Montgomery Burns

Good catch, Scriblett. I saw this yesterday. Made me sick but it is yet another example of the left supporting terrorists.

There is nothing about Hillary and Dennis Hastert: wonkette: OMG I AM WATCHING MICHELLE MALKIN’S INTERNET VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME operative: she has internet videos? operative: does she do the thing with the ping-pong balls? Only after criticism from the right side of the blogosphere, did Wonkette (who is a female), put this at the bottom of her post...Update: This is not funny. We apologize. I suppose you will accuse Malkin of wallowing in "conservative-as-victim self pity." Oh, and this is how the post ends: wonkette: i think i envy the unabomber for probably not knowing who michelle malkin is. operative: plus, he’s got a great haircut wonkette: also: less scary Nice. A convicted terrorist is less scary than Michelle Malkin. If you read Wonkette with any regularity, and not just when wing-nuts send out a mass email to their disciples to tune in to b*tch about their sense of humor, you would know that Wonkette occasionally does the ping pong ball joke. There's nothing on there right now and the "examples" I gave were just conjured up in my head, but they are fairly representative of things I have seen on Wonkette. I thought they were so obviously made up by me that such an explanation was not necessary. And if you know their humor, you'd also recognize that "apology" as anything but. They're totally laughing their *sses off over the complaints, believe me. I didn't accuse Malkin of wallowing in conservative-as-victim self pity. I accused you of that. As the ideology of manly-men and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstrap types, you conservatives sure have paper thin skin. Re the terrorist/haircut thing. Uhh, again, don't you get humor? Are conservatives allowed to laugh, or are you so busy stomping out civil liberties and monitoring the goings on of private bedrooms that you've forgotten how to smile? I suppose you were equally outraged when Coulter voiced a wish that Timothy McVeigh had blown up the NY Times building instead? (The difference being that Coulter's audience might actually resort to violence, whereas Wonkette's is much more interested in satire and wit, which Coulter sadly lacks.) I don't read Wonkette regularly. I find it revealing that she, a female, finds nothing wrong with making cracks about another woman doing ping-pong tricks with her wazoo. But it's just a joke! Comparing Bush to Hitler is also just a joke! Lighten up, you thin-skinned manly-men types, who just happen to make up the vast majority of the people who defend freedom and are willing to give their lives to do so. Wonkette is laughing at you fools who think it is inappropriate to discuss ping-pong ball tricks with your c*nt when discussing a rightwing columnist! Ann Coulter wished that McVeigh had blown up the NYT building, not NYT employees. Nonetheless, I thought Coulter's comment was out of line, and you will find few on the right who supported her for saying that. As for your claim that Coulter's audience would resort to violence, I do recall Coulter being subjected to violence by 2 so-called men who attempted to assault her when she was giving a speech in Arizona. And you don't want to go there regarding stomping out civil liberties. I'll stomp a mudhole in you. You can't smoke cigarettes anywhere, gun control, eminent domain, language police measuring signs to make sure that English is not the same size as French, etc. If you want to go there: Bring.it.on.

Geez, take a joke. (isn't that the standard response when someone from the left side of the spectrum criticizes Ann Coulter? Oh wait, I forgot: in right wing bizzaro land, racial slurs and threats of violence are real knee-slappers, whereas jokes about Michelle Malkin's vagina are deeply offensive ) Hmm, that could be because you can't be convicted in a civil suit (not to mention the out of court settlement thing). And Soros's conviction is relevant how? I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of Asian sex workers. Curiously, most follow Malkin's hissy fit over Wonkette's comment and thus are a response to that matter and not part of an ongoing trend. 1) Ahh yes. Saying Malkin is scarier than a terrorist who killed and maimed people is just a joke! Lighten up! At least we didn't pie her in the face! And you got nerve claiming that rightwingers use racial slurs (which they sometimes do), when it is a far more common leftwing tactic (Aunt Jemima, Uncle Tom, Sambo, etc). 2) You can't be convicted in a civil lawsuit, huh? Fred Goldman vs OJ Simpson civil suit. Nuff said! I note that you "forgot" to mention that Andrea Mackris dropped her charge against O'Reilly after he sued her for $60 million for extortion. You should get a job with the MSM. You would fit in well: We Report Half, You Decide. George Soros was relevant because Machinations insinuated that O'Reilly sexually harassed Andrea Mackris, then dropped a link from Media Matters, a site funded by convicted criminal George Soros. O'Reilly was never convicted of sexually harassing Mackris. 3) Cheap shot, but something I have come to expect from you. 4) Hissy fit! The nerve of Malkin getting upset with numerous references to her doing the ping-pong trick (I see that after Malkin shone a light on these cockroaches, they quickly deleted these offensive slurs, or as you call them, jokes). Black Dog: Ever the gentleman. What's wrong with referring to Malkin as an Asian whore who does ping-pong tricks with her vagina (although vagina is NOT the word they use--it rhymes with hunt). So what if it is an ongoing trend? It's just a joke. Lighten up! Look, some on the right hate Hillary Clinton with a purple passion, but I have never come across anyone making "jokes" about her shooting ping-pong balls out of her wazoo. And guess who I just saw on The O'Reilly Factor? Michelle Malkin! And she made a helluva lot more sense than O'Reilly's previous guest, Wesley Clark, who nearly started WWIII while in the Balkans during Clinton's illegal war.

