This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
I plan on following in his footsteps by waxing my ass to showcase the pain of deforestation...
I'd be more impressed if he waxed his nuts.
What a wuss.
C'mon, full Brazilian!
I wonder if he screams obscenities like Steve Carell in 40yr old virgin?
"I'd be more impressed if he waxed his nuts."
darwin
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he REALLY wanted to do the pain bit he should have had them yanked out one by one.
LD are you gonna wax your nuts?
Oops I forgot your wife cut 'em off & hung 'em on your back bumper, lol.
I know cuz I saw them hanging there, lol.
Smelling salts!
Nam! THAT was FUNNY!
I wish these "stars" would just shuddup already. The only one of them that I ever saw put their money where their mouth is was Darryl Hannah - and what has she done filmwise lately?
Anybody know that Bush's house in Texas is green? Lefties don't want THAT news out there!
"The only one of them that I ever saw put their money where their mouth is was Darryl Hannah..."
I gotta give Ed Begley Jr. a shout out. He's the real deal.
I tried to find some video, but he had a great interview on H&C when Ollie North was sitting in for Hannity a few weeks ago.
Odd that, Henry! I heard Hannah on Hannity's radio show. Have to give it to the guy - he puts on lefties that he believes are sincere - even if he thinks they're wrong, as he does on the Global Warming thing.
Also, is it a coincidence that both Begley's and Hannah's careers are caput? They were both hot ticket items around the same time period.
Think their "green" preaching got them blackballed?
Green preaching getting you blackballed in Hollywood?!? Absolutely not.
The Goreacle™ is a Hollyweird favorite. LOL
Both Hannah and Begley are locals in my area. I don't know much about Darryl Hannah's career, but Begley has always been somewhat of a low profile actor. I think what gets him in trouble with the thespian, liberal elites is that he actually does walk the walk, and that it might make many of the hypocrites look bad when contrasted against him.
I really need to get some video of his interview with Ollie North. I loved what he was saying about petro-dollars going to aid terrorists.
Oh, please do, Henry. I would love to watch that.
LD are you gonna wax your nuts?
Oops I forgot your wife cut 'em off & hung 'em on your back bumper, lol.
That would certainly explain her fascination with MY balls. 
These hollyweird types are always doing crazy things and liberals in general are always doing crazy things i mean if its not those PETA jerks running around in the sunshine clothes over fur or a bunch of wacko gun control freals lying on sidewalks now its these eco-wacko minded hollyweird types pulling off their stupid stunts over this deforestation poppycock I mean its never ending how rediculous they can be
Hollywood is the last remaining profitable manufacturing exporter of goods in this country. That's because you rightwingnuts allowed republicans to decimate our manufacturing base, and turn us into a service economy, and a debtor nation. You've had 7 years. And irony, of ironies, the communists own our debt!!!
Oh, and I forgot to add, the Arabs, South Americans, and Canadians, own most of the remaining oil. Gotta love the Bush family. They go back to the beginning of the history of the discovery of oil. Thank you Bush Family. Thank you for the New World Order.
Heres a suggestion for them in hollyweed to realy save the so called depleated forets QUIT MAKING SO MANY OF THOSE STUPID SAVE THE RAINFORETS MOVIES after all one of the products of the timber industry is celulous which is one of the main ingedients in all sorts of picture and movie films
" Hollywood is the last remaining profitable manufacturing exporter of goods in this country."
Sorry but no, Hollyweird make HUNDREDS of movies a year 90% never relaesed because when they are done even they think they are shit.
"allowed republicans to decimate our manufacturing base, and turn us into a service economy, and a debtor nation"
You are again WRONG. It was Clinton who presided over the "dot com" boom.
It was the dot coms that drove the service economy by providing easy access to "information". I have news for you "information" is out of date BEFORE it becomes public knowledge.
Movies are our nation's number one export. FACT. Just is. But don't take my word for it. Most of the never released films get sold to foreign markets. Hence the term export - excepting China, which just bootlegs them. Do I have to explain everything to you guys?
