August 31, 2005
Carnival of Idiots
Okay, I'm not sure how a blog carnival works, but I'm doing one of idiots. Post up links to or stories of the biggest idiots you've ever known; or maybe just idiots ripped from the headlines. There's the usual suspects like Cindy Sheehan, but here are some more:
People Blaming Katrina on Global Warming - Namely, these
Germans and
RFK Jr. You're all idiots. Glen ('Heh' yourself you pithy pundit you) and the NYT
talk hurricane cycles and explain why you're stupid. I mean, other than the fact that you obviously suffer from a mental disease that disallows you to form logically based arguments and that you're probably too ignorant to find your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hands. And a fucking map.
The lady at work who pulled her skirt down to show me her hugely disgusting belly, upon which she had tatooed a pixy. Very classy dear.
Bill. Because he's probably the only person on the internet who
knows less about it than I do. It's lonely at the bottom isn't it buddy?
The cellphone=tumor people. You can put away your tinfoil hats and shit now; it's been
debunked.
And of course, myself. Because what kind of idiot calls people out via the internet, and expects everyone to agree with him. You
fool!
So yeah, if you know of any idiots, post links or trackback with your stories. It's Carnival time!
Posted by: shank at
04:48 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If I tried to link, write, list or otherwise publicize the number of idiots I have/do encounter in the course of an eight hour day you wouldn't have the bandwith to keep the site up.
Maybe if it was narrowed down to, say, idiots I've encountered in the past 24 hours it might be do-able.
Posted by: Paul at September 01, 2005 09:01 AM (vbP6L)
2
All of the moron motherfuckers who panicked and made a run on the gas stations because of rumors of a possible gas shortage, thereby causing a gas shortage.
Fortunately my wife is brilliant and she filled up the tank Tuesday night before these fuckers got the gas prices elevated to the $5 a gallon range yesterday.
Posted by: Jim at September 01, 2005 10:58 AM (tyQ8y)
3
Hey, Poopyhead! I posted about idiots just today, over
here.
Posted by: Victor at September 01, 2005 04:07 PM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An exclusive post for Bill
Dear Bill,
Your blog is about as screwed up as the gulf coast right now. IÂ’m talking about
this blog. I say that because you also have a blog rotting on the vine
here, and another one
someplace else where you sell fake diplomas.
I donÂ’t know what youÂ’ve done to the comments on
this blog, the one youÂ’re trying to use, but they donÂ’t work. And letÂ’s face it, without comments youÂ’ve got nothing. That target rich environment you call a blog requires comments, lest we have no way to abuse you.
You have a perfectly serviceable munu blog, but itÂ’s been abandoned in favor of that latest blogspot debacle. I suspect you forgot your password and not knowing what else to do, you simply fled into the night, embarrassed and unnoticed.
I offer no remarks on your diploma blog.
You could install comments from haloscan on your current blog. Even you could probably do that unassisted. This would enable me to leave nasty comments and help pass the day. Or you could walk back down the road to your old munu blog, by having Pixy shoot the lock off.
I have been forced to post this here because you didnÂ’t have the decency or the intelligence to leave an email addy on any of your fucked up blogs.
Please take some sort of action immediately.
I apologize to the public at large for having to address this completely FUBAR situation out here in the front yard.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:26 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Who's this Paul person?
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 05:31 PM (tyQ8y)
2
Damn. Totally screwed that up. It was supposed to be from Bill.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 05:32 PM (tyQ8y)
3
I'm selling his work e-mail address and phone numbers for $5.
Posted by: Jennifer at September 01, 2005 12:17 AM (VtgEe)
4
We don't use money here in Atlanta anymore. Gasoline is now the currency of choice.
I bid 1/2 gallon!
Posted by: Jim at September 01, 2005 10:51 AM (tyQ8y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I've been waiting...
For somebody to say the devastation in New Orleans is God's punishment for their sins and depravity. I know it's coming. I know it's already been said somewhere, probably many somewheres, I've just been avoiding the places where it's most likely to happen so I've been able to miss it.
But eventually, somewhere, whether it's on the street, waiting in line at the store, in the break room or while out having a smoke, I'm going to hear those fateful words.
And then I'm going to punch that person right in the throat.
Posted by: Jim at
10:31 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'll hold your coat for you. Then you can hold mine while I kick the guy as he's on the ground.
Posted by: RP at August 31, 2005 11:16 AM (LlPKh)
2
Thanks, RP. That's mighty neighborly of you.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 12:08 PM (tyQ8y)
3
You're not kidding. And can you take out the looters while you're at it? Hundreds dead, and you've got some guy floating down the street with 10 pairs of jeans slung over his shoulder. Classy!
Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 12:10 PM (FLmL2)
4
We could herd all the bastages with the punishment from god mindset into an arena and charge admission to watch Jim & RP whip some asses. Lets face it a public display of brutality always brings in cash. Then theres the concessions, weÂ’d defiantly have to have cotton candy and Jimmy Burgers(tm).
Ticket and concession proceeds would of course benefit those affected by Katrina.
Posted by: phin at August 31, 2005 12:11 PM (Xvpen)
5
I actually made a joke about that on Monday, but then I realized someone might really say it in all seriousness, which made the joke no so much funny anymore. Also not making it funny was the fact that everything kept getting worse.
Lesson: Don't joke about a disaster until it's over and you know how tasteless your joke is.
Posted by: Trey Givens at August 31, 2005 04:56 PM (yaMs/)
6
You must have failed to read wetwired. You see, this Hurricane actually is caused by the United States, you see we brought this upon us. Yeah, and I have some ocean front property in kansas for you too...
Posted by: pylorns at September 01, 2005 09:01 AM (FTYER)
7
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2005/08/va-bloggers-new-orleans/
I posted on my site about one organization making this claim, but it was recently brought to my attention that such comments are being made in other quarters as well.
Posted by: Trey Givens at September 01, 2005 10:24 AM (yaMs/)
8
This makes me sad. The mobs at the gas stations here yesterday also make me sad. There is much sadness about, and quite a bit of neck punching required.
Posted by: Jim at September 01, 2005 10:34 AM (tyQ8y)
9
Dude.... it's been out there already. The
"Repent Now America" website is all over and upside of that junk, blaming the sinners for the hurricane.
Posted by: Oorgo at September 03, 2005 12:44 AM (1JIkb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The only good looter
IÂ’ve avoided saying anything about New Orleans since the ordeal has actually taken place but I have to voice an opinion here before I have a stroke over it.
ItÂ’s quite simple really. Death to all looters. IÂ’ve been through hurricanes, including Andrew--a category five storm. IÂ’ve been without power for weeks, had nothing to eat, the whole nine yards. However, as miserable as that was for me, I had a lot going for me. I still had a structure to live in. Damaged, to be sure, but I still had most of my possessions and a leaky roof over my head.
These poor bastards on the gulf coast have
nothing left in many, many instances. Nothing. The sum total of their lives has been wiped fucking clean. They have nowhere to go and no hope for the foreseeable future. And anyone who would take advantage of a situation like this is beyond my contempt.
Looters have already shot a cop in the head in New Orleans. I would have no problem executing these savages with no remorse.
From
here:
“A giant new Wal-Mart in New Orleans was looted, and the entire gun collection was taken, The Times-Picayune reported. "There are gangs of armed men in the city moving around the city," said Ebbert, the city's homeland security chief. Also, looters tried to break into Children's Hospital, the governor's office said.”
My response would be to end this problem right now. IÂ’m a martial law kind of guy. One warning shot below the waist before I unload a clip.
