And man, she is hopping mad….

PORT ST. LUCIE, FL — A man is under arrest today after he allegedly ripped his wife’s prosthetic leg off.

Of course, they don’t identify her, but her name is Eileen, and she works at a local I-Hop.

A Florida Highway Patrol trooper flagged down an officer around 10:30 p.m. Tuesday after he stopped because of a disturbance by a BMW sport utility vehicle.

He needed help.  He was stumped by the case.

When the officer spoke to the 29-year-old wife of the suspect, she said “he ripped my leg off.”

After accusing her of running around on him…

“At this point I noticed that she was not wearing any pants and that her right leg appeared to have been amputated above the knee,” the report states.

Well, I guess she has no leg to stand on with her story.

The husband, Luis Ramirez, 35, told investigators they argued, and when questioned about why his wife’s leg was off he said she must have taken it off.

She probably threatened to kick his ass, and he needed a leg up.

After the officer told the wife that Ramirez was facing a battery charge, she said they’d been drinking at a sports bar and decided to leave.

It was then thatMrs. Ramirez decided to tell them that her husband was just pulling her leg.

Once they left the establishment, she said, Ramirez became possessed and started yelling and screaming and calling her names.

Well, she was supposed to run in a marathon.  Now it looks like she’ll miss the first leg of the race.

You liberal fucktard.

Noting quite like punching out a girl with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair because she doesn’t want to listen to your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Yeah - I do blame you.  He’s yours.  You made him.

Director Paul Verhoeven speculates that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman rapist.

Lessee … Where have I heard that before?  Oh yes … Yeheshua ben Pantera?

Wanna pull of something old, Paul?  Try your socks.

David Frum from the National Review, exposing Republican cluelessness:

If I were a Democratic superdelegate …

… I’d be thinking:

Well, David, if you were thinking, you wouldn’t be a Democrat.  But I digress.

Barack Obama can’t carry Florida. Can’t carry Ohio. Now we see he can’t carry Pennsylvania. Exit polls suggest that regular churchgoers don’t like him. Older white women don’t like him. He even lost white voters aged 18-29!

Doesn’t that make him look like a probable loser in November?

So far, so good, except for the teensy lil fact that Hitlery is the most disliked candidate out there, and it was her who said of white men “Screw ‘em.”

Yes, African Americans and upscale liberals will be annoyed if I prefer Hillary over him. But I don’t think we are in much danger of losing the African American and upscale liberal vote. The downscale white vote however - that’s important, that’s unpredictable, and if we nominate him, it looks like it may be gone.

Seems like a strong case for Hillary, no?

That vote, though, is already largely gone.

On the other hand, African Americans and upscale liberals have a strong capacity to punish me personally. So the case for Hillary is a case for putting the party interest ahead of my personal ease, quiet, and safety.

Seems like a stronger case for Obama, yes?

And that,on the other hand, is a big “Not necessarily.”

Seriously.  What are blacks going to do - vote Republican?

I mean, sure, you have a few promient blacks who have stepped off the liberal plantation, but when push comes to shove, come November, the party overseers will herd the teeming masses of democrats into the  voting booth, and the black vote will collectively say “Yassuh, Massa” just like they always do, and pull the lever.  They’d do this if the party bosses held Obama down while Hitlery cornholed him with a strap-on in a National broadcast.

Blacks have sold their political influence for a bowl of pottage.  The Democrats understand this.  They should - they prepared the soup and served it up.  Year after year the dog-and-pony show goes up to “woo” the black vote, but we all know where 90% or better of it is going in November, no matter what.

The white male vote is what needs to be wooed.  Where they go, so goes the nation.  Every one else already has a dance partner.

You can hate on the message all you want - but those is the facts.  And if the Republicans want to see any reversal of their fortunes, they need to stop worrying about what “the Democrats” are going to do, and start concentrating on getting the vote out from the group that largely stayed home a couple years ago, and cost them both houses of congress in the doing.

Which, I might add, they stayed home because you pandered to minorities and non-Americans.

It’s yours to lose, G.O.P.  So let’s see if you’re going to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Really.  What an assbag.

But I’m not going to go so far as to say that he should be taken off the air.

Honest to God, I want people like him standing in the open forum spouting their filth.  That way I know where they are, what they are doing, and how to avoid listening to it.

Which I do.  By not tuning in to him, or to HBO.

So - how am I going to celebrate Earth day?

