July 15, 2004
List Of Sniveling Cowardly Wimp Nations
The following countries are
sniveling cowardly wimps:
France
Germany
Spain
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Honduras
Thailand
Norway
New Zealand
The Philippines
Posted by: annika at
10:39 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
my question? why are they there in the first place was it for self interest of so-called interest of doing America a favor. Thank God we have troops and the means to defend ourselves.
Posted by: Dex at July 15, 2004 10:57 AM (rPHeE)
2
Annika, could you use a different term, like "wimps" or "cowards" or "doomed"? After all, pussys have definite good points and are good for some things; these nations don't deserve that much respect.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 12:37 PM (AaBEz)
Posted by: candace at July 15, 2004 12:49 PM (hZHYA)
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 01:20 PM (zAOEU)
5
Nah, just a nicer word for the real thing. Let's go with "sniveling cowardly wimps".
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 01:38 PM (AaBEz)
6
Oh all right.
i aim to please.
But i want to go on record that by changing the title of this post in response to criticism, i am in no way inviting the additional criticism that i too am a sniveling cowardly wimp just like those countries on the list.
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 01:51 PM (zAOEU)
7
Oh. Darn. And I was all ready to take you for task (in my normal ringing prose) for associating the female genitalia with cowardice. Nothing quite so funny as a thrice-divorced man lecturing a younger woman about misogyny, is there? And you robbed me of my chance.
Posted by: Hugo at July 15, 2004 02:14 PM (EvO2+)
8
I liked the old title better. Dammit.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 15, 2004 02:52 PM (ARMDq)
9
Sheesh, i can't please everybody. i'm beginning to feel like George W. Bush.
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 02:59 PM (zAOEU)
10
You forgot France--the second time. They should be at the top and bottom of any such list to frame the argument.
Posted by: DBrooks at July 15, 2004 06:07 PM (YixpN)
Posted by: Brent at July 15, 2004 06:33 PM (w+y2e)
12
Good choice Annie, but we can all agree that France needs special recognition; they are black belt status.
And, congratulations to all of the rest of you who are restraining yourselves from calling Annika a "P____".
I, too, as a man old enough to be Annika's father, should not be lecturing our beloved blogger on the use of female genitalia to describe weakness.
God knows,it has overcome most of us more than once.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 08:56 PM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2004
F*** The Vote
On his radio show tonight, Alan Colmes mentioned the website of a new liberal propaganda tool called "
Fuck the Vote" The site is
absolutely not work safe, so here's the idea, in their own words:
SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control! Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).
Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.
At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page! Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.
Interesting idea. However, i say what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. And really, what makes them think liberals are better in bed? i take issue with that whole premise. i can say from some little experience (i did go to high school and college in the Bay Area) that conservatives are just as hot, if not hotter,* just as sexy, if not sexier, and just as rockin' if not better in bed than any liberal. It's all that repressed sexual energy.
So, why not have a conservative version of this thing? Using the liberal pledge as a template, it might go something like this:
I, the undersigned, pledge my vote for George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 in return for getting laid by a hot freaky conservative.
I understand that this pledge is a symbol of good faith that I will cast my vote for a strong, safe and vibrant America, for a president who will stand up straight and tall for the values that make this country great, who will defend this country rigidly as we plunge forward into the future, and for a tax policy that stimulates growth by pumping more and more money into the private sector again and again and again. I further promise that i will not vote for candidates who promise a flaccid foreign policy or a limp and disappointing economic plan.
*
Case in point.
Posted by: annika at
08:49 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Awesonme! I found this and mentioned it on my blog the other day...but not with your twist!
Posted by: Jennifer at July 14, 2004 10:58 PM (Wr1uX)
2
I'm still undecided. I might vote for Kerry, but a hot freaky conservative could influence me to pull the lever for Bush (so to speak).
Posted by: d-rod at July 15, 2004 07:57 AM (6lzRE)
3
Oh, I could tell you some things about what some liberals do in bed... ah, the memories. But then I became a good Christian boy, put away the piercings, and worked hard at repressing all that energy!
Posted by: Hugo at July 15, 2004 08:54 AM (9ndHD)
4
I'm sure both of these plans will be just as effective in influencing this year's election as the
Lysistrata Project was in influencing last year's policy in Iraq.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 15, 2004 10:48 AM (k4RhX)
5
Is that their mission statement or did they copy if from the intro to
My Life?
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 15, 2004 11:38 AM (UquFN)
6
well, in their defense, the "anyone but bush" motto could have some perks...
Posted by: candace at July 15, 2004 12:58 PM (hZHYA)
7
My boyfriend is a Conservative. Hot and rockin', he is.
Posted by: Amy at July 15, 2004 02:46 PM (RpVKX)
Posted by: Desert Cat at July 15, 2004 10:46 PM (c8BHE)
9
I can't wait to "get laid by a hot freaky conservative", but I have to wait for him to get back from Iraq first...
Posted by: Sarah at July 17, 2004 06:49 AM (vMhet)
10
I'd sure like to tell some conservative I'd vote for Bush and then exploit them...where do I sign up?
Posted by: Chuck at August 11, 2004 01:57 PM (uftg2)
11
The phrase "hot freaky conservative" shall now be stuck in my mind for the next weeks.
(Kinda like the words "widgets," "greenacre," and "due diligence" from the law school days.)
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2004 05:15 PM (Vg0tt)
12
The phrase "hot freaky conservative" shall now be stuck in my mind for the next 2 weeks.
(Kinda like the words "widgets," "greenacre," and "due diligence" from the law school days.)
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2004 05:15 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
That's Because We're Americans
Over at
Trying to Grok, Sarah has an excerpt from
Teresa Heinz-Kerry's recent appearance on Larry King's show.
LARRY KING: What do you think, Teresa, would be the effect of another terror attack on the United States politically?
TERESA HEINZ-KERRY: I don't know. I think most Americans subconsciously believe something is going to happen. It's a matter of when. And it's a matter of how.
KING: Strange way to live, though.
HEINZ-KERRY: Yeah. But you know, Europeans have lived that way and other people around the world have lived that way. Americans have been very safe, at least as a nation.
First of all, why the fuck does anybody give two rat shits about anything that airhead has to say?
Anyway, the exchange reminded me of a news program i saw while on vacation in Portugal two years ago. It was on either BBC or Sky News or CNN International. One of those English language channels they have on hotel cable in Europe.
The show was a panel discussion with your typical Euro-lefties outnumbering a token representative of the Bush administration, who was a State Department guy who's name i don't remember.
One Euro-lefty said to the State Department guy, regarding the 9/11 attack: "Now you Americans know what we in Europe have been dealing with for decades."
The State Department guy (you could tell he had been holding his tongue throughout the discussion, despite all that typical Euro-condescension) then responded with words that i remember to this day, because it so clearly states the difference between America and the rest of the world.
He said something like: "Well we're not going to deal with it. We're Americans."
i'm sure that sounded pretty arrogant to the Euro-lefties, but Betty and i applauded him, right there in our hotel room. Because that's what America is all about. We fix things. Let Europe adapt to terrorism. We'll have none of that. We'll fix the problem, even if it means taking risks and pissing people off.
It may be a cliché but it can't be said often enough: true Americans don't forget that we saved Europe's ass three times in the last century. Europeans hate to be reminded of that fact, though.
What the left refuses understand is that the Iraq war was necessary in order to fix the problem of terrorism. One reason the left doesn't understand is because the Bush administration has done a poor job of explaining it. The other reason is that the left simply hates America.
The Iraq war was a first step in fixing the terrorism problem. This is not going to be a band-aid solution. Bush and Blair, and those coalition members who still have the guts to stick this thing out, understand that we are in a struggle that will only get worse if we don't change the way we "deal with it." The other option is to adapt to terrorism, like the Europeans, and we know how unsuccessful that strategy has been.
We went into Iraq and kicked out Saddam Hussein because we need to change the Middle East. We can't leave it as it is, an incubator of violent anti-Americanism and anti-semitism (which are synonyms to the enemy). We need to bring democracy to that backwards-ass area so that they will stop attacking and killing people.
Sure, not everybody believes that method will work, but what was the alternative? Bush has been pro-active rather than re-active about the problem of terrorism. We needed a bold solution, with "outside-the-box" thinking rather than what the Euros and the left want us to do - which is to continue the failed policy of responding with tough rhetoric and weak law enforcement solutions.
i, for one believe that democratization of the Middle East will work, and that we can accomplish that goal, given enough time and effort. Democracies are by their nature more peaceful than autocracies. Democracies never attack other democracies. i can't think of a single historical example of a democracy attacking another democracy (not counting civil wars, and even then, the American Civil War barely fits).
