Confederate Yankee
June 15, 2010
Saville Report on "Bloody Sunday" Released
The 60-page executive summary of the report seeks to explain the actions of January 30, 1972, where British paratroopers massacred unarmed Irish civil rights protesters, shooting many of them as they ran away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
March was illegal, ivan cooper should be jailed for allowing the march to proceed when it was clean provos were carrying guns
Posted by: william donaldson at June 18, 2010 08:17 AM (YkFQr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 14, 2010
"Violent Bob" Etheridge On the Way Out of Congress?
Bob Etheridge's assault of a student reporter last week went viral this morning when the videos went out on Brietbart.com and BigGovernment.com. Frankly, the thug should resign for his behavior, but that requires more honor than I think he retains.
It remains to be seen if his victims will press charges.
Even if Etheridge doesn't have the decency or sense of shame to resign, disgust at his assault has led to a huge increase in donations for his Republican challenger, nurse
Renee Ellmer, in a district that leans conservative.
Etheridge was supposed to be a lock in November. Now it appears he's just as likely to be locked up.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:56 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am sure the Washington Post can be depended upon to write some hundred plus articles, op-eds, and editorials on this incident. Oh sorry,Etheridge is democrat. It does not matter.
Posted by: DavidL at June 14, 2010 03:42 PM (EmDLH)
2
I live in the 3rd district and his actions shame me, he was elected in 1996 and he needs to be voted out of office.
Posted by: duncan at June 14, 2010 04:03 PM (lGcPs)
3
Demo's are becoming unhinged because they bought into a failed, incompetent president who sold them and this country a "pack of lies" "The chickens are coming home to roooooost."
Posted by: mixitup at June 14, 2010 04:56 PM (Z21cb)
4
I love reading the left-leaning apologists I'm seeing on the blogs and comment areas of various news websites -- "the reporters were conservative plants," "they had it coming," "I would have slugged anyone who put a camera in my face," etc.
Law school 101 folks: no one has the right to assault and battery another person, except in self-defense. A camera in one's face, particularly when you are a politician or celebrity in the public eye, is not grounds for self-defense; just ask Sean Penn. Etheridge is an attorney by training. He knows this better than most and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Posted by: AtticusNC at June 14, 2010 05:00 PM (dN+ar)
5
as soon as he hit that kid and then grabbed his wrist and wouldnt let go should have been the moment he took a fist sandwich to the mouth from the kids free hand.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 14, 2010 05:44 PM (60WiD)
6
This man is typical of all Demonrats. He must be voted out of office in November. This man is not fit to hold the office the voters honored him with by electing him in the first place.
Posted by: Frank at June 14, 2010 06:01 PM (jirxU)
7
Well I don't want to say "see one Democrat, you've seen them all". But this drunken putz seems a fair specimen of a Democrat gone native in D.C.
Posted by: Comanche Voter at June 14, 2010 06:56 PM (ktYjH)
8
In any jurisdiction in the nation, the police are not constrained by a victim's desires. In other words, if the police have probable cause to make an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, they may simply obtain an arrest warrant and make that arrest regardless of whether the victim wants the suspect arrested or not.
That said, the police do have substantial, legitimate discretion and there are certainly reasons why they might not make a given arrest even though they would be justified in so doing. However this video is more than sufficient probable cause for any competent police officer to apply for an arrest warrant and more than sufficient for any competent district attorney to complete the necessary paperwork and prosecute the case. In fact, having such a video would make any competent prosecutor giddy with delight and any defense attorney desperate to plea bargain to keep that video and a jury as far apart as possible.
Of course, in DC, politicians of the proper rank may well be immune to arrest, though since this one is a white male, he may be a bit less immune than some. However, the DC police can surely arrest the man, and the DC prosecutors can prosecute him, should they have the testicular fortitude necessary. There is no doubt that he committed an assault.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 14, 2010 08:42 PM (dXJzV)
9
He's a dhimmicrap; the words "decency" and "shame" aren't in their dictionary.
Posted by: emdfl at June 14, 2010 08:56 PM (vwRFo)
10
He can only pick on old women and young boys. They are all cowards. Would never to that to a man.
Posted by: Ben at June 15, 2010 06:36 AM (eXdIs)
11
The truly amazing thing is the utterly mundane nature of the question. The only slightly tendentious aspect of it is the "fully". How is it inflamatory in the least to ask a politician if he supports the agenda of his President? Obviously the inflammation is in the agenda. Or perhaps the very word "agenda" is a scurrilous slander? Bottom line is that whether they are socialists or straightline communists or enviro loons or racial spoils hustlers the major animating and unifying element here is that all these pukes are idiots. John Kerry and Howard Dean and James Carville no less than Axelrod, Rahm-but or the Big O himself. Oh, and that includes both all Clintons, needless to say.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 15, 2010 06:51 AM (GkvNf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 13, 2010
How Should We Treat a President That Pathologically Lies?
President Obama's preposterous claim was such a bald faced-lie that I'm not sure how Lori Montgomery managed to get past the first paragraph of her article without collapsing from laughter:
President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid "massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters" and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.
It was a load of crap when Obama made this exact same claim in
October of 2009, a load of crap when House made the same claim in
December of 2009, it is a load of crap now, and will be a load of crap in six months or a year when he asks for billions yet again.
Barack Obama has not saved the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters; he's saved the jobs of mid-level politicos, inefficient bureaucrats, and blustery, blundering public-sector stooges.
The current bureaucrat bailout is a stop-gap measure to preserve—for purely political reasons—the size and scope of government, to add to the size of government, and to keep our increasingly fictional unemployment figures from spiraling into the earth.
Despite wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, the Democratic Party has done nothing to help the economy. We shouldn't be too hard on them, however; you can't expect them to be able to help the economy, because liberals don't understand basic economic principles. Their buggered thinking tells them that more and bigger government solves problems, and they are simply not wired to understand that the massive tax liabilities and and billion-dollar mandates are detrimental to economic growth.
Telling a Democrat to pass more legislation to help the economy is like telling a lamprey to suck harder to help the fish. The parasites will do everything they can to work harder, but the simple fact of the matter is they are not built to help. They are build to suck the life out of their hosts.
Teachers, firefights and police officers are vital public servants. Their jobs are secure, and we all know it.
Barack Obama lies about the real purpose of this bill—funding useless bureaucrats—because he knows you will not tolerate such waste. He can't help himself, though.
Parasites are parasites by nature, and it is useless to expect them to change.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How should we treat such a President? I believe the appropriate response was uttered in the movie, "Blazing Saddles".
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at June 14, 2010 11:25 AM (sJuvx)
2
We keep throwing money at systems that are broken. In Louisiana, I think the school administration represents 60% of the budget. As far as the cops and firefighters, I drive 90 miles to a job twice a week, along the way are at least 10 cop cars. Now this is an interstate with generally very good drivers. The only reason is to apply yet another tax in the form of speeding tickets. This is useless. The times I have needed a cop (burglery, etc.) they are not there or inclined to help. Firefighters are a little different story. For the most part they seem ok, but I live just outside the city and rely on the volunteer fighters. As such, my insurance premiums actually went down! The volunteer bunch will do anything to help.
At every level the bureaucracy in broken and far too expensive. Look at the gulf spill, the bureaucracy is making a tought situation into one that is impossilbe.
Posted by: David at June 14, 2010 11:48 AM (st2+Q)
3
"Save the teachers" is an annual chant from gov't, education, and union officials. Teacher union negotiators actually put into the contracts that "pink slips" are to be handed out to teachers and staff at the end of every school year. The original purpose, I'm sure, was to evaluate teacher performance, weeding out good from bad, and start the new school year with majority good teaching staff. What it's come to is a big stick used to club citizens into paying higher taxes "for the children" when the reality is the money goes to salaries of teachers, staff, but mostly union officials. When the new term begins, the good, bad, and ugly teachers and staff are back. At the end of the year, the process begins anew.
Posted by: Indigo Red at June 14, 2010 12:01 PM (4OVMU)
4
Thought you would be interested in this email.
This was sent to me by a resident of Lafayette, LA.
Subject: Message From Grand Isle
I witnessed something yesterday I wanted to share with my friends. I was in Grand Isle yesterday when we were visited by our president. Our street has about a dozen camps, one permanent resident, on it and yesterday we had a fair crowd of people. The first incident that was brought to my attention was four bus loads of, I guess you could call them workers, was spotted at the Bridge Side marina and looked as if they had come from New Orleans and not the most desirable workers if you get my drift. For you that do not know Bridge Side is the first marina coming onto Grand Isle and this is where the buses stopped and the WORKERS got off. I later witnessed not four but five buses pass our street on Hwy 1 going to the end of the island our president was to visit. I made a statement to my neighbors they were probably going to stage a senerio where a large amount of people were working on our oil spill problem and guess what, I was right. Liz and I witnessed this on one of the specials when I got home and a large number of men had rakes and were dressed in white hazardous suits working on the beach. No one has seen these guys before yesterday and no one can find them now. I was told WWL is getting question after question about this today, go figure our leader not being truthful and staging something like this.
