Jan
3

Wrong turn only




Posted at 23:01 by Sadly, No!
ABOVE: Jennifer Rubin

Ah, Jennifer Rubin. Sweet, precious, Jennifer Rubin. Ready again to amuse us, so soon? Oh yes. She writes:

Over on The Plum Line, Adam Sewer [sic] unfortunately repeats much of the misinformation concerning the New Black Panther case.

Let’s take them in order. Adam asserts: “Republican congressmen Lamar Smith and Darrell Issa are literally accusing the Obama administration of favoring ‘a political ally — the New Black Panther Party.’” This is wrong.

No, this is right (aka Sadly, No!):

Smith and Issa: “Political favoritism has no place at the Justice Department. We’ve already seen this administration dismiss one case against a political ally—the New Black Panther Party—for no apparent reason.”

Then again, it’s not like this very same letter was quoted by Jennifer a full 24 hours ago. Oh wait — it was.

826 Comments »

  1. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:09

    To be fair to the WaPoop, they had to top, err bottom, the hiring of Billyboy Kristol, torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen, and Pastor Sanctimonious Michael Gerson.

    So, therefore, J. Rubin.
    ~

  2. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:10

    Facts. Don’t. Matter.

  3. gocart mozart said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:11

    Why was the last thread aborted?

  4. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:14

    Jennifer should know Racist Wingnut Rule Number 1: The brown people are all in it together.

    Of course the Obama administration is allied with the Black Panthers! How silly of her to assert that anyone would think it was otherwise.

  5. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:15

    Why was the last thread aborted?

    Soros ordered the Code Red.
    ~

  6. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:16

    To be fair to the WaPoop,

    THAT’S NOT THUNDER!!! IMPOSTER!!

  7. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:18

    Soros ordered the Code Red.

    Soros digs limited-edition Mountain Dew flavors?

  8. 77south said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:25

    Soros digs limited-edition Mountain Dew flavors?
    It is by Soros generosity that we may enjoy high fructose corn syrup from genetically modified corn in any sickeningly sweet flavor and color we prefer.

  9. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:29

    Yumpin Yiminy! I had the strange compulsion to swim over there. My shorter: NIGGERS GONNA ENSLAVE US!

    There are, at least, some tasty mangoes over there though you’ll have to pick through a lot of rotten fruit in the barrel.

  10. M. Bouffant said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:29

    Quite the “political ally,” about 15 crazy guys that may not even take themselves seriously.

  11. catclub said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:36

    Adam Sewer indeed. Yet another non-accidental mistake.

  12. wiley said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:37

    Hmmm. According to Adam Serwer

    First, some brief background. On Election Day 2008, two NBPP members, one of whom was carrying a baton, were videotaped outside a polling station in a mostly black neighborhood in Philadelphia. No voters complained, but video of the two taken by Republican poll watchers went viral in the conservative media. Two months later, Bush administration officials in the Justice Department filed a voter intimidation lawsuit under a section of the Voting Rights Act that was last used to stop a 1992 statewide voter suppression effort against blacks by then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

  13. AJB said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:45

    Malkinwald is accusing Dems of hypocrisy over Issa’s inevitable witch-hunts because Henry “LOL BIG JEW NOSE” Waxman investigated Bush admin officials for things that were genuine abuses of power and/or unwarranted politicization of the Executive Branch.

    Issa is planning on dredging up shit about ACORN, Black Panthers and even WikiLeaks (?!). I’m not worried about the subpoena power by itself because Holder et al did nothing wrong and nothing remotely damning will be released. I am angry over the fact that whatever documents are released will be totally misrepresented by the Faux News-wingnutophere-media complex.

  14. AJB said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:50

    In fact, now is a good time to go over the Democratic investigations of the Bush admin to see how comparatively timid the Dems were and how well-founded they were in actual executive branch wrongdoing.

  15. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:51

    A little more about Darrell “Car Thief” Issa.

    Issa made his fortune subsequently by selling “Viper” car alarms. I look forward to hearing about his background in upcoming episodes of the Washington Poop.
    ~

  16. AJB said,

    January 3, 2011 at 23:56

    HAHAHAHAHA

    2001 circa FreeRepublic:

    Do you believe ‘Jihad Darrell’? (Issa)
    2001 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 12/07/01 | Debbie Schlussel

    Best comment:

    Is this so surprising? Ethnic loyality generally overrules political or national loyality. Decent Californians need to continue the fight to take their state back from the extremist elements.
    9 posted on Sunday, December 09, 2001 2:29:47 AM by hsszionist
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

  17. tigris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 0:16

    Ethnic loyality generally overrules political or national loyality…. by hsszionist

    Um, yipe?

  18. Arky said,

    January 4, 2011 at 0:31

    Alternate shorter Rubin Sammich: The new sheriff’s a n- [A dog whistle tweets]!

  19. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 0:38

    Ethnic loyality generally overrules political or national loyality

    If only, sez Charles Jacobs.

  20. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 1:19

    Shorter Jennifer Rubin:

    “Eric Holder is a Black Panther. Until he’s not”

  21. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 4, 2011 at 1:36

    Has anybody else noticed a cameo by the young Barack Hussein Obama in the Jimmy Cliff movie The Harder They Come? He’s only in one scene for a couple of shots. It’s the one where all the colored folk get together into a mob and demand a steady supply of ganja and white women in return for not having jobs. Obama is the one in sunglasses holding up one side of the “OFF THE PIGS” banner.

    I know Ms. Rubin has noticed.

  22. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 4, 2011 at 1:40

    Incidentally, if ethnic loyalty is a factor, I’m in for a firing squad. This Mayflower-sailing WASP-ass McWhiteywhite Yankee blueblood muthafucka hangs with all the wrong crowd.

  23. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:01

    Not surprisingly, I’m confused. Is this the Panther case that the Bush DOJ dropped? Or a new one?

  24. The Tea Party said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:06

    Ethnic loyality generally overrules political or national loyality.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  25. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:11


    the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:01

    Not surprisingly, I’m confused. Is this the Panther case that the Bush DOJ dropped? Or a new one?

    Yes to both.

    The Bush DOJ dropped, it, but Bush’s third term DOJ picked it up again.
    ~

  26. owlbear1 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:14

    Is this the Panther case that the Bush DOJ dropped?

    Obama is out of control. That is central to their point.

  27. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:22

    Ahhhh, thank you. I thought so, but I stupidly let that issue slip away because, ya know, bullshit…..

  28. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:22

    This is the case that THE BLACKY IN THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BLACK PANTHER THUGS.

  29. Lily-White Weasels said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:28

    Black Panthers is a sucky gang name!

  30. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:36

    Yet the Black Panthers live large.

  31. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:36

    Ahhhh, thank you. I thought so, but I stupidly let that issue slip away because, ya know, bullshit…..

    To be more precise, a mole who should never have been put on the DOJ staff, J.Christian Adams, picked it up again. Since Hopey McChangey rolled into office and said “I will be a GOOPER doormat, and then everyone will love me 4ever!”, turds like Adams never got flushed.
    ~

  32. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:40

    Why is there an Egyptian Mummy as the photo for this thread? I bet Egyptian Mummies wouldn’t be so stupid. I mean, brain out through the nose and all but still smarter.

  33. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:42

    The 19th century German atr movement whose paintings reflected the essential nothingness of modernity.
    The Blank Painters.
    The veal kidneys are good

  34. The Jets said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:47

    “January 4, 2011 at 2:28

    Black Panthers is a sucky gang name!”

    Totes.

  35. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:49

    Blank Painters needs a wiki page. Great potential there.

    ‘atr’ because of that hemisphere thingy?

  36. The Sharks said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:51

    “Black Panthers is a sucky gang name!”

    It’s no us.

  37. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:54

    atr shows their disdain of the Art world. Hah, those poseurs!!!

  38. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:59

    .

  39. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 2:59

    whaddayathink?
    Too much?

  40. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:04

    Jesus man! I need sunglasses on to look at that!
    Now this

    is what I’m talking about

  41. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:06

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        

    is more

  42. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:09

    ████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████
    ██████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████

  43. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:13

    Zo mutch Kolour!!!

  44. Spearhafoc said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:25

    I fail to see what the king of Wakanda has to do with Barack Obama.

  45. Smut Clyde said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:25

    the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,
    January 4, 2011 at 2:59

    .

    The Microdot tag does not work for me. Harumph.

  46. George Soros said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:42

    That’s it! Dance, my minions, dance!

  47. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:44

    I call this move “the sprinkler”

  48. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:46

    I am no man’s small onion, Sir.
    Plus I dance like an inebriated camel, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THIS???

  49. Another Kiwi said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:46

    The sprinkler, LOL

  50. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:49

    Surely you’re not lactating already?!

  51. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:50

    Now watch THIS: *spins in a totally cool way*

  52. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:52

    Some day the rest of you will be able to master my sweet moves…but it will take time, patience and Absynthe.

  53. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:53

    Poseurs.

    Or toasters?

    Who can make the call?
    ~

  54. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:55

    I’m too cool to spell “absinthe” correctly.

  55. Shell Goddamnit said,

    January 4, 2011 at 3:59

    The Microdot tag does not work for me. Harumph.

    Harrumph indeed, as alas, it doesn’t work for me either. If hallucinogenics could be got from a tag I’d be having a lot more fun, ya know?

  56. Shell Goddamnit said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:01

    Oh grrr. http://www.drug-information-resource.com`/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=19

  57. Shell Goddamnit said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:02

    Jezuz something is badly wrong here. Might be me, I dunno. http://www.drug-information-resource.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=19

  58. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:08

    Need more research. I was wondering what the drug of the 10′s would be. We’re gonna need a LOT.

  59. Matt T. said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:16

    Plus I dance like an inebriated camel, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THIS???

    Does it involve snack crackers,pointy boots and special outfits?

  60. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:42

    S.C.O.T.S. rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  61. g said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:54

    So are the two New Black panthers? Or three?

  62. tigris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:58

    Jezuz something is badly wrong here. Might be me, I dunno.

    The drugs, mebbe they worked better than you thought?

  63. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:01

    While out on a Dirt Track Date I happened to meet a couple black cougars. There were only two that I saw, no panthers at all though.

  64. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:04

    Some day the rest of you will be able to master my sweet moves

    vs is Napoleon Dynamite?

  65. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:06

    Channeling him perhaps. He DID have sweet moves.

  66. tensor said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:19

    Slightly OT, but funny nonetheless:

    House Republicans will no doubt want to quickly put their stamp on the House and will start with a public reading of the Constitution, in recognition of the Constitution-embracing Tea Party movement that helped propel Republicans to a 63 seat-gain in the House in the November election.

    The howls of poutrage when the lazy, aliterate, and incurious teabaggers first hear that the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments are actually part of the document, and not interpolations by “leebural judgistes”, should be worth even their weight in comedy gold. (Any chance the clause requiring a two-year limit on military appropriations will even be read aloud?)

  67. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:24

    Constitutional originalists will only read ten amendments.

  68. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:31

    vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:06 (kill)

    Channeling him perhaps

    perhaps he is inside you.

  69. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:34

    He’s not really my type.

  70. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:38

    The teatards won’t pay any attention to what the idiots they elected are doing. They will simply continue to believe what Faux Noise tells them that those idiots are doing. The Republicans could have a public reading of Jabberwocky and the teateards wouldn’t know the difference.

  71. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:40

    And the Lord did smite the Babylonians with model railroad trains, and grieved them sorely…

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-03-dead-birds_N.htm

  72. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:41

    I just want to know if the Congressman who reads off the slave=3/5′s-of-a-man part will jack off while he’s doing it.

  73. M. Bouffant said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:53

    zombie r, big ups on being far ahead of the trends, but the zombie schtick is now officially fini, as evidenced by the telebision industry piling on. And once the L.A. TribuneTimes has noticed, & I‘ve noticed that the Times has noticed, it’s really over. Ka-put. Dead, even.

    TV: Zombies trend
    (AMC)
    Braaaaaaains! That’s what TV needed in a lowbrow year when at least one reality contestant got smacked in the head with a watermelon. And that’s what TV got with the premiere of AMC’s zombiefest “The Walking Dead,” the smartest William Faulkner-quoting series ever to show a man hack-sawing off his own hand before corpses gobble it up like an amuse-bouche.

    About 6 million viewers tuned in to watch the show’s season finale, making it the most-watched drama in basic-cable history among the coveted 18-to-49-year-old demographic — and creating a whole new market for dead white guys. Among the undead projects being developed in 2011: NBC’s buddy cop procedural ” Zombies vs. Vampires,” MTV’s “Death Valley” and SyFy’s “Zeros” (a single-camera satire about the Zeros, a.k.a. the Zombie Extermination and Removal Operations squad).

    “Walking Dead” executive producer Gale Ann Hurd thinks she knows why Hollywood is obsessed with zombies. “As our bodies break down as humans, it mirrors the zombie state,” she says. “But the wonderful thing about the show is that people read into it whatever connects with them.”

    True enough — when one “Walking Dead” character made a come-together speech to his warmblooded brethren (“I know black people who slaughter zombies with axes and I know white people who slaughter zombies with axes …”), one critic called him a “post-apocalyptic Obama.” This year, as the networks staff up on zombie defense teams, that’s just the kind of leadership America needs.

    – Melissa Maerz

  74. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:54

    Matt T. said,

    January 4, 2011 at 4:16

    Plus I dance like an inebriated camel, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT THIS???

    Does it involve snack crackers,pointy boots and special outfits?

    HORNY BOOTS!!!1111one!
    ~

  75. Arky said,

    January 4, 2011 at 5:55

    The howls of poutrage when the lazy, aliterate, and incurious teabaggers first hear that the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments are actually part of the document, and not interpolations by “leebural judgistes”, should be worth even their weight in comedy gold.

    I’m looking forward to it as well. Even the 1st Am. is likely to cause a massive outbreak of poutypantsitis because there is no mention of negras, kweers an’ wimmen shutting up and not talking back to their betters.

    Expect lots of explanations of what the Founding Fathers really meant.

  76. tensor said,

    January 4, 2011 at 6:08

    Expect lots of explanations of what the Founding Fathers really meant.

    Bingo. Considering that modern GoOPers are far to the right of President T. Roosevelt, advocate of the progressive income tax AND estate tax, it should be just about time for them to consider Jefferson, Washington, and (especially!) John Adams to be dangerous liberals.

  77. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 6:25

    Are any of them going to read anything from our GAWD-uh in-SPIRED-uh Founding Fathers about the dangers of standing armies and empires?

  78. Chris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 6:30

    Are any of them going to read anything from our GAWD-uh in-SPIRED-uh Founding Fathers about the dangers of standing armies and empires?

    That was then. The world’s changed since then, and we’ve had to change with it, and if the Founding Fathers were around today they’d certainly agree. Economics, on the other hand, is… is…

    Oh, damn.

  79. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 6:34

    Snidlely, here’s a tip:

    When I’m writing a long blogopost, I just go over to my email software and open up a window there and type in it — in a larger font. Much easier to spot the glaring boo boos.

    Also, given Word Press’s reputation for eating things, you can save it for a little while, just in case, toss it out later on.

  80. Bilo said,

    January 4, 2011 at 6:39

    VS, yes, there was a time when I lived in a Wegman’s zone, it was a new thrill, compared to where I had lived before that. And yes ,we took out of towners to see.

    (Sorry, Snidely, I ain’t tellin’…)

    That was 20+ years ago, and when I moved away, I found nothing like it. I don’t even recognize the glamorous scene in that link, looks like a Whole Foods x 2.

    Just the other day, I was wondering if Wegman’s still had a bulk food section. It was the style at the time, but I wonder if Americans have the patience, or concern about packaging or waste, for that anymore.

    My local Whole Foods has a little bulk section but it sure looks lonely.

    One thing I’ll always remember about what we called “Mega-Wegmans” was how the devious bastids pumped HVAC air from the bakery/doughnut section into the airlock entryway at the front. Evil!

  81. bbkf said,

    January 4, 2011 at 7:25

    Channeling him perhaps. He DID have sweet moves.

    and tots…

  82. bbkf said,

    January 4, 2011 at 7:26

    Jabberwocky and the teateards wouldn’t know the difference.

    sarah would cuz she thinks he’s dreamy!

  83. bbkf said,

    January 4, 2011 at 7:27

    has a little bulk section but it sure looks lonely.

    as is mine…as is mine…

  84. bbkf said,

    January 4, 2011 at 7:40

    sarah would cuz she thinks he’s dreamy!

    goddammit! i did it again! CS Lewis is NOT the same as Lewis Carroll…why can’t i get that right?!?!

  85. Chris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 13:20

    OT. I don’t know how reliable Vanity Fair polling is, but this is consistent with everything I’ve heard in polls so far – by a substantial margin, Americans say tax the rich to reduce the deficit. Not that anyone’s listening, of course.

  86. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 13:37

    Tax the Achievers and Job Creators? They’ll get skittish, hide, and we’ll get 6 more weeks of winter!!

  87. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:35

    …mmm, Skittles…..

  88. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:39

    Mmmmm, frosted cheerios

  89. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:43

    Bilo, yes there is a bulk foods section, but it is just nuts and candy.

  90. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:44

    just nuts and candy

    There’s no need to put down genitalia just because you’re knocked up.

  91. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:54

    Lulz

    Hey…speaking of nuts…can you figure out whythis might be filthy? (SFW) Another Kiwi didn’t get it.

  92. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:56

    can you figure out whythis might be filthy? (SFW) Another Kiwi didn’t get it.

    Are we talking about the picture of the camera splooging on the chick, or the picture of your temporarily enhanced boobage?

  93. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 14:58

    Ok…you get it. Lol

  94. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:00

    To be fair to Another Kiwi, splooge rotates the other way in N.Z.

  95. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:02

    Of course..

    BTW….temporary? I’ll breastfeed this kid til she’s FIVE if I have to!

  96. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:04

    You’re gonna need a lot of tassels.

  97. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:21

    This time each morning, N_B and I make S,N our bitch.

  98. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:24

    Beats working.

  99. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:26

    Or in my case, getting off my ass and cleaning house or running errands. Being productive is for suckas!

  100. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:30

    Besides ive got important things to do like adding B^4 to my blogroll. (I can’t believe he wasn’t already innit! For shame!)

  101. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:37

    adding B^4 to my blogroll

    Chop finely, add fish sauce, roll tightly.

