This 'an That

1.  So that we don’t all get jaded and cynical, we should take time to talk about GOOD news.  So, we bring you this headline from WorldNetDaily:

EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
The good news about nuclear destruction
It’s not the end of the world – you can survive!–WND

The bad news is that I can’t get the link to work, and so I guess I won’t be surviving. 

2. Harvard Law student  Ben Shapiro has read the Foley IMs and then summarized the racy stuff.  He then asks:

Why repeat these perverse details?

We’ll let you, the reader, decide why Ben “Porn Generation” Shapiro might have repeated the perversion.

UPDATE:  And here’s the shorter version of Ben’s column: “What Foley did was reprehensible, and it’s the fault of the Democrats, who ruined our morality with all their teen sex and their homosexuality.” 

3.  And speaking of sex, that’s exactly what Renew America’s Downtown Judie Brown is going to tell us NOT to do:

In an online column, [Planned Parenthood's medical affairs director, Vanessa] Cullins answered a question about when the “right time” would be for parents to begin talking about sex with their children. In response, she tells the reader that “understanding sexuality is a lifelong process.” She also explains that Planned Parenthood experts suggest that by the age of five children should be taught the “basics” including the names of all their body parts and that their bodies belong to themselves. She continues by suggesting that somewhere between the ages of 9 and 13 children should be taught that “sex is a natural, pleasurable part of life. They should be familiar with birth control methods and sexually transmitted infections, and of course the dangers of sexual abuse.” In other words, a five year-old is not too young to begin the indoctrination process which leads to heightened curiosity, which leads to the practice of sexual behavior that leads to sexually transmitted infections — and abortion

Yes, parents, you set your kids on the path to STDs and abortion when you teach them the names of their body parts.  So, unless you want them to grow up to be diseased.baby-killing sluts, keep them in the dark about such matters.  And by all means, NEVER tell about the dangers of sexual abuse, because otherwise they might complain about creepy emails and thus bring about the downfall of the Republican House majority.

Posted by s.z. on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 6:23 pm.

13 Responses to “This ‘n That”

I’m sure Judie Brown would just lie down and die to see a mother name body parts upon request with a medical atlas full of lifesize color pictures that the kids called “Mama’s Big Book of Guts.” (My oldest made up a list of “things that rhyme with ‘epididymus.’”) This book still comes in handy. A visiting nine-year-old wanted me to define “foreskin,” and when I did, she was certain that her father still had one, and since we’re all Jewish, I explained that it was none of MY business, but that he probably didn’t, and why. I told her father about this conversation and he chuckled and said, “Good job. Better you than me.”
Or tell a toddler who’s absently twiddling his genitalia that that’s something we all should do in private?
Or tell a precocious three-year-old how people DON’T have babies if they don’t want to? (A handy way to describe the function of an IUD is to liken it to the Doggy-B-Gone repellent that Henry Huggins’ neighbor Mr. Grumbie sprays on his shrubbery to keep Ribsy the dog off, FYI.)
My oldest was traumatized at three by an airport shuttle bus full of anti-abortion protesters carrying those red stop signs reading ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN. Already a fluent reader, he cringed into my armpit and asked for weeks and months afterwards if those smiling church ladies were going to come to our house and kill him.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on October 4th, 2006

 

Your link went to an upbeat page about nuclear war survival that included such gems as: “The sound Civil Defense strategies of the ’60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke.” I remember that duck & cover stuff–it went kinda like this:
1. Hide under desk.
2. Place head between knees.
3. Kiss your ass goodbye.
So we’ve been making fun of all those people who build apocalypse-proof compounds in remote areas (David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Aum Supreme Truth, Malcolm in the Middle, etc.) when really they’re the only ones thinking clearly.
Tactics abound on the Net for making Armageddon not only survivable but fun. Here’s my favorite:
http://www.ninjapirate.com/armageddon.html
But the Judie Brown piece got me thinking–people who believe it’s better not to tell a child about sex, probably also believe that it’s better not to tell a child President about an impending terrorist attack. And see how tragic it is when the unprepared child President finally sees what’s going on: he just wants to continue hearing the story about the little goat. Heartbreaking.

Left by trashfire on October 4th, 2006

Wash, rehense, repeat.

Left by actor212 on October 4th, 2006

ot, but did you get the e-mail I sent about the terrorist puppies up for adoption? I sent it to your old account since the new one isn’t listed on the updated site (as far as I can tell)

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 4th, 2006

Were Mark Foley a liberal Democrat from San Francisco, liberals would be hard-pressed to spot a problem with his behavior.
Ben must be lighting up Harvard with his brilliant powers of deduction and razor sharp wit. He’s a national treasure.

Left by Mark S. on October 5th, 2006

If he’s a treasure, is there any chance he’ll be carried off by pirates?

Left by Bill S on October 5th, 2006

Or discovered by Nicolas Cage?(badaa-bump)

Left by The Dark Avenger on October 5th, 2006

Sheesh, Rapidly Aging but still Virginal Ben: 1) pronounces Foley guilty of sexual harassment; 2) pronounces him guilty of child molestation; 3) calls a 16-year-old “underage”, apparently without bothering to check or much caring about the distinction between sexual intercourse and talking about masturbation. Plus he makes a distinction between “negligence” and “malfeasance” which is meaningless in context and moot in theory since he can’t be bothered to even suggest a law Hastert has broken. I ask again: are we sure this kid’s in law school? In fact, considering all the times he seems confused about what decade it is, are we sure he’s not imaginary?

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 5th, 2006

This is no joke, in the US Navy we were told to bend over and brace against a bulkhead in case of nuclear attack!! After showing us movies of aircraft carriers flying through the air after a sub-surface nuclear burst. HAHAHA we all laughed our asses off.
During a general quarters alert some asshole told us to brace against a bulkhead, we told him to fuck off. When he reported us, the chief petty officer told him to fuck off.

Left by merlallen on October 5th, 2006

 

a five year-old is not too young to begin the indoctrination process which leads to heightened curiosity
Post Office, Doctor; not natural childhood games but part of the liberal plot to indoctrinate kids who otherwise have zero curiosity about their own or others’ bodies.