But Heinz-Kerry, because she's both a Euro and a lefty, cannot understand America and the things that make this country great. It's the optimism and can-do attitude of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan that gives us the boldness to succeed. If the lefties and the Euros see that as arrogance, so be it. To paraphrase a favorite bumper sticker, we'll save their asses, whether they like it or not.
Posted by: annika at
11:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 757 words, total size 5 kb.
1
This is a wonderful post. We Americans are different. In today's politically-correct environment, many people don't like to hear such truths spoken---but truths are truths. Like you, I continue to believe in, and support, our efforts to democratize the Middle East. This will be a longterm process. Unlike many, I have been surprised how well things have gone in Iraq. If someone had told me two years ago that Saddam would be captured, Iraq would have an interim governing body and be preparing for elections, and that the United States would not have suffered any additional catastrophic attack at this date, I would have thought they were crazy. Liberals, here and around the globe, are enamored of process. They love meetings, dialog, mediation, compromise, treaties that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed, World Courts that move incrementally(if at all), etc. That is why they revere the United Nations. Conservatives prefer solutions to conversations, victory to impotent concessions, action to reaction, boldness to passivity. I do not want my son growing up in a country where I fear he may be blown up every time he rides a public bus, or sits at an open cafe. Most Americans have no grasp of the realities Israel faces every day. We have the right to defend ourselves from that fate. We have the finances, the industry, the military, and the options to defend our freedom--freedom that is worth defending. What some seem to lack is the patience, and the resolve. I apologize for rambling, but your post struck a nerve. I agree with every word.
Posted by: DBW at July 15, 2004 06:48 PM (YixpN)
2
Don't you guys ever think that maybe you should listen to what others have to say? That maybe those who have experienced this before might actually know what they're talking about? Are you really that arrogant that you think you can afford to ignore everyone else? You have no idea what it is to live with terrorism because thso that hijacked those plans came all the way from the middle east, they weren't your neighbours. Imagine if they actually lived in the same country or shared a border with you? Imagine if it was one of your own united states looking for independence, they'd all look and talk justlike you, they might even live on the same street as you, drink in the same bar as you and they might be planting bombs near your kids school or throwing fire bombs in your window. I bet you don't jump everytime you hear a firecracker or a car backfire, you don't see your neighbourhood orcity being bombed every other night on the news and have to worry if it was one of your friends or family that died in the blast, that they mightn't be coming home, ever. When you and everyone you know, personaly knows a victim of terrorism, when you experience the loss of a loved one or just just the oppressive fear of living with it. My cousin had a submachine gun emptied itno his abdomen by a loyalist gunman, that's 30 bullets. Another was given 30 minutes to evacuate his buisness before it was blown up by the IRA. That's what it is to deal with terrorism. Because terrorists aren't your average soldier that gets paid a wage to do a job, they have a cause they believe in and what's worse for you is that the terrorists who are targetting your country are willing to blow themselves up for their cause and that's something we in Europe haven't had to deal with. What we've learned is that when you kill one terrorist, you only create martyrs and they're only too effective when it comes to putting guns in the hands of a new generation of terrorists.
Democracies never attack other democracies? What planet are you living on? Isn't Spain a democracy? Haven't you heard of ETA? Isn't the UK a democracy too? Come on now, I KNOW you've heard of the IRA! That's just two examples.
It's not your "can do" attitude but your pig headed ignorance that we see as arrogance. Your unwillingness or inability to think outside your insular little world that gets right up our noses so you only come across as hypocritical when you say you need a bold solution, with "outside-the-box" thinking because you've already demonstrated elsewhere in your article that you haven't even bothered to consider what's outside that box, that there might be wisdom in the words of other people. Not to listen is gravely disrespectful and an affront to all those that have and will die at the hands of terrorism.
You know without the aid the french gave you in your war for independence, there would be no United States of America as you know it today. This is what civilised nations do, they help eachother in their time of need, so you see, it cuts both ways
With the advent of the world wide web, we all now have more information at our fingertips then ever before in world history and not to be informed as to both sides of the story is hugely negligent and irresponsible. Please take time to do this as I would not wish for you to have live or deal with terrorism as some of us have and many have yet to. Please open your eyes and ears, look and listen to what is going on in the world outide your own borders and your own immediate interests. Whether or not you change your mind after finding out about how the rest of the world thinks, at least you might understand us a bitbetter and if that leads to better co-operation and understanding, how can it be a bad thing?
Posted by: PJK at July 18, 2004 08:35 PM (iQs42)
3
ETA is not a country, you ignoramus. A democratic UK has never been at war with another democratic country. The IRA is not a country, you pathetic loser. If France helped us out in our war for independence, we repaid them ten times over by saving them from the Germans
twice and the Russians once. And we WILL save them from the islamic fascists next. Even though I don't expect them to thank us, nor you for that matter. We've earned the right to be disrespectful, as you call us. If you don't like us, let's see shitty Ireland go and save the world. You can't even clean up your own act. Fuck off.
Posted by: Pat at July 18, 2004 09:11 PM (pSE7U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 08, 2004
Democrats Like To Grope Too
Drudge has
a photo montage of the two Johns groping and cuddling each other at every photo opportunity.
Now i'm not offended by two men being physically affectionate with each other (not even two political candidates who until two days ago were rumored to have disliked each other intensely). It's just that this Democratic touchy-feely shit is such an obvious attempt to pander to us female voters. Yah, i'm sure the polls and focus groups say we're supposed to respond more favorably to men who hug each other. Maybe we do in a general sense, i don't know. But i do know that in the midst of a war, in which our enemy has made no secret that they want us all dead, and that they are not interested in negotiating on that point, and that they'll stop at nothing to kill us all, and as violently as possible . . . well let's just say i'd rather have a couple of men who shake hands leading our side in that situation.
Drudge link via Blogeline.
Exclusive annie's j Update!: Yoko Ono has recorded a perfect campaign theme song for the two Johns!
Exclusive annie's j Update 2!: OMG, i think this Kerry-Edwards love fest is getting totally out of hand!
Posted by: annika at
02:28 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I dunno, looks more like the'yre trying to shore up thier base with the Queer Eye set.
"not that theres anything (cough) wrong with that"
Posted by: Marty at July 08, 2004 01:58 PM (a16BY)
2
You're just baiting me into another soaring paean to male affection on my blog, aren't you, Annie?
Posted by: Hugo at July 08, 2004 02:02 PM (LQVcV)
3
Annika -
John Kerry was quick to reinforce his fondness for hunting so perhaps we'll see both Johns out there trying to appeal to your need for more "manly" photo-ops.
http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/jkhunting.htm
I was more curious on the reaction to Kerry's statement that life begins at conception..perhaps we can bait Hugo into writing on that..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 08, 2004 02:53 PM (DmFF+)
4
Shouldn't this post be categorized under the
Risqué Business rubric?
Posted by: d-rod at July 08, 2004 05:11 PM (CSRmO)
5
All I can say is I'm looking forward to this weekend's round of caption contests.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 08, 2004 05:36 PM (4819r)
6
oh, annika. that second one is just too much!
Posted by: candace at July 09, 2004 07:47 AM (hZHYA)
7
Looks like their "number" together is greater than zero - yuck.
Posted by: Mark at July 09, 2004 08:52 AM (oQofX)
8
something very very wrong
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040709/ids_photos_ts/r1261949189.jpg&e=5&ncid=1756
Posted by: Scof at July 09, 2004 10:03 AM (XCqS+)
9
Annie, you should've warned me about opening update #2. Now I have to grab some paper towels to clean up the mess.
Posted by: physics geek at July 09, 2004 10:45 AM (Xvrs7)
10
This one's pretty funny too:
http://www.terpsboy.com/terpsboyarchives/001376.html
Posted by: annika! at July 09, 2004 01:18 PM (zAOEU)
11
I said this in my comment section but I would not feel at all better if Kerry had chosen Hillary and couldn't stop touching
her. Just weird and inappropriate. It's like he thinks Edwards is a puppy.
Posted by: Karol at July 09, 2004 08:19 PM (f/hiR)
12
Annie, glad your mom is better than you feared! Praise God!
And I have taken you on over the Edwards-Kerry stuff over at my blog.
Posted by: Hugo at July 10, 2004 03:18 PM (ntfdi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 07, 2004
More Media Bashing
Question one: Take a far left agenda, combine it with a generous amount of blind hubris, and remove all traces of ethical responsibility and what do you have?
Answer: The Los Angeles Times under its current führer, John Carroll.
Question two: Are the numerous factual errors in the Times' news reportage innocent or are they indicative of a feverish propaganda effort? According to Slate:
On July 4, an LAT front page piece reported that our civilian administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremerleft without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year
when in fact Bremer did give a farewell speech, which was well-received by at least some Iraqis. [links omitted]
Answer: The latter. The
Times' editors, like many on the far left, seriously believe that ethics and integrity don't matter when you're in a battle against the evils of conservativism.
