Author Topic: Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day  (Read 3275 times)

Phyphor

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,330
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« on: August 04, 2005, 06:12:55 PM »
"You know what's messed-up about taxes?
You don't even pay taxes. They take tax.
You get your check, money gone.
That ain't a payment, that's a jack." - Chris Rock "Bigger and Blacker"
He slapped his rifle. "This is one of the best arguments for peace there is. Nobody wants to shoot if somebody is going to shoot back. " Callaghen, Callaghen, Louis La'mour

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2005, 08:18:21 PM »
Oliver North?  Saving the day?  How, by selling drugs to arm terrorists and selling arms to Iran?

Is he still a felon or not?
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2005, 08:53:04 PM »
Haha, Colin Powell says some nasty things bout Ollie in his biography... the first I heard of the guy, and my lasting impression: nuts.
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2005, 11:12:08 PM »
Quote from: Winston Smith
Haha, Colin Powell says some nasty things bout Ollie in his biography... the first I heard of the guy, and my lasting impression: nuts.
You're being rather generous in your assessment.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

matis

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2005, 03:59:31 PM »
Ollie North worked to arm the Contras, who fought to bring down Daniel Ortega's COMMUNIST Sandanistas.  When they were finally defeated, Ortega and his idealist cohorts, fighting Capitalism and American imperialism -- for the people -- cleaned out the Nicaruaguan treasury, absconded with the loot which they hid in secret accounts.


If you were against the "terrorist" contras, who were you for -- the people's saviours, the Sandanistas?


Ortega and the Sandanistas were the darlings of the left, world-wide, including our American "useful idiots".  This bunch would be sure to protect the 2nd amendment,
wouldn't they?


I suppose then that you support the up and coming people's leader, the new Fidel Castro, Chavez, too, right?

I'm for Ollie North.

matis
Si vis pacem; para bellum.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2005, 09:33:54 PM »
Quote from: matis
Ollie North worked to arm the Contras, who fought to bring down Daniel Ortega's COMMUNIST Sandanistas.  When they were finally defeated, Ortega and his idealist cohorts, fighting Capitalism and American imperialism -- for the people -- cleaned out the Nicaruaguan treasury, absconded with the loot which they hid in secret accounts.

If you were against the "terrorist" contras, who were you for -- the people's saviours, the Sandanistas?
I gather you never heard of the Boland Amendments.   Nor "obstruction of justice", perhaps?   Lying to Congress wasn't the brightest thing to do.  He broke the law, and then tried to cover it up with lies.  And got caught.  One could argue that he also broke the Oath he swore when he was commissioned.

There was also the transfer of propaganda specialists from the CIA to the NSC, which was arguably illegal because the CIA is prohibited from influence American public opinion.   The support of selective murder of Nicaraguan civilians are illegal under "political assassinations" laws/directives.   Mining civilian harbors is illegal under US law and international maritine law.  Failure to report information to Congressional oversight committees.   Oh yea.  And the arguable Constitutional violation.  The NSC skirted Congress' "power of the purse" (ie, only Congress is authorized to allocate funds), which is a violation of the checks and balance system.


The Contras were not "terrorists", they were flat out terrorists.  Were the Sandanistas just as bad or worse?  Yep.

Believe it or not, it's possible to dislike both sides.  Disapproval of one side is not automatic approval of the other side.



Quote
Ortega and the Sandanistas were the darlings of the left, world-wide, including our American "useful idiots".  This bunch would be sure to protect the 2nd amendment,
wouldn't they?


I suppose then that you support the up and coming people's leader, the new Fidel Castro, Chavez, too, right?

I'm for Ollie North.

matis
Considering how much the NSC violated the Constitution...   I don't think that bunch would be sure to protect the 2A if they happened to dislike it and found it expeditate to undermine it.  All of the primary players involved showed nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the imposed checks and balances that were explained in the Constitution.

