Alright, so after all that, let's lighten things up a bit around here. Britney Spears finally decided to take it off, although not really. I'm going to clarify that these pics are from Harper's Bazaar just in case that brings me some traffic (because there won't be a million fucking sites ahead of mine that will have them). She should really get back to us when she's more naked and less pregnant. I will admit that the pregnancy does give it a certain dirtiness that I'm not totally averse to, however. I do dig the darker hair, though. As an aside, why can't more of you girls go darker instead of lighter, if you insist on fucking with things?
Anyway, since you may already be going one-handed over there, I'll save you the trouble of searching and point you to a site with pictures from the, er, spread.
Unfortunately it will still be several years before we can (legally) get this close with her sister, Jamie-Lynn, who is currently 15. I will again save you some precious stroke time by pointing you to this site (you know you want to, and the rest of us know you want to), which appears to have a significant number of pics of Jamie-Lynn. I don't know how much of it is quality as of yet; however, and I don't think it's unfair to ask you to do a little bit of work towards your masturbatory pursuits.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Here was another thing that really pissed me off. Now, granted, this is just one dipshit complaining, but he's obviously not alone.
"Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486"
Alright, I don't want to get into the abortion thing since we know where I stand, and we know where these people stand. Yes, I still support it, even though I'm quote-unquote Republican now, just like I'm still down with gay marriage. But the obviously inflammatory rhetoric of babies that have been killed is just, well, inflammatory rhetoric. As David Cross once put it, if they were actually killing babies, I'd be like, no way, that's bullshit. But they're, as Bill Maher has put it, a pile of goo. Like I said, this is my opinion, and their opinion is that it's a baby at the moment of conception, and neither side is gonna budge on this.
What really pissed me off was the re-hashing of this debate about birth control. Not only do these fucks think that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a living, breathing child, but the mere possibility of a child is something that needs to be protected. And that's just stupid. But okay, we're used to these people coming up with dumb notions on things, so let's try and set that aside since we won't come to any new conclusions there, either.
Beyond the issue of abortion, some critics oppose the Buffett and Gates foundations' support for global family-planning and population control programs.
This isn't just stupid, it's fucking sick. Imagine the suffering that so many children are born into in many parts of the world. Furthermore, imagine the extra suffering and hardship that comes not only to those children but the people around them that comes from all those extra children running around. The narrowminded view that being forced to endure a life of suffering is better than never having been born at all is just fucked up. Does Sally Struthers need a job that bad?
Naturally, we don't really see them doing a whole lot to help change the situation in poor parts of the world. Oh, sure, they'll send some people with bibles to build a bridge or something and push Christianity, but they can't be bothered to do too much because they're busy shitting themselves over stuff like gay marriage.
In the end, these people, of course, don't care about the suffering of others. No, they have a simplistic, rigid world view, and by god they're going to stick with it. All that matters is upholding what they've already decided is right. Let's not let compassion or rational thought get in the way; no, that's something Christ might do.
"Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486"
Alright, I don't want to get into the abortion thing since we know where I stand, and we know where these people stand. Yes, I still support it, even though I'm quote-unquote Republican now, just like I'm still down with gay marriage. But the obviously inflammatory rhetoric of babies that have been killed is just, well, inflammatory rhetoric. As David Cross once put it, if they were actually killing babies, I'd be like, no way, that's bullshit. But they're, as Bill Maher has put it, a pile of goo. Like I said, this is my opinion, and their opinion is that it's a baby at the moment of conception, and neither side is gonna budge on this.
What really pissed me off was the re-hashing of this debate about birth control. Not only do these fucks think that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a living, breathing child, but the mere possibility of a child is something that needs to be protected. And that's just stupid. But okay, we're used to these people coming up with dumb notions on things, so let's try and set that aside since we won't come to any new conclusions there, either.
Beyond the issue of abortion, some critics oppose the Buffett and Gates foundations' support for global family-planning and population control programs.
This isn't just stupid, it's fucking sick. Imagine the suffering that so many children are born into in many parts of the world. Furthermore, imagine the extra suffering and hardship that comes not only to those children but the people around them that comes from all those extra children running around. The narrowminded view that being forced to endure a life of suffering is better than never having been born at all is just fucked up. Does Sally Struthers need a job that bad?
Naturally, we don't really see them doing a whole lot to help change the situation in poor parts of the world. Oh, sure, they'll send some people with bibles to build a bridge or something and push Christianity, but they can't be bothered to do too much because they're busy shitting themselves over stuff like gay marriage.
In the end, these people, of course, don't care about the suffering of others. No, they have a simplistic, rigid world view, and by god they're going to stick with it. All that matters is upholding what they've already decided is right. Let's not let compassion or rational thought get in the way; no, that's something Christ might do.
