2
I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. But hey, the end of his term were my college days so maybe I just missed all of the right-wing protests on university grounds over Conservative pundits giving speeches, military recruiters over a law signed into effect by President Clinton, calling Clinton a liar over intelligence related to one of many military campaigns he waged (Trivia: Clinton sent the U.S. military to more nations than any president since WW II), any program he pushed or any of that other garbage.
I thought the quote of that entire article was when she said she's almost insane. Lady, you've passed that marker long ago. And don't you love how the picture shows here in, what else, her pajamas?
Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM (vKISv)
3
"Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite."
Ahem. When the Democrats held the majority there was no where near the anger and petty bickering from their political counterparts. Conservatives didn't crucify their judicial candidates, they didn't go on marches carrying signs saying "Clinton=Hitler", they didn't oppose every piece of legislation that came down the pipe without having an alternative plan, etc. And the left was comparatively polite? hahaha. Polite in the way an animal is if you keep feeding it meat. 40 years of owning the government and then losing it sent them in a tailspin I wonder if they'll ever recover from.
Not that the Republicans aren't heading down the same path of complacency, but let's be honest; these two people wouldn't know the truth if you slapped them with it.
Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:19 AM (YudAC)
4
How can anyone be so stupid as to find equivalence between the spirited grumbling from certain quarters during dhimmicrap administrations, and the unhinged lunacy of the leftards at all times?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:53 AM (0yYS2)
5
>>>Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite.
Even back in my Lib days in the early 80s I can recall how we used to call conservatives "fascists". I suppose that is "comparatively polite" compared to some of the things Lefties are saying nowadays.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:52 AM (8e/V4)
6
was she smoking that cigarette INSIDE!!!!!
Posted by: Cindy at April 15, 2006 07:53 AM (N22Ci)
7
I hope she keeps smoking...the sooner her brain will be fried completely and then become sooo nonrelevant. Curious though what kind of cigerette? Regular tobacco or some other variety....
Posted by: Debby at April 15, 2006 08:48 AM (j3bQ5)
8
M.A.:
"The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become . . . "
Oh, so you're an idiot too. I get it now. All joking aside, and that was a joke, you make a valid point in that the article is not exactly a puff piece. But to conclude Michelle Malking is as comparatively unhinged in anger as even the bloggers highlighted by the WaPo is right out of left field. Further more, to conclude the WaPo is right-wing . . . I am just speechless really.
Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 09:11 AM (vKISv)
9
M.A.
Nice try. The article tried to justify Maryscott's anger. It was not a fluff piece for the Right. It actually "Softened" the truth which is that Maryscott isn't angry but that she is an obsessive hate-filled blogger who wakes up hating GWB - she is pathetic.
As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?
Posted by: chez diva at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM (zmJNe)
10
As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?
The answer is yes, all the time -- and not by obscure online people but by people in government and the conservative media. They called him "a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country" and more, every single day. Do a usenet search, or start with this Glenn Greenwald post, or read Byron York's article on the decline of the American Spectator during the Clinton years. Hatred of Bush does not begin to compare to the foam-flecked hatred of Clinton.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:25 AM (Gv+sz)
11
Drinking non-alcohol beer in the morning? That's her real problem.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 10:39 AM (HJnrm)
12
As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM (Gv+sz)
13
So now we know that when Leftwingers accuse conservatives of being "angry" and filled with "hate", they are just projecting. Same thing when they constantly accuse Bush of "lying." They're looking at themselves in the mirror, for how many times have we busted these Leftwingers in outright lies and distortions, not to mention sheer ignorance of the plain facts.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)
14
M.A.
I read the article you directed me to and I can't find anything that can be compared to the screams of "Bush Lied, People Died".
I don't doubt that Clinton did have his "haters" but they pale in comparison to the Bush "haters" such as the WaPo and NY Times journalist and editors who have declared open season on Bush.
Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.
If anything can be learned about the Media with regards to Clinton is that they loved him and protected him. If it wasn't for Drudge breaking the Monica story then "we the people" would never ever have learned about it. The NY Times and other news outlets where mum. They didn't come forward with the story until it was already out and they were embarrassed to have been scooped by some internet guy/journalist.
Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:00 AM (zmJNe)
15
M.A.