Chavez was democratically elected.  Twice.  He survived a recall vote, an assassination attempt and an attempted coup.  Certain folks have alleged the US backed the attempted recall, assassination and coup.  Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the average Joe on the street believes it.   Will of the people.  I dislike Chavez and many of his policies, but he won fair and square under a reasonably fair election and re-election.  Obviously he's doing something right if he got re-elected.   I support democracy.  I don't have to like the politicians (I rarely do), but I respect the system when fairly implemented.   Sorry, mate, but the people elected Chavez.  He didn't seize power by force, assassination, et al.  He was elected.


I don't like the Sandinastas, but I dislike violations the Constitution even more.   I don't like Chavez, but I rather happen to like the general political system (ie, democracy) that put him in power.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

matis

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2005, 03:26:57 AM »
Revdisk said:
 I support democracy.  I don't have to like the politicians (I rarely do), but I respect the system when fairly implemented.   Sorry, mate, but the people elected Chavez.  He didn't seize power by force, assassination, et al.  He was elected.
_____________________________________________________________

So was Hitler elected.

And when EVER is it fairly implemented?  Have you forgotten that little item called human nature?


We were in a titanic battle against Communist world domination.


We're in one now against the Islamofascists.


I DON'T like democracy, it contains the seeds of its own destruction and so far, has ALWAYS failed.  So will ours.

Pandering for votes the pols have already pxssed away many, many times our gross national product -- way beyond recovery.  When off-budget obligations are taken into account, there is little likelihood that we can save our political system.  It might be theoretically possible, but it's politically impossible -- for the same reasons that democracy cannot work.  Do you think our "democracy" will survive the coming economic disaster?

Tell me again, why was it that Hitler and the Nazis got ELECTED?


As one of the founding fathers said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper.  A constitutional republic is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote.

But a constitutional republic requires an educated (not brain-washed and dumbed-down, as we now get in our government compounds for restraining the young), a moral and a responsible citizenry.  Look around you.  See much evidence of that?

Food stamps and cable TV -- can you spell BREAD AND CIRCUSES?


The dilemna is vexing; it may be insoluble.  In internal, national matters The constitution is close to holy.  When it comes to winning against an enemy who aims to destroy you AND  your "democracy" and who will stop at NOTHING to do so, I believe it neccessary to do what it takes to survive and win.

So far, from the civil war on down, parts of the constitution have been "suspended" and then PARTLY restored after the emergency.

As as someone else said: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.



Sorry, but there is NO easy answer.  There are many reason why democracy cannot work.  But even without the others, democracy cannot ultimately survive major war and, contrary to the mindless left-liberals, major war cannot be avoided, either.


Some worship gods; others worship democracy.


I've finally come to prefer the G-d of our fathers.


matis
Si vis pacem; para bellum.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2005, 09:24:19 AM »
Quote
So was Hitler elected.  And when EVER is it fairly implemented?  Have you forgotten that little item called human nature?  We were in a titanic battle against Communist world domination.
Yes, Hitler was elected.  However, he did not start to show his true colours until after the Reichtag fire.  He blamed the commies, and suspended parts of the Constitution.   Then in the elections, they used the Reichtag fire to scream about the communist threat in order to get more votes.   So, in reality, Hitler became a monster after he gutted the Weimar Constitution and seized dictatorship.   I'd argue that Hitler was more a example of why not to gut our Constitution than an example against democracy.

Yes, we fought a cold war against the Communists.  We won through economics, rather than the field of battle.  You might have noticed the lack of US tanks outside the Kremlin and the fact that the world doesn't glow at night.


Quote
We're in one now against the Islamofascists.
Indeed, we are at war with the Wahabbis.  But comparing them to the Nazis and Commies slightly overrates their abilities and facilities.   The Nazis killed millions, and Commies killed tens of millions.   They are nowhere near the threat that the Nazis or Commies posed.   This is not to completely discount them, but merely to put them in perspective.


Quote
I DON'T like democracy, it contains the seeds of its own destruction and so far, has ALWAYS failed.  So will ours.
No govt lives forever.   Nations are born, they live their time, and then they fall apart.  Always.  

Out of mere curiousity, why do you dislike democracy?   You're entitled to your opinion, and no one says you have to love democracy.   I'm more partial to Constitutional Republics (which is a form of democracy, but not pure democracy), but to each their own.   Do you dislike the US Constitution also, as it spells out how democracy in the US is to be implemented?



