~~ What's in the water in Seattle...? There's something going on in the Pacific Northwest that I can't explain, that I don't think any of us can explain. ... they're so politically correct, gone so far around the bend, Bill, that even the Muslims think they're crazy." ~~ Laura Ingraham to Bill O'Reilly, June 24.
~~ Michael Medved is strangely silent about "celebrity bastard babies" when it comes to Laura Ingraham's recent adoption of a 3-year old girl from Guatemala. Usually, when a celebrity who's single and decides to adopt or have children, the Wizard of Politics and Culture goes off on a tirade about the righteousness of bi-gendered, bi-parental parenting, by golly. But not, apparently, if the celebrity is a hot-looking, blonde, single woman who happens to be a religious, conservative talk host with a law degree. ~~ Edgar "Choch" Manaña, media critic
There is no cure for the common scold apparently, so after a 20 days of radio silence in a contract dispute, Laura Ingraham (KKOL m-f, 6-9a) will return today, June 30.
Didn't seem that long, unfortunately -- what with her new weekdaily, Just In...with Laura Ingraham (Fox News m-f, 2p PST) which, as our pals over at NewsHounds have said FNC made unabashedly right-wing in order to balance Sean Hannity.
But seriously, folks... Laura took the place of John Gibson who was fired in April and exiled to the Devil's Island that is his radio show's tiny market share.
Laura's new show, which we watch because we're very ill and have a pathological need to do it so you won't have to, is even more appalling than you'd imagine.
That's because it stretches to be comedic giving Laura lines to read that even she's knows are lame -- you can tell she does for the look on her pretty, scrubbed-up face as she delivers them.
Ingraham, for all her sharp-elboed hubris, is not devoid of humor: she can deliver good but sarcastic lines of her own when left to be who she is: Ann Coulter's Ann Coulter.
But Fox has apparently made some of those ink-stained wretcheds from Red Eye, (their straining attempt at late night comedy
) write gag lines for Laura's TelePrompTer.
It's embarrassing -- but fun to watch her wince while she reads the jokes.
Alec Baldwin's born-again brother Stephen came on Just In last week to make big news by saying he'd leave the country if Obama was elected; in an attempt at headline-grabbing to mock his brother's 2004 threat to leave if Bush was re-elected. Alec, a right-wing punching bag who punches back, didn't leave, of course, which is the subject of derisive foofaraw on right-wing media any time the eldest Baldwin's name comes up.
Probably at the direction of his
agent, Stephen came onto this fledgling, 2nd-tier blab-show to see if he could get
some MSM ink.
The B-list movie star, a conservative Christianist preaches to teens that Bono is in league with
Satan; and famously can't recite all 10 of the Commandments. He has also, not surprisingly been an adviser to President Bush. Read the above interview with Baldwin about the 10 commandments, and you'll understand what the two might have in common.
As Herb Caen always said, "The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain in the ass the second time around."
The lessest Baldwin is an also-acted actor remembered for his commanding presence on Celebrity Mole Hawaii and his triumphant return on Celebrity Mole Yucatan. This year, his career has been looking up: he made it to Week 7 of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, and has made several memorable calls-in to the Lionel Show to stick up for Jesus Christ.
Please tell me how your column can be posted at 12:55 AM when my computer clock says 0:25:53? Hmm?
Now I think I'll read it.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Well, she's sort of pretty and blonde. Those are the required credentials for women on the right. She interned for Thomas.
I've decided anybody can be a lawyer. When I was in school, that was quite a stretch academically. Now that I look back on it and see how many people became lawyers and how very little most of them do and how poorly many of them do it for very big fees and just how specialized their specialties are, I think I should have just done it.
On the other hand, I know several people who did become lawyers and hated every minute. Some stuck it out and others quit. Only one changed from corporate law to environmental law and stuck it to the corporations. He loved that. I wonder if he's still in business?
Well, one thing for sure, it pays better than teaching.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Just one more, Laura Flanders is on Radio Nation and her show features lots of guests and discusses issues.
