Awwww, Poor Little Liberal is Offended

About this:


From Knox News:

Breath mints packaged in a tin can poking fun at President Barack Obama have been pulled from the shelves at the University of Tennessee bookstore after local legislator Joe Armstrong told store officials he was offended by the mints.

Armstrong, D-Knoxville, said he got a call from a student who had seen the satirical mints in the bookstore and was bothered by the depiction of the president…

Which can be translated to read:  “fascist toady spies something offensive about Dear Leader, denounces it to fascist, who then leans on the offender, who caves in because a government official like that can cause all sorts of trouble”.

What I’d like to know is – since when to Democrats care about offensive depictions of the President?  For 8, long years back there I seem to recall that Democrats were ok with just about anything insulting to the President.  Heck, books and movies were produced fantasizing about killing President Bush with nary a peep out of Democrats about it. But now we have to be respectful…


54 thoughts on “Awwww, Poor Little Liberal is Offended

    • Amazona August 4, 2011 / 12:34 am

      …and they are.

      • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 12:36 am

        I know 🙂

      • Mark Noonan August 4, 2011 / 12:58 am


        The good news is that more and more people don’t care what they think…about the millionth time they called us raaaacists, it stopped stinging…

  1. doug August 4, 2011 / 1:13 am

    There you go again, just being racist. This is a post-partisan Presidency, it is un-American to even think satirical thoughts of such a great man.

    • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 8:31 am


      all hail the GREAT “leader”

  2. bozo August 4, 2011 / 2:30 am

    “…movies were produced fantasizing about killing President Bush with nary a peep out of Democrats about it”

    CHAPPAQUA — Sen. Hillary Clinton this morning blasted the producers of a new film depicting the assassination of Pres. George W. Bush.

    “I think it’s despicable,” Clinton said of “Death of a President,” a fictional film that features a staged assassination of the president in 2007. “I think it’s absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick.”

    Nary a peep? Oh, and the movie was made by the SAME people who made “Passion of the Christ”… obviously some liberal wackos.

    • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 7:59 am

      Thankfully, bozo finds a quote from a democrat opposing the Bush hit movie. Unfortunately this does not address the reason why it was made and distributed in the first place. Maybe bozo can explain why folks on his side of the aisle felt the need to make the film.

      In regards to being offended – has anyone ever watched Chris Matthews? I honestly believe he might cry sometimes when speaking of all the mean things Obama has had to endure. It’s hilarious

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 9:36 am

        Bozo found a quote from arguably the leading Democrat at the time, US Senator Hillary Clinton. The quote alone completely discredits the entire premise of the thread. Of course Mark also uses the term fascism for liberals in this thread.

        While redefined in the kook right mind to be any political overreach the majority still associate fascism with Mussolini, an ally of Hitler. The liberal fascism theme gained kook popularity with Jonah Goldberg’s book featuring a smiley face with a Hitler moustache.

        Tell you what whiners, I’ll call the fascist in question and try to get the mints put back into the bookstore in exchange for you calling the GOP and stopping the pat downs at the airport and a repeal of the roving wire taps and surveillance of the outrageously named “lone wolves”.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 9:43 am

        Wonder why bams is continuing these pat downs and wire taps? Bardolf you should really get over this “things ought to be fair in life” meme. It is really unbecoming in a self styled libertarian.
        Someday you will have to make a choice, I hope I am around to see which side of the fence you land on. Can’t sit on it forever.
        Peace my friend 🙂

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 11:05 am


        Bams likes power and minimal responsibility just like Bush. If he stopped the pat downs the next time an airline incident occurred the media would be all over him. The pat downs and wiretaps are a asinine form of malpractice insurance with the media playing the role of ambulance chaser.

        As for the life’s not fair meme- I don’t follow. It does remind me of a sermon though. Pastor says “Christ was humiliated and killed for us for our sins. We deserve punishment but through faith are instead rewarded. Life isn’t fair, isn’t that great!”

        Again, I’ve hedged my path so that it is independent of who is in the White House or congress or governor etc. I’m just looking for rules that everyone has to play by in the end. Lots of verbal gymnastics when I ask if a fair tax should apply to stock purchases whether deregulation should apply to intellectual property why subsidies for farmers aren’t government handouts.