The next thing I really found astonishing was no on cared that he was on the island. I later saw 38 cops on motorcycles, yes I did count them, and many other police vehicles escort what I am sure was the president in his motorcade of black suburbans. I was told he landed in Fouchon, about 10 miles from Grand Isle, then was brought to Grand Isle in the motorcade. I did see his helicopter and the escorts fly north of us to meet him at the Coast Guard facility were he spoke. My point is when he went down hwy 1 not one person made an attempt to see him. There was no one taking pictures, no one even looking in his direction, no one lining the streets and waving flags, no one cared. I really think if that had of been any of our prior presidents, even Clinton , an attempt would have been made to be along the side of the road and cheer or wave. It is really sad that this country is being run by a man no one likes or has any respect for. God help us get through the change.
Posted by: David at June 14, 2010 02:21 PM (st2+Q)
5
It's too late to save the teachers jobs, those that aren't already out of work will be in the next week or so. It happens every year at about this time.
Posted by: Rip VanBullwinkle at June 14, 2010 02:36 PM (cFGyS)
6
CY and David ... I'm not surprised that Mr. O was not welcomed enthusiastically to Grand Isle, or indeed anywhere on the Gulf Coast. If he really wanted to help us, he'd stop treating this like his daily photo-op, stay in Washington, and do something substantive, like waive the Jones Act temporarily so that we could get foreign registry container ships and scientific ships into the Gulf to help clear the oil, clean up that corrupt Government agency, the Minerals Management service, by firing those in charge and putting in new management who are at least somewhat more ethical. Most of all, he could stop making bloviating speeches blaming the oil production companies for the spill because we have "too little government control of the oil industry." The oil industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. We probably need less regulation rather than more. And most of all, we need honest regulators.
He could stay in Washington and do that. And still manage to get in his daily golf game. Best of all, we wouldn't have to listen to his patronizing speeches.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 14, 2010 02:38 PM (Aaj8s)
7
"How Should We Treat a President That Pathologically Lies?"
Like a very dangerous tool.
But it is Geppeto that we need to worry about.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at June 14, 2010 03:22 PM (OmeRL)
8
As was so often the case during W and Clinton, the issue lies mostly on the definition of the word "lie". Per George Costanza, it isn't a lie if YOU believe it. The Lefty punditocracy is nearly unanimous that the problem with the late stimuli is that it was insufficient. This 50b is chump on macro econ terms but it does what the Lefties want, which is more of the same. Is Obama that stupid? If you were to get any of these bigwheel Obies under truth serum what you would find is that faith in Keynes is fractured but they still have full faith and credit in the cyclical nature of the downturn. They are certain that everything will come back: unemployment, growth, soundness of the dollar... the trick is to be positioned to claim credit when it does. Of course if you believe, as most folks here do, that the stubborness of the troubles if not the problems themselves are a product of the massive spending and other interventions in our business affairs by a raft of morons with ivy league sheepskins, you percieve that the Obama bus is heading for a cliff with the gas jammed down and the brakes pulled out.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 15, 2010 07:01 AM (GkvNf)
9
Impeachment comes to mind.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at June 15, 2010 10:27 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Concealed Carry: Rights and Responsibilities
I mentioned several weeks ago in passing that I spent a weekend at the local shooting range taking the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course. Some of the students in the class had questions for the senior-most instructor on whether or thought we needed more rigid training and competency standards to acquire a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina.
How do we balance our right to arms with the responsibility of employing them?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:34 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting question. In Texas, for example, everyone must take the state mandated and approved course (about eight hours), which must be taught by instructors certified by the state. Even those instructors must take an approved and mandated course offered only in Austin (state capitol). The course consists of a review of related state laws and a basic, minimal qualification shoot. The entire process, including fees, costs around $200.00. All of this for the exercise of a constitutional right in a "shall issue" state.
What is also interesting is that individual training and experience counts for nothing. I, for example, hold multiple NRA and other training certifications and have achieved expert status with small arms and have the appropriate documentation, but this counts for nothing. In short, I've spent many thousands of dollars and many thousands of hours attaining and maintaining a far greater degree of knowledge and proficiency than that attained by the state mandated course, but state law ignores this in favor of uniformity. And while one can always learn something from nearly any situation, it is hardly a good use of time and manpower to reteach 9th grade science--for example--to people who hold a PhD in physics. The greatest weakness in this process is that the use of deadly force and tactics receives very little time indeed.
There are several states which allow concealed carry and have no licensing/qualification requirements (apart from the usual prohibitions regarding the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc.). I am unaware of a greater degree of citizen errors in those few states than in states such as Texas. This would seem to suggest that the balance in most states is too heavily on the side of state regulation.
The solution? Establish multiple paths to certification, including a state sponsored method, and certification through alternative methods. Anyone holding NRA instructor certification, or certification through any of the several internationally known shooting academies such as Gunsite or Thunder Ranch should obviously be certified as their knowledge and proficiency would clearly outstrip that offered by and required by the standards of virtually every state. Charge no more than is actually required for the legitimate processing of data and establish an easy, fast method of doing this by internet. The bottom line is to eliminate, to the maximum degree possible, governmental intrusion into private enterprise and maximize the opportunity for the appropriate exercise of the free market where citizens will not only gain greater knowledge, but greater proficiency.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 13, 2010 09:30 AM (dXJzV)
2
Interesting question and very applicable here in Arizona, as we're about to switch over to Alaska-style concealed carry at the end of July.
The soon-to-expire CCW process in Arizona is a licensing and not a training program. There were people in my CCW class who couldn't hit paper at 5 yards, so my instructor worked with them until they were at least able to hit the target and pass the test. These same people could open-carry a pistol without a license, so the CCW process was, to them, a quick intro to the basics of firearms law and a few hours of range time. When it comes to knowing how to safely carrying a firearm and use it to save lives, they'd be better off taking an NRA Personal Protection class than getting the government's seal of approval to carry a pistol.
Posted by: ExurbanKevin at June 13, 2010 10:52 AM (toqoX)
3
My state of Washington is one of those that has no requirement for training to carry a concealed weapon. Interestingly enough, passing the NRA Hunter Safety Course is required generally (if you are older than dirt like me, no requirement) in order to purchase a hunting license.
Anecdotally, we have had incidents with both types of firearms--hunting and self-defense. Recently a man shot himself in the testicles while at a store. . I did not read a follow-up on this regarding arrest, so I will assume that this fellow was a legal CCP holder. This is what I would call a good teaching moment.
Much more sadly, two years ago a young boy hunting with his slightly older brother shot and killed a woman while bear hunting. There was considerable talk about underage hunters at the time, though I don't know how it turned out. I am certain both boys had taken and passed the Hunter Safety Course. The same year, a hunter was killed by another in his party who was unloading his rifle.
Anecdotes, yes. But state certification of the sort you describe in Texas and sounds like the case in SC can never prevent poor decisions with deadly weapons. And the more extensive Hunter Safety Course didn't protect the hiker and hunter. People are always looking for a perfect fix and, of course, are always disappointed.
For myself, I still haven't taken any extensive self-defense class to accompany my CCP. I can only plead that 50 years of handling firearms safely, years of shooting competitively (rifle and shotgun), 4 years military schooling, months of time spent hunting (amazing how nearly every day is wet and cold) and tens of thousands of rounds punched into paper or clay pigeons provides a rationale for not going through the effort. A bogus rationale, but a rationale nonetheless. Am I more likely to shoot my testicles off than someone with basic training? Someone else's?
I cannot help but speculate that the loss of the general draft has created a large class of people in this country who have not had firearm safety drilled into their very genes by a friendly DI. Several hundred pushups, latrine duty, and verbal tongue-lashing at weapon-grade level tends to stick in one's mind. As bad as the draft was for the professional military (they hated draftees), it might have been better overall for society, at least in this regard.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 13, 2010 11:02 AM (23sZE)
4
Very interesting article, and a problem without an easy answer.
One of the problems with more regulation is regulation of the regulators. Who rides herd on a bureaucracy that exists primarily to stay in power? And that bureaucracy, in this case, drafts rules on subjects the primary policy-makers may know little if anything about first-hand, as they depend on "experts" to advise them. And how do they choose which "experts" to believe? What gives folks who are primarily sales agents -- selling themselves to the public -- any qualification to dictate to the rest of us how we may do what we do?
I'm not against regulation, as we regularly seem to demonstrate that we need it in so many areas, but how do we get some plain old common sense back into the mix? Especially in this area, where a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't seem to serve us well?