As for Dot.coms, man you are living in the past. Bush has been in power for 7 years. The economy was great guns during Clinton.
Even if what you say is true, and it isn't, Bushie's had 7 years to re-establish our great Nation's manufacturing base, but has chosen not to lift a finger.
2 Bush's, 2 recessions.
Why does Bush have to do anything? It's not his job to tell companies where to be, or what to make. You're nuts. Get some perspective ... read.
Oh, and I forgot to add, the Arabs, South Americans, and Canadians, own most of the remaining oil. MK
Wrong! Actually WE own most of the remaining oil. F-ing libs just won't let us touch it, nor refine it.
Oh - and the economy was great - until the libs got into power. Took em exactly one year to tank the economy so they could use it for the election.
Never underestimate what libs will do TO this country in order to get and retain power.
Loud, confident and wrong, as always.
Prove it. What kind of POWER do you really think the POTUS has? It's congress who passes laws - POTUS may sign them, but alot of regulation and taxes are buried in such things as defense spending bills. In other words, it's congress' way of saying, "we'll feed, clothe and arm the troops if your tax the shit out of the oil companies." Been going on for years.
Oh! They also use the, "the pres is CUTTING welfare programs to the poor," when in fact he's cutting the percentage from 23% to 13%. That's not a damned cut - it's still an INCREASE to the program, they just portray it as a cut because he wanted to cut the percentage rise from 23% to 13%.
Typical lib-speak.
Surely you've heard of how Bush signs bills, then adds a "signing statements?" (But then, why would I expect you to know that? I guess hope springs eternal.) You do know what a signing statement is, and what an executive order is? Good god, you must have been home schooled.
And your numbers are wrong, but then what did I expect. And you prove it. You're the one making the assertion.
You stupid dork - an executive order is the ONLY power of a standing PONTUS! Dear Lord you're dumb! With the stroke of a pen, the prez COULD HAVE signed an executive order to SEAL our borders - he has NEVER done that! Signing an legislative piece of @#$% legislation is passing (a stone) BILL! A LAW!
And f-off on my numbers - look up the legislation your own damned self! You have ALWAYS depended on the kindness of others to do your research for you. Recall "STOPLOSS!"
You're loud, confident, and wrong.
If what you say is true, why bother having an executive branch to begin with?
"If what you say is true, why bother having an executive branch to begin with?"
Does someone really need to answer that for you?
What's your problem with home schoolers Mud? 165,000 kids in California alone are currently home schooled, and are surpassing public schooled kids by such a large margin; Ivy-League colleges are now courting home schoolers at special events. The have discovered the home schoolers are actually finishing a 4 year degree in 4 years (or less); not the 5, 6 or 8 year plan that public school partiers tend to utilize. Full ride scholarships are being offered to home schoolers as well because they tend in increase the level of competency of the graduates, which in turn reflects on the college.
I see the work my kids do, and I am envious that they have a teacher that does not allow them to fail. Failure is not an option for my kids, they are taught to work through their problems with tenacity and determination. Try and find that characteristic at an overcrowded public school anywhere in this great nation.
Mudkitty equates home schooling with Christians ... and we all know how she hates Christians.
False again - I love most Christians. Just not ignorant and bigoted ones. Would you like me to put words in your mouth Darwin, and lie about you, the way you lie about me?
I love how you presume to speak for me. If you want to know how I think or feel, ask me, don't speak for me, if only because you'll be wrong 99.9% of the time.
"If you want to know how I think or feel, ask me, don't speak for me, if only because you'll be wrong 99.9% of the time."
I don't need to ask you anything because I already know how you feel. You despise everyone who doesn't think like you. You value your own safety and security above individual rights and cloak your fears as "liberalism" where you feign concern for others in an attempt to hide your true motives.
You hate individualism because it forces you to be responsible for yourself. It forces you to conform to the morals and values of society.
All liberals have one of two goals. Complete power, or complete safety and security. You are the latter and would sell the principles of this nation to get it.
All liberals are like you.