Quote
Pandering for votes the pols have already pxssed away many, many times our gross national product -- way beyond recovery.  When off-budget obligations are taken into account, there is little likelihood that we can save our political system.  It might be theoretically possible, but it's politically impossible -- for the same reasons that democracy cannot work.  Do you think our "democracy" will survive the coming economic disaster?

Tell me again, why was it that Hitler and the Nazis got ELECTED?
We shall see, won't we?  

Ok.  Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to gut their Constitution, and then rigged an election to gain enough seats to pass the Enabling Act, gutting the Constitution even more.   So, destroying Constitutions and rigging elections got the Nazi Party fully in control.



Quote
As one of the founding fathers said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper.  A constitutional republic is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote.

But a constitutional republic requires an educated (not brain-washed and dumbed-down, as we now get in our government compounds for restraining the young), a moral and a responsible citizenry.  Look around you.  See much evidence of that?

Food stamps and cable TV -- can you spell BREAD AND CIRCUSES?
Yep.



Quote
The dilemna is vexing; it may be insoluble.  In internal, national matters The constitution is close to holy.  When it comes to winning against an enemy who aims to destroy you AND  your "democracy" and who will stop at NOTHING to do so, I believe it neccessary to do what it takes to survive and win.

So far, from the civil war on down, parts of the constitution have been "suspended" and then PARTLY restored after the emergency.

As as someone else said: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Ends justify the means, eh?  Even if it means suspending the Constitution?   Well, it certainly worked for Hitler suspending the German Constitution, as you already pointed out.



Quote
Sorry, but there is NO easy answer.  There are many reason why democracy cannot work.  But even without the others, democracy cannot ultimately survive major war and, contrary to the mindless left-liberals, major war cannot be avoided, either.


Some worship gods; others worship democracy.


I've finally come to prefer the G-d of our fathers.


matis
Democracy only works if the people make it work.  When the people give up on it...   Heh, well...  You're right, though.  There is no easy answer.

Some folks worship Gods and respect democracy.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

toro

  • New Member
  • Posts: 46
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2005, 11:33:03 AM »
Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver Laurence North (USMC-Retired) (b. 1943) is an American government and political figure best known for his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair.
 
[edit]Early life and career
North was born on October 7 1943 in San Antonio, Texas, was raised in Philmont, New York, and attended the State University of New York Brockport before attending the U.S. Naval Academy, from which he graduated in 1968.

North served as a Marine for twenty-two years, including service in the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star for valor, and two Purple Hearts for wounds in combat.

Oliver North testifies before Congress
North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the illegal sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contra rebel group in Nicaragua. He was responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras.

In November 1986, North was fired by President Reagan, and in July 1987 he was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint Congressional committee formed to investigate Iran-Contra. During the hearings, he admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged. He defended his actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as "freedom fighters," and said that he viewed the illegal Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea."

North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [1] (http://www.picard.tnstate.edu/~cmcginnis/PISI431-I.htm) The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

I don't understand, if North was dealing drugs wouldn't he have been convicted of dealing drugs?  I think he was working undercover as a contract person for the government and was a CIA contract person.  He took orders from those highter up. IMHO.  The democrats really tried to ruin him, but he made an excellent withness on his behalf.  Without telling who he worked with.  

As far as the drug issue goes.  This was an operation going on during the time Clinton was Governor of Arkansas This was a Clinton operation wasn't it?  


                                               Mrs. Toro


=================================
Psalm 105:22
 To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2005, 12:42:52 PM »
Quote
I don't understand, if North was dealing drugs wouldn't he have been convicted of dealing drugs?  I think he was working undercover as a contract person for the government and was a CIA contract person.  He took orders from those highter up. IMHO.  The democrats really tried to ruin him, but he made an excellent withness on his behalf.  Without telling who he worked with.  