Left by tigrismus on October 5th, 2006

Call me a liberal deviant freak and all, but I wish like fuck there’d been someone standing there explaining that my body belonged only to me when *I* was five. The “sex education” I got at that age, courtesy the Catholic church and its lay clergy, was heavy on the practical and light on the theory, so to speak.
Judie can go to hell.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 5th, 2006

Happy happy joy joy! Happy happy joy joy!
I KNEW there was good news about nukular destruction! I just knew it! Mmmmm…thats some good radiation! Can I have more?
BTW, one of the effects of ionizing radiation is the induction of giant cells formation. I think, with the right tweaking, this could be spun as a “Nuclear Destruction Has Penis Enlargment Benefit”.

Left by King Spirula on October 5th, 2006

My heartfelt sympathies to you, dear D. Sidhe. When I was five, I learned from my vehemently religion-averse parents that nothing belonged to me, not even my own body crevices. However, I did learn who Sarah Bernhardt was, because I was called that whenever I hesitantly reported some really heinous invasion of my personal space.
After looking up Bernhardt in the encyclopedia, it took awhile longer to find out how the great lady of the stage might have related to my own mortifying situations. Especially why she was called “the divine Sarah,” since the last thing I felt was “divine” rather than ashamed and irate. This remained for some time just one of life’s unnecessary mysteries…
Allow me to join you in wishing Judie Brown a slow and toasty trip to hell. (I don’t believe in hell, but evidently she does.) On her trip, may she be denied a battery-operated fan, water bottles, or the Super Moisture-Wicking Nightgown for women suffering from hot flashes and/or night sweats that I just saw in the Vermont Country Store catalogue. Heh.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on October 5th, 2006

Run Silent, Run Dumb

In his LA Times column today, Max (Das) Boot loads the forward torpedo tubes, takes the range and bearing of a geo-strategic threat to American interests, and fires! He’s wide of the target, but at least those bastards know they’ve been in a fight, once they spot the distinctive calling card Max invariably leaves behind: a yellow dye stain and a couple of floaters.

However, today Das Boot gives it right full rudder and strays from his usual course. Boldly breaking ranks with the other Borden Sunshine Makers, Max confronts certain uncomfortable developments in the Graveyard of Armies:

NOT LONG AGO, Afghanistan appeared to be doing much better than Iraq in spite of getting much less American help. But in the last year, a surge in Taliban activity has endangered the hard-won achievements of the 2001-2004 period. Roadside bombings and suicide attacks are up. Parts of the countryside are in the Taliban’s grip. Opium production is hitting record levels. Already this year coalition forces have suffered more fatalities in Afghanistan (163) than they did in all of 2005 (130) to say nothing of 2004 (58). 

And as it that weren’t enough, Dr. John H. Watson has been shot by a Jezail bullet in either the shoulder or the leg.  Fortunately, Max cinches up his sack and finally places the blame for America’s failed efforts in Afghanistan precisely where it belongs:  It’s Pakistan’s fault. 

After making some efforts to curb Taliban activity, President Pervez Musharraf seems to have thrown in the towel. He has agreed to withdraw troops from Waziristan, turning over a frontier area the size of New Jersey to Taliban supporters. He also released from prison about 2,500 foreign fighters linked to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Since those actions, U.S. officials report that Taliban attacks in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan have tripled. 

Hm.  Well, when your ally concludes a separate peace, it is not traditionally regarded as a vote of confidence in your prosecution of the war.  Still, that can’t be our fault. 

Pakistan isn’t just turning a blind eye to Taliban activity. Its Inter-Services Intelligence agency seems to be increasing the amount of training and logistical support it provides to Islamist militants — and not just in Afghanistan.

Hmmm.  Okay, when your former ally actually switches sides in the war, that may look bad, but this kind of thing happens all the time – Afghan warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum did it frequently during the war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance; the Romanians, Bulgarians, and Italians did it in the waning days of World War II; and a girl with nuclear boots and drip dry gloves did it in The Cars 1978 hit, “She’s My Best Friend’s Girl.”  This is just the sort of treachery that historians and tall, cadaverous, shag-capped rock stars have recounted since the dawn of civilization, and it clearly has no connection to our policy of invading Afghanistan with the stated intention of rebuilding the entire society from the ground up, laying the first brick with great ceremony, then getting bored and leaving.  I mean come on, talk about blaming the victim.

But Max isn’t going to let us get off scot-free.  Although it pains him to admit that a man he respects, admires, and unstintingly supports has failed us, still he must swallow the bitter pill of intellectual honesty and bring him to account: 

The fault isn’t all Musharraf’s. Afghan President Hamid Karzai deserves some blame for not doing more to spread good governance to the southern and eastern provinces. 

I sympathize with Max, because I suffered an identical disappointment in the early 1990s with Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s feeble efforts to stop the Shining Path guerrillas in Peru. 

What should the U.S. do? Sending more troops isn’t in the cards. 

He’s right.  Much as it pains me to risk the lives of imaginary soldiers, if there’s one place we should be sending those additional troops we don’t have, it’s Iraq. 

Instead of sending more GIs, we should send more greenbacks. 

Gah!  Typical knee jerk Republican response to a problem:  throw money at it. 

We’ve spent more than twice as much per capita in Iraq. U.S. aid briefly soared to $4.3 billion in fiscal year 2005, then dropped to $3 billion in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 request is for just $1.1 billion, although there will undoubtedly be a supplemental appropriation. 

Because those are easier to hide from the public.  Anyway, once all the blame has been affixed like so many Post-It notes, Max feels it’s finally safe to bring President Bush out for a bow in the final paragraph: 

President Bush needs to play hardball with Musharraf, telling him that American support for a free Afghanistan will never waver but that support for Musharraf’s regime will be jeopardized if he doesn’t do more to curb the Taliban. Musharraf needs to get the message — as he did after 9/11 — that it’s more important to placate Uncle Sam than the radical Islamic parties. 

Based on the General’s recent actions – surrendering Waziristan to the Taliban, giving Osama bin Laden a hall pass, and telling the world that he only ever pretended to be George’s friend because some of the bigger kids threatened to bomb him back to the Paleolithic era if he didn’t play with him — I have a feeling Musharraf has already concluded that the threat roiling on his own frontier is far more important to placate than a snippy, but easily distracted President of the United States.   And if a revivified opium trade that will mostly inconvenience the DEA is the price he has to pay for running out the clock on the Bush Administration, it’s small wonder our erstwhile ally has opted out of the War on Terror in favor of flogging his book on the Daily Show. 