IÂ’ve never been big on leniency.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:10 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think they actually instituted martial law yesterday. What they should do, is put the notice out that in twelve hours, all looters will be shot on sight. That way, there's time for the word to get around. I mean, armed robbery is armed robbery. If you need medical/gorcery supplies, contact some of the military personnel in the area and they will undoubtedly escort you into a store while you pick out the items you need. How do I know they'll do this? Because one of the guys I used to work with moved to NO a while back. He wasn't able to get out of the French Quarter (essential hospital staff usually have to stay in town at some point or another during hurricanes) and he's down there setting up a clinic in the Ritz Carlton on Canal Street. They went into a CVS under armed escort and were able to get all the supplies they needed to throw together a MASH-type clinic in the hotel bar. Their escot actually had to hold looters back at gunpoint while they got the stuff they needed. Looters are only making a bad situation worse, and if they gotta die, they gotta die. I'm sure people will whine, but if you don't want to die all you have to do is not steal stuff. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Posted by: shank at August 31, 2005 10:25 AM (+H1yK)
2
I mourn that this crap never happens around me. I'd be erasing heads from the center of my scope right and left.
Posted by: Bane at August 31, 2005 02:22 PM (JO5DH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jim's been neglecting his blog again!
Victor here, taking up more slack. At least I'm not neglecting my own
blog as much as I normally do.
So, over at Publius & Co. I took a little quiz that I got offa my gf's blog, that she got offa somebody else's, who got it from Cthullu-knows-who...you get the idea. I realized Jim hadn't taken the test yet so I did it for him! Keep in mind I've never met Jim, and the only picture I've seen of him has him sucking on a cow's teat, so I filled this out by, basically, clicking on whatever the hell I felt like. In all honesty, it wasn't as much fun as I thought it'd be.
Maybe Jim shoulda took the "Leading Ladies" quiz instead.
more...
Posted by: Victor at
08:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 5 kb.
Death brings validity?
This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.
This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:
Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.
Her opinion is valid because her son died there.
Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.
Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.
Lets boil that down:
The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.
Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.
That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.
UPDATE: Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"
Well, HE DID TOO:
Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.
Posted by: Jim at
08:52 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What're you doing posting on your blog when I'm posting on your blog?!?!?!?
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 08:56 AM (L3qPK)
2
Down, Victor.
Did you see the comments at Charmaine's? That's where Robert argues that he was
not either granting more moral standing to Sheehan; he was only saying that Pruett can't be her logical opposite! Really! That's all he was tryin' to say! Why we all pickin' on Robert? He was only saying they're not opposites!
Oh, and that Bush lied, people died, because Halliburton. I think I caught something about that too.
Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 12:13 PM (FLmL2)
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 12:17 PM (L3qPK)
4
So the whole "She can give her opinion when she loses a son" thing was just topical humor? What a piece of work.
Charmaine is
over here.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 12:21 PM (tyQ8y)
5
First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post.
Secondly:
"Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there."
I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods.
Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass.
For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source.
Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.)
Fourthly Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons.
Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.
Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)
6
First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post.
Secondly:
"Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there."
I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods.
Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass.
For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source.
Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.)
Fourthly, Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons.
Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.
Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)
7
Thank you for so aptly proving my point, twice.
Sifting through your chaff I have found at least a couple of kernels to address.
Wingnut?
Well, no.
You never said Pruett's opinion is invalid because she hasn't lost a son? Well, no:
Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.
I'm also pretty big on the First Amendment. That's why I support Cindy Sheehan's right to do what she's been doing. That isn't the same thing as either understanding her logic or supporting what she's doing.
Polls also favored Kerry to win the Presidency by a similar margin. Exit polls were slanted even more towards him. With a bit more experience you'll learn not to rely on marginal polls to support arguments.
Bush lied, people died?
Prove it.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:19 PM (oqu5j)
8
Pardon me just a minute but--
HAHAHAHAHA!
Criminy, Robert. Do you just sit around Googling instances of "Robert" all day long or WHAT? Because I'm thinking you must wind up looking at pictures of
this fellow a lot.
No wonder you're upset. Here, have a cookie.
Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 10:20 PM (FLmL2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 30, 2005
She Wants To Be In Charge of the Money
Her: I did something bad today.
Me:...What?
Her: I went shopping.
Me:...And?
Her: I spent $XXX.
Me (laughing):...What the hell did you buy for that much money?
Her: Two pairs of jeans and six pairs of shoes.
Me(laughing harder, because crying is not an option): What are you going to do; go barefoot on Sunday?
I laughed until I got in the shower and then I cried, so the water would hide my tears. Tears of hysterical laughter mind you, but tears nonetheless. She wants to take our seperate bank accounts and put them together in one account when we get married. I guess she thinks if we pool our resources we can really take advantage of the investment goldmine that is the Women's Accessories department at Dilliards.
Posted by: shank at
04:25 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hey! How come Shank gets to post here and not me?
Shank's a pussy. I mean really.
Posted by: Bill at August 30, 2005 04:55 PM (X+4h/)
2
I think he was here first, assmonkey.. er... Bill.
Posted by: Oorgo at August 30, 2005 06:29 PM (lM0qs)
3
I have the wife handle all the bills, so if she fucks it up, it's on her. One checkbook, and she carries it. I don't touch checks unless I'm mailing them.
I don't use our debit card without calling her and getting permission and having her balance the account right then and there while I'm on the phone.
I keep a personal account for myself at a completely different bank with my own, one and only debit card. If I give it to her, we discuss the amount first (she has my PIN) and she hands the card back to me with the receipt.
It really is the only way.
Posted by: Bane at August 30, 2005 06:37 PM (JO5DH)
4
My wife wanted to do the accounting for us, but damn she buys some useless shit. We're currently relying on my memory, online banking and the statements in the mail I never open.
Posted by: Oorgo at August 30, 2005 06:42 PM (lM0qs)
5
My old lady pays all the bills, nadles all the money. Hell, she's got the time. I'm too busy scratching out our existance to get involved in the day-to-day.
Yes, I realize I could wake up destitute one day...her off with all the funds and the tennis instructor. But, hey, I'm a gambler like that.
Posted by: Paul at August 31, 2005 07:37 AM (vbP6L)
6
I wish somebody would nadle my money. Sounds exciting!
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:03 AM (tyQ8y)
7
Handles, damnit! Shoulda' been handles.
Posted by: Paul at August 31, 2005 10:13 AM (vbP6L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Peacock Find The Lie Challenge
UPDATE: Not sure how I got back into it but I did and this is topical again. The game is on!
I had an interesting imaginary conversation with our normally sweet though rabidly lefty neighbor. It went something like this:
Neighbor: I can't believe you voted against Kerry in the primary.
[Note - I'm not a registered Democrat but in Georgia all voters may vote in whichever primary they choose to. Since voting for or against Bush in the Republican primary was a moot point I voted in the Democratic primary.]
Me: I don't like him. If Bush loses I want the person who is President to be the best possible candidate and Kerry isn't that candidate.
Neighbor: IIIIIIFFFFF Bush loses?!?!?! Of course he's going to lose! We're going to knock that lying bastard out of the White House!
Me: Oh, Lordy. You aren't one of those "Bush lied, people died" folk are you?
Neighbor: Of course. He did lie and those lies led directly to people dying so damn straight "Bush lied, people died".
Me: What lie did he tell?
Neighbor: He talked about all of...
Me: Woah! I didn't ask what he talked about. I want to know what he actually said.
Neighbor: He said that...
Me: Stop! I don't want to hear that "He said that...", I want to hear what he himself personally said. What literal lie came out of his mouth?
Neighbor: I'm trying to tell you what he said!
Me: No, you're trying to tell me an interpretation of what he said. Tell me the exact words that came out of his mouth that were deliberate and calculated untruths.
Neighbor: Nobody knows exact words. That's crazy. I couldn't give you the exact words for this conversation we're having right now.
Me: Anybody who wants to can have the exact words that Bush said. They are all recorded for posterity and publicly available. Let's forget about knowing the actual words for a moment. Have you yourself heard the actual words?