  102. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:43

    B^4 is a foodie. He prolly knows how to sushi himself.

  103. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:44

    “can you figure out whythis might be filthy? (SFW)”

    Not filthy. How do I know? Because I viewed it on my work computer and my work computer would not let me view it if it was filthy. Ipso facto, QED, et al, &c.

  104. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 15:46

    Sometimes a pearl necklace is just a necklace made of pearls.

  105. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:08

    zombie r, big ups on being far ahead of the trends, but the zombie schtick is now officially fini, as evidenced by the telebision industry piling on. And once the L.A. TribuneTimes has noticed, & I‘ve noticed that the Times has noticed, it’s really over. Ka-put. Dead, even.

    NOOOOO I’M STILL WORKING ON MY YA BOOK.

    And by “working,” I mean “letting it marinate in my head until it’s too fucking late, as evidenced by your post.”

  106. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:12

    Also, who has a hot toddy for me?

  107. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:17

    Also, who has a hot toddy for me?

    If that’s an euphemism for something, I will volunteer.

  108. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:18

    Also, who has a hot toddy for me?

    Sarah Palin thinks she does.

  109. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:23

    BLACK PANTHER THUGS

    A new line of moderately priced urban boots?

    Oh, THUGS, not THUGGS! My bad…

  110. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:24

    Also, who has a hot toddy for me?

    Just make sure you see the dispenser. Around here, you can never tell where a warm pale liquid comes from…

  111. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:27

    If that’s an euphemism for something, I will volunteer.

    It wasn’t. However, I’ve heard that dick is an excellent remedy for the common cold.

  112. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:28

    Totes troo. You’ll need regular doses at four to six hour intervals.

  113. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:29

    I’ve heard that dick is an excellent remedy for the common cold.

    Cheney doesn’t even have a heartbeat, so I don’t see how he could help.

  114. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:31

    It’s mean to bring up dick Cheney to sick person, N_B.

  115. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:31

    Cheney doesn’t even have a heartbeat, so I don’t see how he could help.

    Well, he could clear some of the congestion with added ventilation. Me, I’d much rather shoot something other than a shotgun into T&U’s mom’s face.

  116. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:32

    It’s mean…N__B

    Have we met?

  117. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:33

    It’s mean…N__B

    Very similar to median…N__B.

  118. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:33

    Me, I’d much rather shoot something other than a shotgun into T&U’s mom’s face.

    Ah, so you’re a fan of VS’s art.

  119. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:34

    Only with more standard deviations.

  120. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:35

    zombie r, big ups on being far ahead of the trends, but the zombie schtick is now officially fini,

    perhaps I should become a nihilist?

    fuck them. I was here first. I will, however, take some of their money for consulting.

  121. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:37

    If your standard deviation is less than 4%, you should see your doctor.

  122. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:37

    Ah, so you’re a fan of VS’s art.

    Certainly. Scantily clad women in provocatively suggestive poses? What’s not to love? Plus, fish!

  123. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:40

    It’s mean…N__B

    Very similar to median…N__B.

    N__B a la mode

  124. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:41

    I’ve heard that dick is an excellent remedy for the common cold.

    I have a big one. It doesn’t help.

  125. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:42

    “N__B a la mode”

    N_B’s solo sex tape?

  126. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:43

    N_B’s solo sex tape?

    On YouTube under Comic Shorts

    If you know what I mean

    And I think you do.

  127. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:43

    I have a big one. It doesn’t help.

    That’s not what you said last time I was sick…

  128. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:44

    That’s not what you said last time I was sick…

    Yes, but it wasn’t you I was trying to help that time.

  129. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:45

    “N__B a la mode”

    N_B’s solo sex tape?

    At least I don’t need roofies to masturbate, unlike SOME PEOPLE I could mention.

  130. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:45

    “N__B a la mode”

    N_B’s solo sex tape?

    I heard it has wide distribution.

  131. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:47

    At least I don’t need roofies to masturbate, unlike SOME PEOPLE I could mention.

    There was that one time you told us you had to sneak up on it while it was sleeping.

  132. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:48

    actor…comic shorts

  133. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:49

    I heard it has wide distribution stance.

    Fixxoooored for more Larry Craigness.

  134. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:50

    So, if dick is good for a cold, what are we hetero guys supposed to……………..oh, reminds me of a joke. The punch line is “he says you’re gonna die!”

  135. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:51

    There was that one time you told us you had to sneak up on it while it was sleeping.

    Poor watermelon never even knew what was coming.*

    *TVER

  136. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 16:59

    Sheesh, I finally pick the lock on my cage and come back here just to find out y’all are still talking about VS lactose units.

  137. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:00

    y’all are still talking about VS lactose units.

    She’s already buying Enfamil????

  138. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:01

    Actually, no. Apparently the chick with camera is more interesting.

  139. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:05

    Slightly shorter vs:
    Stop admiring my artwork and look at my BOOBIES.

    Your wish is my command. Nice tits.

  140. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:11

    Thanks.

    And I like that people find my art provocative.

  141. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:13

    Art who?

  142. The Shark said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:13

    Don’t mind me, I’m just feeling a little jumpy.

  143. Willy said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:15

    And I like that people find my art provocative.

    I would’ve used “Painter of Light” but that appears to be taken already.

    Provocative it is!

  144. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:16

    Jennifer Rubin profundicates!

  145. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:16

    You’re comparing my art to Thomas kincade’s? Awesome.

  146. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:17

    And I like that people find my art provocative.

    I like that it makes me jerk, yes.

  147. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:18

    You’re comparing my art to Thomas kincade’s? Awesome.

    Hey, you should license out for a line of puzzles!

  148. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:18

    I would’ve used “Painter of Light” but that appears to be taken already.

    Ever since Dagguerre, yes.

  149. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:19

    That’s funny.

  150. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:22

    *refrains from making a daguerreotype-related pun*

  151. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:26

    *refrains from making a daguerreotype-related pun*

    It’s a sharp pun, definitely not sans-serrate.

  152. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:26

    Sharp FONT, dammit. I hate when I’m too clever by hack.

    Half, I mean.

  153. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:26

    Do you mix your..um body fluid with your batches of paint like Kaidmart?

  154. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:32

    Daguerre! What is it good for?
    Absolument rien!

  155. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:42

    Half, I mean.

    You were right the first time, if I may be so bold.

  156. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:42

    Personally, I’m more into anti-vocative art.

  157. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:48

    Let’s get back on-topic. I demand to know why the DOJ dropped the case against Francisco Goya. He was a Black Painter.

  158. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:50

    I demand to know why the DOJ dropped the case against Francisco Goya. He was a Black Painter.

    They obviously love his beans.

  159. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:51

    They obviously love his beans.

    Dammit, N__B, I snorted coffee!

  160. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:52

    They obviously love his beans.

    A sans Francisco treat!

  161. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:53

    Francisco Goya
    Worked in oils, a
    Medium much respected in art.
    Certainly more so than fart.

  162. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:54

    Dammit, N__B, I snorted coffee!

    Someone needs a remedial class in their drug delivery systems. Caffeine is taken orally in pill or liquid form.

  163. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 17:55

    Jennifer Rubin’s
    Hiring needed lubing.
    Supposedly to fix a left:right ratio,
    It was more likely a result of fellatio.

  164. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:00

    Caffeine is taken orally in pill or liquid form.

    I beg to differ. Coffee enemas are the most effective means of delivering caffeine.

  165. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:02

    I beg to differ. Coffee enemas are the most effective means of delivering caffeine.

    Conducted double-blind* experiments, have you?

    *Or maybe triple-blind, where you never see the results, because EW.

  166. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:04

    Coffee enemas are the most effective means of delivering caffeine.

    Only to civets.

  167. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:06

    I missed another rockin’ thread. Damn you! Damn you all to hell! [shakes fist at matte painting of ruined Statue of Liberty projecting from beach]

    VS, it’s almost time for a newsletter or website re: them mams.

  168. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:06

    VS, it’s almost time for a newsletter or website re: them mams.

    A Mam-O-Gram?

  169. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:07

    Conducted double-blind* experiments, have you?

    *ponders what would happen if someone shotgunned an espresso and received an espresso enema at the same time*

  170. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:08

    Actor, I gotcher civets.

  171. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:09

    “It was more likely a result of fellatio.”

    Hyatt said no
    Will said OK, but don’t blow
    Broder was game, Cohen was lame
    Krauthammer was in, but really for win,
    Milbank screamed, “we must get Quinn”

  172. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:09

    Actor, I gotcher civets.

    Whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t buy the elephant crap popcorn!

  173. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:12

    *ponders what would happen if someone shotgunned an espresso and received an espresso enema at the same time*

    They’d be moving at high speed with a cloud behind them, like the Road Runner, but the cloud wouldn’t be dust.

  174. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:13

    Ear,funnel,coffe,plug ears,slosh head around. Saves me time.

  175. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:18

    They’d be moving at high speed with a cloud behind them, like the Road Runner, but the cloud wouldn’t be dust.

    It’s probably best to lay down a tarp. Three miles long.

  176. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:19

    ponders what would happen if someone shotgunned an espresso and received an espresso enema at the same time*

    Oooo,kinkay! If I pay extra do I get a spankin’?

  177. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:24

    If I watch a lot of 007 movies, does that mean I’m into Bondage?

  178. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:25

    If I pay extra do I get a spankin’?

    I’m not sure even DKW’s mom would spank you with that splashy surprise waiting at the end…

  179. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:28

    I’m not sure even DKW’s mom would spank you with that splashy surprise waiting at the end…

    It’s like compost tea, only fecally!

  180. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:31

    It’s probably best to lay down a tarp. Three miles long.

    Or a movable railroad tunnel.

  181. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:33

    It’s like compost tea, only fecally!

    Orange fecal tea….mmmmmm, mmmmmm, that’s Tetley!

  182. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:34

    T&U! Be stil my…uh,heart!
    An aquarium pump large enough to run three bubblers or air stones

    • Several feet of tubing

    • A gang valve

    • Three bubblers

    • A stick to stir the mixture

    • Unsulfured molasses (preferrably organic)

    • Something to strain the tea, like an old pillowcase, tea towel, or a nylon stocking

    • A bucket

    What? It’s for compost? Don’t tease me like that!

  183. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:35

    We’ve secretly switched his coffee with espresso enema leavings. Let’s see if he can tell the difference!

  184. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:38

    “An aquarium pump large enough to run three bubblers or air stones

    • Several feet of tubing”

    And petcocks! Don’t forget the petcocks!

  185. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:40

    Don’t forget the petcocks!

    Make sure yours has been dewormed!

  186. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:41

    Also, you must “run the bubblers in it for about an hour first, to blow off any chlorine”.

  187. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:45

    I never blow off chorines.

  188. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:47

    What’s more, when sprayed on the leaves,

    Might not need those tarps after all.

  189. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:48

    I never do blow off chorines.

  190. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:49

    “VS, it’s almost time for a newsletter or website re: them mams.”

    My name. It’s clickable.

  191. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:51

    “Ooh…click harder…HARDER!…DOUBLE CLICK ME, YOU HUNK OF A TYPIST!!

  192. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:55

    My name. It’s clickable

    Is clickable a new alias?

  193. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:55

    Now I remember why N__B’s solo sex tape was so well received.

  194. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:57

    ““Ooh…click harder…HARDER!…DOUBLE CLICK ME, YOU HUNK OF A TYPIST!!“”

    This made laugh, and I needed one.

  195. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:57

    Now I remember why N__B’s solo sex tape was so well received.

    My immense, throbbing personality?

  196. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:59

    Nah.

  197. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:00

    My immense, throbbing personality?

    If by “immense, throbbing personality,” you mean “bribe of three dollars and a coupon for a free Frostee,” then yes, exactly.

  198. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:05

    I wonder if Western Union would let me deliver mammograms?

  199. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:07

    They have to be sung a cappella.

  200. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:07

    The first time I commented I lost my hyphen.

  201. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:10

    They have to be sung a cappella.

    What about B-GGG capella?

    Boob sizeist.

  202. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:16

    My name. It’s clickable

    Although…fair-warned: sometimes I actually put stuff in my blog that’s NOT boob-related. Like I plan on doing an entry on all the yummy produce I bought yesterday…and I’m going to do an entry where I explain to everyone who people who knee-jerkingly disdain Top 40 music are pretentious fucks.

  203. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:16

    Pfft, don’t let VS fool ya. She was standing on her head when those pictures were taken.

  204. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:16

    I can’t sing G three octaves above middle C unless I put my hands in my pockets.

  205. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:16

    My wife said she lost her hyphen at 17.

  206. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:19

    and I’m going to do an entry where I explain to everyone who people who

    Or something that makes sense.

  207. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:28

    people who knee-jerkingly disdain Top 40 music are pretentious fucks.

    LOOK, I SAID I WAS SORRY.

  208. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:29

    I lost my hyphen a few years ago, but fortunately I found it again. It was in a neat little pile on the floor next to my computer along with all the other keys from my keyboard. It seems my Cockatoo spent the afternoon prying them all off while I was at work. He killed my mouse also.

  209. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:32

    people who knee-jerkingly disdain Top 40 music are pretentious fucks.

    I like Lady Gaga’s gender performativity and Viva Glam lipstick, so I’m not going to take this personally.

  210. Pretentious Fuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:32

    Birds suck as pets

  211. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:32

    So…the cock ate your homework?

  212. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:35

    “LOOK, I SAID I WAS SORRY.”

    Oh, zombie, don’t break my heart and tell me you’re one of THOSE undead.

  213. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:35

    His pecker kept poking and prodding until the hyphen broke.

  214. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:42

    What about those of us that love teh Top 40 stuff from our eras, but think that Ke$ha and the folks behind “Like a G6″ deserve to be forced to listen to Pimplemouse covers of their work.

  215. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:46

    Oh, zombie, don’t break my heart and tell me you’re one of THOSE undead.

    I’m not one of the “good” ones. I’m uppity.

  216. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:46

    D-KW – Just come out and say “dinosaur rock.” It’s okay, you’re not alone on this topic.

  217. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:47

    D-KW – Just come out and say “dinosaur rock.” It’s okay, you’re not alone on this topic.

    yes he is. So alone.

  218. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:47

    DKW, it’s not an all or nothing proposition. I’d say that roughly 85 to 90% of Top Forty music is awful. And of that that percentage, another 25% is like having someone vomit in your earholes. I’m just very suspicious of people who think it’s ALL UNIFORMLY CRAP…or don’t have at least a couple guilty pleasures.

    Re: what you said–I can totally understand why someone would find Kesha awful. We can still be friends.

  219. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:48

    I’m not one of the “good” ones. I’m uppity.

    [/heart broken] Well, at least you didn’t refer to yourself as a “music snob.” *shudder*

  220. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:51

    Confession Time. My name is D-KW and I both “Love The 80′s” and am a big fan of “Classic Rock”. And that lawn is not for you young folk to play on.

  221. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:53

    Well, at least you didn’t refer to yourself as a “music snob.

    you forgot the ‘insufferable’.

    Well, at least I WAS an IMS, until my credentials got revoked when the Thompson Twins box set was seen on my desk.

  222. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:56

    “Confession Time. My name is D-KW and I both “Love The 80?s” and am a big fan of “Classic Rock”. ”

    See? I dig that. I’m not a HUGE 80′s fan….but I don’t think there’s a damn thing wrong with being one.

  223. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 19:59

    Well, at least I WAS an IMS, until my credentials got revoked when the Thompson Twins box set was seen on my desk.

    Leaning against the Greatest Hits of Duran Duran? …girls on film on film on film…

  224. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:00

    Top 40 from my era was Beethoven.

    I actually like a number of the clubbing hits. Gaga has an awesome voice. Usher has some nice stuff too. I agree that G6 crap should be banned.

    I can still be a pretentious fuck tho when it comes to music. Show me the actual talent and I don’t care what kind of music it is, just don’t try to pass off commercial vomit as music.

  225. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:02

    I don’t always think of “good” and “commercial” as mutually exclusive.

  226. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:08

    I see your point and agree, hence the “vomit”.

  227. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:09

    I’m not a Lady Gaga fan, but I do recognize that she has an exceptional understanding of pop music. Just Dance is an amazing song.

  228. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:12

    I hate that song.

    My fave Lady Gaga song is probably Lovegame.

  229. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:13

    I like to crank herTelephone song.

  230. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:15

    Telephone grew on me.

  231. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:15

    I love Bad Romance. And the video is fucking outstanding.

  232. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:15

    I admit I am not competent to comment on Top 40 music because I do not listen to the wireless, except sometime the 3Bulls Pandora Pain Station, which is painful and interesting.

    However, “commercial” and “good” being mutually exclusive brings the comment around to Pimplemoose again.

  233. Curious George said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:18

    Why is there a picture of the Crypt Keeper on a post about the New Black Panther Party?

  234. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:20

    Can’t explain it. I’m unable to listen to Pokerface or Telephone but Just Dance makes me want to dance. Almost as much as ABBA does.

  235. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:25

    Just Dance makes me want to dance

    Well, in your defense, she’s practically ordering you to.

    Are you teasing about ABBA? I think some of their music is so persuasively catchy, even while it’s kinda cheesy. Well, anyway, anyone who would cop to liking ABBA is pretty ok in my book.

  236. Pretentious Fuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:25

    I’m going to do an entry where I explain to everyone who people who knee-jerkingly disdain Top 40 music are pretentious fucks.

    You’re point is, please?

  237. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:26

    However, “commercial” and “good” being mutually exclusive brings the comment around to Pimplemoose again.

    Yeah, I don’t necessarily think they’re mutually exclusive, but most of the time, in order to appeal to a large number of people, music has to be, well, kinda bland. Often it’s a shadow of a particular band (OWL FUCKING CITY) or subculture (Pimplemoose!). I mean, that’s okay, that’s how popular music moves forward, but it bugs me when more talented artists are left by the wayside while their music is being ripped off.

  238. Pretentious Fuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:27

    Well, at least I WAS an IMS, until my credentials got revoked when the Thompson Twins box set was seen on my desk.

    I hereby re-grant your worthy and honorable status to you.

  239. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:29

    However, “commercial” and “good” being mutually exclusive brings the comment around to Pimplemoose again.

    No it doesn’t. Commercial can be good, Pimplem00se cannot.

  240. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:31

    I’m unable to listen to Pokerface or Telephone but Just Dance makes me want to dance.

    For me, Lady Gaga has an extra “a’ tacked on her name.

