Monday, January 14, 2008

So, it took exactly five days for the chick to cry and the black candidate and his surrogates to play the race card.

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Rodham-Clinton and her HINO (husband in name only). After all, there's nothing wrong with welling up -- President Bush did it just the other day when visiting the Holocaust memorial in Israel. The difference, of course -- and this says it all -- is that, while the President wept over the horrific murder of six million souls by the national socialists, the socialist here, HRC, was weeping about how hard HER life is, having to actually answer questions about her "record."

In fact, not only do I not have a great deal of sympathy for America's "first black president" and his WINO, in being attacked as "racists." After all, this is the card these corrupt socialists play against those who disagree with them all the time.

Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted, there is never a fuss -- their coideologists in the leftist media either covering it up, excusing it away or reporting it once and then moving on.

Of course, it was Ms. Rodham-Clinton who argued that all Indians work in gas stations when she claimed that Mahatma Ghandi owned a small gas station and it was Democrat Party elder statesman, Joe Biden who was stunned to meet a black man who was "clean." It's Democrats who are asking "is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

To the Democrats blacks not only all look alike and dress alike, but they all THINK alike, so that Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Page and Bill Cosby are "not really black" because they actually speak proper English (not ebonics) and talk about such "white" things as personal responsibility.

So it's good to see "the first black president" (what makes him "black?" The fact that he cheats on his wife? The fact that he blames others for his failures?) and his WINO being attacked as "racists" when, in this case, they didn't say or do anything wrong. We Republicans are used to the race card being played against us as a way to stifle honest debate that the leftists know they cannot win.

What Ms. Rodham-Clinton said was exactly right. As inspirational and important was the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., without an ally in government who could translate the message into legislation, the movement (mostly against Democrats who opposed civil rights) would have remained just that: an inspirational movement.

Hopefully some Democrats will take a lesson from these attacks because what should be clear, is that it doesn't matter how beloved you are by the Democrats. It doesn't matter how many years you've worked in service of the leftist agenda, you can even be "the first black president," but if it suits them, they'll come after you.

Whenever you see the Democrats play the race card against Republicans, remember, they'll play it against you, too, if they can make an extra buck.

669 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 669   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Exodus 34:20 - The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck.

Anonymous said...

Hell why not make rape legal?

Jane said...

dora, you asked for a reason to criminalize incest, polygamy, and prostitution and I gave 2 and a joke. There is always something to scrutinize about any generalization.

Well, when I asked for reasons, I meant GOOD, sound, logical reasons that make sense. Your reasons all have serious flaws.

If the majority of incestuous relationships create retarded babies then ban 'em. Problem solved.

But like I said, so do the majority of relationships between mentally retarded people. Should be ban them as well? And if we ban one, why not the other?

I just gave a GREAT answer but it is not good enough for you. INCEST IS HOW RETARDS ARE BORN!!!!!!

I seriously hope that you're not saying that all the mentally retarded people in this country are products of incest, because that would betray a huge misunderstanding of basic science and genetics.

Polygamy is just another form of totalitarian rule. Ban it.

I really don't know what you mean. could you elaborate?

Prostitution spreads STD's and desensitizes the act of meaningless sex.

So maybe we should ban meaningless sex? Or maybe all extramarital sex, because in this country, that's probably a much bigger spreader of STDs than prostitution, which is not widespread and is legal in only 1 state.

The only reason you would like prostitution to be legal is so there would be a boom in the abortion business.

With 1.5 million abortions per year, we seem to be having a boom without legal prostitution. :)

Anonymous said...

you REALLY loved your father eh dora?

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Mahmoud Abbas at Annapolis shaking hands with President Bush?

What's THAT supposed to imply, that Bush supports the PLO? You really ARE a whackjob!

Jane said...

doraisoffherrocker said...

Hell why not make rape legal?


Umm, because rape implies LACK OF CONSENT!

Where's the lack of consent in prostitution, polygamy and incest? All are consented to by adults.

I support statutory rape laws, btw, because minors can't consent. And bestiality laws, because animals can't consent.

What happened to the "keep the government out of our private lives" republicans, anyway?! So what if one man and 2 women want to live together and have a family like that? if they all consent to it, what's the problem? Or vice versa.

And i know you guys are gonna love this: what's the problem with same-sex incest?

:P

Anonymous said...

Again, are you telling me that there racism in the south is "solved"?

From a legislative and representative standpoint... yes.

Anonymous said...

she doesn't believe there are psychological and harmful emotional reasons for preventing incestuous relationships?

Never met a victim of incest?

At what age should it be legal?

why put any restrictions on it at all...the possibility of abuse is just too high

Anonymous said...

What's the problem with pigfucking?

Anonymous said...

read the link...missing link...there are some pros and cons

Jane said...

Wasn't Mahmoud Abbas at Annapolis shaking hands with President Bush?

What's THAT supposed to imply, that Bush supports the PLO? You really ARE a whackjob!


Mahmoud Abbas has served as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee since November 11, 2004, after Yasser Arafat's death.

Who's the whackjob now?

Anonymous said...

If it's such an obvious question, why can't anyone give a good answer?!

You mean an answer YOUR willing to accept. There are plenty of good answers.

Anonymous said...

As usual these ignorant little simpletons have EVERYTHING confused...cousins marrying is widespread throughout the world: No Relation: Cousin Marriage, Birth Defects
San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | January 28, 2004 | Dru Sefton


Albert Einstein married his first cousin, Elsa Lowenthal. So did evolutionist Charles Darwin, who wed cousin Emma Wedgwood and had 10 children. The Prophet Muhammad married cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh; Jacob and Rachel in the Old Testament were also cousin-spouses.

Cousin marriage, or consanguineous marriage, is commonplace throughout history and around the world – except in America. Here, many states ban the unions based on the long-held notion that cousin marriages are "inbreeding" that produces defective offspring.

But those laws are based on outmoded social stigmas and incorrect scientific studies, genetics experts say. And cousin couples are increasingly speaking out for their right to marry.

Many of the myths date to one particularly erroneous study issued in 1858, said Martin Ottenheimer, author of "Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage." That study, in the Transactions of the American Medical Association journal, concluded that first cousins were too closely related to safely reproduce.

"The research upon which it was based was very, very, very poor. Absolutely wrong," said Ottenheimer, an anthropology professor at Kansas State University in Manhattan.

But the study gained recognition because it was an era in which Americans were increasingly turning to science for answers. Moreover, Ottenheimer said, the federal government backed the findings, believing that discouraging cousin marriage would more quickly assimilate immigrants.

As a result, many state laws forbidding the marriages date to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Currently:

Twenty states prohibit marriage between first cousins.

Four additionally prohibit unions between cousins once removed (a difference of one generation).

Six states allow cousin marriages only if the couple is above child-bearing age.

One state allows first-cousin marriage but bans "double cousin" unions. (That occurs when, for instance, two brothers from one family marry two sisters from another; if each couple has a child, those offspring are double cousins.)

Nineteen other states, including California, allow first cousins to marry without restrictions.

Because the relationships spark such legal and social turmoil, cousins who fall in love often seek moral guidance.

"My parents had raised me to go to the Bible with any question I had," said Christie Smith of Las Vegas. When she was attracted to her cousin Mark, "I prayed and I studied Scripture. To my surprise, God is OK with cousin marriages."

She found nothing in the Bible forbidding the relationship. Leviticus 18, which details rules regarding incest, does not mention cousins.

Christie and Mark, married five years, host the Web site for CUDDLE International (Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws through Education).

Cousin marriages "aren't nearly as uncommon as people think; they're just kept under wraps," Smith said. Her site at www.cuddleinternational.org gets some 300 hits per day.

Another site, www.cousincouples.com, gets about 600 visitors a day. It's run by Keith Tysinger of Asheboro, N.C., married nearly eight years to his cousin Tammy.

When they announced their plan to wed, "it was terrible," Tysinger said. "My dad said, 'They'll put you in jail in some states for that!' Nearly everyone was against us."

The resentment has slowly faded, he said. Now the two are trying to have a baby. And, contrary to widespread belief, their child will not be at a significantly higher risk of birth defects.

"People in the genetics community know those risks are not high, and they have known that for years," said Robin Bennett, a senior genetic counselor and clinic manager for the University of Washington Medical Genetics Clinic in Seattle.

In 2002, Bennett headed a National Society of Genetic Counselors task force that released an extensive study of consanguineous marriage. It showed that cousin couples were only 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent more likely than a nonrelated couple to have a child with a significant birth defect, such as mental retardation or a genetic disorder.

Ottenheimer said one of the first scientifically sound studies was conducted after World War II by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission – Radiation Effects Research Foundation, under the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The group was examining genetic problems after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of Japanese citizens participated.