Neighbor: Don't patronize me. I keep informed, Jim. I do listen to the news and read the paper.
Me: I know you do, otherwise I wouldn't bother to have this conversation with you. I'm serious here - have you yourself heard and recognized a lie out of Bush's mouth? Have you read his actual words, uncut, unexerpted and un-ellipsed and seen a lie there? Or are you propagating a personal attack on a man based solely on what third parties have said.
Neighbor: [Fuming silence]
Me: Okay, why don't we pick this up later after you've had some time to do some research?
So I've got a challenge to anybody and everybody who's part of the "Bush lied, people died" crowd. This is not sarcastic and it's not meant to denigrate anybody. I've seen dozens of people who I respect react with this knee-jerk slogan. I myself have never seen or heard an intentional untruth from Bush. If he actually did lie then the proof of it is out there. Show me. Prove it. If you are willing to mouth the words against the man then the least you can do as a person of honor is to verify that what you are saying about him is true. Since you'll be out doing that for your own peace of mind, share it with me here when you are done.
Here's what I'm looking for:
- Actual literal quotes from George Bush
- They must be in context, unedited, un-ellipsed, unmodified in any way. Exactly as they came from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
- They must be linked and referenced. I must be able to go and view the source for myself.
- They must contain intentional fallacies that directly led to US forces going to war in Iraq.
Leave them in the comments to this post. Each instance of a qualifying Bush lie that is reported here will be rewarded with a Snooze Point or two and the eternal thanks of the masses.
Posted by: Jim at
12:12 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.
1
This one time, Bush said, "I wish Trey Givens was President instead of me." We all know he really doesn't wish that because later he whispered to Rummy "Not really" but his mic was still on and we all heard him.
I'll beat him anyway, but still. A lie.
And then later someone died but I didn't know them personally.
See?
Bush lied. People died.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 02, 2004 10:04 AM (Fo1B/)
2
So close, Trey. Unfortunately you missed requirements 1 through 4 so I can't give you a Snooze Point. :-(
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 10:19 AM (IOwam)
Posted by: ilyka at April 02, 2004 12:00 PM (2MnQa)
4
Here's one:
“Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831
Opps - I broke requirement #1 - That quote was from Senator John Kerry on Jan 23, 2003.
Posted by: Clancy at April 02, 2004 12:59 PM (EGVPL)
5
You missed #4 too, Clancy. It's got to be a lie.
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 01:02 PM (IOwam)
6
"The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
It had me convinced. I'm still for the war, who wouldn't be for getting the rat in the hole out of power, but I'm less than convinced about the administrations motives being to stop WMD's and more about score-settling.
Posted by: Jerry at April 02, 2004 03:12 PM (jd1nc)
7
Jerry, that's actually one of my favorite Bush quotes. The full paragraph is:
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
I can't give you credit for finding a lie with this one though. It was the job of the inspectors to verify Iraq's disarming. It was Iraq's responsibility to reveal its banned weapons and to destroy them. Most definitely the UN had determined that Iraq was not complying.
You get criteria 1 through 3 but you missed on number 4.
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 03:19 PM (IOwam)
8
An excellent post. Thanks for putting them on the spot. ;0)
Posted by: Larry at April 02, 2004 04:46 PM (6TcYT)
9
Thank you for this, ever so much.
Of course, lacking a specific "lie" to turn to, the left has instead adopted the mantra that Bush and Co. "misled" the American people. Gives them a little more wiggle room, I guess. Plus, in a pinch, they can edit their Bush Lied; People Died slogan to Bush Misled; People Are Dead. Not as catchy, but they'll take what they can get.
Posted by: Ryan at April 02, 2004 05:47 PM (Sc71i)
10
THANK YOU! Now I know exactly how to respond whenever someone starts on the "Bush lied" bandwagon. P.S. Thank you for the birthday greetings...even if they WERE coerced...lmao!
Posted by: mitzi at April 02, 2004 10:49 PM (GhWNp)
11
Umm... I think that
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp
Link
Have fun. Bush lied. People died.
for example...
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
And don't give me that crap about the intelligence being "mixed". Any US intelligence that pointed to any of this came from paid liars at the Iraqi National Congress. The INC is an organisation created by the CIA. It is still paid US$300,000 a month for intelligence on Iraq. Ahmed Chalabi is their leader and is wanted in Jordan for a conviction on embezzlement. Chalabi admitted last month to a London paper that he and the INC lied through their teeth about Saddam to get the US to go to war. Bush and Cheney of course are wimps and have to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. And you suckers still follow the wimp, who isn't man enough to bear witness to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him, GOD.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 08:25 AM (WW/Rd)
12
Calm down, Tom. Deep breaths.
I can't give you anything for your submission because I can't verify that you qualified for #1 or #2 because your #3 does not provide that quote for me. Without #1 through #3 it's pretty pointless to waste time on #4.
Your secondary argument fails the rules of debate miserably. You use conjecture and put forward critical partisan positions as if they were accepted fact. You also fail to document even a single fact.
This is exactly what I'm talking about with this post. 100% opinion and conjecture backed up by unsubstantiated non-references. This is not the way to conduct discussions and debates but it is the only thing that I see from the Bush Lied crowd.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2004 08:46 AM (IOwam)
13
Not that I think you'd ever accept any evidence as being sufficient, after all you don't accept the UN Chief Inspectors statements that Saddam was complying and that inspections were working... albeit slowly. Of course as anybody who's done any logic work would know, proving a negative (like the WMD didn't exist) is almost impossible. After all the Bush administration still claims that WMD might exist because they haven't completed their scavenger hunt across the entire country the size of California.
But here is a bit of the citations which you say that you want.
The citation I gave you is on the second page at the bottom of the 55 results given for Bush at Waxman's site. The citation given is:
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003)
As for Chalabi being the skirt that Bush hides behind...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm
This reprint of the story by the right wing Washington Times shows that he admits the INC lied and coached the sources of info for the war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11CHAL.html
This NY Times article has gone in to the pay archives, but the abstract provides all of the grisly details on the Pentagon being the INC paymasters for information.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8197503.htm
Here's a bit more detail from the SJ Mercury News on how the lapdog "liberal" media failed to question the lies any more than you do now. And that the Pentagon was the paymasters for the fabrications.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
And this Mother Jones investigation shows the plumbing for the whole operation. Kind of like laundering cash, but this time you launder disinformation and let the President have "plausible deniability".
In other words, he hides behind the skirts of his paid liars. Which is why the chump won't testify before the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney at his side or under oath or with the tape recorders going. Because the liar knows he bears false witness and fears putting his hand on the Bible and continuing his lies. Bush Lied, People Died.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 10:31 AM (WW/Rd)
14
Thanks, Tom. I'm able to find that quote now. To read it in context
go here. It does fundamentally change the nature of the quote to have it out of context.
Now we've qualified conditions #1 through #3, let's see how you did with #4. Remember that our debate is about "Bush lied, people died". With that in mind here are my responses to your arguments. Where you've used logical fallacy I have not engendered an argument in response (since I can't logically debate a fallacy). In those cases I have only pointed out the particular logical fallacies used.
And don't give me that crap about the intelligence being "mixed". Any US intelligence that pointed to any of this came from paid liars at the Iraqi National Congress.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
The INC is an organisation created by the CIA.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
It is still paid US$300,000 a month for intelligence on Iraq.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
Ahmed Chalabi is their leader and is wanted in Jordan for a conviction on embezzlement.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
Chalabi admitted last month to a London paper that he and the INC lied through their teeth about Saddam to get the US to go to war.
I've commented below where you supply an article link on this subject.