  241. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:32

    Somebody please wake up MB so he can post more Tommy James links. There was a time when top 40 had some very good music indeed. Can anyone say Beatles? Led Zeppelin? Fuck, Dylan was top 40 at one time.

  242. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:32

    Are you teasing about ABBA?

    I LOVE ABBA!one1!! (totes heterosexually, if that’s possible)

    Except Fernando. That song sucks.

  243. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:33

    Even some commercials can be good. The Geico commercial about the ex-drill sargeant as a therapist cracks me up.

  244. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:33

    “I LOVE ABBA!one1!! (totes heterosexually, if that’s possible)”

    Lulz

  245. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:37

    Somebody please wake up MB so he can post more Tommy James links.

    Don’t be knocking “Crimson & Clover”, over and over…

  246. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:38

    This commercial is the shiz: http://www.theladders.com/video-audio-clip/theladders-more-attractive-tv-commercial

    Oh, I laugh.

  247. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:38

    “The Geico commercial about the ex-drill sargeant as a therapist cracks me up.”

    I lost any respect for R. Lee Ermey the other day when he called for a coup D’état. No, really he did.

  248. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:38

    I LOVE ABBA!one1!! (totes heterosexually, if that’s possible)

    According to the movie “Mama Mia!” two of out three male lovers of ABBA are het, and the last one is soooooooooooooo closeted it takes a Greek god on the isle of Santorini to drag him out…

  249. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    Don’t be knocking “Crimson & Clover”, over and over…

    I hate you.

  250. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    Careful DKW, don’t let this thread be your Waterloo.

  251. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    I lost any respect for R. Lee Ermey the other day when he called for a coup D’état. No, really he did.

    He was also looped when he said that.

  252. tigris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    anyone who would cop to liking ABBA is pretty ok in my book.

    I read this as “anyone who would cop to killing ABBA is pretty ok in my book.” Freudian or just ANGRY KITTEN IS ANGRY?

  253. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    Confession Time, I prefer Billy Idol’s version of Mony Mony. It’s because of the call and answer part.

  254. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:39

    I hate you.

    Oh I see! Here she comes now, said Mony Mony…

  255. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:40

    “Don’t be knocking “Crimson & Clover”, over and over…”

    NEVER! I shall now cue it up on my iThing.

  256. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:40

    Confession Time, I prefer Billy Idol’s version of Mony Mony. It’s because of the call and answer part.

    Mom to her minions?

    It’s in the original, too.

  257. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:41

    *sob*

  258. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:41

    NEVER! I shall now cue it up on my iThing.

    HAH!

    I have all three vinyls….

  259. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:42

    *sob*

    So you’re of the crystal blue persuasion?

  260. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:43

    “Oh I see! Here she comes now, said Mony Mony”

    Knock it off with the Hanky Panky.

  261. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:43

    Knock it off with the Hanky Panky.

    I think we’re alone now. You can use adult words.

  262. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:44

    I feel like DKW I wearing a name tag…and like that we can be here for him while he unburdens himself.

  263. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:44

    is

  264. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:44

    It’s in the original, too.

    Really? I’ve tried the chant to the Tommy James’ version last time, and it just don’t seem to work right. Maybe I’m too fixated on the motherfucker part.

  265. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:45

    I thought Madonna did a Fernando as well.

    A SONG actor.

  266. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:46

    Maybe I’m too fixated on the motherfucker part.

    You?

    NAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  267. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:46

    A SONG actor.

    She didn’t like Italians much anyway.

  268. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:47

    “Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
    January 4, 2011 at 19:51

    Confession Time.”

    You’re supposed to do that at midnight.

  269. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:48

    You’re supposed to do that at midnight.

    Is this going to turn into a 60s bubblegum pop session?

    Cuz let me get my 1910 Fruitgum out of my mouth first, K? Tel?

  270. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:49

    Lady Gaga did Alejandro (another song, you know who) and Madonna accused her of ripping it off.

  271. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:49

    This is awesome.

  272. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:51

    “Is this going to turn into a 60s bubblegum pop session?”

    Is that what’s happening? I’m in kind of a purple haze.

  273. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:51

    Is that what’s happening? I’m in kind of a purple haze.

    Scuse me, while I kiss this guy…

  274. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:51

    I had very Youngbloods at the time.

  275. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:52

    I had very Youngbloods at the time.

    I’m so pop I have Grass Roots.

  276. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:53

    “Scuse me, while I kiss this guy…”

    I keep wondering when this will fail to make me giggle.

  277. Snort said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:55

    You young pups, we had the most awsomestests TOP-40 in the day.

    HIM:] Babe
    [BOTH:] I got you babe I got you babe

    [HIM:] I got flowers in the spring I got you to wear my ring
    [HER:] And when I’m sad, you’re a clown
    And if I get scared, you’re always around
    [HER:] So let them say your hair’s too long
    ‘Cause I don’t care, with you I can’t go wrong
    [HIM:] Then put your little hand in mine
    There ain’t no hill or mountain we can’t climb

    [HIM:] Babe
    [BOTH:] I got you babe I got you babe

  278. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:56

    “I’m so pop I have Grass Roots.”

    No reason you can’t Hold Your Head High.

  279. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:58

    “I’m so pop I have Grass Roots.”

    You should have saved that for your midnight confession.

  280. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:58

    Perhaps it is becoming that, actor; everywhere a sign.

  281. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 20:59

    You’re supposed to do that at midnight.

    In the midnight hour,
    He cried MOAR MOAR MOAR
    Confession Time
    Your mom wanted MOAR MOAR MOAR
    In the midnight hour
    MOAR MOAR MOAR
    UR MOM was screaming MOAR MOAR MOAR MOARR MOAR MOAR.

    Heymotherfuckergetlaidgetfucked.

  282. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:00

    ” we can be here for him while he unburdens himself.”

    Lay Lady, Lay.

  283. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:02

    No reason you can’t Hold Your Head High.

    Whoa, man!

  284. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:03

    Perhaps it is becoming that, actor; everywhere a sign.

    It takes five men to wire my house.

  285. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:05

    Where the fuck is MB? I know he set his strawberry alarm clock.

  286. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:05

    Oh look! The girl with colitis goes by!

  287. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:06

    She’s so funky, yeah.

  288. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:06

    Yummy yummy yummy I’ve got love in my tummy…

    I guess that’s VS’s theme song

  289. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:07

    *pout* didn’t anyone watch my commercial upthread? Or did fucking Flash not work?

  290. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:08

    didn’t anyone watch my commercial upthread?

    Sit down, shut up, and eat your mondegreens.

  291. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:08

    “Yummy yummy yummy I’ve got love in my tummy…

    I guess that’s VS’s theme song”

    It’s twoo, it’s twoo

  292. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:09

    Hello!?!? iPad? Flash?

  293. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:09

    Yummy yummy yummy I’ve got love in my tummy…

    OFFS!

  294. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:10

    mondegreens”

    Are these like soylentgreens?

  295. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:10

    Mondegreens are made of pee holes!

  296. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:11

    “Hello!?!? iPad? Flash?”

    I know. I can’t even watch it myself. Poop.

  297. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:11

    Actor, can you see that vs ad?

    *waiting for actor to say Kimono My House*

  298. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:12

    (YAWN) Oh. good morning, thanks for waking me. Oh, PM looks like Tommy James is already well represented so I will offer this link instead. Just a little something I was listening to at the Bust Stop this morning. It just stuck in my head and I Can’t Let Go, it keeps coming around like it’s On a Carousel. Anyway, Here I Go Again, (Ain’t That) Just Like Me.

  299. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:13

    Actor, can you see that vs ad?

    Only because I’m on the rag, not my Pad, which is for light days.

    Yea. You, um, didn’t miss much. Singularly unattractive people strike poses that would embarras Madonna in order to sell a high-end job search site.

  300. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:14

    Th

  301. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:14

    I will offer this link

    Do NOT offend the Hollies! One of the seminal¹ rock bands of the Sixties and they did a killer send-up of “Relax”

    ¹VPR

  302. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:15

    OMFG! Sorry to interrupt all this music talk, but this is a link I am obliged to make.
    PENIS.

  303. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:15

    Meh. It’s funny.

  304. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:16

    FYIPad

    Thread Bear, that link didn’t work, just went down the Tubes. It was probably just some White Punks on Dope anyway. But then, whattaya Want From Life?

  305. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:16

    Gee I think you’re swell.

  306. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:16

    My last comment was re: actor’s dismissal of my commercial.

  307. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:18

    “Gee I think you’re swell.”

    That’s really sweet, but my name’s not Elenore.

  308. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:19

    Have you accepted Superman as your personal Lord and Saviour?

  309. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:20

    Gee I think you’re swell.

    You know the story behind that hit, right?

    The Turtles got hammered by their record company for not putting out more commercial stuff, so Flo and Eddie wrote the single most treacly song they could think to write, presented it to their label.

    Ironic, because their biggest hits had been exactly the kind of crap they were making fun of.

    PS It’s the only song that’s ever managed to rhyme “et cetera” in rock history.

  310. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:20

    For What It’s Worth maybe this will lend some Creedence to the conversation. I find it kind of disheartening that a lot of the protest songs of the sixties are becoming relevant and topical again so soon.

  311. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:20

    actor’s dismissal of my commercial.

    Did you actually work on it?

  312. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:21

    I find it kind of disheartening that a lot of the protest songs of the sixties are becoming relevant and topical again so soon

    What goes around, comes around, if you give piece a chance.

  313. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:22

    Can I opt for personal sword and lover?

  314. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:23

    No thread about this topic would be complete without some reference to…well, I’m A Believer on this Pleasant Valley Sunday, with Valerie I take the Last Train To Clarksville.

  315. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:23

    Dagnabbit! I seem to be King Midas in Reverse today. Maybe this will lend some Creedence!!!

  316. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:26

    Maybe this will lend some Creedence!!!

    As opposed to Creed Dense

  317. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:27

    Ohreally, actor. That’s One Toke Over the Line.

  318. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:29

    That’s One Toke Over the Line.

    Sweet Jesus…ONE toke over the line?

    I’m just Draggin’ the Line.

  319. Boris Badenov said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:30

    Raskolnikov!

  320. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:31

    I’m just Draggin’ the Line.

    I mean toeing the line…

  321. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:31

    You know the story behind that hit, right?

    Rhino did an excellent Turtles package. Good liner notes, which is a MEANINGLESS PHRASE TO THE KIDS TODAY HARUMPH.

  322. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:31

    Raskolnikov!

    Will you do the fandango?

  323. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:32

    “Can I opt for personal sword and lover?”

    Superman doesn’t usually use weapons and he’s already in a monogamous marriage with Lois Lane. So, no.

    It doesn’t really matter though. Superman doesn’t need anyone to kiss his ass before he saves them. If Lex Luthor were to fall off a building, Superman wouldn’t hesitate to rescue him. Good old Superman.

  324. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:36

    This Superman guy…he sounds all right.

  325. M. Bouffant said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:37

    Somebody please wake up MB so he can post more Tommy James links.

    Where the fuck is MB? I know he set his strawberry alarm clock.

    RU talking to me? No recollection of any Tommy James links.

    If you insist, I quite enjoyed this classic when it first came out in 1962.

  326. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:38

    I rate for Skeeter Davis. But there is Something On My Mind.

  327. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:38

    Liner notes you say? They are in Yer Album, right?

    “Will you do the fandango?”

    Just turn your pretty head and Walk Away.

  328. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:40

    From pop music to the sound of one asshole farting: Scalia sez women aren’t persons.

  329. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:40

    Just turn your pretty head and Walk Away.

    You won’t see me follow you back home. I’ve got to find Shannon

    (apologies in advance)

  330. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:42

    “You won’t see me follow you back home.”

    Well that’s put me into Funk #49.

  331. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:43

    “N__B said,
    January 4, 2011 at 21:40

    From pop music to the sound of one asshole farting: Scalia sez women aren’t persons.”

    Ugh.

  332. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:43

    Well that’s put me into Funk #49.

    Let me hook you up. I have the Candy Man’s number.

  333. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:45

    Scalia sez women aren’t persons.

    I hate to be reasonable, but that’s now how I read what he said. He said that gender was not necessary to qualify for protection under the 14th Amendment.

    I’m not sure how the author got her interpretation of that statement.

  334. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:49

    And just where in the Constitution, exactly, does it give women those special rights the liberal activist judges invented? And don’t go yapping on about the 19th so-called “amendment.” That’s about women SUFFERAGE, nothing to do with rights.

  335. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:50

    And just where in the Constitution, exactly, does it give women those special rights the liberal activist judges invented?

    It’s not in the constitution. It’s in the uterus.

  336. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:50

    This is like Deja Vu all over agian this is the music we played in Our House. I’m Helplessly Hoping, VS, that you will Teach You Children about the wonders of Wooden Ships. I Almost Cut My Hair, but now I’m glad I didn’t.

  337. M. Bouffant said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:50

    “The Turtles Present The Battle of the Bands” is a fine album too.

    “Kamanawanalea” was a made-up Hawaiian idol (“the god of lust and perversion”), and a rude pun:

    “I’m Chief Kamanawanalea/We’re the Royal Macadamia Nuts” is the chorus.

    “Buzzsaw” rocks/grinds like nobody’s effin’ bees-wax.

    And more Grinder Girl.

    Last time I get up before noon this yr.

  338. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:50

    Scalia may only be for straight, white dudes with money, but

  339. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:51

    Jesus doesn’t know how to use HTML.

  340. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:53

    Scalia may only be for straight, white dudes with money, but Superman is for everyone.

  341. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:53

    There we go. I’m going to drop this now.

  342. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:54

    Wooden Ships

    Can I have some of your purple berries?

  343. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:54

    “Kamanawanalea” was a made-up Hawaiian idol (“the god of lust and perversion”), and a rude pun:

    Not at all like “Come On Down To My Boat (Baby)” by DKWs favorite band, Every Mother’s Son

  344. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:55

    Via comments at Crooked Timber women must have babies and getting a Ph.D. is a lousy excuse to avoid that.

  345. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:55

    I’m not sure how the author got her interpretation of that statement.

    Looks pretty clear to me. Scalia is saying that legislature can enact laws applying different standards/requirements/etc. on women without violating the 14th amendment. i.e. if a GOP controlled House passes a “Women are No Longer People Act” retracting all rights for female persons – Scalia would see it as constitutionally valid.

  346. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:55

    Superman is for everyone

    What is that big steaming load in his hand?

  347. Pretentious Fuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:55

    http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/gerry-rafferty-1947-2011

  348. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:56

    Lakanukigotme too.

  349. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:57

    Scalia is saying that legislature can enact laws applying different standards/requirements/etc. on women without violating the 14th amendment. i.e. if a GOP controlled House passes a “Women are No Longer People Act” retracting all rights for female persons – Scalia would see it as constitutionally valid.

    Funny, cuz I don’t see that anywhere in what he said. He implies the possibility, but then I imply the possibility that your mother gave me herpes.

  350. Thread Bear said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:58

    but Superman is for everyone.

    Would that be Sunshine Superman?

  351. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 21:58

    http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/gerry-rafferty-1947-2011

    Fuck!

    First Pete Postlethwaite and now Gerry Rafferty?

    I’m running out of modestly acknowledged artists!

  352. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:00

    And the Lord did smite the Babylonians with model railroad trains, and grieved them sorely…

    I’m ecstatic to see a Kliban reference!

  353. Jill said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:01

    There’s a bathroom on the right.

  354. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:02

    Okay actor.

    Scalia: Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    The 14th Amendment: …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now explain your interpretation.

  355. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:04

    I’m ecstatic to see a Kliban reference!

    I believe, sir, that you meant ecatstic.

  356. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:05

    Scalia: Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    The 14th Amendment: …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Which part of “any person” makes women excluded?

  357. M. Bouffant said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:05

    Correction: Not the chorus, but all the lyrics!

    Buzzsaw!

  358. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:06

    The interpretation comes from the word “required”. Gender, nor race, nor religion, is specified in the 14th Amendment. In fact, the 14th Amendment has no requirements, apart from personhood.

  359. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:06

    Scalia’s a strict originalist. At least now people know exactly what that entails.

  360. Jesus Christ said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:07

    “What is that big steaming load in his hand?”

    I had to go back and consult Action Comics #863…

    Somebody was shooting an alien with an energy gun on some sort, and Superman blocked the blast with his hand.

  361. Marion in Savannah said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:09

    Funny, cuz I don’t see that anywhere in what he said. He implies the possibility

    Whenever dealing with Scalia one must ALWAYS assume the worst. If he implies the possibility of something that means he’s wishin’ and hopin’ for the probability. (See what I did there?)

  362. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:10

    Which part of “any person” makes women excluded?

    None. That’s the point.

    Scalia disagrees and thinks that women are excluded since gender is, in his supremely legally binding opinion, NOT covered by the 14th amendment. Hence women aren’t people. It’s a pretty straightforward reading of Scalia’s statement.

  363. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:10

    Somebody was shooting an alien with an energy gun on some sort, and Superman blocked the blast with his hand.

    Brett Favre?

  364. tigris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:10

    If Scalia says women can be denied equal protection how he is not implying they don’t meet the one qualification of personhood?

  365. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:11

    Scalia disagrees and thinks that women are excluded since gender is, in his supremely legally binding opinion, NOT covered by the 14th amendment.

    I think your interpretation is wrong, for the reasons I’ve outlined already.

  366. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:12

    If Scalia says women can be denied equal protection how he is not implying they don’t meet the one qualification of personhood?

    Because he’s not saying that, so why are we putting words in his mouth?

    Look, there’s enough reason to hate Scalia for the shit he actually says that we don’t need to get our panties in a twist trying to find things.

  367. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:12

    Ahh, I see the communication issue. Here’s the OFFENDING portion of the Scalia statement:

    The only issue is whether it prohibits it [ed- gender based discrimination]. It [ed- the Constitution, and of note the 14th amendment] doesn’t.

  368. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:12

    Scalia’s a strict originalist. At least now people know exactly what that entails.

    Very strict.

  369. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:13

    If he implies the possibility of something that means he’s wishin’ and hopin’ for the probability.

    So if I post something at my job that says “No one should smoke”, women can smoke because Scalia says women aren’t people?

    This is a pretty asinine argument you guys are putting forth.