"In order to determine possible damage, they needed to sift out very carefully the possible contamination of the study due to cousin marriage," because the practice was common in Japan, Ottenheimer said. And at that point, cousin marriages were still thought to produce inbreeding problems.

But when scientists examined that separate group of Japanese cousin-marriage offspring for genetic disorders, they discovered far fewer problems than anticipated.

Stigma persists

Brandon and Andrew Wagner, 11 and 8 years old, are living proof of the healthy children typically born to cousins. Their parents, Caren and Brian Wagner of New Holland, Mich., have been married 12 years.

"One of our great-aunts couldn't believe there wasn't something wrong with the children," Caren said. "She said, 'They look so normal.' It was rather comical."

Wagner said she still faces prejudiced reactions, such as that of the co-worker who recently told her she'd "better not mention to too many people" that she married her cousin.

"People expect some two-headed, toothless redneck," Wagner said. "Walking down the street, you can't tell us from anyone else. We're a middle-class, Midwestern American family."

The stigma persists, as do the laws.

Phyllis Kahn, a member of the Minnesota State Legislature, in January 2003 introduced a bill to repeal cousin marriage restrictions. It remains stalled in committee; senators are reluctant to co-sponsor the measure.

Some of Kahn's constituent groups, including Somalis from Africa and Hmong from Asia, were shocked to find the marriages weren't permitted, she said.

"If some people stand to benefit, and there's no scientific reason for them not to, it should be allowed," Kahn said.

Statistics elusive

Ottenheimer said cousin marriages in other countries serve specific societal purposes, such as promoting equality.

Many cultures practice patrilocality: When a couple marry, the two live with or near the husband's family. "So incoming women are outsiders," Ottenheimer said. But with cousin marriages, "you have a household of groups of related women and groups of related men, each of which have power within the family."

Ottenheimer said reliable statistics on the number of cousin marriages in America are elusive.

But when his book was published in 1996, he was surprised by the hundreds of notes and telephone calls he received.

"A number of people were very threatened by the idea of cousin marriage," he added. "This touches very fundamental notions about being human."

Jane said...

she doesn't believe there are psychological and harmful emotional reasons for preventing incestuous relationships?

Never met a victim of incest?

At what age should it be legal?

why put any restrictions on it at all...the possibility of abuse is just too high


If one of the people is underage, wouldn't statutory rape laws sufficiently cover it?

That's what I don't get. If one of the people is under 18, by all means prosecute the perpetrator for statutory rape. But if it's two adults who willingly consent to it, like they would to any other relationship, what's the issue?

There are lots of other things people do and relationships people enter into that have lasting psychological effects, but we don't make those illegal.

What's the problem with pigfucking?

Lack of consent. We just discussed this.

Anonymous said...

I just gave a GREAT answer but it is not good enough for you. INCEST IS HOW RETARDS ARE BORN!!!!!!

Is this your way of telling us your mommy and daddy are related?

Jane said...

If it's such an obvious question, why can't anyone give a good answer?!

You mean an answer YOUR willing to accept. There are plenty of good answers.


Maybe this is the source of the right's problems -- you can't distinguish between good and bad reasons to do things.

like, "should we invade iraq?" "well, Saddam tried to kill my daddy" -- see, not a good reason to do something.

Anonymous said...

the pig never said no...implied consent...

cousins????

I thought you were talking brother/sister/father/daughter/mother/son etc.

Anonymous said...

Dora, I am not saying I want to prevent retards from procreating (the are more cases than not in which the child is born normal) I am saying ban incest because usually the child has a genetic defect.

Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

what's good about incest?

I know....I know....it's a sexual taboo...and spit's right in religions eye

Jane said...

cousins????

I thought you were talking brother/sister/father/daughter/mother/son etc.


I am talking all those. Tell me, if two adults consent to it, what's the problem?

(same question for polygamy with 3 or more adults)

Anonymous said...

what makes you think the incest taboo is a "right" vs "left" issue

more strawman

Anonymous said...

Never met a victim of incest?

At what age should it be legal?

why put any restrictions on it at all...the possibility of abuse is just too high


Simple guy doesn't even know he's talking about child abuse, not incest. They're hopeless but fun to kick around. But, what ignorance!!!! Wow

elmers brother said...

yes an orgasm is the lesser of two evils (genetic mutations, abuse, psychological and emotional trauma)

does the law keep any two adults from doing this anyway?

Jane said...

Dora, I am not saying I want to prevent retards from procreating (the are more cases than not in which the child is born normal) I am saying ban incest because usually the child has a genetic defect.

Problem solved.



Usually? You got statistics on that?

Anonymous said...

but I have a sister who was the adult victim of incest...it wasn't child abuse dumb shit

Anonymous said...

If you're talking sister/ brother, then you have to differentiate between sex with birth control or without it. Do you want non-procreative sex between consenting adult siblings to be illegal?

Anonymous said...

if you libs think that to f*** your family members is okay then you are beyond help. that is fine with me though. you descendants will be retarded (assuming you don't abort them out of convenience first).

I am starting to think that you believe that retards are exceptable.

Jane said...

yes an orgasm is the lesser of two evils (genetic mutations, abuse, psychological and emotional trauma)

does the law keep any two adults from doing this anyway?


Presumably, if we wanted to prevent the kind of harm that close-relative incest creates (high likelihood of birth defects), we would mandate that EVERY couple before having children get genetic counseling, to make sure that both of them are not carriers of recessive genes for various illnesses and birth defects.

Plus, like I keep saying, are you guys suggesting that if we make incest legal, then suddenly tons of people are going to do it?

Anonymous said...

If your sister consented, then she wasn't the victim of anything. If she didn't consent, then she was the victim of rape.

Anonymous said...

Below, we see Justin whining because he was not "respected" after he told Dora how much he respected her views. Poor, li'l guy.

I do respect Dora for being honest about her views. It's more than Hillary and most mainstream democrats would ever do. If they would share their true views as Dora has, they would be never be elected to anything - except maybe in liberal strongholds like San Francisco. We need to encourage liberals to speak out like Dora has. She is an example for all democrats to follow.

Jane said...

Anonymous said...

if you libs think that to f*** your family members is okay then you are beyond help. that is fine with me though. you descendants will be retarded (assuming you don't abort them out of convenience first).


But if only you guys would give us one good reason that we should make incest illegal... you're so stupid you can't even articulate why you believe certain things. Forgive me, sir, for wanting to make laws for good reasons, not just arbitrarily.

I am starting to think that you believe that retards are exceptable.

"exceptable"? wtf is that? do you mean acceptable?

whoa.

Anonymous said...

Getting dumber AND peevish says: but I have a sister who was the adult victim of incest...it wasn't child abuse dumb shit

Then it was RAPE...try to learn distinctions...it's the whole key to thinking straight...which is why you're a wingbat.

Jane said...

I do respect Dora for being honest about her views. It's more than Hillary and most mainstream democrats would ever do. If they would share their true views as Dora has, they would be never be elected to anything - except maybe in liberal strongholds like San Francisco. We need to encourage liberals to speak out like Dora has. She is an example for all democrats to follow.

The going assumption here being that hillary secretly thinks incest is okay?

I know, in politics, logic is not king.

But if only someone would give me a good reason to ban incest.

If your sister consented, then she wasn't the victim of anything. If she didn't consent, then she was the victim of rape.

Exactly! and if she was underage, it was statutory rape or child abuse.

Anonymous said...

I am starting to think that you believe that retards are exceptable.

"exceptable"? wtf is that? do you mean acceptable?

whoa.


Obviously, there shouldn't be any surprise when the mouth breathers who actually think Evan has something worthwhile to say condone eugenics.

Jane said...

Obviously, there shouldn't be any surprise when the mouth breathers who actually think Evan has something worthwhile to say condone eugenics.

Yeah, i was going to say, yeah, we think "retards" are people who are "acceptable," who have rights, like to vote, a right to life and to have a life.

do you think they are not "acceptable"? what exactly should we do "about them"? sterilize them? kill them? imprison then?

Anonymous said...

If they would share their true views as Dora has, they would be never be elected to anything - except maybe in liberal strongholds like San Francisco.

Like GW Uriah Heep Bush and his 'umble forn policy? They just can't stop showing their TROOO opinion of the voter...all too stupid to chose...now, THAT is projection...never have I seen such ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Should non-procreational incest between consenting adults be illegal? As for a man and his mare, I disagree that it should be illegal. The mare will not care...nor will it notice.

Anonymous said...