First - Imma take me the elk steaks I have out of my freezer.  They are for dinner.

I’ve a big truck.  I am driving it today.

And I am going to cut down that tree that has been a thorn in my side for a couple years.

Happy Earth Day, you hippy assbags.

Much as I hate sometimes to belabor the obvious vis-a-vis Hugo Schwyzer’s cluelessness about some things, I have to illustrate the advantages of the Old Boy’s Club he recently ranted about.

The soi disant OBC is really the Old Manager’s Club. Within a large corporation, this is the chance for those who play to speak “off the record.” Meetings and such have minutes religiously kept - by law. Believe me, if you go into one of these “on the record” meetings, only once in a blue moon is it going to happen that the meeting isn’t pro forma, and the decisions therein haven’t already been made.

Don’t want to play? You’re a puppet, then. And outside the real power structure.

In the small business world, the OBC serves a different purpose. Us who own small businesses network, but, again, it’s a lot of “off the record” stuff.

Give you an example - if I get called at my office for a reference for an ex-employee, I am constrained by law to answering a few “yes or no” questions. Same if I ask for a reference. Like I did recently, for a woman who applied for a position.

Instead of a call back, I got an email from the woman who owned the company. “How about you buy me lunch?” A personal email. Not a business one. Not “How about Gonzco buys me lunch?”

This is code for “We need to talk.”

And talk we did, and I dodged a bullet. And all with “Plausible deniability.”

See, it seems this woman I had recieved an application for had, at her previous job, performed some less than professional actions.  Running a business on the side that competed.  Appropriating company resources for personal use.  And, when called upon it, manufacturing a phony harassment charge that was not only “not proven” but was in fact proved impossible.

Gee, a woman lying about sexcual harassment.  Imagine that.

And this had not been the first time, for that matter.

So - word to the wise.  Mind your Ps abd Qs.  We do talk.

And Hugo - by all means, drop out of the Old Boy’s Club.  In fact, encourage all the liberals you can to step away from any real economic power.  Seriously.

The vast majority of stuff Glenn Sacks writes, I agree with.  You know that?  I rarely even follow up on what he says.  Usually there’s nothing to add, and I might - once or twice a year - come across something that meritsa “What he said.”

Me and him had a dustup a while back - and he still doesn’t get it.  Just recently he’s trotted out Darren Mack again.  Well, Glenn, it is possible to disapprove of Darren Mack - and to believe that actions such as his are predictable and inevitable.  Disenfranchise an entire segement of a population, and wait for one to blow up.  Sometimes over nothing.  Sometimes over a series of small indignities that adds up.

It says a lot more about men that we don’t have more dead judges.  What it says, *I’m not sure sometimes.

But dammit, Glenn - you have to stop sucking up to the feminists.

They don’t like us, they don’t like you, they don’t like me, and they really don’t like men in general unless they are neutered like Hugo Schwyzer, Ampersand, or your famous “Feminist Dissidents.”  And even then, they fall more in the line of “Useful Idiots.”  Watch the way they savage Hugo Schwyzer sometimes when he steps off the feminist plantation, or dares to question party line.

I have been saying it for years - the chief failing of the Men’s Movement is in failing to see that people  - no, feminists, of any stripe - are our mortal enemies.  Not just political enemies, but our very personal mortal enemies.  I am not saying we need to hunt them down, place a bounty on them, kill them - but it has been long since time to realize that these people are liars.  They are hateful.  They are without honor.  They are calculating and think only in political terms.  And they would as soon see men as second class citizens as some form of twisted “payback.”

You want to do civil, Glenn?  Fine.  Someone has to. Not going to be me, so might as well be you.

Just stop thinking you can be friends with their kind.  This is at best an illusion, and they will stab you in the back at first opportunity.

It is their nature to do so.  Don’t kid yourself.

Melissa McEwan has spoken honestly what she thinks of you.  Pay attention.

MEXICO’S GLASS HOUSE- How the Mexican constitution treats foreigners
Center for Security Policy ^ | April 3, 2006 | Michael Waller

How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens

Introduction

Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.[1]

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

- Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

- Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

- Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

- Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process (emphasis Bleeding America’s).

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

“Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)

The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, “To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth.”

The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or

2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.

These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.

… I made a post, about or tangential to abortion, a statement was made about knowing a feminist who deliberately got pregnant to HAVE an abortion for “solidarity” with her sisters, and with tiresome predictability some Femherroid sniffed about how that was untrue…. You know, the usual, ALL abortions are heart-wrenching choices and NO woman, EVER, no, no, NEVER just does it for a frivolous reaon….