        I liked your comment about Taiwan but was trying to understand what principle kept it from applying to Israel. I myself want a continued support for Israel because it can’t afford to pay for itself and not because of religious reasons or even particularly historic reasons. If some day Israel had a GDP so large the average citizen was buying BMW’s I would expect them to foot their own military bills.

      • Amazona August 4, 2011 / 11:25 am

        But what really matters is WHO MADE IT .

        It’s not content, it’s personality. It’s not what it said, it’s who said it.

        Then the great semantic quibbler dives in with, naturally, semantic quibbling. Again, not a hint, not a shred, not a scintilla of political commentary. Just a shift from the issue to the superficial, the comfort zone of the Left.

        Note, by the way, dolf’s admission of his political bias, if not his philosophy (which remains safely tucked away and separate from his posts on a political blog) in his peevish comment about the “…kook right mind…”

        Oh, he also lies. The sentence begins: “While redefined in the kook right mind to be any political overreach…” This, of course, is utter nonsense which cannot be supported by any actual reference to any such belief.

        Yes, fascism IS still associated with Mussolini. This is kind of expected, as Mussolini is the godfather of fascism, and brought it to the world’s attention. DUH. And what was fascism at that time? Well, it was a Leftist political system closely aligned with that of Russia. Every single aspect of it was firmly on the Left end of the political spectrum. Even the most cursory reading of history shows the close connection between Mussolini and Stalin.

        And Hitler? Well, that cursory reading of history shows THIS dolf to be buddied up with both Stalin and Mussolini, all of them compatriots in the Grand Leftist Endeavor. Stalin was a Communist, Mussolini a Fascist, and Hitler ran the National Socialist Party—thick as thieves, they were, all united in their efforts to advance or at least impose their collectivist, redistributionist, central-government-controlled ideas of government.

        Fascism was not anti-Semitic. On the contrary, in Italy it was supported, run by, and attractive to many “intellectual” Jews. It was quite the pet of American Jews, who thought it was wonderful. It contained no element of discrimination against Jews.

        The problem with this cozy alliance of the extremely similar, though differently titled, Leftist systems was that one of the three was insane. Not functionally insane, like Stalin, but batshit crazy insane.

        When Hitler snapped and started his efforts to take over the world, he corrupted the political systems he had previously been a part of. Within a year or so, whatever system ran Germany had little or no relationship to the systems of communism or fascism, or even of the party he headed, the National Socialist Party.

        The Left and its dependence on labels instead of substance simply cannot see past the NAMES to the reality. No surprise—if they can’t be bothered to investigate, analyze and understand the system they personally support and enable, how can they be bothered to look past the superficial labels of Fascism and Socialism of Nazi Germany to see that the actual system in place was neither?

        The government of Hitler was not fascist, nor socialist, no matter what the labels may indicate. It had little or no relationship to the fascism of Mussolini’s Italy, or to the socialism of the early National Socialist Party. It was a strange and ugly hybrid of nationalism, racism, megalomania, surly resentment and a need for retribution, and a quest for power. Some day perhaps someone will come up with an accurate name for the political system of Hitler, so we can stop mislabeling it “fascist”.

        Till then, the term “fascist” has come to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. To the Left, it means the Right. In the context of the thread post, it seems to mean totalitarianism. The Left clings to its distortion and false definition because if they lose this, they lose their only example of Right-wing totalitarianism, and they need to be able to point, however falsely, to a Right-wing brutal dictator to help balance out the long list of their own.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 12:28 pm


        The lie that Bozo corrected was that nary a peep from the Democrats about the Bush movie. Of course you’ll excuse the LIE with semantics … Why are you so dishonest in excusing extremists?

        The ‘kook mind’ comment is a simple rejoinder to the oft tagged ‘kook left’ at the bottom of threads. If you wish to turn a conspiracy out of nothing you can proceed with your kookery.

        I’ve read Goldberg’s book on liberal fascism. He is uber selective. So Kennedy had a cult of personality but Reagan didn’t. Democrats want a nanny state but prohibition survived 3 Republican administrations and was ended by a Democrat. Wiretaps and patriot acts are okay under Bush and that’s not authoritarian. Of course Goldberg needed a shocking cover so he put a Hitler moustache on a smiley face. Still didn’t keep it out of the $2 bin.

        My offer stands. You try to undo the patriot act or pat downs and I’ll try to get the mints back into the stores.

      • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 12:42 pm

        The lie that Bozo corrected was that nary a peep from the Democrats about the Bush movie. – barstool

        I am not sure that one comment from one democrat absolves the democrat party from the accusation, but that’s entirely subjective.

        Barstool is an interesting character – with some of his posts, he can take a very conservative position, and then with others, it’s more liberal than Castro, so I have trouble pinning him down. Much like dennis, whom I can’t tell if he is ultra religious, or just enjoys using religion as a club.

        I honestly don’t think the PA is authoritarian, rather just good common sense in a time when we are under siege from an enemy that exploits our openness. I would like to see us use behavioral profiling more than we do, but that decision is left to a DHS secretary who seems to be more worried about domestic Christian terrorists.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 1:08 pm

        “We are not commenting because it doesn’t dignify a response.” The White house position of the movie.

        So the GOP thought the movie shouldn’t be dignified with political attention. Hillary Clinton called it despicable. What more should the Democrats have done? One serious comment to show disgust and not more comments to dignify the movie.

        In the END what the Democrats did was best for all sane people. Almost nobody saw the dang movie and it got 2 stars on rotten tomatoes.

        “I honestly don’t think the PA is authoritarian, rather just good common sense in a time when we are under siege.” Clueless


        Since I don’t own a gun and I propose the following parallel:

        I honestly don’t think new gun laws would be authoritarian. It just makes common sense in a time when extremists run amok shooting scores of innocent children.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 1:40 pm

        Bardolf, mostly the Isrealis do. You have to look at what kind of relationship the US intelligence gathering agencies have with thier Isreali counterparts. Value recieved.
        Also you need to look at the Isreali high tech industry and see how much of it the is being used now in the U.S. military. Again value recieved. If you can provide an equal example from Taiwan them I will give them a pass also.

        As far as choosing sides Bardolf. I was never talking about politics. You should know that by now. If anything I hate the republicans more than I do the donkrats. Keep your enemies close but your “friends” closer.
        I am talking abou something different my friend and believe me the world will never let anyone be “independent” of this. You WILL have to choose sooner or later and I do hope I am around to see which side of the fence you land.
        Peace 🙂

  3. dunce August 4, 2011 / 2:37 am

    Most people can not express their real feelings about obama in language used in polite company and self censor.

    • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 8:34 am

      like FUBO?

      mmmm mmmmm mmmmm
      Oh well, cant take the heat ger out of the kitchen.

      OOps kitchen = bussBOY = raaaaacist.

    • js August 4, 2011 / 8:55 am

      you are right…most people that elected him are fairly incapable of that level of educated behavior bozostooge…but who cares…they subscribe to liberal democracy theology…thats a sure sign of a poor education…we live in a republic…big difference

      • mitch August 4, 2011 / 9:19 am

        Most of the people voted for him. Want to reference movies? How about The Unattended?

      • js August 4, 2011 / 9:28 am

        night of the living dead…but instead of brains…they want government checks and food stamps


        they cut 80 million checks a month…thats almost 1/3 of the US Population…

  4. mitch August 4, 2011 / 10:24 am

    Those checks include social security, tax refunds, payments to members of the military, the esteemed members of congress, etc. You seem to think that it’ still 1975 and perfectly fit people are on welfare. Individual tax rates are the lowest they’ve been since the ’50’s but JS thinks the government is stealing from him. There are some people who truly need assistance and you begrudge helping out.

    • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 10:37 am


      Please take a minute and think through the partisan liberal lens you wear. Conservatives truly do want to help those in need, but the the system we have now is bloated, rife with corruption, and tailored to a “one size fits all” agenda, which adversely effects of the governments ability to really help those in need. The federal government does not have a revenue problem, they have an elite corruption problem, wherein those who cling to power will throw any amount of money needed to any constituency they have to, to assure reelection. That is not how you help anyone.

      A smaller, more local government would be best suited to truly help the ones that need help, and not adversely affect those who don’t.

      • Amazona August 4, 2011 / 11:49 am

        “There are some people who truly need assistance and you begrudge helping out.”

        Oh, boo freakin’ hoo. What a load!

        Yes, there ARE some people who truly need assistance. Great call, there, sport!

        But NO ONE begrudges helping THEM out.

        There are simply two big issues which have to be addressed, to determine the best way to “help them out”.