Bush and Cheney of course are wimps and have to hide behind the skirts of paid liars.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
And you suckers still follow the wimp, who isn't man enough to bear witness to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him, GOD.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
Not that I think you'd ever accept any evidence as being sufficient, after all you don't accept the UN Chief Inspectors statements that Saddam was complying and that inspections were working... albeit slowly.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
Of course as anybody who's done any logic work would know, proving a negative (like the WMD didn't exist) is almost impossible.
Argumentum ad numerum, posito ergo sum
I agree that proving an abstract negative is very difficult. I disagree that proving a physical negative is difficult.
After all the Bush administration still claims that WMD might exist because they haven't completed their scavenger hunt across the entire country the size of California.
Straw man, posito ergo sum
As for Chalabi being the skirt that Bush hides behind...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm
This reprint of the story by the right wing Washington Times shows that he admits the INC lied and coached the sources of info for the war.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11CHAL.html
This NY Times article has gone in to the pay archives, but the abstract provides all of the grisly details on the Pentagon being the INC paymasters for information.
Non sequitur
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8197503.htm
Here's a bit more detail from the SJ Mercury News on how the lapdog "liberal" media failed to question the lies any more than you do now. And that the Pentagon was the paymasters for the fabrications.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
And this Mother Jones investigation shows the plumbing for the whole operation. Kind of like laundering cash, but this time you launder disinformation and let the President have "plausible deniability".
No fallacies on your part here but I'm pretty sure I found all 20 off of the Fool's Logic list in the article.
In other words, he hides behind the skirts of his paid liars. Which is why the chump won't testify before the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney at his side or under oath or with the tape recorders going. Because the liar knows he bears false witness and fears putting his hand on the Bible and continuing his lies. Bush Lied, People Died.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
In summary:
There's no way I could debate your points because you are not presenting them logically. As presented there's no way your argument meets condition #4.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2004 01:57 PM (IOwam)
15
Heh heh... Just like I suspected. I get the feeling that if Bush came out like a man and admitted that he lied and paid others to lie for him to repeat, your reaction would be a bit like the crowd in The Life of Brian, when Chapman states that he isn't the messiah. But Bush is a chump and a pansy and can't stand up like a man and has to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. Chalabi even went on the record stating that he's willing to be Bush's scapegoat for bad intelligence, because Chalabi knows Bush is a pansy and likes to hide behind the skirts of his paid liars.
As for proving physical negatives being easy, I have a challenge for you then. Prove to me that ghosts don't physically exist on this Earth.
Next I dare you to provide a citation from either Blix or ElBaradei from between the passage of UN Sec. Council Resolution 1441 and the start of the second Iraq War that backs up Bush's claim of Saddam's "elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists."
And thank you for the link to the full text of Bush's Speech.
context is important... especially this. "Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery." This "firsthand" witness, codenamed "Curveball", was the INC informant that Powell just threw to the wolves. This informant was NEVER interviewed by US officials and part of the information handed to the US was that he had failed a polygraph test. Furthermore this informant was on the payroll of the US Dept. of Defense group reporting directly to the White House (not the Sec. of Defense).
I guess it's a bit like Bush citing the British intel on Saddam's acquisition of uranium. Technically Bush's statement is true. BUT taking that assertion and then using it as the basis for your own case for war implies that you believe not only is your statement technically correct, but that the assertion that Saddam had acquired uranium was also correct.
For example, I could state that old Pope's taught that the Universe and the Sun revolved around the Earth. That is technically correct. But if I went on to argue for a space mission based upon a math model of the Universe that had the Earth at the center, while knowing that the model is false, I would be lying. Even if all of the sentences were technically the truth.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 08:34 PM (WW/Rd)
16
No, Tom. It's not like you suspected. You haven't professed a single argument that does not contain a fallacy and as a result your conclusions are specious and undebatable. I'm not going to respond to your ad hominem attacks on myself or the subjects of the debate. I'm not going to follow non sequitur logic. I'm not going to accept posits without basis.
I understand that this is an emotional thing for you. That's not meant to be patronizing - the entire point of my post was that people push this "Bush lied, people died" thing for emotional rather than rational reasons. However, it's not an emotional thing for me and I'm not going to involve myself in an emotional argument over it. If you can put forward a rational argument I'll respond to it.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2004 05:15 AM (saeHM)
17
Um. If I may be permitted to chase a tangent here...
The word "ghost" describes a contradiction, a mind without a body. It's very much like the word "god." And neither exist.
Also, saying "old Pope's taught that the Universe and the Sun revolved around the Earth." Isn't "technically" correct. It's factually true. Popes of the days of yore DID teach that. However, what they were teaching was false, plain and simple. There isn't any technicality behind it to make it true.
If you planned a space mission based upon what the Catholic Church held hundreds of years ago, you'd probably be branded a heretic in their time and a fool in ours.
And all of that bears very little to the case before us today.
Jim has posed a very simple and direct challenge and it has yet to be met.
Just slow down, present your case, and include evidence. If you follow the rules of logic and argument you'll do fine.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 06, 2004 09:01 AM (Fo1B/)
18
"Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."
This sentence is a lie. There were no FIRSTHAND witnesses because it was a pure fabrication by informants from the INC, a group on the payroll of the US Pentagon. Whether Bush believed the fabrications or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement. It is a lie. There were no witnesses, because the event was a pure fabrication. Bush lied. People died.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8348841.htm
It might even be a stretch to state that their were plural witnesses, since the story was obviously single-sourced through the INC, who as previously noted, have admitted fabricating stories in order to get the US to invade Iraq.
As for stating that calling Chalabi a liar is an ad hominem attack, the man has admitted to lying. Therefore it is hardly an ad hominem attack, but rather restating what the man has admitted himself.
As for the rest being non sequitur, it is a FACT that the INC has admitted to lying about Saddam and WMD and al Qaeda. It is a FACT that the INC was on the payroll of the US DoD. It is a fact that INC informants cannot be cross-interviewed by the US CIA. It is a FACT that the US Dept. of State dismissed the credibility of the INC and their informants before the invasion. It is a FACT that in the Bush radio speech all references to sources of information of Saddam's wrongdoing were from INC informants. It is a fact that the White House and associates' incriminating evidence against Saddam was single sourced through the INC. To demonstrate that the source of Bush's statements are lies is to demonstrate that Bush himself lied by repeating them. That is hardly non sequitur.
As for you being a sucker for believing Bush's repetition of lies, Jim, I think PT Barnum would make the same judgement of folks who fall for the two-bit hucksterism of the current administration.
Posted by: Tom at April 06, 2004 09:51 PM (WW/Rd)
19
I have to keep this short as I'll be heading into a meeting in a few minutes but I didn't want it to hang open all day waiting for a response.
Whether Bush believed the fabrications or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement. It is a lie.
That is incorrect. The standard definition of
to lie (#1 from Miriam-Webster) is
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Passing along incorrect information is not lying. It could be foolish or irresponsible but it isn't lying. This is specifically why I specified "intentional fallacies" in criteria #4 of the Challenge as I knew this mistake would be made.
The reason the vast bulk of your arguments were non sequiturs was because they are not germaine to the point of the argument. Any action of the INC, whether the INC is supported by the DoD, who founded the INC, items uncovered after Bush's statement, how Chalabi feels about the invasion or the INC or what he's willing to do in the present, etc. have nothing at all to do with whether or not Bush intentionally lied in his speech in order to drive America to war.
Based on the information you've provided you would be perfectly justified in saying "Bush was wrong, people died" but you are libeling him every time you write "Bush lied, people died".
As far as calling me a sucker, well that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's still an ad hominem attack that does nothing to promote your argument. Given that you don't know me and that you haven't proven your point you have no basis to judge whether or not I'm a sucker so it's also a fallacy of posito ergo sum. If you want to insult or bait me you'll have to do it logically and truthfully otherwise I'm just going to continue dismissing it.