Ahem.

Abortion Art.

From the story:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

You were saying, madam?

Yeah. In advance of the deafening feminist silence - didn’t think so.

UPDATE:  Now the “Artist” claims she’s a liar.

Hmmm.  Okay.

The Huffington Post today has, with audio, a transcript of remarks Barak Obama made in Pennsylvania, a portion of which I will zero in on.  Ahem.  And I quote:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Well, how do I put this?

Hey Barak - why don’t you take a long, deep suck out of my ass, you elitist sack of shit?

I really don’t know where to begin.  I swear to Christ, at this moment if Barak Hussein Obama was standing  in front of me, I’d live down to his expectations and slap the taste out of his over-privileged, arrogant mouth.

Clling to guns.  Cling to religion.

Very revealing, that, when you get liberals thinking they aren’t being watched and speaking the truth about what they really think of you.  Here’s this plu-perfect son of a bitch trying to pass himself off as some kind of a damn pupulist while looking down his snotty nose at the poor rubes in flyover country.

Yeah.  Bitterness and religion.  Tell it to “Reverend” Wright you fecalcephalic cokehead.

There’s your change.  “Yes, we can!”  Yeah, we can go down the road to Marxism if this fuckhead gets elected.   Same liberalism, same contempt for the great unwashed masses.

I repeat: Fuck You.

In the form of “Gonzo, you’re claiming you’re a libertarian, but when it comes to gay rights, you always come down against it” (insert obligatory “homophobe” canard here).

Well, this is fucking why.

Get it right, tards.  The thing that bothers me most about the fucking gay agenda has nothing to do with the “gay” part - it is the “agenda” part which drives me up the goddamn wall.

Albequerque, New Mexico.  I did your homework for you.  I checked Yahoo on how many photographers they had listed for Albuquerque.

110.

A hundred and fucking ten photographers, and this set of bull dykes had to have this woman do it.  And when she declined, instead of doing what I would do - go somewhere else - they sued her in front of the “New Mexico Human Rights Commission.” (See this recent post for my opinion there.)

Bets - taking bets here - that these two rug-munchers specifically chose this lady as a photographer from hearing about her moral convictions, planning on suing her when she declined.  Planning to see if they could do it.  Planning a test case.  Planning to make an example of her.

You know, if a couple of homos want to sodomize each other, I don’t really give a fuck.  Live together?  I don’t care. (But being forced to rent to them is 0ne reason I don’t do rentals)  Hire them?  Got one working for me.  Live next to them?  Yeah.  Associate with them?  Got a few gay friends.

I’m not going to go to any “commitment ceremonies,” though.  I just don’t believe in it.  No Yin and Yang.  Just - not something I can get behind on a personal level.  Wanna do it?  Go ahead.

Leave me out of it.

I have this right and the queer activists would deny me my right to my profound indifference and near antipathy to it.  And that is thought policing, political correctness, grade a, unmitigated, 24-karet BULL-fucking-SHIT.

It’s Nazi.  It’s fascist.  It is morally repugnant, and so long as this is where gay activism goes, it is tyranny, and I am against you.  You don’t want the evil Xtians to force their morality on you?  Good.  Go thou and do likewise.

You want a gay bar, a gay business, to cater to gay clientele, associate with only gays - more. Fucking. Power. To. You.  Have fun with that.  Seriously.  And you mind your own business and keep your hands to yourelf vis-avis the straights, I will carry your fucking lunch all the day long.

One condition, though.  You extend that same courtesy to those who disagree with you, subject to the same caveats.

Or fuck the fuck off.

And this is your answer.  I am against the gay agenda because I am a libertarian.  When the gay agenda becomes something other than anti-liberty, come talk to me.

Ahem. From “Air America:”

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE KIREKER, CHAIR & MARK GREEN, PRESIDENT, FOR AIR AMERICA MEDIA

By Tim Einenkel

Last week Air America suspended Randi Rhodes for abusive, obscene language at a recent public appearance in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.

Air America Media was informed last night by Ms. Rhodes that she has chosen to terminate her employment with the company.

We wish her well and thank her for past services to Air America. We will soon announce exciting new talent and programming that will accelerate Air America’s growth in the future.

Hehehehehehehe.

Well, maybe ol’ Randi will get on someplace where she actually has an audience.