Not like this isn't the norm, but I've read some ignorant shit over the past couple of days. First there was this. Not like I have high hopes going in when it comes to a piece written by the founder of Focus on the Family (Action? Family Action? Yeah, sounds like some great -- and very, very dirty -- family values there). Now, we can sit down and have an argument on whether or not the media is biased when it comes to gay marriage. Just like we can argue that they're biased against racism or murder or something. But that's not what really pissed me off about this little opinion piece.
Again this year, the amendment failed to pass by a wide margin, falling 18 votes shy of a required two-thirds majority. The final tally was 49 in favor, 48 opposed.
Well, that should tell you something right there. The constitution isn't supposed to be amended on a whim, and especially not for something like this.
Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power.
First off, the notion of "the people" putting them in power is bullshit. Second, they have no contractual obligation to go along with what people want -- or what some people think that the people want. And even still, if they really are going against the will of the people (well, some of them -- half of the Senate voting for this shit is still very sick and significant), that again tells you something important.
Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.
Now we're getting to the crux of what really pisses me off about this. I am sick and tired of living in this age of the false argument. "Marriage between homosexuals" and "support for the family" are not two mutually exclusive concepts. Just because you have one does not mean you can't have the other. I know, I know -- that's how it is in these peoples' minds. But that is a simplistic way of viewing things at best, and retarded at worst. It's like when Bush tells us that we're "fighting them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here." There's nothing to stop them from bringing the fight over here to us while we're still mired down over there. Simplistic.
Indeed, on the day before 48 senators bailed on marriage, a 20th state voted on its own constitutional amendment. It was Alabama, which supported traditional marriage by 81 percent to 19 percent! A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or Washington Post. There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Alabama voted for traditional marriage and against gay marriage. How exactly is this news? Does anyone expect a state in the ignorant South to go any other way?
As for the senators who voted against the amendment... They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!
Uh, yeah, exactly -- what hypocrisy? I mean, where is the hypocrisy in saying it's a state issue?
Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.
When I first saw this article, I was just waiting until the phrase "activist judges" would get busted out. Christ, you people have no imagination. And what about the judges appointed by Reagan, or either of the Bushes? Apparently there are none.
Oh, and what's wrong with activism? Yes, I know, shouldn't legislate from the bench, blah blah blah. But give me a fucking break. Enforcing equality isn't so much "arrogant activism" as it is "upholding the principles upon which we pretend this country was founded."
For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by Clinton. Don't see him getting any credit for that from these conservative fucks, though (not that Clinton deserves credit on this one).
The senators who voted against marriage this month...
Again, false argument. Stop with this either/or bullshit! I don't think a single one of those Senators seeks to end the institution of marriage. Again, I know, people think that allowing gays to marry -- or even not explicitly stopping them -- threatens hetero unions. But it doesn't, and no one has shown any solid evidence that it will. They don't like something, so they make something else up that's total bullshit in support of it. Simplistic.
It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s.
Wow. To compare the fight against the slave trade to the fight against gay marriage. Hmmmm, let's see, ending slavery increases the freedom of a group of people, making sure gay marriage doesn't happen limits the freedom of a group of people. Seems a bit conflicting, doesn't it, Jimmy? Maybe even a tad... Hypocritical?
If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution...
No...
... which was designed by the Creator, Himself.
... probably not...
Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.
... and no. With this bullshit going on, how exactly are we close? Again, it's embarrassing that we're going through this. Gay marriage does not equal the death of marriage and the family. Prove that it does, assface. And "just because we said so" isn't good enough. What fighting gay marriage equals, though, is homophobia, AKA gay-bashing. It's trying to restrict a group of people for no other reason besides what they are. Plain and simple, and just like has been done with women and blacks, if you need some shining examples from our stellar history. Try and dress it up in whatever nonsense argument you can come up with, but the bottom line is that you don't like gays and for that reason alone you don't want them to marry. It's not about marriage, or tradition, or those god damned children, it's about your hatred of gays, you ignorant piece of shit.
Again this year, the amendment failed to pass by a wide margin, falling 18 votes shy of a required two-thirds majority. The final tally was 49 in favor, 48 opposed.
Well, that should tell you something right there. The constitution isn't supposed to be amended on a whim, and especially not for something like this.
Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power.
First off, the notion of "the people" putting them in power is bullshit. Second, they have no contractual obligation to go along with what people want -- or what some people think that the people want. And even still, if they really are going against the will of the people (well, some of them -- half of the Senate voting for this shit is still very sick and significant), that again tells you something important.
Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.