        The most obvious is how to sort out the moochers and looters from those who truly DO “need assistance”. Anyone remember the hysteria when the GOP Congress kept returning welfare reform bills to Clinton and he kept vetoing them? Yep, it was the ‘mean harsh cruel indifferent to suffering selfish Republican whine, over and over again.

        Well, Clinton finally recognized the political cost of refusing to sign the bills, signed off, and since then has used Welfare Reform as the shining glory of his presidency. And there have been many stories of people who had grown up in welfare families, never seen an adult to off to work in the morning, never seen a check from any source but the government, talking about the sense of dignity and purpose and pride they started to develop when they became self-sufficient.

        Sort out those who truly “need assistance” and then figure out the best way to help them. The rest can work.

        As for the “best way to help them” then we need to go back to the Constitution of the United States of America for guidance. And gee, there it is! Right there in the 10th Amendment is the answer we were looking for!

        The “best way to help them” just happens to be the only LEGAL way to help them, which is to have this help come from or through the States. Or the people.

        It’s not a matter of IF, it’s a matter of HOW.

        But this does not fit in with the vicious bigotry of the rabidly radical Left, which needs so desperately to feed its footsoldiers a list of targets for their hate. So they demonize their political opposition, and the lemmings gobble it up and beg for more.

    • Amazona August 4, 2011 / 11:38 am

      Note the scurrying of dolf and mitch to a comfort zone where they can fuss about people and events and completely dodge the subject of the thread, which is the hypersensitivity of the Left regarding even the slightest criticism of The One We Have All Been Waiting For.

      What has their panties in a twist this time?

      The mention that some find the President to be a DISAPPOINTMENT !!!

      Oh, the horror!!!

      The rabidly radical Left is disappointed in him because they don’t think he is radical enough. Plenty has been written about this.

      Many black people, who voted for him based solely on his race, are disappointed in him because he is not running the presidency as a black man. (Though Eric Holder IS running the DOJ this way.)

      Those infamous “moderates” who voted for him are disappointed because they thought they were voting for a bright, happy, optimistic, perky, post-racial and prosperous United States, while at the same time getting to show that they are not racists, are disappointed because every single aspect of their lives is worse now than it was.

      Those who thought Barry and the Boyz would deliver “free” health care are disappointed because their own policies, if they own them, are now more expensive, and there is still not a single-payer system.

      Those who thought Gitmo would be closed are disappointed……..and so on, across the country.

      But put this on a box of candy sold in a bookstore at a state university, where it might be seen by—–a few thousand, if that—–and hysteria ensues.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 12:39 pm


        While mints in bookstores might be important to you as some sign of the apocalypse they aren’t to myself or Mitch.

        Note your support of the lie that Democrats didn’t complain about the Bush movie.

        Liberals are disappointed that Obama has continued wars, costing Americans lives and money. They are disappointed that he continued the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. They are disappointed that he believes in too big to fail corporations. They are disappointed there isn’t a competitive system in place for health care. They are disappointed he didn’t negotiate better with Boehner long before the debt ceiling hostage crisis. They are disappointed he didn’t undo the Patriot act and other assaults on civil rights. They are disappointed he is so similar to Bush.

    • tiredoflibbs August 5, 2011 / 6:29 am

      More of the same old dumbed down talking points from the useful idiot drones like mitch.

      Nothing changes, no matter what.

  5. Amazona August 4, 2011 / 12:08 pm

    dolf wants “…a repeal of the roving wire taps and surveillance of the outrageously named “lone wolves”.”

    “Outrageously named”? Really? What is “outrageous” about the name? What would YOU call them, dolf? And why do you think they should be allowed to freely communicate with other known terrorists in this country?

    Perhaps you can address the points made in this quote, with many thanks to SpyBlog for the article.

    March 15, 2011 – Congress recently passed and President Obama signed a one year extension to three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. These three sections authorized FISA Court -approved roving wiretaps; allowed court-approved seizures of business records of terrorism suspects without their knowledge; and permitted surveillance against non-US citizen “lone wolves,” individuals engaged in terrorism who are not part of a recognized terrorist group. The roving wiretap and lone wolf provisions are conceptually linked by the increasing power of technology.