To the propagandists at the L.A. Times, the ends always justify the means. For example: Print lies about candidate Schwarzenneger on the eve of the election, while ignoring credible claims that Davis physically assaulted his female staffers? No problem. What do ethics matter when the goal is to stop the evil Republicans?
Just watch the L.A. Times as we get closer to the November election. We ain't seen nothing yet.
Slate link via Professor Hewitt.
Update: As reported at Powerline, The Times has offered a correction, but not an apology. i think an apology is in order when a major newspaper makes a false statement in a news story (as opposed to an op-ed) and then levels a cheap shot based on that false statement. It's not enough to simply retract the false statement and leave the cheap shot out there. But that's The Times, and that's why i wouldn't even read their sports page when i lived in L.A.
For more articulate L.A. Times bashing than i am able to muster, go on over to Patterico's Pontifications.
Posted by: annika at
03:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
July 06, 2004
Picking The Wrong Guy
i may not be an expert on politics - just see my last post wherein i predicted that Gephardt would be Kerry's choice for VP - but if my dating experience is any indication, i am definitely an expert on picking
the wrong guy.
So i can say with confidence that John Edwards has all the qualities of the wrong guy. He's good looking and charming, two qualities that always beguile a girl like me, and make it difficult not to overlook the downside.
In Kerry's case, he's gone strictly by the poll numbers in making this choice. But like i said in my last post, we run our elections according to the electoral college, not popular vote. Kerry would have been better served by a guy who could at least deliver one battleground state as a native son. Since Edwards can't do that in an election that might come down to one or two states, Kerry picked the wrong guy.
On the other hand, when i heard the news this morning i realized one strategic advantage that Edwards brings to the ticket. An advantage that i overlooked when i wrote yesterday's post. While he will probably not enable the Democrats to win any southern states, he does force the Republicans to spend more money in the South than they might have if Kerry had chosen a midwesterner. That's money that the GOP won't be able to spend in a battleground state. And elections are really all about money, aren't they?
Still, i like Bush and Cheney's chances against these two boobs. Everbody's making a big deal about how Edwards is going to be able to stand up to Cheney in the VP debate. But really, that's nonsense. There's only going to be one VP debate, and when has it ever had an impact on any election? Never. Remember the 1988 Bentsen/Quayle debate? If there was ever a time when one VP candidate trounced the other candidate, 1988 was it. Bush the Elder still won because the Democrat at the top of the ticket was the only candidate that mattered. Besides, Cheney is no Quayle. If anything, the roles will be reversed this time around.
One final thought on Edwards, which i have to say in his defense. i've been hearing a lot of criticism against him based simply on the fact that he was a trial lawyer. The term "trial lawyer" is a somewhat imprecise term. i assume people mean plaintiff's lawyer, since many lawyers who do trials are not plaintiff's lawyers. i don't suppose you'd hear that kind of criticism leveled against someone like former U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani for example, who was also a trial lawyer and a good one too. Not all trial lawyers are ambulance chasers.
Which brings me to my point. John Edwards was no ambulance chaser. Yes, he was a plaintiff's attorney, but from what i know of his career, he was the top guy in his field. Lawyers like him do not chase ambulances, or make money off of minor fender benders or spilled coffee. Edwards represented legitimate plaintiffs with serious injuries who deserved compensation by any standard of justice. And like another famous trial attorney turned politician, Edwards became the pre-eminent plaintiff's lawyer in his state because he was very very good. And that's worth something in my book.
So i don't agree with people who say Senator Edwards is the wrong guy just because he's a plaintiff's lawyer. i say he's the wrong guy because he's a Democrat.
Posted by: annika at
11:00 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Kerry would have been better served by a guy who could at least deliver one battleground state as a native son. Since Edwards can't do that in an election that might come down to one or two states, Kerry picked the wrong guy.
Annika - name another potential VP pick that would have won Kerry a battleground state. Hard to think of one except I guess Ralph Nader! Perhaps Bob Graham - I don't know his strength in FL - but I doubt enough to put it in the Kerry column. I doubt naming Gephardt would have changed the dynamics too much in MO which is I think a statistical tie. Edwards is a good campaigner and as you note will force the GOP to probably shore up some of the barely red states and thus divert resources. Edwards' message resonated at least in the primaries in states like Mich/Ohio/WVA. Plus, Kerry will influence and I think is leading in NH which went Bush in 2000 and may force the President to win a state he lost in 2000. And I think most importantly, Edwards is probably the best guy to generate a buzz for turnout.
It may not have been the best pick from a "heartbeat away from the Presidency" perspective, but I bet it's the name the Bush folks did not want to hear.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 06, 2004 01:42 PM (DmFF+)
2
...just see my last post wherein i predicted that Gephardt would be Kerry's choice for VP ...
Well, at least you're
not alone.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 06, 2004 05:44 PM (b/34x)
3
"Perhaps Bob Graham - I don't know his strength in FL - but I doubt enough to put it in the Kerry column."
Bob Graham is still fondly remembered (through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia) as an immensely popular young "golden boy" governor...by those Floridians who were actually here then, since any analysis of this state's political demography has to take into account its explosive population growth. He probably wouldn't have made all that much difference to Kerry, but even the narrowest difference could mean everything here. OTOH, Graham made such a fool of himself in his own short-lived presidential run that it's possible he could've actually hurt Kerry, not just in Flordia but elsewhere as well.
Posted by: Dave J at July 06, 2004 06:01 PM (GEMsk)
4
Face it babe, present company excepted, lawyers are pondscum. Ask anyone who's been through a litigated divorce. The lawyers collude silently to keep the angers burning and the hours churning, and the judge is their handmaiden.
Posted by: Casca at July 06, 2004 08:31 PM (q+PSF)
5
Annika, the fact that Edwards was a plaintiff's attorney will hurt the Kerry/Edwards Ticket in PA considering THE HUGE MED MAL issues that the State is having. This, if the Bush campaign approaches it right, could have an effect on all those states, like PA, that have Med Mal issues.
Posted by: lawguy at July 06, 2004 08:41 PM (vcbkL)
6
Dearest Annika,
Your Maximum Leader is shocked to see all these comments concerning Kerry's VP choice. The real issue of your post is obviously that you are deeply upset about picking the wrong man for your dating life. How could your other readers be so blind to something your Maximum Leader can see so clearly?
If you need help vetting eligible young men whom you would like to date, please contact me. As a happily married Maximum Leader, I can be the impartial judge it seems like you need.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 07, 2004 07:18 AM (0PRJS)
7
Hey Casca, there are good and bad lawyers, good and bad doctors, good and bad just about everything. The Bar Association of which I am part spends a good deal of time and money trying to weed out the bad ones. We like to say that for every one that is disbarred or disciplined, he or she was prosecuted by a good lawyer.
Plaintiff's lawyers (of which John Edwards is one), are a group distinct unto themselves. They make a good deal of money representing those who have suffered misery; likewise with Domestic Relations lawyers. The difference is that runaway verdicts are ruining the business climate in America.
The runaway jury verdicts awarding millions and millions, or even billions make it difficult for our businesses, large and small to operate. Those folks are the folks that supply most of the jobs for the rest of us, remember?
So, go ahead and criticize the Plaintiff's lawyers if you must, but try to figure a way to help this administration (or your state)achieve tort reform that will limit the amount that can be assessed for punitive damages, and you'll see a different attitude in America.
But lower the rhetoric about lawyers in general, please.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 07, 2004 07:24 AM (AaBEz)
8
Annika,
I offer you this:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000262.php
in respectful disagreement of your assessment of Edward's merits as an attorney. Good? Perhaps. Operating within the confines of the law? Perhaps. Persuing legitimate cases for deserved awards? That's debatable at best. From everything I've heard of edwards (& keep in mind I'm a North Carolinian) he was to ambulance chasers what $2000-per-trick call girls are to crack hoes.
As for Guiliani's record...while he may have been good at what he did & within the confines of the statute law, I'd argue that just one prosecution of a person for violating an unconstitutioonal law would disqualify him of any respect deserved by his abilities.
As for the trial attorney you linked, I'd be more than happy to argue that that disproves your point. I know you admire Lincoln but the harm he caused the united States far outweighs any perceived benefits he accomplished or took credit for after the fact.
& I disagree that Edwards is the wrong guy simply because he's a democrat. For example I've vote for Zel Miller any day of the week over most (but nto all) republicans. Zell understands the constitution & more importantly acts like he's bound by it, not like his job is to work around it.
But I agree that edwards (or Kerry or Bush for that matter) are bad choices, not specifically because of their professions or their poltiical affiliations, but because they simply do not respect the constitution.
