Continued from the endless thread.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
gop ca. 1960s: medicare = current generation will be the last to know freedomgop ca. 2009: medicare = sacrosanct entitlement for the older generation that libruls want to kill
― kamerad, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:08 (2 months ago) Permalink
Can someone continue summarising what's going on with the GOP?
They are losing "their" country, and they do not like it.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:13 (2 months ago) Permalink
losers be losin
― go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:15 (2 months ago) Permalink
a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of losers
― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:18 (2 months ago) Permalink
― NYC in Alex (hmmmm), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 01:45 (2 months ago) Permalink
that jgp was the best thing about the first thread
― NYC in Alex (hmmmm), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 01:46 (2 months ago) Permalink
How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off at some daycare, you drop them off at some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gospel-hate-arizona-pastor-steve-and
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
Okay that photo SO does not help his case.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
"DON'T HIT!"
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:03 (2 months ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:04 (2 months ago) Permalink
ned i dunno if direct linx are a good idea
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:05 (2 months ago) Permalink
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gun-toting-arizona-protester-belongs
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
hot xx-post
― bind music up, scratch my discs up (Matt P), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
That's who just sold our corporations to the government.
homophobia totally run of the mill, but this very concept is completely mindboggling in its logical inversion of reality
― go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
Looks like George McFly
― caek, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:07 (2 months ago) Permalink
Was going back and forth on that. (The first photo is hosted on the Crooks and Liars site, FWIW.)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:11 (2 months ago) Permalink
That dude seriously does not know how to hold a baby.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:14 (2 months ago) Permalink
how is babby held?
― velko, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:15 (2 months ago) Permalink
Pretty poorly.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:17 (2 months ago) Permalink
omg lol -- WSJ: Obama must move to the right to 'save his Presidency'
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:23 (2 months ago) Permalink
save it from what? lol blackmail.
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:27 (2 months ago) Permalink
SAVE IT FROM ABJECT FAILURE, obv.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:47 (2 months ago) Permalink
interesting angle there, how Clinton benefited from the GOP. Something must be wrong with my browser though because I can't find the word 'impeachment' anywhere in that article.
― bnw, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:54 (2 months ago) Permalink
lol. I assume the op-ed author would not say the same about Republican Presidents (i.e., that they campaign on a centerist platform, but if they try to govern from the far right, they're doomed to failure), since the underlying assumption is that the country is center/right.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 26 August 2009 19:04 (2 months ago) Permalink
I usually give more cred to the wsj for at least being a grounded conservative view. but that is some totally blinded by bias crapola.
― bnw, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 19:12 (2 months ago) Permalink
We liberals still dream of the zipless debate -- of the claim so clear and pure that it can’t be routed in some bizarre fashion. As we dream these dreamers’ dreams, we show that we still don’t understand the shape of our current predicament.
Can we talk? In years when no GOP congressman has been discovered sleeping with boys, it’s easy to defeat our proposals! (There is no easier job on earth than that of the pseudo-con pundit.) Typically, we show few signs of understanding why that is. ...
The other side just has to say a few words: “Government takeover!” No, wait: “Death panels!” By way of contrast, our guy goes out there for an hour -- and nobody knows what he wants!
One side gets to yell crazy things -- and the other side is required to make intensely detailed presentations! And yet, the side which yells the crazy things is the side which constantly wins! It’s almost like a dream from Kafka -- a dream our side can’t quite explain. Then too, we thought of a passage from Wittgenstein: “We feel as if we had to repair a torn spider’s web with our fingers.”
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 20:47 (2 months ago) Permalink
tracer that is an argument for...what? more bamboozlement and bullshit from "us"? completely running over republicans rather than any show of deliberation or respect? i'm half in favor...
i don't still dream of a zipless debate, fwiw
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 20:51 (2 months ago) Permalink
i think it's less of an argument than a painful yawp of frustration and disappointment
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 21:20 (2 months ago) Permalink
'zipless' meaning what, exactly? velcro, maybe.
