July 27, 2010
— Gabriel Malor There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:09 AM
| Comments (199)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Daily Caller and HotAir handing out big wet French kisses to Journalisters with “integrity”.
My take: generally (not totally) these guys were just trying to keep the lords of the flies from painting themselves pink and blue and dancing naked in the streets, carrying spears and chanting “We gonna get yo cracka babies!”
“Hey dudes! We’ll get caught!”
But then I attribute evil to these jackasses.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 05:12 AM (RkRxq)
But on the bright side:
White House predicts only one and a half trillion dollar deficit and pretty much permanent vacations to be had by all!
How do you say, “band playing happy music and fire works exploding in mock sexual release representing ecstasy at the wonderful news?”
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 05:13 AM (RkRxq)
And it's called the Ace-O-Spades HQ. Whoo-hoo!
Posted by: Timothy S. Carlson at July 27, 2010 05:17 AM (u2dhQ)
Daily Caller and HotAir handing out big wet French kisses to Journalisters with “integrity”.
My take: generally (not totally) these guys were just trying to keep the lords of the flies from painting themselves pink and blue and dancing naked in the streets, carrying spears and chanting “We gonna get yo cracka babies!”
“Hey dudes! We’ll get caught!”
But then I attribute evil to these jackasses.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 09:12 AM (RkRxq)
My take as well. They weren't so much "heroes" as they were voices trying to keep the unwashed Olisters from taking the thing so over a cliff. Most of the examples are from the Devil's Advocate point of view, with no true conviction to back them up.
Posted by: Dunkirk at July 27, 2010 05:17 AM (kbHJ6)
How do you say, “band playing happy music and fire works exploding in mock sexual release representing ecstasy at the wonderful news?”
I think in the french it's translated as : "Holy jit! Were focked!"
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 27, 2010 05:17 AM (e8T35)
Ace's Place!
http://tinyurl.com/23vpzkf
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 05:18 AM (2+9Yx)
ace's master strategy is to treat these Jlist jamokes like tomato cans, carry them a few more rounds until we get closer to the election, and then -- pow! sock! -- drop these Jlisters like bad habits and hurt the Dem candidates by extension.
All that's necessary is for Allah, Ed, DC, Instapundit, Ann Althouse, the Attila chick, the Anchoress, 3/4s of the commenters at Innocent Bystanders, Jim Geraghty, James Taranto, Hugh Hewitt, Rush, Frank J. among others to toe ace's line and victory will be ours!
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 27, 2010 05:19 AM (ruzrP)
Daily Caller and HotAir handing out big wet French Kisses to Journalisters with “integrity”.
You mean the ones that stopped working for corrupt news organizations, exposed the corruption and bias of these so called "media" outlets who were conspiring to keep the truth hidden to advance their own political agenda?
Funny, I must have missed that list of names. Any chance somebody could repost it?
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 27, 2010 05:20 AM (e8T35)
CNN scoops the world with their headline: "... Massive Loss"
They took a $32 billion dollar charge! Even their money people are idiots.
They need all go home and put a sign on the door that says:
Closed due to Obama-like competence.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 05:22 AM (RkRxq)
Another Blazing Skull story for Ace:
Yesterday and the day before I posted updates related to Shirley SherrodÂ’s mischaracterization of the acts of racism that had been performed against she and her family. I first brought this up in the discussion with DrewM the other night when I questioned how much we were to believe from her speech.
I later updated with a story from a newspaper article which said that the killing of her father was ot some KKK attack. Her father was killed in 1965 in a dispute with a neighbor over some cows. The local grand jury, be it good or bad, examined the case and returned a verdict of “no bill”.
This story talks about the other case she mentioned in which a “family member” had been lynched. That story hails all the way back to the 40s and it turns out NOTHING like she said. This is from an article at The American Spectator.
The Spectator story argues on the basis that the racist acts against her family were the product of racist Democrats of the time. There may be some truth to that line but I think it is the wrong tact to take.
The case involving her “other family member” involved a relative named Bobby Hall being killed by a racist Sheriff named Screws. In that case the Sheriff WAS in fact brought up on charges AND was convicted. He appealed and the first level appeal was denied. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court who reversed based on the need to show “intent” in a case of “civil rights violations” (which was the 1940s era equivalent of out current “hate crime” BS.
The Spectator author wants to blame this reversal on one justice, Hugo Black, who was an ex-KKK member but really, that’s a weak argument. The fact is, in reality, it is damn hard to show “intent” of a hate crime. The liberal courts of today are much more apt and probably would not have ruled that way but then they are not ruling on the law. They are ruling on the outcome. In any case, the locals gave out justice at the trial. It’s the Supreme Court who overturned.
On the other case we simply d not know why the grand jury refused to indict and since those records are sealed there is no way we will ever find out.
But in both cases, it turns out that her cries of KKK racist lynching and violence have no basis in fact. I fully expect to see more and more of this falling apart as the investigations by the new media continue.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:22 AM (/jbAw)
I'm thinking a shot on the Apprentice would be more appropriate.
I've seen enough headlines this morning. They make me want to go back to bed, pull the blanket over my head, and wait 'til things get better.