Laura Ingraham to whom I've listened only occasionally mostly rants like Rush. Sarcasm and put downs are her fare. I never ever can understand why people don't see the difference.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 12:42 AM
BTW, Laura Flanders is blond also. She's English and related to Alexander Cockburn. And instead of being just a smart mouth, she's intellectually smart.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 12:47 AM
It's hillarious how conservatives say liberalism, which thrives in diverse high density areas due to ethnic diverstiy and close human habitation is a "mental dissorder" or that "there's something in the water."
When you consider that liberalism is born out of sophisticated problem solving and cooperation among diverse groups, it really makes you laugh at how simple and self-satisfied those conservative are who write off the entire grand and beautiful concept of liberalism as a big funny mental disorder or water impurity.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | June 30, 2008 at 01:11 AM
Doesn't keep you from posting, though.
Posted by: sparky | June 30, 2008 at 07:13 AM
"Well, she's sort of pretty and blonde. Those are the required credentials for women on the right. She interned for Thomas.
I've decided anybody can be a lawyer. When I was in school, that was quite a stretch academically. Now that I look back on it and see how many people became lawyers and how very little most of them do and how poorly many of them do it for very big fees and just how specialized their specialties are, I think I should have just done it.
Well, one thing for sure, it pays better than teaching.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM
You give such short shrift to the fact that Ingraham interned for a Supreme Court Justice. Albeit conservative or liberal your academic scholarship has to be impeccable to get to that level. You should never make the mistake of dismissing someone with different political views as being dumb because they disagree with you. As you get older, that is one of the things life is supposed to teach you. It's called wisdom.
I will never forget the time Ingraham was on 'Hardball' and she absolutely destroyed Matthews and Shuster who tried to double team her. Very impressive lady.
But here is the best part. Okay folks, gather round for the show.
Joanie, that woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff is so weak. When I was in law school I had classmates that were in their late 50's and 60's. Some of them wanted to work in Elder law others had a yen for Environmental law. All of them were strong and vibrant people.
If you THINK it is soooo easy why don't you take an LSAT test. It is the first step to law school. Among other things it will test your reasoning and reading comprehension skills. Hmmmm, I am guessing that will be trouble but go ahead throw your Drama Degree on it. I've made it easy.
Here, go online and try some sample questions.
LSAT
Still think it's easy? Or will it be a quick skeddadle off the blogs for the day with those '64 grandkids' in tow...
As one who got through law school and doesn't practice law I can tell you a law degree is a great upper level degree. You can do a lot with it besides work as an attorney.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 07:56 AM
PugetSound wrote:
"You should never make the mistake of dismissing someone with different political views as being dumb because they disagree with you."
So, does this apply to your posts about Joan?
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 30, 2008 at 08:51 AM
pugetsound, you try to turn every thing into a jonie thing. I don't get that.
Man, you boring.
Posted by: carlos | June 30, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Yes, we've noticed his obsession too. Maybe it was a female supervisor thing?
Posted by: coiler | June 30, 2008 at 09:38 AM
These blondes are vermin, vermin I tell ya. Get 'em out of the country. This is not a color of hair thing, it's just fact.
Posted by: brunette | June 30, 2008 at 10:45 AM
"PugetSound wrote:
"You should never make the mistake of dismissing someone with different political views as being dumb because they disagree with you."
So, does this apply to your posts about Joan?
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 30, 2008 at 08:51 AM"
Redmond
Yep. My use of Joanie is to illustrate absurdity.
I disagree with Chucks or Duffman and still respect them.
When Joanie is proven wrong she will not own up to it. Instead it is the skedaddle. That I don't respect. When I am asked a direct question I respond. Right RD?
Joanie makes demands on others to 'respond' and when she is asked to respond to a particular question she will pull the skedaddle.
Joanie has said some fairly vicious things in the past. The Chickens come home to roost.
I just don't like bullies and that is exactly what Joanie is at times. Some of those things she has said about Chucks, his job (which is damn tough), and his family were a little mean spirited.
She wants to go to Law School and says how easy it must be nowadays. I point out how to apply and let her know it isn't as easy as she 'thinks' it is.
And Coiler/Carlos. It isn't a gender deal. (BTW Carlos, how many times have you posted on this blog? And the above comment is it? )
If anything, I was supporting Laura Ingraham.