    The roving wiretap provision is a current problem and the “lone wolf” provision seeks—strangely enough for American legislation—to get ahead of an emerging problem. The government argues that it needs the roving wiretap authorities because these days terrorists and other malefactors move rapidly from one communication mode to another and routinely use particular cell phones, email addresses, etc. for only brief periods of time. This is problematic because the target can be on cell phone #2 while the government is still preparing the legal brief seeking authorization from the FISA Court to surveille cell phone #1 which by this time is at the bottom of a river.

    What of the “lone wolf” provision? It turns out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act only allows wiretapping for intelligence purposes when two conditions are met. First, the target must be engaged in clandestine intelligence gathering or terrorist activities. Second, the target must be a “foreign power,” such as the Russian Embassy or an acknowledged Russian diplomat, or the “agent of a foreign power” such as a spy for China…or Mohamed Atta. However, these two conditions prevent the wiretapping of certain types of terrorists who might be in the United States. Then Assistant Attorney General David Kris explained why in Congressional testimony in 2009: We could have a case in which a known international terrorist affirmatively severs his connection with his group, perhaps following some internal dispute. Although the target still would be an international terrorist and an appropriate target for intelligence surveillance, the Government could no longer represent to the FISA court that he is currently a member of an international terrorist group or acting on its behalf. In the absence of the “lone wolf” definition, the Government would have to postpone FISA surveillance unless and until the target could be linked to another group. The absence of a known connection would not, however, necessarily mean that the individual did not pose a real and imminent threat. The lone wolf provision may also be required to conduct surveillance on an individual who “self-radicalizes” by means of information and training provided via the Internet. Although this target would have adopted the aims and means of international terrorism (and therefore be a legitimate national security target), he would not actually be acting as an agent of a terrorist group. Apparently the US Government has never used the “lone wolf” FISA authority that the Patriot Act gave it. However, the sorts of scenarios that it is designed to deal with are all too real and they are increasing in urgency. Abu Musab al-Suri provides an interesting example of the sort of problems that the “lone wolf” provision seeks to address. Al-Suri, Syrian by birth, is one of the leading strategists in the Al Qaida world. However, he has famously quarreled with Osama Bin Laden and was not a member of Al Qaeda. It is true that he never lived in the US, but he did live at various times in Spain and the United Kingdom. Were al-Suri to have come to the United States, the FISA Court would not have issued a warrant to surveille him because he wasn’t an agent of a terrorist group, merely an independent actor ideologically aligned with a terrorist group.

    Al-Suri is relevant in another way. His magnum opus, the 1600 page book Call to Global Islamic Resistance urges something he calls “individual jihad.” (On the basis of this work, Al-Suri has become a public intellectual in the jihadist world even as he languishes in detention at Guantanamo Bay.) In essence, al-Suri has adopted or developed in parallel the idea of “Leaderless Resistance ,” which came out of the American radical right-wing. He argues that traditional terrorist groups are vulnerable precisely because their members are linked to each other. He is referring precisely to that “agent” relationship that is the linchpin of the FISA act. Those links, he says, are what security and intelligence services detect and exploit in destroying terrorist groups. Instead, terrorist movements (note the distinction) should simply enunciate a template, “a common aim, a common doctrinal program and a comprehensive [self-]educational program.” Dedicated Muslims (by his definition of the faith) would self-radicalize, self-educate and then attack targets without ever being a member of any group. There is a case to be made the threat posed by “lone wolves” is getting more dire with every passing year. That case centers on the concept of “super empowerment.” Thomas Friedman has coined the phrase “super empowered angry men” and military theorists such as John Robb and T.X. Hammes have picked it with slight variations of terminology. Small Wars Journal and ZenPundit have fine explanations of the problem. In the words of the latter: “the devolution of increasingly powerful and versatile technologies at continually descending costs into the hands of individuals, coupled with the increasing interdependency of complex systems due to globalization, make [the arrival of super empowered individuals] all but inevitable.” The results could be dire. For instance, “the world is but one self-sacrificing genetic microbiologist away from a super-empowered suicide bomber riding international air routes to a new black plague.” While reasonable people may differ over whether the cure is worse than the disease, the fact is that these two provisions seek to address serious problems.”

    • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 12:48 pm

      hypothetical followed by hypothetical followed by hypothetical …

      To those like Amy in the right wing there is no breach of civil rights that can’t be justified with some veneer of security. Next up on right wing TV- why the Japanese internment camps were okay courtesy of Michelle Malkin.