Could be a long nap....
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 05:25 AM (Ulu3i)
Obviously you ran out of bourbon last night and searched the internet instead.
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 05:26 AM (2+9Yx)
Greg Sargent yesterday (Washington Post and Journolist) insisted that there was a "right wing conspiracy" in reporting the journolisto scandal.
Today, Sargent says that there is a "right wing conspiracy" in wanting the Black Panther case investigated publically. Republicans should be content with the behind the scenes investigation. There is apparently a conspiracy to notice the conspiracy to bury the story.
This guy need to be in a padded room, instead he gets WaPo editorial space. But I repeat myself.
Posted by: dagny at July 27, 2010 05:26 AM (dTb2b)
Funny, I must have missed that list of names. Any chance somebody could repost it?
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 27, 2010 09:20 AMHere ya go:
1.
2.
3.
4.
.....
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 05:28 AM (Ulu3i)
Nah, I found that this morning. Spectator actually had it yesterday.
I typed it up too fast as well. Lots O typos.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:28 AM (/jbAw)
19 So Osama Obama's gonna be on the View?
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 09:25 AM (Ulu3i)
I wonder if he's going to show off his mad dance skills? He had Ellen thinkin' 'bout a little heterosex when he did her show. Fortunately for her, when he started screwing his face and biting his lip, she came back to her homosenses.
Dodged a close one there.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 05:31 AM (RkRxq)
http://tinyurl.com/2ataz76
Voters will decide whether South Carolina residents have constitutional rights to hunt and fish and vote by secret ballot. There will also be two questions on the state's general and capital reserve funds.
It seems that we now will vote on the Constitutionality of stuff in this State via voter referendum. One wonders if this was a bad choice of words by a stupid reporter or if the stupid politicians in Columbia actually intend this.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:33 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 05:33 AM (OlN4e)
Obviously you ran out of bourbon last night and searched the internet instead.
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 09:26 AM (2+9Yx)"
That feels more like the library, the brick and mortar building and case law to me. If it was on the internet everyone might have found it.
Vic is often amazing.
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 05:34 AM (p302b)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at July 27, 2010 05:35 AM (uKraB)
Oh, and some of the Journolist defence is that they didn't need a conspiracy to all know that Barak Obama would be the better choice as president (?). Someone wrote a letter to the Post to point out that the reporters jobs were to lay that out for the public, not decide on their own.
The lefty MFM is confused. They think it is their job to direct public opinion not report facts. They really don't understand this.
Posted by: dagny at July 27, 2010 05:35 AM (dTb2b)
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 05:36 AM (p302b)
Vic is often amazing.
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 09:34 AM (p302b)
Thanks curious, but it was all from the Spectator. They actually have a link to the Supreme Court case.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:37 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 05:38 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 09:25 AM (Ulu3i)
The View 'splained.
The only sense in which this would be interesting to watch, with the sound off, of course, would be to see which of the biddies spends the most time on her knees servicing The Won.
Posted by: Ball Sack ... er, Balzac! at July 27, 2010 05:40 AM (yRrAd)
By the definition of lynching at the time AND by its common use today it was not lynching.
Even in SC today which uses a definition of a physical attack by more than one person on another single person as "lynching" it would not be "lynching" because it was performed by a law officer and deputies.
It would probably be prosecuted today as excessive force and manslaughter and would likely result in a conviction.
But the major point in that case was that the Sheriff was originally convicted.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:43 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Mr Pink at July 27, 2010 05:44 AM (S3vyM)
So Osama Obama's gonna be on the View?
His presence on the set sertainly won't upset the estrogen balance.
Posted by: ErikW at July 27, 2010 05:45 AM (a99VB)
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:45 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 27, 2010 05:45 AM (qPpkJ)
The victim was beaten to death in the street, not hung by the neck. Murdered publicly, but not hung.
Horses are hung. People are hanged.
Posted by: House Pedant at July 27, 2010 05:48 AM (7ppar)
Posted by: House Pedant at July 27, 2010 05:49 AM (7ppar)
Horses are hung. People are hanged.
Posted by: House Pedant at July 27, 2010 09:48 AM (7ppar)
Not all. Some are beaten to death.
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 05:50 AM (OlN4e)
Why people keep inviting that one-note asshole on their shows is a mystery to me; I'd rather listen to dead air,
Next up, Bob Beckel!
Posted by: Sean Hannity at July 27, 2010 05:50 AM (a99VB)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 05:50 AM (2w7HE)
http://tinyurl.com/23nmyvw
Hartsville couple admit to torturing their three grandsons
This falls under the old rule of thumb of "what would they have done 100 years ago?"
I just don't know what they would have done because the idea of something like this happening even when I was a kid less than a 100 years ago would have been unheard of.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:52 AM (/jbAw)
Next up, Bob Beckel!
Who is guilty of TREASON AND SEDITION!
and paying prostitutes with personal checks.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 05:52 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 27, 2010 09:45 AM (qPpkJ)
I agree completely. His "use by" date was exceeded long long ago.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:53 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at July 27, 2010 09:35 AM (uKraB)
That's the fact. After an Obama-loving friend of mine sent me an email of cartoons about him, I said the exact same thing - I don't find anything funny about this guy anymore.