Well, stand up with the gals, Elton.  Might as well.  Hell, Sarah Michelle Gellar has a better chance of being mistaken for a man than you do.

I’m sure this is doing Hitlery’s campaign no end of good.  Endorsements by the modern-day Liberace.  Hell, at least Mick Jagger had the class to say that as a subject of the Crown, he wasn’t going to stick his snoot in American Politics.  Nothing like making Mick Jagger look like a class act.

This is a sure sign to me that Hitlery is not failing out of misogyny, but plainly because she isn’t as good a politician as Slick Willie, and isn’t as likeable.   And since I felt like if Willie Jeff could feel my pain, I’d break my own arm, that is saying something.

This whole thing is a target rich environment.  Rally for Hillary, Bill gets cheers.  Over the hill and used up English queers for Hillary.   I swear to Christ people - sometimes I get accused of inventing things.  I don’t have to.  I don’t even have to work.  This shit all but writes itself.

Because I didn’t think of it FIRST.

Yeah, Doug - that looks a lot better when you do it that way.

Hat tip - SondraKiStan, USA - Knowledge is power.

Richard Warman.

A Liberal Fascist. But I repeat myself.

Richard Warman is a living example and reminder that Nazis were indeed Left Wingers. (National Socialists.) He is the Heir of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels.

Of course, liberals would have you believe they are the champions of civil rights. For example, the ACLU will be the first to promote the dissemination of “How-To” manuals by NAMBLA in order to hunt down children, molest them, murder them, and dispose of the bodies; all ostensibly under the guise of “Free Speech.”

Speech, however, which disagrees with them - that’s dangerous, and not to be permitted.

Travel a variety of left wing blogs. Registration, approval, and an zealous policing of comments for liberal orthodoxy are the order of the day. All in the name of “safe” spaces. Because to disagree with Party line is unsafe. It gives leftards the fucking vapors.

It’s a - or ought to be - Thought Crime. Hate Speech. All the same.

They don’t particulary care to come to conservative or truly libertarian blogs because those are not “safe” for them. Big Brother isn’t silencing questioning and criticism, they are forced to defend their ridiculous positions, and reveal themselves for the idiots they are when they scurry off with their tail between their legs.

But you can’t let such speech stand. People go there, and read it, and think. Without the Preists and Priestesses of Political Correctness guiding them through the Wrong-Think. That’s doubleplusungood. So - shut them down.

To this end, Reichsfuher Warman has filed suit against several bloggers in Canada.

• The Great Ezra Levant
• FreeDominion.ca
• Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com
  
• Jonathan Kay of the National Post daily newspaper and its in-house blog
  
• Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com (From whom I lifted the list)

All Conservative, and all with one end in mind. To shut them the fuck up. Which is fucking typical of liberals, which is why I hate them with a passion I usually reserve for disease carrying vermin.

Apologies to disease carrying vermin.

You can read the suit for yourself here, in PDF, at Ezra Levant’s site.

I guess the knocked him down and stole his lunch money.

Go to the sites indicated and read for yourself. Prepare to be outraged. They speak and detail the offenses of this oxygen thief far more eloquently than I could, and I am not going to re-invent the wheel.

Infamous. Just fucking infamous. It is time to pony up some cash for them, folks. Kathy at Five Feet of Fury reports it is going to cost her $30K of Canadian scratch to defend herself. That’s a lot of money for one person, and part of the reason this syphilitic turd does this crap - beggar them, and force them to surrender.

Well, Richard, I have seven feet of fury here for you.

I have an open letter for you, Richard, or should I say, “Dick,” you mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging, fecalcephalic, left wing, liberal faggot.

Fuck. Off. And. Die.

No - I’m not making a death threat. Frankly, you’re not worth the price of the gunpowder it would take to blow you to the Hell you so richly deserve. But please. Die. Do so, and I promise to list your death under “Public Improvements.”

Though, if you care to make a trip down to the Hoosier State, I promise some very rapid dental work for you, if you’re man enough to try it. No? Didn’t think so.

I’m looking at your picture, Dick, and besides thinking “Wow, I bet if I look up ‘latent homosexual’ I’ll see this picture” it strikes me…

Dick - you got a lot of wedgies in school, didn’t you? I bet you were not only picked last, people asked if the had to have you on their team.