One thing that stands out to me in all of this, and something that our current political situation should make evident to anyone who's paying attention, is that we are once more shown our need to take care of ourselves. Government can't do it for us, just as it can't really effectively defend the individual. Anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm needs to take the time to attain more than a passing familiarity with it, and to maintain some skill in its use. No amount of regulation will do that for him/her.
Posted by: Goatroper at June 13, 2010 11:41 AM (l0xOh)
5
Cars kill more people in the US than guns. Should we then require an additional qualifying courses for each driver? Granted driving is a privilege, firearms are a Constitutional guaranteed right - at least in some states until McDonald is decided - but the underlining concept is the same. Regardless, this is the price paid by a free people... stupid people get the same rights. It's the moment when we start interfering at the individual level that we are no longer free, regardless of the justifications or inherent intentions used to justify the actions. To me the danger of stupid individuals driving or owning fire-arms is more acceptable than the dangers of someone else determining what I can or cannot do.
Posted by: PMain at June 13, 2010 12:30 PM (fs1gP)
6
It's one thing to acknowledge it is wise to obtain training in firearms. It is quite another to suggest that the state should determine what that training should be. This is simply another slippery-slope area that gun-banners can use to discourage citizens from bearing arms. If a state requires many hours of training and many hundreds of dollars in expense, fewer people will have (or carry) guns.
Legally, I view these requirements as analogous to the literacy tests that were used to keep black people off the voting rolls. Until the 1960's, these laws were widespread in the South. Ultimately, federal law, and the Supreme Court, established that voting is a "fundamental right" and that no qualifications could be imposed to prevent a citizen from exercising it. I would argue that our right to bear arms, enshrined in the Bill of Rights and many state constitutions, is also a "fundamental right."
Posted by: Michael Kubacki at June 13, 2010 03:22 PM (eXdIs)
7
Here in Va. we have to undergo a two-day (16-hour) course taught by the state police. We learn the law, safety measures, and also how to shoot. On the first day you get to practice; on the second day you shoot for a score. If your scores on the written exam and the shooting test don't meet the minimum, you don't get the concealed-carry permit. I didn't mind it; it seemed fair to me. It's not as if the standard was so stringent no one could pass, but on the other hand, like with a driving test, if you can't demonstrate reasonable knowledge and skill, you have no business having a license. Obviously the state imposes an "arbitrary" standard for driving, and we don't object to that; why object to this, so long as the tests aren't weighted to ensure that no one passes. And that's the slippery slope some are referring to.
Posted by: Sterling at June 13, 2010 05:59 PM (XE19V)
8
Sterling
The big difference is that there is no right to drive whereas there is a constitutional right to bear arms.
Posted by: Iconoclast at June 13, 2010 07:08 PM (y5nJt)
9
I am moving to Texas next month from the UK, which has some of the most ridiculous firearms laws in the world, including a mandatory five-year sentence for even possessing a handgun in the home (no license allowed). So Texas will be a relief after that. However, I moved to the UK from Indiana, which has a no training requirement. That was fine for me, because I grew up with lots of guns, have understood firearm safety from a very early age, and I'm a decent shot. I really didn't have to consider whether other people were fit to carry a pistol.
I don't oppose the Texas law on principle. Government does have an interest in maintaining public safety. Since it cannot discriminate between urban dwellers and rural dwellers, it has to ensure the safety of everyone. It seems to me that the Texas law needs some adjustment to take into account the variety of training available. I also don't think establishing competency to exercise the full extent of a Constitutional right should be a money-making enterprise for the State, though it is reasonable to cover administrative costs.
Posted by: Sol at June 13, 2010 07:17 PM (0JEE5)
10
Responding to Sterling: Iconoclast and Michael Kubacki both make good points, primarily that the right to keep and bear arms is recognized, along with other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as being inherent, not granted by any government.
You also illustrate the problem with regulation I tried to bring up earlier, though not so well as these two. I also live in VA, and when I obtained my permit (which, per the Constitution, I should not have to do) I attended one class by an NRA-certified instructor, with optional range time and no score kept for the latter. Apparently your locality has imposed its own regulation on top of the state's, and that is the problem across the land, even with supposedly one-size-fits-all regulation.
Why should I need the state's permission to do for myself what the state will not be able to do?
Posted by: Goatroper at June 13, 2010 07:25 PM (l0xOh)
11
I am going to say no to maditory training, yet will always encourage folks not familar with guns to get training of some kind.
The reason I say no is, it isn't provided for in the Second Amendment. Therefor I see it as a form of infringment.
Posted by: Michael at June 14, 2010 07:34 AM (PU7e+)
12
As a former LEO, it's been my observation that much of the CCW training is focused on safety rather than situational awareness and appropriate response. At worst, CCW training is another government sponsored boondoggle.
The best training I received involved showing video clips projected on a paper screen in a shooting range and actually shooting my duty weapon at the projected image. This was an excellent method for learning when to shoot as well as learning when not to shoot and how to stop before firing.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at June 14, 2010 11:35 AM (sJuvx)
13
We need less law. We need fewer rules and regulations. We have too much government. Our efforts should be directed at streamlining any process and getting bureaucrats out.
Mike, I live in the South. The reason for requiring people to read before voting was just that, having people know what they were doing. Now they are given a sample form with the checks already made and led to the voting booth. This is true of whites and blacks and illegals that shouldn't be voting to begin with. Our country was founded on restricted voting priveledges. You had to own a stake in the country before you voted. We need to return to that concept. It makes no sense whatever to have other people vote away your wealth and hard earned income.
Posted by: David at June 14, 2010 11:57 AM (st2+Q)
14
I believe firearms training comes under the "...well regulated militia..." part of the 2nd Amendment with the Founders understanding that the citizenry are the militia constituted to protect themselves and neighbors from enemies both foreign and domestic. By this, one could argue that it is in fact the Constitutional responsibilty of the gov't to provide the firearms and the training. But, good luck with that.
Posted by: Indigo Red at June 14, 2010 12:10 PM (4OVMU)
15
Last time I checked the constitution no one needed a licence to carry a gun,mortar,bazooka,cannon,or any other type of weapon. so all this nonsense about liscensing is....nonsense.
Posted by: ron at June 16, 2010 01:50 PM (8wqWF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 11, 2010
Area Woman Mauled by Small Furry Creature
The Carolina fox jihad continues:
Dorothy Holland said Friday that she was planting flowers barefoot in the back yard of her Holly Springs home when the animal attacked her for what she thought was about five to 10 minutes.
A neighbor responding to her screams for help managed to scare the fox behind a building, where another neighbor shot it twice.
"I thought I was going to die," Holland said. "I thought this was my last day."
Holland suffered numerous wounds to her feet and has a serious infection in her left foot that has her hospitalized at WakeMed in Cary.
She said she believes she wouldn't have survived had it not been for her neighbors.
Hey...
Talon Thomas can't be everywhere.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:45 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, if Talon Thomas couldn't be there, he should have sent his assistants, Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris.
Posted by: MikeM at June 11, 2010 07:04 PM (zfcnf)
2
Kinda funny, having 2 120 lb domestic wolves, the foxes and coyotes stay away from my property.Now the kids in the neighborhood have a different opinion.Bear(my 10 yr old male) is like the good pied piper, he knows every kid and dog within 2 miles of the house and they all come out to greet him on our nightly walk. If you haven't seen a big wolf surrounded by 4-6 little kids, pullin' on his ears,tail and kissin' his face, you haven't lived.
Posted by: ck at June 11, 2010 08:07 PM (FilQu)
3
I am afraid Carolina has a serious rabies problem.
Posted by: David at June 12, 2010 01:10 PM (st2+Q)
4
So it's true - Fox is rabidly right-wing.
Posted by: Tim at June 12, 2010 06:53 PM (nc6/K)
5
Tim - OH you are such a WHIT! Lets see - hmmmm - you libs only have: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, AJC, Reuters, Assoc. Press, Newsweek, Time, Vanity Fair, US News & World Report, and just about EVERY local newspaper and TV station - and you guys get so apoplectic over FOX. Funny how you libs have such a hard time with "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" when it doesn't agree with your cockamamie beliefs!!!!
Posted by: mixitup at June 12, 2010 08:49 PM (Z21cb)
6
I've seen them in my back yard area (it abuts the Neuse River in Raleigh), and actually used to have one sleeping on a beach towel on my back deck.
Posted by: William Teach at June 13, 2010 08:53 AM (7yTel)
7
Jebus. Do I have to use a "sarcasm tag" every time I write something? What a bunch of dimwits. No, no. J/K
That better?