Posted by: real joe at July 27, 2010 05:53 AM (w7Lv+)
Hartsville couple admit to torturing their three grandsons
This falls under the old rule of thumb of "what would they have done 100 years ago?"
I just don't know what they would have done because the idea of something like this happening even when I was a kid less than a 100 years ago would have been unheard of.
i think the Brazen Bull would be good. also, stuff like this happened hundreds of years ago, the only difference is that no one knew about it because it wasn't reported.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 05:54 AM (wuv1c)
There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:09 AM A place we all call, city hall. //Detroit
Posted by: sven10077 at July 27, 2010 05:54 AM (kq1lG)
Posted by: Mr Pink at July 27, 2010 09:44 AM (S3vyM)
Pelosi, Reid and Barry in unison, "Budget? We don't need no stinking budget!"
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 05:55 AM (RkRxq)
BTW, Neel thinks we should all get along...."focus on the collective good". Yesterday hannity had a guest on who seemed to be spouting the same idea....except his idea was "can't we all unite under one God"
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 05:55 AM (p302b)
Posted by: sven10077 at July 27, 2010 05:56 AM (kq1lG)
I have a friend who is not a big cumo supporter for governor. He keeps insisting that cumo did something like this when he was in charge of some department or a cabinet member or something and he apparently got away with it.....which is driving my friend nuts that no one is bringing this up...
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 05:57 AM (p302b)
There's a place I know
where the hipsters go,
called Bedrock!
- Rock Roll, The Twitch
Posted by: Groaty Dick at July 27, 2010 05:58 AM (gzjhZ)
Of course, everyone in this adm likes the "collective" good" and hates individual freedom.
They are all communists, every damn one of them.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 05:58 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 09:52 AM (/jbAw)
There are too many of these types of crimes now. Some of the old quick, severe 'barnyard justice' of a few decades would stop some of this from happening. It would certainly stop a few of these bastards from ever doing it again.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:00 AM (RkRxq)
It may not have been "reported" 100 years ago but in a small town like the one described in that article it would have made the rounds.
People would have known and something would have been done about it; probably one of those "evil lynchings" but then it would have been a "hate crime".
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:01 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 06:02 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: real joe at July 27, 2010 06:03 AM (w7Lv+)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 27, 2010 09:41 AM
Nope.
"Osama Obama" is my tribute to Zombie Ted Kennedy, sandwich-man, tippler, and all-around sainted icon to deluded libs everywhere. Oh, and murderer.
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 06:04 AM (Ulu3i)
The NY Times offers the following correction:
The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.
Not much, but they do acknowledge that nothing happened at the Obamacare walk. That's more than the rest of the MFM.
Posted by: Ed Anger at July 27, 2010 06:05 AM (7+pP9)
you're making a distinction without a difference with regard to the definition of "lynching".
Trying to correct the terminology manages to miss the point spectacularly.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 27, 2010 06:05 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Hedgehog at July 27, 2010 06:07 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 09:57 AM (p302b)
Cuomo was Secretary of HUD under Clinton ... Bawney's cabana boy, in other words. He married and divorced a Kennedy, too (NTTAWWT).
Posted by: ya2daup at July 27, 2010 06:08 AM (yRrAd)
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 10:04 AM (Ulu3i)
Er ah, murderer is a bit harsh. Anyone might forget that they left a girl in the back of the Oldsmobile at the bottom of a tidal inlet. Let's just call it absent-minded.
Posted by: Zombie Ted Kennedy at July 27, 2010 06:09 AM (7ppar)
Another entry from CSM for Obtuse Headline of the Year award:
It's not 'shoot the messenger' it's 'shoot the criminal'.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:12 AM (RkRxq)
I used to live near a bunch of markers from King Phillips War (Central MA). I read a few books on the subject, etc. Anyway, it always struck me that it must have been terrifying for the settlers/soldiers who initially made contact (and were slaughtered) by the local Indians. The early war parties literally went "Stone Age" on a bunch of farmers and Redcoats. I can't remember all the details, but there were roastings, flayings, dismemberments, etc. with no mercy shown to women or children.
Posted by: lincolntf at July 27, 2010 06:12 AM (+O8yf)
Since we were talking about her accusation of lynching and Maddog's post concern the fact that he was beaten to death instead of being hanged, then it would seem to me that we were talking about the legal term of lynching.
Perhaps you will enlighten us to what this "point" that was spectacularly missed was????
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:12 AM (/jbAw)
Not much, but they do acknowledge that nothing happened at the Obamacare walk. That's more than the rest of the MFM.
No, they are saying that the epithets were used. They just are not blaming Tea Party people, only people standing in or around them.
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at July 27, 2010 06:14 AM (f3Ags)
In other words, innocent but guilty.
Posted by: lincolntf at July 27, 2010 06:14 AM (+O8yf)
That statement is the ubiquitous "they" that is always used by idiots when they have no actual evidence.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:16 AM (/jbAw)
No, they are saying that the epithets were used. They just are not blaming Tea Party people, only people standing in or around them.