  370. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:15

    Here’s the OFFENDING portion of the Scalia statement

    He’s right, tho. It doesn’t. All it says is NO PERSON MAY BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

    Now, if you tell me that the Constitution contains a clause (unamended later) that specifies “person” to be male-only, you might have a point.

    But it doesn’t and you don’t.

  371. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:15

    The interpretation comes from the word “required”. Gender, nor race, nor religion, is specified in the 14th Amendment. In fact, the 14th Amendment has no requirements, apart from personhood.

    Scalia, otoh, is injecting such requirements when he says that they are not prohibited by the blanket of “personhood”. He’s saying that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that women are persons to be treated equally, they are not. He says quite plainly that he thinks laws can be passed to give them such status, but that they have no such inherent right under the Constitution.

    Which part of “any person” makes women excluded?

    That’s exactly the popint Fat Tony seems to be missing.

  372. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:16

    This is a pretty asinine argument you guys are putting forth.

    Okay, again.

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    Scalia is saying that the “No Girls Allowed Law” is constitutionally valid. He’s saying that the Constitution does NOT prohibit gender based discrimination. Those are his words.

  373. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:19

    He’s right, tho. It doesn’t. All it says is NO PERSON MAY BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

    And Scalia is saying that means men only. If you can be discriminated against based on your gender, as he says is not prohibited, then women are not persons under the law.

    What part of his position is unclear?

  374. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:19

    He says quite plainly that he thinks laws can be passed to give them such status, but that they have no such inherent right under the Constitution.

    Decidely, he’s implying that ANYONE can be declared a non-person by fiat and that the SCOTUS would be hard pressed to find against that law. The Constitution most definitely does not define “Person”.

    Indeed, if anything, the SCOTUS has proven to be rather liberal in its interpretation of “person” to include corporations.

  375. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:19

    He’s saying that the Constitution does NOT prohibit gender based discrimination. Those are his words

    Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno, those are your interpretations of his words.

  376. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:20

    lol, “popint”=”point”.

  377. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:21

    Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno, those are your interpretations of his words.

    Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooo, here’s the quote again.

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

  378. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:22

    If you can be discriminated against based on your gender, as he says is not prohibited, then women are not persons under the law.

    What part of his position is unclear?

    his position is perfectly clear. It’s the rather knee-jerk interpretation you folks are giving it, just because you hate him.

    Look, you can give the same interpretation to any class of person: blacks, whites, men, women, children, transgenders, and so on.

    NONE of those is specifically singled out for protection under the Constitution. No one is, and yet, everyone is protected because it says “No person…”

    The logical fallacy you’re engaged in is begging the question of “what is personhood?” in order to slam his statement.

  379. M. Bouffant said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:23

    No, Scalia is saying that the14th Amendment, literally & originally, only means that ex-slaves & their children can be citizens, & nothing further can be taken from it. Very handy that that plays into his Catholic/Opus Dei bullshit, but, hey!

  380. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:23

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    Again. He’s right. It does not prohibit specifically discrimination on the basis of sex.

    Presumably, “persons” have a gender. Person trumps gender in this case.

    Seriously, how hard is this?

  381. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:24

    No, Scalia is saying that the14th Amendment, literally & originally, only means that ex-slaves & their children can be citizens, & nothing further can be taken from it.

    This is proving my point, M.

  382. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:24

    No, Scalia is saying that the14th Amendment, literally & originally, only means that ex-slaves & their children can be citizens, & nothing further can be taken from it.

    What about their grandkids? Can they be deported as non-citizens?

  383. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:25

    lol, “popint”=”point”.

    I thought it referred to watered-down beer.

  384. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:25

    Okay, I’m confused, here.

    My understanding is that Scalia is saying that his interpretation of the 14th amendment isn’t justification for the passage of anti-discrimination laws. There’s a difference between using the 14th amendment as a springboard into anti-discrimination laws and using the 14th amendment to protect people from laws that discriminate against them. In other words, the Constitution protects women from laws that would discriminate against them, but would not protect them from, say, sexual harassment or unfair hiring practices.

    Can someone please explain to me where he says that the 14th amendment doesn’t protect women against laws that discriminate against women? I’m not being antagonistic–just dumb.

  385. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:26

    N_B, see what you started?

    I’m on Team DKW. Mostly re: his stance on ABBA.

  386. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:28

    In other words, the Constitution protects women from laws that would discriminate against them, but would not protect them from, say, sexual harassment or unfair hiring practices.

    *whew*

    So it’s not just me.

  387. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:28

    actor,

    Let’s do this in bits.

    1. Our “interpretation of Scalia’s words” is that he thinks gender-based discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution.
    2. Because of the wording of the 14th amendment, alllowing women to be discriminated against by the law can only be acceptable if women are defined as non-persons.
    3. Therefore Scalia is saying that women aren’t people.

    I think we’re okay with 2 and 3, but you have a problem with #1. All right then – reading Scalia’s statement, do you think he believes that gender-based discrimination is constitutional or not?

  388. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:31

    1. Our “interpretation of Scalia’s words” is that he thinks gender-based discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution.

    No, he’s saying that the equal protection clause isn’t good enough justification for anti-discrimination laws.

    There’s a difference between laws that discriminate against women (not okay according to the Constitution) and laws that actively prohibit anyone from discriminating against women (not covered by the 14th amendment).

  389. smedley said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:31

    Geez, I thought all the golden showers were yesterday.

  390. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:32

    1. Our “interpretation of Scalia’s words” is that he thinks gender-based discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution.
    2. Because of the wording of the 14th amendment, alllowing women to be discriminated against by the law can only be acceptable if women are defined as non-persons.
    3. Therefore Scalia is saying that women aren’t people.

    We agree on point 1.

    We agree on point 2.

    My issue is where the hell you get from point 2 to point 3. I couldn’t leap that far if I took a running start downhill off a springboard.

  391. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:33

    So it’s not just me.

    I don’t see where he says the Constitution allows for laws that discriminate against women to be passed, but if someone can explain that he did, I’ll totally agree.

    Otherwise, he’s just an originalist douchebag, but we always knew that.

  392. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:33

    14th amendment and equal protection.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which…den[ies] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Thus if a Law says that banksters aren’t allowed to steal your house unless you have a uterus – that’s not equal protection under the law.

  393. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:33

    Can someone please explain to me where he says that the 14th amendment doesn’t protect women against laws that discriminate against women? I’m not being antagonistic–just dumb.

    Not dumb, you just have one of them chicky branes.

    Per D-KW’s 22:28, Scalia’s interpretation is that the intent of the 14th did not include women under the its equal protection clause. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional to pass laws discriminating against women, because they were not the “persons” mentioned.

  394. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:34

    What part of “there probably is no god” don’t you understand?

  395. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:34

    No one is, and yet, everyone is protected because it says “No person…”

    What Scalia is saying is that everyone is not protected. He’s saying that gender-based discrimination falls outside of Constitutional range. He says quite plainly that “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.” but that the Constitution does not prohibit such discrimination.

    I’m a bit curious as to what particular types of discrimination he believes the Constitution does protect against, if any.

  396. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:35

    I’m a bit curious as to what particular types of discrimination he believes the Constitution does protect against, if any.

    He’s completely on board with discrimination against white male property-owners being unconstitutional.

  397. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:37

    Thus if a Law says that banksters aren’t allowed to steal your house unless you have a uterus – that’s not equal protection under the law.

    Yeah, I get that part. But my understanding is that he’s not talking about actual laws that are enacted that discriminate against people actively. He’s talking about whether or not *anti-discrimination laws* (ie, laws that prevent discrimination in the private sector) fall under the 14th amendment.

  398. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:38

    My issue is where the hell you get from point 2 to point 3.

    Wow. Maybe if you had argued against the wording of 1 or 2. If you accept 1 and 2, then 3 follows.
    1. Scalia says gender based discrimination (i.e. against women) is constitutionally valid.
    2. The 14th amendment disallows discrimination against people.

  399. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:39

    But my understanding is that he’s not talking about actual laws that are enacted that discriminate against people actively. He’s talking about whether or not *anti-discrimination laws* (ie, laws that prevent discrimination in the private sector) fall under the 14th amendment.

    Is there a difference? If he doesn’t recognize the 14th’s equal protection as applying to everyone, not just ex-slaves, then he’s allowing for the constitutionality of gender-discriminating laws.

  400. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:39

    What Scalia is saying is that everyone is not protected.

    He specifically says that gender protection is superfluous because of the 14th Amendment. That’s different than saying women are not protected.

  401. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:40

    Wow. Maybe if you had argued against the wording of 1 or 2. If you accept 1 and 2, then 3 follows.

    You state fact in 1 and 2 and opinion in 3 without any evidence beyond 1 & 2 to support.

    That’s a logical fallacy, my friend.

  402. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:42

    1. Scalia says gender based discrimination (i.e. against women) is constitutionally valid.

    Nope. That’s most definitely not what he’s saying. He’s saying it’s not necessary to pass a law specifying that discrimination based on gender is wrong.

    Again, what part of “No person” is unclear to you?

  403. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:43

    The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. … If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. …. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.

    Scalia says outright that the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination by gender. Actor’s interpretation requires it to do so, since Fat Tony’s words say right there that it is up to the legislatures to pass laws to restrict discrimination by gender, but by the same token, those legislatures could also pass laws that say gender has no standing in discrimination actions. Those laws would be illegal under the Constitution, if equal protection was being equally applied across gender lines and being applied to all persons equally. Scalia says quite clearly that he does not believe that the Constitution requires that.

    Scalia is not being gender blind here. He’s setting up further cases where the Supremes will reduce the standing of women bringing discrimination suits, indeed discrimination suits of any kind.

    Also, look at that last line. THAT’s what he’s working toward, there; removal of civil rights from Federal purview, and throwing them back to the States. Of course, THAT would turn out just peachy, I am sure. NO WAY certain states would look upon certain people as less than equal to others.

  404. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:43

    Nope. That’s most definitely not what he’s saying.

    Bullshit. Here it is again:

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    Does the 14th amendment outlaw Jim Crow?

  405. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:45

    Oooooh. Rational zombie strikes again.

  406. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:46

    Fat Tony’s

    Lulz.

  407. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:47

    THAT’s what he’s working toward, there; removal of civil rights from Federal purview, and throwing them back to the States.

    EXACTLY.

  408. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:49

    Scalia says outright that the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination by gender.

    He says that it’s not necessary. That’s different than saying it does not.

    The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear that it applies to all persons. Period.

  409. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:50

    Does the 14th amendment outlaw Jim Crow?

    Specifically, it was passed in response to the repeal of slavery and the attempt by southern states to force free blacks back into a form of slavery under the Black Codes.

  410. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:52

    Actor’s interpretation requires it to do so

    Actor’s words are also very clear and make no such requirement. He believes that women are people and as such are covered under the 14th Amendment, without any specific mention necessary.

  411. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:54

    He’s saying it’s not necessary to pass a law specifying that discrimination based on gender is wrong.

    No. You’re wrong. He’s saying specifically that it is necessary to pass such a law if the country wants to prohibit gender-based discrimination.

    Now, I sort of get the point t&u is making, but unless he says that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit any discrimination at all, he’s singling out gender where it isn’t specified.

  412. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:54

    “1. Our “interpretation of Scalia’s words” is that he thinks gender-based discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution.
    2. Because of the wording of the 14th amendment, alllowing women to be discriminated against by the law can only be acceptable if women are defined as non-persons.
    3. Therefore Scalia is saying that women aren’t people.”

    Not a logical fallacy (I am unaware that stating two facts then drawing a conclusion is a logical fallacy.)

    You agree to stipulate points 1 and 2. Now IF women can only be discriminated by being non-persons AND Scalia says that women CAN be discriminated against on the basis of them having boobies and vadges and such, THEN Scalia is necessarily saying that women AREin fact non-persons.

    Proof: IF women were NOT non-persons THEN by points 1 and 2 they could NOT be disrcriminated against. Scalia says they CAN be the target of discrimination which contradicts their being NOT being non-persons.

    QEfuckingD.

  413. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:56

    he’s singling out gender where it isn’t specified.

    Because the interviewer specifically asked about gender.

  414. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:56

    The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear that it applies to all persons. Period.

    We all agree on that.

    Except Scalia.

  415. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:57

    Actors, engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians, lemme tell ya that!

  416. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 22:58

    He says that it’s not necessary. That’s different than saying it does not.

    Very different. Unfortunately, his words are not that it is unnecessary. They are that it does not. Read it again.

    The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    What then does it prohibit?

  417. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:01

    Not a logical fallacy (I am unaware that stating two facts then drawing a conclusion is a logical fallacy.)

    Yea, except that A+B does not equal C in and of itself. That makes it a logical fallacy. You assume facts that are not evident.

    Now IF women can only be discriminated by being non-persons AND Scalia says that women CAN be discriminated against on the basis of them having boobies and vadges and such, THEN Scalia is necessarily saying that women AREin fact non-persons.

    Yes, but that first IF is clearly not there. His statement specifically says “gender is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment”. That’s a far cry from saying that women are non-persons because the Constitution doesn’t specify them as persons.

    The clause in the Fourteenth Amendment also does not say that discrimination by race or sexual orientation is prohibited, yet you guys are focused on women, simply because he used that example.

  418. tigris said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:02

    Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas gives a pretty clear view at his willingness to allow actively discriminatory laws.

  419. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:03

    Because the interviewer specifically asked about gender.

    So, if he thinks the Constitution offers no protections against discrimination at all, it’s all ok?

    I admit, it would be more consistent, but the question is phrased with plenty of leeway to allow for an answer along the lines of “The 14th amendment isn’t applicable to discrimination in the private sector” or some such. That’s not the answer he gives.

  420. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:03

    Look, if Scalia is wrong, then why the need for the ERA?

    Anyone?

  421. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:04

    What then does it prohibit?

    It prohibits discrimination against…and let me emphasize this….a n y person. Period. End of discussion

  422. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:05

    What then does it prohibit?

    Scalia’s dissent here is worth reading for what he thinks it applies to.

    I have no problem with a system of abstract tests such as rational-basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny (though I think we can do better than applying strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny whenever we feel like it). Such formulas are essential to evaluating whether the new restrictions that a changing society constantly imposes upon private conduct comport with that “equal protection” our society has always accorded in the past. But in my view the function of this Court is to preserve our society’s values regarding (among other things) equal protection, not to revise them; to prevent backsliding from the degree of restriction the Constitution imposed upon democratic government, not to prescribe, on our own authority, progressively higher degrees. For that reason it is my view that, whatever abstract tests we may choose to devise, they cannot supersede-and indeed ought to be crafted so as to reflect-those constant and unbroken national traditions that embody the people’s understanding of ambiguous constitutional texts. More specifically, it is my view that “when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down.” Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 95 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to a practice asserted to be in violation of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.) (Due Process Clause); J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127, 156 -163 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (Equal Protection Clause); Planned Parenthood of S. E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 979 -984, 1000-1001 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (various alleged “penumbras”).

  423. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:06

    Unfortunately, his words are not that it is unnecessary. They are that it does not.

    Um, “not required” seems to me to say essentially the same thing as “not necessary”.

    We could quibble about the semantics, of course, and split hairs, but I have so precious few left…

  424. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:06

    His statement specifically says “gender is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment”.

    Where?

    You’re interpreting rather wildly there. Nowhere does he say anything near that, “specifically.”

  425. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:07

    So, if he thinks the Constitution offers no protections against discrimination at all, it’s all ok?

    Nope. I don’t buy into constitutional originalism and I think he’s a douchebag. But I don’t think he’s singling out women for any specific reasons. I think he hates all minority groups pretty much equally.

    I admit, it would be more consistent, but the question is phrased with plenty of leeway to allow for an answer along the lines of “The 14th amendment isn’t applicable to discrimination in the private sector” or some such. That’s not the answer he gives.

    Well, he says that the Constitution doesn’t proactively prohibit discrimination, but that people are welcome to pass laws to do so. I think that’s about the same thing.

  426. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:07

    The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear that it applies to all persons. Period.

    We all agree on that.

    Except Scalia.

    He disagrees? Cuz that’s what he said…

  427. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:08

    What he says is

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.

    A far cry from “gender is not a required stipulation for protection.”

  428. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:09

    Could women be the target of discrimination if they are _persons_? Please answer yes or no.

    Did Scalia say that women can be discriminated against because they are women? Please answer yes or no.

  429. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:11

    Well, he says that the Constitution doesn’t proactively prohibit discrimination, but that people are welcome to pass laws to do so. I think that’s about the same thing.

    Not really. He only mentions gender-based discrimination. As I said, it would be more consistent if he went all-in, but he didn’t.

  430. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:11

    Well, he says that the Constitution doesn’t proactively prohibit discrimination, but that people are welcome to pass laws to do so.

    I think he’s saying that the Constitution should remain color (and gender) blind, that all people are equal and that fact should be kept in mind at all times.

    Frankly, apart from the truth of history and that the Constitution had to be amended three times to account for those wrongs, he has a point: It should be.

    That it’s not…and here’s where I think we can all agree…is because of asshats like Scalia’s friends who behave as if it is when it’s not.

  431. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:12

    “gender is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment”.

    Actor, he doesn’t say that. Putting it in quotes doesn’t put it into the article.

    Here’s his exact statement:

    Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

    He says discrimination by gender is not required by the Constitution, which is certainly accurate. It doesn’t enshrine gender discrimination like it did slavery. But he THEN GOES ON to say that that furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on gender.

    actor, you often accuse others of misreading your arguments, but it seems to me that this might be a case of you misreading what Scalia actually said.

  432. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:12

    Legal arguments – Gaa.

    Just send Lawyers, Guns and Money, the shit has hit the fan.

  433. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:13

    I think he’s saying that the Constitution should remain color (and gender) blind,

    now come on. At this point, you are trying to read Scalia’s mind to make him say what you think he’s saying.

  434. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:14

    A far cry from “gender is not a required stipulation for protection.”

    You read those as differently? Perhaps it’s a term of art that I’m missing then. I read “does not require discrimination on the basis of sex” as “it’s already covered under personhood”.

    Which to me means that, if a woman, or man, is being discriminated against, he or she can look to the Fourteenth Amendment for protection just based on being a person.

    Now, tell me he’s arguing against the ERA and I’d agree. Tell me that he’s saying women have less standing than men at the law, and I’d have to disagree.

  435. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:14

    I think he’s saying

    Ah. I see the problem now.