I said I wasn't going to repeat myself, but here I go. From our previous discussion:

...incest invariably leads to pregnancy. (especially when you're a so labeled pro-life nut-job like me) I think that because of the problems with incestuous pregnancy, it should be a discouraged, and even outlawed practice. However, for second cousins, adopted cousins, etc, allowances should be made. Heck, I can't even think of a biblical argument against that...

In addition to that, incest is destructive to the foundation of any society, the family. And you know nothing about how families work so I don't expect you to understand.

Jane said...

Should non-procreational incest between consenting adults be illegal?

For example, gay incest? What's wrong with gay incest?

(i love freaking these freaks out)

elmers brother said...

well if in practice the law doesn't prevent it from happening anyway

then the law is already preventing the other things (genetic mutations etc) from happening

what would be the practical effect of removing the law?

that fathers and daughters can make porn movies or kiss in public?

to remove the stigma?

elmers brother said...

and if very few people are actually "participating" then I don't see the point in changing the status quo

elmers brother said...

does the law actually prevent it or just if one were to get caught? and who is prosecuting these cases? is this such a problem that extraordinary legal minds such as d*ra feels it necessary to take up their cause?

elmers brother said...

who is prosecuting these cases?

consenting adult gay or otherwise

Anonymous said...

dora, i'm surprised that you don't point out that i don't use caps.

you are a true lib elitist. this is why i despise you. you want us to answer your question about incest. why don't you answer it if your so smart. i like my answer: outlaw incest because it is bad for the kids. DONE.

the truth is, you want people to continue to need lawyers (youself, although your just in college). i hate that we need lawyers. they usually muck up common sense. incest is wrong because it usually means that some form of inner family coercion took place and that my taxes are paying for some kids new tard proof helmet.

since you cannot give me one reason why incest should be legal I will write you off as discredited.

Anonymous said...

I think there are laws agains incest in most states...how it is defined specifically is another matter...or whether it is prosecuted...it is probably occasionally pursued in the bible belt. What about kids...both underage...who are "doing it." I personally know of several cases of this which were occurring when I was a teeny bopper and a bro/sis were in that "experimental phase" no gay cases, however, but, indeed, what dif would that make?...these situations stopped when they got a little older and everyone felt they'd had a little fun with no harm done to the sacred families involved...these were some of the small town's "best families" by the way.

Anonymous said...

The burden of proof of the legality of something doesn't lie with those who think it should be legal, but those who think it should be illegal. In a free society, things are assumed to be legal unless expressly deemed otherwise. And despite what your wingnut brethren have tried to do to our Constitution, we do still live in a free society.

Jane said...

does the law actually prevent it or just if one were to get caught? and who is prosecuting these cases? is this such a problem that extraordinary legal minds such as d*ra feels it necessary to take up their cause?

Well, laws against murder don't prevent it from happening, though presumably they discourage people from doing it. The prosecutors are the same prosecutors as usual -- the government. As with any other crime, you're only punished if you're caught

and if very few people are actually "participating" then I don't see the point in changing the status quo



I do't think this is the standard for whether laws should be changed or not.

Anonymous said...

Here's why it's a left/right issue:
bob blooger said...
1500 years ago "Saint" Augustine lost his hard on in middle age after a lifetime of profligate womanizing -- good for him so far. But -- so embittered was he by the state of his now flagging member that he denounced sexuality for all mankind...and especially for womankind, who now became objects of unbearable frustration for him. Since that time, his poor Xtian followers have been heir to his morbidity and spread it thoughout the guilt ridden land like a plague. Fortunately some were immune to it...they became known as liberals -- and libertines -- others were weak of mind and character -- they remained Xtians -- and became hypocrites, sheep farmers, priests, televangelists and GOP senators.

Morgan Brewer said...

Dora, Do you think that abortion should be practiced in Africa even though Aids is decimating the continent?

Dora, Do you think that 3rd world countries have the right to industrialize?

Dora, Do you think that low income families from 3rd world countries should be able to enhance their life with a cheap but efficient car (The Tata)?

Jane said...

you are a true lib elitist.

where did you get this crazy idea? you don't even know what an elitist is.

this is why i despise you. you want us to answer your question about incest. why don't you answer it if your so smart.

I don't know a good answer. I'm asking you because you guys seem to think incest should be illegal, so i'm asking you for your reasons.

i like my answer: outlaw incest because it is bad for the kids. DONE.

But you see, other things are bad for the kids. Like pregnant women drinking alcohol. But we don't outlaw that. And mentally retarded people or people who carry the same recessive gene for a genetic disease can also produce children with brith defects -- why not outlaw them? You still haven't answered the question -- why do you want to outlaw one kind of thing that produces children with birth defects, but not another? What's the difference between incest and metnally retarded people reproducing?

the truth is, you want people to continue to need lawyers (youself, although your just in college).

No, i'm at the very end of law school.

i hate that we need lawyers. they usually muck up common sense.

Oh blah blah.

incest is wrong because it usually means that some form of inner family coercion took place and that my taxes are paying for some kids new tard proof helmet.

So you're just greedy? What a great reason to make something illegal - your greed.

since you cannot give me one reason why incest should be legal I will write you off as discredited.

So now the presumption is that everything should be illegal unless we have a good reason to make it legal? I thought it was the other way around, everything should be legal unless we have a good reason to make it ILLEGAL.

Tell me, then, why should premarital sex be legal? If you can't give me a good reason, you're discredited.

elmers brother said...

well I'm honestly asking...I haven't read an answer yet for what would be the purpose of changing the law that affects so few people?

Can you provide me examples of where consenting adult family members have been prosecuted under this law?

Is it so prevalent that this is a major issue for fine legal minds?

elmers brother said...

Is it so prevalent that this is a major issue for fine legal minds?

the prosecution of consenting adult family members

Jane said...

Dora, Do you think that abortion should be practiced in Africa even though Aids is decimating the continent?

What does one have to do with the other? I don't see why not.

Dora, Do you think that 3rd world countries have the right to industrialize?

I don't think it's a question of "right." that sounds like a nonsensical question.

Dora, Do you think that low income families from 3rd world countries should be able to enhance their life with a cheap but efficient car (The Tata)?

As long as the car is safe, I don't see why not.

Anonymous said...

So, if the kids had "a little fun" that makes it OK? What about when they have to face each other when they're older? That is what I would call damage to the family.

elmers brother said...

I can see where this might be some exercise to occupy in law school

Jane said...

There's an example in Germany.

I don't think we decide whether to repeal laws based on how many people are affected. We decide to repeal or institute laws based on other considerations.

Jane said...

So, if the kids had "a little fun" that makes it OK? What about when they have to face each other when they're older? That is what I would call damage to the family.

I think that's a very interesting case, where both of the people involved are underage. Technically, they are both covered by statutory rape laws then, but it depends on the state.

I wonder if this practice would increase if incest were made legal, and how common it is now.

This is the first good justification I have seen here. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Now we're "weak of character" if we follow moral ethics? I think that would be you libs who don't pay attention to the Bible. He was a Saint for a good reason...they don't just hand that out like cheap condoms or drug needless.

Anonymous said...

Titus 1:12 - Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."

elmers brother said...

one example IN GERMANY

I simply don't understand why this would get you so wrapped around the axle...there are more important issues for you to work on

such as your Gitmo gig

Anonymous said...

other considerations?

like sexual deviance

Anonymous said...

deviancy

Anonymous said...

If you had a lot of friends when you grew up you know that such experimentation between two underage kids is very common. The possibility that they might be a little embarassed at family gatherings later in life is hardly a good reason to be very worried about it. They are almost certain to be adult enought by then to understand that it was something they did when they were kids and don't worry about it that much.

Anonymous said...

mule humping

Jane said...

Now we're "weak of character" if we follow moral ethics? I think that would be you libs who don't pay attention to the Bible.

ROLFMAO

one example IN GERMANY

I simply don't understand why this would get you so wrapped around the axle...there are more important issues for you to work on


It's not me who's hung up on it - Justin just can't let it go, brough it up again on this thread for some reason. It's a fun topic to discuss, though, because most people just mindlessly repeat what they've been told about these things, and have never really thought it through themselves. Just look at the dearth of good reasons for keeping incest illegal on this thread -- far outweighed by the number of frustrated people who can't even articulate why they believe what they believe calling me names and such.

such as your Gitmo gig

I'm not working on that right now, but I'll be back at it in September, if Gitmo still exists.

Anonymous said...

He was a Saint for a good reason...they don't just hand that out like cheap condoms or drug needless.

Damn straight...it takes a lot of gall and rewriting of their lives to put that across. Personally, I like the pre-limpdick Augustine a lot...he be remindin me of Bubba.

Anonymous said...

next watermelons will be fair game...like that guy in Illinoise...laugh if you want, but my dad is a melon farmer and that could hurt business.