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at July 27, 2010 10:14 AM (f3Ags)
Thanks. Just finishing my first cup of coffee.Posted by: Ed Anger at July 27, 2010 06:21 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 10:02 AM (OlN4e)
Too many of the crimes are happening to kids and one thing that we, adults, should try hardest to do imo, is to protect the innocent. And when we fail at that we need to try our damnedest to make certain that they receive justice.
I live in a suburb of a medium sized city. There are more than 100 people designated as sex criminals within that suburb. You can see a plot of where they live online. The fact that they are living free in my community says to me that many of their victims did not get justice and that some other victims will likely pay for that oversight. Those crimes are totally within our society's power to prevent.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:22 AM (RkRxq)
Libel Tourism Law: The gist of the matter is in the U.K. someone being sued for libel must prove that their accusations are true, whereas in the U.S. the person doing the suing must prove that the accusations are false and malicious. Personally seeing how things have gone here in the U.S. I prefer the U.K. version and this new law is B.S.
The press article (go figure) makes it look like evil Saudi billionaires are harassing U.S. writers. I don't favor U.S. citizens being sued or prosecuted in foreign courts for actions that were done in the U.S. but when someone, and yes even a damn newspaper, makes an accusation of "wrongdoing" against another person they should have to prove it. Not have the accused prove a negative.
What congress should be doing is revising the U.S. libel laws to get rid of the B.S. "absence of malice" standard. So if you accuse some Saudi billionaire of funding terrorism you better have some damn evidence that they are, in fact, funding terrorism.
(Corrections added)
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:23 AM (/jbAw)
There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.
Now I'll have Petula Clark in my head all day singing 'Downtown'. It's on youtube but there's now way I can work out this tiny thingy to link it.
Posted by: Decaf at July 27, 2010 06:24 AM (NooBZ)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 06:27 AM (NYbDv)
And calling this scumbag a "Civil Rights era legend" is an affront to decent people of all races. He's the lowest of the low, and any decent political Party would have already censured his sorry racist ass.
Posted by: lincolntf at July 27, 2010 06:29 AM (+O8yf)
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:29 AM (wuv1c)
There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.
Now I'll have Petula Clark in my head all day singing 'Downtown'. It's on youtube but there's now way I can work out this tiny thingy to link it.
Posted by: Decaf at July 27, 2010 10:24 AM (NooBZ)
Here, let me fix that for you:
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:30 AM (RkRxq)
I've got a pretty good imagination, but this scenario won't work for me.
Posted by: Jane D'oh, proud iota of a cracka at July 27, 2010 06:31 AM (UOM48)
A gel that can help decayed teeth grow back in just weeks may mean an end to fillings.
From the Guardian.
This would be amazing news. I know most people don't think about teeth, but they are essential to survival. if you can't eat, you don't live..
i thought this was interesting.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:31 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: jewells at July 27, 2010 06:31 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 10:27 AM (NYbDv)
I share your uncertainty.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:32 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: t-bird at July 27, 2010 06:32 AM (FcR7P)
Yes, and they call it a political party headquarters...
Which reminds me...some free advice for Tea Partiers:
One of your strengths has been your amorphousness while being more or less all aligned on the same axis. However, with the advent of Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus, you might want to get more definitive. This is not so you can support Representative Bachmann per se--but so that you do not get defined by that Caucus.
While I have no major disagreements with that Caucus or its members thus far, the simple fact is that the media and others do need something, anything that can serve to characterize what is commonly called the Tea Party. There is nothing sinister in this--it is just human nature. If a leaderless, formless movement gets associated with a caucus in Congress, then it is only simple human nature that says that caucus will illustrate for the greater public what is and isn't Tea Partyism. But the Caucus--for entirely good reasons--will still have to be governed by certain political needs that may (or may not) also be what you desire. You will also potentially lose the bottom-up features that are your true strength and fall pray to becoming too "normal".
Thus, my earlier advice, surely remembered by no one, stands. You need to, in your individual communities, form discussion groups/book clubs/what have you. You need to start reading the texts of liberty and start becoming more learned, sharper, and so forth--and to start inviting those who would be in office to discuss the same ideas with you. If they can. Not to be trivial, but you must become Jedis Knights of Liberty. You must train.
This is in parallel to 'Borging' the local party of your choice. I submit you will have hard rowing in the Democratic party, but over to you. But at any rate, at the end of the day, for this new spirit of '76 to not die out, you have got to treat it--and I do not mean this sacrilegiously, I am only trying to give a relevant example--you need to treat it like a Sunday school or church separate from the party of your choice. Become a caucus of your own, outside of any political structure--as well as yourself being inside whatever political structure you choose. If you confederate, think of it like a church organization, instead of a traditional top-down PAC or political effort. Those kind of things can still be a part--but it is the local level participation and group nature that is absolutely essential.
Because in addition to all the above, what is eventually going to be necessary for the true rebirth of freedom is for citizens to start participating more vigorously in their local governments. One way to do this is to have neighborhood civic councils, meeting once or twice a month, to discuss local, state, and perhaps federal issues. This is not your town council meeting--but the old "town hall" meeting, except smaller.