We know bring you today’s bumper sticker, courtesy of a certain Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

AFGHANISTAN:  IF YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, IT’S PROBABLY SOME BROWN GUY’S FAULT.

Posted by scott on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 6:13 pm.

4 Responses to “Run Silent, Run Dumb”

Hey, where is everybody? This is World O’ Crap, for cryin’ out loud!
It must be technical difficulties. Yeah, that’s it.
Oh well. As long as I’m here…
HASTERT!

Left by Kip W on October 4th, 2006

The only thing I can figure about the LAT’s columnists is that, being on Pacific time, they figure 3/4 of the country will never read ‘em anyway. It’s the late-night programming of political punditry.
C’mon, everybody knew what the story was with Musharraf five years ago. We had to have him and we paid him off (if Dick Armitage threatened anybody, and I doubt it, it was a stone bluff). Musharraf couldn’t have withstood the internal pressure if he’d really gone after the Taliban, so he made a play of cooperation for as long as he could, or until the contract ran out, and then he capitulated. Why was there a two-year string of “#2 Man in al-Qaeda” captures and rub-outs, and why didn’t we get anything out of it except warnings that the Golden Gate bridge and some mall in Bismark were the next Terra Targets? Because he played the same game as our own state and local officials: he saw the opportunity to fleece Uncle Sugar and he took it, and now the US has nothing left to offer or threaten anybody with, and we’re back to normal.
(By the way, Scott, it took a good five minutes for me to get over the Cars bit so I could type this.)

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 4th, 2006

Scott,
Musharaff’s equation is really simple:
Bush = 2 more years
Osama = ?
Taliban = ?
Al Qaeda = For as long as they can
The math is really easy.

Left by actor212 on October 4th, 2006

I dunno how you make something that awful that funny, but I appreciate it. My favorite was the Watson bit, but I’m odd that way.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 5th, 2006

Probably No Topless Women Were Included

I feel slighted and diminished because I didn’t get invited to John Ashcroft’s blogger teleconference yesterday.

Heck, if he would have included me, I would have promoted his self-serving new book (for instance, I would have highlighted his claim that prosecutors botched the Tim McVeigh case. presumably because they didn’t charge McVeigh with failing to blow up the NY Times building).

But no, I was excluded. It’s just like high school again (but in a GOOD way).  However, Mary Katharine Ham, who was invited, blogged about it, so we can all share Mr. Ashcroft’s insights, including this one about why we should get rid of that old-fashioned “three branches of government” thing, and that quaint idea of balance of power.

“I am a little bit uneasy about the courts making assessments about the seriousness of our cirumstances. They are not privy to the intelligence the President is, nor should they be.”
Ashcroft argued with the notion that the Congress is somehow automatically more legitimate or responsive in exerting war powers than the President.
“I think we need to ask, ‘who is the most responsible branch and who is the most responsive?’”
“The President is voted on by many more people than any other public official.”
Paul from PowerLine suggested that the electorate also holds the President more personally responsible for acts of terror committed in the country than it does any single member of Congress.
“I don’t think there’s any question about that. Most members of Congress are not asked to answer to the media in D.C. They go home to the media…The President has to face the national media and, frankly, that’s healthy.”

And that’s why we should just go ahead and make George Bush our “Fearless Leader on the War Against Terror for Life”: because he’s more responsible, more criticized, and because more people voted for him than for all your damned Supreme Court Justices and snooty Senators combined, probably.

I was also impressed with Mr. Ashcroft’s defense of the Patriot Act, which he claims was passed in order to enrich the coffers of the ACLU (really, that’s pretty much what he said).

But if I had been included in the discussion, I might have voiced a minor quibble about this remark:

He noted that pure ignorance keeps people believing that, prior to the Patriot Act, the government couldn’t subpoena business or financial (or any other) records; somehow people have this idea that prior to the Patriot Act, no one could look into your books, even with a court order.

My question would have been “Mr. Ashcroft, sir, doesn’t the Patriot Act give the FBI the authority to look into your records WITHOUT A COURT ORDER?  You know, that part of the Act (Section 505) which allows local FBI officials to grant “administrative subpoenas” to obtain any personal records they deem relevant to an intelligence investigation — and the medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses have to comply without ever letting you know that your records have been provided.  You know, the part that says that they can do all this without having to appear before a judge, and without having to have any evidence that you are involved in any criminal activity.  Do you recall that section, sir?  And can you discuss it while further explaining what you meant about ”the pure ignorance of the people” who believe that this Act somehow curtails their Constitutional rights?

But I guess that question might have taken away from the fan-boy tone of the event, so it’s probably a good thing I wasn’t invited after all.

Posted by s.z. on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 4:00 pm.

 

7 Responses to “Probably No Topless Women Were Included”

well, if they were I’m sure he’d be happy to spend several thousand $$ apiece to cover them up

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 4th, 2006

Okay, that’s the third time in the past couple weeks I’ve listened to some variation of “the President is elected by a nation-wide vote” routine. But he ain’t, of course, as we all know by now. The President is elected by 538 voters–he has the smallest constituency in the national government.
Am I splitting hairs? Well, excuse me for being correct, as a professor of mine used to say after pronouncing “Van Gogh” like he was coughing up a furball. But then, 1) if you’re smart enough to try to make the argument you’re smart enough to be expected to get it right; and 2) if the Republicans would quit blocking the direct election of the President they’d be free to use the argument as much as they wanted.

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 4th, 2006

S.Z, it’s time you face it. It’s not your political views that kept you out, it’s your raw feminine power.
Think about it, the man is frightened by aluminum breasts and calico cats – of course he’s scared of you.

Left by Ted on October 5th, 2006

I have to admit to a certain uneasiness about aluminum breasts myself.
I suspect it would be impossible to determine if these people were more crazy, mean, or dumb without three index cards and a dart.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 5th, 2006

his claim that prosecutors botched the Tim McVeigh case
Huh? The guy was EXECUTED. We’re not talking OJ here.
Ashcroft is just pissed that they didn’t legalize torture in time to use it on Timmy.

Left by Realist on October 5th, 2006

no one asked him why he stopped flying on commercial jets in 01?