You wrote:
"As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war;"
So are you saying that if you support one or more of the items above it is an indication that one leans toward the political "right wing"?
If so then:
President Clinton is "right-wing" he led not one but two "unprovoked wars" in Bosnia and Kosovo - no one attacked us and neither one was sanctioned by the UN. However the Left and the Media didn't question Clinton's motives for an unprovoked war but they are all over Bush for what is a legitimate, legal and provoked war.
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats supported the Iraq War that Bush prosecuted with UN approval - the Iraq War resulted from Hussein thumbing his nose at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and others dating back to the early 1990's. So does that make Sen. Clinton
and other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - "right wingers"?
Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:14 AM (zmJNe)
16
Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.
- Statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo action.
Also, as Jonathan Chait wrote: " The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard."
There is simply nothing among mainstream Democrats to compare with the insane, unhinged Clinton hatred of the Republicans in Congress.
As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues, yet the unhinged right attacked him as if he were some sort of left-winger, and the mainstream media followed suit. Because the mainstream media has a conservative bias, and has had one ever since the '80s at least.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 11:41 AM (Gv+sz)
17
MA, you seem like an intelligent sort, but you're coming off as mentally ill, or simply a dishonest propagandist. The WaPo rightwing? Please, this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, and as someone who, evidently unlike you, is old enough to remember what went on during the Clinton years, comparing the criticism (mostly self-inflicted) that Clinton heard with a BLOGGER BEING MENTIONED IN THE WAPO FOR WISHING CANCER ON BUSH - well, you need therapy, dude. Soon.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (RHG+K)
18
>>>this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess,
It shows how deranged the Left has become when even an apology for their excesses comes off as an indictment.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:58 PM (8e/V4)
19
It shows the Left to be mentally ill, which is where this particular commenter posting under the name M.A. is. The next thing you know, he will accuse dKos of being a flaming neocon. Good grief, M.A., you strained at a gnat, and swollowed a camel.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:15 PM (rUyw4)
20
MA is actually correct on many points. There most definitely was an intense Clinton hatred among some on the Right in the 90's but I don't recall it ever being as widespread or as loud. Perhaps if as many folks had access to the internet and blogs, etc. back then...
Today, BDS manifests itself in everything from popular films to television to music. One cannot escape the constant reminders that our President is an unelected warmongering stupid chimp, blah, blah, blah. It really is tiresome.
Clinton hatred, on the other hand, was (with the exception of some talk radio) nowhere near as ubiquitous. Yes, there were the "Arkancide" theorists (Foster, Brown, etc) and copied VHS cassettes passed around that purported to show President Clinton had a private airstrip to smuggle cocaine, etc.
But that anti-Clinton stuff was like really hardcore "prOn"--you had to know where to look and then you had to go get it. Maybe like "prOn", the widespread use of the 'Net today makes it seem like there's more President bashing but I think it's real and it's even worse than the Reagan years when I lived in Ithaca, NY, and Madison, WI, where he was not well liked, to put it mildly. Our profs had us convinced he would blow up the planet.
MA is also right that the piece on the 'blogger is sensationalistic and unfair to the thoughtful Lefties out there. But that's the nature on the MSM.
But MA, there is no way that WaPo is a 'right wing' paper. It maybe more button down preppie than it's bohemian sister, the NYT, but it is still 'center left' on it's most conservative day.
Posted by: JDB at April 15, 2006 01:19 PM (gHLyo)
21
M.A., just pray that I don't find you when the time of retribution comes, because you and your kind, along with the muslims and other anti-American scum, won't last long then.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:49 PM (0yYS2)
22
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at M.A. insuating more than once that A) WaPo is "right-wing" and B) the media is conservative.
And then: "As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues"
Now I'm laughing. Dude! Did you just wake up from a 15 year coma?
Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:23 PM (YudAC)
23
Did he wake from a coma? No, he just ate a mushroom that he found growing in his laundry hamper.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:52 PM (0yYS2)
24
IM, I think M.A. ate some of those mushrooms that grow in cow manure. How else can you explain all the BS coming from he/she/it?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:23 PM (rUyw4)
25
This is a test - I've tried to post here three times tonight - but can't seem to - just don't want to waste my time writing my thoughts again if it won't post - this seems to be an ongoin g problem with righty sites - must be the VRWC!