Besides, on a website like this what does 'gender' have to do with it. To quote Sparky, that person would be a Maroon.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 02:50 PM
I'm not 'carlos'. I think that it is interesting that you have resorted to the obsession to calling someone being drunk when they post here. Ah, the Joanie = drunk derangement syndrome.
Nothing like a nuanced debate...
Posted by: coiler | June 30, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Joanie said,
"Well, she's sort of pretty and blonde. Those are the required credentials for women on the right. She interned for Thomas.
I've decided anybody can be a lawyer."
Looks like Joanie put her foot in it. Again.
All Putz did was point it out. Again.
Not much to argue with.
Posted by: AudioSlave | June 30, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Yes, you do answer. But that does not mean that someone who isn't johnny on the spot posting an answer is avoiding you. That is rather a self-important way of looking at things. I don't post on here all that often, but that is because of my schedule, not because I am not willing to answer a question.
Several others have pointed out that you turn every post into a an attack on Joan, accusing her of being drunk. Nothing wrong with that if it had not become the only thing you talk about on here lately.
I notice, for instance, that KS dismissed a question that Joan asked him as "not requiring an answer." Nobody accused him of avoidance.
Anyway, I am off to BBQ for my family.
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 30, 2008 at 05:32 PM
Joanie has said some fairly vicious things in the past. The Chickens come home to roost.
Which is why I seldom come here anymore and this is my first post in a very long time. Being nasty is what she does best. God forbid you should disagree with her.
Robinz
Posted by: robinz | June 30, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Puts -
Interesting the last post by Robinz probably reflects sentiments of a growing number who have ventured here. Perhaps you overstated your comment although i tend to agree with where you come from. I viewed some of Joanie's threads on SP as she was trying to stir it up over there, mostly with Pudge and Dave. I think that Joanie blows off the Golden rule often and aims to catch flies with vinegar. We all have our faults, but can at least admit them. To her, it seems that admitting a fault or even a simple oops is a sign of weakness.
In the comment about Joanie not requiring an answer, I could have better expanded my response to RD by saying; "I gave her a succinct answer, as I detected that she was posturing by being obtuse, thinking that she might try and catch me off-guard and then go for the gotcha often construed as a cross between whining and bloviating," If she would acknowledge the truth of the opposition instead of taking progressive websites as gospel and check out other sources , she'd be taken more seriously, but you know and I know that's not her style. Exchanges with her may be stimulating for the participants, but probably painful for others to read through. Sound Politics would welcome her views as a troll. though, perhaps striving to be in the mold of: "headless lucy", "Ivan", "David Matthews" (dormant for last 4 months), "thehim" and "tensor" to name some.
Any update on Duffman ? I miss his threads as he strived for civility here and on SP. Maybe he is working behind the scenes on thesuspended Hillary campaign or doing some freelance at Western State LOL.
Posted by: KS | June 30, 2008 at 06:59 PM
A little something from Daily Kos
"It looks like Obama is gun-shy after sticking by Jeremiah Wright. Now, he can't move quickly enough to denounce his own allies. So he's cross at Wes Clark, and he's mighty cross at MoveOn as well! Who else will he be cross with as he kicks off "Operation Piss Off the People Supporting and Bankrolling His Campaign In Order To Prove He Hates the Dirty Fucking Hippies". Now that the primary is over, he can turn his back on the people that brought him."
"I was going to max out to him today, given I haven't given Obama a dime yet (focusing on congressional candidates). But I changed my mind. He wants to send the message that he doesn't need us, all the power to him. Message received. I'll spend that $2,300 somewhere else."
Looks like his supporters are statrting to see the real Hussein. I even notice that Joanie has dropped him from her signature. Is she starting to see the light at the front of her cave and could she be summoning up the curage to step out of the lies of the Libs and be filled with the truth of the right.
Posted by: nevets | June 30, 2008 at 07:27 PM
I can not comment on this thread as I am an idiot, a dolt, a moron, maroon, greedy, selfish, a pig, racist, bigot etc..
This and many other descriptors have been shared with me by ms joanie.