False again - I love most Christians. Just not ignorant and bigoted ones. Would you like me to put words in your mouth Darwin, and lie about you, the way you lie about me?
I love how you presume to speak for me. If you want to know how I think or feel, ask me, don't speak for me, if only because you'll be wrong 99.9% of the time.
a | 04.30.08 - 2:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Well, you took four sentences to answer Darwin while deftly avoiding my question.
I have read more than one comment by you that contains a slam of some sort toward home schoolers. Why is that? Especially in light of my previous comment.
Come on G - not all home-schoolers are Christians. You know that. Anyway - isolating your children from general knowledge, and the general population, no matter what your religion is, is a form of brainwashing, as is demonstrated and evidenced by the recent revelations with regards to certain polygamy sects.
On the other hand - I worked for a music related museum a long time ago, and I used to schedule, and conduct, tours for home-schoolers, and many of them were very bright and open kids, along with their parents. Nor did they wear their religions on their sleeve.
G - why do you take offense when I use the term home schooling sarcastically, but you don't take offense when people on this site call me a tramp, or a terrorist, or terrorist sympathizer, ad infinitum? I've never heard you take offense.
I don't believe Nam ever called you a tramp - not his style. Traitorous KKKRAT LIBSCUM? Sure.
Oh yes he did. If you don't know that, you should. Ask him, he'll tell you.
"G - why do you take offense when I use the term home schooling sarcastically, but you don't take offense when people on this site call me a tramp, or a terrorist, or terrorist sympathizer, ad infinitum? I've never heard you take offense."
“Surely you've heard of how Bush signs bills, then adds a "signing statements?" (But then, why would I expect you to know that? I guess hope springs eternal.) You do know what a signing statement is, and what an executive order is? Good god, you must have been home schooled...”
Mudkitty | 04.29.08 - 7:33 pm | #
There is no reference to religion in this most recent comment, and I my wife and I home school our 4 children, I can assure you we are NOT isolationists that belong to a cult. We chose home schooling so we could provide each one of our kids the best possible opportunity to learn based on their individual learning styles, (e.g. Audio, Visual, Kinetic, and a combination). It also gives us direct control of the curriculum, because beyond learning the basic fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic, the main purpose of primary school is to teach kids how to learn, not fill their heads with a political agenda.
That is why I personally take offense to your comments regarding home schooling.
And as far as defending you, you are accountable for how people treat you here by your lack of respect you've shown others including Jenn and the fact that you have deceived us pretending to be someone else.
I apologize to you G. You're absolutely right - there are a lot of commendable home schoolers out there. I was being sarcastic, not literal.
So let me ask you - why is it acceptable for Nam to call me a tramp and a traitor? Why have you never taken offense at that?
"So let me ask you - why is it acceptable for Nam to call me a tramp and a traitor? Why have you never taken offense at that?"
a | 05.02.08 - 10:07 am | #
Last year, a friend commented on my blog about another conservative blogger and used foul and abusive language.
The other blogger then answered with her own disrespectful comments and a small war ensued.
The end result was the friend got angry with me for not supporting him.
My take on the whole situation was he was the Evinrude in a cesspool, and was responsible for what came up. I eventually told them both to knock it off, and when the second blogger came back with one more comment, and I deleted it.
In your case if you dish it out, you'd better be willing to take it. Attacking Nam's patriotism is equal to him calling you a tramp. I won't get between you two, but you should already know (as I have been very clear), as a fellow Vet, I consider him a brother in arms.
I didn't attack his patriotism, he attacked mine. And he called me a tramp. And you never took exception.
As for fellow vets, I assume that would include the so-called "rever"and Wright. He's a vet too.
I called Nam a racist. Which he is, by the classical definition. Which he, himself admits to. I do think his views are un-American, and ignorant, but I don't question his patriotism. I never once did. I think he thinks he's a patriot. That is if he is who is says he is. He did write that Nam was a persona.
You forgot Murtha too... and Lee Harvey Oswald. And if you recall, many of us did address the situation on your behalf, but you wouldn't let it go. I even pointed out that you just couldn't keep your mouth shut. That's a self control thing, again lending to personal responsibility.