I know your type. You’re the not quite manly enough to change into your gym shorts in the locker room type. I bet even the Chess Club regarded you as a pussy. And you’re the type of fucktard with an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass who learns how to provoke someone into blackening your eyebrow and using the machinery of discipline to get them into trouble over it.

Only now instead of being a geeky little high-school kid, you’re a geeky old man with a receding hairline and a limp dick who masturbates to the music of “Duetschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles.”

You’re a petty little man. A horrid little man. A bureaucratic twerp who spends his lonely and bitter life trying to tear down his betters.

It’s a shame, Dick, that the best adjectives I can find to describe you are “faggoty” and “pussy” because to put them to you demeans gays and women. But what I am trying to capture is your unmanliness. And you are unmanly because you won’t go out and confront and take on your critics on the merits of your arguments. Instead, you bring in hired guns - in this case, like most lefties, the guns of the state.

Well, fuck you, Dick. I support Israel. I don’t think illegal aliens should have the rights of citizens. I think Islam is not only dangerous, it is Satanic. I picked up a box of Korans, Dick, and know what I do on occasion with the one I keep in the bathroom?

I rip out a page and wipe my ass with it. Suck on that, Dick. That’s a “Hate Crime” by your thinking, isn’t it? Whatchoo gonna do ’bout it, homo?

And I promise, should you succeed in silencing anyone in Canada, to give them a platform here - anonymously, if need be - so they can continue to speak truth to power.

Because you can’t touch me, you fuckwit, because I am beyond the Maple Curtain.

This is what you don’t get. The Genie is out of the bottle. This is what will happen - it is like grabbing jello - the tighter you squeeze, the more slips through your fingers. Do you really think Kathy, John, Ezra, et al, can be SILENCED?

Across the Border, Dick. Radio Free Canada on the Internet is but days away if the need be.

And I know I am not alone. There are a lot bigger fish than me who can take an even bigger bite out of you.

Go. Support them. Spread the word. There is no bigger weapon against shitweasels like Dick Warman than to know people are pointing and laughing at him, and that all his efforts will come to naught.

Maybe with any luck he’ll have a stroke over it.

UPDATE:  Man.  Linked by His Rottiness Hisself.  Thanks, to Emperor Misha I.

Amanda Marcotte?  A plagiarist?

A lot of people think so.

You be the judge:

Link 1

Link 2

And a link to start ya browsing the kerfluffle.

*giggles*

I love watching them eat themselves.

You know what really pisses me off?

The “I’m Sorry” incantation.  The empty, hollow, vapid, “I-said-I’m-sorry-so-all-is-well” platitude.

Bull. Shit.

This comes about because over the weekend I let a (now ex) girlfriend borrow my truck to move some things.  During the process the back window of my camper shell was damaged.  It won’t open and close properly.  It won’t lock.  Now I have to get the motherfucker FIXED.  Yesterday was spent in arguing over this dumb shit, and today I have one less woman in my life.

Screw you, bitch.  Don’t tell me “I’m sorry.”  Show me.  Pay to repair what you broke.  I don’t care if your brother did it, you fix the sonofabitch, and you deal with your brother.  I loaned it to you, you are fucking responsible.  Period.  End of story.

“But I said I was sorry!”

No.  You’re not.

Most people don’t know what the fuck an apology is, and when delivered, don’t understand what the concept of forgiveness is, either.

In the first place “I’m sorry if you are offended is not an apology.”  F.O.A.D.  Don’t even waste my time with this.  You might as well just say “I’m sorry you’re being a dick, IMO.”

Second:  If an apology contains the word “But” in it, it is not an apology.  You want to apologize?  “I fucked up.”  That is what you are admitting.  It’s up to me to say, “Don’t whup on yourself, this could have happoened to anyone.”

Accept responsibility, try to make amends, and be truly repentant.  This maketh an apology.

I did it.  Whther by thought, word, deed, or omission, the failure is mine.

I want to set it right.

I will never do this again.

Had someone said, “I should have known my brother was a drunken assclown and never let him help me load shit, I’ll pay you N dollars per week to cover repair, and never do this again” we’d have a different situation.  That is an apology.  I might even say “Forget the money, I can soak it.” (Which I can.)

BUT THE FUCKING OFFER WOULD BE NICE, EH WOT?

Next - forgiveness.

Forgive and forget is stupid.  It’s stupid because if you don’t forget, you haven’t forgiven.  To forgive someone means you don’t hold it against them.  Bring it up a year later and hurl it in their face - you haven’t forgiven them.  You may have accepted an apology.  But you have not forgiven the offense.