How the hell knows really, it's a common tactic of his to ignore questions and points he was called on and keep on throwing s&*t on the wall. Can you give me examples of my "common tactic" of ignoring questions and points I am called on? I don't have time to sit on this forum all day - every day. But if I miss a reasonable question you ask (this does not include the lie that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda, which I have proven numerous times on this forum) or point you are making, send me an email with a link to your post and I will reply. And don't play dumb about the stereotype of Asian sex workers and the ping-pong ball trick. There are numerous examples of Malkin being called that by the "tolerant and compassionate" left. That's why I do my part to keep you people out of power. And that's why I made a donation (no, I didn't say "it's YOUR job to look after me; gimmie gimmie") when contacted by the CPC this morning.

Falafel Bill's sex harrassment suit is pretty common knowledge. link. What does shooting ping pong balls out of her cooter have to do with her race? 1) O'Reilly was not convicted of sexual harrassment. However George Soros is a convicted criminal. 2) Shooting ping-pong balls out of your wazoo is a stereotype of Asian sex workers.

There is nothing about Hillary and Dennis Hastert: wonkette: OMG I AM WATCHING MICHELLE MALKIN’S INTERNET VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME operative: she has internet videos? operative: does she do the thing with the ping-pong balls? Only after criticism from the right side of the blogosphere, did Wonkette (who is a female), put this at the bottom of her post...Update: This is not funny. We apologize. I suppose you will accuse Malkin of wallowing in "conservative-as-victim self pity." Oh, and this is how the post ends: wonkette: i think i envy the unabomber for probably not knowing who michelle malkin is. operative: plus, he’s got a great haircut wonkette: also: less scary Nice. A convicted terrorist is less scary than Michelle Malkin.

Malkin, Coulter and Savage are cut from the same cloth. Vicious, petty and attention-seeking, they pander to the most extreme elements of their political base. Their arguments are spacious and easily refuted, so they are distingushed not by their elegance of discourse or for their sagacity - but rather the VOLUME they use, as they shout themselves hoarse, spewing their factually-challenged ideology. That's the word I was looking for. They're not thinkers - they're ideologues. Speaking of vicious, petty, attention-seeking ideologues who pander to the most extreme elements of their political base....why did you - the other day - attempt to claim that Bill O'Reilly had sexually harrassed a lady he used to work with? The bizarre thing is that you used a link from a site (Media Matters) funded by a convicted criminal (George Soros) to bash O'Reilly. And quit knocking on the invaluable Michelle Malkin. I don't know much about Savage and I know the left detests Coulter because she has the unique ability to emasculate liberals, but I'm tired of leftist bigots constantly attacking minority conservatives like Malkin. Just a few days ago, Wonkette made a post about Michelle asking if she did "the ping-pong ball trick." Oreo cookies, Uncle Toms, Aunt Jemimas, queefing ping-pong balls, etc...why are "tolerant and compassionate" leftists so racist when it comes to minority conservatives?! :angry:

Michael Savage bitchslaps yet another progressive liberal. Like I've always said: Moonbats are pure comedy gold. Enjoy the audio clip.

3 employees of Quebec daycare sued for $616,000: They are not guilty but this is one reason, the main reason being that parents should have childcare choice, why I distrust govt sticking their noses - financially - deeper and deeper into Canadian society. There has been a few Saskatchewan govt employees charged in the last few months for stealing from taxpayers (the lady from Social Services comes to mind--I think it was a million dollars). When someone is given gobs of "free" money, the temptation is always there to "nick" some for yourself. Jack Layton and Paul Martin: There's your "non-profit" daycare! Bloody greedy leeching leftwing elitists and your govt monopolies always stealing our money. :angry: I liked what Columnist to the World (Mark Steyn) wrote today: I really miss Ronald Reagan. And Europe needs a Winston Churchill or an Iron Lady like Margaret Thatcher--no offense to Tony Blair whose foreign policy I admire. However I do not admire his gun ban (which resulted in a massive increase in crime), and I am disappointed that he did not learn from this, and now has implemented a "knife amnesty." Tony Tony Tony. Do you really think that the bad guys are going to turn in their knives?