Left by merlallen on October 5th, 2006

Ashcroft is just pissed that they didn’t legalize torture in time to use it on Timmy.

Naah. I’m sure it’s more along the lines of thinking that McVeigh was only doing things that Ashcroft sees as good, necessary, and patriotic, and that the Government had no right to persecute him. He probably also thinks that Eric Rudolph is getting a bum deal.

Left by Marq on October 5th, 2006

Math Time

Here’s a math question for Andy McCarthy, Sean Hannity, and other assorted winguts:

If Monida Lewinsky was born on July 23, 1973, and first flashed her thong at Bill Clinton on November 15, 1995, how old was she when their inappropriate relationship began?

No, Sean and Andy, the answer isn’t 19.

And here’s a further problem for Andy, who wrote:

I note that NRO’s editorial today refers to the “boy” and the “kids.” That’s fair enough, but the boy and kids in question were a lot closer to Monica’s age than, say, to the 6-to-14 year-olds that the words “boy” and “kid” connote for most people.

Andy, is 16 closer to 22, or to 14? Get out your calculator, work on it, and get back to us. Then, if there’s time, we can discuss the concept of “consent.”

 

Posted by s.z. on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 2:49 pm.

11 Responses to “Math Time”

All the time in the world won’t help these assholes understand the concept of “consent”, and I find that terrifying.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 4th, 2006

Q: If a Monica Lewinsky is traveling on the Southbound tracks at 47mph, starting 17 miles from the station, and a Linda Tripp is on the Northbound tracks going 37mph starting 10 miles away from the station, and if there’s an industria-sized strawberry cheesecake sitting in the center of the station (serves 20, so clearly there’s only enough for one of our two ladies), which of our ladies gets to the cheesecake first? A: Neither. Jonah Goldberg is, cleverly, already at the station. By the time either of the ladies arrives, there’ll be nary a crumb of the cheesecake left! Teh End.

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

Oh, but Jonah sees a few crumbs stuck to the bottom of the plate, which has slipped between the slats of the track, and races back to retrieve it. He struggles to remove, never considering holding the plate sideways, and as the oncoming train races ever closer, has to quickly decide to either let go of the plate and jump away, or try to quickly pull it out to get that last bit of cake before getting hit.
Poor Jonah.

Left by Bill S on October 4th, 2006

ah, but you forgot to use teh “fuzzy math”

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 4th, 2006

Who are you going to believe? Respected pundits, or your lying numbers?

Left by Kip W on October 4th, 2006

RESPECTED pundits? I thought we were talking about McCarthy and Hannity!

Left by Bill S on October 4th, 2006

Bill, “poor” Jonah wouldn’t have been struck by a train. It would have to have been a sweaty, irate, and especially hungry Linda Tripp or Monica Lewinsky. And with the only cheesecake in evidence being that which is smeared all over Jonah’s flabby lips, well…
Poor Jonah.

Left by Marq on October 5th, 2006

And in the case of Linda Tripp, quite possibly post-menopausal. Either that, or it’s really John Goodman in drag–who could tell?

Left by Marq on October 5th, 2006

Bill, I never, ever, ever want to see the phrase “pull it out in time” in reference to Jonah.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 5th, 2006

Three women rolling around in a giant cheesecake at a train station? Two conductors and a ticket agent walk in, and you’ve got the plot for a serious contender at next year’s AVN awards.

Left by trashfire on October 5th, 2006

Not even if the context is: “It’s a shame that the when Sid and Lucienne were shtupping, he didn’t pull it out in time, and now we’re stuck with Jonah”, D. Sidhe?

Left by Bill S on October 5th, 2006

Foley Reveals Source of Perviness: Was "Bad-Touched" By Xenu

Former Congressman Mark Foley has sought treatment for a previously unsuspected addiction to alcohol, which apparently resulted in his widely-known predeliction for text-messaging horny teens during votes in the House of Representatives. Eschewing the Alcoholics Anonymous and its infamous left-wing bias in favor of personal accountability, Mr. Foley has placed himself in the clinically-proven care of the Church of Scientology, which can short-circuit the notoriously inefficient 12 Steps by simply wiring his penis to an E-Meter.

But apparently demon rum was not the only culprit. According to Foley’s attorney, the ex-lawmaker’s need to clarify whether Congressional pages used lotion and tissues, or simply jacked-off into a towel can be directly traced to a childhood encounter with a rather hands-on clergyman. The lawyer declined to name names, or to specify the tactile preacher’s denomination, but by assembling the evidence so far accumulated, we can easily deduce the unsavory priest’s identity:
Meanwhile, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn informs us that l’affair Foley is one of the few political scandals that has managed to enrich the language without recourse to the suffix “-gate”:

When U.S. Rep. Mark Foley told reporters Monday he was entering treatment for alcoholism in the wake of this scandal, reader Tim Howe came up with a new word to describe the attempt to make problems magically disappear by announcing you are seeking help to battle an addiction: Rehabracadabra.

At press time, The Steve Miller Band was reportedly rushing to the recording studio in an effort to capitalize on the buzz.

Posted by scott on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm.

 

9 Responses to “Foley Reveals Source of Perviness: I Was Bad Touched by Xenu”

Someone set Mark Foley up the bomb!

Left by dmgroves on October 4th, 2006

Fuck him. Having been prey is no excuse to become a predator. What the fuck happened to the party of personal responsibility? What the fuck happened to the disdain for moral relativism? Is it okay to make “Blame society” excuses as long as the do-er is a rich white guy who could have gotten rehab and therapy long before he started going after kids? Seriously, WTF?
I can’t tell if these assholes are making me more angry or sick.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 4th, 2006

The true funny of the situation is how quickly Foley adopted the “Wah! I was molested, too! Please, please pity my pathetic ass!!!1!” defense. Of course, his party has spent years and years disparaging “welfare queens” and other “undeserving malcontents” for being too “lazy” to join the “ever burgeoning” middle class. I’ll bet they’re confused as to why nobody’s buying this “poor little victim me” defense. I sure hope they don’t develop brain hernias from the colossal strain, poor babies

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

As defenses go, he couldn’t have picked a more pathetic one. Look what he’s saying:
“I was violated by someone as a child, and it’s a horrible experience that I had no reservations about inflicting it on someone else-or a BUNCH of kids!”
Loser.