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 10:55 AM (IOwam)
20
Since you haven't provided evidence from Blix, Kay, or ElBaradei to support Bush's claims about Hussein, I realise that you'll dismiss everything out of hand anyway. That is the nature of "true believers".
As for the fact that the information cited by Bush comes from folks who were known at the time to be fabricators, the Executive Branch's payment of said fabricators and the subsequent use by the Executive Branch as their sole source of evidence means that they did intend to deceive.
Furthermore Bush's repeated "clever" choice of words, as you have aptly pointed out, means that Bush was using wiggle words deliberately to decieve, which points to intent. They just got sloppy with this particular quote.
But as I've stated before, even if Bush came out and told you that he was lying, you'd still live in denial. So I'm done here.
Posted by: Tom at April 07, 2004 08:26 PM (WW/Rd)
21
Dude. You are SO missing the point.
You have to show, not that Bush was wrong about what he said, but that he was wrong and he knew he was wrong in an attempt to lead us to war.
A mistake and a lie aren't the same.
Let's assume that *everything* Bush said was false. Can you now prove that Bush knew that what he was saying was false? Not so far you haven't.
The use of paid informants is simply not proof of deception.
And Jim has repeatedly told you that he is dedicated to reason and the facts of reality on this topic.
Why would you say that he wouldn't believe Bush if Bush himself said he was lying? What has given you the idea that anyone would do that?
That's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 07, 2004 09:20 PM (R0TDF)
22
Incorrect label, Tom. I am a "true
disbeliever". Specifically I do not believe that "Bush lied, people died" .
My argument is that the popular anti-Bushism of "Bush lied, people died" is an emotional statement and one not based in fact. I further propose that the people who cry it take it on faith in the spirit of the Big Lie and have not verified it personally even though it is about as personal attack as one can make. Because Bush is "the enemy" he is not accorded with the common courtesy you would grant a coworker, family member, acquaintance, or even a stranger for most honorably minded persons.
In this debate I am the Defense. The accusers (you) must prove that Bush intentionally deceived America in order to launch a war on Iraq. A decent Defense will never address a point that is not germaine to the case. In more specific terms, I have no need to defend or prosecute Blix, Kay or ElBaradei. Nothing is gained for my case by following red herrings. The
only things I need to respond to are the actual true arguments that you present. Unfortunately you continue to offer fallacious arguments.
I'll give you an example of proving somebody to be a liar. I pick you.
Given: Tom stated
I realise that you'll dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Reference Tom's comment immediately preceding this one.
Given: I have addressed each point that Tom has raised either through argument or by exposing it as a logical fallacy.
Given: Tom read my responses so he does know that I have addressed each of his points. Reference Tom's responses to my previous comments.
Therefore: Tom's statement was a deliberate fallacy.
Ergo: Tom is a liar.
You have not done this for Mr.Bush. You have taken a Bush statement and surrounded it with logical fallacy in order to attempt to prove an illogical conclusion. Let's start at the end and I'll show you why the conclusion you are pursuing is invalid.
Given: Bush gave a speech saying BLAHBLAH.
Given: At a later date, BLAHBLAH was determined to be untrue.
Therefore: Nothing. This does not retroactively make Bush a liar.
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 09:35 PM (saeHM)
23
What Trey said!
(Way more succinctly than I did.)
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 09:43 PM (saeHM)
24
Jim, you've hardly proven any of my points as fallacious. Rather you've dismissed them as being irrelevant, not factually incorrect.
But I decided to go off to m-w.com to check on your definition and the one you chose is not the only one.
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
which of course eliminates any need to prove intent. Bush indeed created a false and misleading impression about WMDs and the link to al-Qaeda. There is no need to prove intent by this definition. So both you and Trey can stick your heads in the sand and deny that Bush lied, but by this definition, he did.
And if George W. Bush chooses to file slander charges, to quote the man himself, BRING IT ON!
Posted by: Tom at April 08, 2004 03:24 AM (WW/Rd)
25
It is quite obvious that Jim sits not only as defense but chooses to sit as judge as well. If this were indeed a defense, he would be required to provide evidence backing up his out-of-hand dismissals of the complaints.
Further he's argued several positions which are completely untenable, such as proving physical negatives is easy. This and his claims that Bush's source of evidence are irrelevant are what lead me to believe that he cares not one whit about facts. Furthermore with Jim's choice of definitions with the need for proof of intent, it demonstrates that he is complicitous in allowing Bush to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. Much like Republicans were with Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair. The truth is not what is sought here, but rather Jim does his best to obscure the facts. A typical Republican hobby.
Furthermore Trey, you've chosen to focus on the fact that Chalabi and the INC are paid informants... but beyond that they are paid informants who have admitted lying. They were known to be fabricators prior to Bush restating their evidence. Chalabi is a wanted man for an embezzlement conviction in Jordan. By trying to convince the American public that the US government had solid evidence instead of telling them that it was all based upon paid testimony from a perjurer and embezzler, who would directly profit from America invading Iraq, the President created a false and misleading impression. Most journalists would lose their jobs if they published stories like the ones Bush did. Not to mention what sort of shit would hit the fan if police or prosecuting attorneys pulled these stunts. Thankfully for Bush, Congress is Republican. He can avoid subpoenas for the moment. But someday the truth will come out and you and your readers still won't believe.
Posted by: Tom at April 08, 2004 03:53 AM (WW/Rd)
26
Tom, Tom, Tom.
You're just not going to play by the rules are you? You're just going to continue to deride, pout, and refuse to be rational, aren't you?
The definition "to create a false or misleading impression" still implies clear intent to do just that. It doesn't mean the same as being mistaken.
Jim made it clear what is needed:
1. Actual literal quotes from George Bush
2. They must be in context, unedited, un-ellipsed, unmodified in any way. Exactly as they came from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
3. They must be linked and referenced. I must be able to go and view the source for myself.
4. They must contain intentional fallacies that directly led to US forces going to war in Iraq.
Number 4 also means that you're going to have to provide similar citations for those fallacies.
Please make it one cohesive statement. Amid all of that other static you're throwing out there, it's getting hard to tell what you're talking about and where it's documented.
I agree that Bush is a very foolish person on many, many counts. But your claim is that on this matter he not just foolish but a liar.
Don't just say it. Show us.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 08, 2004 10:34 AM (Fo1B/)
27
Tom, I think one of the reasons that you are so antagonistic here is that you believe you are in hostile territory. Maybe you're used to needing a belligerent tone when commenting on "Righty" weblogs. You aren't on a "Righty" weblog here so it really isn't necessary. I'm fairly smack dab in the middle between the Republican and Democrat lines. So chill a bit with the constant name calling and groupisms.
The hair splitting over the definition of Lie is irritating. As Trey pointed out, and as you already knew, it implies an effort to deceive. Do you beleive that there is any person out there who marches around with a "Bush lied, people died" placard who really means "Bush was tricked into uttering a deception, people died"? It doesn't matter in the slightest anyway as the challenge was specific in demanding intentional fallacies. I pointed this out in my last comment.
Back to your intended argument - you have proposed that Bush knew that his sources were giving him bad information. It is central to your argument. You have not given any proofs for this fact. It is absolutely required that you address this in order to prove your argument.
Before you comment again I would like you to read up on
logical fallacies. No, it's not a homework assignment and it's not meant to be disparaging. It's just that it's very easy to see how frustrated you are getting because I am not responding in argument to many of your points. As I've mentioned a few times now this is because your points are fallacious. Give that treatise a bit of your attention and I think you'll be able to present your points in a logical manner.
Posted by: Jim at April 08, 2004 01:45 PM (IOwam)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blogger now flagging “Objectionable Material”
Next time you visit a “blogspot” blog you’ll notice a new little flag you can click if you find the content objectionable. They claim on the site that they’re not endorsing censorship and even add the line, “…we prefer to keep in mind that one person's vulgarity is another's poetry.”