  436. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:15

    Look, there is only way to make it logically valid. I’m not talking about the law, I’m talking about Scalia here, k? He said women can be the target of discrimination. the 14th prohibits discrimination against any person. The only – and I mean single, sole, solitary lone – way to make that a logically valid position is to negate the premise that women are persons. Shall I do it in symbolic logic for you?

  437. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:15

    engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians

    My senior year, my intramural hockey team wiped the ice with the team known as the Eulers.

  438. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:16

    I read “does not require discrimination on the basis of sex” as “it’s already covered under personhood”.

    You read wrong, as the zombie sez @ 23:12.

  439. Whale Chowder said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:16

    From the quoted part of the article:

    In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
    Yes, yes.

    Section 1 of the 14th amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    How can it be possible that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply on the basis of gender or sexual orientation unless those being discriminated against aren’t people?

    Fuck, how hard is it?

  440. justme said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:17

    Shall I do it in symbolic logic for you?

    How about interpretive dance?

  441. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:17

    Fuck, how hard is it?

    That’s a rather personal question.

  442. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:17

    It doesn’t enshrine gender discrimination like it did slavery. But he THEN GOES ON to say that that furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on gender.

    It doesn’t. It is what he said, gender blind. Those are facts and as such indisputable, unless you’d care to find any article (apart from the suffrage amendment) where it does specify gender discrimination.

    Yet others seem to be putting thoughts into his statement that are not supported by his specific statements.

  443. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:19

    The only – and I mean single, sole, solitary lone – way to make that a logically valid position is to negate the premise that women are persons.

    If we’re only talking about the 14th amendment he believes it doesn’t apply because it didn’t originally; the 14th amendment didn’t give women the right to vote. Personhood is irrelevant to that position.

  444. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:20

    Here’s a lawyer who’s read the statement and finds he’s not completely wrong, but not completely right either.

  445. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:22

    At this point, you are trying to read Scalia’s mind to make him say what you think he’s saying.

    My claim is that your leap of logic says the same about you.

  446. 77south said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:25

    Can we all agree at least that we want to see that old dinosaur get hit by a bus?

  447. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:25

    . It is what he said, gender blind. Those are facts and as such indisputable

    show me where he said gender blind. That’s not what he wants AT ALL. His position on Lily Ledbetter’s suit indicates he is JUST FINE with treating women differently than men.

    Interestingly, he mostly used the word “sex” to mean gender in that interview, while we have been using the more definitive term in this discussion.

  448. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:25

    How can it be possible that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply on the basis of gender or sexual orientation unless those being discriminated against aren’t people?

    Ironically, according to the article I cited, the Fourteenth Amendment was brought in part because women were second class citizens.

    The framers of that article got it right: to specify the rights of former slaves was a half-measure.

    It is why the Amendment does not specify race as a discriminatory requirement either.

    Yet no one here is saying that the Federal government is about to reverse field on race-based laws of the past fifty years. So why are so many saying Scalia is about to overturn any number of laws covering workplace discrimination?

  449. vs said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:26

    That’s a rather personal question.

    LOL.

    Yes, I have nothing to contribute to this convo. I’m still coming out of a nap and this discussion is currently way above my pay grade.

  450. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:26

    My claim is that your leap of logic says the same about you.

    heh.

  451. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:28

    His position on Lily Ledbetter’s suit indicates he is JUST FINE with treating women differently than men.

    Can you point to me where he expressed an opinion in court on the decision, which did not say she was not entitled to sue, but that she waited too long?

  452. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:28

    So why are so many saying Scalia is about to overturn any number of laws covering workplace discrimination?

    See Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

    Not overturn. merely restrict until they are small enough to drown in a toilet.

    Why are you so invested in defending the turd?

  453. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:28

    Can we all agree at least that we want to see that old dinosaur get hit by a bus?

    Amen.

  454. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:29

    Can we all agree at least that we want to see that old dinosaur get hit by a bus?

    Jesus Christ, yes.

  455. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:29

    See Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

    Not overturn. merely restrict until they are small enough to drown in a toilet.

    How is a ruling that specifically says she’d have standing to sue if she had sued under any number of other laws (including the Fair Pay Act) or in a timely fashion restrict her rights?

    I’m confused. Seems to me she had a shitty lawyer, not a shitty court.

  456. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:30

    but that she waited too long?

    One might say that she waited to long because her employer denied her the knowledge of discrimination too long. One would think that might be part of what a judge might consider. In fact, four did.

  457. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:31

    Why are you so invested in defending the turd?

    Because the turd is right, at the law, and to quote Robert Bolt “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake! “

  458. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:32

    One might say that she waited to long because her employer denied her the knowledge of discrimination too long. One would think that might be part of what a judge might consider. In fact, four did.

    The five in majority pointed out that she was free to sue under a different law, but did not, one that would have been more successful for her.

    Again, shitty lawyer is not an excuse.

  459. Whale Chowder said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:33

    The framers of that article got it right: to specify the rights of former slaves was a half-measure.

    Gah! Yes, the framers of that article tried (and succeeded, IMO) to make it apply as broadly as possible. The problem is, Scalia states outright that women being discriminated against have no recourse to the 14th amendment to correct the problem and that in fact legislatures are free to enshrine gender discrimination in the law. If it were up to him, the 14th would only apply to those it was understood to apply to when it was passed, i.e. blacks.

    I dunno about you, but I see a problem there.

  460. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:34

    One might say that she waited to long because her employer denied her the knowledge of discrimination too long. One would think that might be part of what a judge might consider. In fact, four did.

    So did the other five. Her lawyer clearly did not prove this claim sufficiently. Them’s the breaks if you have a shitty lawyer

  461. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:34

    “Jesus Christ, yes.”

    Yes! Let’s move on to something where we all see eye to eye, that being religion.

  462. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:35

    Scalia states outright that women being discriminated against have no recourse to the 14th amendment to correct the problem and that in fact legislatures are free to enshrine gender discrimination in the law.

    He does not. He says that gender is not *required*. That does not mean that women do not have recourse to the law. By the simple fact that they are persons, they do.

  463. Mr. Bumble said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:36

    The law is a ass.

  464. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:36

    One might say that she waited to long because her employer denied her the knowledge of discrimination too long. One would think that might be part of what a judge might consider. In fact, four did.

    By the way, what specifically in this decision was pointedly against her being a woman? You never specified.

  465. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:36

    Yes! Let’s move on to something where we all see eye to eye, that being religion.

    You’re determined to bait this….

  466. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:36

    Because the turd is right,

    No. he’s not.

    But since there is no possibility of you accepting that, I am off to do some more submittal reviews.

  467. Mr. Bumble said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:39

    Please answer the two questions I posed earlier. Why do you refuse to answer those two very simple questions?

  468. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:40

    Nymfail. That was I, of course.

  469. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:41

    Why do you refuse to answer those two very simple questions?

    “The law is an ass” is not a question. Unless you’re on the dipthong. Which is a picture I really don’t want to see.

  470. Whale Chowder said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:42

    He does not. He says that gender is not *required*. That does not mean that women do not have recourse to the law.

    Please resolve your statement with this direct quote from the interview:

    The only issue is whether it [the Constitution] prohibits it [gender discrimination]. It [the Constitution] doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.

    In other words: no recourse under the Constitution for gender discrimination. Capice?

  471. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:44

    He said women can be the target of discrimination. the 14th prohibits discrimination against any person.

    OK so far. Women are persons, persons can be the target of discrimination. The 14 Amendment prohibits discrimination against persons, but cannot prevent it, so anyone can be the target of discrimination, yes.

    The only – and I mean single, sole, solitary lone – way to make that a logically valid position is to negate the premise that women are persons.

    Uhhhhhhhh, well, in fairness, I hadn’t answered your question, so no. See above.

  472. Djur said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:46

    Look, if Scalia is wrong, then why the need for the ERA?

    An argument often marshalled against the ERA was that it was redundant with the Fourteenth Amendment. The pro-ERA response was generally to concede that point but to argue that the court could (like Scalia) choose to interpret the Fourteenth differently at some point in the future.

    Scalia is correct from an originalist perspective, which is what he is arguing — at the time, “equal protection under the law” was not intended to extend to suffrage. If it had been, the Fifteenth Amendment would be redundant.

    I am not a constitutional scholar, but this is how I understand it.

  473. Enraged Bull Limpet said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:47

    I for one am constitutionally incapable of rational involvement in this convoluted kerfuffle.

  474. 77south said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:48

    I employ this test when I try to interpret words which are not phrased clearly. It helps me choose whether I should look at their words in the best possible light and give them the benefit of the doubt, or to examine them in the worst possible light and assume that everything they say and do is either a veiled or direct attempt to screw over everything that is good and right. It is called the character test.
    Has this person ever given me reason to believe that they speak from the heart and from the carefully reasoned mind? Has this person in the past sided with the people and justice even when that would cause problems for rich and powerful friends? Has this person ever taken advantage of great power for partisan gain?
    Scalia is a toady from way back. He fails the character test and if pressed, might even fail a Turing test.

  475. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:49

    In other words: no recourse under the Constitution for gender discrimination. Capice?

    I agree.

    It says…and please, I’ll type it really slow for you….NO DISCRIM INATION AGAINST ANYONE EVER.

    For that, there is an entire Federal court system in place to address it.

    Now, the finer point about states, that’s a place where he and I part company, but he is right: the Constitution is almost entirely gender blind.

  476. Djur said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:50

    I’m having trouble following actor’s position here, so let me throw this out there:

    Do you think Scalia, under the logic argued, would find the following law, passed by a state, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

    “Women who are currently pregnant may not work for pay outside the home more than 20 hours a week.”

  477. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:51

    The pro-ERA response was generally to concede that point but to argue that the court could (like Scalia) choose to interpret the Fourteenth differently at some point in the future.

    Which is true for any class of person, which is why the ERA might still have been redundant. It would extend a special protection to women not available to men, and to black women one unavailable to black men.

    I confess the ERA is not an argument I’ve studied since it went away.

  478. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:51

    “The law is A ass” is the correct quotation, as I recall.

  479. actor212 said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:53

    Do you think Scalia, under the logic argued, would find the following law, passed by a state, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

    “Women who are currently pregnant may not work for pay outside the home more than 20 hours a week.”

    You’re asking me to do what the people who have so vehemently argued against me here have done: crawl inside his head.

    I’m not defending Scalia beyond the very narrow point that his statement is not inconsistent and not wrong. I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass beyond that.

  480. N__B said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:54

    I am off to do some more submittal reviews.

    NOOOOO! Back away from the light.

  481. Djur said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:55

    “NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANYONE EVER”

    That is not at all in line with an originalist reading of the Constitution. At no point was anti-discrimination language introduced to the Constitution with the express intent of granting the exact same privileges and rights to every individual under the law.

    In fact, there is no reading of the Constitution that supports that. For example, discrimination based on age (curfews, mandatory schooling, driving age, drinking age), race (affirmative action), gender (male-only draft), and many other smaller classes (children in school, prisoners in state custody) are all accepted as constitutional.

  482. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:58

    …who have so vehemently argued against me here have done: crawl inside his head.

    I think he’s saying that the Constitution should remain color (and gender) blind,

    Brother, attend the beam in thy own eye.

    I know, I know, I said I was going to do some work. But even this trainwreck is more entertaining than submittal reviews.

  483. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:58

    “Do you think Scalia, under the logic argued, would find the following law, passed by a state, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?”

    Part of the problem here, I think, is recognizing precisely what we are arguing about. It seems we started with whether Scalia said or implied that women are non-persons under the law. The answer to that is clear, at least to the sane people here. Whether his interpretation is “correct” is a whole ‘nother issue. I, like most others here, am not qualified to speak definitively to the second.

    New rule: all comments on the topic shall be prefaced by identifying which of the aforementioned questions the comment addresses.

  484. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 4, 2011 at 23:59

    NOOOOO! Back away from the light.

    N__B makes me laugh. HE UNDERSTANDS THE PAIN.

  485. Djur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:05

    “Persons” is not the word to dwell on. I don’t think Scalia believes women are not persons under the law.

    He disagrees with us on what “equal protection under the law” means. He’s argued explicitly before that “equal protection” is subservient to traditional legal distinctions, which is what Subby’s quote indicated.

    His dissent in Lawrence v. Texas demonstrates that too.

    From what I’ve read, this is one of the small underlying differences between Thomas and Scalia — the former is more likely to favor restraint on government action even in opposition to tradition, while the latter is more likely to support government action when consistent with tradition.

  486. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:07

    Btw, if you want to argue in favor of Scalia’s fetid imagination interpretation I ask you to reconcile “strict consatooshunalizm” with the 9th amendment.

  487. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:09

    I agree.

    It says…and please, I’ll type it really slow for you….NO DISCRIM INATION AGAINST ANYONE EVER.

    For that, there is an entire Federal court system in place to address it.

    OFFS. What Scalia said, explicitly, is that the Federal courts can’t depend on the fucking constitution to prevent discrimination so what is the 14th good for, in your mind?

    Jeebus, I’m about to join ZRM and do actual work.

  488. Tacitus Voltaire said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:11

    hiya sadlys!

    engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians

    oh yeah? where’s yer proof???

  489. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:11

    I’m about to join ZRM and do actual work.

    I got a better idear: How about you do MY work, and I just start drinking?

  490. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:12

    engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians

    …and zombies NOM them all.

  491. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:13

    OK, N__B. I’ve finished today’s submittals and moved on to RFIs. Can I start drinking yet?

  492. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:15

    My senior year, my intramural hockey team wiped the ice with the team known as the Eulers.

    But the Eulenspiegels whipped your ass!

  493. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:16

    I am cheering for the bus…

  494. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:21

    But the Eulenspiegels whipped your ass!

    of course, the Glockenspiels took the division.

  495. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:22

    Which is true for any class of person, which is why the ERA might still have been redundant. It would extend a special protection to women not available to men, and to black women one unavailable to black men.

    See also: “Lettin’ homos marry & adopt is givin’ ‘em special, gay agenda rights.”

  496. Enraged Bull Limpet said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:24

    Promised bulletin from several threads back: my ginormous African cattle-horn trumpet has been empirically determined to have a grog capacity of 1.25 US gallons.

    But where’d that damned mouthpiece cork go–? The spirits iz willing but the keratin iz leak!

  497. Tacitus Voltaire said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:25

    proof by induction

    engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians

    postulate

    engineers and architects are no match for mathematicians plus large persons carrying concealed weapons

    engineers and architects without mathematicians are no match for large persons carrying concealed weapons

    small engineers and architects without mathematicians are no match for persons carrying concealed weapons

    [x]

  498. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:27

    Jeepers, I wandered away for a while, and while I was gone, this thread exploded, so I’m scrolling and scrolling to find the fuse. It seems to be about Scalia and the 14th Amendment and non-male personhood. This is a worthwhile topic, but nevertheless, I think I shall go stab myself in the eye instead. Or at least I may. Shall might be too strong a prediction.

  499. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:28

    O God now we are doing logic. I am doomed.

  500. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:29

    But where’d that damned mouthpiece cork go–? The spirits iz willing but the keratin iz leak!

    So, it’s a funnel, rather than a “cup”.

  501. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:29

    Slayer slays you all…and does it while making a special b-day steak and potatoes gratin meal, wrapping gifts and lookin’ pretty damn good while doin’ it all.

  502. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:30

    so I’m scrolling and scrolling to find the fuse.

    IT WAS N__B’S FAULT!!!!

  503. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:31

    I’m with you Larkspur, let’s fumigate.

  504. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:31

    O God now we are doing logic.

    If logic wasn’t asking for it, why did logic dress like that?

  505. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:32

    Dammit, I was gonna say that. Trust a zombie to ruin my fun.

  506. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:33

    Trust a zombie to ruin my fun.

    Told you I wasn’t one of the good ones.

  507. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:34

    …and lookin’ pretty damn good while doin’ it all.

    to be honest, though, the HUUUUUGE… tracts of land help with that.

  508. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:35

    IMS status aside, you’re still an all right dude, er, zom.

  509. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:37

    B-day???!!!! !!!! Shouldn’t you be at the hospital or summpin?

  510. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:38

    “to be honest, though, the HUUUUUGE… tracts of land help with that”

    They’re all covered up presently. And, hey, is this punim chopped liver?

  511. Lawnguylander said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:39

    This part of what Substance linked to and quoted up above is key to understanding what Scalia means by originalism and what he meant in that interview:

    For that reason it is my view that, whatever abstract tests we may choose to devise, they cannot supersede-and indeed ought to be crafted so as to reflect-those constant and unbroken national traditions that embody the people’s understanding of ambiguous constitutional texts. More specifically, it is my view that “when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down.

    Scalia believes that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on gender or any other number of factors because he thinks people at the time and for many subsequent years didn’t interpret it that way. He’s not trying to say that women don’t fall under the definition of persons, he says it doesn’t matter because discrimination against women continued to be a widespread practice for years after the passage of the 14th Amendment. What he disagrees with is people coming along and being sticklers about the actual language of the Constitution and amendments and using that language to change the way society functions. After all, look at the question he was asked and what he was saying, “Yes, yes. Sorry to tell you that” to:

    In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

    Also, look at the question and answer immediately before that one that led to him being asked about the 14th Amendment:

    You believe in an enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution. What does that mean to you?
    In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad—such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws—if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today’s society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, “To thine own self be true.”

    Of course he believes that discrimination based on gender is a-ok according to the Constitution.

  512. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:41

    They’re all covered up presently.

    wrapping gifts and lookin’ pretty damn good.

    I just reprint ‘em.

  513. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:44

    wait, the ApplianceSlayer is Yiddish?

    Consider my mind blown. Yeah, I’ll pick that up.

  514. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:46

    Breaking News: This subject to be discussed on MSNBC* soon. Literally.

    *Mighty Sorry, No Body Cares.

  515. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:48

    Funny, I don’t look Jewish.

  516. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:49

    Might as well pick up the chopped liver as well.

  517. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:49

    M., I’m watching now

  518. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:49

    yet more evidence that Olbermann steals from reads Sadly, No!

  519. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:50

    FYWP. So I forgot that you need me to write out “strikethrough”

  520. Tacitus Voltaire said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:51

    Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad—such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws—if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today’s society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, “To thine own self be true.”

    incorrect

  521. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:51

    I did that recently. But at least I’m not a zombie.

  522. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:54

    But at least I’m not a zombie.

    not YET.