/sarc
/sarc
/sarc off
Posted by: Tim at June 14, 2010 05:40 AM (nc6/K)
8
She should die from embarrassment. A sad world we live in when an adult is not capable of fighting off a mean old fox. If the critter has been any larger she would have died for sure. Pitiful.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at June 15, 2010 10:30 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Captain Kick-ass Deceives About Drilling Moratorium
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
In plain English, Salazar committed fraud, and no doubt at the request of the White House.
The Administration
insists it did nothing wrong, even as it commits fraud and threatens the economies of already battered Gulf states.
Obama knows cap-and-trade is a dead issue, and had the "temporary" moratorium placed with the idea of driving oil rigs out of the Gulf.
...because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.
They said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.
Obama intends to force the price of oil up (further impacting the economy) and subject our coastlines to an even greater threat of ecological disaster for purely political reasons.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:51 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At this point I am fantasizing about a president in 2013 with large enough majorities to clean out 40 years of insane rules and laws. Repealing Obamacare. Opening all the places where there is actually energy to responsible mining. Opening the Yucca Mountain Repository for nuclear waste. Banning efforts at "fairness" in free speech. Finishing the border fence. A flat rate or other rational income tax. etc. Make your own list. The price of the next 2+ years will be great, but perhaps there really is a silver lining.
Posted by: Tregonsee at June 11, 2010 02:02 PM (zeGL3)
2
I am beginning to wonder if we will be able to survive till 2012. If we survive, consider all the damage that will have been done. Also, I am concerned that the fools that put this idiot in office have not changed in any way. They seem to be totally unaware of the impact he is having on every aspect of our lives.
Posted by: David at June 11, 2010 02:33 PM (st2+Q)
3
@ David, I totally agree with your statement.
Posted by: gDavid at June 11, 2010 07:23 PM (z++Le)
4
Now now, don't work yourselves up. Don't you know that a word--take "fraud" for example--means only as much, and no more, than Barack Obama intends it to mean at any given moment? How can we have the hope and change this country so desperately needs if our president can't warp reality by his mere utterances? You see? Fraud isn't fraud if Obama (or his minions) say it isn't fraud! Bankrupting the nation is change! Allowing the most evil terrorist regime on the planet to continue to kill Americans while building nuclear weapons is hope! It's so much easier if you only accept Obama as The One.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 11, 2010 11:14 PM (dXJzV)
5
Tregonsee, I am afraid David is more right than you hope he isn't. Not much of a silver lining - and the 2 1/2 years left could destroy our Republic beyond repair. In less than 7 months EVERYONE'S taxes will be rising by a huge amount. That will mean billions of dollars out of consumer hands - which is 70% of our economy. Next, we all will have added to our taxable income the cash value of that portion of our health plan that is paid by the employer. This kicks in in 2011. For a family of four that could be an extra $10-15,000 on a w-2. He/she will have to pay taxes on this fantom income as if it were real income - yet the cash didn't go through your hands. MORE pain for the consumer and less consumerism!!! Next, take all this and extrapolate it to the entire domestic economy and you have an economic DISASTER!!!! No silver lining......... 15-17% real unemployment and businsses closing down for lack of....BUSINESS!
Posted by: mixitup at June 11, 2010 11:17 PM (Z21cb)
6
Obama ignored professional advice and imposed the drilling ban purely on ideological grounds. All those rigs will disappear, allowed to drill in other countries' waters, they may never return. Ironically some will go to the North Sea and Brazil, two areas that supposedly have higher safety standards than the US does. I can't see any Western foreign company daring to commit drill or to do new business in the States while the North American Chavez is in power.
Perhaps Obama's BP Jihad is simply a ruse to offload BP's assets onto more favourable business partners, such as Petro China or Gazprom.
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at June 12, 2010 04:24 AM (sF0Uw)
7
Jimmy Mac has it dead right. This isn't about safety or science. It's about politics.
Bobby Jindal related the contents of a conversation he had with senior WH adviser Valerie Jarrett. Jarret asked Jindal "why the rigs simply wouldn't come back after six months."
We have dealt with incompentence in Government before, and we have dealt with radical progresssivism in Government before. But I don't think we've ever seen such a unique and poisonous combination of idiocy and progressive radicalism.
It is a truly "historic" presidency, indeed.
Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2010 09:57 AM (sl9ob)
8
When you think about everthing this guy and his administration have done, you have to say that they are either the stupidist people that could be collected or they are intentionally trying to irreparably harm the US. If harm is intended, it is meant to be something we can not recover from. The economy, health care, business, energy, foreign policy have all been targeted and either subjected to complete incompetence or intentionally undermined to the point that recovery will not be possible.
Posted by: David at June 12, 2010 01:09 PM (st2+Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Beastly Thoughts
Is Tina Brown trying to say that in her little world, women aren't women if they don't share her views?
Former New Yorker editor Tina Brown appeared on Thursday's Good Morning America to deride the mostly Republican women who won primaries on Tuesday as "wingnuts" and to sneer that they represent a "blow to feminism."
GMA's "Morning Mix" segment featured Brown and journalist Catherine Crier, part of a panel that usually includes reporters agreeing with each other over liberal talking points. After Stephanopoulos recited the numerous women who won nominations on June 8, the current Daily Beast editor dismissed, "...The only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism."
I'd really like to hear Brown expound upon why she thinks that the success of conservative women is a blow to feminism.
I rather suspect she means it is a blow to the contrived and utterly useless liberal feminist ideology of victimhood... it certainly isn't a blow to equality.
And isn't equality what real feminists desire?
Update: Cassy Chesser calls Brown and her co-conspirators "fascist feminists." I think her label is probably dead-on.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:34 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"And isn't equality what real feminists desire?"
Equality was never part of the feminist plan. What they want to do is flip the gender roles. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
Posted by: Mat at June 11, 2010 09:39 AM (d8AS2)
2
a lot of feminist are lesbians. they have their own agenda, the straight ones are just controllers, imho.
Posted by: southernsue at June 11, 2010 09:48 AM (d7l++)
3
If conservatives had their way women would not have the right to vote.
God you people are stupid.
Posted by: anon at June 11, 2010 10:39 AM (jQhno)
4
If conservatives had their way women would not have the right to vote.
And evidence for that comes straight from the little voices in you head? I thought so.
God you people are stupid.
We are simply crushed that a genius such as yourself can only spew childish insults instead of any sort of supportable and reasoned attack.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 11, 2010 11:00 AM (MZd0C)
5
If liberals had their way, Sarah Palin would not have the right to vote. Or run for office.
Posted by: Pablo at June 11, 2010 11:09 AM (yTndK)
6
ANON - you may want to add these few letters to your posting name: ENTITY. you would then opine under your correct name: ANONENTITY. your name would then match your opinion: worthless!!
Posted by: mixitup4645 at June 11, 2010 11:16 AM (g+U1o)
7
It is wrong to criticize Anon. Like most liberals, he really has now idea of what he is talking about and reacts only on emotion. I am sure that he is unaware of the fact that women have been treated as equals or superior being in the West and South in deference to the Northeast.
Note, Wyoming was the first to give women the vote and I would not classify them as liberal. In the South, women have always been in the vanguard of business and plantation management. In addition, they are considered superior to men and treated as such.
I agree that there is a significant component of lesbians who dominante this movement and can never be satisfied (double meaning).
Posted by: David at June 11, 2010 11:32 AM (st2+Q)
8
Ms. Brown, aka "Captain Lug Nuts" looks at California's Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina and says "ooh icky--the whole CEO thing in California". She points to problems on Wall Street with financiers and bankers--and equates that to CEO's from a corporation that provided a valuable service--E-Bay, and a corporation that built products and sold software--HP.
To Captain Lug Nuts, all corporations are icky, and all CEO's are bad.
To me, well all the talking head lefties--well, they're just full of crap.
Posted by: Comanche Voter at June 11, 2010 03:57 PM (ktYjH)
9
Well of course feminists want equality. However, it's the "Animal Farm" sort of equality, you know, where some animals (liberal women) are more equal than others?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 11, 2010 11:16 PM (dXJzV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 10, 2010
Bush-Hating Lefty Assaults Tea Party Protestors
Fox8
has the details:
A protest in Greensboro turned violent Tuesday when a former candidate for Congress and NC Senate was punched in the face.
Nathan Tabor, a business owner and head of the Forsyth County Republican Party and a former candidate for public office, says he and 25 other people were protesting government bailouts in front of Rep. Mel Watt's (D-N.C.) Greensboro office on Tuesday.
"We were just there to do our constitutional right to have a peaceful protest." Tabor said.
Tabor says they were protesting a proposed amendment that would give companies money to help with rising credit card fees. He says he was videotaping the event when Govenor Spencer, of Greensboro, approached the protest.
"About that time a gentleman walks around the corner and walks into the middle of the crowd saying it's all George W. Bush's fault. It's all Dick Cheney's fault." Tabor said.