Anonymous said...

how many of your sisters did you hump Tom? I know everytime they see a vienna sausage they think of you.

Anonymous said...

The guy in Illinoise was drunk though...in his defense

Anonymous said...

how many of your sisters did you hump Tom? I know everytime they see a vienna sausage they think of you.

Frankly, you bring up a sore point...my sister was a beauty, but several years older tham me. When I "brought it up" she slapped me...now, that is embarassing at the reunions. See, it's the failure to do these things that harms the family. If she had stooped to tutor me, however, it would have been the Polish sausage in the 18" cow gut that would come to her mind.

Anonymous said...

drunk?...so drunken incest should be overlooked, but sober incest shouldn't...damn, that would have helped me out a couple times.

Anonymous said...

So, who told you to get drunk, underwear? In my house that's no excuse.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So, who told you to get drunk, underwear? In my house that's no excuse.


That's why you have no friends but Jeebus.

Anonymous said...

When I had thoughts abut my little sister I went to confession. That's how religion can help you.

Jane said...

When I had thoughts abut my little sister I went to confession. That's how religion can help you.

I guess only Catholicism, right?

Religion can help you stop thinking for yourself and just follow rules someone else made up. Oh, and don't forget the requisite guilt.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
When I had thoughts abut my little sister I went to confession. That's how religion can help you.


I hope you got there before you erred.

Anonymous said...

I haven't forgot my guilt. It won't let me. Father said that's a good thing and would be my guide. No, underpants...I did not err.

Jane said...

I haven't forgot my guilt. It won't let me. Father said that's a good thing and would be my guide.

LOL

Anonymous said...

it would have been the Polish sausage in the 18" cow gut that would come to her mind.

wishful thinking methinks

Anonymous said...

tomsgotasmallone said...
it would have been the Polish sausage in the 18" cow gut that would come to her mind.

wishful thinking methinks


Sounds like you're wishing for something, buddy...forget it...I aint that kind of boy.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I haven't forgot my guilt. It won't let me. Father said that's a good thing and would be my guide. No, underpants...I did not err.


Yeah, I'm betting there was at least once you didn't come in under the wire.

Morgan Brewer said...

anon: "incest is wrong because it usually means that some form of inner family coercion took place and that my taxes are paying for some kids new tard proof helmet."

Dora: "So you're just greedy?" is the response to my statement

If you all will noticed she conveniently forgot to acknowledge the first (most important) part of this comment. Incest could be thought of as inner family coercion of a sexual nature. Is this not an illegal act?

Anonymous said...

Dora, laughing at religous people is a thing only liberals do. You might be right that I didn't tell the whole story though. Later my sister had the same idea i did...so I thought it was alright if it was the girls idea but I still have guilt about my earlier thoughts

Anonymous said...

I didn't feel coerce though. She was littler than me.

Jane said...

Incest could be thought of as inner family coercion of a sexual nature. Is this not an illegal act?

I'm not sure why you assume that it is coercive. Couldn't it be consensual?

Jane said...

Dora, laughing at religous people is a thing only liberals do.

I'm not laughing at religious people, I'm laughing at you.

Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god?

Anonymous said...

Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god?

OH,that one...I've heard all the smarty liberal things about contardictions...it's like the fossils they plant to make you believe evolution. We're told not to let the false worldly in our minds.

Jane said...

OH,that one...I've heard all the smarty liberal things about contardictions...it's like the fossils they plant to make you believe evolution. We're told not to let the false worldly in our minds.

Oh, i'm not going to regale you with the contradictions. I just want to know exactly how wingnutty you are.

PS I wonder if Evan will write about this GOP Congressman who took money from Al Qaida... who hates America now?!

Anonymous said...

.it's like the fossils they plant to make you believe evolution.

This so perfectly illustrates the class of person who's drawn to Evan's point of view non-ironically.

Jane said...

.it's like the fossils they plant to make you believe evolution.

I hope that's a joke

Anonymous said...

.it's like the fossils they plant to make you believe evolution.

This so perfectly illustrates the class of person who's drawn to Evan's point of view non-ironically.


Your probably nive enought to think they don't do that. Science is the religion of faithless people.

Anonymous said...

I'm...pretty sure it's a liberal making a joke at the expense of wingnuttery. But still, would it surprise anyone to find one of those types on here for real? Between Farmer John's Platonic diatribes and Justin's American Gulag, these people aren't too far in their insanity from someone who thinks fossils are planted.

Jane said...

Your probably nive enought to think they don't do that. Science is the religion of faithless people.

Hey, there are still people out there who believe the earth is flat because the bible says the earth had 4 corners, so...

Anonymous said...

Where's underpants. He's the one who needs to hear my religous understanding

Anonymous said...

Your probably nive enought to think they don't do that. Science is the religion of faithless people.

Yikes. Maybe he is serious. That's tremendous.

Jane said...

That's a serious medical condition you've got there, anonymous

Anonymous said...

Dora said...
That's a serious medical condition you've got there, anonymous


Like you'd care if I had a conditon. I'd visit you in the hospital and bring lieterature.

Anonymous said...

You're the gift that keeps on giving, anon.

Anonymous said...

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Anonymous said...

dora, i'm surprised that you don't point out that i don't use caps.
you are a true lib elitist. this is why i despise you...


Anonymous,
Don't waste your hatred on Dora, or any other person for that matter. It feeds her ego. Besides, hatred is not a Christian virtue. If you want to follow Christs example, you should love her.

Your probably nive enought to think they don't do that. Science is the religion of faithless people.

Science is not a religion. Evolutionary theory, to a small degree, has some evidence to support it. However, most of Darwin's theories are just that - theories. To this day, nobody has witnessed or proven that there has ever been a major jump in the evolution of any creature. It's ok to doubt and question all science with an open mind, but to completely ignore it because the "bible tells you so" is just ignorant. It is important to always question everything, including your faith. If God is truth, you should seek the truth.

Anonymous said...

Genesis 19:5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Anonymous said...

Anon: "Incest could be thought of as inner family coercion of a sexual nature. Is this not an illegal act?"

Dora: "I'm not sure why you assume that it is coercive. Couldn't it be consensual?"

Yes, it could be consensual but it also could be coercion. I guess you're suggesting that because there's a difference the best approach is to do nothing (you will deny this because it suits your rebuttal). I love how you continue to break it down until the incest victims (or any other) cannot get the help they need unless they give you business (Google slimy plaintiff attorney). You are a predictable self serving greedy pre-law geek who would rather change the rules in your favor than help real people. I guess that's why you spin peoples opinions on this blog.

You are not always right. Only Evan's always right. Just kidding.

He does have your kind pegged though.

Anonymous said...

To this day, nobody has witnessed or proven that there has ever been a major jump in the evolution of any creature.

You...have no idea what evolutionary theory is.

Anonymous said...

I love Dora and would go to her bed if she was in hospital.

Anonymous said...

You...have no idea what evolutionary THEORY is.


You said it all right there, but God is not theory.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane said...

Science is not a religion. Evolutionary theory, to a small degree, has some evidence to support it. However, most of Darwin's theories are just that - theories.

And the Pythagorean theorem is just a a theorem, right?

Teach the controversy!

Anonymous said...

Once again, this is the caliber of person who thinks this site is teh awesome. My severe dislike of ass boil is reinforced.

Jane said...

Anon: "Incest could be thought of as inner family coercion of a sexual nature. Is this not an illegal act?"

Dora: "I'm not sure why you assume that it is coercive. Couldn't it be consensual?"

Anon: Yes, it could be consensual but it also could be coercion.

Same with sex, but we don't outlaw all sex, do we? We outlaw rape, and statutory rape, and I fully support those laws.

I love how you continue to break it down until the incest victims (or any other) cannot get the help they need unless they give you business (Google slimy plaintiff attorney).

See, you have no idea what you're yapping about, once again. If the "incest victim" was raped or was underage, there are other laws that cover those crimes. What's so wrong with that?

Give me business? How would I get business from them? A person can't sue another for a crime. A crime is prosecuted by the government (the plaintiff) and the defendant hires a defense attorney. How would a plaintiff's attorney fit into this equation?

You are a predictable self serving greedy pre-law geek who would rather change the rules in your favor than help real people. I guess that's why you spin peoples opinions on this blog.

I'm not pre-law, i graduated college a while ago. I'm in my last semester of law school. I really don't see how repealing incest laws would benefit me, at all. Care to elaborate?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Let's try that again.

, in a nutshell.

Anonymous said...

HTML tagging never works right on this shit site.

Anonymous said...

Corporations do not need regulating...we need more right wing judges...we need to work longer hours and expect less pay to help our country...if we get ripped we shouldn't complain...get it?