  523. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:56

    What are the rules for turning someone zom?

  524. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:58

    Rules?

  525. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:58

    Scalia believes that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on gender or any other number of factors because he thinks people at the time and for many subsequent years didn’t interpret it that way.

    I wonder what happens when his office staff says “Justice Scalia you’re looking quite gay this morning.”

  526. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 0:58

    Trust a zombie to ruin my fun.
    The zombie-interruption method of contraception is evidently unreliable.

  527. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:01

    Smut, I LOLed.

    zrm, you know, like there are certain rules vampires have to follow to turn someone without killing her…

  528. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:02

    The zombie-interruption method of contraception is evidently unreliable.

    Smut is horribly, horribly literal.

    And woodcutty.

    And upside down.

  529. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:02

    “I wonder what happens when his office staff says “Justice Scalia you’re looking quite gay this morning”

    He’s old. He may just respond “thanks, I AM happy.”

  530. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:04

    zrm, you know, like there are certain rules vampires have to follow to turn someone without killing her…

    pfft. Vampires.

    Talk to Spengler about the rules. When you’re dealing with zombies, all bets are off. Also, consistency is moot.

  531. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:05

    He may just respond “thanks, I AM happy.”

    He’s NEVER happy. Well, except when Thomas is blowing him.

  532. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:06

    “Justice Scalia you’re looking quite gay this morning”

    Holy fuck, if Scalia is gay than I am COMPLETELY and IRREVOCABLY hetero, even under pain of torture.

    Shit it would be like fucking one of those “Spitting Image” nightmares from the 80s…

  533. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:07

    I think this whole argument about Fat Tony would have been much more interesting had it been a vamp vs. Zom debate.

    Is there animosity between vampires and zombies?

  534. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:07

    Zombies. Rules? Nom nom nom nom.

  535. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:08

    WC–rofl

  536. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:10

    Is there animosity between vampires and zombies?

    Animosity? no.

    They are fucking poseurs. Hmppf. And dandies.

    except for the ones in “30 Days Of Night.” They’re cool.

  537. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:10

    Also, consistency is moot.

    Moot the Hipple?

  538. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:12

    zombies are more macho…interesting. So much to learn.

    God, they were fucking vicious and creepy in that movie.

  539. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:14

    They are fucking poseurs. Hmppf. And dandies.

    Sounds like the “rivalry” between LA and San Francisco. SF would be all “Beat LA! Beat LA!” and LA would be like, “San Fran Who?”

  540. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:15

    Vampires might decorate with viscera, but they do not eat it. A discerning vampire might enjoy an amusing yet supple little Magyar. Zombies cannot identify the age, place of origin, or racial/ethnic history of the food source, and wouldn’t bother even if they could. Except for ZRMcD, who is an anomaly, zombies do not have higher brain function. They shamble and they nom. Unless they evolve. I guess that depends on the original enzombiefication mechanism.

  541. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:16

    Is there animosity between vampires and zombies?

    Animosity? no.

    One would think that they’d have a mutualistic symbiosis going on, with the vamps being sanguivores and the zombies being cerebrovores.

  542. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:16

    Lawnguylander said,

    Sooooo….what you’re saying is that DKW’s mom is a whore?

  543. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:17

    well, thank Dog that this thread has FINALLY gotten around to zombie talk.

    One for the Sadly tyro: eventually, every thread devolves into:
    1: discussion of actor’s sexual desires
    2: puns
    3: zombie talk
    4: recipes

    number three and four often coincide.

  544. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:18

    Vampires are decidedly more sexy and elegant. (no offense, zrm! I’m sure you are very sexy so far as zombies go)

  545. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:20

    5. Boobs
    6. Moms

  546. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:21

    Unless they evolve.

    well, see that’s what you’re not gonna know. Until it’s too late.

    Suffice to say that I have been sent STRONGLY WORDED LETTERS from Z.O.M.B.I.E. for my activities on the internozzles. Several times.

    Draw your own conclusions.

  547. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:21

    5. Boobs
    6. Moms

    All kinda falls under actor’s sexual peccadilloes, doesn’t it?

  548. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:23

    Vampires are decidedly more sexy and elegant. (no offense, zrm! I’m sure you are very sexy so far as zombies go)

    hey, don’t worry. I am not sexy by physical standards.

    I rely upon my brains to attract the babes.

  549. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:23

    Vampires are capable of rotating their crops, making a sustainable if bland food source. Zombies are slash-and-burn. Vampires have an interest in protecting their livestock. Zombies will nom every last bite, and in the end they will shamble around until they get all dessicated and blow away.

  550. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:23

    So you fucking MIA’s think you can just waltz in here and play smack down with your “fact” based comments and “logic” and shit? Well let me tell you something: apparently you can.

  551. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:24

    The zombie-interruption method of contraception is evidently unreliable.

    Corpus interruptus? It’s not like they use a diaphragm, so it may be the only option.

  552. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:24

    Hell, zombies nom diaphragms.

  553. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:25

    Here’s a fact. Vampires suck.

  554. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:25

    Except for ZRMcD, who is an anomaly [citation needed]

  555. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:27

    “I rely upon my brains to attract the babes.”

    Well, I can’t speak for all women, nor would I refer to myself as a babe, but I’ll take smart and funneh over hot and vapid any day o’ the week.

  556. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:27

    Well, except when Thomas is blowing him.

    NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITY.

  557. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:28

    “Here’s a fact. Vampires suck.”

    Indisputable.

  558. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:28

    I rely upon my brains to attract the babes.

    Most babes don’t share your eating habits.

  559. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:29

    Now I do not know if a zombie will nom a snake or a Gila monster. I have always assumed they are after the branes and other organs of mammals. I guess it’s possible that the movement of a snake could trigger the nom impulse, but I don’t expect the snake would hold the zombie’s interest for long. This will be of no comfort to the snake, who will be thrown back into the bush with a big bite out of it. Snakes will have to rely on their speed to elude the shambling menace.

  560. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:31

    I love zombies, but they’re kinda the new pirates.

    Still, they’re better than vampires.

  561. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:32

    Pirates are gross. I hate ‘em.

  562. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:33

    It’s not so much the zombies as it is the pedophagia. Vampires usually prefer people who are of age to – you know – thingy.

  563. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:34

    I kinda like Captains Sparrow and Morgan.

    kohled eyes! Rum!

  564. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:34

    I rely upon my brains to attract the babes.

    Most babes don’t share your eating habits.

    DAMMIT. I was just about to type something about them hanging between his teeth.

  565. Another Kiwi said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:35

    Pedophagia, they eat feet?

  566. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:44

    diaphragms
    Diaphragmata.

  567. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:47

    Zombie = emo biz
    Vampire = vire map

    I’ll go for the manly stuff, myself.

  568. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:47

    Pirates are dirty bastards who carry scurvy.

  569. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:48

    so I’m scrolling and scrolling to find the fuse.

    IT WAS N__B’S FAULT!!!!

    Sure. Blame your engineer like every other architect does.

    The architects’ team was known as The Reamers. They rarely did. Mine was Soylent Green: putting aside the fact that it gave us a great cheer for our fans, it meant we could wear green and as the only team in the league wearing green we never had to wear our away colors.

  570. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:50

    OK, but which, um, species (?) is more geeky/nerdy? I loves me some super-smart geek-nerds.

  571. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:51

    OK, but which, um, species (?) is more geeky/nerdy?

    Mummies.

  572. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:52

    Pirates are dirty bastards who carry scurvy.

    Wait, what?

  573. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:52

    Mummies are hot.

  574. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:54

    Mummy, that bad man gave me scurvy!

  575. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:55

    What was all that about a vast scurvy dog?

  576. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:56

    Is zrm no longer here to defend his kind? ooh, I can now speculate wildly about them. Perhaps start rumors!

  577. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:56

    Orange you glad you didn’t catch scurvy?

  578. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:57

    Is zrm no longer here to defend his kind? ooh, I can now speculate wildly about them. Perhaps start rumors!

    Zombie patient zero had his brane eated by D-KW’s mummy.

  579. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 1:59

    Diaphragmata.

    Wikipedia vouches safe: “[m]odern research has indicated diaphragmata are of hysterical origin…”

  580. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:00

    Diaphragmata.

    Now I am yearning for a link to The Anchoress, so I can use “Stgmata Hari” in its proper context.

  581. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:02

    *whispers* Guys, don’t tell zrm I said this, but I heard that zombies REALLY dig Top 40 emo.

  582. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:06

    Wait, what??

    Yup. And stay away from guys named Rick.

  583. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:06

    Shirley, some other winger pundit has written something stupid since this thread has been up.

  584. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:08

    Shirley, some other winger pundit has written something stupid since this thread has been up.

    If not, I hear the rapture is scheduled for May.

  585. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:10

    Corpus interruptus?
    As opposed to the form of contraception where you stop screwing and instead play a game of tossing hoops onto an upright spike. Quoitus interruptus.

    Speaking of contemporary popular music, Wire are playing in Auckland on the 15th.

  586. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:10

    Shirley, some other winger pundit has written something stupid since this thread has been up.

    Meh. I’m enjoying the thread.

    Everyone knows threads don’t get a mature patina until they reach 600.

  587. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:10

    I hear the rapture is scheduled for May.

    And failing that, the end of the world is only a year away.

    Wonder how many posts that would add up to in this one thread?

  588. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:10

    But Smut, where are they going to find an upright spike?

  589. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:12

    Last night, before we went any further, your mom asked me to name all her goldfish. Koi test interruptus.

  590. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:14

    If I wasn’t married I’d be concerned. The hets have _always_ adopted the gay styles Making it all but impossible to know, from one generation to the next who is gay but really, how the he’ll are we gonna tell who’s queer anymore?

  591. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:15

    I succeeded and we started going at it again , but all that butter made us both really slippery and we ended up in this tangled mass of sweaty greasy limbs. Coiled us interruptus.

  592. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:15

    Pirates are dirty bastards who carry scurvy.

    Pirates : scurvy :: zombies : scurfy

  593. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:18

    For PupMax,
    Gay Chicken

  594. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:18

    Wait..I’m confused. Which mom has koi?

  595. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:18

    Talking dogs : Scooby.

  596. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:19

    DKW’s mum threw me out of bed when I called her “Jamie Lee” by mistake. Curtis interruptus.

  597. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:20

    *groan* for Smut.

  598. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:20

    Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO:

    The EPA has condemned carbon dioxide, the air humans exhale, as a pollutant that imperils human health.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256245/congress-must-lead-not-courts-andrew-c-mccarthy

  599. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:22

    Which mom has koi?

    I don’t know about Koi, but DKW’s mom has crabs.

  600. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:25

    600! Twice the homoeroticism as 300!

  601. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:25

    The EPA probably also considers poop a pollutant! CRAZY CAKES!

  602. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:26

    600! Twice the homoeroticism as 300!

    The soldiers shaved their backs as well as their chests?

  603. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:27

    Yeah, and–oddly–painted abs there too.

  604. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:29

    Your mom and I were having a grand old time when she stopped and told me “I’m ashamed to admit this but Confession Time: I’m gay.” Coy lez interruptus.

  605. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:31

    Thank you for reflecting a more mature patina, tigris.

    UNLIKE certain maulers of household appliances.

  606. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:32

    My mom’s gonna be so much less skanky now that she’s a lez.

  607. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:33

    Nah, just kidding. Sure your mom isn’t picky about gender, but she’s not lesbian only. We really had to stop because we had to admire how cute her little Japanese sailor suit costume was. Kawaii duds interruptus.

  608. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:34

    So my mom isn’t hugely fat like WC’s?

  609. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:36

    Goddammit, nobody picked up my ricketts joke?

    You fuckers.

  610. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:39

    Also, rickets is spelled with one “t”, goddammit.

  611. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:41

    Pirates are only aggressive when they drink too much and get beery-beery.

  612. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:44

    Trust a zombie to ruin my fun.
    The zombie-interruption method of contraception is clearly unreliable.

  613. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:45

    Feck! I change computers and it re-sends a comment from an hour ago.

  614. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:47

    I change computers

    Keeps ‘em from getting stinky and crying.

  615. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:50

    Keeps ‘em from getting stinky and crying.

    Spoken like a Windows man.

  616. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:51

    D-KW – no flash on iPad. May I assume that’s the one where they don’t chicken out? And like it.

  617. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:53

    “Keeps ‘em from getting stinky and crying.”

    Shame the same can’t be said for underwear.

    Wut?

  618. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:54

    “Feck! I change computers and it re-sends a comment from an hour ago.”

    Bummed. So I do NOT have the power to travel back in time?

  619. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:54

    Also, rickets is spelled with one “t”, goddammit.

    My friend Bob Ricketts would say otherwise.

    But I did miss the joke though. (Multi-tasking.)

    Or was it “carrying” scurvy?

  620. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:57

    PM,
    It’s more interesting that way, so yes.

  621. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 2:59

    Vampires usually prefer people who are of age to – you know – thingy.

    you really have not been paying attention, have you?

  622. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:00

    Jen Rubin today:

    ….size matters very much.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/the_size_of_government_matters.html

  623. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:02

    Is zrm no longer here to defend his kind?

    fuck, sadlies, I was just transiting home!!

  624. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:04

    Wire are playing in Auckland on the 15th.

    awesome. Gang of Four is at First Avenue coming up, and I am debating inflicting my presence on Snag twice in two months….

    Also. Lawn. gett offa it.

  625. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:05

    LOL Rubin typos/slips wev in penultimate graf. Phoning it in fersure.

    Republicans’ formula for arousing energy, spurring social mobility and helping people to transform their lives is to limit the size of government and allow the public sector (with the benefits of sound money, predictable regulation, a reliable legal system and low taxes) to flourish; Democrats don’t buy that.

    Rubin, size does matter – but the only reason your post is so long is the excessive quotage. Don’t worry though, Hiatt will nevar notice.

  626. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:07

    But I did miss the joke though. (Multi-tasking.) Or was it “carrying” scurvy?

    It was a stupid joke about how you could get rickets from guys named Rick. I was just attention whoring.

  627. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:07

    Jennifer Rubin,
    The WashPost noob in
    Their online bloggerating throng
    Needs to be told that she’s DOIN IT RONG.

  628. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:13

    There once was a Libertardian named Rubin
    Who was stupid and lazy*, no foolin’
    She wrote a long post
    But on second glance most
    Of the words weren’t hers – something something POOPIN’

    *And this is me saying that.

  629. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:13

    FYWP. What clerihews are better than limericks now?

  630. jim said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:14

    *parachutes into thread*

    Wow, that’s sure some ferocious lawyer-like debate right up yonder … good thing I wasn’t around to suggest maybe instead of everyone having an angst-gasm over what Scalia did or didn’t mean, just, oh, Googling “women as persons under US law” or anything CRAZY like that, eh?

    ***SPOILER ALERT!!!***

    Grrlz are peoples too, no matter what some fat fuck in supervillain-drag says. So NYAH.

    Also, Scalia is a schmuck.

    *pries open nearby manhole & jumps in, pulls cover shut*

  631. Lawnguylander said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:17

    Sooooo….what you’re saying is that DKW’s mom is a whore?

    What I’m saying is that let’s say an amendment to the Constitution were ratified which said that DKW’s mom should be considered a woman of virtue in language so clear that even Actor212 couldn’t misinterpret its drafters’ intent. Through the years, though, it remains common practice to refer to and treat her as the filthiest whore that ever walked the Earth. Now picture DKW appearing before the Supreme Court demanding satisfaction because “look at the Constitution, it says my mom is a decent woman, not like everybody says.” Scalia would say, “vaffanculo, ya Canucki bastard. I don’t care what it says in the Constitution, your mom’s a whore because everybody says she is.” I’m no originalist but he’d be right for the first time in his career of course.

  632. WP said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:19


    FYWP. What clerihews are better than limericks now?”

    Depends on the subject matter.

  633. Arky said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:21

    631st!

    Who poured MiracleGro in the thread and then nuked it?

  634. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:22

    Hairy clues are always better than limericks.

  635. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:22

    Scalia would say, “vaffanculo, ya Canucki bastard.

    While complaining about the lack of civility in modern America because HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS.

  636. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:26

    OMFG. Double eated. FYWP with Jennifer Rubin.

  637. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:27

    Who poured MiracleGro in the thread and then nuked it?

    me, sez I.

    Look, I egged on actor, and then did the zombie thing, so it’s pretty much my fault.

    except, of course, for the fact that N__B STARTED IT!!!!

  638. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:27

    wnguylander said,
    January 5, 2011 at 3:17

    I cried a little. That was mean.

  639. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:28

    uh, so mean that I chopped part of your name off.

  640. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:33

    #

    TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 4, 2011 at 18:18

    They’d be moving at high speed with a cloud behind them, like the Road Runner, but the cloud wouldn’t be dust.

    It’s probably best to lay down a tarp. Three miles long.

    Actual real-world guffaw. I’m so far behind in this thread.

  641. WP said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:37

    Jennifer Rubin? Eww.

  642. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:40

    The mature patina on this thread sure looks great…like George Clooney’s grey streaks.

  643. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:44

    BTW, could someone, FGS, explain the time stamps here? It’s like 9:14 at night here and the time stamp says 3:40. WTF does that mean?

  644. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:46

    O/T unless you’re way upthread, I have a newfound love for hokey old pop since I got serious with this here Xmas banjolele. I fucking hate listening to stuff like that, but there’s nothing that sounds reasonably good as fast. We’re talking John Denver, people. Country Roads, I shit you not. Rainbow Connection by Paul Williams. Well, okay, I always loved that song. But The Lion Sleeps Tonight???

    I’m starting to understand light pop’s power: it’s not just easy listening, it’s easy playing. So the mediocre assholes who are inclined to play that kind of thing can’t fuck it up too badly.

    That said, I’ve butchered everything I play. Four strings, a tin ear, and a quart of Chimay! They LAUGHED when I sat down at the piano. They WEPT when I played it.

  645. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:46

    VS: time, like money, isn’t real.

  646. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:50

    As this is hte Instorantoobs, MANDATORY UKULELE LINKEE.

  647. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:51

    WTF does that mean?

    The server is in Germany. So it’s metric time.

  648. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:53

    Thanks, pup.

  649. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:56

    That’s it. I’ve decided to have a boy. An adorable Asian one.

  650. the ugly hunchback reflecting a more mature patina said,

    January 5, 2011 at 3:56

    The mature patina on this thread sure looks great…like George Clooney’s grey streaks.