The video shows Spencer and at least one protester arguing. Tabor says he stopped recording as the protest began to conclude and walked over to the sidewalk where his wife and 5-year-old daughter were standing.
"As I walked around the corner this gentleman pushed me. And when he pushed me the first time I turned my camera on and brought my camera up. I said please don't push me. And when I said that he slapped my camera." Tabor said. "He pushes me again. In the video you can see my body fall back. And I did not say anything to him, I didn't engage him. I was going to, until he touched me wife."
Tabor says Spencer pushed his wife and he pushed Spencer back. The video shows Spencer then punching Tabor in the face.
Once again, video shows political violence from the left, and the dying liberal media ignores it.
Update: Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft notes that the assailant "is a union organizer, a socialist and a black liberation activist."
He also noted Spencer's car sported a
Black Liberation Army sticker. for those of you who aren't familiar with the group, they were a militant Marxist organization that committed bombings, robberies and prison breaks.
If that sounds a bit like like the behavior of Barack Obama's mentors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn it should; the Weather Underground and BLA worked together in the Brinks Roberry in Nyack New York that gunned down cops and security guards. Dohrn actually did some jail time for her refusal to help in the case, and she was rumored to be a co-conspirator.
It should probably be mentioned that this was going on while Ayers and Dohrn were in Manhattan while a young Barack Obama was at Columbia, attending many of the same protests.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:33 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Notice how the piece is written. The first paragraph says the protest "turned violent", not that a protester was attacked. The impression given is that the protesters were violent.
The name of the person who committed the act of violence is not mentioned until paragraph 4. The actual violence, which the tape shows, is not mentioned until paragraph 8. Tabor, the victim is identified in paragraph 2, but it is not mentioned that he was the victim of violence until much further down in the story.
The result is that someone skimming the article quickly would likely think Tabor, the protester, had punched someone. "Tea Party violence", and such.
Posted by: jaed at June 10, 2010 09:50 AM (Wz8D0)
2
Yeah, the lsm is right. Those Tea Party protests are so very violent. They do tend to leave out the part where the violence comes from the left, don't they. Or, maybe the lsm thinks it is so normal that it's not news when the leftists in our country get violent in the face of constitutionally protected free speach. After all, the constitution now comes with an "R" rating--not suitable for anyone under 16.
Posted by: TimothyJ at June 10, 2010 10:31 AM (IKKIf)
3
End the hate, separate.
Posted by: Elizabeth at June 10, 2010 01:17 PM (/+evc)
4
Umm, the link has been pulled "due to terms of use violation"
Posted by: Glenn at June 10, 2010 01:30 PM (BX+Cl)
5
You Tube took down the video. I gues the left can't stand seeing what they do.
Posted by: David at June 10, 2010 01:33 PM (st2+Q)
6
Thanks for posting this, here is a link to the story and video on the news site.
Posted by: Martin at June 10, 2010 08:25 PM (QpAB1)
7
This was the green light for everyone who hates the tea party to assualt them at will. These attacks will continue untill they are commonplace and the Media will glorify the attackers. The tea oarty needs a plan but if the attacker wants he can meet me at a rally and pick on someone his own size.
Posted by: Steve Lofquist at June 10, 2010 09:07 PM (gxlpn)
8
Not all the political violence in Greensboro comes form the left, lest we forget..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre
By the way, all those murderers were set free by a jury of upstanding Greensboro citizens.
Posted by: will Butler at June 10, 2010 09:40 PM (LgpMF)
9
So, will Butler, KKK violence 30 years ago justifies left-wing violence today? I don't know about you, but my parents taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: mwl at June 11, 2010 06:03 AM (2bF0H)
10
Read your history Will the KKK was started by the democrats in the south and had nothing to do with the right wing conservatives.
Posted by: Rich at June 11, 2010 07:35 AM (siQqy)
11
A previous poster said:
"Not all the political violence in Greensboro comes form the left, lest we forget.."
Actually, that violence ~did~ come from the left.
I remember the news videos very clearly. The reason the KKK scum got off was the Communist Workers Party scum SHOT FIRST. Frankly, I rather wish there'd been no survivors on either side. No such luck, though.
In fairness, both sides had been spoiling for a fight.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at June 11, 2010 09:02 AM (TVinm)
12
this is obama's plan. he and his ilk want a civil war so he can call marshal law and stay president.
we have to stop obama and his democratic operatives in november. be at the polls and vote out these horrible democrats.
Posted by: southernsue at June 11, 2010 09:57 AM (d7l++)
13
All I can say is if that black Obama thug tried assulting me it would the last mistake he ever made. If a white assults a black its called a hate crime. In this case no charges filed. This country will never survive without a Civil War that fixes all the mistakes the last Civil War caused.
Posted by: Wild Bill at June 12, 2010 03:37 PM (VFhaf)
14
And naturally, YouuTubeLeft has pulled the video for "terms of use" violations. I somehow failed to see the notice in their TOU about how videos had to never ever throw the left in a bad light...
Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2010 02:47 PM (A9IXO)
15
Will Butler =>
I lived in Durham at the time which also happened to be the hangout of the CWP. They decided to export their confrontational agenda to G'boro. Which I'm sure PO'd anyone living in G'boro. No CWP, no KKK.
Both groups were armed and fired at each other. The G'boro jury concluded that the KKK were better marksmen than the CWP.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at June 14, 2010 07:23 AM (3TaCM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lesson: Don't Attack a Kid Named "Talon," Even If You Are a Carnivore
Talon Thomas is one tough kid:
An 11-year-old boy and a 22-year-old man say they were attacked this week by foxes in southern Moore County.
The attacks happened near the intersection of Sycamore Street and Midway Road in Aberdeen.
Talon Thomas, 11, said he was bitten and scratched by the fox while walking home from school Tuesday.
"He bit me on my leg, and then I just picked him up, and I just hit his head against the road and he started kicking me in my head," he said.
Talon said he kept the fox pinned down and tried to keep him quiet so he wouldn't alert other foxes.
"He kept kicking his legs up and I thought his whole family was going to come after me," he said.
Talon caught the fox and took him to his parents. It's not yet known if the fox was rabid but Talon received a series of rabies shots as a precaution.
Read the first sentence of the last paragraph again.
Talon caught the fox and took him to his parents.
I guess you should also read the part where he decided to pick the fox up when he was attacked, and
slammed his head against the road.
Most people attacked by a toothy, clawed carnivore, would attempt to escape the area.
Talon Thomas is not most people.
Feel free to post Talon Thomas Facts in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:14 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"It is considered a great accomplishment to go down Niagara Falls in a wooden barrel. Talon Thomas can go *up* Niagara Falls in a cardboard box."
Posted by: arb at June 10, 2010 08:42 AM (Pv613)
2
"Meanwhile, In Aberdeen, North Carolina...
Posted by: Robert at June 10, 2010 08:52 AM (Xwq5v)
Posted by: Silrette at June 10, 2010 09:04 AM (+ZT5h)
4
"Talon Thomas" is just an alias of Jack Bauer's!
Posted by: Earl T at June 10, 2010 09:30 AM (XF8vp)
5
Offspring of Chuck Norris?
Posted by: David at June 10, 2010 10:23 AM (R53O4)
6
Honey, we grow real men down South.
Posted by: MissTammy at June 10, 2010 12:38 PM (GXLjK)
7
Obama needs to enroll in the Talon Thomas ass kicking school. A little child--or a Portuguese Water Dog shall lead him.
Posted by: Mike Myers at June 10, 2010 12:44 PM (ktYjH)
8
I am afraid old Talon has rabies. Foxes don't attack. We have several in our area and they stay well away from humans.
Posted by: David at June 10, 2010 01:37 PM (st2+Q)
9
Talon Thomas doesn't have time to bleed
Talon Thomas once bit a snake, before it could bite him
Talon Thomas apparently thinks Foxes are pack animals....but he is only 11
Talon Thomas...when you absolutely postively need to have a specimen to give to the hospital to test for rabies
Posted by: SHAWN OH at June 10, 2010 02:18 PM (HD8o0)
10
Talon is so tough he uses the whole earth as a weapon.
Posted by: joe at June 10, 2010 02:40 PM (J+S3+)
11
Talon Thomas once round-house kicked a fox so hard it's great grandchildren were born with concussions.
Posted by: Dubya Bee at June 10, 2010 06:59 PM (RSYGF)
12
Oh, I'm sure the fox was rabid, they're shy creatures as a rule.
Posted by: MissTammy at June 11, 2010 11:54 AM (GXLjK)
13
Sure the fox had rabies. That's why Talon had to smash its head on the ground, to "get it's mind right".