Fair enough. Maybe.
“We track the number of times a blog has been flagged as objectionable and use this information to determine what action is needed.”
Now I have to ask, wouldnÂ’t the world at large benefit more if they had a flag to click if the content just plain sucked? Or the blogger was an asshole? Because IÂ’m here to tell you, I really see more potential in going that route.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:50 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Maybe we should institute something similar here. Like, "If you think this content is objectionable, click here to blow it out your ass; because we don't give a sweet soft shit about your objections."
Posted by: shank at August 30, 2005 11:22 AM (+H1yK)
2
*click*
Posted by: De at August 30, 2005 11:51 AM (IdVP4)
3
I wonder what word or combo of words will get us a flag? I wish they had a place on the page for the flags you've earned.
Posted by: Fester at August 30, 2005 01:22 PM (6krEN)
4
It would be cool if they displayed a skull & crossbones for every one you've earned.
Posted by: Paul at August 30, 2005 01:26 PM (vbP6L)
5
I wonder what would happen if we copied the flag .gif file and the link text from Blogger, and put the exact same thing on our template. Would it would allow people to rate the 'objectionalness' of our blog? Probably just give them some kind of error message though huh.
Posted by: shank at August 30, 2005 02:50 PM (+H1yK)
6
It wouldn't do anything. However...
We could stick it up there and have it point to any page we want. Including one we could write that could say something extremely offensive. Not a bad idea, really. Or we could link the flag to a totally outragous gay pr0n site.
That would teach them.
Posted by: Paul at August 30, 2005 03:01 PM (vbP6L)
7
Yeah, but I think people would start complaining to Pixy if we had an offensive link on our site. That might be a nono.
Which is too bad too, because I have a perfectly disgusting, horrifying link, the kind of link that makes you wonder if there's anything worth saving in this screwed up world. If it didn't stir an immediate and physically violent objection in someone, you might want to check their pulse. Definitely too bad.
Posted by: shank at August 30, 2005 03:26 PM (+H1yK)
8
Is it tubgirl? That is the worst thing I have ever seen, on the internet or anywhere else. Just thinking about it makes me want to puke.
Posted by: Bane at August 30, 2005 06:31 PM (JO5DH)
9
Bane, you're fucking telepathic. In a really distrubing way.
Posted by: shank at August 30, 2005 07:03 PM (jfEhX)
10
Bane, whats the url???
Posted by: fester at August 30, 2005 07:38 PM (tI7z1)
11
Never mind, I found it. Jap porn rules, but that's plain disgusting. Lots of shock value though.
Posted by: fester at August 30, 2005 07:42 PM (tI7z1)
12
Hey, where's the flag here?
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:01 AM (tyQ8y)
13
Hell, this comment thread needs a flag.
Posted by: Ted at September 01, 2005 11:14 AM (blNMI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Yo Yo Yo
The best idea IÂ’ve heard in a while, courtesy of the
Borowitz Report:
“
ARMY TO RECRUIT AT MTV MUSIC AWARDS
Rappers Could Skip Firearms Training, Pentagon Believes
He said that by recruiting soldiers at the MTV Music Awards, the Army would be gaining a pool of enlistees who would require no firearms training whatsoever, saving the Pentagon and U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars a year.
“Teaching these guys how to use a gun would be a serious waste of time,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “It would be like teaching Courtney Love how to snort powder up her nose.”
While the Defense Secretary would not specify how the Army would induce rappers to enlist, he told reporters, “We are fully prepared to offer them a Cadillac Escalade, and we may throw in a ho or two as well.”
Meanwhile, I've got nothing.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
August 29, 2005
Time for an intervention?
My old lady and I are both addicted to French Market brand coffee. ItÂ’s from New Orleans and quite simply, no other coffee will do.
Over the weekend the old lady started to comb all the local grocery stores and buy as many cans of the stuff as she could get her hands on. SheÂ’s afraid that if the hurricane hits New Orleans we could be without our beloved French Market coffee for months. Moments ago, I received this email from my wife:
“I bought two more cans at the store today (all they had) and I plan to continue cleaning out the other stores for all I can find. I hope I can beat others to it. I’m sure that most normal people are still worried about the loss of life and destruction of property. I’m worried about that too, of course, but I’ve been addicted to this coffee for over a decade. I don’t know if I can live without it.
You could say that I am also worried about the destruction of property, it’s just that I’m concerned with one specific place: The French Market Coffee Company.”
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:13 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Yea, I say unto you; the seas shall overcome the levees, the winds topple your stadiums, and the aftermath leave ye without shelter or coffee...bitch." - Revelations 13:2
Posted by: shank at August 29, 2005 11:34 AM (+H1yK)
2
I thought you were anti-religion Shankers.
Posted by: Oorgo at August 29, 2005 07:47 PM (lM0qs)
3
Let thee not be led down the path of temptation, for the beans are overroasted and StarBucks verily overpriced.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:00 AM (tyQ8y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pervert gets a good beating
I live for stuff
like this. Some wack-job broke into a house five nights in a row to steal a womanÂ’s panties. The womanÂ’s husband was understandably pissed off and set up a home made alarm with a bra, string and coffee cup. When the thief set off the alarm the husband beat the living shit out of him
with a wooden leg from his childÂ’s crib. The affidavit makes for an entertaining read. And of course, thereÂ’s a picture of the thief all beat to hell.
Oh, I forgot, and the perv kept his collection of panties in a lunchbox next to his bed.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:04 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I woulds just started leaving some nasty shit-stained one's for him. Sicko.
Posted by: shank at August 29, 2005 11:35 AM (+H1yK)
2
55 freakin' pounds of panties... what is that, about 500? 750? I guess it depends on how clean they are.
Posted by: Oorgo at August 29, 2005 07:42 PM (lM0qs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
This is not a melancholy post
IÂ’m not sure when I got on the bus. Probably five years ago, give or take. The past all clumps together for me like a long ribbon thatÂ’s balled up in a drawer. I couldnÂ’t tell you if I boarded the bus under my own free will or if I was pushed. But here I sit and there seems to be nothing I can do about it.
This is how I see life much of the time; through the bus window. It is how time passes. IÂ’m removed from the actual experience. IÂ’m no longer a participant. My emotions are compressed, no great highs or lows. I simply watch as the bus drives along, never fast or slow, and never changing speeds.
I can clearly remember a time before the bus. When I actually lived life. When I had a burning need to go out, talk to people, socialize. I can clearly remember living my life to its fullest. Sometimes I can clearly remember the tiniest detail of an event. And how I felt.
Alive. Vibrant. Bigger than life itself. I was once a character from every novel ever written. I could feel someone turning the pages, watching, completely engrossed in my story—just as I was. For the most part now, I can’t be bothered. I suspect I’ve been hypnotized by life. Keep your eyes on the watch…you’re getting sleepy...sleepy.
Mind you IÂ’m not walking around with my eyes glazed over, slow and weary. IÂ’ve got a spring in my step. I like a good laugh. IÂ’m not depressed, on the contrary, IÂ’m upbeat and IÂ’m usually in a pretty good mood. And IÂ’m not always on the bus.
Often IÂ’ll find myself on terra firma, walking around like a normal person. It usually happens when IÂ’m getting laid, or laughing. A lot of times IÂ’m thrown from the bus by a random asshole that has run a shopping cart up the back of my foot in the cereal aisle. Or honked his horn at me for not making a right on red where it is clearly posted
No right turn on red. I suspect these fuckers are the ones who opened the bus door for me in the first place.
I went through a McDonaldÂ’s drive-through yesterday at the insistence of the kid. And though there was only one vehicle in line in front of me the episode took twenty-five minutes. Two assholes in a Mercedes 600 felt the need to order a shitload of cheeseburgers all custom made. I could hear them ordering because they were screaming.