Regularly meeting, and a sign of one's entry into the world of adult responsibility, it is, long-term, the only solution I can see that will permanently end the divide between electors and elected; permanently end the world of shallow politics; permanently end the idea that only the ambitious will be able to advance and be recognized. For once this system is robustly in place--say 10 regularly meeting councils actively engaged in a town of , say, 5,000--a very, very, modest number--then it will prove a powerful counterbalance to politics by TV commercial only. I leave it to you to consider why, and the uses such a system can be put to.
Posted by: Horatius at July 27, 2010 06:35 AM (qW9ii)
Here in my town, just being caught urinating in public is a sexual offense. It happened to my son. Yeah he was young, drunk and stupid. So, if he had been convicted he would have been on the list of sex offenders. We nearly shit out pants when we found out.
are you f'ing kidding me?
i pee outside often. I would be a repeat urinating sex offender.
Honestly what man here hasn't peed on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:35 AM (wuv1c)
But they should be held accountable for what they say.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:36 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: jewells at July 27, 2010 10:31 AM (l/N7H)
And that does not represent justice either but it is representative of the decay that needs to be reversed in this country (and I'm aware that I may be overreaching here).
My point is this; look at all of the attempts to legislate our behavior. That is not governments role. Another example is the recent legislative actions of this administration. The original Social Security Act was 64 fraking pages for cripes sake. What the hell is going on with our government now. It's all bullshit and needs to be flushed.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 27, 2010 06:38 AM (RkRxq)
disagree, people should be able to say whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous
But they should be held accountable for what they say.
not legally they shouldn't. In the arena of public opinion, yes.
For example. Dan Rather can do whatever he wants, he can forge documents and lie the day before an election, but he shouldn't go to jail for that. However, he can be ostracized to the point where he is fired and a pariah.
Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:38 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at July 27, 2010 06:39 AM (PLvLS)
Honestly what man here hasn't peed on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 10:35 AM (wuv1c)
Me, for one, but I never golfed.
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 06:39 AM (OlN4e)
Y'know, when someone starts yelling "lynching!", I tend to roll my eyes and put them on 'ignore'.
Posted by: Dang Straights at July 27, 2010 06:39 AM (fx8sm)
Speaking of sex offenders, I always wondered why a pedophile got a second chance to molest? Never could understand that one.
And for those who don't subscribe to the death penalty as a deterrent, It remains the only sure cure for recividism yet devised.
Posted by: irongrampa at July 27, 2010 06:39 AM (ud5dN)
Same here; which is why if they are going to publish these lists they should also publish what they were convicted of.
Personally urinating "in public" should not be classified as a sex crime but in some areas the DA likes publicity.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:39 AM (/jbAw)
I'm shocked, shocked that Ms Race Redemption took more liberties with the truth than those animators that made Sarah Palin from a Final Fantasy character.
/reach
Posted by: Cincinnatus at July 27, 2010 06:41 AM (TGmQa)
Honestly what man here hasn't peed on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 10:35 AM (wuv1c)
Me, for one, but I never golfed.
Maddogg, you don't have to go golfing to pee on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:41 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Jane D'oh, proud iota of a cracka at July 27, 2010 06:42 AM (UOM48)
--------- ------ cut and paste from vic's post -------- ----------
Sherrod Story False>The Spectator story argues on the basis that the racist acts against her family were the product of racist Democrats of the time. There may be some truth to that line but I think it is the wrong tact [sic] to take.
The case involving her “other family member” involved a relative named Bobby Hall being killed by a racist Sheriff named Screws. In that case the Sheriff WAS in fact brought up on charges AND was convicted.He appealed and the first level appeal was denied. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court who reversed based on the need to show “intent” in a case of “civil rights violations” (which was the 1940s era equivalent of out current “hate crime” BS.
----------- ----------------- ---------------------- ---------------
** Any ** argument about this event which is centered around the technical/legal definitions of "lynching" as opposed to "manslaughter" misses the point that a black guy was killed by a group of white guys in the South in the Back-When is going to be considered a "lynching" by the public.
Trying to argue the opposite is picking fly poop out of the pepper.
Cheering on the AmSpec writer who's 'AHA! GOTCHA!' response to Sherrod's story is cheering on dumbassedness.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 27, 2010 06:42 AM (ruzrP)
Same here; which is why if they are going to publish these lists they should also publish what they were convicted of.
Personally urinating "in public" should not be classified as a sex crime but in some areas the DA likes publicity.
Exactly! We really were terrified for him. His life could have been ruined.
Posted by: jewells at July 27, 2010 06:44 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 06:44 AM (OlN4e)
For example. Dan Rather can do whatever he wants, he can forge documents and lie the day before an election, but he shouldn't go to jail for that.
I disagree. If I have to choose between sending a fraud to jail and letting democracy be cheapened ... Following that logic, I would be asking lots of people (eg all of JList) to go to jail, but I can't escape the principle of the thing.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at July 27, 2010 06:44 AM (TGmQa)
We live on a golf course, on a green, so we don't deal with wee-weeing in our view. However, neighbors to one side of us who have a slightly wooded back yard, have even had women pulling down their pants to urinate. The mind boggles.
hope she didn't use a pine cone to clean up.
most golf courses only have toilets at the club house, so if you're out on the 8th hole and you need to pee, you can't just drive back to the club house. Chances are their are people behind you.