Left by Bill S on October 4th, 2006

Meanwhile, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn informs us that l’affair Foley is one of the few political scandals that has managed to enrich the language without recourse to the suffix “-gate”:
Au contraire. I’ve seen other blogs refer to this debacle as “Masturgate.”

Left by folderol on October 4th, 2006

you may not be aware that before it took on its present political connotation, the word “chickenhawk” was a term for a man who liked to hunt for very young guys, for sex.

Left by tony on October 4th, 2006

Actually I HAD heard the term used in the original context. When I started seeing it used the other way, the two meanings kinda linked together in my head, probably because the two groups have about the same moral standards.

Left by Bill S on October 4th, 2006

Yes. I use it in exactly that context in the “That’s Our Hindraker” thread, though the modern meaning applies, too. I also get to trot out that wonderfully descriptive word for underaged sex-objects of a boylike nature, “twinks.”

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

I see by the picture that the blue dress has been found.

Left by Kip W on October 4th, 2006

Supply Your Own Mental Photoshopped Image for This One

I know that the Sadly, No! guys have a thing for perky Miss Marie JonApostrophe, but are they her type?  Sadly, no!  For it seems that what turns her on are incompetent senior citizens in spike heels with whips and chains.

Rummy, as he is fondly called by President George Bush, is an intelligent, Godly, man of faith. He has dedicated himself to protecting our country. He is a man who serves his country though the eyes of great experience. He is inspiring. The Secretary of Defense wakes up everyday and thinks about every single American citizen’s safety. [...]

At the age of seventy five, the man is in excellent mental and physical health. He is fit and trim an extraordinary specimen of manliness.

Yes, its true Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a genuine sex symbol. A senior-citizen sensation, evoking swoons and cries. At the of 69-year old Rumsfeld was receiving offers from Playgirl magazine to pose nude. “Rumsy is hot in a dominatrix kind of a way,” said the editor of Time magazine.

Okay, while you wash the image of Rummy in a leather bustier out of your mind, let’s read the REST of the story — the part of the quote that Marie “forgot” to include in this Valentine to Rummy.

“Bush is a good-natured, bumbling simpleton more suited for a spin-off bass-fishing show, while Rumsy is hot in a dominatrix kind of a way,” said the editor of Time magazine. “He’s so stern in his denial when asked to address real issues–like the thousands of innocent Afghan people we killed looking for a small band of psychotic cave nuts–it kind of turns me on. I secretly wish he would just bitch-slap me someday.”

And so does Marie, who also gets hot thinking about the deaths of innocent brown-skinned people. But I am kind of disappointed that she has turned her back on her former crush, George Bush, this way. But I guess that thing with the boiled bunny probably creeped him out a tad, and thus doomed their relationship.

P.S. I highly doubt that the editor of Time really made that remark about Rummy the Dominatrix, since the only source I can find for it is a Chico News and Review column wgucg which reads like satire to me — but the important thing is that Marie thought it was a real quote and a legitimate tribute to Rummy (as long as she cut out the parts she didn’t like). So, Rummy, even though spooky chicks are supposed to be great in bed, I’d avoid rolling in the hay with Marie, because she’s also kinda dense.

 

Posted by s.z. on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm.

 
12 Responses to “Supply Your Own Mental Photoshopped Image for This One”

Well, I’m glad that the source story was (probably) fake, ‘cos that quote from the “Tine” editor–! :::shudder::: I mean, they’re bad enough in real life. Marie is merely applying her standard research protocol to this–if it reenforces her worldview, then it’s true! If not, then it’s a scurrilous lie!!1!! It’s easy, once you know how!

Left by Marq on October 3rd, 2006

Lucienne Goldberg also thinks Rumsfeld is hot. There’s something deeply disturbing in the conservative libido, you know?

Left by D. Sidhe on October 4th, 2006

Speaking from experience, spooky chicks are not so great in bed. Their damage makes them narcissistic, and not really tuned into the moment-by-moment response of their partner to their ministrations. This is compensated by the ease in which they can be bed. Besides, most men lack the ability to judge the difference anyway.
PS: I apologize for lowering the standards of the comments here at WOC. Let us return to discussing finer things, like how sixteen-year-olds seduce their superiors.

Left by the bunny on October 4th, 2006

wgucg
Too funny. Best! Typo! Evar!
oh, and the post was pretty good, too.

Left by Left by LACJ on October 4th, 2006

Lucienne Goldberg also thinks Rumsfeld is hot.

Which leaves only the most dreaded question of all: does Rummy find Lucienne “hot,” or is kaYe “Groga’n more the type of minx he’s been sniffing around after for fifty or sixty years? I would pay good money, at least a dime, not to ever have that question answered.

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

You can get away with more stupidity if you’re a hot chick. No one listens to them anyway. Except for s.z., of course. And the other fine female ladies who post comments here. We do listen to you.
OK, time for me to put down the beer and the bowl and go to bed.

Left by merlallen on October 4th, 2006

A discussion of Marie JonApo and Rummy getting sweaty together? Great; another day where lunch will not stay down.

Left by heydave on October 4th, 2006

fine female ladies
tee, hee…Well that lets ME out! I’ll leave it to you to guess which word disqualifies me!

Left by BeginningToWonder on October 4th, 2006

Marq, you raise an intriguing notion. How much would it take to get these people to keep the insides of their heads to themselves, and how quickly could we raise the money? I bet it would go faster if we approach people who are trying to eat and tell them what, for example, Chris Matthews had to say about Commander Codpiece.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 4th, 2006

Someone needs to tell rummy that the rear-guard combover isn’t fooling anyone.

Left by jp on October 4th, 2006

The combover does its job, focusing attention on itself and drawing the eyes of millions away from torture and extraordinary rendition.

Left by Kip W on October 4th, 2006

the bunny, I think spooky women fall under the old rubric of “Never sleep with a woman who has more troubles than you do.”

Left by The Dark Avenger on October 5th, 2006

Q.E.D.

Please follow this chain of logic and tell me where I made a mistake:

Although Bob Woodward claims that on July 10, 2001, George Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Condi Rice and her National Security Council staff, Condi cam’t recall such a meeting, and finds it ”incomprehensible” that she would have received such a warning and then failed to respond to it. So, no such meeting could have occured.

However, White House records confirm that this meeting did take place (“Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat – New York Times.”