As far as the drug issue goes.  This was an operation going on during the time Clinton was Governor of Arkansas This was a Clinton operation wasn't it?
He wasn't directly pushing drugs.  Merely uh, facilitating drug dealers by providing various forms of assistance.  He wasn't a CIA employee, he was NSC.  And yes, he took orders from other folks.  

As far as Clinton being involved.  Likely so, but concrete proof is illusive.   Innocent until proven guilty, as they say.  


Another interesting character is Noriega Moreno.  According former CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, he was involved in CIA drug trade for quite a while until the DEA indicted him in the late 80's.   Interestingly, Noriega is in prison in Florida and is eligible for parole in next year.  Kinda amusing.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

matis

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2005, 01:34:50 PM »
RevDisk said:
Yes, Hitler was elected.  However, he did not start to show his true colours until after the Reichtag fire.
_____________________________________________________________

Not true.  Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.




quote:
Out of mere curiousity, why do you dislike democracy?   You're entitled to your opinion, and no one says you have to love democracy.   I'm more partial to Constitutional Republics (which is a form of democracy, but not pure democracy), but to each their own.   Do you dislike the US Constitution also, as it spells out how democracy in the US is to be implemented?
____________________________________________________________________

I've already said in my post why I dislike democracy.  And I thought I had indicated that I prefer the constitutional republic the founding fathers intended.

I don't remember any mention of democracy in the constitution or the BOR.


But real life doesn't always conform to theory.


As far as whether ends justify means, yes sometimes they do, for me, anyway. E.g. -- If I had my hands on someone who was with-holding the location where a molester/murderer was (G-d forbid) holding my daughter, I'd stop at nothing to get the info out of him.  NOTHING!


Quote:
Democracy only works if the people make it work
__________________________________________________________

RevDisk, you done an excellent job here indicating the problem.  The people WILL NOT --CANNOT make it work.  In my more orthodox Libertarian days we used to discuss the concept of perverse incentives.

Democracy cannot work for the same reason Marxism cannot work.  "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

With democracy this is not so baldly stated.  But it (not so) eventually comes down to the same thing.  Because it's easier to take what someone else has earned than to earn for oneself.

So we all end up in the wagon with nobody to pull it.


Capitalism harnesses self-interest and a constitutional republic would seem the right form of government to go with it.  But it sure looks to me like we "...couldn't keep it."


A representational republic could (I think) work because it embodies the concept of individual responsibility.  Only those with a stake could vote. Yes, I know that women and slaves couldn't.  At that time, where else could they?

But if those who vote don't have to feel the pain of their bad decisions, then, again,  you're simply genuflecting to an idol.



Human nature, as accurately depicted in Judeo-Christian scripture, is the reason why democracy cannot work.  You can take that scripture literally or as a metaphor -- works either way.  

And that's why I have turned back to the G-d of my fathers.



Best wishes



matis
Si vis pacem; para bellum.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2005, 10:07:48 PM »
Quote from: matis
Not true.  Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.
Have you read it?  It's a very long book that's rather boring.  Only a few dozen pages really hint at the monster he would become.  



Quote
I've already said in my post why I dislike democracy.  And I thought I had indicated that I prefer the constitutional republic the founding fathers intended.

I don't remember any mention of democracy in the constitution or the BOR.
Uh, the Constitution is the blueprint of how the US govt works.  And a Constitutional Republic is a form of representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html



Quote
But real life doesn't always conform to theory.


As far as whether ends justify means, yes sometimes they do, for me, anyway. E.g. -- If I had my hands on someone who was with-holding the location where a molester/murderer was (G-d forbid) holding my daughter, I'd stop at nothing to get the info out of him.  NOTHING!
There's a difference between an individual's actions and govt policy.  If you tortured a molester, that's fairly understandable.  If the govt was allowed to torture criminals for "interrogation purposes", that's another.  Why?  Because govts cannot be trusted with that type of authority.  It leads down a very dark path.  As repeatedly proven.   It's not just used on criminals, it ends up being used on citizenry itself.  Always.




Quote
RevDisk, you done an excellent job here indicating the problem.  The people WILL NOT --CANNOT make it work.  In my more orthodox Libertarian days we used to discuss the concept of perverse incentives.