Also, the vast majority of golfers are men over 40, so you've got a bunch of guys with enlarged prostates who need to pee every hour without any toilets.
And then there are people like me, who just like the freedom of peeing outside.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:45 AM (wuv1c)
Maddogg, you don't have to go golfing to pee on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 10:41 AM (wuv1c)
True, but you have to be on a golf course to pee on a golf course. I've never set foot on one.
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 06:46 AM (OlN4e)
Speaking of urinating in public: I was caught in a traffic jam last winter. It rained so much the night before that parts of I-30 were under 2 feet of water. The Highway Patrol shut the road down until the water could drain off. The traffic jam was 10 miles long with no way to get off the interstate. I saw many people, after sitting for 3 hours in their vehicles, get out and pee on the pavement. Were they sex offenders? That law is just plain fucking stupid and the product of a lame-assed liberal mind.
It is stupid, you can pee in a bottle while in the car instead.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:46 AM (wuv1c)
You and I have a whole different idea about what the first amendment says and means. Sure congress shall make no law, but scurrilous assholes should not be able to lie and makeup bad shit about people and get away with it.
Freedom of speech and the press applies to government censorship, not on being responsible for what you say after the fact. If some junior reporter for the local commie rag prints a story that says I beat my wife, cheat on her, and steal soda money from the kids next door I should have recourse.
They took away my ability to take the SOB out on the field of honor and put a bullet between his eyes so the least they can do is give me a fair chance to take away his monetary reward for printing lies and libel.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:46 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Jane D'oh, proud iota of a cracka at July 27, 2010 06:47 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 06:49 AM (YJepQ)
Posted by: MJ at July 27, 2010 06:49 AM (BKOsZ)
For example. Dan Rather can do whatever he wants, he can forge documents and lie the day before an election, but he shouldn't go to jail for that.
I disagree. If I have to choose between sending a fraud to jail and letting democracy be cheapened ... Following that logic, I would be asking lots of people (eg all of JList) to go to jail, but I can't escape the principle of the thing.
fair enough. I just don't think Freedom of Speech can be "cheapened". it isn't bad or good, it simply is. Every assessment of what someone says is just a subjective value judgement. i may think Dan Rather is a lying douchebag who wanted to sway the election, but I don't think he should go to jail or be sued over it. He should just be shunned and ignored.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:50 AM (wuv1c)
It is stupid, you can pee in a bottle while in the car instead.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 10:46 AM (wuv1c)
I didn't have a bottle in the car, I assumed those I saw relieving themselves didn't either.
Posted by: maddogg at July 27, 2010 06:50 AM (OlN4e)
Headline we wished were true!
The Obamas will appear on Maury Povich, with Michelle admitting to bopping the White House chef in the pantry. Barack cries like a wussie, and begs her to stay.
Posted by: Fish at July 27, 2010 06:51 AM (v1gw3)
Posted by: Mazzuchelli at July 27, 2010 06:51 AM (0JTac)
First off, you challenged my response to Maddogg, not the original post. Second I did not "cheer on" the Spectator response. I said they took the wrong tact.
The overall point was that she said her "relative" was lynched b racist KKK members. He was not. He was beaten to death by a sheriff under more than dubious circumstances. In addition, the sheriff was convicted which puts her story in even more of a dubious light.
So I think it is you who are missing the point in a spectacular manner.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:52 AM (/jbAw)
You and I have a whole different idea about what the first amendment says and means. Sure congress shall make no law, but scurrilous assholes should not be able to lie and makeup bad shit about people and get away with it.
that's the key phrase in my mind. Someone else's "should not" could end what i consider to be perfectly fine ideas and speech.
I don't want what we say subject to restriction because someone thinks we should not be saying it.
I want as few laws and restrictions on speech as possible.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:53 AM (wuv1c)
So Osama Obama's gonna be on the View?
His presence on the set sertainly won't upset the estrogen balance.
Posted by: ErikW at July 27, 2010 09:45 AM (a99VB)
He could wear Whoopie's pants, and no one would think twice.
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Pro Debate Squad, And Summoner Of Meteors. at July 27, 2010 06:53 AM (eCAn3)
Apparently there is a big stink about the Lt Gov of Tenn saying stuff about Islam in response to a question. Has anyone seen that? I've only heard it on the radio.
Posted by: dagny at July 27, 2010 06:53 AM (MKXyr)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 27, 2010 06:54 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Ian S. at July 27, 2010 06:54 AM (p05LM)
Posted by: Jane D'oh, proud iota of a cracka at July 27, 2010 06:55 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at July 27, 2010 06:56 AM (SB0V2)
So Barky has loads of free time to visit the shrews on The View but no time for the Boy Scouts 100th anniversary Jamboree (and D'oh is going this weekend). That being said, after he ignored them last year, he wasn't issued an invitation this year. What a jackass. He's not even signing Eagle Scout certificates. I'm so glad D'oh Boy's has W's signature.
he can't visit the boy scouts, they are intolerant asshole who aren't open to the idea of letting their 6-7 year old boys go camping for days with a middle aged homosexual.