“No onions on two of them, and one with no ketchup. Now, on the quarter pounders…”
As they pulled up to the next window they were too far away and had to back up not once but twice, so that they could continue the transaction. Then they started unwrapping all of the cheeseburgers to make sure that each was just right. It was a painful experience. I was not on the bus for this one. It was happening in real time. My wife reached over and squeezed my hand, knowing that I was reaching the point of confrontation.
Eventually we got our shit and got back on the road. And once again I boarded the bus and took my seat.
A little farther from the door this time.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:19 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I really love this post. Thanks for taking me "off the bus" for a few minutes!
Posted by: Fritz at August 29, 2005 06:36 PM (Pib4s)
2
I was on the bus for quite some time. I talked to the driver when it was in motion and they threw me off.
Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 09:57 AM (tyQ8y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 26, 2005
WTF?
Remember the old joke about a woman going on vacation and leaving her cat with her brother? The cat gets hit by a car and when the woman returns a week later the brother says, “Your cat’s dead, he was hit by a car.”
The woman goes ballistic.
“Puffy’s dead? How could just blurt it out like that? You should have called one day and said that Puffy was on the roof and you couldn’t get her down. The next day you could have called and said that Puffy was still stuck and things looked bleak. A few calls like that would have prepared me for this! It wouldn’t be such a shock!”
Then the brother says, “I’m really sorry. By the way, Grandma’s on the roof and we can’t get her down.”
Well, think about that
when you read this. IÂ’m fucking speechless.
Via
On the Patio
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:45 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
August 25, 2005
On Commenting
I'm a
better commenter
than I am a
blogger. Sometimes When I sit down to blog, I'm like - what the fuck? I don't even know what I'm doing here! I think I lack a little basic creativity. The mental inertia to get the ball moving. But when I'm commenting, the hurdle is removed. They set 'em up, I knock 'em down. I mean, if you ask me anyways. I'm sure Jen thinks I'm a fratastic loser and Goldstein probably can't even tell the difference between me and the rest of the freaks cruising his place. But I know. And that's all that matters!
Posted by: shank at
10:22 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Who are you again?
Just kidding. I'd miss you if you didn't comment for awhile.
After I noticed.
Posted by: Jennifer at August 25, 2005 10:56 PM (mj1EC)
2
there's some good shit here dude. Keep up the good work...
Posted by: indcoup at August 26, 2005 05:28 AM (zQk8L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How to Get Fired
I watched a man make a presentation today, in which he tripped over the most unfortunate succession of spoonerisms and Freudian slips I have ever seen. It was painful to watch, but it's funny to share.
There's a guy, Joe we'll call him, who works in a division we work with a lot who has a great relationship with his boss. He's a young gun, but knows his stuff well; and his boss is a woman, let's call her Mary, of about fifty. Both are very sharp people, and a lot of the time they play off of eachother. I always thought they had a great dynamic going on.
Anyways, the guy's presenting an idea today in a steering committee meeting. At the end of his presentation he opens it up to questions, and Mary fires one right at him. It was a pretty good question, but we knew she was softballing it to him just to make sure he'd done his work. She said something like "Joe I know you're not stupid enough to have overlooked the blah blah blah" in a faux combative manner. Joe volley's back in an equal tone, "Of course I didn't you silly tit."
BEEEEEeeeeooooooooo. That's the sound of time screeching to a halt; I know becuase I heard it right after Joe's one liner. None of us had any idea what the hell he was thinking, calling Mary a fucking tit. I was beside myself trying not to laugh, trying not to point my finger in that way anyone with siblings knows: "OOOOOOOO! You're so TOAST!"
Time speeds back up: "...you silly tit. Twat." Now, above when I said time came to halt; well this time it hit a brick wall. I mean, I thought I was going to pass out. This guy just followed tit with twat! WTF Joe!
"...silly tit. Twat. I mean twit. I meant twit." This all happened very fast, like so: "Of course I did you silly tit..twatImeant
twit. TWIT." Of course, by the time that sorry bastard hit twat and before he was onto twit, Mary was fucking two shades past maroon and looked like she was going to burst. Joe's almost pleading with her. She broke for the door and Joe just stood there laughing nervously. none of us knew what to do . I mean, I wanted to laugh my ass off, but I wasn't going to draw any attention to myself.
I can't wait to see Joe at work tomorrow, "Sup tit."
Posted by: Id at
08:19 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Bane at August 26, 2005 02:19 AM (JO5DH)
2
Holy shit man, I'm almost crapping my pants I'm laughing so hard.. I've done almost exactly that though, that's the sad part.
Posted by: Oorgo at August 26, 2005 03:59 AM (1JIkb)
3
I would have laughed hysterically. I have no problem laughing at others in the workplace.
Posted by: Wolf at August 26, 2005 07:32 AM (/gLH3)
4
I'm with Wolf. Damn, that was funny. I'd have ruptured myself trying to hold it in.
Posted by: Ted at August 26, 2005 12:32 PM (blNMI)
5
The best put-your-foot-in-it episode I've ever witnessed at work...
Location: Employee Breakroom - Kinko's Inc. Corporate Offices, Ventura, California
Date: The mid-1990s
"Tough meeting, Bob?"
"Yeah, I just had to sit in a meeting with Tracey Goldstein. Have you ever had to deal with that cunt?"
"Yes, actually. She's my wife."
-- so quiet you could hear me slowly tiptoe away --
Posted by: Fritz at August 26, 2005 01:19 PM (Pib4s)
6
Making me burst out laughing at work is BAD...real BAD.
Posted by: De at August 26, 2005 05:05 PM (IdVP4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Me, my underwear and my neighbors
I got caught taking the garbage out in my underwear again yesterday. This time the old lady across the street stood staring while I pretended I wasnÂ’t walking around outside in my briefs. I could tell she was thinking about confronting me because at one point she took a few steps forward, hesitated and then back-peddled when I waved at her. She did not return my greeting.
ThatÂ’s the third incident in about that many months with regards to the garbage. I have no love of going out there in my underwear, but sometimes it canÂ’t be helped. Like when I just woke up and I hear the goddamned garbage truck coming. If I take it out the night before some kind of feral beasts knock it over and then IÂ’ve got to clean it up.
The first time I got caught it was by the third world guy who lives caddy corner across the street. I don’t know where those people are from but they know no shame. He actually started a conversation with me about the common area landscaping. And while I’m standing there chatting on the sidewalk wearing only my Hane’s briefs, half the neighborhood starts coming outside to get newspapers, go to work or adjust their sprinkler heads. Cars were going by—the whole nine yards. By the time I extricated myself from the foreign guy I felt like a fucking idiot. He’s going on and on about tree trimming and every time someone came outside he’d call over to them and wave which was drawing more and more attention.
The first time was certainly the most embarrassing. It was just getting light outside and I sprinted with the single trash can held in front of me. I slammed it down on the curb and when I looked up I saw that everyone else had their recycling out as well. That meant two more trips and the garbage truck was only four houses away. With two cars in my driveway thereÂ’s not much room left in terms of width so I have to dart across the grass to the garage. I got the cans/bottles container out okay but the old hag across the way was now out putting letters in her mailbox. She looked genuinely shocked. And disturbed. I sprinted back to the garage, thinking fuck the paper and cardboard container, but the grass was wet from the sprinklers and I ended up falling and sliding. My underwear was soaking fucking wet.
At that point I was just pissed off. I calmly got up and got the third container and brought it out to the curb. The old lady and I were twenty feet apart. My underwear was soaking wet from the grass and had mud stains and everything. My legs were muddy, and I had bits of grass sticking to me. I had no hope left. I said, “Good morning.”
She just stared at me, unmoving.