The rabies tried to infiltrate Talon through the bite wound, but Talon's white cells roundhouse kicked them into primordial goo.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at June 11, 2010 12:10 PM (B5Wgp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
He's No Innocent
Remember the Mexican teen that was shot earlier in the week by a U.S. Border Patrol Officer trying to make an arrest? It turns out he a known human smuggler and on a Border Patrol Most Wanted list.
I find myself having less and less sympathy for Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka and his family, which apparently profits from human smuggling... and who knows what else.
Does his criminal past justify his death? Of course not. Whether his assault on a federal law enforcement officer justified his shooting is a matter for authorities.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:24 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Human smuggler is just a cute, pro-illegal immigration term for slave trader. The United States Navy once had an entire squadron that did nothing but patrol the Atlantic looking for slave ships, and they were hardly concerned with "due process" when it came to stopping that.
Why should this be any different?
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle at June 10, 2010 08:22 AM (5bgQY)
2
Absolutely, Gunpowder, absolutely.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 10, 2010 09:17 AM (ZJ/un)
3
So, you "play with snakes" and somehow, we're all supposed to be surprised and saddened when you get bit?
Heh!
Posted by: Earl T at June 10, 2010 09:33 AM (XF8vp)
4
Throwing rocks at a Border Patrol agent isn't necessarily a bright thing to do.
I presume he hoped to get in a head shot and knock the officer out in order to take his weapon, and was counting on the typical reluctance of LEOs to not respond with deadly force if not actually being shot at.
I would suggest that the Border Patrol treat all such rock throwing as potentially life-threatening.
Posted by: Russ at June 10, 2010 01:22 PM (7r11k)
5
Rock-throwing *is* life-threatening, not just "potentially"--he reacted accordingly.
Posted by: ECM at June 10, 2010 03:45 PM (nYKDd)
6
"Human smuggler" ia not just another term for slave trader. Some human smugglers are slave traders. The term has been around for longer than the current debates about illegal immigration.
Gunpowder Chronicle has an interesting take on history. The Africa Squadron to which he refers did not ignore due process. Ships that were seized were entitled to trial. Most of the slavers were acquitted, though a handful received small fines. The total number of seizures averaged just over 2 per year, though there were two period of over three years during which not a single ship was seized. Of the seizures, just over half even went to trial.
So to turn your argument around, the US Navy patrolling for slave ships was very concerned about due process, so why should this be any different?
@Russ - That's a pretty heavy presumption as to what this 15-year-old boy intended, especially since you think it is strong enough to warrant forfeiting his life.
Posted by: Sol at June 13, 2010 06:54 PM (0JEE5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 09, 2010
Obama's Love Letter to Terrorism
Dear Gaza,
You elected a terrorist group to lead you. You cheered as they threw screaming rivals from the tops of buildings onto the streets below with a sickening thud, amassed weapons to carry out their chartered goal of the genocide of the Israeli people, and provided exquisite "poor me" theatrics to the media worthy of a Tony award, even as they raked in millions from selling stolen aid shipments on the black market.
For creating all this, when you could have taken the easy way out and chosen peace and prosperity, you deserve an award.
How does $400 million sound?
With all my love,
Barack
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:11 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm not a big believer in collective guilt. I mean it's that sort of reasoning that makes American women and children "valid" targets for terrorists who hate what US politicians or soldiers have done in the Mid East.
Yeah, the Bush Admin pushed for elections and Hamas won. That doesn't mean we as a country need to support Israel when they decide to "put Gaza on a diet".
Posted by: Jim at June 09, 2010 01:41 PM (YPeWM)
2
Jim,
What exactly did US soldiers do to the middle east to cause 911, the USS Cole, or the last 50 years of Islamic terrorism?
I'm not asking about the last 8 years, since we already know your answer to that.
You Sir, are a buffoon and a Troll.
Posted by: Scott at June 09, 2010 01:58 PM (QFWBk)
3
Hi Scott, you're awesome!
It can't come as news to you that the 9/11 and Cole etc terrorists cited things like our support of Israel vs the Palestinians and Lebanese, basing non-Muslim soldiers in Saudi Arabia, etc.
Posted by: Jim at June 09, 2010 04:00 PM (YPeWM)
4
Jim
As Obama likes to say, elections have consequences. The consequence of electing genocidal killers like Hamas is that you should lose any support from civilized nations. Too much to ask for the likes of you, I know.
Furthermore, the WTC attackers (both times) had a number of rationales for attacking us. Unless we are willing to let medieval fundamentalists dictate our foreign policy (and domestic policy), then their reasoning is immaterial. Except to cravens, like yourself.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 09, 2010 04:23 PM (Srqoz)
5
To hell with the quislings. That means you, Jim.
Posted by: zhombre at June 09, 2010 05:23 PM (6W9LF)
6
Pointing out the obvious makes one neither a buffoon, troll or anything else. Actions have consequences. You think Iran would have seized our embassy had we not overthrown their president (Mossadegh)and replaced him with our puppet tyrant(The Shah)? Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia in the early 90's was no more tactful than building a mosque on the WTC site either. We need to leave others alone and tend to our own affairs. Remember what George Washington said about entangling alliances...
Posted by: Will Butler at June 09, 2010 07:08 PM (LgpMF)
7
Jim meet Will; Will meet Jim. Oh I see, you both already know each other from the last "Death to the American-Zionist Imperialists" rally...
Posted by: emdfl at June 09, 2010 09:37 PM (vwRFo)
8
Nice to meet you emdfl, you might want to meet our friend General David Petraeus, who recently stated that American support for Israel was harming our national interest and costing American lives. Must be a secret agent of Hamas or deep al-qaeda operative...
Posted by: Will Butler at June 09, 2010 09:48 PM (LgpMF)
9
Please excuse the double post, but wanted to add something- blockading Gaza and making the lives of a million people miserable just because some of them voted for Hamas is cruel and unjust. It makes about as much sense as imposing a blockade on Louisiana just because a few morons voted for David Duke...
Posted by: Will Butler at June 09, 2010 09:51 PM (LgpMF)
10
But... The religion of peace reigns in Gaza. Doesn't it?
Peaceful
Posted by: Dave at June 09, 2010 09:57 PM (sl9ob)
11
General David Petraeus, who recently stated that American support for Israel was harming our national interest and costing American lives.
That is yet another media matters lie. Petraeus never said that or even anything near that statement.
And blockading arms and materials from going to the genocidal lunatics in charge of Gaza makes excellent sense. Like all the other idiots upset about the blockade, you conveniently forget that Egypt is blockading as well. troll
Posted by: iconoclast at June 09, 2010 10:26 PM (MZd0C)
12
Jim, (Will, too)
Gaza on a diet, huh?
So, show me the starving folks in Gaza.
Show me the empty food stalls in the markets.
What?
The markets have plenty and no one is starving? (though he crud running the show steals the best of the goods, but that's neither hear nor there)
Say fellas. . . you two do know that Egypt, who also shares a border with Gaza, is ALSO BLOCKADING GAZA? Well?
Why would that be the case?
The "diet" the Israelis have set up for Gaza is making sure they have a low metals and explosives diet.
Posted by: JP at June 10, 2010 01:21 AM (Tae/a)
13
oops.
I forgot to remind Will that David Duke lost the governor's election (Vote For The Crook, It's Important! the only time I voted for a Dem)
And the KKK? Democrat organization. Duke is a scam artist and would run as a friken communist if he thought he could get the votes.
Than again. Duke isn't launching rockets into his neighbor's houses for grins either.
Totally Stupid analogy.
Posted by: JP at June 10, 2010 01:27 AM (Tae/a)
14
lol, it could be very funny if it were not that sad. obama is interested in gas and oil, it seems such things as justice do not attract him much.
Posted by: chaim@israel at June 10, 2010 05:28 AM (CIjll)
15
"Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia in the early 90's was no more tactful than building a mosque on the WTC site either."
WTF? Are you under the impression that the US unilaterally said "hey, we're going to build some bases in the middle of Saudi Arabia"?
WE. WERE. INVITED.
WTF is up with people who are more familiar with the al'Qaeda mythology than the facts?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 10, 2010 09:20 AM (ZJ/un)
16
Q: "Pardon me; would you have any Grey Poupon?"
A: "But of course!"
Let's review: When the Israeli PM comes to the White House, he is humiliated, abused and denied even a bite to eat. Israel is the only secure democracy in the middle east, is our long time ally, and shares a cultural history with us. If the Palestinians laid down their arms tomorrow there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, genocide.
When the head of a terrorist pseudo-state comes to the White House, he is treated as an exalted head of state, he shares a photo op/news conference, and our president makes all manner of makey nice noises. Oh yes, and because the situation in Gaza is "not sustainable," he is given 400 million. Palestinian "leaders" commonly steal most of the money we give them; virtually none goes to their people, and much of it is used to buy arms used to attack and murder Israelis and infidels (that's us). Oh yes, the Palestinians have refused two direct, sincere offers of their own state. "Not sustainable" indeed.