Once again, I won't disparage Nam or anyone else who claims to have fought for this country until they turn on America like Reverend Wright, Jack Murtha and Lee Harvey Oswald. Then, it’s adios.
Now as far as you being a tramp, I don't know you personally, so I cannot directly speak to that. Some people here I do know personally; Jenn, Cary, Rob, and Doug. I can and will vouch for their integrity. But you have proven you're not trustworthy by coming in as 'a' and otherwise indicating you are using information you gather here and other sites to write a book; information that you have obtained without honesty and integrity.
You want me to defend you? Behave with decorum in spite of how others behave toward you, and I'll consider it. Otherwise, you're on your own.
I called Nam a racist. Which he is, by the classical definition. Which he, himself admits to. I do think his views are un-American, and ignorant, but I don't question his patriotism. I never once did. I think he thinks he's a patriot. That is if he is who is says he is. He did write that Nam was a persona.
a
This is why no one will defend you. You don't deserve it.
And I forgot my dear friend BGTBXTWP whom I know by other means.
So, it's ok for Nam to be a racist? Ok in your book? I call that turning on one's country.
G - you only support vets who agree with you politically. So much for the bond you speak of.
And behave with decorum? When no one here does? Good grief Charlie Brown. When A used to get the vapors, you all told me that this is the jungle. I guess it's ok in your book for Nam to call me a tramp and a traitor, because you don't know me personally. That's a lousy excuse. Is it ok for Nam to call anyone he doesn't know personally a tramp and a traitor?
"So, it's ok for Nam to be a racist? Ok in your book? I call that turning on one's country"
Uh ... it's ok for anyone to be whatever they want. It's a free country. The phony preacher Wright is a racist extraordinare. You're free to love or hate anything and anyone.
But it's funny you keep attacking Nam. It's the left that's racist ... from the top on down. If the left was so against racism they'd be more vocal about people like Wright, or groups like La Raza, but they're not. They're just like them.
"I guess it's ok in your book for Nam to call me a tramp"
Maybe you are a fucking tramp. How do we know you're not?
Get.the.fuck.over.it.
I still don't think he called you a tramp. It's just not his style. He's called you a lot of other things - and you've deserved them all.
Oh he did alright. Ask him.
ASK HIM. He's also called me a traitor, which is much, much worse.
And you say that I don't read. You guys are skipping over his comments.
Libscum puke traitorkkkrat. Yep. That's our Nam. Tramp? Nah...
"He's also called me a traitor, which is much, much worse"
You actively solicit the overthrow of our government from within by championing illegal invaders and support negating the will of the people thru legislative and judicial fiat. You also aid and abet the enemy during wartime by actively supporting the platform of the democrats, which can be seen as nothing more than an encouragement to terrorists, and demoralizing to our fighting men and women.
Gawfer said:
"You want me to defend you? Behave with decorum in spite of how others behave toward you, and I'll consider it. Otherwise, you're on your own."
'a' said:
G - you only support vets who agree with you politically. So much for the bond you speak of.
And behave with decorum? When no one here does?"
Mud, as far as I know, no one else in this thread came in under the radar and pretended to be someone their not. That's called deception. Say it with me; DECEPTION. For me personally, I had a certain amount of respect for 'a', but it was based on false pretences, and YOU destroyed it, not me or Nam.
Go beyond the typical liberal mind set of entitlement that says "I deserve your respect; I DEMAND YOUR RESPECT!"
If you want me to defend you, your gonna need to earn my respect; and I told you how earlier and reposted it in this comment. (I'll give you a hint as to what that type of behavior demonstrates: it's called humility).
Now, as far as Gawfer supporting vets; whether I agree with their political ideas or not has no bearing on whether I support them as a brother in arms. I know this is an adult concept and hard to get your arms around, but one can disagree with folks and still like them.
The three individuals I sited, Wright, Murtha and Oswald have gone beyond the realm of disagreement and have turned on this country in my opinion. I don't support them nor do I like them or consider them brothers in arms.