Supreme Court Rules Against Investors

Pete Yost reports for The Associated Press: "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against investors who sue businesses that help manipulate stock prices of publicly traded companies. In a 5-3 decision that split along conservative-liberal lines, the court gave a measure of protection from securities lawsuits to suppliers, banks, accountants and law firms that do business with corporations engaging in securities fraud."

Anonymous said...

A former congressman (ding ding, yes, a Republican) and delegate to the UN was indicted 'as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.' 1/17

Anonymous said...

GAO Says Figures in Administration's September 'Benchmark' Report on Iraq Were Unreliable. 1/17

Anonymous said...

Gerald K. Smith was an Arkansas preacher, and forerunner of today's religious right, who believed America should be a Christian Nation. He was also a fan of Adolph Hitler . 1/16

Anonymous said...

Where's that boy don't know how to spell Arthur? Why is everything a link?

Anonymous said...

Nobel-Winning Economist Blames Bush Tax Cuts, Greenspan for Recession Threat 1/17

I guess he got past econ 101

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Leviticus 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

Anonymous said...

We better support the troops; they sure as hell don't:
Pentagon, Big Pharma

Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War

By Penny Coleman

14/01/08 "AlterNet" - - - In June, the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health acknowledged "daunting and growing" psychological problems among our troops: Nearly 40 percent of soldiers, a third of Marines and half of National Guard members are presenting with serious mental health issues. They also reported "fundamental weaknesses" in the U.S. military's approach to psychological health. That report was followed in August by the Army Suicide Event Report (ASER), which reported that 2006 saw the highest rate of military suicides in 26 years. And last month, CBS News reported that, based on its own extensive research, over 6,250 American veterans took their own lives in 2005 alone -- that works out to a little more than 17 suicides every day.

That's 17 more casualties of the war which should be added to the official toll. Everyone on the head of the Sociopath in Chief and the sick dogs -- like Psychet -- who support him and his global crime wave.

Anonymous said...

SMACK retracts the above comment.

Anonymous said...

These guys are always for laws that keep their own secret desires, which they consider vices, in the closet. Now me, I personally find the thought of having sex with a republican repugnant. I don't deny it. But, I wouldn't want to outlaw sex with republican for anyone. I have wondered how often it is consensual, though.

Anonymous said...

George of Arabia:
Better Kiss Your Abe 'Goodbye'



by Greg Palast
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Bend over, pull out your wallet and kiss your Abe ‘goodbye.’ The Lincolns have got to go - and so do the Hamiltons and Jacksons.
Those bills in your billfold aren’t yours anymore. The landlords of our currency - Citibank, the national treasury of China and the House of Saud - are foreclosing and evicting all Americans from the US economy.
It’s mornings like this, when I wake up hung-over to photos of the King of Saudi Arabia festooning our President with gold necklaces, that I reluctantly remember that I am an economist; and one with some responsibility to explain what the hell Bush is doing kissing Abdullah’s camel.
Let’s begin by stating why Bush is not in Saudi Arabia. Bush ain’t there to promote ‘Democracy’ nor peace in Palestine, nor even war in Iran. And, despite what some pinhead from CNN stated, he sure as hell didn’t go to Riyadh to tell the Saudis to cut the price of oil.
What’s really behind Bush’s hajj to Riyadh is that America is in hock up to our knickers. The sub-prime mortgage market implosion, hitting a dozen banks with over $100 billion in losses, is just the tip of the debt-berg.
Since taking office, Bush has doubled the federal debt to more than $5 trillion. And, according to US Treasury figures, on net, foreign investors have purchased close to 100% of that debt. That’s $3 trillion borrowed from the Saudis, the Chinese, the Japanese and others.
Now, Bush, our Debt Junkie-in-Chief, needs another fix. The US Treasury, Citibank, Merrill-Lynch and other financial desperados need another hand-out from Abdullah’s stash. Abdullah, in turn, gets this financial juice by pumping it out of our pockets at nearly $100 a barrel for his crude.
Bush needs the Saudis to charge us big bucks for oil. The Saudis can’t lend the US Treasury and Citibank hundreds of billions of US dollars unless they first get these US dollars from the US. The high price of oil is, in effect, a tax levied by Bush but collected by the oil industry and the Gulf kingdoms to fund our multi-trillion dollar governmental and private debt-load.
The US Treasury is not alone in its frightening dependency on Arabian loot. America’s private financial institutions are also begging for foreign treasure. Yesterday, King Abdullah’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, already the top individual owner of Citibank, joined the Kuwait government’s Investment Authority and others to mainline a $12.5 billion injection of capital into the New York bank. Also this week, the Abu Dhabi government and the Saudi Olayan Group are taking a $6.6 billion chunk of Merrill-Lynch. It’s no mere coincidence that Bush is in Abdullah’s tent when the money-changers made the deal just outside it.
Bush is there to assure Abdullah that, unlike Dubai’s ports purchase debacle, there will be no political impediment to the Saudi’s buying up Citibank nor the isle of Manhattan.
So what? I mean, for the average American about to lose their job and their bungalow it doesn’t matter a twit whether it’s Sheik bin Alwaleed who owns Citibank or Sheik Sanford Weill, Citi’s past Chairman.
It’s the price paid to buy back our money from abroad that’s killing us. Despite the Koranic prohibition on charging interest, the Gulf princes demand their pound of flesh, exacting a 7% payment from Citibank and 9% from Merrill. That hefty interest bill then pushes adjustable rate mortgages into the stratosphere and pushes manufacturing into China by making borrowing and energy costs impossible to overcome. Forget the cost of health care: General Motors’ interest burden quintupled in just two years.
As the great economist Paddy Chayefsky wrote in the film The Network:
“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. … It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity…. There are no nations, there are no peoples. There is only one vast and immense, interwoven, multi-national dominion of petro-dollars. … There is no America. There is no ‘democracy.’ The world is a business, one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work.”
In 2005, the US consumer paid Arab and OPEC nations a quarter trillion dollars ($252 billion) for oil - and the USA received back 100% of it - and then some ($311 billion) via Gulf nations’ investment in US Treasury bills and purchases of US businesses and property. Bush’s trip to Abdullah’s tent is all about this vast business of keeping this petro-dollar treadmill spinning.
The Bush Administration, rather than tax Americans to cover our deficits or make the banks suffer the consequences of their predatory lending practices, is allowing the Saudis to charge us big time at the pump with the understanding they will lend it all back to us - so the party never has to stop.
It has been reported that the President’s Secret Service men traveling with him seemed embarrassed by the eye-popping loads of diamond and gold gifts which they have to carry back for President Bush. They need not feel they have taken too much from their hosts: Bush has assured Abdullah that the King can suck it back out through our gas tanks.

Anonymous said...

US ex-congressman indicted in terror funding case
14 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted a former US lawmaker for his links to a charity that sent funds to an Afghanistan-based supporter of Al-Qaeda through banks in Pakistan.
Republican former representative Mark Deli Siljander was named in a 42-count indictment against the Missouri-based Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA), charged with "engaging in prohibited financial transactions for the benefit of US-designated terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar," the US Department of Justice said in a statement.
Siljander, 57, faces money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges in the case.
Siljander represented a congressional district in the midwestern state of Michigan from 1981 to 1987. He now owns and heads a public relations company.
The indictment "paints a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein.
The organization "allegedly sent funds to Pakistan for the benefit of a specially designated global terrorist with ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban," said John Wood, US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.
The indictment alleges that Siljander "engaged in money laundering and obstruction of a federal investigation in an effort to disguise IARA's misuse of taxpayer money that the government had provided for humanitarian purposes."
The charity was closed in October 2004 when the Treasury Department said it was "a specially designated global terrorist organization."
According to the indictment, the group sent some 130,000 dollars in 2003 and 2004 to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan that Hekmatyar had access to.
Other defendants include Mubarak Hamed, 51, a naturalized US citizen from Sudan; Ali Mohamed Bagegni, 53, a naturalized US citizen born in Libya; and Ahmad Mustafa, 55, a US resident and citizen of Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Both Democrats and Republicans are good at practicing hypocrisy when they need to. But it's still breathtaking to see how some Democrats ignore that it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.

D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.

Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. "This is the Clinton campaign," he said. "They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada." He later told the Journal's June Kronholz, "You'd think the Democratic Party elite would disavow this, but the silence has been deafening." (Late Tuesday the Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada party's rules.)

Anonymous said...

...not only that, but they disenfranchised all Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida, too.

Jane said...

I'm so glad I don't own a car right now. I know, i know, increased gas prices increase the price of various goods i buy, sure. But at least i don't have a bottomless well into which to pour my cash.

Anonymous said...