Posted by: Publicola at July 07, 2004 02:28 PM (Aao25)
9
Sorry Shelly, despite your do-gooding, lawyers are a disease of civilization. Since it's Poetry Wednesday, I'll have to add with apologies to TS:
Our voices are quiet and meaningless,
Like wind through dry grass,
or rats feet over the broken glass in the dry cellar,
but we'll be sure to send a bill.
Posted by: Casca at July 07, 2004 05:03 PM (q+PSF)
10
Casca, great poem... however, life is different from what the poets say. much more boring and full of hard work. We should work hard to make our voices sound!
Posted by: Ambulance Doc at July 07, 2005 09:29 AM (q9l7F)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Birthday President Bush
i would certainly be negligent if i did not wish our President a happy birthday! So:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT BUSH!
You never know, there is always the remote possibility that the chief executive visits my humble blog on occasion.
Thanks to Sarah for the reminder.
Posted by: annika at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
July 05, 2004
Vice Presidential Prognostication
Since my predictions during last year's football season were so amazing, i imagine that lots of my visitors are clamoring for my opinion regarding Kerry's
as yet un-named running mate.
The short list includes Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former president Hillery Clinton of course, and Missouri Representative Richard Gephardt.
i don't know who Vilsack is and i suspect that since i never heard of him, he must be a loser. Kerry is also a loser, so it naturally follows that Vilsack would be on the list. But he is not the pick.
John Edwards is cute, friendly, not a raving maniacal Bush hater (although he is a passable Bush dis-liker) and polls well with women. He might help the Democratic ticket if the election were based on a straight popular vote. But since we elect presidents based on the electoral college, Kerry must pick someone who will help deliver battleground states. Edwards might not even deliver South Carolina. Kerry would have to be an idiot to pick Edwards, which is why he's on the short list, since Kerry is an idiot.
Hillery will not be on the ticket because she is too divisive. She'd love to be the vice presidential candidate because, even if she loses, her stature rises in preparation for a run in 2008. There are many who love her, but right now, there are just as many who despise and fear her. After a few months as vice presidential candidate, people may get used to the idea of her as president again and her negatives may decline. Still, Kerry will not have her, because of his ego. He wants to run things, and to do so he can't have Hillery on his back.
But i think the man who makes perfect sense is Dick Gephardt. First of all he's paid his dues, it's his turn. He's viewed as more moderate than Kerry, so he's not too scary and will appeal to more than just the Dean crazies. Also, since the unions got Kerry by the balls, and Gephardt is their man, Kerry may not have a choice. He might have been given an offer he couldn't refuse, if you know what i mean. If Kerry delivers for the unions, they will deliver for him. And lastly, Gephardt has appeal in the battleground states of the midwest which, combined with his national recognizability, combines the best of Edwards and the best of Vilsack.
Put your money on Dick Gephardt.
Posted by: annika at
10:21 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If Hillary ever becomes president of this country, I'm moving to England.
Posted by: Shae at July 05, 2004 03:56 PM (jXzqo)
2
I'm not sure Kerry - who's already a Washington insider - is going to pick another Washington insider. The unions are already for the most part going to vote Democratic and most of the big ones sided with Dean/Gephardt in the primaries so I doubt Kerry feels much need to bring on one of their guys.
I think he go for Vilsack or perhaps Sen Bayh if he felt his campaign needed the real outsider kick. I suspect his campaign folks are feeling confident to some degree that the race is basically even and that 75% (according to one poll) of registered voters have already decided. So given the race is going to come down probably to turnout in a few states (and that Kerry can't control the factors that may swing some folks either way (Iraq/economy), he'll probably opt for Edwards. Edwards can come off as a somewhat outsider, is enough contrast to Kerry's elitist, New England background, and is probably the best campaigner in terms of energizing turnout. He can't deliver NC (he probably would have lost his reelection bid anyway), but I think Kerry has written off most of the South anyway.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 05, 2004 04:49 PM (5uAbd)
3
Sorry Annie, I have to part company with you here.
Kerry has said, in no uncertain terms, that service in the National Guard is the equivalent of draft dodging. Guess where Gephardt fulfilled his commitment?
I think that Kerry wants someone who can be a good soldier and not outshine, but can deliver at least one battleground state. I'm thinking Bob Graham or Sam Nunn.
But like you say, they are all a bunch of losers, and guess who wants to see Kerry lose the most? I'll give you a hint; they both have recently published best sellers, and enjoy telephone sex.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 05, 2004 07:27 PM (AaBEz)
4
It appears that annika is right. The New York Post is reporting that Gephardt has been chosen.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/26839.htm
I'm impressed. I eagerly await your election predictions.
Posted by: Dan at July 06, 2004 01:44 AM (dpNju)
5
Oops. Edwards.
Unless he's changed his mind again. What are the odds?
Posted by: Ted at July 06, 2004 05:55 AM (blNMI)
6
Well, it appears we all three were wrong, Annika. You, me and Kerry.
Well, it is nothing new for the Democratic ticket to lose the state of the members of the ticket. Gore couldn't even hold Tennessee last time around, or Arkansas, so why should we feel that North Carolina is in the Demo camp?
Hell, the Solid South will remain the Solid South, and no ambulance chaser is going to change that.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 06, 2004 06:33 AM (b/7hi)
7
Shelly - as I stated in my post, it's about turnout (and money).
Posted by: Col Steve at July 06, 2004 07:03 AM (DmFF+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2004
Hillery Thinks i'm Rich
Here's a quote from
Hillery Clinton's recent speech at a big time San Francisco $10,000 a plate fundraiser:
Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you.
Imagine that. Since the tax cuts
have helped me, i guess that means i'm rich. i didn't think so before now, but i'm sure happy to hear it because i didn't think i was.
Since i'm so rich, though, i was not pleased to hear about the next thing the chief Democratic wench said:
We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short [the tax cuts] and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
To which i can only reply, in a nice way of course: "
Fuck you Hillery. This ain't Communist Russia, so keep your grubby claws off my damn money!"
Link via Dodger fan, Matt.
Posted by: annika at
12:55 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well said as always Annika. One of the many reasons I love you from afar.
Posted by: roach at June 29, 2004 04:26 PM (DHoAQ)
2
You sound like an idiot to me. I guess your pathetic attempt at irony is hilarious to your fellow idiots. Laugh it up!
Posted by: BriAN at June 29, 2004 09:19 PM (0F8Yh)
3
If she worked for a living (real work), she might not be ready to give her own money away.
Posted by: Steve S. at June 29, 2004 11:11 PM (NZ8K3)
4
What a staggeringly brilliant "argument," Brian. Would you care to enlighten us moronic peons further with your genius, or would that be beneath you?
Posted by: Dave J at June 30, 2004 08:59 AM (VThvo)
5
When Shrill answers the phone at 2 a.m., drives her ass into work and fixes the problem, then she can do what she wants with her money. Somehow me doing the work and giving the money to her isn't my idea of the common good.
Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2004 01:54 PM (oQofX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2004
Hooray!
i've been posting lightly lately, but i don't want to miss the chance to acknowledge the two amazing events that happened recently, neither of which, some critics say, have a snowball's chance in hell of lasting.
Iraq is a sovereign and independent nation . . .
. . . and . . .
. . . Brittany got engaged!
So congratulations to all 25,374,691 Iraqi citizens and to Brittany Spears. i wish all of you guys the best of luck. Who can say what the future holds for you? But i know, if you work hard, persevere and stay true to what is right, with a little bit of luck i'm sure that you all will create a lasting and successful modernized union that will become the envy of all countries throughout the troubled Middle East region, or of skanky homewrecking no-talent ho's, whichever the case may be.
Posted by: annika at
05:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
June 25, 2004
Discouraging Poll
The latest poll, currently the subject of
many giddy headlines in the mainstream press, can only be described as a Democratic push-poll. Look at
the actual question, which most news stories will not quote verbatim:
In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
The question is specifically designed to get a positive answer from undecideds.
i am not an undecided, and i don't think "the United States made a mistake" . . . so there.
Still, the results of the poll are very discouraging to me because they show that the leftist media/adademia/entertainment alliance is beginning to sway public opinion towards weakness and capitulation. The effect of this wavering will be to encourage our enemies, increase the death toll among innocents and lengthen the war. Not only that, it will increase the likelihood of further terrorist attacks in our country and against our allies.
Only complete victory by one side or the other will end this conflict. History has shown that time and time again. Our violent islamic expansionist enemies understand this, why don't we?
Posted by: annika at
09:06 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
1
When media corporations swing their news coverage as well as their editorial coverage heavily in favor of particular parties and candidates, it seems to me that at some level they are making de facto in-kind political contributions. Corporations are supposed to be tightly limited by law as to how they can spend money in support of political candidates: an auto company (for example) could never get away with running TV ads in support of their preferred presidential candidate. But media companies are able to use their economic power to support their views, and are increasingly doing so. I don't think this differential power between industries was the true intent of the campaign finance laws.