Unbelieving. Fortunately the garbage truck literally came between us, and as it stopped to pick up at my place I went back inside. As the garage door was closing I bent down to look underneath and she was still standing there in the same spot. A frozen figure frozen in time.
IÂ’m waiting for the HOA letter.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:05 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 3 kb.
1
There's nothing like a nice refreshing glass of Classic Paul. LMAO at your corny ass sliding all over the freshly dewed lawn. And if I had to guess, I'd say the reason 3rd world guy came to speak with you was probably because he was so glad to see someone else who knew no shame, that he just couldn't help himself. As for the old broad across the street giving you the fisheye; maybe she was just checkin' out the goods.
Posted by: shank at August 25, 2005 11:29 AM (+H1yK)
2
I smell sociology thesis!
Have your wife drop a rumor that you've been forgetful ever since you got an electical shock while changing a light bulb.
Then start changing up the kinds of underwear you wear out to the curb. Boxers, briefs, speedo-style, thongs, fishnet, vinyl, burlap.
Man, why do I have to keep pointing out these opportunities to you guys?
Posted by: Ted at August 25, 2005 11:56 AM (blNMI)
3
The slip-n-slide imagery running through my head right now is just fantastic.
Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2005 12:05 PM (tyQ8y)
4
My neighbor was taking off his dirty FRCs (Fire retardant clothing) on his porch, stripping down to just his boxers.
I admit it...I stared. It was embarrassing when we suddenly made eye contact.
Now, he always looks at me funny.
Posted by: De at August 26, 2005 05:09 PM (IdVP4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Intermission
While IÂ’m polishing up some posts I offer this:
Overheard in New York
IÂ’m pretty sure IÂ’m last to the party on this one, but if you check it out youÂ’ll find some real gems. ItÂ’s self explanatory.
Girl on cell: "Hey, how are you? My vagina is sore."
--34th & 3rd
Man on cell: "I can't wait for the naked pussy party."
--Employees Only, Hudson Street
Girl on cell: "Yeah, I think it's a yeast infection...yeah...itching. It's been like a week, though...I'm not going to a gynecologist...I had a bad experience once. I don't know how much longer I can take it, though."
--6th Avenue & 8th Street
Man: "...and then she's gon' ask me, "How was church?" I'm like, get the fuck outta here. How many times have I asked her to go to Goddamn church with me? Every fuckin' Sunday, I ask that bitch to go to Goddamn church with me. Never! Not once has she come with me, now she wants to ask me, "How was fuckin' church?".
--Sephora, 19th & 5th
Dude on cell:" ...so I picked it up and there was, like, some brown stuff on it that I thought was, like, dirt. So I went to brush it off with my hand...but dude, it, like, wasn't dirt...no..."
--Penn Station
I love New York.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:43 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But did you see the office version? Offers equal hilarity:
Co-worker: Would you like a donut?
Enormous woman: No, thank you.
Co-worker: Why not? Are you on a diet or something?
Enormous woman: Actually, yes, I am on a diet. I am going on vacation to Hawaii at the end of the month and I have only six more pounds to lose until I reach my goal! I want to take a helicopter ride over Kilauea, but the helicopter company charges $100 more if you weigh more than 200 pounds. Hope they don't weigh me on the spot since I am not sure I will be less than 200 pounds unless it's in the morning, after I've had a pee, and I'm nude...Does anyone have any topics they'd like to add to the agenda for today?
Manager: Um...yeah, I do, but give me a minute.
560 McCarthy Boulevard
Milpitas, California
http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/
Posted by: steph at August 25, 2005 08:39 PM (BjTv+)
2
This is one of my favorite blogs!
Posted by: De at August 26, 2005 05:09 PM (IdVP4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 23, 2005
This one's for Paul
Because he
loves them so.
Posted by: Jim at
09:07 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Heh. Everything is funnier with "bitch" at the end.
Posted by: Jennifer at August 24, 2005 02:38 PM (yWVwn)
2
Could be worse...like one of those grossly overweight cats that can't get up unless it's to eat or use the box.
And everything IS funnier with "bitch" tacked on. Not as funny as "mofo" but still damned funny.
Posted by: Paul at August 24, 2005 02:46 PM (/gLH3)
3
Face it, Jim, she's part of the family now.
(And of course I can't take her. I've got three, down from four, and it's still adding up to WAY TOO MUCH POOP.)
Posted by: ilyka at August 24, 2005 11:10 PM (FLmL2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tactile Memories
Sometimes I'll get a sudden debilitating flash memory. It's violent like a seizure, but obviously doesn't manifest itself physically other than me just completely zoning out. I don't know what triggers them. It's not usually something that I see or encounter that reminds me and takes me back. More often than not, it like cruising along down the freeway, barely paying attention to the road, and then this giant wall drops out of the sky two feet from your bumper.
I almost rather they arise from something that's in front of me, rather than some nerve ending that's still living back in '98 firing off this memory that lays seige upon my train of thought. Personally, I find it a little distracting when I'm paying attention to something at work, and then a second later I'm in my old apartment humping some coed so hard that the mattress slides off the frame. Sometimes they're funny fond memories like that, and if I can I'll spend a few minutes wallowing in them like a Sunday morning. But almost as often, they take me back to scary or dark moments.
I guess when it happens at work or in the middle of something, I can usually brush them aside. The worst is when I'm at home cooking or reading and something really disturbing lodges itself in the forefront of my mind. It's kind of like my life is on Calico Vision and some fucker with A.D.D. just pushed the lever. CLICK and I'm plopped down in the middle of some fucked up situation from years ago. Since I'm alone, I have nothing to distract me from it, and I am forced to evaluate it. Why? How? What does it say about me?
A lot of people say you shouldn't relive your past. That doing so somehow means your life now isn't as good as it was, and that's a reflection on you; specifically what a big loser you are. But what if you think you're life's better than it was? I mean, if you don't have a memory of what it used to be, what the hell do you have to be happy about?
I used to be one of those people who said they'd lived their lives without any regret. Then I realized I was just bullshitting myself. If you don't suffer regret, at least momentarily, then you're saying you've never fucked up. Never lost anything of your own fault. And those same people will defend their argument by saying in the end they don't regret making those mistakes, because they learned from them and now bear no regret. Bull
shit. The fact that you fucked up once doesn't disappear, the consequences don't flitter away like dandelion pollen on a warm breeze bitch; just because there was a happy ending to that very special episode in this sitcom you've set up for yourself. If you look hard enough, the regret is there, because that's what keeps you from ever making that same mistake again.
Posted by: Id at
07:25 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.
1
...memory that lays seige upon my train of thought...
Nice. Very nice.
Living in the future is called 'daydreaming'. Sometimes, 'planning'. At this moment, your past is all you've got.
What cripples me is not the flashes from the past (normal, by the way...I think) but the flashes of the future, things that are too horrible to imagine.
And yet, there I am, imagining them.
Posted by: Bane at August 24, 2005 08:40 PM (JO5DH)
2
Well Bane, between my seeing the past and your seeing the future, we should have it all figured out.
Posted by: shank at August 25, 2005 07:50 AM (+H1yK)
3
What screws me up are the deja-vu moments. I don't get them like normal people when the moment passes and you get a feeling like you just repeated something. I get them in the damn middle of the event and know I know what's going to happen except I don't quite figure it out until it's finished. Frustrating as hell.
Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2005 04:46 PM (tyQ8y)
4
Me too, Jim! I hate that. Except when it's cool.
Sometimes I think it's because you are doing something you've done a million times, like washing your hair. There you are in the shower..."Did I already wash my hair? Did I already wash my fucking hair!" and you feel it and maybe you did, and maybe you didn't, so you do it again, just to be sure.
Posted by: Bane at August 25, 2005 08:24 PM (JO5DH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
133kb generated in CPU 0.0389, elapsed 0.0536 seconds.
40 queries taking 0.0319 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.