Hicksey: The main reason why they weren't as hostile to Harper as in the past is because of The Peter Kent Challenge. Newsman turned candidate throws challenge to media: Check your bias at the door

Psychological projection is a telling symptom of the mental illness known as Liberalism.

One more time, the quote in question: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is... The dictionary has this to say of the word over-representation - Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers. So for those having trouble with the English language, this means (in context) that Gore feels the factual information should be presented many times. Hardly nuance, just plain english. Sheesh. And the definition of "is" is what, again?

1) Liberal code for "I'm lying my ass off" or 2) Liberal nuance for "I'm lying my ass off."

MB, I fear that arguing with you about this is probably a waste of time but here goes.Kyoto does not set Russia's emission standards at a higher rate because it is not a "1st world country". Under Kyoto, countries are supposed to reduce their emissions below the baseline of 1990. According to official statistics, Russia emitted alot of CO2 in 1990 and official (Russian) statistics now show that Russia's emissions have fallen substantially - presumably because of the collapse of the Soviet economy. The idea of people paying other people for emissions credits is excellent and is one of the best aspects of Kyoto. You get paid for working, you pay for your groceries and you pay for many other things you enjoy in life. I don't see why you shouldn't also pay for using the environment. The fact, MB, that you don't pay now for using the environment is indication enough to me that we face a serious problem. When something appears to be free, it usually isn't. And that's the situation with the world's environment. Al Gore is right to raise this issue (but prevarication in defense of a position is rarely if ever productive). ---- The critical flaw in Kyoto is that by exempting some countries (China and India) completely from meeting targets and by arbitrarily picking 1990 as a baseline, Kyoto in effect gives ownership of the world's environment to everyone but North Americans. IOW, we will have to start paying for the use of something that was previously free but since the non-US/Canadian world has self-declared itself the owner, we'll write the cheques to them. Consider this example. It used to be free to hunt wild animals in North America. Now, for wildlife conservation, hunters have to pay a license fee and follow certain rules. Imagine however if we were to decide (for some crazy reason) that Asians own all the wild animals in North America and so we'd send all the hunting fees collected to Asians. Kyoto mixes something smart with something crazy. The US government obviously walked away from it. Chretien should have done the same. I saw Fox's global warming special, August. I suspect you didn't. Russia's official economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, has said that Russia is a developing economy. Developing economies are exempt from Kyoto restrictions. Their economy collapsed after the fall of Eastern European communism. That's the only reason why their CO2 emissions fell. Their factories are old and like the Russian guy showed, one of their major factories in Moscow hasn't been updated since 1950. They haven't tried to develop new technology to reduce CO2 emissions. The idea that 1st world countries should pay developing countries for "emission credits", when there is no scientific consensus about what causes global warming, is not an excellent idea. I don't recall anyone paying for credits during the Ice Age hysteria of the 1970s. What's next? Canada is going to have to pay Luxembourg or Saudi Arabia for "tree credits" because we chop down more trees and use more lumber than they do? As EU Enviromental Minister Margot Wallstrom admitted (was she a victim of Karl Rove's mind control ray gun when this slipped out?), Kyoto is about levelling the playing field economically. Russia stands to make about $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years, not for doing anything specific to reduce CO2 emissions, but because they can't get their act together economically. Furthermore, taking money from wealthy countries and giving it to developing countries who do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, hurts the development of new energy technologies. The human race's ability to cope with storms, disease, and hunger is directly related to the strength of a society's economy. Countries that have the most wealth are typically the most concerned about the environment, directing some of that wealth into cleaning up after themselves. The poorest countries experience the worst environmental degradation. Only the strong economies of the world can afford the research to develop new energy technologies that can economically substitute for fossil fuels. Govt-mandated restrictions on fossil fuel use will destroy economic vigor, probably delaying the development of new energy technologies.

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

Gosthacked, I can't be arsed to bother with your tin-foil hat theories about Republicans "stealing" elections, or your outrageous claim that the economy has been on the downswing ever since Bush took office (the economy is actually better than it was during the Clinton years), but the debt was not being paid off. Indeed, it rose every year that Clinton was in office.