      Snort, real jackboot fascism in the kook world is the banishment of mints from a university bookstore.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 1:55 pm

        I am wondering Bardolf, did you read the book or are you just making a blanket judgement here?

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 2:06 pm


        I actually read the book. It’s pretty funny. I read Coulter for the same reason. They only take about an hour to read in a B&N on a Saturday.

        I agree that the Democrats are prone to nanny-state ideology. That they are against state rights. Those parts Goldberg got right. He leaves out the same offenses when the GOP does them.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 2:26 pm

        Where have I been defending the GOP?? LOL I know you never accused me of that. I see these things too and I also see the unwillingness of certain people to address theses issues.
        Here is my questions. Do you or do you not think it is ludicrous for a store to pull a product because of one complaint? Can you provide an example of a product being pulled because of a complaint by a conservative? Do you think people have a “right” not to be offended.
        And I agree with you that internment of United States citizens duriring World War 2 was nothing more than fascism at it’s best. I do not care what MM thinks about it.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 3:19 pm

        Can you provide an example of a product being pulled because of a complaint by a conservative?-GMB

        Andrew John Volstead (October 31, 1860 – January 20, 1947) was an American member of the United States House of Representatives from Minnesota,1903–1923, and a member of the Republican Party. His name is closely associated with the National Prohibition Act of 1919, usually called the Volstead Act.

        Bloomberg was in the GOP when he started his war on unhealthy living.

        Of course who can forget all the censorship and book burning that the GOP does regularly? Why else would every school library in the US have a banned book week?

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 3:26 pm

        Bardolf, I wasn’t being combative. Honestly. I was asking questions. They were answered. As far as bloomberg goes…you can have him. By “you” I mean the donkrats. Book burnings? Book burnings?? Why wasn’t I invited??? Time to talk to Ms. Phillips agin about her work ethic. 🙂

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 4:16 pm


        I know you’re not defensive and took the book burning joke in context. Actually I spoke with someone once about how hard it actually is to burn books. They’re like bricks so one either needs a bonfire or to tear out pages at a time. Too much work, just throw them in the trash.

        As for Bloomberg the GOP can have him along with the other prohibitionists in both parties. How about the GOP do something useful and return the drinking age to 18?

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 5:33 pm

        I totally agree. One of the most ludirous laws ever made. Of course it was tied to transportation bills by both parties. Dont obey, no federal funds for the highways in your state. The states did not have to go along but we all know the power of money

    • Taly d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 4, 2011 / 1:47 pm

      You didn’t actually think ‘stool would address your question or defend his position did you?

      Your post won’t fit on a bumper sticker so you exceeded his attention span after “Really?”.

      Deflection following distraction following distortion. Change the subject again then … insult those that point this out in … 3 … 2 … 1

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 3:05 pm

        Count Chocula

        I agree that none of Amy’s rants are concise and to the point. I read the whole thing and it amounted to nada, zippo, lots of hypotheticals like

        “It is true that he never lived in the US, but …” along with no examples which don’t come up in an analysts imaginary playground.

        In the vampire world you inhabit civil rights are not assumed they are a gift from the elite. The burden is on the individual to “defend his position” instead on a lifeless institution slowly sucking the energy out of the society.

    • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 6:34 pm

      The proper way to burn a book is to start a nice hot fire with seasoned logs in a teepee configuration. First a small portion of the participants will take thier victim to the fire. You hold each cover with one hand and fan the pages over the fire until the pages start to smolder. As soon as the edges catch fire you drop it in . Its not all that hard a task to master.
      I would recommend any book by/about marx, engels, keynes, che, castro, stalin, hitler, lennin, mihn, mao, or thier ilk. They seem to just burn better than other books. Maybe it is the connection to hell that makes them burn so well.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 7:38 pm

        Got any videos on youtube?

      • Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 7:57 pm

        You mean an instructional video on how to burn books? No, but if I get at least two requests i will make one. 🙂

  6. Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 1:48 pm

    Don’t be too hard on mitch. Maybe he is still avoiding all that ack ack fire in his head. I hear that pptsd can be very hard on proven liars.

      • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 5:49 pm

        memories seared into his “brain” like JFnK’s im sure…….LOL

  7. Cluster August 4, 2011 / 4:45 pm

    In the vampire world you inhabit civil rights are not assumed they are a gift from the elite. The burden is on the individual to “defend his position” instead on a lifeless institution slowly sucking the energy out of the society. – barstool

    Does anyone have a barstool dictionary I could borrow? His mind is so jumbled it’s hard to determine what he is actually saying.

    • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:28 pm


      I believe the Patriot Act infringes on civil rights guaranteed by the constitution. I believe civil rights are not a gift from the elite. The overwhelming burden is on the government (lifeless institution) to demonstrate REAL problems if the rights are curtailed.

      Amy has quoted various hypothetical scenarios which might come up to justify the PA. I commented that hypothetical scenarios are insufficient to curtail rights. In fact even real events like WW2 do not justify civil rights violations. Count Chocula thinks I have the burden of proof for why I should not have a civil right infringed upon.

      That the PA or DHS pat downs are not on the B4V radar but breath mints show up is what should jumble your mind.

      • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 6:52 pm

        is taxpayer money stolen from hard working Americans only to be handed out to welfare queens, pimps, ho’s, deadbeats, and looters a “civil right” ????
        seems in baldorks lefty world it is.

    • Count d'Haricots August 4, 2011 / 7:19 pm


      StoolSample doesn’t have to defend his straw man gibberish; he merely has to state that he is offended and that translates to a civil right the abuse of which he cannot define, demonstrate, nor defend. He’d much rather deflect, distract, and distort. This from a person that believes the Government should control every aspect of our life.

      I’ll answer that question, it’s really a matter of … look at the puppet! Look at the puppet! Isn’t the puppet entertaining? Look at the puppet! Dolf Stool.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 7:45 pm

        You can’t back up your statements with an iota of proof that I believe the Government should control every aspect of our life.

        You do work for the government of course, probably a friend recommended you for the job.

        Maybe you could use some of your crack skills to find some proof of your contention that I support big government. B4V has an archive shouldn’t be hard for the Count of Cant to give some evidence of his claims.

      • Count d'Haricots August 4, 2011 / 7:54 pm

        1. I don’t have to defend my statements when addressing you; I merely have to state it then ridicule you for having been accused; just as you have done with your absurd statement above.;

        In the vampire world you inhabit civil rights are not assumed they are a gift from the elite.

        Life is so simple for you when a straw man construct is the measure of an argument.

      • Count d'Haricots August 4, 2011 / 7:57 pm

        I recommend Amazona do this as well;

        To those like Amy in the right wing there is no breach of civil rights that can’t be justified with some veneer of security.

        No substance, just pathetic straw man arguments.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 11:02 pm

        Amy justified the PA on the basis of a sequence of contrived hypotheticals i.e. straw men You defended her babbling as if there was some substance. A pair that looks in the mirrors and sees nothing. Empty rhetorical flourishes pretending to be grounded philosophies.

        I can see why your friend recommended you as an academic accountant. I’m guessing bonuses didn’t quite reach the pockets of the faculty in California this year. Good job, you must be loved.

      • Count d'Haricots August 5, 2011 / 11:20 am

        Wow, great detective work Sherlock. But, just for fun let’s straighten you out on a few things;

        1. A series of statements outlining the justifications and process is not a “Hypothetical”

        2. A hypothetical is not a straw man

        3. Aristotle was not Belgian

        4. The Central Theme of Buddhism is not “every man for himself”

        5. I am an accountant, in fact a post secondary education accounting teacher and a forensic accountant but,

        6. That’s not what I do at the University

        7. I don’t know what kind of education mill you’re used to, but the word “bonus” does not apply at the University of California, and it certainly doesn’t apply to facility.

        8. The London Underground is not a political movement.

        These are all mistakes Otto.

      • bardolf August 5, 2011 / 9:35 pm

        Count Chocula

        1. Sadly, UC bosses won’t be getting their bonuses – OC Watchdog…bonuses/13289/

        2. A series of hypothetical situations used to justify the PA is just a series of hypothetical situations used to justify the PA. It’s a premise based on fear, created in an environment where people are worried based on seemingly related events.

        3. Since aren’t working in your claimed field of competence the assumption that you’re job is not based on merit is correct. Sorry if I assumed you had earned anything.

        4. The distinguishing characteristic of Christianity is the belief that the Messiah was physically raised and is currently present.

        5. The boomers will be out of power in 20 years.

Comments are closed.