In the above example, if “Sandi” wanted to borrow my truck again in July, and I said “No, you fucked it up last time” then Gonzo didn’t forgive.  He still holds it against her.  Now if I said “Keep your idiot brother away from it” then I have forgiven her - not him.

Keep in mind that forgiveness is different from absolution.  To absolve someone is like saying, “Hey, it wasn’t your fault.”  Sandi letting moron brother toss shit in the back of the truck - sin of omission; she didn’t safeguard my property in her care.  That, I can forgive with an apology.

Now, Sandi driving like a sane human being and gets rear-ended while she is sitting at a stoplight - well, not her bad.  She may offer a pro-forma apology, but I will absolve her of it.  Not a fault, the driver of the other car’s fault.  Not fuck all she could have done to avoid it.  Shit happens.

So just keep shit like this in mind.

What do ya think?

Someone tipped me off to go read this.  (Here’s the link)

Dear Prudie,
I am a twentysomething female engaged to a wonderful man. We have been together for five years, and I couldn’t be happier. During the summer, he was gone for months on business, and I committed a very bad act. After a night of what I thought was harmless flirting with a guy at a bar, he invited me to crash at his place. I made the biggest mistake of my life and cheated on my husband-to-be. I’m not blaming the incident on too much alcohol (although that was a contributor) and fully accept the blame for what I have done. I am full of guilt and hate for myself. I’m afraid to tell my fiance because I know our relationship will end, but at the same time, I don’t want to start our lives together with a huge lie. My parents’ marriage ended due to my father’s infidelity, and I swore I wouldn’t be like that … but here I am. To make matters worse, my best friend is now dating this person. She knows what happened and was disgusted by it, but a month later they were exclusive. I know she is disappointed in me, but she doesn’t seem to be bothered by the fact that her boyfriend had a part in this, too. He has been sending me sexual text messages lately, and I know if she knew, she would blame me, although I’ve ignored the messages and have not welcomed this behavior. So, what do I do? Tell my amazing fiance what I did and hope he can find a way to forgive me, or keep my lips sealed?

—Once a Cheater, Not Always a Cheater

Dear Once,
Your best friend knows and disapproves of what you did, and is now dating the guy you cheated with; and the guy you cheated with is trying to betray your best friend so he can have another go round with you. This situation is about as stable as taking Semtex on a bumper-car ride. Chances are, your fiance eventually will hear about this—and imagine the stress you’ll be under hoping each day is not the day someone blabs. Yes, if you tell him, you run the risk of losing him, but at least you also have a chance to show you’ve come forward of your own accord, you are sickened by this single slip, and you pray he won’t give up on you. It would be helpful if you could say you are so distressed by your own behavior—especially since you grew up under the shadow of infidelity—that you have already gone into therapy to figure out why it happened and make sure it never does again.

Weeeeeelll … let’s give Gonzo’s answer.

Dear Slut;

Let’s not mince words.  Wonderful guy, got a little lonely, drank, and fucked around on him.

What would you do if the roles were reversed?

Stop making exxcuses.  Accept fucking responsibility for what you did - you made a promise, and you broke it.  This does make you a slut.  If I were your boyfriend, I’d call you that.

First:  Your friend is not your friend.  If she truly disapproved of what you did, she’d ditch the guy herself, apparently the dick is good enough to shift the blame to you.  The guy is texting you.  He’s scum - but, then again, you fucked around on your wonderful fiance of five years.

Next- save the texts, show them to your friend.  Then dump her, unless she immediately dumps him.  And immediately means takes out her cell phone and calls him that very fucking second.

Next - block his number.  Call your cell company and block him.  You know what he is.  He fucks around on his “exclusive” firlfriend, and fucks a brother man over.  You don’t need him.

Next- Alcohol “Contributed?”  No - you have a problem.  Stop going to bars, going to bars alone, and picking up men.  It’s a choice.

Last - if you want to keep him, the guilt is part of the price.  He’s not your priest.

This is YOUR fucking fault.  Don’t lay this shit on him.

Arrange so he doesn’t ever find out.  Or man up.

And if you do man up, and he does forgive you, you owe the man sex whenever he wants for the rest of your damn life.

And if he fucks up, you owe him a freebie.  Matter of fact, you owe him two - he’s ENTITLED to a grudge fuck on you. And this is whether or not he tells you.