And before you all think i am one sided. I wouldn't let my daughter, if i had one, go camping with a middle aged straight guy.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 06:57 AM (wuv1c)
They are suing in the UK because our laws are so screwed up thanks to Sullivan v NYT. If we fixed that then they can pass all the laws they want forcing the Saudis to sue in US courts.
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 06:58 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Jane D'oh, proud iota of a cracka at July 27, 2010 07:00 AM (UOM48)
I know I'm coming in late but how is a white sherriff convicted of manslaughter "the same" as a lynching by the KKK?
Is a black cop convicted of undue force "the same" as a beating by the New Black Panthers?
Posted by: dagny at July 27, 2010 07:01 AM (MKXyr)
Posted by: Ian S. at July 27, 2010 07:01 AM (p05LM)
Posted by: dagny at July 27, 2010 07:03 AM (IQChK)
While democrats sound like desperate broken records with their standard fear mongering.... Paul Ryan kicks ass.
The democrat meme returns: The evil scary rethuglicans want to privatize social security! Be afraid, and vote Corruptocrat(D).
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at July 27, 2010 07:03 AM (0fzsA)
Someone is having fun with Oliver Stone's wikipedia page
Born
William (sucks big dick) Oliver Stone
September 15, 1946 (1946-09-15)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at July 27, 2010 07:06 AM (1Jaio)
133
that's the key phrase in my mind. Someone else's "should not" could end what i consider to be perfectly fine ideas and speech.
I don't want what we say subject to restriction because someone thinks we should not be saying it.
I want as few laws and restrictions on speech as possible.
If you lie about someone, you have actually assaulted them by damaging their reputation. (as Vic said, that is why duels were fought) The old "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" question comes to mind here. Free speach is not a license to cause harm.
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at July 27, 2010 07:07 AM (f3Ags)
;" href="http://tinyurl.com/25jkxkg">The Non-Profit corruption Loophole.
No wonder progressives love the Non-Profit idea. Graft the tax-payer & give millions to campaign donors. Call it stimulus.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at July 27, 2010 07:07 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 07:07 AM (p302b)
Now I agree with that 100%
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 07:08 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Conservative Voice at July 27, 2010 07:09 AM (jwQpK)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 27, 2010 07:10 AM (0GFWk)
July 27 (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. consumers declined in July to a five-month low, a sign the lack of jobs will limit the economyÂ’s recovery.
“Consumers’ faith in the economic recovery is failing,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, whose forecast of 50.3 was the closest among economists surveyed by Bloomberg. “The job market is slow and volatile, and it’ll be 2013 before we see any semblance of normality in the labor market. It means weaker purchases.”
2013? What happened to Recovery Summer?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at July 27, 2010 07:11 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: curious at July 27, 2010 07:13 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 07:14 AM (Nr5/m)
Sure, if you're in another country that country's rules obviously apply. But we don't ever want the case where the Scandis get uppity and arrest Ace for telling people they're filthy.
Posted by: Ian S. at July 27, 2010 07:14 AM (p05LM)
Who knows, maybe even Nance herself will come down from her high horse and grace us all with her presence? Rumor has it that she'll show us how to airbrush ourselves into looking 50 years younger. Just sayin.
Posted by: Gabe at July 27, 2010 07:15 AM (w74G6)
There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.
...and she's buying a stairway to heaven.
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 27, 2010 07:15 AM (aGwHt)
Health care bill, Financial bill and looming EPA rules. And 2013 is wishful thinking.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 27, 2010 07:17 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Jean at July 27, 2010 07:19 AM (fQbcU)
There should be no limit on free speech, but unsupported, unprovable libel is not protected.
John Lewis, Nanzi Pelosi and Al Sharpton called me a "racist honky mo-fo." Prove he didn't. I say he did.
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 27, 2010 07:23 AM (Ulu3i)
Obama the Muslim
-Major General Jerry Curry
You can call him a Communist, under the same reasoning. And I do.
Posted by: real joe at July 27, 2010 07:26 AM (IpIBJ)
I got fined $1,200 for urinating in public (actually indecent exposure).
I had to go really bad and was stuck traffic backed up by construction. When the traffic jam finally broke up I drove like a bat out of hell through the construction site to the closest place where I could hop over the bank and relieve myself. So I'm finally passing water and feeling much better when a State Trooper walks up to me. He says he clocked me doing 80 in a construction zone. I tell him I really had to piss bad and would probably lose my license if he gave me a speeding ticket. Plus, fines are doubled in construction zones. And my insurance would go through the roof. So the Trooper says I can take my choice: speeding ticket or indecent exposure. So I said indecent exposure. Had to pay $100 per inch.
Posted by: Ed Anger at July 27, 2010 07:26 AM (7+pP9)
Health care bill, Financial bill and looming EPA rules. And 2013 is wishful thinking.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 27, 2010 11:17 AM (tf9Ne)
That can't be true. Barry has created 300 gazillion new jobs. And the MFM never questions him on it so it must be true. We know they are good fact checkers like Bob "Not now, I'm on vacation" Shieffer
Posted by: TheQuietMan at July 27, 2010 07:30 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 07:31 AM (/jbAw)
So I said indecent exposure. Had to pay $100 per inch.