All of this because I am fool enough to believe in taking responsibility for myself and my family and believing that you should do the same. If you need a temporary hand, we should and do help. But why in the heck are so many "victims" of Katrina still sucking the gummint teet? Could it be because you pergressive liberals keep whipping out the damn thing instead of saying "get a job and feed and house your own selves?
Anyway, some days it can be stimulating debate with joanie, more frequently, lately she is just a sexual intellectual and more hassle than it is worth. At best, she brings out the worst of me. I don't need that nor do the rest of you.
This is Blathering Michael's site and I am his guest. I like sharing as well as learning your opinions on issues relating to the radio and politics.
(guess I could comment after all)
Posted by: chucks | June 30, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Sadly, Duffman's still in the coma. We're not sure how much damage has been done to his brain until he wakes up.
Posted by: Maggie | June 30, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Maggie
Is what you say true. Is Duffy really in trouble? Details.
Posted by: chucks | June 30, 2008 at 08:42 PM
Good stuff all.
Nice to see Robinz and Audioslave back.
RD, I fully understand that people don't respond right away. That's not what I am talking about at all. Life calls, hell I just got done bbq'ng myself.
Gotta admit it was kind of funny to see Coiler pulling out the 'Voltaire' card with the demand that we return to a more civil debate. Surprised Coils didn't work in his trademark 'crushing republican nuts' in the posting.
KS, I wasn't sure that was actually Joanie posting on SP. Although judging by the performance she probably thought twice about it. And the trademark skedaddle was true to form. Pudge took care of her right quick.
And when in the heck is Duffman returning?
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Hey, we can all recall the earlier postings about the demise of Duffman were premature.
One of his last postings mentioned that he was going south for awhile. Lets hope he comes home soon.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 08:50 PM
Well, I see I'm still the center of attention. And, my goodness, so many victims on the right.
And, putsie, we all know you're audioslave, so we'll let that one go.
BTW, chucks, why so sensitive. You don't mind calling other people shit weasels in sandals.
Poor chucks, can dish it out but not take it?
And, yes, you did comment. Notice the contradiction there? Poor, poor chucks.
BTW, chucks, what's a sexual intellectual?
And, for the record, where did I call Ingraham dumb? Or say I wanted to go to law school?
Boy, is this thread ever revealing.
Now, I had a delightful day at the top of Mt. Baker. Never been up there before and it was wonderful.
Oh, and robinz, we've missed your enlightened contributions.
Now, I suppose we'll all be entertained by another three thousand words of putsie's cut-and-paste response. And then Tommy's cool civil banter and Kluelesses philosophical assessment of all it all.
Unfortunately, I'll probably in bed and miss it. (insert frowny face here)
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Chucks, don't forget child molester. That one was not called for one bit, especially now after she gave Randi a pass on the "Hillary is a bitch" rant that got her hired at MNova radio.
Puts you are right, I remember making a remark about ole Duff finding them primitive tribesmen down in Brazil. Maybe he was the one who discovered them and found out to late they were head shrinkers or canibals.
Posted by: nevets | June 30, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Chucks, don't forget child molester.
Steven, explain that one.
chucks, explain that one.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Chuck
That is funny
sexual intelectual= fucking idiot.
Seems to fit well on that one.
Posted by: buzzard barf | June 30, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Joanie
I guess you washed out on the LSAT link I provided, eh?
BTW, Audio Slave is too clever to be me.
But I appreciate the compliment.
Hope he comes back to visit more often.
Finally, the fact that you couldn't parse what Chucks referenced as a 'sexual intellectual' shows that the ol' gears are a slipping.
Another side effect no doubt.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 09:56 PM
You know, you boys can't take a superior woman, now can you? I love the whining and the name calling. It is what you are and what you do.
Putsie, you have reached the pinnacle of your social existence: you have replaced chucks as leader of your right-wing crazy pack. You will continue along with Klueless and Steven to post ad infinitum circular talk until nobody posts but you three or four.
Michael used to have a nice evenly matched blog here. It has been usurped by the dummies that have no status on SP. Too bad.
Michael deserves better.
My posts recently have been pretty rare and addressed the subject of the thread.
But, in the court of the lying, smearing right which can dish it out but not take it, you reign supreme.