And, as her 9/11 commission statement indicates, Condi took no action agasint a possible attack except to “continue pursuing the Clinton administration’s efforts.” (And, as we all know, Clinton didn’t do anything at all to counter al Qaeda because he was too busy fooling around with Monica. And as we further know, only George Bush has done anything to keep you safe, because he’s the Steely-Eyed Rocketman, and Terror is his middle name.)

Therefore Condi was warned, but did nothing.

But that’s incomprehensible!

So, I guess the only thing we can conclude is that we live in a surreal universe where nothing makes sense, and George Bush is President of the United States of America.

 

Posted by s.z. on Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 pm.

 

18 Responses to “Q.E.D.”

 

Well, you know. I mean, I personally find it incomprehensibly out of character that I would have ever dated that stuck-up sorority girl, therefore it never happened. How could it have? It’s not the sort of thing I would do, and even though I don’t remember not doing it, I must not have.
Q.E.D.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 3rd, 2006

So, I guess the only thing we can conclude is that we live in a surreal universe where nothing makes sense,
Yeah, I gotta tell ya, that’s been my conclusion for a long, long time – at least ever since we elected Ronald Reagan as President. Twice, no less! And called him The Great Communicator! And don’t forget that I’m from Texas – the state where George W. Bush beat Ann Richards to become Governor. Drugs and alcohol notwithstanding, I’m pretty damned used to surreal.

Left by BeginningToWonder on October 3rd, 2006

Yeah, I’ve been trying to understand “Republicans as better public stewards” ever since ole Red-Ink Reagan sent the deficit into the stratosphere. Watching the once proud and capable FEMA being ground down by political hacks into a shadow of its former self just in time for Katrina was pretty much the last straw. Man, I wish the grown-ups were still in charge…

Left by JoeBuddha on October 3rd, 2006

Really? George Bush is President of the United States…crap, and all this time I thought the ass-hat was ruler of the World.

Left by Punky on October 3rd, 2006

In the last century–where I was educated–it was popular at one time to imagine that H. sapiens sapiens had unstuck himself in time, evolutionarily speaking, and might no longer be subject to the same selective pressures as the rest of the Living World, or not at the same rate, anyway. I have no idea where I was headed when I began that sentence.
Oh, I know. Reagan is apt (and aptly described above). Reagan “unstuck” the connection between scientific and cultural advancement and society at large. Not the “affable” dunce himself, of course, but his election represents the voting public, following its tastemakers and high priests, announcing it was tired of trying to keep up, figure stuff out, and think things through. It was pop-post-modernism, continuing at least a century-long trend of society catching up with the arts or sciences by misunderstanding them a couple decades later (think social Darwinism, Hollywood’s pop-Freudianism of the 30s-50s, or Fifties style as a suburban accomodation to Modernism itself.) Pop-post-modernism severed the bond, and, of course, was also extremely useful to people who are only interested in seizing power, whether behind Christianity or Communism or whatever. Truth was what Reagan needed it to be, and, as BtW points out, the truth about Reagan was whatever his followers wanted it to be.
And so you now can lie America into war so long as it’s in no danger of being drafted itself, and you can show it pictures of feces-smeared men menaced by German shepherds and then conduct a public debate on the vagueness of the Geneva Conventions. It takes something the size of Katrina to wake people up, momentarily, or for as long as it takes them to discover a new ringtone or Howie Mandel to get a game show. Next time even that won’t be enough.
I’m glad I’m getting old.

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 3rd, 2006

I note that Doghouse seems to carry considerably more world-weary wisdom and gravitas in this new font–Times Roman 10pt, I would guess–than he did in the default font I’d had my previous incarnation of Firefox set to, though he certainly had significantly more of an air of the street philosopher about him in 14 pt Tahoma than anyone really should.
It seems to be working with just about everyone–even the snarky bastards of Sadly, No! come off with a great deal of dignity.
I can trust you guys to use this power only for good, but I’m staying the hell away from the wingnut sites until I remember how to change it back. Actually, I should probably see if I can default the wingnuts sites to a Dingbats font.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 3rd, 2006

Please follow this chain of logic and tell me where I made a mistake
Your mistake is expecting the GOP version of logic to actually be logical.

Left by Realist on October 3rd, 2006

D.,
My lightning-struck machine came back from the shop typing like this:
y lhtning-stuckachine cme backrom the sop typn like ths:
It does not appear to be anything to do with keyboard response rate or the controls for Universal Access for the disabled, and it has happened across three keyboards now. Gravitas is my response to the seething rage I feel every time I hit the backspace or move the insertion point, which is, roughly, once every eight seconds. Complete reinstall dead ahead.

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 3rd, 2006

It actually makes sense (in a perverse sort of way) when you consider that Dubya’s foreign policy team was made up of a bunch of Cold Warriors. Condi’s specialty was the Soviet Union and therefore her “expertise” was totally useless in a post-Soviet world.
To the Cold Warriors, the only legitimate threats to US national security were potential military attacks by “rogue” states–hence their obsession with Iraq and the emphasis on missle defense prior to Sept 11, 2001.
In my view, they discounted the warnings of Richard Clarke, George Tenet, et al. about Al Queda because in their know-it-all arrogance, they felt a small stateless terrorist group did not pose a serious threat to the US compared to their other bogeymen. This despite the embassy bombings in Kenya, the previous bombing attack on the WTC in 1993, the Millenium Plot, and the attack on the USS Cole.

Left by "Fair and Balanced" Dave on October 3rd, 2006

Doghouse – I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but it sounds like your motherboard is hosed. Reloading the OS isn’t going to help – you need a new motherboard. Given the cost of the replacement, (unless you can do it yourself) you might be better off considering a new machine.

Left by Realist on October 3rd, 2006

Dave,
You’re right in the “Cold War expert” comment: they wanted to fight last decade’s enemy that they did so well against, like the Harlem Globetrotters get to play the same ineffectual team over and over again for entertainment.
Another aspect, I think, is that there’s no money in small, disorganized, stateless actors. You can’t justify bigger bombs to kill five guys or a missile defense system to guard against a plane hijacking. Remember how Reagan and Bush 1 had to wage a “war” against drugs–a social justice and law enforcement issue? See, social justice and law enforcement take long term investment in education, build-up of social support structure, increase in medical care spending, and lots and lots of lots of human labor.
Where’s the profit in that?