Newbie: Those stupid Americans got suckered again. They were too dumb to understand the flip-flo, er I mean, the nuance of John Kerry. When is the last time that the Dems got 50+ percent of the popular vote? 1976. I doubt that the "bulk" of the 51% were evangelical Christian groups. And even if it was, so what? Don't they count? Or do only secularist groups count? Kerry's campaign backed down from his Walter Mitty-like tale of secret missions in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 at the behest of President Nixon--even though Nixon was not president then. Kerry's campaign also admitted that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts *might* have come from a self-inflicted wound. SBVFT: 2 Kerry: 0 Oh yes. The notoriously rightwing biased MSM. Just off the top of my head: The bogus 380 tons of Weapons of Mass, er Medium Destruction that disappeared right under the nose of the US military; Rathergate; the Associated Press reporting that Bush supporters booed when Bush wished Clinton well on his upcoming heart surgery. Story after story describing the SBVFT as "the discredited SBVFT." Even Newsweek managing editor, Evan Thomas, admitted that the MSM was going to portray Kerry/Edwards in a good way and that would be good for about 15 points for Kerry. Thomas must've been zapped by Karl Rove's Mind Control Ray Gun when that slipped out. One of the rare times I agree with you. Bush should've listened to the House Republican immigration plan, not the Senate and its RINOS plan. And they just might lose Congress. They were so close to a majority that would've prevented any filibustering by the Dems, the constant obstructing by the Dems who are dividers, not uniters--and the Repubs are going to blow it. Idiots! :angry:

What Harry Smith would've said if he was honest:

National Post Looks like the proposed lawsuit is now up to $63 million. I got a chuckle out of this: BOO HOO. WAHHHHHH! Almost 100 fold. Now that's a good investment!

Michael Hardner: That's not true. The MSM despised Reagan. Only when he died did they generally hail him as a great prez, so as not to look hopelessly out of touch with the public--like in the 80s when the public adored Reagan and the MSM detested him and his values.

Newbie: Refresh my memory. Who did the voters elect in November/2004 after "lie after lie?"

Sharkman: Remember during the Iraqi election last year when Baghdad Mayor Ali Fadel said he'd like to erect a statue of Bush? "He is the symbol of freedom." I hope this doesn't happen because even I do not want to see liberal heads exploding, as they were when the progressives at the Democratic Underground Message Board heard about this. My favorite response at DUMB was #48: "TALK ABOUT A MAJOR ASS KISSER. EXCUSE ME EVERYONE WHY I GO OUT AND PUKE"

Dunno if anyone has heard this (I saw it a couple of days ago), but Casey Sheehan's father has put a marker on his son's headstone. Saint Cindy, as I proved on the video I posted on MLW, was "too busy travelling the world trying to stop the war" to be bothered with putting a marker on her son's grave (priorities priorities). Kudos to Mr Sheehan for honoring his brave son who, on his own accord, volunteered to serve his country in the fight against the 21st century fight against Islamonazism. As for the selfish star-struck MSM media star St. Cindy: You make me want to puke. :angry:

I disagree Geoffrey. We must intimidate these people. These thugs understand only one thing; force. Indeed, I learned this concept at a young age when dealing with bullies. This "it's immoral" concept only shows weakness on our part. Read your history. Just going and slaughtering thousands of people doesn't really solve anything, other then some sick feeling of self-satisfaction. I'm all for the war on terror, and for standing up for our security. I'm not ok with vigilante type action, killing others just to prove that we are tough. Have a goal, have a mission, have a plan and I'm ok with it. Willy nilly slaughter for the hell of it, not my cop of tea. You've now sunk to the 'well he did it first' level of thought. One of Uday Hussein's bodyguards is one the record as saying (I'm paraphrasing here): I wasn't worried much about Clinton, but Bush? I think he is serious. Again, read your history. Neville Chamberlain. The only thing these thugs understand is a knuckle sandwich in the face. I learned this at a young age. You stand up to bullies, they respect you. Don't fall for the liberal "we can reason with Iran's PM who has vowed to nuke Israel off the map" crap. Read the news from the blogosphere, or watch Fox News. This guy, almost on a daily basis, is threatening war. Sipping a cup of tea doesn't cut it in the real world, unless you live in EUnuchistan.

August1991: They interviewed a Russian scientist (Yuri something or other) on the Fox News global warming special last Sunday. He said that Russia signed Kyoto because it was great for Russia. Why? They stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they are not a "1st world country", i.e., their greenhouse gas emissions are set at a higher rate compared to Western countries (they showed a factory in Moscow that had not been upgraded since 1950 belching out pollution). Also, Yuri noted that much of Russia is desolate (eg, Siberia) and that allows them to stay under Kyoto's "rate" and allows them to sell credits to "Kyoto credits" to other companies who go over their "Kyoto rate" (they used, as an example, some company in Spain who had to pay $277 million to Russia for producing too much greenhouse gas emissions). Yuri: We (Russia) ratified Kyoto because it is great for us financially! Kyoto is a political tool by the Euro-socialists to halt capitalism - which is whipping socialism - economically. EU Enviromental Minister on the record: "Kyoto is about levelling the playing field field - economically." Or Jacques ChIraq: "Kyoto is a step towards world governance." Damn that Fox News and their "we report, you decide" credo. :angry: Why can't they have the same credo as the rest of the MSM: We Report Half, You Decide. And Owl Gore? Busted!