― there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 21:24 (2 months ago) Permalink
i know this has been said, but i think handwringing about how "we always lose!" is playing into the republican narrative way more than anything that's actually going on in washington. "we" (however you define that) do not always lose. it's just not true.
a health care bill is going to pass. it's not going to be everything anybody wants it to be, but it's going to pass and it's going to be a "win," and people who think it's going to be "defeated" by crazy people waving hitler pictures just need to calm down and enjoy the spectacle.
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 21:43 (2 months ago) Permalink
and really, who doesn't enjoy clowns waving crudely drawn Hitler posters?
― go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 21:58 (2 months ago) Permalink
(can someone compare contrast the Bush=Hitler posters w/some Obama=Hitler posters? Cuz I definitely saw the former at various anti-war protests)
tipsy mothra otm
― fleetwood (max), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:14 (2 months ago) Permalink
social security was kind of a shitty deal when it was put together too
― the people vs peer gynt (goole), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:15 (2 months ago) Permalink
You know what blows my mind? We have 3 1/2 years more of these people losing their shit. Like, it took Bush fatigue a few years to get going. But Obama? Instant anti-karma. What will the nuts be saying/doing next year?
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:28 (2 months ago) Permalink
Shouting loudly at primaries and caucuses?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:29 (2 months ago) Permalink
The Democrats should simply refuse to engage with townhall people. It will piss them off, yes, but the party can then respond that they won't respond to irrational people demeaning the process by spreading lies, misinformation and rumors.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:30 (2 months ago) Permalink
eh, i kind of agree w/ that, but the optimist/idealist in me thinks that the dems engaging w/ the psychos in as kind and open a way as possible is likely to both reap long- and short-term political rewards but also maybe inject some level of openness and kindness to political discourse
― fleetwood (max), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:32 (2 months ago) Permalink
I don't buy that, really, though I would like, if not kindnness, a certain flinty insitence on civility and at least a modicum of respect for American democracy's functioning requiring at least some reference to facts more than emotions.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:35 (2 months ago) Permalink
engaging w/ the psychos in as kind and open a way as possible is likely to both reap long- and short-term political rewards but also maybe inject some level of openness and kindness to political discourse
this is highly unlikely. you cannot co-opt an irrational opponent with rationality, it doesn't work.
― go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah i mean doing so not as a strategy to make crazy people uncrazy but as a strategy to make every who isnt crazy less likely to act crazy in the future, and also to remind everyone out there which party is the crazy party
― fleetwood (max), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:37 (2 months ago) Permalink
Just because the base of the Republicans looks crazier, now, doesn't mean that the Democratic base doesn't have its share and doesn't have some internal contradictions. In the end, this will come as much from appealing to various constituencies, inductries and interest groups. It almost always does, no matter what the chatter is about.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:42 (2 months ago) Permalink
That chick that Frank smacked down was a LaRouchebag after all.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:43 (2 months ago) Permalink
(Why am I hearing that epithet in Scooby's voice all of a sudden?)
The only thing you can do about crazy people is to make them look even crazier, either by refusing to engage or by setting the terms of the argument.
― lacoste intolerant (suzy), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:45 (2 months ago) Permalink
Borat to the rescue?
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:46 (2 months ago) Permalink
suzy, while that is globally true, TV stations have no particular self-interest in objective policy debates. They LOVE self-righteous, loud crazies. It stirs shit up.
― repeating cycles of smoking and cruelty (Michael White), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 22:54 (2 months ago) Permalink
UH. There is really nothing anyone here needs to remind me about re. the workings of the media. I was more or less talking about how the Dems should handle it; these yahoos at Town Halls were the same people who'd screech and boo a person who had the temerity to turn up to a Bush event in an anti-war t-shirt, and their favourite politicians would often have such people arrested or harassed.
― lacoste intolerant (suzy), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 23:11 (2 months ago) Permalink
Anyway, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue turned up to a TH where Howard Dean spoke and was disruptive, so Dean chucked him out.
― lacoste intolerant (suzy), Wednesday, 26 August 2009 23:13 (2 months ago) Permalink
― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:47 (3 days ago) Permalink
That is sad
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:51 (3 days ago) Permalink
Eat nothing for a whole day? Holy crap!