Posted by: David Foster at June 25, 2004 09:44 AM (SpkYG)
2
Annika,
Don't give in to discouragement. That is what the leftist media want. Most polls seemed to be cooked to give the opinion the media is looking for.
Posted by: Chuck at June 25, 2004 07:33 PM (s6c4t)
3
Annika, be careful talking about polls! I know firsthand how the minions can swoop in and drop 90 f-bombs in your comment section
But, yeah, it's blatantly obvious to me that polls are biased. Remember Den Beste's words: the only poll that matters is the election.
Posted by: Sarah at June 27, 2004 12:40 PM (khJB1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2004
A Future Upstanding Liberal
In
a Sacramento Bee story about two high school girls who wrote essays about the
Newdow case, and their reactions to the Supreme Court's recent ruling that wasn't really a ruling, i found the best exposition of the typical liberal approach to law i have yet seen.
The chick who wrote the winning essay in support of Newdow's position (that "under God" should be declared unconstitutional) said the following:
[M]y opinion has strengthened a lot more with looking up the different laws and legal briefs. I really look at it from how others feel. It's not really about the laws; it's about how it makes people feel living in their country. [emphasis added]
Perfect, just perfect. A future liberal if i ever saw one. God help us.
Posted by: annika at
04:06 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: susan at June 24, 2004 05:10 PM (i7giH)
2
I am in a mood about my liberal brothers and sisters-- they are too effing stupid to live!! God Bless America these people are idiots who are living in a fantasy world. One effing lie after another in the major media, Fuckingheight 9/11, and "I looked up the laws and decided it was about how people feel! #$*&*$#*&*#(@*!!! AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!! EFFING IDIOT!!!! I can't stand it anymore. GRRRRRR GRRR GRR!!!!!!!! Damn, I need a beer.
Posted by: gcotharn at June 24, 2004 09:44 PM (AaBEz)
3
how sad.
i guess high school really is less than i remember it. we learned intellectual honesty and critical thinking. . . .
Posted by: jcrue at June 25, 2004 10:39 AM (G9kk0)
4
Yeah, the law is all about how people "feel." People who "feel" that "under God" belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance? They don't count, of course! I mean, we're only talking about how
civilized people feel! Right?
Posted by: Matt Rustler at June 25, 2004 11:19 PM (mi0dS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 22, 2004
Agitprop
Today we took a trip down J Street for lunch at one of those eateries in the hip district of Sacramento, where the tatooed college students hang out. i happened to see a stenciled picture of President Bush that had been spraypainted on the sidewalk, with the words "bad man" underneath. i said to my co-workers, "Why is it that you never see any conservative vandalism?" The consensus was that conservatives generally try to follow the law. i replied that it's not against the law to vandalize if the ACLU is always there to get you off scott free. But they'll only do so if your message is anti-American or anti-Republican.
When i got back to the office, i happened to check out a blog that i visit less often than i should: Jen Speaks. Coincidentally Jen linked to this story about a kid who fought the liberal stranglehold on free thought at his public high school using one of the left's favorite weapons: agitprop. It's hilarious. As you can probably guess, his communist sympathizing teachers and a few "useful idiot" classmates did not take too kindly to a student who questioned their monopoly on speech.
[J]ust when we posted about 200 of our 500 signs, we heard a rustling around the corner. Upon investigating the noise, we found a fellow student tearing the signs from the wall and ripping them into shreds. We made no attempt to stop her, but she quickly abandoned her pursuit when I removed my camera from my backpack. Apparently, her being conscious of her own hypocrisy was not enough to prevent her from forcibly suppressing our dissenting point-of-view. But facing the prospect that others might be made aware of her hypocrisy, and it's cut-and-run. Typical.
It's funny to watch the lefties when their ideas are challenged using their own tactics. That "chill wind" actually blows more strongly from the left, contrary to what Tim Robins might believe.
i was so energized by the kid's story, and his chutzpa, that i think i just may return to that hip college area of town with some agitprop of my own. His five tips at the end of the article are very similar to Gandhi's protest philosophy, satyagraha.
Posted by: annika at
04:27 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.
1
During my junior year of college, Ohio State '81, I worked in a bar on campus, so I'd be walking home more or less sober in the wee hours. One early morning, I happened on members of the "Red Communist Youth Brigade" pasting their posters on anything they'd stick to. Now I really mean pasting, so they went on wet, so if you followed right behind, you could peal them right off, and being the patriotic mofo that I've always been, I did so. Well the commies, who weren't that youthful, were quite indignant, and threatened to call the coppers on me. I suggested that the cops might not be on their side, and they slunk away, hehehehe. I wonder where they are now... oh yeah.
Posted by: Casca at June 22, 2004 05:37 PM (q+PSF)
2
Thanks for the link, Annika!
Posted by: jen at June 23, 2004 07:17 AM (C31gH)
3
nice story, thanks for the link
Posted by: Scof at June 23, 2004 08:39 AM (XCqS+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gee, What Religion Were Those "Insurgents?"
i find it interesting that the
L.A. Times neglected to mention the religion of the "Chechen insurgents"
who killed 58* people yesterday. Isn't their religion important to the story? The
L.A. Times doesn't think so. But to the "insurgents" themselves, their religion is very important. In fact, if you asked them, they would probably say that their religion justifies their mass murdering tactics. (That is, assuming they didn't just
kill you instead of answering your question.)
The Times also neglected to mention a certain phrase that the "insurgents" shouted as they attacked Ingushetia on their murderous rampage, shooting at passing civilian vehicles and ambulances. It just happens to be the same phrase that Nick Berg's killers repeated over and over again as they sawed his head off with a knife. But i guess the Times didn't notice that connection.
i also love the Times' headline, which emphasizes the Russian response in a curiously negative way. What exactly, i ask, is wrong with Putin's vow to destroy the terrorists?
i say go for it, Vlad!
* The New York Times, who also neglected to mention the terrorists' religion, reported 75 dead from the attacks.
Posted by: annika at
12:38 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Welcome aboard, Anna.
"...carry on jihad against West 'until Islamic rule is back on Earth'" Don't fool yourself by thinking that this is the demented raving of a lone man. It is, in fact, the demented raving of a whole religion. Over one billon people. Scary.
Saving a seat for you, Hugo.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 23, 2004 08:27 AM (2OOqD)
2
June. Touche'.
"Insurgents?!" Fuck me.
There's an old lament that the boys utter when the women are out of earshot-
"If women didn't have c---s there'd be a law against them."
That's how I'm feeling about the frickin dogass media- there outta be a law about these assholes. The media is just pissing me off. For some reason, I'm feeling really frustrated about them. They are hurting the nation. I need sleep. I'm not feeling very brave or rational. Just damned frustrated. I think, really, I've been thinking about those kids in Russia. Late at night I get sad about that kind of stuff.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 02, 2004 09:09 PM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2004
Where Are The Tin Foil Hat Idiots This Week?
i finally got up the nerve to look at the Paul Johnson pictures today, which i found at
Drink This. i don't need to reiterate the disgust and hatred that i feel towards those animals who murdered Mr. Johnson.
After i posted about Nick Berg's murder, i got a stupid troll comment, which seemed to posit the theory that he wasn't really murdered. That the video was somehow faked. i'm not quite sure why it's important for some people to believe that the terrorists didn't really behead someone, but apparently it is.
The key to that ridiculous theory was that there wasn't enough blood in the Nick Berg video. Now, after looking at the gruesome Paul Johnson photos - much worse than the Berg photos, by the way - i wonder where those tin foil hat idiots are. 'Cause there sure looked like a lot of blood in those Johnson photos.
i wonder what new theory the far-left wackos will come up with in their ever evolving effort to defend vicious brutality and murder.
Posted by: annika at
10:35 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It was really done by Bush/hitler/Cheney/Haliburton/VRWC. No, I don't have any facts. True believers don't need facts. Excuse me while I adjust my tinfoil.
Posted by: Steve Edge at June 21, 2004 03:03 PM (hLYQL)
2
These are the same scrotumheads that pretend September 11 never happened.
Posted by: Desert Raspberry at June 21, 2004 06:50 PM (uMctF)
3
FYI, in case anyone out there may have forgotten:
http://www.redrocketship.com/propaganda/tinfoil.html
Posted by: Dave J at June 23, 2004 08:28 PM (x8mt5)
4
If you look closely enough at the photos from the Berg murder, you can see the "terrorists" standing in a huge pool of dark liquid. Obviously, Bush and his cronies spilled coffee or something.
Posted by: Liberal Larry at June 24, 2004 09:35 AM (7ldvV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 18, 2004
Is It Becoming Clearer Now?
Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson. Is it becoming clearer now?
Not that i want to see any video of this one, because i don't, but there are apparently some stills out there. Will we respond in kind to this barbarity, or will we just get used to it?