Posted by: Zeus at April 16, 2006 01:49 AM (vlreT)
26
Hey Zeus, you should write in Notepad or something, then transfer it, or you could just hit the back button on your browser if you get an error message. I don't know what it is, but this site has lots of comment problems.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:27 AM (0yYS2)
27
I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton.
So did you have your head fully up your ass during the 1990s, or were you just in a persistent vegetative state back then?
Posted by: ned fucking flanders at April 16, 2006 04:16 PM (XEZ3U)
28
I was calling for the lynching of Billary, along with every other leftard moron, and I still am.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)
29
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11685. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 23, 2006 08:03 AM (F1CfC)
April 03, 2006
Scientist Wants to Kill 90% of People on Earth
(Beaumont, Texas) At the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a University of Texas ecology and lizard expert, was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Pianka then gave a speech saying people are ruining the planet and advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. A fellow scientist attended and reported. Here's an excerpt.
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.I'm thinking that a person named Eric Pianka should not be teaching young impressionable minds about science or anything else. Follow the link. More here.After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
10:03 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.
1
geez-where's the love and humanity.
If he's such a great scientist why can't he think of a more humane way of limiting the population.
Don't have to have a science degree to know germs and chemicals kill. How about limiting the birth rate-in undeveloped countries. They don't want so many kids anyway-they're just bored and pass the time getting their rocks off.
Posted by: splashtc at April 03, 2006 10:14 AM (zlay8)
2
That makes sense. Just about the percentage of slaves killed by communists. Politbureau in USSR was about 7%.
Posted by: Chief RZ at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (iNTGz)
3
If you're "young and impressionable" past 16, you're going to be a gullible idiot as an adult.
Don't give the younger generation a pass by saying they're just "young and impressionable." That passed years before college started, and before high school ended. You know, all those years you were sending them to our exemplary public schools. So no, they aren't "young and impressionable," they're just at the tail end of a manufacturing process to make fools. And an unprecidentedly successful process, too. Too bad the vast majority of them are also too stupid to care about voting.
Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (2hPsb)
4
That this man is teaching at a public university in the state of Texas after advocating such a thing as the murder of 5 billion people shows how corrupt our educational system is. Fire the bastard and anyone who supports that kind of genocide. They have no inherent right to work for the public while advocating the murder of over 10 million Texans and 250,000,000 Americans.
And if you see him in person, beat the shit out of his sorry ass.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 10:37 AM (rUyw4)
5
Yup. Human beings as exalted among God's creation is a Biblical and judeo-christian concept. While to Lefties, humans are no higher than cats and dogs-- and worse, a virus on the surface of this planet (see Agent Smith's monologue).
Expect the "man as virus" view to become more and more predominant as society becomes more secularized and sheds its judeo-christian roots.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:54 AM (8e/V4)
6
>>>>geez-where's the love and humanity.
It's ironic that the biblical view that places God on a pedestal also serves to raise men's stature in the universe, while the humanist view that raises Man onto a pedestal reduces men's stature in the universe.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:58 AM (8e/V4)
7
WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ? Is this a foretelling of the end times ? He sounds more to me like a Christian doomsdayer than a scientist. Repent Repent the end is near. Check World Net Daily for future warnings http://worldnetdaily.com/
Posted by: john Ryan at April 03, 2006 11:36 AM (TcoRJ)
8
The book of Revelations doesn't "call" for mass extermination-- it merely predicts it. A qualitative difference, no?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)
9
WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ?
That kind of distortion--whether willful, or out of pure ignorance--is almost obscene. That's why discussing anything having to do with religion with Leftwingers is such an exercise in futility. In virtually all cases, they simply are too ignorant, or too dishonest (or both).
Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:01 PM (8e/V4)
10
I know Pianka from U.T. and also because I ran Cattle and he runs Bison on neighboring ranches.
He is an odd one. He struck a friend of mine who had been his graduate student over a minor dispute.
I always heard that the U.N also desires a massive reduction in population.
Can anyone confirm this about the U.N.?
Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 12:13 PM (q5wwn)
11
Apparently this idiot doesn't realize Ebola burns out way to quick to be an efficient killer of people on his scale, even with mutations. I think maybe he believes in the Gaia Hypothesis, and hopes his goddess will purge humanity.
Posted by: Thunder Pig at April 03, 2006 12:18 PM (PW/DE)
12
Christianity "raises man up"? Like in the Dark Ages, right?
I think you're trying to steal credit there.
Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 12:19 PM (2hPsb)
13
Thunder Pig, like most ignorant people, this guy probably got his information from the movie 'Outbreak'.
Posted by: slug at April 03, 2006 12:21 PM (wYW63)
14
>>>Like in the Dark Ages, right?
Wrong. The fall of the Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages, not christianity. In fact, Christian monasteries were the sole repositories of knowledge during the Dark Ages.
But even with your Dark Ages comment you demonstrate some of that ignorance dcb was referring to. You attempt to adress my statement about christian theology with a lamebrained response about Western history.
But your response actually shows how weak your grasp of history is-- not to mention how nonexistent your knowledge of christian theology is. You Lefties simply aren't equipped for an intelligent dialogue on the subject.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 12:30 PM (8e/V4)
15
mib,
your Dark Ages comment was a non-sequitor response if I've ever heard one (and evidence of either your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty). The sins of the church (whether real or just imagined) have no little or no relation to christian theology or the judeo christian worldview.
Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:44 PM (8e/V4)
16
MiB what is your stinking problem? Do you hate your mother?
Scientist that want to kill 90% of the humans on earth would be given a medal by the United Nations.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 03, 2006 03:39 PM (D2g/j)
17
Pianka was just on an Austin local news channel.
He is going to be on MSNBC tomorrow morning.
He is claiming that an intellectual rival has misquoted him in a smear campaign.
Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 05:12 PM (q5wwn)
18
Of the 400 scientist that gave Mr Pianka a standing ovation, do they realise that under his plan only 40 would live? Or were they thinking that they would be in the 10%? Would Mr Pianka be so kind as to lead the way and be the first to contract the "cure"?
Posted by: Reid at April 03, 2006 05:56 PM (Zwsx5)
19
He's probably right. Insane too but correct.
Posted by: Howie at April 03, 2006 07:52 PM (D3+20)
20
MiB, I am 16 and , trust me, you do not want most of the people in my generation voting. Many idiots at my school think that drilling for oil kills animals and global warming will kill us all and that type of BS. It is actually a blessing in disguise that most of the 18-20 year olds do not vote. Many of them believe everything the MSM tells them, they are, for the most part, brainwashed.
Posted by: Craig at April 03, 2006 08:50 PM (b3fZv)
21
Another radical lizard loving eco-freak he and PETER SINGER and PAUL ERLITCH are the same type of zero populationists freaks that are extremists
Posted by: sandpiper at April 03, 2006 09:46 PM (uTBPj)
22
Damn I live in Beaumont and would have went to this if I'd known about it.
Could have really had some fun with this ol boy ... at his expense! He is as bad as the Islamophuqenuts ... just from the other side of the planet. But when I really think about he's worse since he is an American citizen and teaching our children. God save us all ... or at least more than 10% of us!
Posted by: jack at April 03, 2006 10:30 PM (aitZQ)
23
Have you read the TOM CLANCY book RAINBOW SIX? its about radical enviromentalists along with a wealthy eco-freak who want to create a deadly virus to wipe out the entire human race and then watch the rewilding of the earth from their specialy encloser this extremists would fit right in
Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:14 AM (A09bm)
24
sandpiper,
that isn't the stuff of fiction. Humanism has indeed reduced us to the status of vermin on this planet. Without a religious worldview to give us inherent worth, these nihilists are free to reduce men to the status of meat puppets just taking up space. That's humanism for you.
“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
~~Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 04, 2006 08:48 AM (WCwrR)
25
Greg, Yes, the U.N. has a statute (or charter orplan or whatever it's called at the U.N.) that says once the world hits a certain population level it would that they should cut off all support to countries under a certain level of economic and industrial development, reallocating food to the chosen few nations, letting the others starve.