To sum up this entirely ‘too long’ comment, I say this for the third time:
Gawfer said:
"You want me to defend you? Behave with decorum in spite of how others behave toward you, and I'll consider it. Otherwise, you're on your own."
Again, earn back the respect you threw away. Nobody’s gonna do it for you.
G - I took a year, or more, off from commenting on this site, although I always included it as part of my research. Mudkitty was banned but not forgotten. As a lark, I tried an old account - same IP, and low and behold, a new "persona" as Nan would say, was born.
So don't have a cow, man.
You should have come to my defense a long time ago, as a gentleman. But now, I hardly expect expect it of you. Go defend Nam's self-admitted racism. Hedge on the fact that he called me a tramp. Don't worry about me - I'll do just fine.
As a vet, didn't you fight for my right to disagree with you?
Now go back to your circle jerk. But if you find you can't stomach it, you know where to get in touch with me.
Gawfer said:
"You want me to defend you? Behave with decorum in spite of how others behave toward you, and I'll consider it. Otherwise, you're on your own."
Bot said:
Now go back to your circle jerk. But if you find you can't stomach it, you know where to get in touch with me.
What a truly graceless way to respond to someone who took the time to NICELY explain his position to you with RESPECT.
You really are a crass piece of work, bot.
Gawfer said:
“Go beyond the typical liberal mind set of entitlement that says "I deserve your respect; I DEMAND YOUR RESPECT!"
And:
“If you want me to defend you, your gonna need to earn my respect; and I told you how earlier and reposted it in this comment. (I'll give you a hint as to what that type of behavior demonstrates: it's called humility).”
Mud said:
"Now go back to your circle jerk. But if you find you can't stomach it, you know where to get in touch with me."
a | 05.04.08 - 10:41 am | #
Mud, I think you have fallen a little short with this attempt at earning my respect. Perhaps if you reach really deep, and try again, something else might come out.
“As a vet, didn't you fight for my right to disagree with you?”
You bet! And as a side note, one of my best friends (whose son is taking my daughter to his prom) is a liberal whom I disagree with vehemently, but I respect him and he me. The thing is our discourses never include personal insults yet we frequently come to terms with each other’s positions.
Mud also said:
"You should have come to my defense a long time ago, as a gentleman. But now, I hardly expect expect it of you. Go defend Nam's self-admitted racism. Hedge on the fact that he called me a tramp. Don't worry about me - I'll do just fine."
The reason I’ve never addressed the accusation of Nam calling you a tramp is simply that it was a personal attack that should have rolled off your back. If you’re not a tramp, then why worry about it; let it go. If you are, I’d suggest changing your life style.
Now I've already given you an example of how I feel about people stirring up crap and then wanting others to come to their defense. The problem is Mud that credibility is like virginity: once you lose it, it's gone forever. Respect is much the same.
In my eyes, the difference between you and Nam is he earned my respect when he was contrite enough to be candid for a moment and give us a snap shot into his history. He understands he’s screwed up a bunch, but had admitted his failures and short comings, and in doing so earned my respect (not necessarily my agreement) as an angry American a Vet and a Man.
All you've done is argue (like Paris Hilton) why it's not your fault and why it is my fault for not defending you, and why you deserve this and you deserve that for no other reason than because you say so.
That mentality doesn't work in my eyes. Each one of us here, know that to be taken seriously, we must earn the respect of our peers. I know that goes against the ideology of the silver spoon generation who believes they deserve and demand respect without earning it.
Mud, I don't hate you, and I think down deep you have valid concerns and reasonable arguments. You just go about presenting your ideas in the wrong way and respond to every assault with equal or greater venom.
You’re gonna need to take it on the chin a few times and regain the respect you almost had as ‘a’, Mud.
I'd also like to see her admit it when she's wrong. It's not hard. I've admitted being wrong loads of times. But this sticking her fingers in her ears and pretending she's won the day is bizarre and like living in a fantasy world. Or drugs.
Commenting by HaloScan