― big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 01:05 (3 days ago) Permalink
it'd be a pretty big darn deal imo
― itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 01:10 (3 days ago) Permalink
seriously that is some sub-Twilight bullshit
― This revisionist bible is delicious (reddening), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 01:31 (3 days ago) Permalink
I am not going to be able to stop myself from saying big darn deal now.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 02:19 (3 days ago) Permalink
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/army.tapes/
― max, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:08 (3 days ago) Permalink
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=30030
Fucking yikes
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:23 (3 days ago) Permalink
it's just amazing that the scott beauchamp story had such a symmetrical end
― goole, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:24 (3 days ago) Permalink
those wives man
'we executed these guys mafia style to protect our soldiers'
wtf
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:29 (3 days ago) Permalink
some of the comments are just....
― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:30 (3 days ago) Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:24 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
ya, wish i could say it was surprising
― max, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:36 (3 days ago) Permalink
http://gawker.com/5407568/christian-conservatives-praying-for-god-to-kill-obama
― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:37 (3 days ago) Permalink
guys
Massive government spending programs and protectionist economic policies actually helped turn a recession into the Great Depression.
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:43 (3 days ago) Permalink
Yes those tax and spend liberals Coolidge and Hoover; they never met an entitlement program they didn't like.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:47 (3 days ago) Permalink
Sarah Palin said that in her new book fyi
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:51 (3 days ago) Permalink
Sullivan is insane and awesome:
This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then. When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it - and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided - is a bewildering task. She is a deeply disturbed person which makes this work of fiction and fact all the more challenging to read. And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:51 (3 days ago) Permalink
First reported instance of the Palin family inducing a spontaneous lobotomy.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:52 (3 days ago) Permalink
he has been kicking ass this week
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:52 (3 days ago) Permalink
i think he's off his rocker w/r/t palin, but he's also totally right.
― goole, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:58 (3 days ago) Permalink
I suspect he's exploiting the blackout to scour the interwebs for advance pics of Levi's Playgirl appearance.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:58 (3 days ago) Permalink
douptful. the post said no frontal nudity this morning
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:59 (3 days ago) Permalink
doubtful
Quoted: Playgirl on Levi -- no "full frontal"
Levi Johnston attends the 2009 Fleshbot Awards in New York City on Nov. 11. (Amy Sussman/Getty Images)
"He did not give 'full frontal'... Although there may be glimpses, we did not get full-on frontal nudity."
-- Daniel Nardicio, a spokesman for Playgirl, gently informing the public it won't get the full monty from Levi Johnston after all. He also told us that Johnston's fee will depend on the photo spread's overall traffic and profits for the mag -- but potentially "something in the six-figure range." While the magazine recently folded its print edition and went online only, the rep said interest in Sarah Palin's ex-almost-son-in-law has prompted Playgirl to publish a special newsstand issue in January. Levi, savior of print media!
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:01 (3 days ago) Permalink
my theory: kristol and the other folks that are pushing/advising palin have it in their heads: "nixon and reagan did it, we can do it". but you can't have a long comeback by proxy. if the candidate isn't doing it for him/herself it won't work. reading nixonland, it's perfectly clear how long and how hard and how relentlessly nixon hustled to get from 60 to 68. i'm less familiar with reagan's trajectory thru the 60s and 70s, but nobody thinks palin has his gifts.
the campaign emails ambinder posted today are damning, not cos they make her look diva-ish (to use a gendered insult) but because they make her look undisciplined. she doesn't want to work.