Can't remember what it's called, but a buddy found it one time while searching the U.N.'s site for something else a few years back. We haven't been able to find it since. I'll search for it again.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 04, 2006 02:16 PM (GyNTD)
26
MiB, I'm an atheist, and even I'll admit that it was the Church that saved civilization and brought Europe back from the brink of barbarism, despite what many corrupt clerics did. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean that it didn't happen as it did.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:42 PM (0yYS2)
27
If by some miracle the Arab/Muslim world is victorious against this secular/atheistic influence of the NWO agenda is reduced to such a level as to allow the Christian West to regain its foothold where it once stood, it will be necessary to credit the religion of Islam and the Arab world for not buckling under in the face of attempted extermination. And it will be we, the Christian West and Western Civilization, who will be the beneficiaries of “Islamic Extremism.”
Posted by: TO improbulus maximus at April 06, 2006 10:17 AM (zqsRN)
28
That's the worst, most stupid attempt at apologetics I've ever heard. I'm going have to stop admitting to being an atheist because almost every other atheist I meet is a complete, raving idiot, and I don't want to be stigmatized by association.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 07, 2006 06:25 AM (0yYS2)
29
LOL, I.M.!
Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at April 07, 2006 02:32 PM (tdhAh)
April 01, 2006
ACLU Sues in Support of 'Creative' 'Non-Threatening' Student Poet
From First Coast News in Brunswick, Georgia:
ROME, GA (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Murray County schools for expelling an eighth-grader for writing a poem on school violence.The student, whose name was not released, was suspended and expelled last year after he showed a notebook full of poems to his English teacher, according to an ACLU statement.
"Kids are being raised in a society where there are violent images around them, not just in movies but in the news," said ACLU attorney Beth Littrell. "Their writing may reflect that and the school should not be punishing them for their creative expression unless it's truly threatening."
The poem is not included in the story, but Jay at Stop the ACLU received the poem in question in an email: more...
Posted by: Bluto at
12:11 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but this kind of poetry for a child denotes a psychological problem. He's what, 13 or 14? How will the ACLU plead the case? That he has a right to express himself and leave it at that? He needs help.
Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:23 AM (YudAC)
2
As long as he's contributing to the downfall of civilization in some small way, they'll back him. Liberals all need killing.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 08:01 AM (0yYS2)
3
And any person who would defend this little creep needs help, too. The ACLU, well, I think IM pointed out the motivation of that organization. Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what? It boggles the mind.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 08:57 AM (rUyw4)
4
in high school i've written some stuff in when I was in a funk or depressed mood.. (and who hasn't gotten depressed a time or two in high school) but NEVER turned it in as an assignment..
I would hope to think that most other students could use disern that too.. if they can't or if that is the tamest poem that kid turned in, then yes, he/she could use help or a 'safe' place to talk..
Posted by: The Other Dave at April 01, 2006 08:58 AM (W0Vif)
5
Since when is school instruction limited to the 3 R's? The teaching of acceptable societal behavior and limits (threats are not acceptable or tolerable)should be supported by legal standards not reproached by them.
Posted by: justa at April 01, 2006 09:41 AM (XU9K/)
6
Imagine what would happen if someone had tried to intervene months prior with that pair in Columbine. Same story I suppose.
"Truly threatening"???? Truly??? How does one quantify that?
Posted by: hondo at April 01, 2006 10:51 AM (StM4D)
7
I taught Jr. High, and I can't imagine any of my students writing something like that. It's simply not age-appropriate "creative expression." I hope the teachers aren't so LLL that they won't oppose this kids' re-admission.
Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:10 PM (d4MD5)
8
ugh apostrophe fault
Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:11 PM (d4MD5)
9
Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what?
A feudal, hegemonic, communist dystopia, ran by the party, of course. I've read Marx, Lenin, et al, and the unifying theme in all their works is that Western civilization must be destroyed and replaced with a "workers paradise", wherein the few live in parasitic splendor off of the labor of the many, with no way for one of the many to become one of the few. In short, communism is a twisted form of feudalism. Socialists and muslims are the blood enemies of civilization, and must be killed if we're going to save it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 02, 2006 07:43 AM (0yYS2)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
94kb generated in CPU 0.0579, elapsed 0.1516 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.1364 seconds, 359 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
122 queries taking 0.1364 seconds, 359 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