Yea, it's easy get around without a car in NYC. You'll need that extra cash to pay the rent. One of my buddies was a theater student out there. He lived in a tiny pit of an apartment and paid more rent than I pay for my four bedroom house out in the country. When I was contracting in Parsippany, I had to drive out to business dinner at some Italian restaurant on the island, and it was a freaking nightmare.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad oil's going through the roof--maybe it will change a lot of Americans' transportation habits.

Jane said...

Yea, it's easy get around without a car in NYC. You'll need that extra cash to pay the rent. One of my buddies was a theater student out there. He lived in a tiny pit of an apartment and paid more rent than I pay for my four bedroom house out in the country.

Yeah, but then you have to live in the country.

Anonymous said...

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Anonymous said...

Liberals have killed 50 million babies since 1973... and let in 20 million illegals to replace them.

Stop the madness. Vote Republican!

Anonymous said...

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation.

Anonymous said...

In state polls, Obama is also beating Clinton among blacks, leading by 23 percentage points in South Carolina, according to the most recent Rasmussen Reports survey. He's ahead by 38 percentage points among Maryland blacks and by 39 points in Georgia, according to polls by the Baltimore Sun and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Blacks remain a minority, so their strong support doesn't guarantee him a win in those states. The troubling news for Obama's camp is that he has attracted just 13 percent support from white Democrats in Georgia.

Anonymous said...

Left's are perverts...they have retarded children. That is siding with failure.

Anonymous said...

We know that modern leftists side with evil, but I persoanally don't know why they do that. I wish Evan would tell us more about why they motivate.

Anonymous said...

Some people don't have consciences and actually like to make trouble...that is one reason they modern liberal does it. But there are other reasons too.

Anonymous said...

Ebony votes ebony and DNC ivory votes ivory
and never cross race in the twain shall be

Anonymous said...

Yes, but say your born and all of a sudden your going along and you say gee I'm going to do evil. Why would you do that? And there are millions of them. Just wondering

Anonymous said...

White men went for Obama in NH 38% to 30%. White women went for Clinton in NH 46% to 33%

White northern women are the most racist animals on the planet!

Anonymous said...

Modern leftists are just the crazy part of the population. Insane asylums aren't big enough so we have to live around them on the outside. That's the whole trick no one can figure out. Maybe Evan has some answers.

Anonymous said...

Yes but why are millions crazy in the same way. I hav e to know why this works. I have relatives who don't believe me. Some are looking at me funny now that President Bush is unpopular and I say he is a great president. I feel like they want to say something to me but are holding back. I've seen funny looks on their faces.

Anonymous said...

I told them about the success in Iraq and they woudn't look at me. Some voted for Presisent Bush.

Anonymous said...

Alright heres waht I'm really fearing. If millions are crazy with moden leftism and some of my relatives seem like they are becoming like that. What if this si something that can be spread to other people like now more are going in that direction...I don't mean like contagious but it might be something like that or why would it be getting bigger?

Anonymous said...

History has had periods of mass insanity...this is one with baby killers and kkkommunists making a big noise. 50 million dead babies...that's already crazy...but think that is 50 million less leftists so its evil but it has a good side.

Anonymous said...

I love lefty-righty impersonators. When they start pretending to be happy over dead Americans, you know they're really Lefties. The sheet comes off and the klansman stands exposed.

Anonymous said...

2 Kings 2:23-24 NKJV

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Anonymous said...

Metelo pendejo. Te veyamos.

Anonymous said...

Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Anonymous said...

Jeremiah 50:36 A sword against her false prophets! They will become fools. A sword against her warriors! They will be filled with terror.

Anonymous said...

Huge-O Chavez said...
I love lefty-righty impersonators. When they start pretending to be happy over dead Americans, you know they're really Lefties. The sheet comes off and the klansman stands exposed.


Oh now some purer than thou ass want to tell me I'm not as real as he is...man, I'm not saying i'm glad some Americans are dead. Are you stupid. I'm saying as long as the leftist already killed them at least its poetry justice that he's hurt his own side by doing it. Did you read its evil but it has a GOOD SIDE? sheesh

Anonymous said...

I'd say the inmates have taken over the asylum, but that would sort of presuppose that someone sane was running the place to begin with. The inmates have taken over the apartment covered in tinfoil and slogans pasted together from individual letters taken from newspapers seems more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Genesis 38:8-10 NASB

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Anonymous said...

1 Samuel 18:25-27 ESV

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Anonymous said...

Ezekiel 23:19-20 NET

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Jane said...

I also want to know WHY liberals always side with evil.

Anonymous said...

I also want to know WHY liberals always side with evil.

Still going, eh? You just can't get enough of Evan, can you? I imagined you defacing other conservative blogs as well in between posts, but I guess you've just got it out for Sayet. Like a wife that bitches at her husband all day but can't live five minutes without him. Or maybe it's a kind of anti-crush. Who knows - it would take years of psychotherapy to get to the bottom of this one.

Anonymous said...

WHY liberals always side with evil.

They hate the prevailing successful authority so much that they become anti. Anti all the things that make their resentful little lives possible. They are society's discontents.

If their ideas were to ever prevail and become dominant, they be killed or enslaved by their competitors in other societies in no time.

Anonymous said...

They hate authority because civilization's authorities require them to renounce certain "instincts", like the urge to hump every dog they see in the street. And they can't think of any good reasons why they should have to renounce any instincts at all and why dog humping might be a bad idea... in fact, they believe that authorities should resolve any possible ill effects (like disease transmission) that might result from indiscriminate dog humping.

Anonymous said...

Not being "responsible" for maintaining our society allows them to behave in a profoundly irresponsible manner. And they force the rest of us to constantly repair the damage they inflict.

They will eventually achieve a critical mass and tipping point.

That's why civilizations..."fall".

...and the civilizational cycle will begin again.

Anonymous said...

They hate the prevailing successful authority so much that they become anti. Anti all the things that make their resentful little lives possible. They are society's discontents.

So true. An example of this is the way they hate Christians and the Christian culture that has made this country the most charitable and selfless nation in the history of the world. And at the same time, they take the side of and defend backward murderous Muslim cultures like the Palestinians. Of course, if you just come out and make statements like that to a nuanced snoot like Dora, she will deny it - but actions speak louder than words. Time and time again, liberals defend Muslims that indiscriminately bomb innocent Jewish citizens, Muslims that propagandize in schools to children teaching them that all Americans and Jews are pigs that need to be exterminated. Muslims that punish homosexuality with death, Muslims that circumcise their women so they can't enjoy sex, Muslims that murder Christians all around the world just because of their faith. At the same time, they will viciously attack one of the most tolerant religions on the planet. The religion that teaches to love all people equally - to be honest and charitable to all. Amazing.

Jane said...

They hate the prevailing successful authority so much that they become anti. Anti all the things that make their resentful little lives possible. They are society's discontents.

"Enterprisers and Liberals ­are the wealthiest and best educated in the typology. Roughly four-in-ten Enterprisers and Liberals (41% each) have annual household incomes of at least $75,000; only the Upbeats (39%) have about as many people in that income category."

Pew Research(and if you think this group is biased, then ask Jonah Goldberg why he cited it extensively in his most recent op-ed)

And I can't the source right now, so feel free to not believe me, but i read somewhere just this week that in 2004, among the super-rich, Kerry won.

Jane said...

Ah, here it is. Slate.com:

The petit bourgeoisie millionaires were passionately for Bush: Those worth between $1 million and $10 million favored Bush by a 63-37 margin. But the haute millionaires, those worth more than $10 million, favored Kerry 59-41.

Russ Prince explained the difference by noting that, absurd as it may sound, those with a net worth of merely seven figures don't feel financially secure. "The people with less than $10 million are still very focused on their personal financial situation in the short term," he told the Wall Street Journal, where the results were first published.

Indeed, being a millionaire isn't what it used to be, thanks to inflation and high housing prices. According to this report from Merrill Lynch, there were 2.3 million Americans with financial assets worth more than $1 million in 2003. And if you counted home values, the number of asset millionaires would be several times higher.

But at some point, millionaires get so rich that they don't really have to worry about how to pay the mortgage, or for that new Bentley. And if you can live off the tax-free interest of your municipal bonds, it really doesn't matter whether the top marginal income tax rate is 33 percent or 39 percent.