Half of us want to kick ass until these vermin are extinguished. The other half want to hold hands, sing cumbaya and let it go on. What will it take to wake up those fools?
Posted by: annika at
12:01 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I hope it is getting clearer. Everyday I find myself wondering when the rest of this country, AND world, will wake up to the fact that what we are seeing is the start of a religious war between Islam and everyone else.
With the help of a PC motivated media we bury our heads in the sand everytime something like this happens and pretend that it is an "isolated" incident. It is not. We are at war with Islam. They know it, the Israelies know it to an extent, but Europe and the US are fast asleep at the wheel.
Europe has fought this war before and should know better. We need to be smart enough to learn from history.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 18, 2004 12:23 PM (ukVk8)
2
Also,
Until the media starts showing video of these atrocities on American TV, the "other" half will get used to it and remain asleep. Everyone needs to see exactly what type of animal we are dealing with.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 18, 2004 03:46 PM (0rlpY)
3
With apologies to Mrs. Steen, who taught me math in elementary school, I'm in the third half:
Islam has many faces; just as I would not want (as a Christian) to be judged by the likes of Jerry Falwell, I won't judge Islam by the likes of these thugs who did this to Paul Johnson. Want to read aboout moderate Islam? Check out http://www.muslimwakeup.com/info/
Islam has its nuts and its fruits just as we who follow the cross do...
Posted by: Hugo at June 18, 2004 05:42 PM (mkYNl)
4
In answer to your question sweets, the round has to hit inside their comfort area. And knowing God's sense of humor as I do, I'm glad that I'm not a liberal these days.
Posted by: Casca at June 18, 2004 06:11 PM (q+PSF)
5
I checked out the "moderate" Islamic site that "head in the clouds" Hugo recommeded and see no condemnation of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah - just anti-U.S. diatribes, lies and opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
Some pro-gay positions thrown in just obscure the clear case that the religion of peace basically endorses the beheadings of infidels.
Posted by: d-rod at June 19, 2004 10:09 AM (Vhr09)
6
Hugo,
I'll give you that all the muslims in the US are "moderate". I'll give the Islamic Society of North America that there are 10 million muslims in the US (http://www.isna.net/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=336). So one percent of the muslims in this world are moderate. ONE out of ONE HUNDRED muslims don't want you dead. Wow. Mrs. Steen would tell you that 990 million fruits and nuts makes a hell of a party tray. The 10 million moderates are meaningless.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 19, 2004 01:08 PM (0rlpY)
7
Agnostic and D-Rod:
Do you have any Muslim friends? I do. I've been in there homes. I've fasted (briefly, I admit) with them during Ramadan. They may be many things, but they aren't "meaningless."
One thing I'll say for President Bush: Calling Islam a religion of peace, as he repeatedly has, is the single wisest thing I think he's done since 9/11. I wish all of his supporters felt as he did.
Posted by: Hugo at June 19, 2004 02:05 PM (mkYNl)
8
Lord, how I hate bad grammar. "their" homes, please. Sorry.
Posted by: Hugo at June 19, 2004 02:10 PM (mkYNl)
9
Hugo,
As a loyal reader of Annika I have come to respect your opinions on most matters, which is why I am so surprised by your last statement. Calling Islam a "religion of peace" is helping to perpetuate one of the biggest lies being told to the public today.
I too have Muslim friends here in the US. They, like your friends are moderates and even call themselves “Modern Moslems”. They are wonderful people and are deeply disturbed by what is happening in the world today. Not just the Middle East, but the world.
Islam is, at root, a violent religion, and unlike other religions, still has a middle ages mentality. Racial superiority, un-acceptance of other peoples/religions, dhimmi-tud, are all concepts that everyone else has come to accept as destructive. Islam has refused to move on, except for the small minority community of “Modern Moslems” that, for the most part, resides in the US.
I feel bad for the one percent of good American Moslems, but to propagate through the media the falsehood that Islam is a religion of peace, just for the sake of the few moderns, is a huge danger to the world. Do not think that just because the “nice” Moslem friend of yours is a good person, all of them are. There is a religious war taking place, as we write, all over the world. And it’s not the Christians this time.
Wake up before itÂ’s too late. 99 out of 100 Moslems want you Dead. Or living as 2nd class citizens. Which do you prefer? Of course our modern Moslem friends would pay the price as well.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 19, 2004 03:10 PM (0rlpY)
10
Agnostic, thanks for your kind words.
Let's think about it another way. Islam is, more or less, 1400 years old. Where was Western Christianity 1400 years after its inception? Locked in violence and oppression, still trying out the Crusades (until the end of the 15th century). Did 99 out of 100 Christians in 1453 want Muslims dead? I suspect so!
Faiths evolve over time. Christianity and Judaism too have had their appallingly violent periods. Wise folks differentiate between the core teachings of the faith, and even majority interpretations of those faiths. Should our Savior tarry, we will see a far gentler Islam in the centuries to come, I am convinced.
Why, do you suppose, has Bush bent over backwards to insist on Islam being a religion of peace? Is the right's hero misinformed? Or is he bowing to his Saudi friends? I'm curious to hear how conservatives spin the president's own words on Islam...
Cheers.
Posted by: Hugo at June 19, 2004 04:24 PM (mkYNl)
11
Hugo,
Yes, I have Muslim friends and have been in their homes. I really don't know what that has to do with anything. I even had a Iranian roommate for a year who was an political dissident. I've been treated to fabulous hospitality in Morocco and Turkey and enjoy their culture immensely. I also ran into another old Iranian friend on the street the other day who could very well be financing al Qaeda with the wealth he has accumulated since living in this country (he owns around 40 apartments in the Bay Area).
I disagree with Bush (hero???) on a lot of things, but think it was good for him to say Islam is a RoP even though it's not true. Don't you know BUSH LIES!!!
When you look at the core teachings of a faith you have to look at what the texts actually say. People spin Christianity around every which way these days and most people could care less (which is good).
Cheers to you too.
Posted by: d-rod at June 19, 2004 06:11 PM (XUVHi)
12
Hugo,
Faiths do evolve. Most of the time, with help from other faiths, i.e. war. It took Hiroshima and Nagisaki to "evolve" the Japanese. Talk about an eye opener. As brutal as WWII and the atom bobm was, the idea of racial superiority died in Japan in 1945.
Posted by: The Agnostic at June 19, 2004 08:21 PM (ypj5A)
13
-Hugo,
-Surely you jest. Are you really prepared to wait a couple of centuries for the murderous islamo-fanatics to mellow?
-So what if their religion has only been around for 14 centuries, do they get a pass for ritualistic mutilation, honor killing, suicide bombing, and the barbaric execution of the innocent, until the end of the 22nd century.
-Whether the christians and jews were also violent has no bearing on the current situation; it's a spurious point. There were times when the christians needed their collective ass kicked for things they allowed to happen in the name of their religion. But if I employ your logic, the thousands killed by Tomas de Torquemada should've found comfort knowing the christians would be much nicer in the centuries ahead.
-It's also strange that you would draw a comparison between Falwell and some violent animal executing an innocent man. Sure Falwell is a nut, a loud, self righteous nut who probably does a disservice to his christian cause any time he opens his mouth, but how's that cognate with a group of murdering savages. I'll tender a suggestion, next time compare the islamo-goons to say Eric Robert Rudolf or Charly Manson.
-Yeah the jig's up Hugo; nobody could be as kind and blissfully suicidal as you pretend. So I've caught you, pull off the mask imposter and state your business. Who do we have, tell me .... no wait, I'll guess... a potege of Dr. Leonard Peikoff ... no perhaps it's Newt or maybe Horrowitz.
-Jasen
Posted by: Jasen at June 20, 2004 09:02 AM (gjNB2)
14
I don't think Hugo is wearing a mask or is a protege of anybody (esp. not a Pub.) His beliefs are genuine IMO.
Posted by: d-rod at June 20, 2004 08:01 PM (toAa+)
15
Sorry Jesus - your oppressors are all other Arabs.
Posted by: d-rod at June 22, 2004 03:46 PM (CSRmO)
16
Wow , I don't know what to say other than I've enjoyed reading all of your perspectives and opinions in re: to Islam , holy wars , Christianity etc...... bottom line , there are far too many innocent American/Coalition soldiers, and believe me there are more than you would believe who don't want to be over there in Iraq , dyiing because one man lied and took it upon himself (and the country followed) and went to war. Not to mention the innocent Iraqi children who don't have a say so , one way or another who are constantly being slaughtered. When Jesus (not heh'seus) judges this world , make sure your own side of the street is clean
Posted by: kaytay at June 23, 2004 01:48 AM (AaBEz)
17
Hey Jesus
maybe we should just drop a few more of those old bombs you refered too and end all of the bullshit!