Q: "Pardon me; is Barack Obama a marxist fool?)
A: "But of course!"
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 10, 2010 09:23 AM (dXJzV)
17
interesting thread. it is interesting to hear jim and will's thoughts on this subject. interesting, that their view point is not an informed view point mainly feeling.
i remember feeling angry and injustice over everything political when i was on the dark side. now i am on the light's side i see the truth.
be at the polls in november and vote out the democrats.
Posted by: southernsue at June 11, 2010 10:11 AM (d7l++)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blob Seeks to Envelope BP
No, we're not talking about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We're talking about quarter-ton half-wit Rosie O'Donnell, calling for the U.S. government seizure of BP.
What good is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or foreign policy, anyway? Just declare this foreign-based multi-national an enemy of the state, Rosie, and be done with it.
Hugo Chavez would be so proud...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:04 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
its unbelievable what a know nothing retard she is.
siezing bp? she would be seizing the assets of millions of pensioners in brittian, it is brittians main pension asset. that would cause thier pension system to implode leaving millions of old people in england destitute.
and we might as well shred the constitution and just stop pretending it means anything at that point
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 09, 2010 10:53 AM (60WiD)
2
Perhaps someone can find a way to cap Rosie, and stop *her* from gushing....
Posted by: arb at June 09, 2010 11:37 AM (n1+Hu)
3
Percentage of bp shares owned per region
UK 40%
US 39%
Rest of Europe 10%
Rest of World 7%
Miscellaneouse 4%
Rosie is for sure a quarter-ton half-wit. I still wouldn't put is past Obama to expropriate bp, then call in his buddies from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to nuke the well with one of their new build devices, then finish off the mission by bringing in James Cameron and his Hollywood special effects team to plug hole spewing radioactive crude.
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at June 09, 2010 11:41 AM (sks16)
4
"Seize their assets today. ... Call it socialism, call it communism, call it anything you want."
Okay, I'll call it what it is: THEFT! and VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS!
Posted by: MikeM at June 09, 2010 08:48 PM (zfcnf)
5
“Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.
It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.Apparently, so did Norway.
The excuse is that foreign ships are not permitted to do this type work in U.S. waters, due to the union protecting federal Jones Act. Oddly, after Katrina George Bush suspended the Jones Act to permit foreign vessels to aid in the recovery effort.
For want of a union, we lost a Gulf.
Posted by: Neo at June 10, 2010 11:27 AM (tE8FB)
6
Stuff Rosie into the well. Win Win solution.
Posted by: Fat Man at June 10, 2010 11:59 AM (v9eeX)
7
This is the ignoramus who thought fire had never melted steel in the history of the world. Why would anybody with half a brain listen to anything she says?
Posted by: RebeccaH at June 10, 2010 12:22 PM (JAQT9)
8
The BP company went all out from the beginning to stop the oil leak.The Pres went all out visiting and telling all how great he is until he was told he had a big stake in that oil flow and he better get his ass down there.
He didn`t need the helpless and disorganized Home Security bunch.He could have just ordered the Core of Engineers to put up dikes etc.They have had tears of experience putting up dikes along the Miss,River.But again BO was evidently trying to build a case blaiming BOand inadvertently got swept up by all that black goo.
Posted by: John Calomiris at June 10, 2010 04:00 PM (HwRPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 08, 2010
How Fed Up Are Some Americans With Mexico? Very.
Polls have showed strong support for Arizona's immigration law even in blue states, but I was under the apparent delusion that people were drawing a distinction between illegal aliens from Mexico in the United States and Mexicans in Mexico.
If the commenters responding to this
Yahoo! News account of a Mexican teenager begin shot to death by a U.S. Border Patrol Officer are any indication, I was way, way off.
Scanning through the first two pages of comments (which now number more than 1,200), it seems that many Americans have had it with Mexicans, period. Deluged with a constant stream of news about drug cartel torture, rape and murder, illegal immigration, and a hypocritical Mexican government that champions illegal immigration of the U.S. while violent crushing it on their own southern border, it isn't hard to understand their negative opinions. Our most common recent perceptions of our southern neighbor aren't flattering (to put it mildly), and Mexico has directly brought that negative attention onto itself.
Many commenters seem to care less whether or not the shooting was legally justified, and some seemed actually thrilled that the teen was dead. That Mexican authorities may have been captured on video crossing the border into the U.S. to retrieve the shell casing—perhaps to try to frame the U.S. officer as being inside Mexico by placing the casing on their side of the border—certainly doesn't help issues.
The incompetence of the Mexican government to handle corruption and criminality along the border has led to "corrective action" before.
The Mexicans need to get their house in order before a 21st Century America determines another punitive expedition is in order, and
finds their own Patton to to cheer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:25 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, when do we say enough is enough. Most of us already know that answer,when its too late ,Americans are being executed daily and found with their hearts cut out of their chest's.It certainly won't happen during the term of our "glorious leader".
Its amazing how frustrated Mexican's are with the US attempting to defend its own borders from people committing crimes.Try crossing the border illegally in 100 plus countries around the world and see what kind of receptopn you get.
Posted by: Bill at June 09, 2010 05:48 AM (MFQJZ)
2
I dont feel any sypathy for the goblin either.
any one who thinks this was unessasary needs to step up and let me and ten of my buddies throw rocks as big as we can find at your head.
stones have been used to kill for eons.
and think about it clearly for a moment you go into a foriegn country and throw rocks at the police?
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 09, 2010 10:57 AM (60WiD)
3
Fed up with Mexico? Yes. Forty and Fifty years ago I was hearing people recount how they were ripped off when traveling in Mexico, with the connivance of Mexican police and officials. Now it's far, far worse and what's more the Mexican government conspires to undermine American laws and sovereignty. There are many wonderful aspects of Mexican culture, but that is no reason to tolerate all the !#@$%. As for that rock-throwing illegal, no sympathy.
Posted by: pst314 at June 09, 2010 12:16 PM (OA547)
4
I went to Mexico in the sixties to build churches with our local group. At that time, we lived and worked among Mexicans of several different classes and occupations. I can assure you that the Mexicans have a deep, absolute hate for people from the US. I was never as glad to be out of a place in my life (except for an Indian reservation).
Looked at the comments an was amazed at the response, 95% totally against the Mexican state.
One trick to be aware of. We had a very attratctive 19 year old go with a group to Mexico a few years ago. She went in a bar and paid for a drink. On trying to leave, the police arrested her, they just happened to be sitting in the back. They took her to jail on trying to pass conterfiet money. Her family had to pay $5000 to get her back.
Posted by: David at June 09, 2010 01:28 PM (dccG2)
5
I've been to Mexico a few times. I like Mexico. Especially the Yucatan. I like Mexicans. But I will not go back there. I have nothing but contempt for the corrupt Mexican government, and its elites that defer addressing any Mexican social and economic problems by herding their excess, unemployed and impoverished population to El Norte, and encouraging antipathy toward the U.S. and indifference to its laws. Guys like Calderon and his ilk are well-coiffed and articulate parasites. How dare he scold Arizona for its laws. How dare the Democrats give him a standing O in the Congress of the United States. To hell with Calderon and the caballo he rode in on. And to hell with the Democrats. I'd like to see a mass of them spit-roasted at the polls in November.
Posted by: zhombre at June 09, 2010 05:19 PM (6W9LF)
6
Throwing rocks at people armed with guns is always a good idea, just look what it's done for the Palestinians! Now hand the kids mother his Darwin award, she did such a wonderful job raising him that she earned it. FEH.
Posted by: Rip VanBullwinkle at June 09, 2010 07:11 PM (nqdMk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Idiot: NJ Jihadist Was "Death to All Juice" Guy
D'oh.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:14 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Obama's Assault Teleprompter Nearly Kills Spectator
Everyone has seen the video of the student Barack Obama bored to sleep during a high school commencement speech. Few knew his droning speech nearly killed a man at the same event.
Clearly, the time has come to ban
high-capacity assault teleprompters.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:30 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sort of like the Vogon poetry appreciation chair.
Posted by: pst314 at June 08, 2010 03:06 PM (OA547)
2
Did the Won ask if anyone had any water?
Posted by: Leonard at June 08, 2010 04:53 PM (tDcZ+)
3
LMBO! So I read the Tribune article and it says that one of the Republican Gubernatotial candidates(who is also an MD) Tom George helped revive the man in the ER! How funny!
Posted by: Tania at June 09, 2010 08:34 AM (pUm51)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Durbin Creates "Bailout" for BP, Walmart, Etc.
Politics is a dirty business... we all know it.