On Wall Street, veterans speak of "f***-you money": the nice round figure a guy needs to set himself up for life, buy (and decorate) multiple residences, create trust funds for kids, and still have enough cash to buy expensive toys and pursue new business ventures. At a certain point—somewhere north of $10 million—wealth may become "f*** you and f*** you, Republicans" money. This is the kind of cash that George Soros, Warren Buffett, Peter Lewis, and the 200 business leaders who endorsed Kerry possess. People with such sums don't need to worry about how income or capital gains taxes affect their daily lives. Raise 'em, lower 'em, who cares? They're still going to be disgustingly rich. And so they are free to devote their attention—and resources—to other areas: the environment, education, foreign policy, the Supreme Court, social issues, stem-cell research, the war on drugs, whatever. And it seems that for many of the truly wealthy, focusing on those other issues leads them to favor Kerry over Bush.


Say what you will, but Warren Buffet endorsed Kerry, and Warren Buffet is no idiot.

How is this possible?!

Anonymous said...

Warren Buffet is no idiot. True. But precisely what kind of man is he?

Plato, "Republic"

Does not the timocratical man change into the oligarchical on this wise?

How?

A time arrives when the representative of timocracy has a son: at first he begins by emulating his father and walking in his footsteps, but presently he sees him of a sudden foundering against the State as upon a sunken reef, and he and all that he has is lost; he may have been a general or some other high officer who is brought to trial under a prejudice raised by informers, and either put to death, or exiled, or deprived of the privileges of a citizen, and all his property taken from him.

Nothing more likely.

And the son has seen and known all this--he is a ruined man, and his fear has taught him to knock ambition and passion headforemost from his bosom's throne; humbled by poverty he takes to money-making and by mean and miserly savings and hard work gets a fortune together. Is not such an one likely to seat the concupiscent and covetous element on the vacant throne and to suffer it to play the great king within him, girt with tiara and chain and scimitar?

Most true, he replied.

And when he has made reason and spirit sit down on the ground obediently on either side of their sovereign, and taught them to know their place, he compels the one to think only of how lesser sums may be turned into larger ones, and will not allow the other to worship and admire anything but riches and rich men, or to be ambitious of anything so much as the acquisition of wealth and the means of acquiring it.

Of all changes, he said, there is none so speedy or so sure as the conversion of the ambitious youth into the avaricious one.

And the avaricious, I said, is the oligarchical youth?

Yes, he said; at any rate the individual out of whom he came is like the State out of which oligarchy came.

Let us then consider whether there is any likeness between them.

Very good.

First, then, they resemble one another in the value which they set upon wealth?

Certainly.

Also in their penurious, laborious character; the individual only satisfies his necessary appetites, and confines his expenditure to them; his other desires he subdues, under the idea that they are unprofitable.

True.

He is a shabby fellow, who saves something out of everything and makes a purse for himself; and this is the sort of man whom the vulgar applaud. Is he not a true image of the State which he represents?

He appears to me to be so; at any rate money is highly valued by him as well as by the State.

You see that he is not a man of cultivation, I said.

I imagine not, he said; had he been educated he would never have made a blind god director of his chorus, or given him chief honour.

Excellent! I said. Yet consider: Must we not further admit that owing to this want of cultivation there will be found in him dronelike desires as of pauper and rogue, which are forcibly kept down by his general habit of life?

True.

Do you know where you will have to look if you want to discover his rogueries?

Where must I look?

You should see him where he has some great opportunity of acting dishonestly, as in the guardianship of an orphan.

Aye.

It will be clear enough then that in his ordinary dealings which give him a reputation for honesty he coerces his bad passions by an enforced virtue; not making them see that they are wrong, or taming them by reason, but by necessity and fear constraining them, and because he trembles for his possessions.

To be sure.

Yes, indeed, my dear friend, but you will find that the natural desires of the drone commonly exist in him all the same whenever he has to spend what is not his own.

Yes, and they will be strong in him too.

The man, then, will be at war with himself; he will be two men, and not one; but, in general, his better desires will be found to prevail over his inferior ones.

True.

For these reasons such an one will be more respectable than most people; yet the true virtue of a unanimous and harmonious soul will flee far away and never come near him.

I should expect so.

Jane said...

So now you don't like Warren Buffet and his ilk either? What is wrong with him, exactly?

Who, then, do you respect?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Why does John Kerry endorse Barack Obama over his ex-running mate John Edwards?

Anonymous said...

By the way, Buffet is supporting Obama this time around.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Of course they deserve it. They could have, and wanted to, form their own party - the Dixiecrats. But the Republicans couldn't let all those votes go to waste. The Dems decided, we don't want those racist bastards in our party, and the Republicans thought, welll, they're racists, but without em, we can't win.

But when "racists" were given a choice between Democrats, Demo-Dixiecrats, and Republicans, Republicans won in the South.

To me it sure looks like Dixiecrat Wallace supporters split the Democrat vote, ensuring a Republican victory in the South.

Anonymous said...

Also, George Soros is supporting Obama. Buffet and Soros really are saying "f**k you" to the establishment.

It used to be called "drop-dead" money from James Clavell's novel, Shogun....enough money to tell anyone you want to just drop dead.

Anonymous said...

People who deserve respect.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...Why does John Kerry endorse Barack Obama over his ex-running mate John Edwards?

Who the hell cares? And, how is it relevant? I've never seen so many idiots (well, really, there are only about three) focused on such extraneous hooey.

Jane said...

Farmer John said...

People who deserve respect.


Do you want to name any specific names?

Jane said...

Why does John Kerry endorse Barack Obama over his ex-running mate John Edwards?

Because Edwards was a bad running mate in 2004.

By the way, Buffet is supporting Obama this time around.

So, come on, y'all, tell us that Buffet is a bleeding heart america-hating idealist who doesn't understand economics, and that he is not capable of rational thought.

Right, isn't that the mantra, anyone who votes Democrat is not capable of rational thought? Liberals and leftists hate America, side with evil, and are not capable of rational thought?

nanc said...

mr. sayet - o.t. - have you read jonah goldberg's new book "liberal fascism" yet?

several of us are buying it this weekend and another of our friends is doing a review of it on his blog.

apparently, it would explain much of the behavior being exhibited here from the leftwing faction.

just sayin'...

Jane said...

Oh and speaking of racism:

From an unsigned National Review editorial printed August 24, 1957, titled “Why the South Must Prevail” (probably by William F. Buckley Jr.):

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Right, isn't that the mantra, anyone who votes Democrat is not capable of rational thought?

Beamish's Hypothesis clearly states that leftists are incapable of rational thought.

Voting for Democrats is merely a symptom, but not necessarily a vector, of the true intellectually diminishing effects of taking leftism seriously. Most actually rational people snap out of the "voting for Democrats" cycle, more so post-JFK when the dead and household pets earned the right to vote.

Democrats won't even need to campaign when they sew up the dead animal vote.

Jane said...

Beamish's Hypothesis clearly states that leftists are incapable of rational thought.

Voting for Democrats is merely a symptom, but not necessarily a vector, of the true intellectually diminishing effects of taking leftism seriously.


Hmm, okay, so how does one know if someone is a real leftist, or just voting for Democrats for some other reason?

I think we should distinguish Beamish's theory from Evan's, because Evan's is clearly about Democrats, not leftists. E.g.: "I knew she didn't have any thoughtful reason. That's what makes her a Democrat."

So, I guess I would really love to know whether Evan thinks that Warren Buffet is someone incapable of rational thought. Because that would really be amusing.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Hmm, okay, so how does one know if someone is a real leftist, or just voting for Democrats for some other reason?

Democrats usually keep quiet about wanting to legalize incest.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Wow, a carefully considered 50 year old editorial from a socially conservative magazine (that always championed desegregation, by the way, something DEMOCRATS fight to this day here in Missouri...) and it comes no where near the full-on racism inherent in today's leftist philosophy of "here, have some affirmative action credits towards attaining a higher education employment, you inferior nigger. You's black, you's deserves it. Now shut up and vote Democrat or we'll burn a cross in your yard."

Anonymous said...

We can do this racist quoting back and forth thing all day.


"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"


(On New York) "K*ketown."
-- Harry Truman in a personal letter


"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess


"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden


Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton


"You f*cking Jew b@stard."
-- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.


Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write."
-- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax


"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes."
-- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

Anonymous said...

What about your prophet, Charles Darwin? He believed blacks to be inferior and less evolved than whites. I could quote countless passages from him, and cite his influence on eugenics and nazism.

Jane said...

Always championed desegregation? What are you smoking?

William F. Buckley, Jr. Patron Saint of the Conservatives.
Washington Monthly, Apr 1, 1988

"All through the fifties Buckley defended segregation..."

A book review from the July 13th issue of the same year–1957–by Richard Weaver was called, “Integration is Communization.” Mr. Weaver found Carl Rowan’s Go South to Sorrow “a sorry specimen of Negro intellectual leadership,” and went on to express deep suspicion about the whole integrationist enterprise:

“ ‘Integration’ and ‘Communization’ are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the ‘integrating’ of facilities to the ‘communizing’ of facilities, if the impulse is there.”