I tip my hat to your fool's kingdom.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Well now that you'll have some free time may I suggest you take one of those LSAT Prep classes to improve your score.
Seriously, I'll take a substantial vacation off the blog Joanie.
Just be a little nicer to Chucks. He is a nice fellow and doesn't deserve the crap you dump on him.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM
shit weasels in sandals speaks to the "niceness" of chucks.
And please take all the time you need, putsie. Being leader of a group of right-wing crazies will take its toll. Oh, and don't forget to appoint someone to track my inebriation score. You'll want to have something to talk about when you get back.
Posted by: joanie | June 30, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I just remembered you, Robinz. I liked your posts. We seemed to like the same radio.
However, you made a snotty remark in response to my statement that I might not vote Dem just to show 'em that I am not obligated and I responded in kind. You got mad and left. Remember?
I would have expected that from someone on the right but not on the left. The right on this blog routinely dish it out and whine "victim" when it is given back. I really thought you'd have more moxie than that.
Obviously you still read the blog. I think it is too bad that you no longer post. But civility works both ways.
If you think I'm going to sit back and tolerate people who call Iraqis and others shit weasels in sandals then you don't know me. And I would wonder why you would tolerate that yourself.
Easier to call me a "sexual intellectual" than to defend such intolerance. And they use that insipid word "ske..." when, in fact, they are the ones who fail to defend their beliefs.
So, perhaps you should reflect on your own courage when it comes to standing up for liberal values.
Posted by: joanie for robinz | June 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM
That is so funny. I have provided joanie with a whole new victim class to fawn over. The shit weasels that kill American soldiers, that hide behind women and children while committing acts of terror against the civilized world.
Maybe she can arrange a bake sale or car wash to provide for them. Perhaps she can arrange for food stamps and college tuition. Retrain them so that they might become productive members of society.
Send your cash contributions (probably not tax deductible) to
Joanieforshitweaselsinsandals4support ofalquada.org.
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Funny how all this nonsense in the world happened under the idiot Bush. We had a pretty good economy before, even RV's were selling, now its $5 a gallon gas and endless invasions or talk of impending ones. You can't even trade in a used RV much less sell a new one. People don't want em' Chucks, how do you explain that? Is this what you want, a major ulcer that has prevailed under this insane administration.
Posted by: coiler | July 01, 2008 at 09:43 AM
So Coiler, are you saying that had algore been elected POTUS, the terrorist would not have attacked the WTC? Or maybe had Clinton been allowed a third term, it never would have happened?
George Bush was responsible for the first WTC attack, the bombing of the Cole, the Marine barracks bombing, the Iran takeover of our embassy. Was he responsible for Sirhan Sirhan?
You and I, as well as others on this blog will never agree on terror or terrorist. I believe that there are evil people in this world that need to be dealt with, harshly. Some believe that the terrorist are just victims that need to be coddled and understood.
So spit your wrongheaded BDS all day, all year. It does not matter.
Either BO or McCain are going to have to fight the enemy here or over there. I don't see al quada or the talliban surrendering anytime soon.
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Your boys have had eight years to clean this up and have failed. Your daddy and my daddy did a better job in short order in WW2 with a much larger theater of operations, wha hauppened?
This combat theater will continue to be a literal "meat-grinder" for US and NATO troops until and unless one of the following things happens:
1. The Karzai government includes the Taliban in the political process (as likely to happen as pigs flying).
2. The actual troop commitment from all sides tops the 400,000 boots on the ground the US military has stated they need to do the job (also as likely to happen as pigs flying)
3. The US and NATO declare victory and go home (also as likely to happen as pigs flying).
The bottom line is that the US and NATO are mired in a war they cannot win in the current set of circumstances.
Yes, we can continue to bomb the hell out of the country (with UK using thermobaric bombs, which literally sucks the air out of the lungs of the enemy), but what we will accomplish by that is making the Taliban look like the good guys.
And of course this is all courtesy of the US's pathologically, geopolitically blind, "never saw this coming" policy-mongers.
I'm just gonna start laughing at you guys when more bad news comes in.