Left by Dorothy on October 3rd, 2006

Looking around at this world is, oddly, helping me catch my Zen. Like there’s a heckuva lot of this “reality” nonsense worth hanging on to.

Left by Heydave on October 3rd, 2006

I found your mistake:

Condi took no action agasint a possible attack except to “continue pursuing the Clinton administration’s efforts.”

That should be “against.”
Also, she didn’t “continue pursuing the Clinton administration’s efforts.” But that would just be piling on.

Left by Ken Houghton on October 3rd, 2006

Dubya’s at least as effective as Officer Pupp. See:
http://www.george-herriman.com

Left by trashfire on October 3rd, 2006

Allow me to point out the error in your thinking:
“It wasn’t a warning, it was a historical summary.”

Left by actor212 on October 3rd, 2006

The above-stated problem should now become known as “Condi’s Paradox”. Philosophers and mathematicians will work on it for years.

Left by Andy on October 3rd, 2006

Easy, S.Z. It’s the “Chewbacca Defense”:
“Why would a Wookee, an eight-foot tall Wookee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.”
I hope this makes everything clear.

Left by Basharov on October 3rd, 2006

well, since there was no inherent blame on the Clenis, the entire argument has no basis from the rightard POV

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 4th, 2006

So, It's Really MY Fault

What would a nasty sex scandal be without Rush “LImp Dick” Limbaugh’s input? 

 “Are Liberals Truly Offended by Foley?”
I have to admit, my friends, I’m a little confused about certain aspects of the situation here involving Mark Foley and the page. [...]

Now, the liberals also tell us that sex and gender issues are just lifestyles, not choices. Maybe choices in the case of sex changes like the chopadickoffame and the adadictomy, but these are just lifestyle things, gender and so forth, we’re not to condemn. Any two people can love each other, any four people can love each other. You can define your family however you want, including your animal or animals. This we have been taught by the tolerant left among us. Kids can have sex, too. Not with somebody just in their age-group, alternative lifestyles, but not if the person is sexually active but younger, apparently. So we find here that there are limits. There are things that will offend liberals. Or are there? Because I continue to ask, are they really offended by this? How many of them wish they were in on the action?

Well, Rush certainly has my number — I’m not really offended that Foley sent sexually explicit IMs to a teen for whom he was an authority figure, nor am I actually outraged because the House leadership did nothing to protect the children for whom they had responsibility.  No, I’m just jealous because I didn’t get some of the action myself — I was really hoping to have any orgy with a few underage pages of both sexes, several animals, and a few creepy middle-aged congressmen, and I’m taking out my frustration and disappointment on Foley and Hastert.

Posted by s.z. on Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 8:02 pm.

18 Responses to “So, It’s Really MY Fault”

You can define your family however you want, including your animal or animals.
You can? Cool! I am hereby officially appointing Hobbes, the Maine Coon, as my grandmother, to replace the one that passed away a couple of months ago. I had no idea this was even legal! To think of all the time I wasted grieving, when all I had to do was just get used to Grandma making me fresh hairballs instead of brownies. Thanks, Rush!

Left by scott on October 2nd, 2006

Boy, I hope Rush Lamebrain wasn’t smoking when he said that, because there were so many strawmen parading around in that paragraph it’d be a serious fire hazard.
I hardly know where to begin, but maybe I should start by asking, “What the fuck do transexuals have to do with Mark Foley?” It just gets stupider and stupider from that point on. Why does this guy still have a career? And why can’t he become addicted to some drug that would render him permanently mute?

Left by Bill S on October 2nd, 2006

*sigh* You know, I’m actually beginning to get bored with the so-called conservatives trotting out that “gays = bestiality & pedophilia” bullshit. Really, right-wing dimbulbs, it’s getting real old. Get some new material, or get off the goddamned stage!

Left by Marq on October 3rd, 2006

DAMN!
S.Z. is back, and she ain’t takin’ NO SHIT!!!
Loved it. ‘Specially the righteously-pissed barely-restrained rage. Very cool.
“Snark” isn’t even vaguely big enough to encapsulate it.
Glad to see you up & around again, I know that I’m tardy, but I hope that I’m not quite to fucktard level yet.
And here’s my theory, clipped & pasted from my comment elsewhere, about why teh republicunts (publicly) hate teh gays:
Republicunts hate gays because they AREN’T pedophiles, because it throws the whole raison d’etre of the G.O.P. “Party Boys” contingent into a major tizzy.
See, we’ve got this rampant problem of disappearin’ white kids in this country (well, there can’t be any missing BLACK or FURRIN kids in Murka, or you’da heard about ‘em on THA NEWS!!!) — and if they’re going to be the party of “Truth,” “Justice,” and “The Murkin Way,” then the G.O.P.’s got to look like they’re DOING SOMETHING ABOUT all of these missing/raped/murdered kids.
(Note: I didn’t say that they had to actually DO SOMETHING, I said that they have to LOOK like they’re ‘doing something’, as they generally operate on all topics.)
ZZzzssssSO… They need a BOOGEY-MAN. They need an easily-identified Willie Horton-type perp here. They need the last minority (aside from Southern & fat people, of course, but those two are sancrosanct comedic material, just ask Lorne Michaels) of which it is still safe to make fun, in these here United States. Who’s the last “minority group” who can still be publicly demonized amongst large gatherings of mighty-white folks, generally waving bibles?
Nope, not gynecologists who don’t “practice their love for women” — it’s GAY FELLERS!!!!
(The gay “chicks” have already been safely marginalized as a fallacy of porn fantasies.)
So, there’s your X-Files-type solution to this quizzical situation.
Wanna keep the breeding, bible-banging, fear-addicted, mouth-breathing sheeple feeling “safe” from the ever-present encroaching threat from the INSIDE, the one thing that can even get past Dear Leader, oh he of the mighty search parties? Wanna distract the sheeple from the paganistic paens to Pan and Caligula that go on every night in the Pages’ Lounge?
BLAME IT ON TEH GAYS!!!!!!
(Ta-dahhhh!)
There ya go. Now wash your hands of any concern and rest easy, dear ones, for Dear Fuhr– er, LEADER has it all under control. He’ll be issuin’ huntin’ licenses for those buggerin’ bastards (i.e., those NOT on Capitol Hill) by Xmas. Bag a gay, quite a day! Bag a pair, they’ll fix your hair! (Y’know, before you hang ‘em by the hocks over the gut-bucket at the huntin’ camp and bleed those suckers out.)
Yeahhh, I said it.
(And yes, the tag line of “bag a f*g” did occur to me, but not in a nice way.)