Posted by: mike at June 23, 2004 09:28 AM (evBow)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 17, 2004
Read My Lips
There seems to be a disconnect between the mainstream media and reality. i never heard President Bush say that Hussein was involved in 9/11. But the media keeps reporting the 9/11 commission's conclusion that there was no Hussein Al Qaeda connection in the attacks as if it was news.
As the President said this morning, yet again:
This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. . . . We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Ladin, the head of al-Qaeda in Sudan.
Nobody said there was a connection
in the attacks. Why would there be? Ben Ladin wanted money, training camps and protection from Hussein, but that doesn't mean Ben Ladin would have told him about the 9/11 plans. Hussein didn't need to be in the loop on that. Obviously, Al Qaeda was capable of carrying out the attack without Hussein's help.
The point that always seems to get lost in these pissing contests, and the only point that matters in my view, is that Saddam Hussein and Ben Ladin both hated us badly. Therefore it was too dangerous to leave Hussein around and able to help Al Qaeda in the future. Did anybody seriously believe that Ben Ladin would not have eventually approached Hussien for support and training camps after we kicked him out of Afghanistan?
If anyone had doubts on that point, the 9/11 Commission's report should clear that up:
Al Qaeda did approach Hussein.
Al Qaeda did meet with the Iraqi government.
There was an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection.
Just not on 9/11.
It's not necessary to take Bush's word or even my word on it. That's what the 9/11 Commission said. But the media keeps trying to put words in the president's mouth. Yet even The Washington Post couldn't find a quote that states what their editorial writers want us to believe. In this collection of administration quotes they call "White House Statements on Iraq, al-Qaida", i defy anyone to find a direct statement by any admininstration official saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated on the 9/11 attacks.
You'd think if such a quote were there, the Washington Post would have found it. Instead, the Post's anthology of quotes merely shows that the administration was right about the budding relationship between Hussein's Iraq and Al Quada. We can believe they were right because the 9/11 Commision agrees that there were links.
And it therefore follows, i say, that we were right to take out Saddam Hussein before those links turned into a full fledged alliance.
More on topic: read DANEgerus.
Posted by: annika at
09:32 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Greetings Annika! Hope you are enjoying your new home.
The NYT and WaPo stories I have read have buried the 9/11 Commission's bombshell assertion deep in their stories- Al Qaeda and Saddam were in contact over the years. The real story is that the 9/11 Commission made this assertion- since contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam totally justifies the Iraq invasion as a viable part of the WOT.
Serious people agree with you-- the legitimate possibility of Al Qaeda/Saddam cooperation justified invasion of Iraq. The NYT and WaPo are completely wedded to story that Osama and Saddam would never cooperate. They buried the bombshell story under a mountain of misleading headlines and lead paragraphs. This is about the media willfully distorting the story in order to protect their reputations and their claims of righteousness, and also to get Bush defeated in November.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at June 17, 2004 12:00 PM (PcgQk)
2
"and also to get Bush defeated in November."
You're absolutely right GC.
They place politics above the safety of Americans, even their own safety.
They completely and conveniently ignore the question of whether it is reasonable and likely that Al Qaeda and Saddam would ever cooperate in the future. Given that they most certainly would, our response to Saddam's failure to comply with numerous UN resolutions is totally justified.
i don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.
Posted by: annika! at June 17, 2004 12:26 PM (zAOEU)
3
Actually the money quote from the commission report does not say that there was no Iraq involvement with al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. It says that the commission has no "credible evidence" of cooperation.
This from a group that didn't consider the Goerlick memo establishing a wall between intelligence and law enforcement, one of the principal pre 911 failures, as credible evidence of a conflict of interest.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 17, 2004 04:43 PM (4819r)
4
My exact thoughts today annika and the nature of my post to -- I'm just curious if anyone really wants to change their mind. I've concluded that those who still oppose the war in Iraq either lack the intellectual courage to overcome their stubbornness (they just hate Bush) or seek to change what for so long it has meant to be an American (because we're racist, greedy imperialists).
Posted by: Scof at June 17, 2004 05:45 PM (uluG3)
5
CNBC's 'Capital Report':
GLORIA BORGER, co-host: Thank you so much for being with us, Mr. Vice President. And we will get to talk about the economy in a few minutes.
Vice President DICK CHENEY: OK.
BORGER: But obviously first the news of the week is the 9-11 Commission report. And as you know, the report found, quote, "No credible evidence that al-Qaida collaborated with Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Do you disagree with its findings?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed. This has been enormous confusion over the Iraq-al-Qaida connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.
[...]
BORGER: Well, my reading of the report is that it says that, yes, contacts were made between al-Qaida and Iraq, but they could find no evidence that any relationship, in fact, had been forged between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: And you're talking generally now, not just 9/11.
BORGER: Not just 9/11. And let's talk generally and then we'll get to 9/11.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Talk generally.
BORGER: Generally.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: That's not true.
BORGER: So you disagree?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely.
[...]
BORGER: Mr. Vice President, I don't think I've ever seen you, in all the years I've interviewed you, as exercised about something as you seem today.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I was. I admit, Gloria, and you and I have known each other a long time. But I do believe that the press has been irresponsible, that there's this temptation to take...
BORGER: But the press is making a distinction between 9/11 and...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, they're not. They're not. The New York Times does not. The Panel Finds No Qaida-Iraq Ties. That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous--I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through ignorance. Sometimes it's malicious. But you'll take a statement that's geared specifically to say there's no connection in relation to the 9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my credibility....
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at June 18, 2004 02:36 AM (PcgQk)
6
you guys seem to be from a different planet: Bush and Cheney ARE international terrororists and should be tried in a court of law. Its is very evident that ever since Bush (unlawfully) took office America's standing in the world became considerably worse and its security just as well. No need to blame anyone for this aside from that idiot from Texas. And, dont get me wrong, no body hates him, its just that he is quite obviously an idiot.
Posted by: Denis at June 22, 2004 09:00 AM (JdRVY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 09, 2004
Fascist Lefties
Almost every day i see another example of the freakazoid left's infatuation with violence. You may remember i posted
my theory on that subject here. i should make it a regular feature to post further evidence of my theory.
In today's Bee, there's a story about how the protesters in my old hometown of San Francisco failed to shut down the biotech conference. Some protesters "pushed conference attendees aside and shouted profanities" at them. As the police escorted the scientists and attendees into the Moscone Center (no doubt to protect them from hurled objects as much as hurled invective) the unwashed, jobless retards shouted the following peaceful slogan:
ARREST THEM! SHOOT THEM!
It seems ironic, but i've no doubt that these same people are all bent out of shape over Abu Ghraib.
Posted by: annika at
08:53 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
probably the most damaging contribution marx made to the history of political thought was attaching criminality not to the what, but to the who. therefore it's totally okay to have unprincipled hatred for contradictory reasons, as long as it's directed at the same perceived group of people.
the hippies don't have to have a conscience, annika, because they never have to worry about whether they're right or not. hippies are always right.
Posted by: candace at June 09, 2004 03:28 PM (GitZG)
2
I find Abu Ghraib highly offensive, but I'm in favor of biotech research. What does that make me? Another anarcho-fascist, as I have read on so many pro-Bush blogs, just because I think America should hold its soldiers and employees to the moral and ethical values we purport to subscribe to? I don't think the violent protesters are reasonable, and most of them should probably be spending some time incarcerated. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that some of our soldiers, apparently with the blessing of their commanders penetrated people's anuses with night sticks, strangled people to death, beat people, and other acts that go beyond simply humiliating them (although, that too is against the Geneva convention). The US claims to be morally superior to people like terrorists, yet when it really counts, we seem to always have members of groups who are supposed to be representing us acting just like those groups that we, as a nation, seek to condemn on moral grounds.
Posted by: flaime at June 10, 2004 03:35 PM (uKXhE)
3
Actually, I don't think being upset about Abu Graib makes you anything more than a conscienous human being, one with compassion for one's fellow man. And absolutely right. We as a nation and a people are better than that.
And the thing is, that was already being dealt with, with the accused being tried and the guilty being punished, before you or I heard about it. Like it is supposed to be. The pictures are there because one of the defendents wanted to get out of jail, free, and blame someone else instead of himself.
Now, if we truly were not a nation with the moral high ground, as you seem to in danger of accepting, then you would never know about Abu Griab, let alone know that the military was investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators. The fact remains those soldiers and their officers are getting what they deserve (with the possible except of BG Karpinski, but that is another issue)
When we find stuff like that going on, we stop it, and punish those that did it. When the other side does something like that, they get promoted.
BTW, ain't 'anarcho-fascist' a contradiction in terms? How can you have a state that is both anarchistic, as well as fascist? I don't think the two go together.