Posted by: coiler | July 01, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Classic Bush strawman from upchucks:
I believe that there are evil people in this world that need to be dealt with, harshly. Some believe that the terrorist are just victims that need to be coddled and understood..
First off, thanks for the strawman attribution ("victims, coddled, understood"). Monkey see, Monkey do, right?
Yes there are evil people in this world. These "evil people" have always been amongst us - since the writing of the habeas corpus, bill of rights, and the constitution.
But now we should alter the fundamental meaning of these documents because of these "evil people"?
Remember the big wall of rules in Animal Farm, chucks? "Some animals are 'more equal' than other animals"
Face facts chucks: Support for the Unitary Executive Theory is just an open door for "evil people" to truly take the reigns of unlimited power
Question chucks: Would you support all the Unitary Executive Bush policies in the hands of a Democratic administration?
Posted by: mercifurious | July 01, 2008 at 10:40 AM
So Colier, is what you are suggesting is that we carpet bomb Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Seems to me that such a strategy would lead to the death of a large number of innocents. You are right about that. If we had just kept bombing them back to the 3rd century, we could have been out five years ago.
Excellent plan. We never would have had to put any boots on the ground. We never would have had to go through the hassle of determining friend or foe. And if we had killed 'em all, we really could have been Hitleresque.
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I think the point was that we might have gone after the culprit who actually coordinated the bombing of the WTC instead of going after oil.
And,yes, just like Clinton caught and tried the criminals the first time, Al Gore would have done the same.
We'd have stayed in Afghanistan and Osama would be in jail or dead today.
You will diffuse and confuse the facts, but you will not change them.
Posted by: joanie | July 01, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, Constitution. What do those have to do with enemy combatants captured in battle of shore. Those are protections afforded all American citizens in our country. Not available to citizens captured overseas.
I supported Clinton and his half-assed efforts in Kosavo and Bosnia as well as his lobbing shit in the mountains after bin laden.
Would have supported him had he had the balls to take out bin laden when he was in the gun sites of our special ops people.
If we have a dimmocrat administration for the next fifty years, it will not avoid the need to kill the shit weasels. Gotta be done.
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 11:05 AM
off shore
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 11:06 AM
had the balls to take out bin laden when he was in the gun sites of our special ops people.
Cite source - I thought Clinton gave the orders to shoot on sight.
Posted by: joanie | July 01, 2008 at 11:23 AM
You know, chucks, since you're short on facts most of the time, I got my own: Snopes
Can't make you read this and won't do a putsie thing and post the whole thing, but you might be surprised.
Posted by: joanie | July 01, 2008 at 11:36 AM
yes, vg. We have the truth on our side.
Posted by: coiler | July 01, 2008 at 12:24 PM
We have been over this before. Yes joanie, as is posted on Snopes, Clinton failed. We know that. Good greif, when the CIA and The Northern Alliance had bin lauden in the gun sites, Maddie Albright and Sandy Berger chickened out and refused to give the order to kill.
All of Clinton's failures are well documented. He was into treating acts of war against the US as criminal acts or felonies.
I hate to admit it, but I do wish that Mrs Clinton had won the nomination. She would not have made the same mistakes as her hubby had.
Posted by: chucks | July 01, 2008 at 01:26 PM
"It's not too far from King of Everything, really."
What a laugh, too funny really.
Posted by: nevets | July 01, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Hey Coiler, you still stuck in the 40's? Warfare has changed alot since them days.
Posted by: nevets | July 01, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Another funny from another stuck to an obsolete phrase.
"instead of going after oil."
Maybe she hasn't been to a gas station lately.
And as for that other thing Joanie, why should I explain something you wrote. Maybe you should explain why you called him a child molester.
Posted by: nevets | July 01, 2008 at 03:22 PM
Guess it's not warfare anymore, nevets, just failure. ya know? LOL
Hows that meat-grinder going?
Posted by: coiler | July 01, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Shitweasels in sandals hate puppy's.
I hate shitweasels in sandals. We should give all of our Marines German Shepard's and bacon bits.
Frag them, sprinkle them with bacon and let the dogs finish them off. After we are done with their women and children, we could then get vicious.
Posted by: chuck | July 01, 2008 at 06:40 PM