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on October 3rd, 2006

Well, gosh. Rush is also the guy who thinks the torture that went on (and probably still is) in Abu Ghraib is basically just frat hijinks, performed by sexually assertive liberated women.
I think, over the years, that we’ve all been exposed to way too much of Rush’s creepy libido. The inside of his head must be like a slaughterhouse full of Ann Coulters in Ilsa the She Wolf costumes hacking the heads off of fluffy baby bunnies with rusty cleavers and feeding them to giant, slime-encrusted centipedes. Only considerably less pleasant.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 3rd, 2006

even though rush limpdick is a drug addict and pedophile, i hate him anyway. strange, huh?

Left by merlallen on October 3rd, 2006

What a yutz. It’s amazing the amount of crap he comes up with. And folks actually listen to what he says… please tell me it’s satire. Otherwise, there’s a whole segment of our population that seriously deranged.

Left by CLD on October 3rd, 2006

I think that Rush is in Foley’s district (West Palm Beach.) wonder if they’ve ever done the Dominican Republic VirginBennie junket together

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 3rd, 2006

Remember what they keep telling us? “He’s entertainment”. The pandering in that diatribe is beyond appalling. You can practically visualize the basest fears of the mouth-breathers coming out of their skin and crawling around the room, screaming “save us from teh gayz”. And the real issue, a rightie perv who got caught, gets lost in the miasma of their tiny, tiny little minds. It’s eleven o’clock in the morning and I already need a drink.

Left by mmm...lemonheads on October 3rd, 2006

You’re just jealous because Rush can belong to NAMBLA and you can’t. Just accept it.

Left by Richard on October 3rd, 2006

Kids can have sex, too. Not with somebody just in their age-group, alternative lifestyles, but not if the person is sexually active but younger, apparently.
What the hell is he talking about? Is he talking about kids in that second sentence or did he just suddenly switch to talking about adults? Does he know that Foley is an adult?

Left by Hysterical Woman on October 3rd, 2006

“How many of them wish they were in on the action?”
I believe he is actually one of the “them”. I recall a recent incident with him at an airport involving Viagra and his return from The Dominican Prepubic .

Left by King Spirula on October 3rd, 2006

As Margaret Cho once said: “Why does Rush Limbaugh say this stuff? Because he’s still high. Rush did so many drugs that Courtney Love said ‘You know, I can’t, I gotta work in the morning.’”
Ben Stein said something similar. The conservatives spend a massive chunk of their waking hour turning gays (like me) into their punching bags and whipping boys, then when they find one in their midst, suddenly they’re all a-full o’ the tolerance and why you hating, liberals? Give me a fucking break. I have yet to hear a widespread condemnation of the gay pedophile (because they are two ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS) that was coddled and enabled by the Republican leadership. What Foley did was unethical and illegal. He preyed on children that saw him as an authority figure. It’s not because he’s gay, it’s not because he has “addiction problems.” The man is 52, the boy is 16. This is not an “alternative lifestyle” thing. This is a sexual predator asking “Timmy, have you ever been a congressional page before?”

Left by Johnny M on October 3rd, 2006

Some people will blame liberals for anything, and the knots of logic they tie would have amazed even R.D. Laing. (http://laingsociety.org/biblio/knots.htm)
Foley himself doesn’t blame liberals, he blames alcohol. While we all know that alcohol may cause a model businessman to make a pass at the redhead from accounting at the Christmas party and get fired (if he’s gay, maybe at a male redhead from accounting), Foley’s saying that alcohol doesn’t just lower inhibitions, it’s actually some Jekyll & Hyde potion that turned an upstanding Congressman with healthy desires into a twisted predator. Three days in dry-out and he’ll be back to normal.
This is extreme bullshit, and Anheuser Busch, Coors, and every distillery and bar owner in America should sue his ass for disparaging their fine products. (Not to mention suits by the pages’ parents.) You wanna see some huge punitive damage awards? Foley might end up being real sorry he (a) didn’t work harder on tort “reform” and (b) voted for bankruptcy “reform.”

Left by trashfire on October 3rd, 2006

You left out the bestest part of Limpballs’ diatribe. The part where he speculates that the pages were bribed by liberals to set Foley up. That they led him on, etc. Entrapment!
Remember, the page we know about is a Louisiana Republican. The way kids get to be pages is by recommendations from their Congresscritters. Now, who do you suppose gets those recommendations from Congresscritters? That’s right. Kids whose parents donate lots of moola to the party.
So, knock yerself out, Rush. Keep right on defaming Young Republican pages from Republican Pioneer families. Those moms and dads will be lovin’ on ya big time! And they’ll just keep those checks rolling into Republican coffers, and sending their kids to be pages and to work on Republican campaigns! Sure they will. Asshole.
PS The Missouri fundies I have talked to are NOT buying ANY of the crap they are hearing from Rush, Dobson, Hastert, or any one else. They’re not buying any spin, period. They are seriously pissed off.

Left by Gentlewoman on October 3rd, 2006

So, knock yerself out, Rush. Keep right on defaming Young Republican pages from Republican Pioneer families.

Wow, I completely neglected that these “studly” 16-year-olds were, in all likelihood, Hitler Youth Young Republicans. Strange. You’d think that, with their general avoidance of physical labor of any type, that these Cheetos-snarfing little puds would not so much be “hot” as they’d be a nearly motionless herd of mini-Doughy Pantloads.
IT IS A MYSTERY!1!!

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

And, yes, with that comment, I have reached my Godwin-limit for the week. If I mention herr Schicklegruber or his party-hardy goosestepping thugs again before next week, I have to give Wisconsin’s James Sensenbrenner, jr. a sponge bath and leeching. Did I mention that Sensenbrenner would only be wearing a thong? So, I’m really motivated to be good… for once.

Left by Marq on October 4th, 2006

The same might apply for Rush with regards to The Clenis.
That could’ve been him in Monica’s kneepads.

Left by Railroad Stone on October 4th, 2006