― goole, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:06 (3 days ago) Permalink
she hasn't got a prayer of winning national office so I look forward to the circus/flameout/fireworks
― Jack Kirby's Orangutan Surfing Civilization (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:09 (3 days ago) Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:09 (3 days ago) Permalink
reading nixonland, it's perfectly clear how long and how hard and how relentlessly nixon hustled to get from 60 to 68. i'm less familiar with reagan's trajectory thru the 60s and 70s, but nobody thinks palin has his gifts
OTM. Re Reagan: two-term governor (and a moderate liberal on most matters), followed by a near-miss at getting the nomination in '76, then four more years writing speeches and giving radio addresses. Whatever else, Nixon and Reagan endured years of the rubber chicken circuit.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:11 (3 days ago) Permalink
The counterargument is that you presumably don't *need* to do that anymore in the age of Twitter etc. At the same time we can see how Giuliani's coasting got him nowhere; then again this is all the 'new' thing now post-2008, so the presumption is something along the lines of 'jeez Twitter and YouTube got Obama elected so we just have to do the same.' *shrug*
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:14 (3 days ago) Permalink
What the punditocracy calls "ideas" are so overrated.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:16 (3 days ago) Permalink
Good thing there's nothing actually important to talk about right now.
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 22:32 (3 days ago) Permalink
(not that WE have to talk about "important" things here but good Lord @ what the "liberal web" chooses to focus on)
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 23:21 (3 days ago) Permalink
At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Sharkby Ann Coulter 11/18/2009
It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength." As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations. Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!" By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche. We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too. Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine." Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement. Except mere nonsense makes more sense than "diversity is a strength." If Gen. Casey's wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn't kill it, nothing will. Among the worst aspects of America's "diversity" is that liberals' reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood -- as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America. In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying -- including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness. But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums. After conferring with everyone at Zabar's, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it's good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York! Mohammed's military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York. In a liberal's reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions. Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one's defense. Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction. Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens -- and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to. In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.
― chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 02:10 (2 days ago) Permalink
would like a .gif of a blackface fonzi jumping the shark asap
― chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 02:11 (2 days ago) Permalink
But Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine!
― nickn, Thursday, 19 November 2009 02:28 (2 days ago) Permalink
srsly fuck that ho
like i am genuinely blown away by the sheer, unbridled hatefulness of that. as well as the weird structure: diversity is bad don't you know about rwanda ---> nic cage is such a two-cycle engine ps i am apparently doing drugs??? ---> the american judicial system is unfairly biased in favor of exonerating the innocent, god i miss summary executions
― itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Thursday, 19 November 2009 02:34 (2 days ago) Permalink
http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/video_of_angry_wingnuts_booing_sarah_palin_calling_her_a_quitter_chantin/#When:14:48:31Z <3 <3
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:38 (Yesterday) Permalink
loooooooool
― lift this towel, its just a nipple (HI DERE), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:45 (Yesterday) Permalink
Utah senator doesn't want gays "Stuffin' it down my throat all the time" lol
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/utah-homophobe-chris-buttars-worried-about-creep-of-gay-rights.html
― I don't know if it's just the smurfiness of it or what (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:47 (Yesterday) Permalink
seriously this is too good, i'd swear he was an ILX sockpuppet:
BUTTARS: I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face.
― I don't know if it's just the smurfiness of it or what (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:49 (Yesterday) Permalink
i've always felt that people could turn on palin in a heartbeat - it's the tabloid way
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 November 2009 20:49 (Yesterday) Permalink
SIGN OUR BOOKS! SIGN OUR BOOKS! SIGN OUR BOOKS!
lol.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 20 November 2009 20:49 (Yesterday) Permalink
"chris butt ars"
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 November 2009 20:50 (Yesterday) Permalink
his last name is butt
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:50 (Yesterday) Permalink
priceless
― itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Friday, 20 November 2009 20:50 (Yesterday) Permalink
also someone plz alert the daily show, if they haven't been already
am kind of surprised at how awful a writer Coulter is.
― bnw, Friday, 20 November 2009 20:52 (Yesterday) Permalink
You just slapped hundreds of Hoosiers in the face.
I thought Sarah turning Rogue was a good thing. Following your steps to a road to success being on the cutting edge. I guess it is just in the name of her book not the fabric of her handlers.
I was “Palienated” today in Noblesville.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 20 November 2009 20:54 (Yesterday) Permalink
"I've bent over backwards to come to a consensus with gay right groups, but my beliefs remain firm."
― I don't know if it's just the smurfiness of it or what (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 20 November 2009 21:00 (Yesterday) Permalink