Now we're getting to the crux of what really pisses me off about this. I am sick and tired of living in this age of the false argument. "Marriage between homosexuals" and "support for the family" are not two mutually exclusive concepts. Just because you have one does not mean you can't have the other. I know, I know -- that's how it is in these peoples' minds. But that is a simplistic way of viewing things at best, and retarded at worst. It's like when Bush tells us that we're "fighting them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here." There's nothing to stop them from bringing the fight over here to us while we're still mired down over there. Simplistic.
Indeed, on the day before 48 senators bailed on marriage, a 20th state voted on its own constitutional amendment. It was Alabama, which supported traditional marriage by 81 percent to 19 percent! A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or Washington Post. There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Alabama voted for traditional marriage and against gay marriage. How exactly is this news? Does anyone expect a state in the ignorant South to go any other way?
As for the senators who voted against the amendment... They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!
Uh, yeah, exactly -- what hypocrisy? I mean, where is the hypocrisy in saying it's a state issue?
Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.
When I first saw this article, I was just waiting until the phrase "activist judges" would get busted out. Christ, you people have no imagination. And what about the judges appointed by Reagan, or either of the Bushes? Apparently there are none.
Oh, and what's wrong with activism? Yes, I know, shouldn't legislate from the bench, blah blah blah. But give me a fucking break. Enforcing equality isn't so much "arrogant activism" as it is "upholding the principles upon which we pretend this country was founded."
For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by Clinton. Don't see him getting any credit for that from these conservative fucks, though (not that Clinton deserves credit on this one).
The senators who voted against marriage this month...
Again, false argument. Stop with this either/or bullshit! I don't think a single one of those Senators seeks to end the institution of marriage. Again, I know, people think that allowing gays to marry -- or even not explicitly stopping them -- threatens hetero unions. But it doesn't, and no one has shown any solid evidence that it will. They don't like something, so they make something else up that's total bullshit in support of it. Simplistic.
It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s.
Wow. To compare the fight against the slave trade to the fight against gay marriage. Hmmmm, let's see, ending slavery increases the freedom of a group of people, making sure gay marriage doesn't happen limits the freedom of a group of people. Seems a bit conflicting, doesn't it, Jimmy? Maybe even a tad... Hypocritical?
If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution...
No...
... which was designed by the Creator, Himself.
... probably not...
Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.
... and no. With this bullshit going on, how exactly are we close? Again, it's embarrassing that we're going through this. Gay marriage does not equal the death of marriage and the family. Prove that it does, assface. And "just because we said so" isn't good enough. What fighting gay marriage equals, though, is homophobia, AKA gay-bashing. It's trying to restrict a group of people for no other reason besides what they are. Plain and simple, and just like has been done with women and blacks, if you need some shining examples from our stellar history. Try and dress it up in whatever nonsense argument you can come up with, but the bottom line is that you don't like gays and for that reason alone you don't want them to marry. It's not about marriage, or tradition, or those god damned children, it's about your hatred of gays, you ignorant piece of shit.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Over the years, one of the biggest fucking wastes of time that I've seen is the never ending desire to ban flag burning. This drive is a total fucking disgrace when you consider the time and energy wasted on something that is completely fucking pointless. Someone somewhere burns the flag. Unless if it causes something else to catch fire, who gets hurt? Not a single fucking person. It's a goddamn symbol, you stupid fucks. Burning the symbol is not the same as burning the thing that's being symbolized. Oh, and free speech and all, but who really cares for that these days.
From the Senate floor Monday, Specter compared flag desecration to libel and child pornography, forms of expression he said have no "social value."
Give me a break, Arlen. Child porn? Can you really say that burning the flag is as harmful and insidious as child porn? When it comes down to a choice between burning the flag and exploiting children, you have to stop and think about it?
"The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," Leahy said. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."
It's so embarrassing that someone has to stand up and say this when it should be taken for granted, but that's where we're at.
"Those are symbols, and I leave them to the symbol-minded."
- Carlin
From the Senate floor Monday, Specter compared flag desecration to libel and child pornography, forms of expression he said have no "social value."
Give me a break, Arlen. Child porn? Can you really say that burning the flag is as harmful and insidious as child porn? When it comes down to a choice between burning the flag and exploiting children, you have to stop and think about it?
"The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," Leahy said. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."
It's so embarrassing that someone has to stand up and say this when it should be taken for granted, but that's where we're at.
"Those are symbols, and I leave them to the symbol-minded."
- Carlin
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Hey, what some people call "a reason to divert the flight to land at JFK" the rest of us call "in-flight entertainment." Maybe they just weren't good-looking. In that case, yeah, land the fuckin' plane and get rid of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