Democracy cannot work for the same reason Marxism cannot work.  "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

With democracy this is not so baldly stated.  But it (not so) eventually comes down to the same thing.  Because it's easier to take what someone else has earned than to earn for oneself.

So we all end up in the wagon with nobody to pull it.
Yep.   To paraphrase Heinlein, democracy is a messed up system, whose only saving grace is that it's eight times better than anything else thus invented.

The people can do their part.  It can be made to work.  The Constitution has done a decent job since 1789.  The problem hasn't been with the Constitution and its amendments.  It's a problem with the govt violating the Constitution.   The only flaw I see in the Constitution is the lack of penalties specifically listed for when the govt violates the Constitution.  What happens when Congress passes an un-Constitutional law, the President signs it, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it or refuses to acknowledge its existence?  Nothing, of course.

What do you suggest we replace democracy (ok, ok, Constitutional Republic) with?


Quote
Capitalism harnesses self-interest and a constitutional republic would seem the right form of government to go with it.  But it sure looks to me like we "...couldn't keep it."


A representational republic could (I think) work because it embodies the concept of individual responsibility.  Only those with a stake could vote. Yes, I know that women and slaves couldn't.  At that time, where else could they?

But if those who vote don't have to feel the pain of their bad decisions, then, again,  you're simply genuflecting to an idol.
Hey!  What's wrong with worshipping graven idols?   Wink


Please point out to me what section of the Constitution prohibited women and minorities from voting?  I helpfully included the link above.    Guess what?  Nowhere in the Constitution were women and minorites prohibited from voting.  It was a failure of properly implementing the Constitution and BoR that kept women and minorities from voting for too long.

BWAHAHAHA   Oh man, I am so cruel.  


Quote
Human nature, as accurately depicted in Judeo-Christian scripture, is the reason why democracy cannot work.  You can take that scripture literally or as a metaphor -- works either way.  

And that's why I have turned back to the G-d of my fathers.
Human nature is why all govt's fail, eventually.   Again, democracy has its flaws.  The chief amoung them being human nature.   It's a simple lack of better systems that is democracy's shining virtue.

Again, I ask, what do you suggest would be a superior system?
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2005, 11:23:36 PM »
Damn. We sure done hijacked this good boys. Who wants to bring up abortions, stem cells, or sodomy, to really get the flames a-going?
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Phyphor

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,330
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2005, 01:01:27 PM »
No kidding.  Maybe we could accuse Oliver North of commiting Sodomy while endorsing abortiois to harvest stem cells?




(just kidding!)
"You know what's messed-up about taxes?
You don't even pay taxes. They take tax.
You get your check, money gone.
That ain't a payment, that's a jack." - Chris Rock "Bigger and Blacker"
He slapped his rifle. "This is one of the best arguments for peace there is. Nobody wants to shoot if somebody is going to shoot back. " Callaghen, Callaghen, Louis La'mour

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2005, 09:23:41 AM »
This was many moons ago, but I still remember coming away with respect for Ollie & contempt for his tormentors.  "Contempt of congress?  Just giving htem their just desserts."

It was worth it (the Iran/Contra dustup) just to see Jimmy Carter witness his boy Daniel Ortega get beaten by Vilotea Chamorro.  The fact that her election brought an end to communist tyranny in Nicaragua was icing on the cake.

Hooray for liberty!
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Stranger

  • New Member
  • Posts: 24
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2005, 09:41:01 AM »
Ive got no problems with him.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,449
  • My prepositions are on/in
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2005, 01:44:14 PM »
Folks, we need to get back to the most important point.  To wit: that comic is stinkin' lame!  

I would like, however, to see Sean Hannity actually grow a pair and be a hero, rather than a self-righteous dork with a funny voice.  Ever notice that he keeps sounding more and more like that other self-righteous dork that he worships?  Levine, I think, is his name.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

oct_97

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Somethingawful.com's Link of the Day
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2005, 06:50:17 AM »
Colin Powell was a politicians General, not a soldiers General.  In Vietnam and Desert Storm it was Stormin Norman leading the troops, not Colin Powell. He was always a REMF.