    It’s the POOP!!!!

  651. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:01

    That’s it. I’ve decided to have a boy. An adorable Asian one.

    You should, it’s lots of fun.

  652. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:03

    Even if you’re horny again an hour later.

  653. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:04

    ROFL. THAT was funny.

  654. Arky said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:05

    Look, I egged on actor, and then did the zombie thing, so it’s pretty much my fault.

    except, of course, for the fact that N__B STARTED IT!!!!

    Dude, you’re supposed to blame the proprietors of this establishment for letting the thread go stale.

    Sheesh. You guys eat brains all day but you aren’t very bright.

  655. Enraged Bull Limpet said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:25

    Has logical fallacy argument finally transitioned into the more typical SN idiom of illogical phallusy quippage?

  656. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:33

    It’s like 9:14 at night here and the time stamp says 3:40. WTF does that mean?

    It’s THE FUTURE!!!one!!!!

  657. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:33

    Well, I don’t care what anyone says: this thread was a barrel of zombies, a bucket of skanky moms, a murder of crows, bushel of boobies. And I’m pretty sure it’s all thanks to N_B.

  658. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:35

    Send payment NOW to N__B Enterprises!

  659. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:35

    “It’s THE FUTURE!!!one!!!!”

    I knew it. Smut Clyde tore a hole in the time-space continuum…or some smart, sciencey-sounding thing.

  660. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:37

    “January 5, 2011 at 4:35

    Send payment NOW to N__B Enterprises!”

    As soon as I get my (un-roasted) puppy.

  661. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:39

    You can’t unring a bell; you can’t unroast a puppy.

  662. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:39

    WTF does that mean?

    THE ZOMBIZZLES ARE AT YOUR WINDIZZLES!!!

  663. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:41

    Joke’s on you, zombies—bathtime’s OVA!

  664. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:41

    you can’t unroast a puppy

    You can scrape all the black stuff off the outside if you’re patient.

  665. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:42

    Hey everybody: another explanation.

  666. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:43

    Confession Time. My name is D-KW and I both “Love The 80?s” and am a big fan of “Classic Rock”. And that lawn is not for you young folk to play on.

    There was a time when top 40 had some very good music indeed. Can anyone say Beatles? Led Zeppelin? Fuck, Dylan was top 40 at one time.

    Solidarity. Sorry I missed the music stuff . It was full of sharp, rapid-fire wit. And unlike most topics, I coulda jumped in bigtime.

    Also, I didn’t know there were so many Constitutional scholars at S,N! The Scalia fracas was as intricate as anything I’ve read here. I like seeing intelligent people drilling into a complex topic. Tenacious dialogue, but not rude, or so it seemed to me. Nevertheless, it gave me a wicked-bad headache.

    Scalia is a toady from way back. He fails the character test and if pressed, might even fail a Turing test.

    Also a Voight-Kampff test.

    And the whole zombies–vampires–mummies discussion left out werewolves….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRu8N2K0NY

  667. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:44

    You can scrape all the black stuff off the outside if you’re patient.

    Is that anything like removing a word from Huck Finn?

  668. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:45

    666 was mine! Sweet, sweet eeeeevil…

  669. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:46

    N_B is on FI-YAH!

  670. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:47

    Holy shit. What timing.

  671. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:49

    Is that anything like removing a word from Huck Finn?

    When I was a kid the copies of Shakespeare we read from had the dirty bits removed but they were still on the tapes we listened to. They weren’t that dirty, dammit.

  672. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:51

    They weren’t that dirty, dammit.

    You need to go to Kit Marlowe for the good stuff.

  673. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:52

    Dirty Shakespeare seems like an untapped erotica niche market.

  674. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 4:54

    Rule 34.

  675. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:00

    I’ll be damned.

    “wouldst thou put thy stout member betwixt my fair breasts?”

    Is that Shakespeare-like or more Chaucer?

  676. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:02

    Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO:

    The EPA has condemned carbon dioxide, the air humans exhale, as a pollutant that imperils human health.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256245/congress-must-lead-not-courts-andrew-c-mccarthy

    Do these idiots also realize that water is also needed to live but can also fucking kill you? Or even fucking oxygen? God what stupidity – I need more IPA.

  677. Enraged Bull Limpet said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:03

    Bowdler Eyes, they’re watching you
    They see your every move,
    Bowdler Eyes, they’re watching you
    They’re watching you, watching you, watching you

  678. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:05

    Hey everybody: another explanation.

    but but but…. that would conflict with the opinion of ….

    OK, I ain’t gonna name names.

  679. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:06

    “wouldst thou put thy stout member betwixt my fair breasts?”

    Stop you cruel vixen, my wife is 1500 miles away.

  680. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:06

    And the whole zombies–vampires–mummies discussion left out werewolves….

    FSCKING FURRIES!!!

  681. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:07

    N_B started it!

  682. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:11

    “Stop you cruel vixen, my wife is 1500 miles away”

    Well, there’s always time for dirty Shakespeare when you reunite.

  683. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:15

    you can’t unroast a puppy.

    WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?

    OK, sorry for yelling.

  684. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:17

    Oh please, zrm. Don’t pretend you’d do anything as civilized as roasting a puppy. You know you eat ‘Em raw.

  685. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:17

    Substance McGravitas said,

    sweet fuck, the only ones willing to click Substance links are noobs, and they will learn soon enough.

    Oh, yes they will. They will never recover, but they will learn.

    It makes one yearn for that Righteous Bubba fellow.

  686. S. cerevisiae said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:18

    True, and ol’ Bill has some wonderfully nasty stuff couched in such nice language. He would be Stephen Colbert in today’s media (as would Jonathan Swift).

    Sorry VS, I really love your teasing because you do it in a nice way.

  687. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:21

    Well, thanks, S. Not sure the wording was very authentic, but I had to go for the joke.

  688. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:27

    It makes one yearn for that Righteous Bubba fellow.

    Where *is* he, anyway?

  689. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:27

    Well, there’s always time for dirty Shakespeare when you reunite.

    depends on how fast they’re going when they intersect.

  690. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:28

    I just wrote some dirty Victorian stuff and got to use terms like “stout yard,”* blind Cupid, fundament, and mettle. Doesn’t sound quite as filthy these days.

    Fairy pr0n, too. I may use a pseudonym.

    *not VPR, actually R to P

  691. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:29

    Where *is* he, anyway?

    [whistles nonchalantly, scuffing the dirt while sidling the other direction]

  692. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:31

    “stout yard”

    Yard? Oh my!

  693. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:31

    fundament

    that’s right hawt, that is.

  694. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:32

    o bite me vacuumslayer.

  695. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:33

    Fairy pr0n, too. I may use a pseudonym.

    one would hope. Must have standards, sir.

  696. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:34

    Bite you? Where’s the need? Stuff’s falling off on it’s own.

  697. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:34

    [whistles nonchalantly, scuffing the dirt while sidling the other direction]

    Bad ZRM! BAD!

    *bops nose with a newspaper*

  698. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:47

    VS, I really love your teasing because you do it in a nice way.

    Word.

  699. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:48

    Also the Hawt teasing, too.

  700. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:54

    Bad ZRM! BAD!

    *bops nose with a newspaper*

    Roasting is more effective. They never make the mistake again.

  701. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:56

    dirty Shakespeare

    Must go into the Urban Dictionary. Definitions needed…

  702. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:59

    I’m trademarking that, Snidely…and I’ve decided it’s going to be my name for…that particular act.

  703. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 5:59

    701, maybe.

  704. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:00

    Roasting is more effective. They never make the mistake again.

    Yeah, but roasted zombie smells like ass. Dead ass.

  705. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:00

    M.–FOILED!

  706. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:01

    701, maybe.

    The temperature at which blogs spontaneously combust? [/Carnak]

  707. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:01

    Yeah, but roasted zombie smells like ass. Dead ass.

    You obviously haven’t ridden the G train lately. I’m inured to that smell.

  708. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:06

    “Dirty Shakespeare” is so going to be my next band’s name.

  709. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:08

    M.–FOILED!

    NOT when I qualified it w/ “maybe!”

    To stay on the (second) topic, “SCOTUS: Scalia, Fuck, California, Women, Gays, and an Exercise in Self-Restraint,” from an Angry Black Lady.

  710. Steerpike said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:08

    Fuck Shakespeare. Seriously. You want naughty, check with my main man Thomas Carew:

    So will I rifle all the sweets that dwell
    In my delicious paradise, and swell 60
    My bag with honey, drawn forth by the power
    Of fervent kisses from each spicy flower.
    I’ll seize the rose-buds in their perfumed bed,
    The violet knots, like curious mazes spread
    O’er all the garden, taste the ripen’d cherry, 65
    The warm firm apple, tipp’d with coral berry :
    Then will I visit with a wand’ring kiss
    The vale of lilies and the bower of bliss ;
    And where the beauteous region both divide
    Into two milky ways, my lips shall slide 70
    Down those smooth alleys, wearing as they go
    A tract for lovers on the printed snow ;

  711. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:10

    I keep telling myself I should get some sleep…but the lure of this place is too great. I don’t get it…buncha geeks, nerds , misfits, zombies and motherfuckers. What IS the allure?

  712. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:10

    Mother fucking?

  713. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:14

    “January 5, 2011 at 6:10

    Mother fucking?”

    That must be it.

  714. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:14

    So will I rifle all the sweets that dwell
    In my delicious paradise, and swell 60

    Numeralalia is not sexy.

  715. Xecky Gilchrist said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:16

    buncha geeks, nerds , misfits, zombies and motherfuckers. What IS the allure?

    Nerds. The other stuff is ok, but nerds rulz.

  716. Steerpike said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:18

    More Carew:

    Now in more subtle wreaths I will entwine
    My sinewy thighs, my legs and arms with thine ;
    Thou like a sea of milk shalt lie display’d,
    Whilst I the smooth calm ocean invade
    With such a tempest, as when Jove of old
    Fell down on Danaë in a storm of gold ;
    Yet my tall pine shall in the Cyprian strait
    Ride safe at anchor and unlade her freight :
    My rudder with thy bold hand, like a tried
    And skilful pilot, thou shalt steer, and guide
    My bark into love’s channel, where it shall
    Dance, as the bounding waves do rise or fall.
    Then shall thy circling arms embrace and clip
    My willing body, and thy balmy lip
    Bathe me in juice of kisses…

  717. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:18

    Speaking of nerds, this guy’s customized JanusNode files are online…

    http://gnoetrydaily.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/1oves-not-times-n00b-leet-mappings-for-janusnode/

  718. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:18

    “Nerds. The other stuff is ok, but nerds rulz.”

    I’m kinda partial to them myself.

  719. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:20

    Steer, you’ve convinced me. It’s very hot in a beautiful, romantic way. (the best kind of way)

  720. A. Puritan said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:25

    Further poetic vileness if we must.

  721. Steerpike said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:27

    I like the part about the “Tall Pine” riding out the “tempest” in “love’s channel”. Man nobody does VPR like the Metaphysical poets

  722. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:30

    H0N3Y /\/\ 0PP3-|- , /\/\ Y /-\ FF3C-|- I0N/-\ -|- 3 CH/-\ R/\/\ SIGHS F0R Y0UR -|- 3ND3RN3SS. j00 /-\ R3 /\/\ Y L0\/ /-\ 8L3 HUNG3R. j00 /-\ R3 /\/\ Y WINNING Y3/-\ RNING. j00 /-\ R3 /\/\ Y D3/-\ R INF/-\ -|- U/-\ -|- I0N. /\/\ Y K33N F0NDN3SS K33NLY L0NGS F0R Y0UR /-\ /\/\ 8I-|- I0N. Y0URS -|- 3ND3RLY, /\/\ .U.C.

  723. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:39

    Oh, man, some of this stuff is pretty fucking good:

    Great Lover,
    You are my able era. My exotic confabulation unendingly tries your luck. You are my earnest offshoot. My conformity passively dismisses your weary slop. My winter reprehensively reads your fictitious fizz.
    Yours distinguishedly,
    Dinner

    Giving Beloved,
    You are my jazzy copilot. My ugliest face familiarly disappears your eternal risk. You are my fictitious flesh. My free appearance shivers your delightful gloom. You are my finished prestige.
    Yours evocatively,
    Glove

    Paradigmatic Mama,
    You are my mighty monkey. My psychological camaraderie stinks your saviour. My sultry splash remorsefully oppresses your biased crab. My clinical cavity complementarily jilts your character. My dew hugs your pearl.
    Yours frantically,
    Concentration

    Paradigmatic Heart,
    You are my noble ability. My dainty spider popularizes your angry tension. My mathematical feedback clouds your furthest wheel. You are my natural dude. My spam outbalances your wasteful decade.
    Yours acapella,
    Cork

    Plucky Bringer of change,
    My clumsy wisdom jestingly overshadows your school. You are my catastrophic dream. You are my dogmatic idealism. You are my anarchistic haze. My ecstasy stops your contemptible imagination.
    Yours operosely,
    Plateau

    Giving Wanderer,
    My orangutan perceives your nubbin. You are my perverse psychology. My childish duck jeeringly lights up your window. You are my shimmering resonance. You are my familial confidant.
    Yours shapelessly,
    Fantasy

    Ingenious Being of light,
    My stupid eagle preoccupiedly waits your rhythm. My cloud prolongs your nausea. You are my ecstatic context. My hunt riotously occludes your beany adolescence. My peachy royalty disgustingly boxes your boisterous summer.
    Yours tremblingly,
    Yield

    Kissable Bringer of joy,
    My flavourless girlfriend impulsively adores your plea. My target blamelessly quivers your noun. My jewel burningly pilfers your shout. You are my insane teacher. My swamp previously withers your unrealistic cricket.
    Yours actively,
    Chasm

    Spiritual Love,
    You are my sun-dried program. My allegorical mold predetermines your relationship. You are my horrible debt. You are my lily banality. You are my ill ink.
    Yours astuciously,
    Lip

    Creative Future McCarthy prize winner,
    You are my benumbed connotation. My solemn camaraderie upliftingly lights up your chaser. You are my electronic assurance. My aversion omits your willing classification. My spotty probability oppresses your jazz pathology.
    Yours florally,
    Stereo

    Sensitive Influence,
    You are my ambiguous id. My warship jilts your song. You are my bold woman. My solemn octopus moves your equality. You are my fluffy finger.
    Yours exactingly,
    Hostility

  724. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:43

    Shit, Sub, I’m TRYING to get some sleep. Then I read “jazzy co-pilot” and I’m actually laughing almost to the point of crying. Goddammit.

    Who yearns to be my jazzy co-pilot?!

  725. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:44

    The Gay Patriot site is s-o-o dull. I don’t have the patience or time for H&I fire on ‘em. Playing with Comments is much more fun here. So I’m going to conserve my ammo for a full-scale barrage in the future … and spend my aviailable time at S,N!

    Henceforth the Quel Frommage can only be awarded by ME.

    The medal: Gunmetal. Facing device: Marxist hammer-and-sickle. Obverse device: Islamic crescent [close to the heart] Ribbon: Gay Rights rainbow. Subsequent awards: Marijuana Leaf cluster

    The ceremony: Always includes parade-ground embrace and kiss on both [facial] cheeks. (Ceremonies for female recipients, however, are much more, ummmm, elaborate.)

    Always wear it with pride.

  726. Substance McGravitas said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:46

    My orangutan perceives your nubbin.

    I trained him!

  727. Zenmaster B. quoth said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:46

    My conformity passively dismisses your weary slop.

  728. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:48

    I’m DYING. OMG.

    But I’m not letting an orangutan touch my nubbin.

  729. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:54

    Numeralalia is not sexy

    The were part of the poem. Penile measurements.

    Steerpike: Amazing. I’ve never heard of Carew before. Thanks.

  730. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 6:57

    WTF, Scalia says the “cruel & unusual punishment” language is “necessarily broad”? Why, that’s funny. In real life he’s a hair-splitting sophist on the subject.

    Concern troll jurist is very concerned about cruel and unusual punishment (i.e., that it might go away.)

  731. Snidely Whiplash said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:00

    What does VPR mean or signify? Urban Dictionary says it “isn’t defined yet.” I’ve seen it used several times. I just want to know the code. Thanx.

  732. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:01

    dirty Shakespeare

    Shaking it will not get the dirt off.

  733. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:09

    Numeralalia is not sexy
    The were part of the poem.

    Rhyming ’60′ and ’70′ is a bit of an easy option.

  734. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:12

    Jove of old
    Fell down on Danaë in a storm of gold

    Um, yes.

  735. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:14

    VS, do NOT let an orangtan near your nubbin!

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-477024.html

    Now here, my friends, is something depraved;
    http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/if_turning_an_o

    Not that we can’t make jokes about, because that’s the kind of cretins we are. So here’s mine:

    A mailorder bride has been found for Jonah Goldberg!

  736. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:26

    VPR = vicious primate rape

    Just kidding.

    Veiled penis reference.

  737. justme said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:38

    Snidely, VPR is Veiled PENIS Reference. V–R varies as needed.

  738. justme said,

    January 5, 2011 at 7:39

    hrmmph

    refresh before post, and all that.

  739. gocart mozart said,

    January 5, 2011 at 8:41

    What has the Fischer Queen been up to lately?

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/101123
    “Ahmadinejad might be on to something”
    [Shorter: God wants me to bang a 16 year old girl.]
    By Bryan Fischer

    “But the young men and women whom God has created become sexually mature by their mid-teens. The bodies that God has created are ready for sexual intimacy by the time they are 16. Unless God has made a mistake in the way he has designed our sexuality, then we need to rethink our whole understanding of the optimum age for entering into marriage.”

    “We know that sex is good, and that it is designed by God for marriage. It is his design that all of our sexual energy be channelled into the marriage relationship. Now if God has designed our bodies so that they are prepared for sexual union by age 16, then perhaps he is telling us that we should be emotionally, mentally, and spiritually prepared to enter into marriage at about the same time or shortly thereafter.”

    [Insert obligatory Jeebus justification here]
    “It is widely accepted that the mother of Christ was likely in her mid-teens when she was engaged to Joseph, conceived her child through the Holy Spirit, and subsequently got married. If God believes that teenagers are capable of the adult responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, who are we to argue?”

  740. Henretta Pussycat said,

    January 5, 2011 at 9:00

    Meow meow, Vacuum Slayer meow attention whore meow meow.