Likewise in 1957, Sam M. Jones interviewed segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. In a Q&A format, Mr. Jones asked, “Do the people of the South fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?”

Senator Russell replied, “Both. As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

“The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.

“I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”


Sam M. Jones wrote another article that year criticizing integration in the Washington, D.C., public schools. Titled “Caution: Integration at Work,” he accurately predicted that “the problem of school integration in the nation’s capital may be eventually solved by the steady migration of the white population out of the District of Columbia.” Jones criticized school integration on the grounds of IQ differences, citing “a white average ranging from 105 to 111 and a Negro average of 87 to 89. (An intelligent quotient of 85 is generally considered the minimum for receiving education.)” He went on to note:

“Data on juvenile delinquency . . . revealed a marked increase in truancy, theft, vandalism and sex-offenses in integrated schools. Dances and dramatic presentations have been quietly given up by most high schools. Senior and junior class plays have been discontinued. Inter-racial fights are frequent and constant vigilance is required to prevent molestation or attempted molestation of white girls by Negro boys or girls. In contrast, the schools outside the integrated neighborhoods have no more such problems than they had four years ago.” Mr. Jones concluded that “the record shows . . . that the problems of integration are extremely serious and that no solution is in sight.”

The September 28, 1957 issue contained a piece by James Kilpatrick called “Right and Power in Arkansas,” in which he endorsed Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus’ call-up of the National Guard to prevent forced integration at Little Rock’s Central High School. Defending a community’s right to keep the peace, he wrote that “the State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition.” Predicting a “storm” of white resistance he wrote, “Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community? Has it none?”

An unsigned editorial in the September 21, 1957, issue put the blame for the whole incident squarely on the Supreme Court:

“Under the disintegrating effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure.

“Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow–all these are part of the swelling harvest of Brown v. Board of Education.”

On the tenth anniversary of Brown, NR offered this June 2, 1964, editorial:

“But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’–that is, the Negro revolt . . . . But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us. . . .

“Brown, as National Review declared many years ago, was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.”

An article by James Kilpatrick in the September 24, 1963, issue argued that the Civil Rights Bill (eventually passed in 1964) should be voted down. He wrote, “I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the means here proposed are the wrong means. . . . In the name of achieving certain ‘rights’ for one group of citizens this bill would impose some fateful compulsions on another group of citizens.” After it passed, an editorial declared: “The Civil Rights Act has been law for only a little over two months, yet it already promises to be the source of much legalistic confusion, civic chaos and bureaucratic malpractice.”

Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. “Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?” he asked, accusing the bill’s supporters of “perverting the Constitution.” He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, “Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise.” He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. “Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man’s most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life.”

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Great quotes there, Justin.

Now, let's see if Dora gets the difference between recognizing that statistical standards exist and blacks pre-dominantly over whites "sadly" fell / fall short of them (NR editorial, 1957) and today's leftists (and then's, actually) are the ones saying "White people meet standards that are too hard for niggers to match. Better lower the standards."

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Dora,

It was a Republican president that sent the military to Little Rock to break the blocking of schools to black students.

It was a Democrat president, a decade later, that entertained his friends in the Oval Office with illegally obtained surveillance of Martin Luther King cheating on his wife in a hotel room.

You're ill-prepared to defend your "Republicans are racists" insipidness.

You know this.

Anonymous said...

The only thing to conclude from this rant is that the past was full of bigots. As the vote percentages show, both republicans and democrats were mixed on desegregation in the 1960s, even if the percentages may lean a little more to the left. What we need to do is look at what's happening today.

Democrats are constantly trying to pit the black community against the white, the poor against rich, and so on. It has been the mantra of the left for as long as I have been alive. Republicans are trying to create a colorblind society. Of course there are individual exceptions on both sides.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

The only thing to conclude from this rant is that the past was full of bigots. As the vote percentages show, both republicans and democrats were mixed on desegregation in the 1960s, even if the percentages may lean a little more to the left. What we need to do is look at what's happening today.

Yes, but I think there should be some historical A to B to C context here.

Republicans came back from World War 2 gung ho to break Jim Crow laws.

Democrats came back from World War 2 with "Golly that Nazi Weapons Law is the key to destroyin' the 2nd Amendment."

Jane said...

Now, let's see if Dora gets the difference between recognizing that statistical standards exist and blacks pre-dominantly over whites "sadly" fell / fall short of them (NR editorial, 1957)

So now you're agreeing with the 1957 editorial? Nice.

and today's leftists (and then's, actually) are the ones saying "White people meet standards that are too hard for niggers to match. Better lower the standards."

Who's saying that?

It was a Republican president that sent the military to Little Rock to break the blocking of schools to black students.

It was a Democrat president, a decade later, that entertained his friends in the Oval Office with illegally obtained surveillance of Martin Luther King cheating on his wife in a hotel room.

You're ill-prepared to defend your "Republicans are racists" insipidness.

You know this.


So, that's it, your 2 examples prove your whole theory, end of story?

Speaking of Brown v. Board of Educ., did you know that 8 of the 9 justices who were on that 9-0 majority were appointed by Democrat presidents? The Chief justice was Earl Warren, and his name send today's Republicans into apoplectic fits. Why is that?

Jane said...

The only thing to conclude from this rant is that the past was full of bigots. As the vote percentages show, both republicans and democrats were mixed on desegregation in the 1960s, even if the percentages may lean a little more to the left. What we need to do is look at what's happening today.

And what is happening today is that those people who were segregationists moved from the Dem party to the Republican Party, the case in point being Strom Thurmond.

It's those folks who fly the confederate flag and bitch about Reagan approving Martin Luther King day, and so on. They're still around.

Plus, no one has yet answered my question, if it's the Democrats who are racists, why do women, gay, and minorities vote Dem more than Repub? And to tell me it's because they're more easily fooled or more easily bought, as groups, would be racist, sexist and homophobic.

Anonymous said...

How Republicans Campaign:
Pro-Confederate flag ads praise Huckabee, bash Romney, McCain

Anonymous said...

The "prevailing authority"!!!!hahahaha you simple dingbat...Liberalism has been the prevailing authority for much of this century and indeed has been behind the rise of the West for the several hundred years since the Renaissance. The only reason "Christian Society" is not the same backward oppressive mess that Islam is in the mideast is because liberalism has weakened its grasp.

Anonymous said...

And what is happening today is that those people who were segregationists moved from the Dem party to the Republican Party, the case in point being Strom Thurmond.

That's just an idiotic statement. The republicans of today are not made up of the segregationists of the past. Baseless garbage. You're a one chick freakshow.

Anonymous said...

they will viciously attack one of the most tolerant religions on the planet.

Telling how they parrot the parrot...everything is viciously attack...not just attack. Tolerant!! What a joke...this is the religion that served as the psychological warfare arm of the greatest holocaust in history...the murder of the native peoples of two continents in America. Then there was all that stoning and burning and dunking and torture. Not that I didn't enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Anonymous said...

Warren Buffet is right wing NewsMax most quoted guru.

Anonymous said...

Hey nanc, you do know that Jonah is LBJ's illegitimate boy, of course. Lucianne was LBJ's own little Monica...when he would't leave Bird...well the resentment just built and built...

Anonymous said...

The movement of the "Solid South" from Democrat to Republican is a brute, historical fact that is undeniable by anyone but the few remaing GOP dregs. It occurred when the Democratic Party decided to move full steam ahead on civil rights. Before that time, both parties had been openly racist. Only recently, because of changing demographics in the south and he influx of more sophisticated people into southern cities, has this begun to change. In addition, of course, to policies so egregiously insane and incompetent which have been perpetrated by the Bush maladministration. As the economy sinks into what is probably going to be one of the worst recessions we've had for decades, we will see even the bigots give up their favorite obsession and move away from the racist party.

Anonymous said...

Ex-legislator in S. Dakota who raped foster daughters gets long prison term
By CHET BROKAW , Associated Press

Last update: January 18, 2008 - 10:17 AM

Most Republicans don't say it's alright to be hypocritical, child abusing perverts in public...but in private...well the list is soooooooooooooooooo long...
PIERRE, S.D. -- Former GOP state Rep. Ted Klaudt has been sentenced to 44 years in prison for raping two foster daughters by touching their breasts and genitals in phony examinations he said would help them sell their reproductive eggs.

Anonymous said...

Haha...this is a good one:
Stocks FALL After Bush Announces Stimulus Plan. It's gotten so everything falls when this monkey even shows his face and reminds everyone who's the decider guy. hahahaha embrace failure. That they can say this with a straight face after seven disastrous years of this monkey tells me they're all emailing from an asylum.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 669   Newer› Newest»