Posted by: Ed Anger at July 27, 2010 11:26 AM (7+pP9)
I guess that $300 really hurt your budget?
Posted by: Fish at July 27, 2010 07:32 AM (v1gw3)
and this station carries beck and the crew. Is this his hub?
Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 07:33 AM (p302b)
Let's make this chis tingle legs thing go virtual.
Slublog needs a photo shop of the one in a cardigan sweater.
Attack bunny nest photo shop.
There is mischief to be done. Morons, to your stations!
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 07:37 AM (2+9Yx)
It's Michael Smercocksucker. He's not even a moderate; Smerconish is a full-blown Obama jock-sniffer.
Posted by: 1969 Ford Blow Me at July 27, 2010 07:37 AM (uFokq)
So when is a new thread showing up, about 12pm EST?
That assumes Ace wakes up by then. My guess, the usual, 3:00.
We're being tough on the Ewok, but it's tough love.
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 07:39 AM (2+9Yx)
wow 200 bucks?
Ur maths is wrong. He said $1,200 which is $1.20 when written in US type numbering. So, I think your number is way too high...
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at July 27, 2010 07:39 AM (f3Ags)
Horses are hung. People are hanged.
I'm hung too....IYKWIMAYPD........just ask my inflatable girlfriend.
Posted by: Palin Steele (banned, but not forgotten) at July 27, 2010 09:50 AM (OWjjx)
LOL!!
Maybe Ace should have a Palin Steele day. Repost some of his most crazy rants.
Good times. Dumb trolls don't come around much any more. Gee wonder why?
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 07:43 AM (2+9Yx)
Sure, if you're in another country that country's rules obviously apply. But we don't ever want the case where the Scandis get uppity and arrest Ace for telling people they're filthy.
I'm gonna take issue with your referring to philthy Scandi icebacks as "people".
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at July 27, 2010 07:43 AM (P9+0W)
Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 07:44 AM (p302b)
Smerconish is a full-blown Obama jock-sniffer.
He started out his career with a job in the Bush Sr. administration. Maybe he's trying for a position in the train wreck's cabinet.
Posted by: kallisto at July 27, 2010 07:48 AM (+FkcS)
Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 07:48 AM (2+9Yx)
Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 07:55 AM (p302b)
Anyone wanna bet Christiane Amanpour will suck? Well, that's already clear. Unless This Week is filmed from a desert outside Bagram and doesn't involve domestic politics.
But will she last? Even ABC got rid of Sephanopoulis. I say no. I give her about a year.
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 27, 2010 07:57 AM (aGwHt)
Honestly what man here hasn't peed on a golf course.
Hell, I've peed on the Nurburgring.
@142, 146: The Girl Scouts have no connection whatever to the Boy Scouts. The founding ideals of Scouting, at one hundred years remove, really are pretty liberal, and not classically liberal either. One encounters all sorts of rump liberals among scouters--especially that most dangerous breed, the socialist who thinks he's a conservative. That said, Girl Scouts carries water for every conceivable modern leftist cause with the merest disguise, while the BSA usually manages to at least remain [nervously] agnostic in politics. It is by no means the conservative stronghold the public imagines it to be.
I would think long and hard (a-heh) about sending a girl into the Girl Scouts. Morally upright, in some ways, perhaps, but an ethical cesspool.
Posted by: comatus at July 27, 2010 07:59 AM (hrwMe)
Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 08:03 AM (p302b)
108 Honestly what man here hasn't peed on a golf course.
Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2010 10:35 AM (wuv1c)
If you mean miniature golf course, then well sure.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at July 27, 2010 08:28 AM (ASdwP)
Posted by: Vic at July 27, 2010 08:44 AM (/jbAw)
Anyways, let's try the link again. for #205.....LINK
Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 08:52 AM (p302b)
Yeah, he feels out financial hardships, alright.
I repeat: 'President' JACKASS
Posted by: Timothy S. Carlson at July 27, 2010 03:48 PM (u2dhQ)
I haven't read through all the comments yet, but it's not the electric car you want. It's the hydrogen car. It's the first thing the Zero Admin put the kibosh on when they came to town.
Posted by: RushBabe at July 28, 2010 07:58 AM (W8m8i)
Highest quality arsenal merchandise will to meet your expectation.Real Madrid merchandise are made from the highest quality parts and crafted with such attention to detail.We offer discount price for you. When you order England Premiere League merchandise at our site
Posted by: Real Madrid merchandise at September 01, 2010 05:59 PM (FB+O0)
Posted by: kevin at October 17, 2010 07:01 PM (OHD1n)
Posted by: aamina at October 21, 2010 09:10 PM (1PgjR)
Posted by: Vetement Ralph Lauren at May 24, 2011 11:26 AM (L6TMn)
Posted by: Thomas Sabo Online at June 30, 2011 01:25 AM (rDuNS)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2301 seconds, 327 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Kemp at July 27, 2010 05:10 AM (2+9Yx)