Posted by: Ben at June 11, 2004 06:53 AM (Xaong)
4
Not sure I agree about Gen. Karpinski. Her career is effectively over, because she failed to exercise proper control over her subordinates. Which is only fitting, because it was her job to run these facilities. I think that is probably punishment enough for what she failed to do.
Having served in the Marines for 6 years, I cannot believe that this treatment of prisoners is or was official policy, or that she knew of it, authorized, or condoned it. It is just too stupid.
Posted by: Mark at June 11, 2004 11:43 AM (oQofX)
5
Ben:
We almost didn't know about it. Indeed, the only reason we found out about it is that a consciencious soldier refused to accept the orders his direct superiors were giving him to not report it. And, the military was interested in not allowing the public to ever hear about it even then.
I don't know about "anarcho-fascist"...It's an O'Reilly/Limbaugh term.
Mark:
You haven't been listening to what's coming out of the White House: Torture is acceptable.
Posted by: flaime at June 11, 2004 12:36 PM (Bax1+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 07, 2004
Ronald W. Reagan, My Tribute
My first memory of President Reagan is from November 1984. i was seven. My father asked me to take a walk down the block with him. We went into a neighbor's garage where there were little booths set up. People went into the booths and pulled a curtain behind them. i stood in line with my dad as he gave his name to a lady who handed him a card. Then my dad took me into the booth with him to watch him cast his vote for president of the United States.
It's fitting that my first introduction to democracy was watching my dad vote for Ronald Reagan.
Another formative experience of my life was the tragedy of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986. Like many children, i watched the launch on television with my class. It was horrifying. i'll never forget how President Reagan spoke afterwards, directly to us young people, sharing our pain and somehow giving us a way to understand that traumatic loss.
I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.
With those words, President Reagan showed me that courage comes with its own cost. Just as he did with his address on the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, which i've heard again this weekend. And later, when i could understand with the hindsight of a history student, Ronald Reagan showed me the meaning of steadfast courage in the face of incredible opposition - when he led Democracy to victory over the forces of Communist dictatorship.
That last victory, his greatest, was not easy. And it was not certain. Reagan didn't stumble his way into it either. Victory in the Cold War was the almost uniquely held vision of this one great man. He alone among the post war presidents had the courage to say: "Let's win this thing. We can win this thing." When Nixon and Carter were trying to figure out how to co-exist with the Communists, when Ford was denying the Soviet domination of Europe, Reagan alone seemed to know that we would win, because we were better.
And he got us to believe it too. And we did win. Despite all the nay-sayers (funded from behind the iron curtain, by the way) who were shouting "nuclear freeze," Reagan rolled back the nukes, doing it from a position of strength and leaving our nation infinitely safer than if he had listened to the peaceniks. And when the left shook their heads after Reykjavik, saying we had blown our chance for peace, Reagan, by his courageous stand on principle, led us to the lasting peace that only victory could win.
i've been weepy all weekend. i, too, loved Ronald Reagan. i'm proud to have been alive while he was president. i'm proud that i'm a Californian, a Republican, an American, and he's a large part of those things. i've heard it said, and i fully agree, that if Ronald Reagan were president today, he'd know exactly what to do. i wish that were possible. But in a way, i'm glad he didn't realize how much trouble we've gotten into since we lost the blessing of his stewardship. He would have been deeply disappointed.
Or, perhaps i'm wrong about that. Ronald Reagan was an eternal optimist. And one of the great things about all the tributes of the past few days has been the long overdue recognition of his optimism. We should honor his optimism, by remembering it, and re-igniting it. What President Reagan said at the 1992 Republican Convention has been quoted often in the last few days, but i don't think it can be repeated often enough.
Well I've said it before and I'll say it again -- America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. America remains what Emerson called her 150 years ago, 'the country of tomorrow.' What a wonderful description and how true. And yet tomorrow might never have happened had we lacked the courage in the 1980's to chart a course of strength and honor.
God Bless you, Ronald Reagan.
Recommended on topic: The Maximum Leader meets the President.
Also Recommended: Lileks, as always. Professor Hugh looks at the Democratic spin attempts. And Daniel Weintraub spins the President as a liberal.
Posted by: annika at
08:36 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Casca at June 07, 2004 10:42 PM (q+PSF)
2
Reagan from alays the ill of I! Then by me, from hom I feel Soviet never, trade unions of in of to be anted I have that to remind on. Society during Kollektivumonderfull to this too intended to belong I have only from child of small of only one likeise. Each itself more helping and nobody in compitition. Then these have of and coboy of of its body masters! It pays one more turned fair one on perfectly it practically from progressive and from communists more than capitlist, the filled of flag from ith allt! the connerie United States on. of not enough this of theres of silicon of ho.
Posted by: Um Yeah at June 08, 2004 12:30 AM (KBwQo)
3
Cuba. Therapy. Spellchecker. In reverse order.
Les.
Posted by: Lesmorte at June 08, 2004 03:55 AM (LFtoQ)
4
This is the best writing on Reagan that I have seen yet in blogs or in the mainstream media.
Posted by: ginger at June 08, 2004 05:43 AM (WX5CY)
5
how dare you make me cry so early in the day with such a heart warming post.
Posted by: missie at June 08, 2004 07:41 AM (m+/Dj)
6
"Good night, sweet prince."
Extremely well put, Annika.
Posted by: Jason O. at June 08, 2004 08:27 AM (loMDg)
7
Well put Annika. Very well put. (And thanks for the link.) Although some have lamented the abundance of Reagan eulogies on the internet, I for one, think they are great. He would be very touched to read them all.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at June 08, 2004 04:56 PM (0PRJS)
8
Annika, this is one of the best posts I've read. Thank you.
Posted by: Anna at June 09, 2004 11:17 PM (uvamW)
9
thank you annika-
mainly from your past writings about Reagan, I have been promted to pick up one of his latest books "Reagan in his own hand". He truly was a visionsary.
eg. "..our current tax system is simply a way of transferring wealth from the most productive members of society to the least"
Posted by: jimi at June 12, 2004 11:45 AM (lN8eP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 18, 2004
Question:
Is it me, or has
Michel Moore gotten fatter? The last time i saw him was at the Oscars in 2003. i don't think he looked as humongous back then. What he needs is a personal trainer. A tough one, like at one of those boot camps for fatties, maybe.
i can almost picture it now:
Holy Jesus! What is that? WHAT IS THAT?!
Sir, a jelly doughnut, sir!
A jelly doughnut?!
Sir, yes, sir!
How did it get here?
Sir, I took it from the mess hall, sir!
Is chow allowed in the barracks, Moore?
Sir, no, sir!
Are you allowed to eat jelly doughnuts, Moore?
Sir, no, sir!
And why not?
Sir, because I'm too heavy, sir!
Because you are a DISGUSTING FATBODY, Moore!
Sir, yes, sir!
And i'd love to see Moore trying to run laps, with the personal trainer alongside to motivate him:
Pick 'em up and set 'em down, Moore! Quickly! Move it up!
Were you born a fat slimy scumbag, you piece of shit?! Or did you have to work on it?
Move it up! Quickly! Hustle up!
The fucking war will be over by the time we get up there, won't it, Moore? MOVE IT!
Are you going to fucking die, Moore? Are you going to die on me?! Do you feel dizzy? Do you feel faint? Jesus H. Christ, I think you've got a hard-on!
Yah, boot camp might do him a lot of good, i think.
Posted by: annika at
04:59 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Heh...Lee Ermey's DI routine from
Full Metal Jacket never does get old, does it?
"Did your parents have any children that lived?! I bet they regretted it!"
Posted by: Dave J at May 18, 2004 08:14 PM (V0Wwd)
2
It'd kill him. Which would do
all of us a lot of good. (Moore, too. He epitomizes the phrase, "a life not worth living.")
Posted by: Matt at May 18, 2004 10:06 PM (TqPuT)
3
Yup, he is fatter. Sorry, not a very interesting comment, but I wanted to reassure you. He is, in fact, much fatter.
Posted by: Courtney at May 19, 2004 08:02 AM (tyQ8y)
4
That ole ticker oughta be blowin'a valve anytime now, hehehe. Just desserts, eh wot? I think I'll have a case of krispy kreme's delivered to his suite. Dammit, stop me before I pun again!
Posted by: Casca at May 20, 2004 06:58 PM (q+PSF)
5
Maybe he should update his book to "Dude, where's my waistline?"..tie some ropes on him and he'll be in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade..
Posted by: steve at May 25, 2004 01:29 PM (DmFF+)
6
buy stock newsletter
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order stock newsletter
at January 26, 2005 06:00 PM (MChdQ)
7
buy merchant account
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order merchant account
at January 26, 2005 06:00 PM (MChdQ)
8
buy pharmacy
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order pharmacy
at January 26, 2005 06:01 PM (MChdQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
138kb generated in CPU 0.4058, elapsed 0.4062 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.3385 seconds, 317 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