That understood, there are practical limits to what the American people can stand, and Illinois Senator Dick Durblin seems to have jumped far over that line, listening to lobbyists who want to shift the cost of credit card transactions
directly to the consumer:
The Durbin amendment imposes a price control scheme on the fees oil companies and retailers pay when they accept payment by credit cards. The amendment was conceived and pushed for by lobbyists for big oil companies and big retailers like BP and Wal-Mart. Their goal is simple — shift the costs of accepting credit cards from their bottom line to the consumers.
Durbin admitted that he offered the amendment after detailed discussions with a big retailer CEO. The bottom line is that the Durbin amendment will put billions of dollars into the pockets of Wal-Mart, big oil companies like BP and other big box retailers who depend on consumers and their credit cards for revenue. It's unfathomable that while the government has opened a criminal investigation into BP, the US Senate wants to hand them a massive check. Under the Durbin "BP Bailout" amendment, giant corporations will no longer be required to pay their fair share of the costs of receiving these services. Consumers will now pay those costs.
Democrats have long tried to claim the mantle of the "party of the people," but they have the problem of being as deep or deeper in debt than Republicans to big business interests, corporations and especially unions. Durbin's amendment is nothing more or less than an attempt to push the cost of doing business from the corporation to the consumer.
I wonder how much he cost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Meh. I pay 3% and more if rewards cards are used for the privilege of accepting credit cards for payment. Monthly bills in excess of $600.00 hurt this small business owner. Why should I foot the bill for someone who won't budget for expected expense?
Posted by: Flavius at June 08, 2010 02:26 PM (WKklU)
2
"I wonder how much he cost."
Nothing upfront, as they simply put him on a charge card.
Posted by: arb at June 08, 2010 03:39 PM (qAowJ)
3
If I am understanding this correctly, I have no problem with the credit card customer paying their transaction fees. Presently, people paying cash are in effect subsidizing those who pay with credit cards.
What I don't understand is why it takes Government action to shift the costs?
If Wal-Mart wants consumers to pay the transaction fee, why don't they just add it to the tab at check out?
Posted by: feeblemind at June 08, 2010 04:04 PM (dD/XA)
4
It's a bit silly to call this a bailout for BP when it applies to all retailers and AFAIK, BP isn't a retailer, what with gas stations being franchised.
I agree that the government should MYOB, but this is irresponsible on the part of the Big Government writer.
Posted by: Pablo at June 08, 2010 07:31 PM (yTndK)
5
If Wal-Mart wants consumers to pay the transaction fee, why don't they just add it to the tab at check out?
This is a load of BS.
WallyWorld and all the rest CURRENTLY "charge" consumers for their cost-of-transaction--it's called "higher prices" on all their merchandise.
You don't seriously think that WW/BP/Hertz are reducing their overall profit margins, do you?
Posted by: dad29 at June 09, 2010 09:05 AM (eRXa1)
6
As always, follow the money:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536821/201006091838/Fat-Cats-Feed-On-Durbins-Fee-Change.aspx
Posted by: arb at June 09, 2010 06:52 PM (wZy1L)
7
"Durbin's amendment is nothing more or less than an attempt to push the cost of doing business from the corporation to the consumer."
I can't believe you said that, CY. Any cost of doing business is passed on to the consumer by a business.
This method of consumer paying the cost of using their credit cards is hardly any different than your employer paying your federal and state taxes on wages, but no one would say I don't pay those taxes, the employer does.
I'd note that anyone who does pay cash is getting a raw deal, as they subsidize those who use credit cards.
I'd also note if your credit card is a Visa/MC via your local bank, the reality of the transaction is you have your banker with you at every transaction taking 3-4% out of your wallet every single time you use that card, whether it's a credit or debit one. Think about it ... if you filled up your 14G tank with $3 gas your handed about $1.26 over to your bank .... putting that $300 grill on your card and your handing your banker about $9.
Right now, there is no difference if you pay by cash or credit. I don't know if Durbin's bill would require the card issuer to add the transaction after the fact to your card, but if it does, then you'll see prices drop and you'll save money by paying in cash.
Posted by: Dusty at June 10, 2010 06:30 AM (3WVdK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Was this Really Necessary?
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal discusses the results of a poll of 4,835 adults that shows that the more liberal/progressive your politics are, the less you are able to square your belief system with a basic grasp of economic principals.
Doesn't watching our 535 Senators and Congresspeople on Capitol Hill, plus the cluelessness of the executive branch, prove the exact same thing with theri all-too-real impact on our actual economy?
Daniel Klein writes about a poll that provides evidence for an academic theory. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are proving that theory with deadly efficiency.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:30 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Kind of a "Duh, tell me something I didn't already know" artical.
Posted by: Michael at June 08, 2010 11:37 AM (PU7e+)
2
I like it for two reasons:
1) tax dollars didn't pay for it
2) it's not a bad idea to check if stuff that seems reasonable actually carries out in reality.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 08, 2010 02:21 PM (3WqWa)
3
that would be "principles" not "principals."
sorry to nitpick. It is my destiny.
Posted by: Mike at June 09, 2010 08:05 AM (7nc0l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Punk POTUS: Tough Talk, No Action
Obama Seeking "Ass To Kick" Over Oil Spill
There isn't but one person at the top, "Slick."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:07 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Absolutely, positively, no class - whatsoever....
Posted by: diogenes online at June 08, 2010 07:46 AM (2MrBP)
2
And we would expect something better from a Chicago political machine thug why, exactly? One would imagine that this sort of language flies thick and fast in White House staff meetings.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 08, 2010 08:15 AM (dXJzV)
3
He should start with his own.
Posted by: dgj at June 08, 2010 08:48 AM (g/BUt)
4
Does this mean that the next time my neighbor's house burns down that I should go "kick his aaa"? That sounds like a real good way to handle a crisis, paritcularly one were no one knows exactly what happened and the problem is not resolved, due to your views on the environment.
Posted by: David at June 08, 2010 01:26 PM (dccG2)
5
probably can't find his a** with both hands, a GPS, and a teleprompter.
Posted by: Mike at June 09, 2010 08:06 AM (7nc0l)
Posted by: geo at June 09, 2010 09:47 AM (vUo6Q)
7
Obama has no ass. Doesn't need one. No guts.
Posted by: zhombre at June 09, 2010 05:24 PM (6W9LF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 07, 2010
Shocking News From Truthout.Org
They're actually willing to publish Jason Leopold again.
Considering his
previous history of less than credible reporting and what I'll gently refer to as "personal issues," they are taking a mighty big gamble.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:36 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
its amazing to me that the supposed conservatives still bash the people in this country that are asking for this Presidents eligibility!!
wake up - the people want to see this guys records!! who else are you protecting by bashing the folks!!
Posted by: Rich at June 13, 2010 03:22 PM (QB/aB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Good News: Birther Could Wreck California GOP Ticket
Oh, Orly Taitz, why won't you just go back to Poland:
Orly Taitz is an Israeli émigré who has spent the past two years filing lawsuits challenging President Barack Obama's right to be president on the grounds that he was born in Kenya. In the process, she has earned herself $20,000 in court fines.
Now she's running for the GOP nomination for secretary of state, and with her establishment-backed primary opponent mounting a less-than-stellar campaign against her, operatives say there's a chance she could win.
"It'd be a disaster for the Republican party," says James Lacy, a conservative GOP operative in the state. "Can you imagine if [gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman and [candidate for Lt. Gov.] Abel Maldonado — both of whom might have a chance to win in November — had to run with Orly Taitz as secretary of state, who would make her cockamamie issues about Obama's birth certificate problems at the forefront of her activities?"
My view of the matter is that if the California GOP can't find a candidate for secretary of state that will beat a crackpot dentist, then they probably deserve to lose.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:22 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Why don't you save that energy and scorn to use on Democrats? Why is it so far-fetched to think that Barak wasn't born here- he acts like he is a manchurian candidate. It is more respectable to doubt his nationality than it is to boycott AZ or pass a law that clearly violates the CA constitution, or to hang out with the La Raza racists.
Posted by: Smarty at June 07, 2010 08:47 PM (e0Iiu)
2
It doesn't even cross your mind to wonder what the CA primary voters are apparently seeing that you've overlooked?
Posted by: scp at June 07, 2010 09:08 PM (LNDvM)
3
Watching the GOP implode is worth every painful moment of watching the Dems win.
Posted by: Daniel at June 07, 2010 09:08 PM (+d2P2)
4
Why is it so far-fetched to think that Barak wasn't born here-
Because of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
he acts like he is a manchurian candidate.
And that must be because he exited the womb in Kenya? Riiiiiight. Dude was born in Honolulu. Deal.
Posted by: Pablo at June 08, 2010 07:39 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 51 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1468 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1321 seconds, 177 records returned.
Page size 123 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