  741. M. Bouffant said,

    January 5, 2011 at 10:21

    Here kitty kitty.

  742. Djur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 10:38

    See, the secret to being “sexy and romantic” is to take your filthy talk and couch it in botanical metaphors. “Girl, I am gonna eat your pussy” is just vulgar. “Then will I visit with a wand’ring kiss / The vale of lilies and the bower of bliss” is romantic, even though it means the same thing.

    However, my favorite poetic reference to the vagina is still Marvell:

    Thy beauty shall no more be found,
    Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
    My echoing song: then worms shall try
    That long preserved virginity,
    And your quaint honour turn to dust…

  743. Chris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 11:50

    [Insert obligatory Jeebus justification here]
    “It is widely accepted that the mother of Christ was likely in her mid-teens when she was engaged to Joseph, conceived her child through the Holy Spirit, and subsequently got married. If God believes that teenagers are capable of the adult responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, who are we to argue?”

    Wait a minute, I’m confused. So when the Prophet Mohammed marries a child, that makes him a pedophile and proves that all Muslims are animals, but when Yaweh impregnates a child, that proves that… pedophilia is okay because the children can handle it?

    Clocks, meet Double Standard Time.

  744. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 13:42

    “It is widely accepted that the mother of Christ was likely in her mid-teens when she was engaged to Joseph
    It is also widely accepted that Christ was likely blond and blue-eyed.

    I am shocked, shocked! that a theocrat is searching for religious rationales for statutory rape.

  745. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 13:58

    It is also widely accepted that Christ was likely blond and blue-eyed.

    Well duuuh. God is blond and blue-eyed and obviously his traits are dominant over Mary’s, since she was (1) a woman, (2) not blond and blue-eyed, (3) poor, and (4) semetic.

  746. Arky said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:08

    Mr. Anal Fissure thinks people should get married early so they can make more kids more often so the human race isn’t wiped out by BEARS.

    Or he wants to fuck 16 year olds.

  747. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:14

    so the human race isn’t wiped out by BEARS.

    Bears are a limited good. Particularly polar bears.

  748. smedley said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:27

    I also think Fischer is onto something. People are born naked, therefore it is God’s intention for people to be naked. Human hair grows and grows and grows. Who are we to defy Him by cutting our hair? It is outright blasphemy for modern science to attempt to cure diseases such as cancer, FOR GOD HAS HIS REASONS FOR SUCH INFLICTIONS.

  749. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:29

    Bryan Fischer has explained that pedophilia is a form of homosexuality, so heterosexuals cannot be pedophiles, no matter who they fuck.
    He has written extensively about the evils of pedophilia, not that he’s obsessed or anything, and have I mentioned that heterosexual behaviours are by definition not pedophilia?

  750. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:33

    Human hair grows and grows and grows. Who are we to defy Him by cutting our hair?

    Long, flowing nostril hair is what god wants. He’s ambivalent about us braiding it.

  751. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:35

    Unless God has made a mistake in the way he has designed our sexuality
    At the same time, homosexuality = EVILS.

    If God believes that teenagers are capable of the adult responsibilities of marriage and parenthood
    God also evidently believes that consent is not required from the recipient of impregnation, giving the the divine sanction to rape.
    I am SRSly worried that Mr Fischer is laying the groundwork for this argument and there is something he is not yet telling us.

  752. Arky said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:52

    He has written extensively about the evils of pedophilia, not that he’s obsessed or anything, and have I mentioned that heterosexual behaviours are by definition not pedophilia?

    Fischer only fucks the female animals at the petting zoo. See? Perfectly heterosexual and normal.

  753. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:55

    Why do you think it’s called a “petting” zoo. We won’t discuss the time he tried necking with a giraffe.

  754. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:56

    Meow meow, Vacuum Slayer meow attention whore meow meow.

    You know what? Guilty as charged. I totally was. I’m an imminently flawed human being. This isn’t the first time I’ve whored for attention, nor do I think it will be the last. I often fall prey to Attention Whoring’s abundant and slutty charms. You got me dead-to-rights.

    You sound a little bitter and I detect a soupçon of jealousy here, too. Hey…looks like I’ve got you dead-to-rights, too. Shall we high five?

  755. Smut Clyde said,

    January 5, 2011 at 14:58

    Between Fischer appealing to God’s Will to justify sex with under-age kids, and Derbyshire appealing to the intentions of Evolutionary Psychology, there is a definite trend emerging about the kind of people who refer all their moral decisions to an external authority.

  756. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:06

    Shall we high five?

    Pix or it didn’t happen.

  757. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:07

    Really, Fischer & Derbyshire are just a hair away from being the kind of kooks who retreat to a polygamous sect in the desert, living in several singlewides, ranting about the New World Order, etc etc.

  758. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:27

    Hey vs,

    Your fangirl comment came out of the filter a couple days ago and there’s a few things I want to address:

    1. Yes, there is a wittier me. Much smarter and funnier. Unfortunately he’s also only perceivable by those under 8 months of age or over 0.08 blood alcohol volume.
    2. I’m flattered. Being considered funny and intelligent is nice, but relative to the S,N! commentariat? Wow. Ph33R my M4d 5K1LLLLLLLLLLLLZ at typing POOP.
    3. This is for the lurkers – I was a lurker once. My first few comments were horrible and even moar typo-grammar-tically challenged than EVAR. But I got a lot of encouragement from the crew here – they really are supportive*. Just note that threads never move at the pace you want, so that acknowledgement may be several PgDn’s from your contribution.

    *Thanx to thems that kept me yelling PENIS through the early years. From folks who are now pretty scarce like MzNicky, t4toby, mikey and RB (gosh I miss RB) to thems that are still around like thundra and PeeJ and Bouffant and, well, everyone I guess. There’s tons moar names too, a lot of which I’ve forgotten – because I am an ungrateful and self-absorbed little shit. But still, I’m saying THANX, even if I don’t remember who you are.

  759. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:31

    My first few comments were horrible

    For small values of “few.”

  760. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:36

    For small values of “few.”

    No, they really were. But thank you.

  761. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:37

    I debated saying “for large values of few” but (a) it’s not particularly funny and (b) I FEAR THE WRATH* OF THE DRAGON KING.

    *VPR

  762. Chris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:37

    God also evidently believes that consent is not required from the recipient of impregnation, giving the the divine sanction to rape.

    In God’s defense, he did ask Mary whether she wanted to have his baby or not. On the other hand, his Old Testament incarnation did reward rape by sentencing any rape victim to being married to her attacker within the week.

  763. smedley said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:39

    “because I am an ungrateful and self-absorbed little shit”

    I always pictured you being a large shit.

  764. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:41

    Your fangirl comment came out of the filter a couple days ago and there’s a few things I want to address:

    1. Yes, there is a wittier me. Much smarter and funnier.

    Yeah, I always thought you were incredibly witty and almost intimidatingly smart…and I’m not easily-intimidated. But, I agree: you’re in AMAZING company.

  765. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:43

    I’m getting a sugar headache. Can we start a Mac/Win flame war?

  766. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:45

    Thanx again, and as much as it is very important to talk about how AWESOME I am (very very important and very very AWESOME), what I’m really trying to say is that the only way to improve your commenting is by commenting. If your on the fence about whether or not to Submit, just do it. You can always change your nym after you rough introductory break-in hazing period. It’s loads of fun, plus it gets the voices inside your head out onto the screen where they are less likely to make you BURN SHIT DOWN.

  767. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:47

    See, grammar mistake – right there. If you‘re on the fence…

  768. smedley said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:48

    You know, it is uncanny. Each and every one of my wittiest comments has been eated by wordpress. Some day wordpress is going to regurgitate all of the witticisms it has been stowing from all of the commenters and we will have purple snarkle ponies forever.

  769. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:48

    Can we start a Mac/Win flame war?

    Yes. Everybody loves to Win. Win is by definition Win. Even if it is mostly Fail.

  770. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:49

    I’m getting a sugar headache. Can we start a Mac/Win flame war?

    I could just start randomly throwing punches.

  771. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:50

    Everybody loves to Win.

    Says the emissary from LEAFS SUCK.

  772. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:55

    Nobody loves the Leafs. LEAFS SUCKians don’t love the Leafs. At least we’re not Cubs fans. Have a waffle.

  773. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:57

    At least we’re not Cubs fans.

    Naming a team after a baby animal ranks as one of the all-time bad ideas (category: little or no death).

  774. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:57

    Can we start a Mac/Win flame war?

    Linux!

    And in the cake/pie war: cookies!

    I’m not going to be hemmed in by your bullshit binaries, man.

  775. 77south said,

    January 5, 2011 at 15:58

    Says the emissary from LEAFS SUCK.
    So I have always been confused by this nomenclature. Is LEAFS SUCK the city of Toronto, and the commenter is lamenting the terrible state of the home team, or is the commenter from another city that the Maple Leafs regularly beat until candy comes out, which therefore makes the commenter cry like a sissy?

  776. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:02

    …from another city that the Maple Leafs regularly beat until candy comes out…

    What mythical city is that? LEAFS SUCK is my pet name for my hometown.

  777. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:03

    Linux!

    I refuse until the penguin starts carrying a blanket.

    by your bullshit binaries

    A new form of Schroedinger’s box, where the bull shits or does not.

  778. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:03

    another city that the Maple Leafs regularly beat

    Tee hee.

  779. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:22

    Sweet IPU, is this actually possible?

  780. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:25

    Mother of mercy, can this be the end of Rico Sarah?

  781. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:26

    Sweet IPU, is this actually possible?

    That would be fucking awesome.

  782. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:28

    Will someone come here and smack me around every time I start procrastinating?

  783. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:33

    Lookie what I found: douche.

  784. Dragon-King Wangchuck, Expert Legal Analist (totes heterosexually) said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:36

    Also too (via Adam B @ hte Great Orange Satan) check out #11 from this FCC ruling:

    Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law and common sense.

    1. Teh Buttocks is a legally accepted argument.
    2. Buttsecks IS REAL. Denial runs counter to both case law and common sense.
    3. Teh Buttocks.

  785. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:44

    Scalia, Bachman, Buttsex? I’m gonna need more coffee.

    BTW; Scalia, Bachman and Buttsex?
    Worst. Law firm. Ever.

  786. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 16:48

    Scalia, Bachman and Buttsex?

    She’s gonna need a bigger strap-on.

  787. Dragon-King Wangchuck, Expert Legal Analist (totes heterosexually) said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:00

    She’s gonna need a bigger strap-on.

    Note, Bachman with one n. Perhaps we’re talking about Randy*, in which case that’s one Overdrive I don;t need to see.

    *Heh heh. Randy. Heh.

  788. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:02

    Note, Bachman with one n. Perhaps we’re talking about Randy*, in which case there’s already two dildos present.

  789. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:03

    I totally wanted to make a BTO joke, but couldn’t think of one. I had a feeling someone would pick up my slack.

  790. vs said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:04

    This convo…I may never have sex again.

  791. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:24


    [Shorter: God wants me to bang a 16 year old girl.]
    By Bryan Fischer

    Is that the shorter for Imadinnerjacket? Cuz, if you think BF thinks about fucking little girls you must not have been paying attention.

  792. zombie rotten mcdonald said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:28

    Lookie what I found: douche.

    See? N__B is trying to start another fight.

  793. Dragon-King Wangchuck, Expert Legal Analist (totes heterosexually) said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:38

    Speaking of fights, what up with Glennzilla v. Wired? Man, that is some crazy-ass shit.

  794. Arky said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:45

    One step closer to 800.

  795. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:48

    Aretha Franklin’s Pastor is meeting with her today to help prepare her for the end which is very near.

  796. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 17:57

    Aretha, may you find wings to the summerlands.

  797. Larkspur said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:01

    Imadinnerjacket? Pup, is this the standard mnemonic? ‘Cause I made up my own a long time ago, which probably only works for me, but sometimes mnemonics is like that. I picture a mean man at supper, served by his quietly vengeful wife, and he exclaims: “Ach! My dinner’s charred!” The “charred” part doesn’t really work, but by the time I get there, the word is already out.

  798. Snort said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:02

    Very nice Larkspur. This news keeps choking me up.

  799. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:05

    Nothing snarky to say about Aretha. Another person who should live longer and happier.

  800. Jennifer said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:08

    #800: I’ll watch the series finale of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska”, but only if they don’t cut the footage of Sarah being eaten by bears.

  801. Jennifer said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:09

    And no, TAAAAAHHD going down on her while wearing a bear suit DOES NOT COUNT.

  802. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:11

    Bears have better taste. They’d eat Willow’s tenderer meat.

  803. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:27

    Bears have better taste. They’d eat Willow’s tenderer meat.

    Depends on who runs faster.

    Sweet IPU, is this actually possible?

    O please, O please….

  804. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:35

    TAAAAAHHD going down on her while wearing a bear suit

    Somebody got the icepick? I need to scramble a few neurons.

  805. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:37

    Did any of you know about the Greenwald-Wired-Lamo-Manning thing? I’m at least a week behind. Here’s the BoingBoing recap.

    Threat Level is a site that got the occasional visit from me, or at least it used to be. This is fucking pathetic on Wired’s part. At best they are being Wash Post level dismissive of their audience, at worst – well if the worst of teh allegations are troo than… well just fucken hell.

  806. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:44

    Is Wired still in the league?

  807. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:44

    Oh Christ, this thread hath me undone. Between the filthy, filthy Carew and certain comments thereafter (my orangutan perceives your nubbin), I verily crewed with laughter.

    I wish to weigh in on a freightsome matter, however. Teh buttocks are not a sexual organ. No. You see, there is a hole in amongst the buttocks, demurely concealed amongst them like a spring that issues forth only espresso bedizened with peanuts; that is the lovers’ knot, to be cloven, not untied, by Damocles’ pork sword. If somebody shines the ol’ roasted tarantula at the camera, that’s one thing. Buttocks are just for holding the legs more or less in place.

    Unless you’re a zombie.

  808. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:46

    Teh buttocks are not a sexual organ.

    Do not Google Keyra Augustina.

  809. smedley said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:46

    For the record, the NYT came down on DKW’s side of yesterday’s Scalia debate. But, the fact that actor was wrong does not make him a bad person. His sexual perversity accomplishes that for him.

  810. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:48

    For the record, the NYT came down on DKW’s side of yesterday’s Scalia debate.

    Fuck. I hate it when I’m wrong. Sorry actor.

  811. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:52

    Did any of you know about the Greenwald-Wired-Lamo-Manning thing? I’m at least a week behind. Here’s the BoingBoing recap.

    I was just reading up on it…

  812. Whale Chowder said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:55

    Fuck. I hate it when I’m wrong. Sorry actor.

    Hey, even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

  813. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 18:59

    smedley just said that the NYT’s interpretation was the same as DKW’s, silly billies.

  814. actor212 said,

    January 5, 2011 at 19:04

    But, the fact that actor was wrong does not make him a bad person.

    Actor was not wrong, actor had a different interperetation, based on the fact his brain is as big as a planet, whereas the other side collectively could amass an anthill.

  815. Spengler Dampniche said,

    January 5, 2011 at 19:10

    Keyra Augustina’s ass — let’s just say: mangoes. Real ones.

  816. Thread Bear said,

    January 5, 2011 at 19:14

    I was recently sent this little gem, it’s not dirty Shakespeare, more like a harlequin romance but it’s all I got right now.

    He grasped me firmly but gently just above my elbow and guided me into a
    room, his room. Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone. He
    approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring
    voice close to my ear. “Just relax.” Without warning, he reached down
    and I felt his strong, calloused hands start at my ankles, gently probing,
    and moving upward along my calves slowly but steadily. My breath caught in
    my throat. I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn’t care. His touch
    was so experienced, so sure. When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I
    gave a slight shudder, and partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding. I
    felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribbcage. And then, as he
    cupped my firm, full breasts in his hands, I inhaled sharply. Probing,
    searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders,
    slid them down my tingling spine and into my panties. Although I knew
    nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant. This is a
    man, I thought. A man used to taking charge. A man not used to taking `no’
    for an answer.

    A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who would look into my soul
    and say …. “Okay, ma’am,” said a voice. “All done.” My eyes snapped
    open and he was standing in front of me, smiling, holding out my purse.
    “You can board your flight now.”

  817. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 19:15

    Keyra Augustina’s ass — let’s just say: mangoes. Real ones.

    Hot damn! That’s, like, as close to the Platonic Ideal of an ass as you can get.

    My bootie is sad now.

  818. Pupienus Maximus said,

    January 5, 2011 at 19:21

    I’ll give you that, a212. Where “different interpretation” means “obstinance born of delusion”

  819. tigris said,

    January 5, 2011 at 20:05

    They weren’t that dirty, dammit.

    You need to go to Kit Marlowe for the good stuff.

    Boccaccio’s got some good bits.

    (gosh I miss RB)

    You don’t miss not even an MBA?

    Henretta Pussycat

    Nobody says you’ve got to like everybody but that was out of bounds.

  820. N__B said,

    January 5, 2011 at 20:09

    Hot damn! That’s, like, as close to the Platonic Ideal of an ass as you can get.

    You’d not seen that/it/her before? She famous, at least in part.

  821. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 20:16

    DKW, bless you, my son, for the heads-up re. Keyra Augustina. I have notified my fellow bootyologists.

  822. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    January 5, 2011 at 20:18

    You’d not seen that/it/her before? She famous, at least in part.

    I had not. Now I realize I was missing a part of my soul.

  823. Bilo said,

    January 5, 2011 at 20:27

    “On the other hand, his Old Testament incarnation did reward rape by sentencing any rape victim to being married to her attacker within the week.”

    Wow, that makes the Kazakh wedding (kidnapping) sack seem kinda civilized.

    But it’s all about family values, you know. Children need a mother and a father! (No matter how much of a sociopathic, selfish shit he is.)

  824. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 5, 2011 at 22:31

    You don’t miss not even an MBA?

    That guy was an ungrateful self-absorbed little shit.

  825. actor212 said,

    January 6, 2011 at 0:00

    Where “different interpretation” means “obstinance born of delusion”

    Facts are facts, and words are words, and the Constitution is pretty clear. What part of this is STILL unclear to you and the asshats on your side of the divide?

  826. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    January 6, 2011 at 3:37

    What part of this is STILL unclear to you and the asshats on your side of the divide?

    Uh actor, you do realize that I wasn’t actually apologizing, but just poking the Gray Lady, right?

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()